All articles from October 9, 2020


News

Opinion

Blogs

Episodes

Video

  • Nothing is published in Video on October 9, 2020.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on October 9, 2020.

News

Bishop Strickland praises Abp. Viganò, warns about Communist China

'It's just tragic how that's unfolding in China. And it's being allowed by the world governments and even by the Church,' Bishop Strickland said.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 9:00 pm EST
Featured Image
LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Joseph Strickland “absolutely” agrees with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s remarks about the Catholic Church putting too much trust in man and not enough trust in God.

“And thankfully, other other church leaders — cardinals, different people — have spoken up,” he said. “And that’s the message we as shepherds need to get out there. We don’t trust in ourselves.”

Bishop Strickland made his comments during this week’s episode of The Bishop Strickland Show, which premiered on LifeSite last Friday. The show will be aired every Tuesday here on LifeSite beginning next week. Previously, the show was scheduled for Fridays.

Strickland, currently the bishop of Tyler, Texas, was asked by co-host Terry Barber of Virgin Most Powerful Radio what he thinks of Archbishop Viganò’s message. Barber had compared Viganò to “the John the Baptist of our church today.”

“God’s ways are not our ways,” Strickland replied. “And we need to remember that. And we need to not think...we can run it all...that’s just not the truth.”

Strickland incorporated his message on trusting in God with other observations he had on the situation the Church is facing in China.

“It’s just tragic how that’s unfolding in China. And it’s being allowed by the world governments and even by the Church,” he explained.

“We know that Communism means no Church.” If “John Paul II [was] on the scene dealing with it...he would blast [China]. I mean, he lived it...so many have lived what communism really is about.”

Strickland further argued that the mission of communists is “to get rid of God, and so pretending that they’re going to allow the Catholic Church…to really operate in an atheistic communistic system, it doesn’t make sense. It’s not going to happen.”

Strickland and Barber also discussed the importance of praying the Memorare to the Blessed Virgin Mary and trusting in God. “We need to believe what these prayers say and listen,” Strickland said.


  archbishop carlo vigano, archbishop viganò, carlo maria viganò, china, communism, communist china, joseph strickland, the bishop strickland show

News

NY Gov Cuomo blames ‘religious groups’ for uptick of COVID cases, singles out ‘ultra- orthodox’ community

Cuomo's latest embargoes on religious communities are being strongly challenged by both Orthodox Jews and Roman Catholics.  
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 8:23 pm EST
Featured Image
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo
Michael Haynes
By

NEW YORK, October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued a strong attack on religious communities that are seeing their liberties crushed in the wake of new COVID-19 restrictions 

Appearing on CNN, Cuomo proclaimed that religious liberty must be subject to the laws of the state. “This is not a matter of religious freedom, right? I don’t care if you’re a Roman Catholic, you’re Jewish, you’re Muslim, you’re an atheist, you have to follow the rules of the state, the laws of the state, he said.  

The governor blamed religious communities for a rise in COVID cases, declaring, “They are not following the rules. We know what happens when you don’t follow the rules: the infection rate goes up.” He especially targeted an “ultra-orthodox” community for what he called a “cluster” of new cases.  

New restrictions coming into force this week divide the city into red, orange and yellow zones. In red zones, places of worship are arbitrarily limited to “25 percent capacity, up to a maximum of 10 people, whichever is fewer.” Orange zones permit 33 percent capacity, or 25 people, “whichever is fewer, with yellow zones allowing 50 percent capacity in places of worship.  

Cuomo has decreed that places of religious worship will be fined $15,000 if they act in violation of the new rules. 

His latest embargoes on religious communities are being strongly challenged by both Orthodox Jews and Roman Catholics.  

The group of Jewish communities are suing Cuomo since his restrictions will render it “impossible for Orthodox Jews to conduct services” and thus violate their constitutional rights to freely exercise their religion.  

This Friday marks the start of three consecutive religious holidays for the Jewish community. The consequent effect of the restrictions, at this time particularly, will thus “disrupt the religious observance of tens of thousands of Orthodox Jews in New York State, depriving them of their religious worship and holiday observance.”  

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

The legal document states that the governor’s “explicit targeting of religious institutions and communities for these restrictions is a punitive attempt to infringe upon Plaintiffs’ religious services because of their religious nature.” 

The Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn has also filed its own lawsuit on the basis of First Amendment violations. In a statement issued with the lawsuit, Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn said, “The executive orders this week have left us with no other option than to go to court.” 

The bishop continued, “The State has completely disregarded the fact that our safety protocols have worked and it is an insult to once again penalize all those who have made the safe return to Church work.” 

The diocese’s document outlines the shortcomings in the numbers allowed in churches according to the new laws, stating, “All of the Diocese’s 13 churches in the red zone, and all but one of the Diocese’s 11 churches in the orange zone can accommodate 500 or more people, with the remaining church seating 200.” 

Both lawsuits mention the double standards seemingly applied to religious communities and businesses in the red zone. The Diocese of Brooklyn’s document mentions that “all ‘essential’ businesses – a broad category that includes everything from grocery stores to banks to pet shops – remain open without capacity limitations.” The Jewish communities’ document further mentions that essential gatherings are permitted, yet “(n)o definition of essential gatherings has ever been provided.”  

Regarding the orange zone, the legal papers present similar evidence of unequal treatment of religious communities. The Brooklyn diocese points out that only certain high-risk businesses are closed, and restaurants are permitted to remain open with “no overarching capacity limit.”  

Even in the yellow zone, places of worship are restricted to 50 percent capacity while “all businesses, including restaurants for indoor and outdoor dining service, and schools” are permitted to remain open “without any specified capacity limitation.” 

The Diocese of Brooklyn noted that Cuomo was well aware his rules would have the greatest effect upon religious communities. However, despite such action needing to satisfy meticulous scrutiny, “The Governor’s action here cannot come close to satisfying this strict scrutiny, especially as applied to the Diocese, it said. 


  andrew cuomo, catholic, church restrictions, covid-19, diocese of brooklyn, jewish, new york, nicholas dimarzio, orthodox jews, religious liberty, roman catholics

News

Doctors allowed to continue prescribing abortion pill virtually after Supreme Court fails to rule

The high court failed to act on a request from the Trump administration to uphold FDA standards requiring in-person visits.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 7:22 pm EST
Featured Image
shutterstock.com
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The U.S. Supreme Court declined to immediately uphold Food and Drug Administration regulations on the abortion pill, allowing doctors to continue to prescribe it virtually.

The Trump administration had petitioned the high court to uphold the FDA medical safety standards requiring doctors prescribing the abortion pill to meet with patients in person first. The Supreme Court declined to grant the Trump administration its request.

The administration’s request came after a district court had issued an injunction that suspended the FDA’s authority to continue in-person requirements for prescribing the abortion pill mifepristone.  

But rather than rule decisively, the Supreme Court indicated it required further action from the lower court, stating, “Without indicating this Court’s views on the merits of the District Court’s order or injunction, a more comprehensive record would aid this Court’s review.”

“We are disappointed by the lack of a ruling. Chemical abortion poses serious complications for women that can include heavy bleeding, intense and prolonged pain, infection, and even death,” said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. 

“Every day of delay is a day that unborn children and their mothers are at risk from these dangerous drugs,” continued Dannenfelser. “We thank the Trump administration for fighting for vitally important health and safety protections and are confident we will ultimately prevail.”

“Medical abortion is increasing as a percentage of all abortions for reasons that benefit abortion providers but there are distinct disadvantages for women. Medical abortion is far more likely to fail than surgical abortion, resulting in frequent complications and requiring surgical completion in one out of 20 women,” explained Dr. Ingrid Skop, M.D., F.A.C.O.G. at Faith and Law.

“Abortion advocates are aggressively working to remove FDA and legislative restrictions so that medical abortion can be provided without evidence based oversight,” said Skop. “These trends must be recognized and countered for the protection of American women.”

In their petition, “The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, et al v the Food and Drug Administration, et al.” (ACOG v FDA), the ACOG challenged “the enforcement during the COVID-19 pandemic of certain FDA requirements relating to in-person dispensing ... for an oral medication used to induce an abortion or to manage a miscarriage.” 

More specifically, the case concerns:

a nationwide injunction preventing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from enforcing, during the COVID-19 pandemic, its longstanding safety requirements for the dispensing of Mifeprex, a drug indicated for termination of pregnancy during the first ten weeks. Ever since the FDA approved the drug in 2000, the agency has required drug sponsors to ensure that Mifeprex or its generic equivalent (collectively, Mifeprex) is dispensed only by or under the supervision of a certified healthcare provider in a hospital, clinic, or medical office, and only after a patient signs a form acknowledging that she has been counseled about the drug’s risks. The FDA has made, and continuously adhered to, the judgment that these requirements mitigate serious health risks associated with the drug, which can increase if the patient delays taking the drug or fails to receive proper counseling about possible complications.

The district court here nevertheless enjoined the enforcement of those longstanding safety regulations on a nationwide basis for the pendency of the COVID-19 pandemic, holding they pose an undue burden on abortion access under Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), because of the potential costs associated with visiting a clinic during the pandemic. 

In a one-sentence order, the court of appeals declined to stay that injunction, thereby allowing a single district judge to dictate national safety requirements for medication abortion in the middle of the current public-health emergency.

Judge Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, offered a blistering dissent, noting that denying a stay “would highlight the inconsistency in the Court’s rulings on COVID–19-related public safety measures. In response to the pandemic, state and local officials have imposed unprecedented restrictions on personal liberty, including severe limitations on First Amendment rights. Officials have drastically limited speech, banning or restricting public speeches, lectures, meetings, and rallies.”

“The free exercise of religion also has suffered previously unimaginable restraints, and this Court has stood by while that has occurred,” he added. 

Despite those broad, heavy-handed restraints, “a District Court Judge in Maryland took it upon himself to overrule the FDA on a question of drug safety. Disregarding THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s admonition against judicial second-guessing of officials with public health responsibilities, the judge concluded that requiring women seeking a medication abortion to pick up mifepristone in person during the COVID–19 pandemic constitutes an “undue burden” on the abortion right, and he therefore issued a nationwide injunction against enforcement of the FDA’s requirement,” wrote Alito.

“The judge apparently was not troubled by the fact that those responsible for public health in Maryland thought it safe for women (and men) to leave the house and engage in numerous activities that present at least as much risk as visiting a clinic—such as indoor restaurant dining, visiting hair salons and barber shops, all sorts of retail establishments, gyms and other indoor exercise facilities, nail salons, youth sports events, and, of course, the State’s casinos,” continued Alito. “And the judge made the injunction applicable throughout the country, including in locales with very low infection rates and limited COVID–19 restrictions.”

Alito concluded there was no reason for the high court not to rule.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

“This case presents important issues that richly merit review. The District Court’s decision, if reviewed, is likely to be reversed. And if the FDA is right in its assessment of mifepristone, non-enforcement of the requirement risks irreparable harm. A stay is amply warranted,” he warned.

Notably, neither Justice Neil Gorsuch nor Justice Brett Kavanaugh – both appointed by President Trump – joined the dissent, leaving it unclear where they stand on loosening telemedicine abortion restrictions during the coronavirus outbreak.


  abortion, abortion pill, american college of obstetricians and gynecologists, brett kavanaugh, chemical abortion, clarence thomas, covid-19, district court, marjorie dannenfelser, mifeprex, neil gorsuch, pandemic, samuel alito, susan b. anthony list, u.s. food and drug administration, u.s. supreme court

News

Politician raises alarm over Trudeau Govt’s plan to build COVID ‘Quarantine/Isolation’ camps

The camps will be built across Canada.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 7:17 pm EST
Featured Image
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Nov. 11, 2015, Ottawa, Ontario. Art Babych / Shutterstock.com
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

OTTAWA, Ontario, October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – An Ontario politician is raising alarm over the Trudeau Liberal government’s plan to expand COVID isolation/quarantine facilities coast to coast. 

Randy Hillier, Independent Ontario MPP for Lanark, Frontenac & Kingston, expressed concern over the “Federal Quarantine/Isolation sites” in the provincial question period late this week.

He asked the Doug Ford government of Ontario if they knew of “how many of these camps will be built, and how many people does this government expect to detain.” He pointed out how documentation shows that the “Federal Quarantine/Isolation sites” could be used for “other requirements” besides for COVID-19. 

“So your government must be in negotiations and aware of these plans to potentially detain and isolate citizens and residents of our country and our province, so speaker, to the Premier, where will these camps be built, how many people will be detained, and for what reason, for what reasons can people be kept in these isolation camps, and I’d like to have the Premier assure the people of Ontario…,” said Hillier, whose microphone was cut off before he could finish.   

In an email sent to his followers, Hillier expressed more of his concerns. 

“The Premier has been actively dodging my questions since July. Today was just another example of the new status quo in Queen’s Park, no response. After this exchange I’m not even sure if the Premier and his Cabinet know what's going on regarding the Federal government considering the expansion of isolation/quarantine facilities from coast to coast,” wrote Hillier in an email sent out Thursday. 

“The expansion of isolation/quarantine camps in Canada is something of concern and the Ontario government must know about it, so why won't they tell the people of Ontario?” 

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

The Government of Canada (GoC) is currently soliciting feedback and information from industry service providers for additional “Federal Quarantine/Isolation sites” which if built, could be used for “other requirements” besides only for COVID-19 imposed quarantines.

The solicitation for feedback is listed on the GoC’s Buyandsell.gc.ca website as a tender notice Letter of Interest (LOI) and Request for Information (RFI) for “Federal Quarantine/Isolation sites.”

The RFI and LOI lists as an end-user for the services as the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), with Public Works and Government Services Canada listed as the entity looking to procure the “isolation sites.” A closing date of October 19 listed.  

According to PHAC, the current sites “are being used to address the requirements for international travelers not having a suitable place to isolate.” 

The “Federal Quarantine/Isolation sites” RFI states that the use of the DSQ’s could be “temporarily discontinued until needed again by the Government of Canada,” but also might be used for “other requirements” in expectation of a “possible continued need for quarantine sites over the next 1 to 2 years given the COVID 19 pandemic.”  

The RFI states that the PHAC is currently managing a total of 11 sites nationwide that are designated as “quarantine sites (DQS)” for the COVID-19 fourteen-day quarantine, which can “lodge up to 1600 travellers.” 

These are in Calgary, Vancouver, Kelowna, Winnipeg, Regina, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Fredericton, St. John’s (Newfoundland), and Whitehorse. 

The GoC’s Buyandsell.gc.ca website lists every province and territory in Canada as needed as a potential region for delivery of “Federal Quarantine/Isolation sites.” 

The GoC states that the objective of the RFI “for Federal Quarantine / Isolation sites” is to engage “a Third Party Service Provider for Federal Quarantine / Isolation sites that will be used to house and care for people for public health and other related federal requirements associated with the COVID-19 pandemic response.” 

“The Government is seeking feedback from current service providers about potential options for standing up, operating and managing all of the services associated with these sites. The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to seek feedback from potential service providers in order to develop a strategy for the potential future management of these sites going forward,” states the RFI. 

In March, the GoC began to add to their procurement website for new government contracts, tenders to supply “goods and services in support of Canada’s response to COVID-19.” 

The GoC says it “needs products and services in support of Canada’s response to COVID-19” and has been “exploring all options for securing the equipment and supplies needed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Regarding the “Service Provider(s) for Federal Quarantine/Isolation sites” the tender notice notes that the RFI is not “a bid solicitation” and “will not result in the award of any contract.” 

The GoC webpage states that the “RFI is simply intended to solicit feedback from industry with respect to the matters described in this RFI.”

“PHAC is considering having a third party service provider provide and manage the existing sites and all of the related services on its behalf. PHAC may also consider expanding its site footprint to other locations provided in Annex C, attached,” reads part c of the background of the RFI. 

Annex C lists as potential new sites under consideration Saskatoon, Windsor, Niagara, Ottawa, Winnipeg/Thunder Bay, Quebec City, Charlottetown, Iqaluit, and Yellowknife. 

LifeSiteNews reached out to Toronto Constitutional lawyer, Rocco Galati to ask him about the GoC’s RFI for “Federal Quarantine/Isolation sites.”

Galati told LifeSiteNews that “straight out of the gate” he predicted “in one twitter paragraph” what was to come because of COVID-19. 

Galati referred LifeSiteNews to a March 17, 2020 tweet he wrote shortly after the Ontario provincial government enacted COVID-19 emergency orders. 

“Covid19 frenzy. A waltz in the global totalitarian tip-toe to new world order. Parliament closures, Court shutdowns, soldiers out. Banking/Corporate bailouts. Facts/science do not add up. Death toll, elderly and immunocompromised victims, marginally no diff than any other flus,” wrote Galati on March 17 on his Twitter page. 

The GoC’s Buyandsell.gc.ca website also lists a September 15 Request for Proposal (RFP) from the Department of National Defence (DND) for the Riot Control Agent “Tear Gas.”  

The “Tear Gas” RFP lists a total of 36,000 canisters required by the DND which the winning contractor is to have shipped to the Canadian Forces Ammunition Depot (CFAD) in Dundurn, Saskatchewan, by March 31, 2021. 

While the use of Tear Gas as a crowd control method is not new in Canada, the “Tear Gas” RFP caught the attention of Galati, who speculated on social media why such a large order is needed for the spring of 2021. 

“Tear Gas Order - Riot control - Govt of Canada - Due by March 31,” wrote Galati on Twitter, posting a link to the Buyandsell.gc.ca website “Tear gas” RFP.  

“Kind of makes you wonder what else they have planned for the spring.”  

The Chemical Weapons Convention bans signatory countries, which Canada is one of, from using “riot control agents as a method of warfare,” but does offer exemptions for “domestic riot control purposes,” by law enforcement. 

Tear gas has been used in Canada, as well as in the U.S., in recent months to dispel crowds of protestors. 


  canada, coronavirus, doug ford, justin trudeau, quarantineisolation sites, randy hillier

News

Three more bishops say abortion is ‘preeminent issue’ in upcoming election

The archbishop of St. Louis, as well as the bishops of Kansas City-St. Joseph and Pittsburgh, told Catholics to vote pro-life.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 5:55 pm EST
Featured Image
Bishop Mitchell Rozanski in an April 2, 2019 interview. Wgby / Youtube screen grab
Michael Haynes
By

October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Three more U.S. bishops have added their voices to the growing number of members of the Catholic hierarchy who say abortion is the preeminent issue for voters to consider in the upcoming election. 

Archbishop Mitchell Rozanski of the Archdiocese of St. Louis urged Catholics to remember that “abortion is the pre-eminent moral issue of our time, and if you don’t struggle to justify voting for a candidate whose record or policy would favor or even expand abortion, then you probably aren’t forming a Catholic conscience in preparation to vote.” 

In his regular column in the St. Louis Review, Rozanski on October 1 presented a brief summary of Catholic social teaching, in view of the election next month. Noting that he could not tell anyone how to vote, the archbishop presented guidance on how Catholics should prepare their conscience when voting.  

Rozanski referred his readers to the document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” prepared by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). In it, the bishops state, “Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable and must always be opposed.” 

The opening letter of that same document clearly states the position of the Catholic Church: “The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed.”  

Archbishop Rozanski mentioned that no matter the outcome of the election, the primary purpose of Catholics is to spread the faith. “The day after the election our primary mission will be the same: to proclaim and give witness to the Gospel in all its fullness,” he wrote. 

“The winners will make some parts of that easier, and some parts incredibly hard,” he added. 

Warning that society is rejecting traditional moral values, Rozanski stated that “Our culture is drifting ever farther from the Gospel — and by that very fact becoming more and more in need of it.” 

Rozanski went on to mention issues of “race, immigration and the environment,” which he said should not be “dismissed or ignored.” 

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Bishop James V. Johnston, Jr. of Kansas City-St. Joseph, issued a letter to his diocese on September 14, in which he argued the state “has a duty to protect what God has already bestowed upon us as inalienable rights so that all citizens can flourish.”  

The letter advises, “A Catholic voter would do well to weigh a candidate’s position on each of these essential God-given rights that government has a duty to protect, beginning with the right to life.” 

Noting the fact that abortion is the pre-eminent issue, the bishop further warns of the dangers of “destructive research on human embryos, euthanasia and assisted suicide,” as well as the importance of issues such as “the appointment of judges and Supreme Court Justices and conscience rights.” 

Johnston explicitly mentioned Planned Parenthood, asking voters to know each party’s position with regard to funding the abortion provider.  

Additionally, he recommended to consider religious liberty when voting, including the freedom of churches to operate according to their beliefs without penalty. Johnston urged voters to “study prayerfully” the different parties, so as to form their consciences before voting.  

Like Archbishop Rozanski, Johnston emphasized, “Our salvation does not lie in earthly political power or party. The Church exists to evangelize and to call our fallen world to conversion, to point us to our true and lasting home which lies beyond this world.” 

Bishop David Zubik of the Diocese of Pittsburgh on September 22 also issued a letter, in which he told voters that it was “imperative” to consider the “issues of abortion and infanticide” when voting.  

Zubik stated that “respect for life IS the issue,” but also that “it is a continuum of other issues, many issues, that flow from the beginning of life at the moment of conception.” He explicitly said that “from our Catholic perspective it is morally unacceptable to vote for a candidate with the specific intent in support of something which is evil, i.e. abortion, racism, etc.” 

Democratic presidential candiate Joe Biden recently reaffirmed his intention of passing “legislation making Roe the law of the land,” should the Supreme Court overturn the 1973 decision imposing abortion on demand across the country.

In response to Biden’s statement, President Donald Trump tweeted, “Wow. Joe Biden just took a more Liberal position on Roe v. Wade than Elizabeth Warren at her highest.” Warren’s May 2019 plan to strengthen pro-abortion laws included such measures as creating “federal, statutory rights that parallel the constitutional right in Roe v. Wade,” passing “federal laws to pre-empt state efforts that functionally limit access to reproductive health care,” and guaranteeing abortion in all health care coverage.


  2020 election, abortion, david zubik, donald trump, james v. johnston, joe biden, mitchell rozanski, supreme court

News

Newt Gingrich advierte a Tucker: si Biden gana, ‘ya no estarás en el aire’

"Estas son personas que aman el poder ... ya no estarás en el aire, Fox probablemente se convertirá en el equivalente de PBS, y simplemente no lo tolerarán," dijo Gingrich.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 5:16 pm EST
Featured Image
Charles Robertson
By

Read this article in English here.

ESTADOS UNIDOS, 9 de octubre de 2020 (LifeSiteNews) - El ex presidente de la Cámara de Representantes republicano, Newt Gingrich, le dijo a Tucker Carlson anoche que una victoria electoral de Harris-Biden en noviembre probablemente resultará en la cancelación del popular presentador de noticias.

"Estas son personas que aman el poder ... ya no estarás en el aire, Fox probablemente se convertirá en el equivalente de PBS, y simplemente no lo tolerarán," dijo Gingrich.

Carlson había invitado a Gingrich para discutir el debate vice-presidencial de la noche entre el republicano Mike Pence y la demócrata Kamala Harris. En su monólogo de apertura, Carlson subrayó la importancia del debate debido a la probabilidad de que si Joe Biden es elegido, Harris sería la que dirigiera efectivamente el país. Gingrich estuvo de acuerdo con la evaluación de Carlson diciendo que si Biden se convierte en presidente de los Estados Unidos, "estaría durmiendo la mitad del día," dejando a Harris para que hiciera lo que quisiera. "Ella estaría trabajando horas extras poniendo a sus aliados radicales a cargo de prácticamente todo," dijo.

Gingrich también señaló que es poco probable que el radicalismo de Harris, incluidas sus posturas sobre el control de armas, el aborto financiado por el estado y las "fronteras totalmente abiertas," resuene en la mayoría de los estadounidenses. Por esa razón, Gingrich expresó su esperanza de que el debate ayude a los estadounidenses a ver de cerca quién es ella. Lamentó que "debido a que el 93% de los medios de comunicación están decididos a destruir a Trump ... no hay informes serios sobre el verdadero radicalismo del boleto Biden-Harris."

Carlson le preguntó a Gingrich si pensaba que los partidarios de Trump se encontrarían en problemas en una administración Biden-Harris. El presentador de Fox News recordó un tweet reciente del presentador de noticias de MSNBC Chris Hayes sugiriendo el establecimiento de una "comisión de la verdad y la reconciliación" para tratar con los partidarios de Trump.

Gingrich respondió señalando los abusos de poder que los políticos demócratas han ejercido este año, incluida la amenaza del gobernador de Nueva York, Andrew Cuomo, de cerrar la sinagoga de la comunidad judía en Nueva York "si no le obedecen," y la gobernadora de Michigan, Gretchen. Las medidas de bloqueo del coronavirus de Whitmer que finalmente fueron declaradas ilegales por la Corte Suprema de Michigan.

“Estas personas, si obtienen todo el poder, harán todo lo que puedan en los primeros dos años para que todo el país sea como California y para asegurarse de que nadie pueda volver a derrotarlos para el cargo,” dijo. "Creo que es una elección muy peligrosa y premonitoria."

Read this article in English here.


News

WATCH: Extreme difference between Pence and Harris revealed in how they spoke about abortion, country unity

Pence made it clear that he was pro-life. Harris defended abortion.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 5:01 pm EST
Featured Image
Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and U.S. Vice President Mike Pence participate in the vice presidential debate at the University of Utah on October 7, 2020 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Morry Gash-Pool/Getty Images
Mary Werbaneth
By

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The extreme differences between Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Kamala Harris were on display during October 7’s vice presidential debate (read the full transcript here).

Moderator Susan Page asked both candidates what they would like to see done in each of their home states if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade is overturned. Pence said that he hoped that during Barrett’s confirmation hearing, there would not be any bias against her because of her faith (Barrett is Catholic).

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Harris countered by saying that “Joe Biden and I are both people of faith, and it’s insulting to suggest that we would knock anyone for their faith.” She added, “I will always fight for a woman’s right to make a decision about her own body.” Harris, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will question Barrett during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing next week.

In response, Pence affirmed his pro-life position.

“I couldn’t be more proud to serve as vice president to a president who stands without apology for the sanctity of human life. I’m pro-life. I don’t apologize for it, and this is another one of those cases where there’s such a dramatic contrast.”

Pence went on to point out that Biden and Harris support taxpayer funding for all abortions up until birth including late-term abortions, as well as more funding for Planned Parenthood.

“Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support taxpayer funding of abortion all the way up to the moment of birth. Late-term abortion. They want to increase funding to Planned Parenthood of America,” he said.

Page’s final question was written by Utah eighth-grader Brecklin Brown who commented that when he watches the news, all he sees is “arguing between Democrats and Republicans...citizen fighting against citizen...two candidates from opposing parties trying to tear each other down.” Brecklin asked, “If our leaders can’t get along, how are the citizens supposed to get along?”

Pence answered by saying that “we’ve created literally the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world,” and not to “assume that what you’re seeing on your local news networks is synonymous with the American people.”

He also talked about the friendship between the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the late Justice Antonin Scalia who were complete opposites on the political spectrum. He added that he wants to work to have a “government as good as our people,” who “love a good argument,” but who “are always there for one another in times of need.”

Harris answered by saying that what Brown described in her question was what has been happening in our country for the past four years, and that Biden was motivated to do something about it. Harris added that Biden “has a longstanding reputation of working across the aisle,” and “a history of lifting people up and fighting for their dignity.”


  2020 election, abortion, kamala harris, mike pence

News

Another Irish priest allows Muslim imam to lead prayers in Catholic Church

A local imam joined Fr. Fergal MacDonagh at Our Lady of Dolours Church, Dolphin’s Barn, in a prayer service to mark the commencement of the new school year.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 4:36 pm EST
Featured Image
SHUTTERSTOCK
Michael Haynes
By

DUBLIN, Ireland, October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A Catholic school in Dublin invited a Muslim leader to issue a blessing to the students, as well as to offer a prayer in which he referenced Christ as a mere “prophet.”  

A local imam joined Fr. Fergal MacDonagh at Our Lady of Dolours Church, Dolphin’s Barn, in a prayer service to mark the commencement of the new school year. 

The Muslim leader said: “We ask the almighty to send salutations on all his beloved servants, Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad, David…” Fr. MacDonagh stood nearby, with arms extended during the proclamation.  

The imam continued by ending with a prayer taken directly from the Koran. After reading the Arabic text, he offered the English translation which referred directly to Christ being only one of the prophets. “O Lord all praises to you, and we ask you to send your salutations and peace to all your beloved servants, the prophets, Jesus Christ, Abraham, Muhammad, and all of them.” 

There was no final prayer or blessing given afterward by Fr. MacDonagh.  

The recent joint prayer service is not the first time that Fr. MacDonagh has promoted Islam during his services. In an interview given in April of this year, Imam Ismail Kotwal told the Dublin InQuirer that Fr. MacDonagh had previously invited him to speak at one of his sermons on fasting. 

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Through accepting the invitation, the imam credited Fr. MacDonagh with informing him about the concept of moving his prayer services online. “A great blessing happened to me. It was an idea of Fr Fergal…He said to me that he has a system where they can do live broadcasting.” 

A similar occurrence was seen in April of this year, as a Catholic priest in the Archdiocese of Tuam, Ireland, invited local Muslims to offer an Islamic prayer during a Mass. On that occasion, two Muslims sung an Islamic call to prayer, which as noted at the time by Church Militant, “categorically proclaims Islam’s supremacy over its forebears — Judaism and Christianity.” 

Cardinal Burke stated in a 2016 interview, that “I don’t believe it’s true that we’re all worshipping the same God, because the God of Islam is a governor.” Warning of the dangers of viewing Catholics and Muslims as worshiping the same god, Burke said “this is not helpful and ultimately it will be the end of Christianity.” 

His teaching was echoed by Bishop Schneider in a recent statement he issued in reference to the Abu Dhabi Document promulgated by Pope Francis in June of this year. Schneider said: “That we Catholics adore with the Muslims the one God is not true. We do not adore with them.” 

Schneider also warned that Muslims view Christ as a prophet, not as the Second Person of the Trinity. “the Muslim conception of Jesus is a rejection of the Christian idea: for the Koran states that God cannot have a Son, and so they reject the Incarnation even if they accept the Virgin Birth.” 

In his book-length interview, Christus Vincit, Schneider categorically taught that “Islam in itself is not faith…Faith is applicable only to belief in the Holy Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

Passages from the Koran itself support this. One section of text reads: “The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, ‘Three’; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God.” 


  catholic, ireland, islamism, islamization

News

Ted Cruz: Big Tech censorship is ‘greatest threat to freedom of speech’

'There are a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires who have amassed more power than ever seen before over information, over the public square, over discourse.'
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 3:39 pm EST
Featured Image
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Washington Post / YouTube
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has identified Big Tech’s “brazen” manipulation and censorship of information as “the single greatest threat to free speech and democracy” in the United States today.

“There are a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires who have amassed more power than ever seen before over information, over the public square, over discourse, and Big Tech is brazen,” Cruz said.

“[It] is shamelessly silencing and censoring conservatives, censoring libertarians, censoring Trump supporters, censoring pro-Israel supporters, censoring pro-life supporters, censoring any views that they disagree with.”  

Cruz made his remarks during an interview with Breitbart News Daily host Alex Marlow on Wednesday. 

The senator reminded Breitbart that he had chaired committees tasked with examining Big Tech censorship in a series of hearings. One of the witnesses was Dr. Robert Epstein, who earned a PhD in psychology at Harvard and is the founder of the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies in Massachusetts. 

“[Epstein] did an empirical analysis of Google in 2016,” said Cruz. 

“He concluded that manipulated and biased search results on Google shifted 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton. [Epstein was] a liberal Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton and openly supported her, but he nonetheless was outraged that a giant Silicon Valley company was putting their finger on the scale, and actively manipulating the election outcome.”

Cruz added that Epstein has warned that in 2020 Google could shift 10 to 15 million votes to Joe Biden.

“That’s what we’re facing, and they’re leaning in with all of their might,” the senator said. 

“Silicon Valley is mad that Trump was elected, and so, yes, they are silencing us right now and that means we have to work harder.” 

But as there is less than a month until the election “a three year study project ain’t gonna do it,” he said. 

Cruz believes that the Republican campaign has to “mobilize and communicate” despite Big Tech manipulation of information, and that the White House and Department of Justice should be taking Big Tech to court to protect Americans’ freedom of speech.  

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

“We’ve got to mobilize and communicate, despite their power and lies and manipulations, and then we need the seriousness of purpose within the administration to bring enforcement actions and prosecution actions, which I have been urging the president [and] the attorney general of the administration to do for four years,” he said. 

Earlier in the interview Cruz said the Republicans are now expected to warn Americans about the dangers of the Left, which he said is angry and full of hate. 

“The defining characteristic of the Left today is hatred of Donald Trump,” he stated. “That is the unifying thread on the Democrat side.” 

LifeSiteNews recently interviewed Allum Bokhari, Breitbart’s senior technology correspondent, about his book #Deleted: Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election. There Bokhari had amassed 16 chapters of evidence that Google and social media companies are hiding and banning conservative content, hell-bent on getting Donald Trump out of the White House this November.  

LifeSiteNews also launched a video series on Big Tech and free speech, featuring, among others, Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, Alison Centofante of pro-life group Live Action, and Prudence Robertson of the Susan B. Anthony List, another pro-life organization.

In recent weeks, Facebook has removed an ad by the conservative American Principles Project (APP) that calls out former Vice President Joe Biden and the Democrats for supporting policies that allow men who claim to be women to compete in women’s sports.

Instagram, which is part of Facebook, removed a LifeSiteNews post for allegedly going “against our Community Guidelines” and containing “harmful false information.” The post referred to an article on renowned Yale professor Harvey A. Risch praising the benefits of using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating COVID-19 patients.

YouTube, a Google brand, deleted a June interview with Dr. Scott Atlas, who has since taken on a role advising the administration of President Donald Trump on its response to COVID-19, arguing his views conflict with the judgment of the World Health Organization (WHO).

See also LifeSite’s page dedicated to Big Tech and free speech HERE.

RELATED:

What do you really know about the World Health Organization?

Fauci calls for strengthening WHO, ‘rebuilding infrastructure of human existence’

Trump’s top diplomat says admin may never restore WHO funding over coronavirus

Tucker Carlson: World Health Organization using COVID to push climate change agenda

World Health Organization: Abortion ‘essential’ during coronavirus pandemic

Facebook combats coronavirus ‘misinformation’ by citing pro-China World Health Organization

WHO admits to using ‘artificial intelligence,’ ‘social listening’ to control COVID news

Lawyers prepare to sue over damages inflicted by COVID-19 lockdowns


  2020 election, breitbart, censorship, facebook, free speech, google, instagram, ted cruz, youtube

News

Biden redobla su compromiso de hacer del aborto a pedido la ‘ley de la tierra’

El demócrata dijo que aprobar una legislación que permita el aborto en cualquier etapa del embarazo es "la única cosa responsable que se puede hacer."
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 3:31 pm EST
Featured Image
Charles Robertson
By

Read this article in English here.

9 de octubre de 2020 (LifeSiteNews) - En un Ayuntamiento de NBC en Miami el 5 de octubre, el ex-vicepresidente Joe Biden prometió "aprobar una legislación" que garantice el aborto a pedido en todas las etapas del embarazo.

El comentario se produjo en respuesta a una pregunta que le hizo Cassidy Brown de Orlando. Brown introdujo su pregunta sugiriendo que las mujeres necesitan abortar para tener éxito. Luego expresó su preocupación de que Roe v.Wade, la decisión de la Corte Suprema de los USA del 1973 que imponía el aborto a pedido en todo el país, podría ser revocada si la jueza Amy Coney Barrett fuera confirmada ante la Corte Suprema. Biden respondió que si bien el resultado de la nominación de Barrett aún es incierto, “lo único responsable sería aprobar una legislación que convierta a Roe en la ley del país. Eso es lo que yo haría."

En respuesta a la declaración de Biden, el presidente Donald Trump tuiteó: "Wow. Joe Biden acaba de adoptar una posición más liberal en Roe v. Wade que Elizabeth Warren en su punto más alto." El plan de Warren de mayo del 2019 para fortalecer las leyes pro-aborto incluyó medidas como la creación de "derechos legales federales que son paralelos al derecho constitucional en Roe v. Wade," la aprobación de "leyes federales para adelantarse a los esfuerzos estatales que limitan funcionalmente el acceso a la atención de salud reproductive," y  garantizar el aborto en todas las coberturas de seguros de salud.

La compañera de fórmula de Biden, Kamala Harris, lanzó un plan similar poco después del de Warren. Los enlaces a ese plan ahora redirigen a la página de la campaña de Biden-Harris, y Wayback Machine de Internet Archive no tiene registro de ello. El informe de LifeSiteNews sobre ese plan indica que "Harris requerirá, por primera vez, que los estados y localidades con un historial de violación de Roe v. Wade obtengan la aprobación de su Departamento de Justicia antes de que cualquier ley o práctica del aborto pueda entrar en vigencia." Ese plan también establecía que los estados provida cargarían con la carga de la prueba de que "cualquier nueva ley o práctica no niega ni limita el derecho fundamental de acceder al aborto." En el debate vice-presidencial del 7 de octubre, Harris reiteró su compromiso con el aborto a pedido.

Read this article in English here.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

  2020 presidential election, abortion, amy coney barrett, catholic, donald trump, elizabeth warren, español, joe biden, kamala harris, pro-abortion, roe v wade, u.s. supreme court

News

Funeral home forces sons to stop comforting grieving mom due to COVID rules

‘You can’t move the chairs. You were told.’
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 1:30 pm EST
Featured Image
Woman with flowers and coffin at a funeral Shutterstock
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

MILTON KEYNES, England, October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― Members of a state-funded crematorium in the United Kingdom forced two brothers to move away from their grieving mother to maintain social distancing, as they tried to comfort her during a funeral service for her husband.

Video of the incident has since gone viral.

The footage shows first Craig Bicknell, and then his brother Paul, moving their chairs beside their mourning mother at the socially distanced service in Milton Keynes on October 2. A member of the state-funded Crownhill Crematorium interrupted the ceremony, shouting at the brothers to move back to their places.

“Sorry, you have to move the chairs back, I’m afraid,” said the crematorium employee. “You can’t move the chairs. You were told.” 

Craig Bicknell told Piers Morgan on “Good Morning Britain” that having to decide between begging the man to let him comfort his mother and just obeying his orders so that the service could go on gave him “a really empty feeling.” 

“It was the hardest day of our lives anyway and for someone to come out with that aggression and telling us to stop, all we wanted to do is comfort our mum at the hardest time,” Paul added.

The brothers had lost their 78-year-old father, Alan Wright, to a heart attack in September.

The current COVID-19 social distancing rules in England allow single adults to form a social grouping, or “bubble”, with another household. They also allow up to six people to join groups indoors and out. But as it was, neither brother had been apart from their mother in weeks. 

“Prior to the funeral, we haven’t left her side,” Craig said. 

“She needed us more than ever.”  

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Craig pointed out that the Milton Keynes Council (municipal government), which is responsible for the crematorium, had imposed rules stricter than the government’s.  

“With the government’s guidelines, it’s clear we can have six in a bubble. We can go into a restaurant, a pub and travel in the [funeral] limousine together,” he said. 

“I just don’t understand why the council [has] got different rules to what the government [has] put in place."

A young man who saw the video was one of many who took to social media to vent their anger at the cruelty of COVID-19 lockdown rules. 

A son moves his chair next to his mother to comfort her at the funeral of her late husband, a member of staff says they’ve ‘been told’ and asked to separate. It really does highlight the cruel lack of humanity and decency in the way in which we’re forced to live our lives today,” wrote Englishman Darren Grimes on Twitter. 

“My youngest auntie passed away during lockdown. I went home for the funeral. During the service mam sat with my nana and refused to move away,” Grimes continued. “I think she absolutely did the right thing in not allowing some petty bureaucrat to force my grandmother to break her heart in isolation.”

Milton Keynes Council, meanwhile, has apologized to the grieving family and issued the following statement:

We are sorry to have upset this family. We don’t usually step in if a guest needs to be comforted by another family member and in this instance should have taken a more considered approach. We ask funeral directors to let us know whether any chairs should be grouped in advance, and from now on this includes guests who are in the same household or bubbles, as well as people who need extra support. We hope this provides additional comfort at a difficult time.

Currently in the United Kingdom, only up to 30 mourners are allowed to attend a funeral, and this number could be lessened, depending on the venue. At least 2 metres (6 feet) should “be maintained between individuals.” Mourners must wear face coverings. 

After almost 25 million coronavirus tests processed in the past six months, the U.K. has recorded just over 575,000 positive results. Fewer than 43,000 deaths have been associated with the virus, so far.


  covid-19, funeral, lockdowns, social distancing, united kingdom

News

Pope Francis prays that women be handed more leadership roles in the Church

‘We must promote the integration of women, especially where important decisions are made,’ the Pope said in his October prayer intention. 
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 12:31 pm EST
Featured Image
Pope Francis in an Oct. 8, 2020 video where he prays for there to be more women in leadership roles in the Church. Vatican News / Youtube screen grab
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

VATICAN CITY, October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― Pope Francis’ October prayer intention is for more roles of responsibility for lay people, especially women, in the institutions of the Catholic Church. His prayer comes at a time when some Church leaders, especially in the German Church, are advocating for the ordination of females to the diaconate and even the priesthood, a position incompatible with perennial Church teaching. Moreover, the Pope himself has been sending mixed signals on the matter.

In a video he recorded in Spanish, the Argentinian pontiff de-emphasized the importance of the clerical state for the Church. The video, titled “October: women in leadership roles in the church”, was released by Vatican News. 

“No one has been baptized a priest or a bishop,” Pope Francis said.  

“We have all been baptized as lay people. Lay people are protagonists of the Church,” he continued. 

Pope Francis wants to see more roles for women within the Church, and more emphasize on their presence in the church because “women tend to be left beside,” he said.  

“We must promote the integration of women, especially where important decisions are made,” the pontiff continued.

“We pray that by the virtue of baptism, the laity, especially women, may participate more in areas of responsibility in the Church, without falling into forms of clericalism that diminish the lay charism.” 

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

The video features a number of women smiling over the headline “More roles for women in leadership positions in the Church” or working in Vatican institutions. They include journalists, Vatican media representatives, and the director of the Vatican Museum, Barbara Jatta. None of the women depicted appear to be women in religious life, e.g. religious sisters or nuns; a more contemporary definition of “laity” excludes men and women in religious life from the category.  

According to the Holy See’s own Vatican News, the video was made “in collaboration with the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life.”  

“It highlights the role of the laity, whom Pope Francis considers true protagonists in the proclamation of the Gospel.”  

Vatican News noted also that the pontiff has “made many gestures to give momentum to this desire to give women greater weight in the Church.” The online news source then quoted a passage from Pope Francis’ Evangelii gaudium: “Demands that the legitimate rights of women be respected, based on the firm conviction that men and women are equal in dignity, present the Church with profound and challenging questions which cannot be lightly evaded” (104).

Pope Francis’ concern for the advancement of women in Church institutions is shared by German Cardinal Reinhard Marx, who suggested in 2018 that this phenomenon would help fight sexual abuse committed by “closed clerical [male] circles” in the Church.” Marx suggested also that young women are alienated by the idea that all power in the Church lies in the hands of men.  

“The impression that the Church – when it is about power – is finally a Church of men has to be overcome in the Universal Church and also here in the Vatican. Otherwise, young women will not find here no true creative options,” he said during the Youth Synod.

The issue of women’s leadership positions in the Church was also raised during the 2019 Synod on the Amazon. Delegates wanted some kind of special recognition for women’s leadership roles in the far-flung mission territories in the region. Some delegates, like the Austrian-born  Bishop Emeritus Erwin Kräutler of Xingu, Brazil were in favour of women’s priestly ordination, and saw a women’s diaconate as a step towards it. 

But the final document of the Amazon Synod did not go as far as explicitly advocating women’s ordination. Instead it stated that it “is urgent for the Amazon Church to promote and confer ministries for men and women in an equitable manner.” Quoting Pope Francis' 2013 exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, the synod document called for the Church “to create still broader opportunities for a more incisive female presence in the Church.” Quoting again from Pope Francis, the final document declared, “Let us not reduce the commitment of women in the Church, but promote their active participation in the ecclesial community.”

Francis has followed his words with actions: this August he appointed six women to the Holy See’s Council for the Economy. According to its statutes, the Council must have 8 bishops and 7 laypeople. Six of them are now women: Ruth Kelly, Leslie Ferrar, Charlotte Kreuter-Kirchhof, Marija Kolak, Maria  Concepción Osácar Garaicoechea and Eva Castillo Sanz. 

In addition, women currently play significant roles as the deputy director of the Vatican’s Sala Stampa (Press Office)  and as an under-secretary of the Secretariat of State.


  catholic, female priests, ordination of women, pope francis, women priests

News

NBA will remove social justice, Black Lives Matter language from courts

'People are tired of watching the highly political @NBA,' President Donald Trump tweeted earlier.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 10:28 am EST
Featured Image
Michael Reaves / Getty Images
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Faced with a significant decline in ratings, the top boss of the National Basketball Association (NBA) said displays of players promoting groups such as Black Lives Matter (BLM) in the name of “social justice” and “racial equality” will “largely be left to be delivered off the floor” for next season.

“I would say, in terms of the messages you see on our court and the jerseys, this was an extraordinary moment in time when we began these discussions with the players and what we all lived through this summer,” said NBA commissioner Adam Silver to ESPN’s Rachel Nichols in an interview last weekend.

“My sense is there’ll be somewhat a return to normalcy, that those messages will largely be left to be delivered off the floor, and I understand those people who are saying, ‘I’m on your side, but I want to watch a basketball game.’”

Although not a new phenomenon for the sport, left-wing political activism by NBA players skyrocketed following the death of George Floyd, who died in police custody in May.

Floyd’s death sparked a wave of violence and BLM protests across the United States in May.

Many NBA players have donned jerseys during warm-ups and practices with the wording “Black Lives Matter”and have also been vocal on social media regarding the BLM movement.

Most players have also made it a habit to kneel during the playing of the pre-game National Anthem.

In August, players forced playoff games to be postponed after Jacob Blake was shot by police.

The NBA soon after issued a joint statement with the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) on “social justice and racial equality,” alongside announcing that games would resume after an agreement with players was reached.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Despite Silver’s promise to ensure that social justice–themed messaging from players will be “off the floor” for next season, Silver said “social justice and racial equality” messaging is not going anywhere, as it’s part of the league's “DNA.”

“We’re completely committed to standing for social justice and racial equality and that’s been the case going back decades. It’s part of the DNA of this league. How it gets manifested is something we’re gonna have to sit down with the players and discuss for next season,” said Silver to Nichols.

Overall viewer ratings for the NBA, including those between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Miami Heat in the current playoff finals, are well below previous years

A writer and commentator for the sports media outlet OutKick said in a commentary piece that the NBA “is officially a disaster” after pointing out that ratings for Game Two of the 2020 NBA finals are down 68 percent compared to last year.

“The NBA’s new self-inflicted identity is written in ink. Millions of turned-off Americans associate the NBA with radical politics catered to only a minimal number of sports fans,” wrote Outkick’s Bobby Burack.

“There is no way for the media to spin this positively. Declines of this magnitude are unheard of. Then, factor in the tank-job occurring with the league’s biggest individual and team draw in the Finals — the NBA is officially a disaster[.] … A ship doesn’t sink for one reason, but undoubtedly, politics sit atop the historical tank.”

A recent Harris Poll found that a total of 38 percent of respondents cited the NBA being “too political” as the reason for watching fewer games.

U.S. president Donald Trump has in the past waded into the waters of politics in the NBA, attributing the lower ratings to the league’s “highly political” stance.

“People are tired of watching the highly political @NBA. Basketball ratings are WAY down, and they won’t be coming back. I hope football and baseball are watching and learning because the same thing will be happening to them. Stand tall for our Country and our Flag!!!,” wrote Trump in a September 1 tweet.

Correction, October 10, 2020 08:25 A.M. EDT: A previous edition of this article misstated the result of Jacob Blake’s confrontation with police. LifeSite regrets the error.


  black lives matter, national basketball association, racism, sports

News

Cdl. Zen calls Vatican secretary of state ‘liar,’ ‘cheeky’ over Vatican-China deal

Cdl. Joseph Zen of Hong Kong also accused Vatican secretary of state Cdl. Pietro Parolin of manipulating Pope Francis in dealing with the communist regime.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 10:18 am EST
Featured Image
Cdl. Joseph Zen, bishop emeritus of Hong Kong. Salt and Light Media / YouTube
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

HONG KONG, October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Cardinal Joseph Zen is accusing the Vatican’s secretary of state of “lying” in claiming that Pope Benedict XVI approved a draft of the controversial 2018 China-Vatican secret deal that the Holy See is expected to renew next month.

The retired bishop of Hong Kong also accused Cardinal Pietro Parolin of “manipulating” Pope Francis when it comes to the Vatican’s dealings with China’s communist regime.

In an October 7 blog post written in Italian, Zen penned a scathing rebuttal of Parolin’s October 3 talk in Milan on the Church’s missionary activity in China.

Parolin reiterated then that the Vatican is committed to a provisional renewal of the 2018 agreement, which expires on October 22, so that it can bear “more substantial fruit” and alleged that Benedict had approved the deal in draft form, reported the Catholic News Agency (CNA).

“I read the speech given by Cardinal Parolin,” said Zen. “It’s sickening!”

“As [Parolin] is not stupid and ignorant,” he had to conclude that the Vatican official “told a series of lies with eyes open,” added the 88-year-old prelate, one of the fiercest critics of the accord.

“The most repugnant thing is the insult to the venerable Benedict XVI by saying that he approved at the time the agreement signed by the Holy See two years ago, knowing that our sweetest, most gentle Benedict certainly will not come out to deny it,” added Zen.

“Parolin knows he is lying,” emphasized the cardinal.

“He knows that I know he is a liar, he knows that I will tell everyone that he is a liar, so in addition to being cheeky, he is also bold.”

Zen has described the agreement, which gave the Vatican some say with Beijing in appointing bishops in China, as an “incredible betrayal” of China’s Catholics.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

The Vatican is portraying the deal as a path to unifying the Chinese underground Church, which remained in communion with Rome for decades despite intense persecution by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and the schismatic Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA), created by the regime in the late 1950s.

To gain approval for the accord, the Vatican formally recognized and consecrated seven excommunicated bishops the state had appointed to the CPCA.

Pope Francis also requested that Bishop Zhuang Jianjian of Shantou of the underground Church retire and that Bishop Guo Xijin of Mindong step aside for a CPCA bishop.

Parolin has produced no proof Benedict approved draft

Parolin backed his October 3 claim that Benedict approved a draft of the agreement by citing Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, the dean of the College of Cardinals and former prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, CNA reported.

According to Parolin, Re said in March that “Pope Benedict XVI [approved] the draft agreement on the appointment of bishops in China, which it was only possible to sign in 2018.”

Zen, however, hotly contested Re’s alleged remarks, calling it “very ridiculous and humiliating” for Re “to be ‘used’ once again to support the falsehoods of the Most Eminent Secretary.”

Moreover, Riccardo Cascioli, founder and editor-in-chief of the Nuova Bussola Quotidiana and the Daily Compass, also strongly disputed Re’s allegation last February, describing it as a “sensational revelation that at this point requires proof” and one that, if “shown to be true,” could only lead to the conclusion that Benedict “had reneged on everything he had publicly written.”

China expert Steve Mosher, another well known critic of the China-Vatican deal, says no proof has as yet materialized.

“Cardinal Zen has repeatedly challenged Parolin to show him the draft that the then-Pope signed or initialled. He has never received satisfaction and strongly asserts that Parolin is lying about receiving Pope Benedict’s consent,” Mosher told LifeSiteNews in an email.

“To justify the Sino-Vatican Agreement, Cardinal Parolin continues to claim that the draft agreement was approved by Pope Benedict some years ago before his resignation,” he added.

“I have always believed Cardinal Zen in these matters. He understands the increasingly dire situation for believers in China, caused in part by the Sino-Vatican Agreement, far better than anyone else in the Church today,” said Mosher.

Church in China “objectively schismatic”: Zen

Parolin insisted in his October 3 address that the secret deal does not touch on political matters, but deals only with the appointment of bishops.

He described the latter as causing the Catholic Church in China “the most suffering” since the communists came to power, expelled Catholic missionaries, and cut ties with Rome.

Now, “for the first time in many decades, today all the Bishops in China are in communion with the Bishop of Rome,” said Parolin.

The Vatican has noted that no further illicit consecrations have taken place since the deal was signed in 2018, CNA reported.

Zen, however, blasted this as an illusory achievement.

“All legitimate bishops, but in a Church that is objectively schismatic, is that good? Is it progress? Is this the beginning of what kind of journey?”

The China-Vatican deal gave Beijing a say in the ordination of bishops and allowed for the enforcement of “sinicization” in Church matters, Zen said.

The campaign of “sinicization,” which President Xi Jinping announced in 2015, imposes Chinese and communist identity on religious practice.

Under the policy, CCP officials are forcing churches to replace images of the Ten Commandments, biblical paintings, and crosses with portraits of Xi or sayings of his or Chairman Mao’s. The CCP is also rewriting the Bible to bring it into line with communist ideology.

Parolin told a Chinese state-run publication in 2019 that “sinicization” can be “complementary” to the Catholic missionary practice of “inculturation,” which he said involves proclaiming the Gospel “according to the particular experience of each people and culture,” CNA reported at the time.

Zen denounced this idea in his October 7 critique. The CCP’s “sinicization” of religion “is not what we mean by inculturation, it is the religion of the Communist Party,” where “the first divinity is the country, the party, the party leader,” he said.

“How can the Most Eminent say that all this has nothing to do with the agreement? Can life be cut into pieces?” Zen asked.

Pope “closes eyes” to CCP persecution of Christians

Moreover, “despite the agreement,” Christians in China are increasingly persecuted by CCP authorities, said Zen.

Indeed, a U.S. congressional report released in January linked the secret deal to an “intense” spike in persecution of Christians not seen in China since the Cultural Revolution.

U.S. secretary of state Mike Pompeo recently warned the Vatican it will “endanger” its moral authority if it extends its deal with China, and he urged it to “forcefully” denounce Beijing’s crackdown on religious minorities.

Zen reiterated a previous allegation that Parolin is manipulating Pope Francis on the agreement.

“I will be asked: Do you say that Parolin manipulates the Holy Father? Yes, I don’t know why the Pope allows himself to be manipulated, but I have evidence to believe so and this makes it even less painful and repugnant to criticize the Holy See,” he said.

“It seems that in order to save the agreement, the Holy See is closing both eyes on all the injustices that the Communist Party inflicts on the Chinese people,” Zen said.

In a CNA interview last month, Zen criticized Pope Francis for his notable silence on Beijing’s brutal treatment of the mainly Muslim Uyghurs in Xinjiang province, and warned that “the resounding silence will damage the work of evangelization.”

The Holy Father has also not said a word about the CCP’s persecution of other religious minorities, including Catholics, who number an estimated 10 million of China’s 1.4 billion people.

Related:

Cdl Zen: I have evidence Vatican secretary of state ‘manipulated’ Francis on China deal

Communists arrest Chinese priest for refusing to join schismatic state-run ‘church’

Chinese bishop sleeping on street after refusing to join communist schismatic group

US Secretary of State Pompeo: Vatican must ‘forcefully’ call out Chinese Communist Party’s abuses

Vatican letter criticizes Cardinal Zen, says Chinese ‘patriotic’ church is no longer ‘independent’


  catholic, chinese patriotic catholic association, freedom of religion, joseph zen, pietro parolin, pope francis, schismatic, sino-vatican agreement

News

German priest responsible for priestly formation approves of female ordination

Our Lord was 'a child of His time,' Fr. Christof May insisted, in restricting the priesthood to his male disciples.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 9:52 am EST
Featured Image
Cathedral in Limburg, Germany. Philip Lange / Shutterstock.com
Martin Bürger Martin Bürger Follow Martin
By Martin Bürger

LIMBURG, Germany, October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The priest responsible for the formation of young men preparing for the priesthood in the German Diocese of Limburg in a homily last Sunday demanded that the Church change her prohibition on blessing the so-called divorced and remarried, as well as homosexual relationships.

Fr. Christof May also said he no longer understands why women can’t become priests, and he supported allowing non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion.

“The divorced remarried couple ... comes to me and asks for a blessing,” May said. “One of the partners may have been married many years ago, perhaps 10, 15, 20 years ago. The two don’t want to marry again, but they want a blessing, and I am not allowed to give it. I am not allowed to say, ‘The community, as it is now, is good.’”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

“If one of the two partners came to me in the confessional, I could not absolve him, because there is still the first marriage bond, which has been torn apart internally for a long time,” he lamented. “I could not allow them to attend the Eucharist — but a member, somehow a member of the Church, he may remain.”

Pope John Paul II explained in 1997, referring to his 1981 apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, that “the divorced and remarried cannot be admitted to Eucharistic Communion since ‘their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist’ (n. 84). And this is by virtue of the very authority of the Lord, Shepherd of Shepherds, who always seeks his sheep.”

“It is also true with regard to Penance, whose twofold yet single meaning of conversion and reconciliation is contradicted by the state of life of divorced and remarried couples who remain such,” the Pope added.

The head of the diocesan seminary in Limburg continued his homily with a comment on two men in a homosexual relationship he encountered.

“They did an unbelievable amount of voluntary work in the parish,” he said. “There was hardly a liturgy where they weren’t active  as a lector, as a cantor, as an organist — not to represent themselves, but to be taken into service. How often did I have them with me on Thursdays at Mass in the nursery home, and how much did they delight the people?”

“A blessing?” May asked rhetorically. “I’m not allowed to bless them. Instead, such people are and were verbally beaten up, sent away.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, however, already calls for precisely the opposite — namely, “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

Fr. Christof May didn’t elaborate on how exactly men and women with same-sex attraction are “verbally beaten up, sent away.” He did, however, lament that men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies are not allowed to become priests.

He called the sacramental marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic Christian “the sacrament of reconciliation, of union, of communion. But then, when the two of them come to the Sunday service, I would have to reject the one partner who is not Catholic at the communion rail.”

May admitted that “we don’t do that for pastoral reasons.” However, he then said he wants more. “I want to be able to say openly and honestly to the person: it is your decision, it is your conscience. I fully recognize your marriage, and I cannot in good conscience then exclude you from the Eucharist, communion, community. From Monday to Saturday you live together, pray together, suffer together, but on Sunday you are separated. This does not work.”

The priest didn’t explain the connection between a valid sacramental marriage and access to the Eucharist. Even marriages between two Protestants are recognized by the Catholic Church to be sacramental marriages, but even May didn’t demand that they should be able to receive the Eucharist.

On the question of female priests, May said, “There is an instruction from the ’90s by Pope John Paul II. In it, it says that Holy Orders for women is no longer to be discussed. Roma locuta, causa finita [Rome has spoken, the case is closed].”

A little later, he said, “For me, Holy Orders was always clearly bound to men. One argument: Jesus broke with many patterns back then, and if he had wanted to, he would have called women to be apostles. I have made this argument very much my own since my theological studies. But I realize: It is no longer true for me.”

Pope John Paul II solemnly declared in his 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis, “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32). I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

According to May, the teachings of Jesus Christ are essentially dated. “Yes, he has broken with many patterns. But as true God and true man, he was also a child of his time, when the question of the role of women had to be resolved in a completely different way.”

May mentioned arguments against the ordination of women that refer to the rejection this idea experiences in places like Africa, without commenting on the danger of schism. According to the priest, “we wouldn’t have a female chancellor in Germany either, if we only ever align ourselves to what is not yet working in other countries. If the Church is to be a beacon of light, and a beacon for the times, then maybe we also have to make points that are still irritating in other countries.”

Fr. Christof May’s bishop is Georg Bätzing, who is also the head of the German Bishops’ Conference.


  adultery, catholic, christof may, eucharist, georg batzing, germany, homosexuality, limburg

News

Bishop Strickland, others urge court to maintain life support for Baby Tinslee

Baby Tinslee was born prematurely and with a rare heart condition. Despite continued improvement, the hospital wants to remove life support, effectively killing Tinslee.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 9:02 am EST
Featured Image
Tinslee Lewis in Cook Children’s Medical Center, in Fort Worth, Texas.
LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

FORT WORTH, Texas, October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Disability rights organizations joined religious leaders in an amici curiae brief to protect Baby Tinslee Lewis, a young girl born prematurely and with a rare heart defect, in her fight against the Texas 10-Day Rule.

The Texas 10-Day Rule grants a hospital committee the power to make life-and-death decisions against the wishes of the patient or her medical decision-maker. The patient has only 10 days to secure transfer to another medical facility before life-sustaining care is denied and withdrawn.

As the brief observed, this means that the Texas 10-Day Rule not only violates an individual’s rights but also tramples parental rights and due process, as in the case of Baby Tinslee.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Yesterday’s friends of the court brief was submitted to the Supreme Court of Texas by Catholic bishops Joseph E. Strickland of Tyler and René H. Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, as we Protect TX Fragile Kids, ADAPT, ADAPT of Texas, Not Dead Yet, the Healthcare Advocacy and Leadership Organization (HALO), the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network, Deacon Keith Fournier, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the True Texas Project, Right to Life of East Texas, the Common Good Foundation, and Grassroots America We the People.

A lower court in July rebuked the anti-Life Texas 10-Day Rule (section 166.046 of the Texas Health and Safety Code). Baby Tinslee’s case now awaits review in the Texas Supreme Court.

Last month, Cook Children’s Medical Center in Fort Worth filed a motion to expedite the case in the state’s highest court. Cook Children’s has been fighting to remove life-sustaining care from Baby Tinslee against the wishes of Tinslee’s mother, Trinity, for over a year now.

In the amici curiae brief in support of Baby Tinslee, the groups wrote, “If review is granted, this Court should hold that section 166.046 is unconstitutional as applied on its face.”

The brief noted that Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton had issued a joint statement earlier this year in defense of Baby Tinslee and her family’s fight to protect her Right to Life. Abbott and Paxton also filed a brief in support of Baby Tinslee, in which the two attorneys deemed the Texas 10-Day Rule unconstitutional.

The brief outlined that under the 10-Day Rule, “There is no standard of proof, no meaningful right for the patient to be heard, no right to call witnesses, no record, and no neutral arbiter to decide the patient’s fate.” In Baby Tinslee’s case, Cook Children’s asserted in December 2019 that she would not live beyond May. Now, Tinslee is still alive almost a year later, approaching her second birthday.

Texas Right to Life, one of the organizations that submitted the friends of the court brief has helped over three dozen patients facing denial of treatment in 2020 alone.


  bishop strickland, east texas right to life, life support, preemie, premature birth, tinslee lewis

News

Priest sues California Gov Newsom over ‘tyrannical COVID-19 control measures’

In a 77 page document filed on September 29, Fr. Trevor Burfitt, a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), issued a withering attack upon Newsom, saying that his restrictions on religious worship in violation of the constitution, are “no longer warranted” and are “causing more harm than good.” 
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 8:42 am EST
Featured Image
Fr. Trevor Burfitt (May 2020) Our Lady of the Angels / YouTube
Michael Haynes
By

CALIFORNIA, October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A Catholic priest in California is suing Governor Newsom, along with 19 other officials for what he describes as his “tyrannical COVID-19 control measures” which place severe restrictions on churches and religious services.    

In a 77 page document filed on September 29, Fr. Trevor Burfitt, a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), issued a withering attack upon Newsom, saying that his restrictions on religious worship in violation of the constitution, are “no longer warranted” and are “causing more harm than good.” 

The document is introduced by a quotation from the case of the Department of Health vs Manke: “It is incumbent on the courts to ensure decisions are made according to the rule of law, not hysteria...One hopes that this great principle—essential to any free society, including ours—will not itself become yet another casualty of COVID-19.” 

Stating that “a bona fide health emergency has not existed in California for several months, Fr. Burfitt warns that Newsom intends to continue to restrict religious worship.

“Newsom intends to continue indefinitely a massive and baseless suspension of the constitutional rights of plaintiff and nearly 40,000,000 other residents of the State of California, the lawsuit states. 

The document extensively covers a wide range of issues: the unnecessary state of emergency; the mis-reporting of COVID-19 cases; the uselessness of face masks; the irrationality of social distancing; the “threat of a Permanent Medical Dictatorship,” as well as the egregious effect which such laws are having upon religious worship. 

Fr. Burfitt outlines the double standards which are used in determining which venues are permitted to open, with churches and religious worship being termed as non-essential, whilst “liquor stores, marijuana dispensaries, and the Hollywood movie industry” are deemed essential services. “One can enter a bookstore and browse for as long as one wishes, but one is forbidden to set foot in a church to worship God,” the lawsuit explains. 

On the contrary, Fr. Burfitt declares that churches and religious worship “are unquestionably essential to people’s lives.” 

Fr. Burfitt even makes the comparison between the toleration permitted for Black Lives Matter protests, and yet not for religious institutions.  

“One can march shoulder-to-shoulder with thousands of shouting, singing, and chanting political protesters—many without masks—but one is forbidden to be closer than six feet to a fellow worshipper or to sing a religious hymn or intone Gregorian chant during Holy Mass,” the lawsuit notes. 

Fr. Burfitt also references several instances of Newsom’s own personal support for the mass protests, whilst still quashing the rights of religious institutions.  

The lawsuit presents four chief ways in which Newsom’s laws have detrimentally affected churches:  • Severe restrictions on houses of worship, which are not imposed on favored businesses 

• A total ban on indoor worship, which was imposed for the second time on July 13, 2020, in 38 counties comprising 86% of California’s population, including those in which Fr. Burfitt engages in his ministry 

• A ‘social distance’ bubble zone of six feet around every person, which precludes the proper conduct of Catholic worship 

• A ‘face covering’ mandate, which not only radically interferes with Catholic worship in numerous ways but irrationally threatens individual health in the manner alleged below.” 

In retaliation to laws regarding social distancing and the mandating of mask wearing, the document states that such measures directly have a negative effect upon religious worship. Regarding the six foot bubble, which is mandatory throughout the state, it reads: “This ridiculous requirement simply cannot be observed without abandoning Catholic worship as such, reducing it to mere preaching from a distance.”  

With reference to face masks, the paper further asserts: “Newsom’s ‘face covering’ mandate is yet another undue burden on Father Burfitt’s sincerely held religious beliefs and practices as a pastor of souls.” 

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Fr. Burfitt argues that the laws being enforced are severely intrusive to Catholic worship in every aspect.  

“Never in the entire 2,000-year history of the Catholic Church, not even during the Roman persecutions, have Catholics been subjected to such preposterous secular intrusions on their Masses, prayers, and Sacraments….Newsom’s regime of tyrannical COVID-19 control measures, enforced by counties and municipalities as pleaded above, has interfered radically in virtually every aspect of Catholic worship in Father Burfitt’s parish and mission churches, his lawsuit states.  

The Thomas More Society, who are representing Fr. Burfitt, declared: “It is now beyond reasonable dispute that, absent judicial intervention, Governor Newsom intends to continue, indefinitely, a massive and baseless suspension of the constitutional rights of Father Burfitt and nearly 40 million other residents of the state of California.”  

The legal team continued by affirming that, “this is unconstitutional and a blatant violation of the rights guaranteed by California’s constitution.” 

Having charge of mission churches in four counties, Fr. Burfitt has a significant number of people under his pastoral care. He consequently states: “No further limitations on religious exercise are justifiable, including the six-foot personal ‘bubble zone,’ the ‘face covering mandate,’ and the ban on ‘singing or chanting,’ especially (but not only) because there is no longer a bona fide ‘health emergency’ in the State of California.” 


  california, coronavirus restrictions, freedom of religion, governor newsom, lockdowns, mandatory masks, sspx, us politics

Opinion

Are you pro-life but won’t vote for Trump? Here’s why you should vote for him anyway

This critically important U.S. presidential election must NOT be about personalities.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 5:46 pm EST
Featured Image
President Donald Trump addressing the 2020 March for Life CSPAN / screenshot
Dan Zeidler
By Dan Zeidler

October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The presidential election must not be about personalities, not about less-than-perfect lives, not about disagreeable tweets and crude comments.

This election is about what kind of country you, your children and grandchildren will live in, what kind of policies and principles that will affect us way into the future.

Paramount is restoring protection of the unborn. We must recognize that abortion is the issue. Tearing millions of babies apart, limb from limb, and crushing their skulls, or killing them with chemicals is the issue!  

No candidate who endorses and promotes the current abortion holocaust is qualified for public office.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are radical pro-abortion proponents: abortion of any unborn baby, right up to birth – no restrictions, no regulations and paid for with our tax dollars, no matter conscience or religious objections.

President Donald Trump, along with his administration, has done more than any other U.S. president in history to implement public policies in support of the unborn (see list here)

His appointments of 230 federal judges, including two Supreme Court justices, and a critically needed third justice, hopefully soon to be confirmed, are eroding the leftist control of the federal judiciary, and setting the stage for a hoped-for reversal of Roe v Wade and for allowing legal protection of precious unborn babies.

Anyone who lets their dislike of President Trump's personality prevent them from recognizing this crucial pro-life reality is making a grave mistake. If Trump is not re-elected, we will have lost a great opportunity to continue to turn the country around on abortion. A Biden-Harris victory will be devastating, cementing in place, guaranteeing, and greatly increasing the already massive abortion holocaust in the U.S. and worldwide. For more on this, read  "To a Catholic who says, 'I could never vote for Trump'".

President Trump has clearly kept his 2016 campaign promises on behalf of the unborn.

President Trump has also kept other important campaign promises. For a list, see "Catholic Voters Have Many Reasons to Support President Trump". 

Given the radical Marxist activists who now largely control the national Democratic Party and whose radical ideology rejects human dignity, life, marriage and family, and freedom itself, it is no exaggeration to say the very existence of our country as we have known it is in grave danger in this 2020 presidential election.

For the sake of our children and grandchildren and our own well-being, we must resist a Democratic Party takeover of our country.

Trump must be re-elected.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

  2020 presidential election, abortion, catholic, catholic voters, donald trump, joe biden, kamala harris, marxist, u.s. supreme court

Opinion

Pro-life leader: Catholic bishops must oppose Vatican policy on relationships, sex education to protect our children’s purity

What do Catholic parents do when Popes disagree on sex education, on adultery, on homosexual relationships? 
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 3:54 pm EST
Featured Image
John Smeaton of Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Steve Jalsevac/ LifeSite
John Smeaton John Smeaton
By John Smeaton

Editor’s note: The following talk was given as part of an online conference title “Fathers’ Call to Bishops: Help us to defend our children’s purity.” The virtual event was organized by Voice of the Family and made available via LifeSiteNews on October 9, 2020.

October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A new coalition, Parents in Defence of Primary Educators, has been established in the UK, comprising Catholic Man UK, the Latin Mass Society and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Our coalition wants to protect our children and grandchildren from the British Government’s pro-LGBT, pro-contraception and pro-abortion relationships and sex education policy – now enshrined in law.

Tragically, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW) has repeatedly welcomed and expressed their support for this terrible law, due to come into force in September 2020.

It’s our conviction, in the Coalition, that, in the terrible crisis we face today not least in our Catholic schools because of the false teaching of our bishops, our spiritual fathers, it’s time for natural fathers to step forward, and to protect our children by imploring Our Lady’s help, and by correcting our bishops and by urging them to lead the public and parents in resisting legislation which threatens the immortal souls of our children.

Yes, Catholic parents are praying that our bishops change direction and that they begin to lead Catholic resistance to the British Government’s wicked legislation which makes relationships education compulsory at primary school and Relationships and Sex Education compulsory at Secondary School.

The significance of the bishops’ betrayal of parents of all faiths, who want to protect their children’s purity, can be clearly seen in statements made by British government ministers. For example Nick Gibb, Minister of State for School Standards, speaking in the House of Commons debate on 25th June 2019, dismissed objecting parents saying “I am afraid that it is unlikely that we will bring those extreme ends of the debate into that consensus, but I am very content that we have secured the support of the Catholic Church, the Church of England and organisations such as Stonewall for the guidance we have created.” 

Stonewall is a militant homosexual organisation which campaigns against Catholic teaching.

On 12th September 2020, my fellow Coalition leaders in Parents in Defence of Primary Educators and I delivered a letter to H.E. Vincent Cardinal Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster and President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. Our letter expressed our deep concern about the bishops’ position.

If you want to get involved in our coalition, you can go to our website primaryeducators.org.uk and sign up to hear about our future events. You will find there our letter to Cardinal Nichols – and you may wish to write yourself to your local bishop to express your concerns, respectfully but firmly, or raise the matter with your local clergy.

In the next presentation in this conference, Dr Tom Rogers will be going into distressing detail of the extent of the betrayal of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales and you will find Dr Rogers’s full article on the topic on the Coalition website. 

For my part, I want to put the terrible situation in Britain into global ecclesiastical context. 

On 24th October 2015 94% of the bishops and cardinals attending the Ordinary Synod of the Family in Rome voted to approve a paragraph in the Final report which rejects the right of parents to choose to be the sole educators of their children in sexual matters.

The sentence, in paragraph 58 of the document, reads:

“The family, while maintaining its primary space in education (cf. Gravissimum Educationis, 3), cannot be the only place for teaching sexuality.”

This paragraph is directly contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

In his Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae (10th January 1890), on the chief duties of Christians as citizens, Pope Leo XIII teaches: 

“By nature parents have a right to the training of their children, but with this added duty that the education and instruction of the child be in accord with the end for which by God's blessing it was begotten. Therefore it is the duty of parents to make every effort to prevent any invasion of their rights in this matter, and to make absolutely sure that the education of their children remain under their own control in keeping with their Christian duty, and above all to refuse to send them to those schools in which there is danger of imbibing the deadly poison of impiety."[26]”

Pope Leo XIII’s words are given greater weight by virtue of their being cited by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Divini Illius Magistri on Christian Education (31 December 1929) In this encyclical, Pope Pius XI goes on to say:

65. Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

66. Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind;[43] and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.

The teaching of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI was also upheld by Pope Pius XII in an address to French fathers on 18th September 1951. The words of these Popes are steeped in Divine Law, in apostolic teaching and the tradition of the Church, as well as in a sensitive and holy knowledge of the reality of the constant battle between good and evil in the soul of every human being. 

Catholic parents today have an obligation to compare and contrast the teaching of these three Popes on sex education to the following words from Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio, his apostolic exhortation on the family in 1981, which very much fail to convey the full teaching of the Church on the sacred obligations of parents to guard their children from temptation:

“Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centres chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit that animates the parents.” (No. 37).

Pope John Paul II’s instruction appears simply to take for granted the teaching of sex education in schools, falling into the very error described by Pope Pius XI fifty-two years earlier “the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education”

Anyone familiar with what was happening in practice in Catholic schools in the 70s and 80s and even more so today – as I am, having taught in a respected Catholic grammar school in London in the mid-70s and as chief executive of SPUC with reports from throughout Britain of appalling abuses of children’s innocence taking place in Catholic schools–would understand how Pope John Paul II’s teaching, departing from the teaching of previous popes, has catastrophically failed to protect our children from evil.

Even more so, Catholic parents today have an obligation to compare and contrast the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII to the position now adopted by the Vatican and Pope Francis: A few months after the promulgation of Amoris Laetitia, an apostolic exhortation in which Pope Francis called for sex education in educational institutions, the Pontifical Council for the Family published a sex education programme called The Meeting Point at the World Youth Day in Poland in July 2016.

This programme, which is intended to be taught in schools, in mixed classrooms, adopts a secularised and secularising approach, and exposes children to obscene and pornographic images.

Finally compare and contrast the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII to the teaching of the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales who in a training document for teachers say that an “exalted form of love exists just as powerfully in relationships between people of the same sex as it does in heterosexual relationships”

Returning to the synods on the family which took place in Rome in 2015, and in the previous year:

In the interim report [the Relatio post discepatationem] of the Extraordinary Synod of 2014 and in the preparatory document, the Instrumentum Laboris, of the Ordinary Synod in 2015 there were passages that suggested that homosexual unions, while not equal to marriage, nonetheless have some degree of legitimacy. The synod fathers, bishops from around the world, rejected this approach: no such passages are found in the final reports of either synod.

The rejected approach however was reintroduced in Amoris Laetitia, The Joy of Love, Pope Francis’s post synodal apostolic exhortation, which states, in paragraph 52, that:

“We need to acknowledge the great variety of family situations that can offer a certain stability, but de facto or same-sex unions, may not simply be equated with marriage.”

This implies:

(i) that “same-sex unions” are one of the “great variety of family situations”

(ii) that “same-sex unions” offer a “certain stability” and

(iii) that “same-sex unions” can be “equated” with marriage on some level, albeit not “simply”.

Furthermore paragraph 52 of Amoris Laetitia states that “only the exclusive and indissoluble union between a man and a woman has a plenary role to play in society as a stable commitment that bears fruit in new life.” To state that only marriage has a “plenary role” essentially means that other forms of union do have some role to play in society.

On 19th September 2016, four cardinals, the Italian Carlo Caffarra, American Raymond Burke and Germans Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner — sent  five questions, called dubia (Latin for “doubts”) to Pope Francis and to Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), on Sept. 19, along with an accompanying letter. The cardinals said their aim was to clarify “contrasting interpretations” of Paragraphs 300-305 in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, relating to admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments, and the Church’s moral teaching.

Dubia are formal questions brought before the Pope and the CDF aimed at eliciting a “Yes” or “No” response, “without theological argumentation.” The practice is a long-standing way of addressing the Apostolic See, geared towards achieving clarity on Church teaching.

In a lecture delivered in 2017 Professor Roberto De Mattei, the distinguished Italian historian, commented powerfully on Pope Francis’s Amoris Laetitia and the dubia issued by the four cardinals the previous year: 

“At Fatima, Our Lady showed the three little shepherds the terrifying vision of hell where the souls of poor sinners go, and it was revealed to Jacinta that it was sins against purity that lead most souls to hell. Who could possibly have imagined one hundred years later that the public profession of impurity would have been added to the immense number of impure sins that are committed, under the form of sexual liberation and the introduction of extramatiral unions, even homosexual, into the laws of the most important nations of the West?

“And who could have ever imagined that a pontifical document – Pope Francis’s Postsynodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, issued on April 8, 2016 – would endorse adultery? The divine and natural law does not admit exceptions. Those who allow the exception destroy the rule. In one of the dubia addressed by the cardinals to the pope we read: “After Amoris Laetitia n. 301, is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3 – 9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin?” The fact that today a doubt of this sort can be presented to the pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith indicates how very grave and deep is the crisis in which the Church is immersed.”

What do Catholic parents do when Popes disagree on sex education, on adultery, on homosexual relationships? 

The answer must surely be that parents must reflect on Catholic doctrine on faith and morals, as revealed in the scriptures, particularly in the Gospel, and as revealed by sacred tradition, that is the teachings of the Apostles, as transmitted faithfully from one generation to the next, at times infallibly, from the time of Christ.

What a blessing it is for parents, then, to hear the words of Christ in St Matthew’s Gospel (Chapter 11, verses 25 and 26): “At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, because thou has hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them to little ones. Yea, Father: for so hath it seemed good in thy sight.”

Parents today are not for the most part theological scholars – and they never have been since the time of Christ. However, countless unlearned, but faithful Catholic parents both know and can confidently affirm, without fear of being contradicted by any authority in this world or the next, that God’s commandment “Honour thy Father and thy Mother”, reaffirmed by God the Son during his life on earth, establishes for all time that parents are the primary educators and protectors of their children.

Faithful, unlearned, Catholic parents are also fully capable of understanding Christ’s words concerning giving scandal to children: “ … he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea”. Catholic parents know, and Catholic fathers in particular must remind their bishops that these words provide a terrible warning to those, including Catholic bishops, who promote the showing of pornographic images in the classroom to children young and old and who allow false ideas about human sexuality, including homosexuality, to be taught in the classroom.

In praying for our bishops this weekend, let me conclude by recalling once more the teaching of the archbishops and bishops of England and Wales in their pastoral letter to be read out in all churches and chapels of England and Wales on the third Sunday after Easter, in 1944:

“To the question whether the method called ‘sexual education’ or even ‘sexual initiation’ could be approved, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, on 21st March, 1931, replied ‘in the negative’, and directed that ‘the method of educating youth employed by the Church and holy men in the past, and commended by Pope Pius XI in the encyclical on ‘The Christian Education of Youth’, 31st December 1929, must be preserved’. The method commended by the Pope, in the encyclical referred to, is clear. In this extremely delicate matter’ says the Holy Father, ‘if all things considered, some individual instruction is found necessary and opportune from those who hold from God the commission to educate and who the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education.’ These words, taken in conjunction with the decree of the Holy Office, leave no room to doubt that the Church is opposed to collective or public sex education with or without supposed ‘safeguards’. She teaches that, in place of such methods, of sex education, ‘care must be taken, in the first place, to give a full, firm, and uninterrupted religious instruction to youth of both sexes; that an esteem and desire for and love of the angelic virtue be instilled into them; that they shall be urged, especially, to be instant in prayer, assiduous in the reception of the sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist; that they shall cultivate a filial devotion to the Blessed Virgin, Mother of holy purity, and place themselves under her protection; and that they shall carefully avoid dangerous reading, immodest shows, bad company, and all occasions of sin’.

I’m pleased to tell you that Voice of the Family has taken up the challenge to which the Catholic bishops of England and Wales referred in 1944. Voice of the Family aims to help parents “to give a full, firm, and uninterrupted religious instruction to youth of both sexes”. Next month, 13th October, sees the launch of an entire video catechism course filled with sacred art and music so that your family can have the opportunity to be formed by the timeless truths of the Catholic faith.


  catholic, parents in defence of primary educators, pope francis, sex ed, sex education

Opinion

Cardinal Burke: Parents have a moral obligation to oppose school curriculum contrary to moral law

The cardinal reflected in his talk about the rights of parents as primary educators of their children and the obligation of parents to oppose a curriculum contrary to the moral law
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 3:03 pm EST
Featured Image
Steve Jalsevac / LifeSiteNews
Cardinal Raymond Burke
By Cardinal Raymond Burke

Editor’s note: The following talk was given as part of an online conference title “Fathers’ Call to Bishops: Help us to defend our children’s purity.” The virtual event was organized by Voice of the Family and made available via LifeSiteNews on October 9, 2020.

October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – It pleases me very much to assist Voice of the Family in its noble work of promoting the sound doctrine and discipline of the Church regarding marriage and its incomparable fruit: the family. In particular, I am pleased to address the critical issue of education which is the essential mission of the family and a fundamental expression of our culture.

It cannot escape the attention of any thoughtful person that education today is under a ferocious attack. In both education and law, as fundamental expressions of our culture, we witness the abandonment of the understanding of human nature and of conscience by which God calls us to respect the truth of nature and to live in accord with that truth in pure and selfless love.

Saint Paul, in his Letter to the Ephesians, referring to the alienation of man from God and, therefore, from the world, declared:

But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. (1)

It is Christ alone Who opens the understanding and animates the heart to embrace the truth and to live it in love. Educators, therefore, cooperating with parents, lead children to know Christ and to follow Him in all things, and thus lead them to the peace which is the desire of every human heart. Education, both in the home and in the school, opens the eyes of the child to contemplate the mystery of God’s love for us in the sending of His only-begotten Son in our human flesh and in the sending of His Holy Spirit into our souls, the great fruit of the Redemptive Incarnation.

Parents who in the past have depended upon schools to assist them in raising their children to be true citizens of heaven and earth, good members of the Church and good members of civil society, find some schools to be places of indoctrination in atheistic materialism with its concurrent relativism. Such schools, in fact, attempt to destroy the education received in the home regarding the most fundamental truths: the truth regarding the inviolable dignity of innocent human life, the integrity of human sexuality and of marriage, and the irreplaceability of the relationship of man with God or of holy religion. What is more, when parents rightly try to safeguard their children from such a nihilistic ideology, these schools attempt to force the indoctrination upon their children in a totalitarian manner.

Sadly, some Catholic schools, for a variety of reasons, mimic the situation in non-Catholic schools by insisting upon the anti-life, anti-family, and anti-religion ideology which marks education, in general. The latter situation is particularly pernicious, for parents send their children to a Catholic school, trusting that it will be truly Catholic, when, in fact, it is nothing of the sort. The operation of such schools under the name of Catholic is a profound injustice to families.

At the root of the deplorable cultural situation in which we find ourselves is the loss of a sense of nature and of conscience. Pope Benedict XVI addressed this loss, in respect of the foundations of law, in his address to the German Parliament, the Bundestag, during his Pastoral Visit to Germany in September of 2011. Taking leave from the story of the young King Solomon on his accession to the throne, he recalled to political leaders the teaching of the Holy Scriptures regarding the work of politics. God asked King Solomon what request he wished to make as he began to rule God’s holy people. The Holy Father commented:

What will the young ruler ask for at this important moment? Success – wealth – long life – destruction of his enemies? He chooses none of these things. Instead, he asks for a listening heart so that he may govern God’s people, and discern between good and evil (cf. 1 Kg 3:9). (2)

The story of King Solomon, as Pope Benedict XVI observed, teaches what must be the end of political activity and, therefore, of government. He declared: “Politics must be a striving for justice, and hence it has to establish the fundamental preconditions for peace…. To serve right and to fight against the dominion of wrong is and remains the fundamental task of the politician.” (3)

Pope Benedict XVI then asked how we know the good and right which the political order and specifically the law are to safeguard and promote. While he acknowledged that in many matters “the support of the majority can serve as a sufficient criterion,” (4) he observed that such a principle is not sufficient “for the fundamental issues of law, in which the dignity of man and of humanity is at stake.” (5) Regarding the very foundations of the life of society, positive civil law must respect “nature and reason as the true sources of law.” (6) In other words, one must have recourse to the natural moral law which God has inscribed upon every human heart. I think of my own homeland, the United States of America, in which the Supreme Court of the nation has presumed to define the beginning of human life, the partnership of marriage, and human sexuality itself according to materialistic and relativistic, sentimental considerations, in defiance of the law written by God on the human heart. (7)

What Pope Benedict XVI observed regarding the foundations of law in nature and conscience points to the fundamental work of education, namely, the work of fostering in students “a listening heart” which strives to know the law of God and to respect it by development in the life of the virtues. True education aims to bring the human person “to full human and Christian maturity.” (8) Suffice it to say that parents must be vigilant that the education given to their children be coherent with the Christian education and upbringing in the home. Even as the family is essential to the transformation of culture, so also is education because of its intrinsic connection with the growth and development of the child.

The thoroughly galvanized anti-life, anti-family, and anti-religion agenda of our time advances, in large part, because of a lack of attention and information among the general public. The pervasive mass media, the powerful promoter of the agenda, confuse and corrupt minds and hearts, and dull consciences to the law written by God in nature and upon every human heart. In his Encyclical Letter on the Gospel of Life, Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II declared:

What is urgently called for is a general mobilization of consciences and a united ethical effort to activate a great campaign in support of life. All together, we must build a new culture of life: new, because it will be able to confront and solve today’s unprecedented problems affecting human life; new, because it will be adopted with deeper and more dynamic conviction by all Christians; new, because it will be capable of bringing about a serious and courageous cultural dialogue among all parties. While the urgent need for such a cultural transformation is linked to the present historical situation, it is also rooted in the Church’s mission of evangelization. The purpose of the Gospel, in fact, is “to transform humanity from within and to make it new.” Like the yeast which leavens the whole measure of dough (cf. Mt 13:33), the Gospel is meant to permeate all cultures and give them life from within, so that they may express the full truth about the human person and about human life. (9)

What Pope John Paul II affirmed about the mobilization of consciences regarding the inviolability of innocent human life surely applies as well and as strongly to the mobilization of consciences regarding the integrity of marriage and family life, and regarding the irreplaceable relationship with God, which is holy religion.

Pope John Paul II did not fail to note that such efforts must begin with “the renewal of a culture of life within Christian communities themselves.” (10) The Church herself must address the situation of so many of her members who, even though they may be active in Church activities, “end up by separating their Christian faith from its ethical requirements regarding life, and thus fall into moral subjectivism and certain objectionable ways of acting.” (11) This separation of faith from practical life is particularly devastating when it influences education. The child, who is taught to have a “listening heart,” who is naturally attuned to his conscience, to God’s law written upon his heart, is corrupted by those in whom he is led to put his trust. One only thinks of the corruption wrought by a pervasively false education in human sexuality. Parents cannot be attentive enough to the possibility of such corruption entering into what should be the education of their children.

Catholic education of children and youth is a complete education, that is, the development of reason through the competent imparting of knowledge and skills within the context of the faith through the study of God and of His plan for us and our world, as He has revealed Himself and His plan to us. Pope Pius XI, in his Encyclical Letter Divini Illius Magistri, described a Catholic or Christian education with these words:

The proper and immediate end of Christian education is to cooperate with divine grace in forming the true and perfect Christian, that is, to form Christ Himself in those regenerated by baptism, according to the emphatic expression of the Apostle: “My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you.” For the true Christian must live a supernatural life in Christ: “Christ who is your life,” and display it in all his actions: “That the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our mortal flesh.”

For precisely this reason, Christian education takes in the whole aggregate of human life, physical and spiritual, intellectual and moral, individual, domestic and social, not with a view of reducing it in any way, but in order to elevate, regulate and perfect it, in accord with the example and teaching of Christ.

Hence the true Christian, product of Christian education, is the supernatural man who thinks, judges and acts constantly and consistently in accordance with right reason illumined by the supernatural light of the example and teaching of Christ; in other words, to use the current term, the true and finished man of character. For, it is not every kind of consistency and firmness of conduct based on subjective principles that makes true character, but only constancy in following the eternal principles of justice, as it is admitted even by the pagan poet when he praises as one and the same “the man who is just and firm of purpose.” And on the other hand, there cannot be full justice except in giving to God what is due to God, as the true Christian does. (12)

It is only such a complete education which can guide our children and young people on the way of the happiness for which God has created each of us. With the help of a sound education at home and in school, children know happiness both during the days of their earthly pilgrimage and eternally at the goal of their pilgrimage which is Heaven. It is only such an education which can transform our culture.

The family is the first place of education, a truth which defines essentially the mission of the school. The school serves the family and, therefore, works intimately with the family in bringing children to ever greater maturity, to the fullness of life in Christ. Regarding Christian marriage and the family, and the mission of education, Pope Saint John Paul, in his 1981 Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Family, Familiaris Consortio, declared that “the Christian family, in fact, is the first community called to announce the Gospel to the human person during growth and to bring him or her, through a progressive education and catechesis, to full human and Christian maturity.” (13) Christian education in the family and in the school introduces children and young people, in an ever more profound way, into the Tradition, into the great gift of our life in Christ in the Church handed down to us faithfully, in an unbroken line, through the Apostles and their successors.

Education, if it is to be sound, that is, for the good of the individual and society, must be especially attentive to arm itself against the errors of secularism and relativism, lest it fail to communicate to the succeeding generations the truth, beauty and goodness of our life and of our world, as they are expressed in the unchanging teaching of the faith, in its highest expression through prayer, devotion and divine worship, and in the holiness of life of those who profess the faith and worship God “in spirit and in truth.” (14)

The Declaration on Christian Education, Gravissimum Educationis, of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, made clear that the primary responsibility for the education of children belongs to parents who rely upon sound schools to assist them in providing any part of the total education of their children, which they are not able to impart in the home. The essential good of marriage which is the gift of children includes both the procreation and the education of the child. I quote from Gravissimum Educationis:

As it is the parents who have given life to their children, on them lies the gravest obligation of educating their family. They must therefore be recognized as being primarily and principally responsible for their education. The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute. It is therefore the duty of parents to create a family atmosphere inspired by love and devotion to God and their fellow-men which will promote an integrated, personal and social education of their children. The family is therefore the principal school of the social virtues which are necessary to every society. It is therefore above all in the Christian family, inspired by the grace and the responsibility of the sacrament of matrimony, that children should be taught to know and worship God and to love their neighbor, in accordance with the faith which they have received in earliest infancy in the sacrament of Baptism. (15)

Certainly, society, in general, and the Church, in a particular way, also have a responsibility for the education of children and young people, but that responsibility must always be exercised with respect for the primary responsibility of parents.

Parents, for their part, should be fully engaged in whatever service of education is provided by society and the Church. Children and young people should not be confused or led into error by an education outside of the home which conflicts with the education given in the home. Today, parents must be especially vigilant, for some schools have become the tools of a secular agenda inimical to the Christian life. One thinks, for example, of the compulsory so-called “gender education” in some schools, which is a direct attack on human sexuality and on marriage and, therefore, on the family.

For the sake of our young people, we all must give particular attention to the fundamental expression of our culture which is education. Good parents and good citizens must be attentive to the curriculum which schools are following and to the life in the schools, in order to assure that our children are being formed in the human and Christian virtues and are not being deformed by indoctrination in the confusion and error concerning the most fundamental truths of human life, of the family, and of religion, which will lead to their slavery to sin and, therefore, profound unhappiness, and to the destruction of culture.

At the heart of a solid curriculum is both respect for the dignity of the human person and for the tradition of beauty, truth and goodness in the arts and the sciences. So often, today, a notion of tolerance of ways of thinking and acting contrary to the moral law seems to be the interpretative key for many Christians. According to this approach, one can no longer distinguish between the beautiful and the ugly, the true and the false, and the good and the evil. The approach is not securely grounded in the moral tradition, yet it tends to dominate our approach to the extent that we end up claiming to be Christian while tolerating ways of thinking and acting which are diametrically opposed to the moral law revealed to us in nature and in the Sacred Scriptures. The approach, at times, becomes so relativistic and subjective that we do not even observe the fundamental logical principle of non-contradiction, that is, that a thing cannot both be and not be in the same respect at the same time. In other words, certain actions cannot at the same time be both true to the moral law and not true to it.

In fact, charity alone must be the interpretative key of our thoughts and actions. In the context of charity, tolerance means unconditional love of the person who is involved in evil but firm abhorrence of the evil into which the person has fallen. All education should be directed to forming the students in the charity by which the mind and heart respond to the beautiful, the true, and the good, as God has created us to do.

Education which takes place first in the home and is enriched and supplemented by schools and, above all, by truly Catholic schools is directed fundamentally to the formation of good citizens and good members of the Church. Ultimately it is directed to the happiness of the individual which is found in right relationships and has its fulfilment in eternal life. It presupposes the objective nature of things to which the human heart is directed, if it is trained to be a “listening heart,” (16) that is, to follow a correctly formed conscience. It seeks an ever deeper knowledge and love of the true, the good, and the beautiful. It forms the individual to this fundamental pursuit throughout his or her lifetime.

May God inspire and strengthen parents and all of us in the work of forming “listening hearts” in our children and young people for their salvation and for the transformation of our culture. Under the maternal care of the Virgin Mother of God, may we seek and find in the Heart of Jesus the wisdom and strength to safeguard and promote the constant teaching and practice of the Church regarding human life, regarding human sexuality, marriage and the family, and regarding holy religion.

Thank you for your kind attention. May God bless you.

______

1 Eph. 2, 13-22.

2 “Was wird sich der junge Herrscher in diesem Augenblick erbitten? Erfolg – Reichtum – langes Leben – Vernictung der Feinde? Nicht um diese Dinge bittet er. Er bittet: „Verleih deinem Knecht ein hörendes Herz, damit er dein Volk zu regieren und das Gute vom Bösen zu unterscheiden versteht“ (1 Kön 3,9).” Benedictus PP. XVI, Allocutio “Iter apostolicum in Germaniam: ad Berolinensem foederatum coetum oratorum,” 22 Septembris 2011, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 103 (2011), p. 663. [Hereafter, Bundestag]. English translation: L’Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English, 28 September 2011, p. 6. [Hereafter, BundestagEng].

“Politik muss Mühen um Gerechtigkeit sein und so die Grundvoraussetzung für Frieden schaffen.… Dem Recht zu dienen und der Herrschaft des Unrechts zu wehren ist und bleibt die grundlegend Aufgabe des Politikers.” Bundestag, p. 664. English translation: BundestagEng, p. 6.

4 “...kann die Mehrheit ein genügendes Kriterium sein.” Bundestag, p. 664. English translation: BundestagEng, p. 6.

5 “...in den Grundfragen des Rechts, in denen es um die Würde des Menschen und der Menschheit geht.” Bundestag, p. 664. English translation: BundestagEng, p. 6.

6 “...Natur und Vernunft als die wahren Rechtsquellen.” Bundestag, p. 665. English translation: BundestagEng, p. 6.

7 Cf. Roe v. Wade :: 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Obergefell v. Hodges :: 576 U.S. 644 (2015); and Bostock v. Clayton County :: 590 U.S. ___ (2020).

8 “… ad plenam maturitatem humanam et christianam ....” Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Adhortatio Apostolica Familiaris Consortio, “De Familiae Christianae muneribus in mundo huius temporis,” 22 Novembris 1981, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 74 (1982), 823, n. 2. [Hereafter, FC]. English translation: Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familaris Consortio, “Regarding the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World,” 22 November 1981 (Vatican City State: Vatican Polyglot Press, 1981), p. 4, no. 2. [Hereafter, FCEng].

9 “Quam primum inducantur necesse est generalis conscientiarum motus moralisque communis nisus, qui excitare valeant validum sane opus ad vitam tuendam: omnibus nobis simul coniunctis nova exstuenda est vitae cultura: nova, quae scilicet possit hodiernas de vita hominis ineditas quaestiones suscipere atque solvere; nova, utpote quae acriore et alacriore ratione omnium christianorum conscientiam permoveat; nova demum, quae accommodata sit ad gravem animosamque culturalem suscitandam comparationem cum omnibus. Huius culturalis conversionis necessitas coniungitur cum aetatis nostrae historica rerum condicione, at praesertim inhaeret in ipso evangelizandi munere quod proprium est Ecclesiae. Evangelium enim eo spectat «ut perficiat interiorem mutationem» et «humanitatem novam efficiat»; est velut fermentum quo pasta tota fermentatur (cfr Mt 13, 33), atque, qua tale, perfundere debet omnes culturas easque intus pervadere, ut integram declarent de homine deque eius vita veritatem.” Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Litterae encyclicae Evangelium vitae, “De vitae humanae inviolabili bono”, 25 Martii 1995, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 87 (1995), 509, n. 95. [Hereafter, EV] English translation: Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, “On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life,” 25 March 1995 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1995), pp. 168-169, no. 95. [Hereafter, EVEng].

10 “… vitae cultura renovanda intra ipsas christianas communitates.” EV, 509, n. 95. English translation: EVEng, p. 169, no. 95.

11 “… seiunctionem quandam inferunt inter christianam fidem eiusque moralia circa vitam postulata, progredientes hac ratione ad moralem quendam subiectivismum adque vivendi mores qui probari non possunt.” EV, 509-510, n. 95. English translation: EVEng, p. 169, no. 95.

12 “Eo proprie ac proxime intendit christiana educatio, ut, divina cum gratia conspirando, germanum atque perfectum christianum efficiat hominem: ut Christum scilicet ipsum exprimat atque effingat in illis qui sint Baptismate renati, ad illud Apostoli vividum: «Filioli mei, quos iterum parturio, donec formetur Christus in vobis». Vitam enim supernaturalem germanus christianus vivere debet in Christo: «Christus, vita vestra», eandemque in omnibus rebus gerendis manifestare «ut et vita Iesu manifestetur in carne nostra mortali».

Quae cum ita sint, summam ipsam humanorum actuum, quod attinet ad efficentiam sensuum et spiritus, ad intellectum et ad mores, ad singulos et ad societatem domesticam atque civilem, christiana educatio totam complectitur, non autem ut vel minime exenuet, verum ut secundum Iesu Christi exempla et doctrinam extollat, regat, perficiat.

Itaque verus christianus, christiana educatione conformatus, alius non est ac supernaturalis homo, qui sentit, iudicat, constanter sibique congruenter operatur, ad rectam rationem, exemplis doctrinaque Iesu Christi supernaturaliter collustratam: scilicet, homo germana animi firmitate insignis. Neque enim quisquis sibi consentit et sui propriique tenax propositi agit, is solido ingenio est, sed unus ille qui aeternas iustitiae rationes sequitur, ut agnovit ethnicus ipse poëta, «iustum» una simul «et tenacem propositi virum» extollens; quae, ceterum, iustitiae rationes integre servari nequeunt, nisi Deo tribuatur – ut fit a vero christiano – quidquid Deo debetur.” Pius PP. XI, Litterae Encyclicae Divini Illius Magistri, “De Christiana iuventutis educatione,” 31 Decembris 1929, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 22 (1930), 83. English translation: Five Great Encyclicals, ed. Gerald G. Treacy (New York: The Paulist Press, 1939), pp. 64-65.

13 “… christiana enim familia est prima communitas, cuius est Evangelium personae humanae crescent annuntiare eamque progrediente educatione et catechesi ad plenam maturitatem humanam et christianam perducere.” FC, 823, n. 2. English translation: FCEng, p. 4, no. 2.

14 Jn 4, 24.

15 “Parentes, cum vitam filiis contulerint, prolem educandi gravissima obligatione tenentur et ideo primi et praecipui eorum educatores agnoscendi sunt. Quod munus educationis tanti ponderis est ut, ubi desit, aegre suppleri possit. Parentum enim est talem familiae ambitum amore, pietate erga Deum et homines animatum creare qui integrae filiorum educationi personali et sociali faveat. Familia proinde est prima schola virtutum socialium quibus indigent omnes societates. Maxime vero in christiana familia, matrimonii sacramenti gratia et officio ditata, filii iam a prima aetate secundum fidem in baptismo receptam Deum percipere et colere atque proximum diligere doceantur oportet; ...” Sacrosanctum Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II, Declarato Gravissimum educationis, “De Educatione Christiana,” 28 Octobris 1965, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 58 (1966), 731, n. 3. English translation: Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, new rev. ed. (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Company, 1992), pp. 728-729, no. 3.

16 1 Kgs 3, 9.


  catholic, education, parental rights, parental rights in education, raymond burke, schools

Opinion

Why pro-lifers must accept only unconditional surrender from the Left in battle against Roe

Pro-lifers must reject the Left’s white flag over Roe v. Wade
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 12:10 pm EST
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
John Horvat II
By

October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – For those who have fought in the trenches against Roe v. Wade for decades, it is surprising to see a little white flag poking up on the horizon. So much has been poured into the herculean effort to take that bloody hill—prayers, sacrifice, one on one counseling to dissuade those seeking an abortion. Everyone said it was hopeless to struggle against legalized abortion. But now, some feminists are raising the white flag. They are admitting defeat and saying it is time to give up on Roe v. Wade

There is no question that it’s a significant battle to win, even if the war continues raging. Considering what Roe v. Wade means to the American and worldwide left, however, the news is encouraging to those who defend life—and devastating to those who don’t. 

A Painful and Reluctant Surrender

In an op-ed in The New York Times, University of California law professor Joan C. Williams makes a rare concession of failure from the pro-abortion side.  She says that “the left has already lost the abortion fight reflects the fact that there’s no abortion clinic in 90 percent of American counties. This is the result of the highly successful death-by-a-thousand-cuts anti-abortion strategy, which has piled on restriction after restriction to make abortion inaccessible.”

The author admits that sacrificing Roe would be a painful and reluctant surrender. It remains to be seen if the left will actually concede. However, this admission of defeat lets the pro-life side see the dire straits inside the Roe garrison trapped on the hill. 

Regardless of the outcome, the left is looking to salvage what it can, and think beyond Roe. Pro-lifers need to do the same by following up on their “highly successful” past offensives with new strategies—and new victories.  

The Left’s Reasons for Accepting Defeat

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

The logic behind Prof. Williams’ op-ed is that not only has the abortion issue frustrated the left, but it has also energized the right. The conservative coalitions’ paths to victory over the decades have coalesced around the abortion issue. The presidential elections and Supreme Court justice picks increasingly revolve around Roe v Wade, whipping up great passion and votes among pro-lifers, even among youth. The left cannot match the right’s passion and ends up losing elections and momentum. 

She argues that access to abortion is already dismal. Giving up Roe v. Wade will not dramatically change the present situation. However, it could deflate the emotionally charged situation and allow pro-abortion forces to shift from confrontational strategies to a dialogue where everyone will gradually accept abortion. 

The Ginsburg Assessment 

Prof. Williams recommends the counsels of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who declared in a 1992 talk that Roe was a mistake because it introduced conflict into the debate. The late justice noted that the state legislatures were already tending to liberalize their abortion statutes back in the early seventies. When the rigid Roe decision stormed onto the scene, dialogue stopped, and “a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction.”

Prof. Williams thinks that a small white flag on the battlefield could open space for a negotiating table. A post-Roe world could return things to the status quo ante and push individual states toward liberalizing their abortion statutes. She hopes the move might also unravel the conservative coalitions by taking away its unifying principle. Feminists might find common ground on other social issues that favor the left.

A Strategy that Must Be Rejected

The left’s strategy is clear. It can no longer deal with the growing by the day pro-life firepower that is pounding away at crumbling fortress Roe. A softer approach is needed to weaken pro-life activists’ unconditional stand against abortion. Insinuated inside this plan is the need for the left to buy itself time for the corrosive power of the sexual revolution to continue wreaking havoc upon the younger generations. 

“Dialoguing” with pro-lifers does not mean discussing the issue civilly. It means carrying on the abortion battle by other means. It calls for getting people to accept abortion under the guise of peaceful coexistence and discussion.    

New Counter-Strategies  

If the left surrenders Roe v. Wade, the pro-life movement must adopt new counter-strategies. There are three things that life activists must do to sidestep the left’s traps and secure new victories.

The first thing is to continue to be the same “well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement.” When procured abortion is sent back to the states after Roe’s defeat, the pro-life movement must meet it there with the same prayerful determination and grit that it has always shown. The movement must reject any dialogue that does not include the left’s unconditional surrender of abortion in all its forms.  

The second thing is to go on the offensive against the sexual revolution, which is devastating the family and society and triggers so many abortions. The movement has done well to deny access to abortion to vast parts of the country. It must now follow-up on this victory by using the same resolve to fight our immoral and impure culture, fashions and entertainment industry that corrupts the morals of countless Americans, leading millions to the mortal sin of fornication, and, later on, abortion.  

Finally, the pro-life movement must remain focused on the religious dimension of the abortion battle. This religious focus allows the movement to inspire and motivate its members and guarantee its success. Members are not just fighting for political change but for the eternal salvation of countless souls: fathers, mothers, children, doctors, nurses, and . . . even politicians. The pro-life movement trusts in God’s help, its true strength.  

Unconditional Surrender Is the Only Acceptable Choice

The left can never understand this final point because they do not believe in sin, grace, eternal life, or God acting in history. Thus, Prof. Williams’ analysis contains wishful thinking by thinking there is room for dialogue. The feminist perspective sees things from a purely secular, naturalistic and postmodern perspective without any moral meaning or purpose. 

Thus, the pro-abortion perspective can never understand that the pro-life movement’s motivation has nothing in common with the pro-abortion world’s narrow selfishness. The pro-abortion side cannot grasp the idea that when the fate of immortal souls is at stake, there can be no compromise. 

The pro-life movement must reject the dialogue maneuver as a sign of weakness from an enemy that admits, “The left has already lost the abortion fight.” 

It’s nice seeing a white flag on the horizon. Prof. Williams says that while she resists the “overrule and move on” strategy, “moving on may be our only choice.” Regardless of the left’s change in strategy, the pro-life movement must confide in God and send back the message that a small white flag is not enough. Unconditional surrender is the only acceptable choice. 

John Horvat II is a scholar, researcher, educator, international speaker, and author of the book Return to Order, as well as the author of hundreds of published articles. He lives in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania where he is the vice president of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.


  2020 election, abortion, amy coney barrett, roe v. wade, us supreme court

Blogs

Cardinal of pro-Pope Francis ‘St. Gallen’ group also covered up sex abuse: experts

The accusations shine a light on the 'St. Gallen Group,' a cabal of bishops who have long striven to liberalize the Church.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 9:04 pm EST
Featured Image
The late Cdl. Karl Lehmann. Sean Gallup / Getty Images
Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike
By Maike Hickson

October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Cardinal Karl Lehmann, one of the members of the so-called “Sankt Gallen Group,” has now been accused by experts of having covered up for abuse cases in his diocese of Mainz, Germany. Together with his predecessor Hermann Volk, Lehmann, who died in 2018, is accused of moving priests who were accused of sexual abuse into other parishes. “Clear indications in the parishes were ignored and played down,” according to Ulrich Weber, the head of the new Mainz abuse study.

On Wednesday, October 7, Weber, together with the current bishop of Mainz, Peter Kohlgraf, presented the interim results of his study that the diocese had started in 2019. Weber is a lawyer who had previously investigated the choir of the Regensburg singers. This Mainz study is to be published in 2020 and covers all abuse cases since 1945 up to 2019. So far, there have been found 422 victims and 273 accused persons in the diocese, but further research and confirmation of the accusations need to be done.

It is clear that under both Volk and Lehmann, “the diocesan leadership often did not have an adequate response to relevant reports,” Weber explained during a press conference, according to the Catholic website Domradio. Even severe accusations of abuse merely led to small sanctions on the part of the diocese. In addition, if one of the accused priests was sent to another diocese, no information was passed on concerning his deeds. Victims, abusers, and those who informed the diocese about sexual abuse were also instructed to remain silent. Weber added that the personnel files were kept in such a way that they contributed to the obfuscation of the abuse cases.

Karl Lehmann was the bishop of Mainz from 1983 until 2016; his predecessor, Hermann Volk, had ruled the diocese from 1962 until 1982. Volk, like Lehmann, was a progressivist theologian and had participated at the Second Vatican Council, promoting the idea of ecumenism and friendship with Protestants. Lehmann served as an assistant to Father Karl Rahner at the Second Vatican Council. These two men were responsible for this mishandling of abuse cases for more than fifty years.

According to the report of the local newspaper Allgemeine Zeitung, Weber insisted that both Lehmann and Volk are to be accused of “misconduct with regard to cases of sexual violence.” In one case, one paid the legal costs for an abuser, Weber explained, and in another, one downplayed the gravity of the actual sexual abuse. “Often, the response to abuse cases was to place the abuser priest into another parish.” This took place even when the “pedophile inclinations were already the object of conversations in the city,” he added.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Another report of the Allgemeine Zeitung quotes Weber as pointing out that Cardinal Lehmann, after new guidelines concerning sexual abuse were established in 2002, followed them. He was the bishop of Mainz from 1983 until 2016. But Weber asked: “How can it be that the diocesan leadership for the first time responded to incidents [of sexual abuse] after there was pressure on the part of the public and in the meda?” He added: “How can it be that over such a long period of time, there was no palpable and authentic compassion for the victims?”

Kohlgraf was praised by Weber as fully cooperating in the investigation of the history of sexual abuse in the diocese, and Kohlgraf himself said the task is now to face earlier mistakes that took place under the prominent former bishops Volk and Lehmann. “We will not avoid responding to this task. In this regard, there exists no taboo in the diocese.”

Cardinal Lehmann was a member of the so-called Sankt Gallen Group that sought to liberalize the Catholic Church, loosening the Church’s stance on the question of “remarried” divorcés, a so-called female priesthood, and sexual morality. They also wished to promote collegiality and ecumenism, topics that were highlighted at the Second Vatican Council.

Lehmann is not the only member of the Sankt Gallen Group being accused of mishandling sexual abuse. Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor was accused by a British woman of having abused her, and he was also shown to have allowed an abuser priest to work in an airport chapel, where he went on abusing a teenage boy with learning disabilities. Murphy O’Connor treated another abuser priest in a similarly lenient way.

Finally, the prominent Sankt Gallen member Cardinal Godfried Danneels was caught on tape counseling the nephew of Belgian bishop Roger Vangheluwe, who had abused him, to remain silent and not to bring charges against his uncle.

These examples clearly show that a laxening of the Church's doctrinal and moral teachings leads to a laxer response to sin. In this case, this attitude of leniency toward sin had grave effects on many victims of sexual abuse.


  germany, karl lehmann, sex abuse crisis, st. gallen mafia

Blogs

Kamala Harris’s debate performance was shot through with falsehoods

My mind is still reeling from the sheer number of false or misleading statements that Joe Biden’s running mate made in her debate against Vice President Mike Pence Tuesday night.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 8:44 pm EST
Featured Image
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). Alex Wong / Getty Images
Steven Mosher Steven Mosher Follow Steven
By Steven Mosher

October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — My mind is still reeling from the sheer number of false or misleading statements that Joe Biden’s running mate, Kamala Harris, made in her debate against Vice President Mike Pence on Tuesday night. I counted 24. But I have to admit that it’s entirely possible I missed some, they came so fast and furious.

The first fabrication to escape from Harris’s lips is one that we often hear from the Biden campaign — namely, that “the president said [the coronavirus] was a hoax.”

Except he didn’t. Nearly everyone acknowledges this by now except the Biden campaign. It has been debunked by the media at least eight times, including by outlets that are no friends of the president, such as The Washington Post and CNN

But Harris was just getting started.

Hot on the heels of her first coronavirus whopper came the next. As Mike Pence looked on incredulously, she said: “And in spite of all [that’s happened], they still don't have a plan. They still don't have a plan.”

Anyone who has lived in America the past six months knows that President Trump put the entire government on a semi-war footing to deal with the pandemic. The vice president, who chaired the coronavirus task force and led the whole-of-government response from the beginning, knows this better than anyone. He easily swatted away Harris’s accusation with a torrent of facts about PPE, testing kits, therapeutics, and vaccines.

Harris apparently thought better of continuing her coronavirus attack, because she then switched gears to attack Trump for not...rebuilding America’s infrastructure. The president, she said, had not “invest[ed] in infrastructure, something that Donald Trump said he would do. I remember hearing about some infrastructure week. I don’t think it ever happened.”

Of course the California senator knows — even if most Americans don’t — that President Trump released an infrastructure plan more than two years ago. America’s master builder has repeatedly included proposals in his budget to rebuild America’s roads, bridges, ports, and railroads, only to have them ignored by Congress.

Why? Because the Nancy Pelosis, Jerry Nadlers, and Adam Schiffs of the world were too busy trying to investigate, indict, and impeach the president to worry about America’s crumbling infrastructure — or much of anything else for that matter.

Harris next tried class warfare, claiming that “Donald Trump ... measures the strength of the economy based on how rich people are doing, which is why he passed a tax bill benefiting the top 1 percent and the biggest corporations of America[.]”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Even The New York Times blew up this claim, pointing out that the average American saved over $1,250 as a result of President Trump’s tax cuts, while the average family of four saw a tax cut of $2,000.

But Harris wasn’t done.

She admitted that Biden planned to impose a $4-trillion tax hike on the American people but claimed that “the truth and the fact is” that this would affect only the very rich. “Joe Biden has been very clear: he will not raise taxes on anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year.”

Actually, “the truth and the fact is” that reversing Trump’s tax cuts — which is what Biden intends to do — will raise taxes on 82 percent of Americans. Tens of millions of Americans making less than $400,000 a year will see their taxes go up.

But Harris slogged on, telling one tall tale after another.

  • She claimed that “the American people know that Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact. That is a fact.” But the “fact” is that Biden has repeatedly expressed support for wiping out fracking, the fossil fuel industry, and the jobs they support. He insisted in a debate last year that there would be “no place” for fossil fuels, including fracking, in a Biden presidency, and that fossil fuels would be “eliminated.”
  • She claimed that “[Trump] has referred to our men who are serving in our military as suckers and losers.” But the Atlantic hit piece that made this ridiculous claim has been refuted by at least 14 officials who were on the trip to France with President Trump. No one who knows him doubts his deep respect for the military.
  • Asked whether a Biden-Harris administration would pack the Supreme Court, she, like Biden, simply refused to answer. However, she is on record as saying she is open to the idea.

And so it went for ninety long minutes.

The day after the debate, Joe Biden took to Twitter to praise his running mate, saying:

She chose truth over lies.

She chose hope and unity over fear and division.

She showed America what true leadership looks like

— and I couldn't be prouder.

It struck me as a clumsy effort at damage control.

Because what tens of millions of Americans heard was the opposite. They saw someone choosing to lie rather than tell the truth, someone who was deliberately sowing fear and division, especially over the coronavirus, rather than hope and unity.

It’s no wonder that support for the Harris-Biden ticket is strongest among voters under 30, who think in sound bites, and whose attention span is only as long as the next tweet.

Kamala Harris’s reckless disregard for the truth is really reflective of a deep disdain for her audience. Whoever prepped her for the debate obviously regards American voters as people who think in sound bites, and whose attention span lasts only as long as the next tweet — a people who are naïve, ignorant, and easily manipulated.

That’s actually how Communist Chinese Party officials view Americans as well. Perhaps it’s a leftist thing.

Steven W. Mosher is the president of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order.


  2020 election, kamala harris, mike pence

Blogs

How should Christians vote? Bishop Barron, Never-Trumpers muddy the waters

Prominent faith leaders and 'conservative' voices are obscuring the choices Catholics and other people of faith face in the rapidly approaching presidential election.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 8:37 pm EST
Featured Image
Bp. Robert Barron, auxiliary of Los Angeles. Bishop Robert Barron / YouTube
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Robert Barron has joined a small chorus of prominent faith leaders and “conservative” voices obscuring the clear choices Catholics and other people of faith face in the rapidly approaching presidential election.

And while their chorus is indeed small — mostly high-profile “Never Trump” academics — they have large megaphones with which to spread their confused, off-key messages.    

Barron published a murky, equivocating commentary on what he describes as the “intense dilemma” Catholics face with regard to their vote. 

For pro-life Chrisitians, there is no “intense dilemma,” as explained with uncompromising clarity by Bishop Joseph Strickland, Fr. James Altman, and others.

“Which of the two parties is more ‘Catholic’?” asked the Los Angeles auxiliary bishop. “It seems to me impossible to adjudicate the question in the abstract.”

“A Catholic in good conscience could never say that she will vote for Joe Biden because the Democrat is pro-choice, and by the same token, a Catholic in good conscience could never say that he will vote for Donald Trump because the Republican is for capital punishment,” asserted Barron.

“In the political calculus of a Catholic, opposition to abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment should take pride of place,” said Barron, finally allowing that “the number of those threatened by abortion and euthanasia is far greater than the number of those under threat of capital punishment.”

However, by the end, the vagueness of Barron’s commentary overwhelms this glimmer of moral clarity. The choice is not “impossible to adjudicate,” “political calculus,” or “complicated politically.” It is crystal-clear.

Barron is not the only one muddying the waters

“To vote for a candidate for president is to have an infinitesimal effect on the outcome of the election, but to wholly determine whom one wills to be president,” asserted Ramesh Ponnuru and Prof. Robert P. George, writing at National Review

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Ponnuru is a senior editor of National Review. Prof. George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and the director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. 

Their assertion echoes the words of Matthew Franck, whose animosity toward Donald Trump was so great that in 2016 that Franck urged, “Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever — except the shape of your own character.”

Franck is also associate director of the James Madison Program and lecturer in politics at Princeton University, working alongside Prof. George. 

“Neither of us has endorsed Donald Trump,” admitted Ponnuru and George. “Both of us have been intensely critical of him on issues of personal character and, in some cases, public policy.”

These two towering figures in the world of concervative Catholicism then offered cover for Catholics to vote the “pro–abortion up until the moment of birth” Democratic ticket, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris:

We do not claim, as some have claimed, that Catholics and other pro-life citizens have an obligation to cast their ballot for him. The premises of the argument against abortion do not by themselves compel such a stance. People who share the view that the abortion license is a profound injustice on a massive scale that must be resolutely opposed can reach different conclusions about whether Trump deserves their vote.

Professors George and Franck are senior fellows at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey. Witherspoon’s weekdaily publication, Public Discourse, recently ran a series of short essays by Catholic and Evangelical thinkers offering a “variety of perspectives on the difficult prudential question of how social conservatives should vote this November.” 

And although, according to the editors at Public Discourse, “these authors all share a core commitment to Biblical and natural law morality,” three of the four were Never-Trumpers, rolling out the red carpet for Public Discourse’s conservatice Christian readers to vote for Biden-Harris:  

Christian Witness Demands That We Defend Truth — and Reject Donald Trump,” blared the headline for Dr. O. Alan Noble’s article. 

“To support Trump would require me to support four more years of epistemological chaos,” said Noble, associate professor of English at Oklahoma Baptist University and editor-in-chief of Christ and Pop Culture. “To vote for four more years of this is to welcome and condone the further decay of our nation, and to accept the use of unmitigated propaganda.”

Brandon McGinley offered “A Christian case for not voting for either presidential candidate in 2020.

“The options this November, and the trajectories they promise, are not acceptable, and in choosing between them we risk forsaking our calling by soiling our witness,” said McGinley. 

Charles C. Camosy, associate professor of theology at Jesuit-run Fordham University, then offered a rationale for voting for the American Solidarity Party, which begins with an unself-conscious litany of unsubstantiated accusations:

Donald Trump is totally incompetent at running the executive branch, a coddler of dictators, and an excuser of the Chinese genocide of Muslims. He gives comfort to racists and has lived his life as a disgusting sexist. I agree with Bishop Flores of Brownsville, Texas that his immigration policies constitute cooperation with intrinsic evil. He is now so associated with pro-life, anti-abortion activism and religious liberty that it will take decades for these movements to recover, particularly among young people.

We should, therefore, not vote for Trump-Pence.

Even the sole essay offering support — tepid support at best — for President Trump’s re-election bears the half-hearted headline, “Donald Trump and Our Heritage: Confessions of an Anti-Anti-Trumper.”

“‘Can this appallingly immature and vicious person really be my president?!’ I thought, as I rubbed my eyes,” wonders Ralph Hancock, professor of political science at Brigham Young University, in his opening paragraph.   

Splitting the religious conservative vote for Trump to elect Biden/Harris

“Our friends at Public Discourse ... are acting as if their goal is to split the religious conservative vote for Trump so that they can get Biden/Harris elected,” wrote Prof. Robert Gagnon in a searing critique posted on Facebook.

“They did a little symposium of articles, free of critique, on the coming presidential election in which 3 of the 4 invited contributors were variations of Never-Trumpism. Yet they didn't find that imbalanced, apparently. Getting Biden/Harris in the White House may not be their goal; but it sure is the effect,” continued Gagnon, professor of New Testament theology at Houston Baptist University and former associate professor of the New Testament at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

“This isn't even balanced from a neutral perspective, let alone sensible given what's at stake,” said Gagnon. “Apparently they think this is a nice academic exercise without devastating consequences for Christians should Biden/Harris get in power.”

“What a disappointment,” he declared.

What is up with our once famed conservative Christian thinkers?

Grassroots conservative Catholics and Evangelicals — those kneeling in the pews, not standing behind lecterns at prestigious universities — have become, quite remarkably, clearer thinkers than many in the hand-wringing conservatives of the academic and media class. 

Their contrived justifications for voting for anyone but President Trump fail to hide their naked, seething contempt for him.

They’ve discredited themselves, condemning the non-egghead pro-life, pro–marriage and family Christians who plan to vote for the President’s re-election for having soiled souls, while their souls are spotless.

Although they’ve assiduously avoided using the term, like Hillary Clinton, they regard trump supporters as “Deplorables.”


  2020 election, catholic, christianity, donald trump, nevertrump, ramesh ponnuru, robert barron, robert george

Blogs

The other global pandemic: the sexualization of our children, helped by bishops

LifeSite’s John-Henry Westen explains how bishops are responsible for sex education taking away childrens’ innocence at Catholic schools.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 5:01 pm EST
Featured Image
John-Henry Westen at the 2020 Acies Ordinata event in Munich, Germany LifeSiteNews
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

Editor’s note: The following talk was given as part of an online conference title “Fathers’ Call to Bishops: Help us to defend our children’s purity.The virtual event was organized by Voice of the Family and made available via LifeSiteNews on October 9, 2020.

October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — We have reached the final stage of sexualization of children. The agenda is no longer hidden in the shadows and concealed. It is openly stated, published, even lauded. Legislation has been passed demonstrating the agenda for all to see. The corruption of our children by the satanic horde has been accomplished not despite the best efforts of true shepherds of the Church, but, I hate to say it, with the collusion of the vast majority of those who call themselves the successors of the apostles.

Modesty and innocence, custody of the eyes, and temperance have been almost completely ignored by the hierarchy. They have paid attention to the “authorities” of the world — the psychologists, psychiatrists, and sex experts of the same ilk that led them to the clergy sexual abuse crisis and cover-up in the first place.

The hierarchy has entered into politics and played political games. Anarchists have maintained the constant demand for total destruction of the family; their henchmen in politics have moved the needle slowly toward that perverse agenda of sexualization of our children; and the vast majority of bishops have given in, little by little, thinking they were doing their best to hold the line with only little compromises here and there. I’m not even speaking here of the radical left bishops such as Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich who has encouraged the LGBT indoctrination of Catholics. Even conservative Cardinals such as Toronto’s Cardinal Thomas Collins, after negotiating with politicians who were demanding adherence to the LGBT ideology and threatening the removal of public funds from Catholic schools, caved in to allow for and in fact invite all Catholic high schools to have gay-straight alliance clubs under the aegis of non-discrimination.

Politics is described as the art of compromise. But there is no compromise with the truth. The successors of the apostles were given the unwelcome and unpopular task of demanding adherence to the fullness of the truth in a society where that would have been met with ridicule and charges of extremeness. 

But the desire to please the world, to cozy up to modern ideas, to be “open” to the modern world were so enticing that compromise with the truth was permitted.

The instruction on modest dress for women laid out by Pope Pius XII is never mentioned. The counsel to practice custody of the eyes is never taught. The age of innocence of children is savaged in Catholic schools by order of the bishops themselves — even over the objection of parents. So we fathers are here to say to the bishops: “Enough!”

Your compromises have gravely harmed our children, and it is time to repent. You have seen the statistics — the world has never been worse. There are more people who view pornography regularly today then there were people alive in 1917, when Our Lady  warned that more people go to hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason. A 2008 study found that ninety-three percent of boys aged 17 and under and 62% of girls the same age were exposed to online pornography during adolescence, and that was 2008, when the internet was relatively innocent compared to what it has become in the last dozen years.

Bishops and the Catholic school teachers in their dioceses decided to “educate” children as young as kindergarten about the parts of the body in an “open and honest” way. Naturally, these young children, when exposed to this so-called education, would be curious and ask further questions, awakening a curiosity that need not be there for years.

The age-old wisdom of the Church was once upon a time psychologically backed, recognizing an innocence to which all parents who have raised multiple children can attest if those precious little ones have not been poisoned by pornography or sex education.

Parents know when their children are ready for education in the area of sexuality. The readiness for such information varies with each child — as parents know! The one-size-fits-all mandatory sex ed in classrooms has been a disaster and, in fact, is properly called sexual abuse.

The scandals of modern-day sex education have been detailed by numerous parents who were horrified to discover what their children were learning at school.

Earlier this year, the U.S.-based Family Research Council released a 56-page booklet on “Sex Education in Public Schools,” demonstrating how “sex ed programs push the limits on what is appropriate, both in terms of the material presented to students and the age at which it is presented.”

I apologize for having to mention publicly what our own children are being fed in taxpayer-funded schools in America. The FRC investigation found:

  • Pre-pubescent children in Austin, Texas are encouraged “to consider ‘vaginal intercourse,’ ‘oral intercourse,’ and ‘anal intercourse.’”

  • Homosexuality and transgender ideology are pushed in programs by Planned Parenthood for middle-school students. 

  • “Many public schools are beginning to teach the radical, anti-science proposition that biological sex is meaningless, that some kids are born in the wrong body, and that some girls have penises, too.”

  • “Schools in Indiana actually send teens shopping for condoms, with a worksheet to fill out comparing brands, prices, lubrication, and whether or not they are comfortable shopping in the store.”

  • As LifeSite has reported, the “right” to abortion is a standard part of sex education in public schools. In some institutions, students are told how to get an abortion and keep it a secret from their parents. The booklet reports that“[s]chools in Indiana ‘send students to visit clinics with a worksheet to fill out about services provided, and a place to fill out the bus route they took to get there.’”

Schools have deceived parents by misusing language.

The booklet warns that the term “consent” is no longer used exclusively “to equip kids to resist committing, or being a victim of, sexual assault.” Rather, “[t]he ‘consent’ movement seems less about avoiding assault and more about promoting sex and sexual rights.” FRC quoted the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of pro-abortion Planned Parenthood, which revealed, “Teaching about consent is key to pushing back against abstinence-only messages.” Abstinence, in turn, has nothing to do with waiting for marriage, but means “abstinence until your next steady boyfriend or girlfriend.”

Parents who sought to avoid these problems by withdrawing their children from sex ed classes — where such removal is not forbidden by law — must also realize they have not spared their children from the indoctrination as it now permeates all school courses. Even classes as seemingly innocuous as history are not safe. “All public schools in California, New Jersey, and Illinois are now required to teach children LGBTQ history. In Illinois, schools are not even allowed to purchase history textbooks that fail to include an LGBTQ angle,” reports the Family Research Council. In gym class, male teens are permitted in the girls’ change rooms. 

So, in terms of the world, things have gotten worse. With open and extreme sexualization of children taking place before our eyes, some secular philosophers and politicians have spoken out, urging parents to action. 

Last year, French legislator Xavier Breton suggested that sex education should be removed from schools. Breton, a member of the mainstream conservative party, Les Républicains, said at the Commission for Cultural Affairs of the French National Assembly: “Parents are the primary educators of their children. This principle can be found in every national and international affirmation of rights. Reaffirming this principle requires that schools should not infringe parents’ rights. As regards emotional and sexual education, which touches upon people’s most intimate convictions, State intervention is not legitimate.”

Canadian psychologist and philosopher Dr. Jordan Peterson urged parents to “decide what’s important” and take action. “The people who are pushing these sorts of agendas are actually quite the small minority. They’re very noisy, and they’re very well organized. But if you don’t stand up and do something about it, especially when it affects your own family, then all that’s going to happen is that it’s going to continue to spread.”

The consequences for our children are severe. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control report that human papillomavirus, which can lead to cervical cancer, is at epidemic proportions among young people. Writing at LifeSite, family activist Linda Harvey points out there were 1.7 million cases of chlamydia in 2017, and 45% of those cases were found in our young people. Gonorrhea rose 67%, syphilis 76%. 

Meanwhile, things in the Church have remained relatively similar for the past 60 years with rare notable exceptions. Bishops continue to take the advice of so-called educational experts on sex education and have ignored and disdained the cry of truly Catholic parents. Moreover, those appointed to shepherd the faithful have failed to distinguish between truly Catholic parents who believe in all the teachings of the Faith around issues of sexuality and have instead given sometimes greater adherence to those parents — often of higher prestige in the world — who are nominally Catholic but eschew the teachings of the Faith on matters of sexual morality.

Bishops have continued to think they know best what sexual teachings our children should receive in Catholic schools. They have at times even immorally forbidden Catholic parents from removing their children from sex education classes in Catholic schools, as happened with Bishop David Choby in Nashville, Tennessee. This has forced parents to go to secular schools, which at least allow them that right. It is truly scandalous.

More than a decade ago, the few bishops spread all over the world, who stood up for Catholic parents against the grievous excesses in schools, were actually attacked or shunned by their brother bishops for daring to stand up for the faith and the faithful entrusted to their care by Christ. 

But what has indeed changed is the Vatican. At one time, Catholic parents could at least turn to the Vatican, to Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI, and warn bishops that parents, in their primary role as educators of their children, must have their wishes adhered to regarding the sexual education of their children. But we now have the Vatican itself promoting its own version of filthy sexual education replete with immodest photographs that at one time would have been considered pornographic. We have the Pope himself saying, “We must provide sex education in schools.”

But another thing has changed in the last decade. Catholic parents now know the connection between corrupt clergy and the sex education agenda. It was disgraced former cardinal Theodore McCarrick who was one of the leading movers in the U.S. Conference of Bishops on forcing perverse sex education on Catholic children against their parents’ wishes. Catholic activist Christopher Manion points out that McCarrick ordered all Catholic schools in his own archdiocese to expel any children whose parents removed them from the school program teaching children sexual abuse prevention.

Catholic parents in the Archdiocese of Washington regained their right to withhold their children from these sexual abuse education classes only after Cardinal McCarrick retired. Manion points out that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued new regulations permitting parents to remove their children from the diocesan-sponsored training programs in child sex abuse prevention on the very day Pope Benedict XVI accepted McCarrick’s resignation — May 15, 2006.

Recalls Manion: “Parents nationwide were outraged that the USCCB insisted that secular ‘experts,’ and not parents, should teach their children — down to the age of five — how to avoid sex abuse. But McCarrick’s control of the USCCB was apparently so pervasive that there was nothing parents could do.”

Catholic parents were warned already in the nineteenth century by Pope Leo XIII that “it is the duty of parents to make every effort to prevent any invasion of their rights in this matter, and to make absolutely sure that the education of their children remain under their own control in keeping with their Christian duty, and above all to refuse to send them to those schools in which there is danger of imbibing the deadly poison of impiety.” (encyclical ‘On Christians as Citizens’)

When addressing parents in Canada, Pope Leo XIII added poignantly: “For our children cannot go for instruction to schools which either ignore or of set purpose combat the Catholic religion, or in which its teachings are despised and its fundamental principles repudiated. Wherever the Church has allowed this to be done, it has only been with pain and through necessity, at the same time surrounding her children with many safeguards which, nevertheless it has been too often recognized have been insufficient to cope successfully with the danger attending it.” (On the Manitoba School Question, Pope Leo XIII – 1897)

But this counsel to strenuously safeguard children from schools which would harm their faith comes not only from Popes hundreds of years ago. By the grace of God, there are rare, notable examples of church leaders, successors of the apostles, who have the true best interests of children at heart.

One of them is His Eminence Cardinal Burke who, in the opening address of this online conference, said: “Sadly, some Catholic schools, for a variety of reasons, mimic the situation in non-Catholic schools by insisting upon the anti-life, anti-family, and anti-religion ideology which marks education, in general. The latter situation is particularly pernicious, for parents send their children to a Catholic school, trusting that it will be truly Catholic, when, in fact, it is nothing of the sort. The operation of such schools under the name of Catholic is a profound injustice to families.”

Another is Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò who has reminded parents of their “responsibility, as a primary and inalienable right, to educate their children. The State,” he said, “cannot arrogate this right, much less corrupt children and indoctrinate them in the perverse principles that are so widespread today.” 

“It is your duty to raise your voice so that these attempts to steal the education of your children may be denounced and rejected with force,” he added, “because you will be able to do very little for them if your faith, ideas, and culture are judged incompatible with those of an impious and materialistic state.”

I remember speaking with Bishop Athanasius Schneider about this question in 2016.

When I asked him about sex education in schools, and how parents should deal with it, he told me: “When their children are taught in the school in an immoral way, they have to withdraw the children. This is their obligation. You cannot expose your children to an immoral danger. It is impossible. Catholic parents, in defending their children from this immorality, have to be even ready to suffer, yes, to suffer consequences.”

Many Catholic parents have taken up this challenge and have either sought out private traditional Catholic schools which guard the purity of their children, or undertaken the heroic task of home schooling their children. These extraordinary measures are demanded of parents today to safeguard the eternal salvation of their children. They are a necessary duty in fulfilling our vocation as parents, which is ultimately about our salvation and that of our children, for as St. John Chrysostom reminded us, “What greater work is there than training the mind and forming the habits of the young?” And as the Good Book says, “what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?” (Mark 8:36)

After Bishop Schneider told me that, though, I immediately followed up with a question about unfaithful priests and bishops, since this is the situation most of us find ourselves in today, as sex education in schools comes with at least tacit support of the hierarchy.

Bishop Schneider counseled that parents must know their Catholic faith very well. They must study the Catechism, and not just any Catechism – “the Catechism of the parents and grandparents,” he said, referring to the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the offshoots of it such as the Baltimore Catechism for those of us in North America. 

“This is,” he said “the voice of Christ and of the Church of all times.” 

“Then, when pastors or members of the hierarchy contradict the teaching of Christ, the teaching of the perpetual Magisterium of the Church, of the Catechism, you have to withdraw your children from these churches, and not to go to them, even if you have to travel 100 km [to a faithful church].”

He explained that his family lived in the Soviet Union and considered themselves lucky when they found a Catholic Church 100 km away.  “I think that in the Western world, in the United States, you will find a Church maybe closer than 100 km where there may be a good priest. So, avoid these churches [where error is preached]. [Such places] are destroying the faith of the people. These churches are destroying. We have to avoid them. [Such people] are traitors of the faith, even when they have the title of priest or bishop.”

We will protect our children. We will make the sacrifices and bear the sufferings it takes to guard their faith offering up our trials in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. We will offer up our prayers, sacrifices and sufferings for the conversion of you very bishops who by your misguided intent or negligence are harming the faith of our children in Catholic schools. 

We will not feed our children to the wolves in shepherd’s clothing. We will resist. We will implore heaven for the restoration of the mystical body of Christ which is undergoing Her own calvary. Clinging firmly to the tradition of the Church, anchored to the pillars of Our Lady and the Holy Eucharist, we will stand unable to be swayed even by the fiercest storm.


  bishops, homosexuality, pornography, sex ed, sex education, theodore mccarrick, transgenderism, usccb

Blogs

If Joe Biden wins, things could get much darker, very quickly

While a Biden victory would not be the end of the world, it would have many serious consequences for Christian conservatives.
Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 12:17 pm EST
Featured Image
Joe Biden YouTube
Michael L. Brown Michael L. Brown Follow Dr. Michael
By Dr. Michael Brown

October 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Although many of my friends with spiritual intuition remain confident that Donald Trump will be reelected, looking at things through natural eyes, his prospects are not good. What if Trump-Pence lost to Biden-Harris? What if Joe Biden became our nation’s 46th president? What would that look like for conservative Americans?

On the one hand, it would not be the end of the world. The sun will still shine. Children will be born. Couples will get married. Students will be in class (be it virtual or in person). The business world will keep ticking. The sports world will play its games. Thanksgiving and Hanukkah and Christmas and the New Year will be celebrated on schedule.

To repeat: it would not be the end of the world.

As for serious fears and concerns, gun owners will not suddenly have all their weapons confiscated. Church buildings will not be shuttered by the government. Roaming gangs will not take over all our cities and suburbs. Planes will not fall from the sky.

After all, God remains God in heaven, and He has not yet given us over to total chaos and destruction. Plus, there are multiplied tens of millions of Americans (the clear majority, I would say), who want what is best for our nation.

But let us not kid ourselves. A Biden-Harris victory would likely have many serious consequences for Christian conservatives (along with their ideological companions in other faiths). Things could get much darker, very quickly.

Consider the pro-life movement.

Decades of hard work and sacrifice and tears are making a difference, as different states advance pro-life bills and the overturning of Roe v. Wade appears to be a real possibility. (For the perspective of a front-line pro-lifer, go here.) 

With the likely confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, the next case challenging Roe could result in a major pushback. And then, suddenly, abortion laws could fall back to the states, with massive potential gains in the sanctity of life.

This, in fact, was a major reason many of us voted for Trump in 2016, hoping he would keep his pro-life promises and nominate worthy judges to the courts. He has done just that, and four more years of Trump could signal even more significant gains.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Yet all of that could be undone in a moment of time. Biden has announced that he would pass legislation making Roe the law of the land, while Harris is the most militant pro-abortion candidate in our history. (For my written response to “pro-life” evangelicals for Biden, see here; for my video response, see here.)

Should the Democrats retake the Senate, such legislation could be passed, and just like that, decades of pro-life legal efforts would be obliterated. There is also the ominous possibility of “packing” the Supreme Court, a possibility that, remarkably, neither Biden nor Harris will deny. This would have even larger implications, touching also on our most fundamental freedoms, our freedoms of conscience, speech, and religion.

During the COVID lockdown, we have seen the extreme inequities in certain Democratic cities and states, where abortion clinics and liquor stores remain open, providing so-called “essential services,” while churches and synagogues remain restricted. Yet outrageous rulings like this — they truly are outrageous — would have increasing court backing with a Biden-Harris victory.

In California, you can protest on the streets in large numbers, but you can’t hold a group Bible study in your home. You can shout at a Black Lives Matter rally, but you can’t sing in a church service. In Nevada, you can operate a casino at 50 percent capacity, but if your church building seats 3,000 people, you can’t have more than 50 in attendance.

Our freedoms really are under assault, and under Trump, the Department of Justice is pushing back. Under Biden-Harris, the pushback would be in the opposite direction — against the churches, not for them.

When Kamala Harris was the Attorney General of California, she joined with Planned Parenthood in prosecuting (really, persecuting) David Daleiden, founder of the pro-life Center for Medical Progress. His work came to national attention when he posted undercover videos confirming that Planned Parenthood clinics were selling aborted baby parts for profit.

But rather than going after Planned Parenthood for its barbaric practices, Harris went after Daleiden, authorizing a raid on his house in order to confiscate the video evidence.

Does that give a hint of where a Biden-Harris administration would go?

Under the Obama-Biden administration, a state that refused to allow a biological male to play on the girls’ sports team or share their bathroom and locker room facilities would lose federal funding for its schools. There was so much resistance to this policy that, in July, 2016, Politico reported that “half of all states are now battling the [Obama] administration over the culturally divisive issue of transgender students and whether they should be permitted to use the restrooms of their choice. The growing number of lawsuits makes it all but inevitable the transgender rights issue will make its way to the Supreme Court.”

The Trump administration undid this onerous and discriminatory policy, rendering these lawsuits unnecessary. In stark contrast, candidate Biden tweeted early this year: “Let’s be clear: Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time. There is no room for compromise when it comes to basic human rights.”

As nice as this sounds, it means trampling on the rights of millions of others, in particular students in our schools. And with a Democratic Congress and a packed Supreme Court, who will be there to stand up for our kids and grandkids?

Again, a Biden-Harris victory would not be the end of the world. There might even be a little less political drama, since the “chaos president” would have been removed.

But, as I tweeted on October 7, “It’s very true that [Donald Trump] provokes a lot of the leftist attacks against him, be it from the media or Hollywood. But guess who their target will be when he’s not around to bash? All of us who hold to conservative biblical values.”

Thankfully, the election is still a few weeks out, and regardless of the outcome, Jesus is still Lord. It’s just important to realize that the stakes are very high (and I only focused on a few of them here). There is no hyperbole here.


  2020 election, abortion, amy coney barrett, donald trump, joe biden, kamala harris, supreme court

Featured Image

Episodes Fri Oct 9, 2020 - 12:56 pm EST

We must put our troubles in God’s hands to find peace

By Mother Miriam
By

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

Watch this episode of Mother Miriam's Live originally aired on 8.28.2020 and re-aired on 10.9.2020. In today’s episode, Mother Miriam answers listeners' emails and calls. Many of the callers and listeners ask for guidance and peace for their troubles, especially opening the hearts of those around them.

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

Never miss a show! Subscribe to Mother Miriam Live email updates here.