All articles from October 16, 2020


News

Opinion

Blogs

Episodes

  • Nothing is published in Episodes on October 16, 2020.

Video

  • Nothing is published in Video on October 16, 2020.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on October 16, 2020.

News

Huge scandal brewing over revealed contents of Joe Biden’s son’s laptop

If just a quarter of the allegations are true, the evidence contained on the laptop is, finally, the true smoking gun.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 8:19 pm EST
Featured Image
Hunter Biden. Handout / DNCC via Getty Images
Mark Anderson
By Mark Anderson

October 16, 2020 (American Thinker) — Facebook and Twitter sacrificed the final shreds of their integrity to try to censor the N.Y. Post article revealing the existence of Hunter Biden's laptop. But in their rush to throw themselves in the path of the bullet to save Joe, there was a big problem. They forgot that Rudy Giuliani has the evidence.

The N.Y. Post article was an exclusive. That means all "fact checkers" that Facebook and Twitter will unleash to fact-check the article will be based on speculation, not fact. Because they don't have the laptop.

And, judging from a new video from Giuliani, things may be about to explode in the social media giants' faces.

— 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 just a quarter of what Rudy Giuliani alleges is true, the evidence contained on the laptop is, finally, the true smoking gun. This isn't some salacious accusations bundled by a hired spy relying on Russian disinformation and gossip. It's Hunter's own laptop. That fact alone could be an enormous blow to the Biden campaign.

Giuliani released bombshell after bombshell in a video released Wednesday evening after the media did their best to censor the N.Y. Post article — making the social media censorship even more damning to those who tried to hide it from the public. Since receiving the copy of the hard drive, Giuliani has been poring through it, carefully documenting and preparing his prosecution. What he says he found is the actual evidence of payments, the money-laundering scheme they used, "illegal money for bribes," and how "some of that money from Ukraine ... went to Joe Biden."

Like a prosecutor laying out the case, Giuliani leads off the video with this: "In future days, you will see texts, emails, and photos that demonstrate crimes committed by the Biden crime family — in China (probably most of all), Russia, and several other countries."

The use of "the Biden crime family" is no mere hyperbole. Before Rudy Giuliani was "America's Mayor," he was one of America's top prosecutors, which included bringing down mafia crime families. And he has evidence — from Hunter — that implicates not only Hunter and Joe Biden, but also James (Joe's brother) and Sara (James's wife). One set of payments from China went to a triad of Bidens: James, Hunter, and Sara. Don't worry, Giuliani says — you're going to see it in the texts, not making it up.

The fact he was one of America's top prosecutors makes the ending of the video even more damning: "I've been in this business a long time. This is the biggest cover-up I have ever seen. And it is the biggest government scandal, I've ever heard of."

Getting back to the beginning, Giuliani continued his introduction, saying, "China has all of the photos that we have — which means [Hunter] is, really, a massive national security threat to the United States. Since his father lies — about all of this — it's an easy area of extortion."

Believe it or not, it gets worse from there for Joe Biden.

Laying out the case further, Giuliani points right at the defendant, accusing Joe of "certainly [committing] a crime. Because some of that money from Ukraine, illegal money for bribes, went to Joe Biden."

Remember: these are all accusations after Giuliani has read through the emails, the texts, and the contents of the hard drive. Unlike the Facebook/Twitter "fact-checker" minions, Giuliani has seen the evidence.

In one of the more damning statements, he says, "China has so many different transactions, it's going to take a couple of days, if not a week, for us to sort all through them. But we have them. ... And, basically, this is money that goes to Hunter Biden, James Biden, Sara Biden...and the Biden family."

He also has evidence of how the money flowed — thanks to a text from Hunter Biden to his daughter, Naomi, that was found on the hard drive. Giuliani says the text was discussing money, "but in it, [Hunter] makes a very big mistake. He explains the distribution scheme that the Biden crime family has used for years."

The text reads, "I love you all, but I don't receive any respect. And that's fine, I guess. Works for you apparently. I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years."

Giuliani interrupts his reading of the text to wonder why Hunter was paying for everything for the family. Because, Giuliani speculates, Hunter was getting the money, and they were keeping it, from Joe, so he wouldn't have to report it. But he paid, for example, for his half-sister's entire college education.

Giuliani then returns to the text for the coup de grâce: "It's really hard. But don't worry unlike Pop, I won't make you give me half your salary."

"Pop" is Hunter's name for his dad, Joe Biden.

All of this is really just Rudy's opening statement. If the evidence about to be rolled out is even remotely on par with his opening statement, it will be beyond explosive, given the source: Hunter's own laptop.

Will the censorship hit new heights? Or will the media do what they should have been doing for the last four years — investigate the real crime that has been in plain sight all this time?

The full, 16-minute video can be found on Rudy Giuliani's Common Sense Podcast Channel on YouTube.

Mark Anderson holds an MBA and is all but dissertation in his Doctor of Business Administration. He hosts I Spy Radio, a conservative talk show in deep-blue Oregon.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.


  2020 election, american thinker, hunter biden, joe biden

News

‘Unacceptable’: Ghana’s bishops reject govt’s new pro-LGBT sex-ed program

'It is a subtle way to introduce this gay and lesbian thing to our children. We are already struggling to teach morality to our children ... and they want to bring this in.'
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 8:02 pm EST
Featured Image
Ghanaian Bishop Philip Naameh
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

ACCRA, Ghana, October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The Ghana Catholic Bishops Conference (GCBC) is against the implementation of a proposed new sex education curriculum in the country that it says will introduce children to Western homosexual ideology.  

Bishop Philip Naameh, 72, the Metropolitan Archbishop of Tamale and president of the GCBCsaid UNESCO’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) will introduce LGBT propaganda, among other inappropriate materials, to Ghana’s children. 

According to the news website Ghana WebNaameh has stated that the CSE “is a subtle way to introduce this gay and lesbian thing to our children.” 

In an interview with a Ghanian radio station last monthNaameh indicated that he believed Minister of Education Matthew Opoku Prempeh had misled the country’s religious leaders at a meeting in September 2019.  

According to Radioangelus.comNaameh explained that Prempeh had consulted the interreligious group about ideas “western NGOs” were bringing into the country. The Minister had intimated that he and the government didn’t feel ready for them. Therefore, the archbishop was surprised by the CSE curriculum the Ministry will adopt. 

It is a big surprise to me to see that they want to put this in the syllabus and start teaching 5-year-olds about sex," Naameh said.  

It means the Minister of Education was not honest with us — or all those within the education sector are not of one mind and one heart and this is a pity.”  

Naameh called upon parents and politicians to reject the program, which he said had been described to him as a draft.  

(W)e want to call on people in high positions and parents to reject it outright because this is not for us,” he stated.   

“It is a subtle way to introduce this gay and lesbian thing to our children. We are already struggling to teach morality to our children at all levels of our schools and they want to bring this in. This is unacceptable. 

Other religious leaders in Ghana have similarly voiced their opposition to the sex-ed curriculum. The nation’s Islamic leaders, for example, have been clear in their distaste for the UNESCO program.  

“We appeal to the Ministry (of Education) and the GES to drop that satanic agenda in the interest of national cohesion and moral promotion,” wrote a representative of the Office of the National Chief Imam last year 

Alhaji Khuzaima Osman indicated that the ONCI spoke for a broad coalition of Islamic groups in Ghana. 

We would like to state unequivocally that the Islamic community does not accept any form of educating minors and pupils on sexuality," he added.  

“In our estimation, such a move is an attempt to hide behind educational reforms to brainwash the pupils with LGBT agenda.” 

Ghana Web reported that the CSE will be introduced to children as young as four in the nation’s public schools next year. The news source also stated that the Ghana Education Service (GES) had denied that children would be taught anything inappropriate for their age group.  

Cassandra Twum Ampofo, a spokeswoman for the GES, told the Ghana News Agency that the "new Standard Based Curriculum being implemented has nothing to do with LGBT issues, masturbation or explicit display/labeling of intimate body parts.  

Ampofo maintained that the program will not “throw out” the promotion of sexual abstinence.  

“The goal of CSE is to equip school children with age and cultural appropriate information to explore and nurture positive values and attitudes towards their sexual and reproductive health and to develop self-esteem, respect for human rights and gender equality,” she wrote.  

“The curriculum is also to develop self-esteem, respect for human rights and gender equality and help students to make informed decisions about their health, with emphasis on Ghanaian cultural values and norms.”  

The GEspokeswoman maintained that the UNESCO-approved program would not be the same as it is in Europe or North America and that its guidelines had not yet been approved by the government agency. She indicated that they would not be approved until the phrase “within the acceptable cultural values and norms of the Ghanaian Society” was added to them.  

“The GES wishes to assure the general public that no special sessions have been organized or will ever be organized by the GES to train students as advocates for sexual rights, let alone LGBT rights which are culturally, socially, legally, morally and religiously alien to Ghana,” Ampofo wrote.  

“The GES is a state agency and will not under any circumstance implement any program which goes contrarily to the legal, cultural norms, values and beliefs of the Ghanaian people.   

UNESCO says its comprehensive sex education program is “not just about sex.” 

It is about relationships, gender, puberty, consent, and sexual and reproductive health for all young people,” the United Nations’ educational wing states on its website. 

However, the international organization StopCSE.org believes the program constitutes a war against children.   

Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) is one of the greatest assaults on the health and innocence of children,” it states on its website.   

This is because unlike traditional sex education, comprehensive sexuality education is highly explicit and promotes promiscuity and high-risk sexual behaviors to children as healthy and normal," it continues.  

CSE programs have an almost obsessive focus on teaching children how to obtain sexual pleasure in various ways. Yet, ironically, comprehensive sexuality education programs are anything but comprehensive as they fail to teach children about all of the emotional, psychological and physical health risks of promiscuous sexual activity. 

The organization believes that the “ultimate goal” of the program is “to change the sexual and gender norms of society, which is why CSE could be more accurately called abortion, promiscuity, and LGBT rights education.”  

Yesterday, UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay indicated her support for Pope Francis’ global education pact. She said UNESCO was “delighted” to be part of the pontiff’s program because “its goals reflect our own.” 

— 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

  audrey azoulay, catholic, comprehensive sexuality education, ghana, ghana catholic bishops conference, ghana education service, homosexuality, islamic, lgbt, minister of education, ngos, philip naameh, unesco

News

Fauci: Americans might have to ‘bite the bullet’ and cancel Thanksgiving plans

Unless 'they're living a lifestyle in which they don’t have any interaction with anybody, except you and your family. Then you’re OK.'
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 6:20 pm EST
Featured Image
Dr. Anthony Fauci. Graeme Jennings- Pool / Getty Images
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Dr. Anthony Fauci, the controversial top coronavirus adviser to President Donald Trump, said American families should consider biting the bullet in sacrificing their Thanksgiving holiday weekend this year because of COVID-19.

“You may have to bite the bullet and sacrifice that social gathering, unless you’re pretty certain that the people that you’re dealing with are not infected. Either they have been very recently tested or they're living a lifestyle in which they don’t have any interaction with anybody, except you and your family. Then you’re OK,” Fauci told CBS News anchor Norah O’Donnell earlier in the week.

“When you’re talking about relatives, that are getting on a plane, being exposed in an airport, being exposed in a plane, then walk in a door and say, ‘Happy Thanksgiving’ — that, you have to be careful about.”

— 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

Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID).

His Thanksgiving remarks came about after O’Donnell asked him to comment on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Dr. Robert Redfield’s own Thanksgiving comments.

Redfield recently said gatherings such as Thanksgiving dinners could spread the disease and that people should reconsider getting together. He made the remarks in a call with the nation’s governors, according to a CNN report based on audio of the call.

“Particularly with Thanksgiving coming up, we think it’s really important to stress the vigilance of these continued mitigation steps in the household setting,” said Redfield in his call with governors.

Fauci told O’Donnell in response to Redfield’s remarks that he thinks it’s “unfortunate” that families might not be able to gather.

“I do, I do, and that’s really an unfortunate fact that is gonna cause obviously some concern about everyone who looks forward to the holiday and interacting with family members they haven’t seen in a while,” Fauci told O’Donnell in response to Redfield’s remarks.

“It is unfortunate, because that’s such a sacred part of American tradition — the family gathering around Thanksgiving. But that is a risk.”

O’Donnell also asked Fauci what his own Thanksgiving plans are, and he replied to her that his three kids, who live out of state, won’t be joining them.

“They themselves, because of their concern for me and my age, have decided they’re not going to come home for Thanksgiving, even though all three of them want very much to come home for Thanksgiving,” Fauci told O’Donnell.

During his interview with O’Donnell, Fauci said that everyone needs to “double down” in the coming fall and winter months, saying he is concerned that increased “indoor” activities could cause the virus to spread.

Fauci himself has been a source of controversy for his strategy regarding COVID-19, first saying masks were not needed and then backtracking to say they are necessary.

Back in April, Fauci said he does not think people should “ever shake hands again.”

“Not only would it be good to prevent coronavirus disease, it probably would decrease instances of influenza dramatically in this country,” said Fauci.

In September, Fauci said that life might return to normal “towards the end of 2021” in speaking about a scenario where a COVID-19 vaccine was ready to go by the end of 2020.


  anthony fauci, big brother, coronavirus, police state, thanksgiving

News

WATCH: Breitbart author explains how Big Tech has destroyed ‘internet freedom’

LifeSite releases new episode of video series ‘Uncensored: Big Tech vs. Free Speech’
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 6:09 pm EST
Featured Image
Allum Bokhari LifeSiteNews
Madeleine Jacob Madeleine Jacob Follow
By

October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – On Wednesday, Twitter completely blocked users from sharing a New York Post article that alleged massive corruption in the Biden family. This isn’t the first, and likely not the last, time Twitter and other Big Tech companies have censored political content damaging to people and institutions on the left. 

Breitbart journalist Allum Bokhari wrote his new book #DELETED: Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal The Election after speaking with numerous friends who work in Big Tech about the censorship that goes on behind the scenes. He tells LifeSiteNews that “they’ve developed a way to turn down the volume on entire political movements.”  

LifeSite is working hard to shed light on Big Tech censorship. In our new video series, Uncensored: Big Tech vs. Free Speech, we feature individuals from the Susan B. Anthony List, Live Action, as well as other pro-life, pro-family voices about the censorship they’ve faced. Watch all previous episodes by clicking HERE

In today’s episode, Bokhari notes that Big Tech is actively censoring conservative content in particular. He explains that the technology used by these companies is programmed to censor and ban content that doesn’t align with Silicon Valley’s world view, especially critical race theory.  

“Nowhere in America … is critical race theory more powerful or has more influence than in Silicon Valley.”  

 Bokhari continues, “The algorithms that run so much of our lives, that determine whose political movement is going to be successful … are all programed by critical race theorists. That’s digital totalitarianism” 

 “It’s happening right now.”  

Bokhari tells viewers that censorship increased after Trump was elected in 2016. He warns that this censorship isn’t limited to America and that it’s really a threat to politics across the world. 

“They’re banning conservatives in Brazil. They’re banning conservatives in Germany, in France, in Italy.” 

— 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

 “A few unaccountable corporations in San Francisco get to moderate political speech in Brazil,” he exclaimed. 

The reason Big Tech bias is so much worse and so much more dangerous than other forms of bias, such as bias from The New York Times or from CNN, Bokhari argues, is because “these companies know so much about us and they can use that to manipulate us.”

Big Tech companies control what news we see, he continues. This can be problematic, especially for undecided voters who need to have an unbiased view of both parties to make the best decision about who they want to vote for. 

 “It used to be the case that if an article was sufficiently popular, it would show up at the top of the search results. There used to be ‘internet freedom,’ but not anymore.”

“They destroyed [internet freedom]. And they destroyed it in large part over the last four years because they were afraid of these new populist movements that were using the internet to challenge the mainstream order. They didn’t like the fact that they had lost control over political discourse.”  

Bokhari warns against corporate tyranny being worse than government tyranny because these corporations know so much about us they can easily manipulate our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. He points to the 2020 election as being a deciding time in the expansion of Big Tech tyranny. 

“I think it all hangs in the balance in this election season. We have two candidates, Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Donald Trump wants to reign in the tech giants. Joe Biden wants to empower them.” 


  allum bokhari, big tech, big tech bias, big tech censorship, censorship, facebook, twitter, uncensored: big tech vs. free speech

News

‘Wholly unethical’: US ‘personhood’ org condemns COVID vaccines derived from aborted babies

Christians 'must not participate or accept practices that perpetuate and encourage the relationship between abortion, biomedical science, and human trafficking[.]'
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 5:51 pm EST
Featured Image
Image Point Fr / Shutterstock.com
Michael Haynes
By

October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A pro-life organization has provided clear guidance on the unethical nature of mandatory vaccines and those made from the cells of aborted babies, declaring them “morally unacceptable.”

After months of research, the Personhood Alliance has issued its official position on the moral ethics of vaccinations in the form of ten key points. The guidelines affirm as grounding principles “the rights of born persons not to be forced to violate their own bodily integrity and/or moral conscience and the rights of pre-born persons not to be trafficked, commodified, and/or experimented upon without their consent.”

The Personhood Alliance notes that many companies are making use of the cells of aborted babies in order to produce vaccines and links to an extensive study of vaccines made using aborted fetal cell lines. All such vaccines are termed “unethical vaccines,” and the Alliance calls on pharmaceutical companies, stating that “more must be done to produce ethical vaccines ... and demand ethical alternatives of more companies, particularly when taxpayer funding is involved.”

The Alliance also makes reference to those even in religious circles who advocate for vaccines, even if they are manufactured using aborted fetal cells. The document refers to such positions thus: “These arguments include, but are not limited to, the amount of time that has passed since the original abortions and the intent of the original abortions not being for vaccine production.”

In response to these arguments, the Personhood Alliance declares: “We find these arguments to be in error. Christians must demand an end to the trafficking and commodification of human beings at all stages of life and must not participate or accept practices that perpetuate and encourage the relationship between abortion, biomedical science, and human trafficking, no matter when that connection was initiated or how long a practice has been socially accepted.”

The paper continues: “The production and testing of vaccines using the remains of aborted human beings, regardless of manner of conception and without their consent, is morally unacceptable and must be opposed. The Personhood Alliance strongly urges the rejection of such vaccines.”

Additionally, the document deals with the question of mandatory vaccines, declaring such a policy “unethical and intrusive”: “The right of bodily integrity and the right to refuse medical treatments for moral, religious, health, or other reasons, must remain intact and protected by law when an individual considers whether to vaccinate or not.”

In fact, the Alliance teaches that to force a vaccination upon people is a “violation of their biblical personhood,” since it contravenes the duty of care for the body, which “God has given us as a temple of the Holy Spirit.”

Consequently, the document declares that vaccines made from the cells of aborted infants are completely unethical: “the production of a vaccine or any medical therapy derived from the remains of a human being intentionally killed is wholly unethical and should be made unlawful. The Personhood Alliance affirms the inalienable right to life of pre-born human beings, regardless of the manner of conception, and thus, their right not to be trafficked, commodified, and/or experimented upon.”

— 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

Furthermore, regarding mandatory vaccines, the Alliance “affirms the rights of all people to refuse medical treatment and to reject violations of their and their family members’ bodily integrity, moral conscience, and Constitutional protections through forced or coerced vaccines.”

Catholic bishops’ teaching on vaccines

The declaration presented by Personhood Alliance is mirrored in the statements of a number of notable Catholic clerics.

Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas has repeatedly called to halt production of vaccines using aborted babies. He tweeted in April that “if a vaccine for this virus is only attainable if we use body parts of aborted children then I will refuse the vaccine...I will not kill children to live.”

The bishop publicly re-issued this rejection of such vaccines: “I renew my call that we reject any vaccine that is developed using aborted children. Even if it originated decades ago it still means a child’s life was ended before it was born & then their body was used as spare parts.”

In a public letter issued in May, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò along with Cardinals Mueller, Punjat, and Zen taught that “for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses.”

They further stated that “citizens must be given the opportunity to refuse these restrictions on personal freedom, without any penalty whatsoever being imposed on those who do not wish to use vaccines.” The letter has been signed by 22 prelates and priests, along with numerous journalists, doctors, lawyers, and academics. It has over 57,000 signatures as of writing.

In an August letter directed to mothers, Archbishop Viganò once again affirmed the moral prohibition of using vaccines made from aborted babies. He wrote: “The common good pursued by the state in temporal things therefore has a well defined object that cannot and must not be in conflict with the Law of God, the Supreme Legislator. Every time that the State infringes on this eternal and immutable Law, its authority is diminished, and its citizens ought to refuse to obey it.” 

The archbishop made mention of abortion and then added, “I am referring to the case in which a vaccine would contain fetal material coming from the bodies of aborted children.”

Viganò also decried the policy of mandatory vaccines: “we cannot remain silent if the public authority would make vaccines obligatory that pose serious ethical and moral problems, or that more prosaically do not give any guarantee of obtaining the promised effects and that are limited to promising benefits that from a scientific point of view are absolutely questionable.”

Most recently, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, an auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, gave an interview in which he stated that mandatory vaccines are “the last step of Satanism” to “legalize abortion globally — the killing of unborn babies — so that the entire planet will be collaborating in the process of killing babies through the vaccine which will use parts of aborted babies.”

Continuing, Schneider said that “we must resist very strongly against this, if it comes. We must even accept to be martyrs.”

U.K. bishops’ letters on vaccines

The declaration from Personhood Alliance and the above teachings from Catholic bishops are in stark contrast to the July letter of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW), which stated that Catholics have “a prima facie duty to be vaccinated.” The letter, which received much criticism from concerned Catholics, continued by mentioning the “distress many Catholics experience when faced with a choice of not vaccinating their child or seeming to be complicit in abortion.”

The bishops quoted from a 2017 document from the Pontifical Academy for Life, which said “all clinically recommended vaccinations can be used with a clear conscience and that the use of such vaccines does not signify some sort of cooperation with voluntary abortion.”

The CBCEW also drew from a 2005 document from the Pontifical Academy for Life. That text stated that those who used unethical vaccines for their health “carry out a form of very remote mediate material cooperation, and thus very mild, in the performance of the original act of abortion, and a mediate material cooperation, with regard to the marketing of cells coming from abortions, and immediate, with regard to the marketing of vaccines produced with such cells.”

In the 2005 text, permission was granted to use vaccines made from aborted babies, “insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one’s own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole — especially for pregnant women.”

In a second letter released in September, the CBCEW then committed themselves to their position: “A vaccine will seek to protect the whole of society from this virulent virus. Individuals should welcome the vaccine not only for the sake of their own health but also out of solidarity with others, especially the most vulnerable.”

While no longer affirming that Catholics have a duty to be vaccinated, the bishops’ conference did state that “many may in good conscience judge that they will accept such a vaccine” — namely, one made using the “human remains of an aborted child in the past.”

Pope Francis recently called for vaccines to be “universal and for all.”

Archbishop Viganò explicitly mentioned the July letter of the CBCEW, stating that the bishops’ support for unethical vaccines lacked “any doctrinal authority.” He also expressed concerns about the Pontifical Academy for Life as well as its 2017 document: “When we consider the new orientation of the Pontifical Academy for Life ... we cannot expect any condemnation of those who use fetal tissue from voluntarily aborted children.”


  abortion, athanasius schneider, big brother, catholic, catholic bishops of england and wales, coronavirus, fetal cell lines, joseph strickland, personhood alliance, vaccines

News

Black Planned Parenthood employees say they ‘experienced acts of racism’

The largest abortion provider in the country was founded by unapologetically racist Margaret Sanger.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 5:50 pm EST
Featured Image
A Planned Parenthood facility in Denver, Colorado
Victoria Gisondi
By

October 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews.com) — Not only is Planned Parenthood the largest abortion provider in the country, specifically targeting black mothers — its black employees reportedly also experienced “acts of racism and anti-Blackness from their white colleagues.”

According to BuzzFeed, an internal assessment based on interviews of black current and former employees conducted by the Anti-Oppression Resource and Training Alliance (AORTA) “found that the organization’s Black employees feel that Planned Parenthood’s treatment of them internally does not line up with its social justice-driven mission.”

“Black employees told AORTA they regularly experienced acts of racism and anti-Blackness from their white colleagues but found that when they reported problems to human resources, there was ‘no meaningful consequence or accountability for racial harm,’” BuzzFeed reported. “The employees said they had been experiencing these issues and bringing them to management’s attention for years, but felt that little had been done to change the problems.”

White employees allegedly “think they cannot be perpetrators of racism or discrimination because of the work they do and the work Planned Parenthood does to fight ‘gender-based oppression.’”

AORTA’s assessment of Planned Parenthood was done in response to recent accusations of racism inside the organization. In August, Buzzfeed reported that black employees at Planned Parenthood and NARAL were the target of systemic racism on a large scale.

Among other things, black employees complained about being overlooked for promotions, microaggressions, rude behavior, being scrutinized more than white colleagues, being treated like children, given larger workloads and longer work hours.

BuzzFeed quoted a woman who used to work for a public relations company involved with organizations supporting abortion as saying, “I do think it’s worse in reproductive rights, because it is insidious. The movement prides itself on working on issues affecting the most marginalized in society — women, trans and nonbinary folks, and people of color. And yet, in their own workplaces, they don’t value those people.”

Planned Parenthood Black Community, a branch of Planned Parenthood focused on outreach among African Americans, tweeted in 2017, “If you’re a Black woman in America, it’s statistically safer to have an abortion than to carry a pregnancy to term or give birth.”

Planned Parenthood is not alone in specifically targeting black mothers to have abortions. A billboard in Dallas, Texas, put up by the Afiya Centre, read, “Black women take care of their families by taking care of themselves,” adding, “Abortion is self-care.”

While black women only make up about 13.3% of the population, 36% of all abortions in the USA are performed on black mothers.

Famous Rapper and long-shot presidential candidate Kanye West in September said Planned Parenthood was perpetrating a “black genocide.”

— 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

“Abortion is the number one killer of black lives in the United States,” West said. “According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, abortion kills more black people than HIV, homicide, diabetes, accidents, cancer, and heart disease — watch this one — combined. Three thousand shootings in Chicago a year, 700 murders, you’ve got to put that with heart disease, you’ve got to put that with HIV, you’ve got to put that with diabetes, you’ve got to put that with just accidents, and put that with cancer, and it doesn’t add up to specifically abortions. If you think about that number, 1,000 black babies are aborted each day.”

“It’s happening every day, and right now God has given me the information, and he ain’t gave me no other information other than this information, and we have this right now, so that means he wants me to say this now,” West continued. “In 50 years, there’s been 22 million — over 22,500,000 — black people aborted strategically and on purpose. Planned Parenthood was set up and placed in minority communities to kill black people.”

In July, Planned Parenthood of Greater New York announced the removal of Margaret Sanger’s name from its flagship Bleecker Street abortion center because of her “harmful connections to the eugenics movement,” The New York Times reported. Sanger was the founder and first president of the abortion provider.

“We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members,” Sanger wrote in 1939.

Sanger also associated with the Ku Klux Klan. “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan,” she wrote in her autobiography. “I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses … I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak … In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.”


  abortion, black genocide, kanye west, margaret sanger, planned parenthood, racism

News

Facebook censors pro-life ad detailing radical Biden-Harris pro-abortion position

Facebook blocked the 15-second video due to a putative fact-check that was later amended.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 5:28 pm EST
Featured Image
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
Michael Haynes
By

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Facebook has once again censored pro-life accounts, this time by flagging two pro-life adverts exposing the pro-abortion policies of presidential candidate Joe Biden and his running mate, Kamala Harris.

The Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List reported today that a 15-second video, outlining the extreme abortion views of Biden and Harris, had been censored by Facebook, due to a fact-check performed by The Dispatch, which rated the video as “partly false.” The voiceover to the video has the script: “Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support abortion up to the moment of birth, all at taxpayer expense, and they promise to nominate only pro-abortion judges. Biden and Harris: troubling ideas — disturbing polices.”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of SBA, issued a statement in response to the censorship: “Big Tech and the media are teaming up to run interference for the Biden-Harris campaign on what is a losing issue for Democrats — their shameful support for abortion on demand through birth. This is the latest example of Facebook censoring political speech and is perfectly timed to shut down SBA List’s vital digital communications as we work to reach eight million voters in key battlegrounds in the final days before Election Day.”

— 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

Dannenfelser observed that the claim made in SBA’s video was the same made by Vice President Pence in the vice presidential debate on October 8. She further noted that it is “an argument Kamala Harris didn’t bother refuting herself. Our argument is also backed by the Democratic Party platform, which flatly calls for no limits on abortion.”

The Dispatch has since issued a correction to its original fact-check and removed its rating for the video. However, at the time of writing, the video is still flagged as containing “partly false information.”

The Biden campaign website states that “Biden will work to codify Roe v. Wade, and his Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate the constitutional right to an abortion.” He also outlines plans to “[r]estore federal funding for Planned Parenthood.”

President Trump has repeatedly pointed out Biden’s pro-abortion record in the run up to the election. Trump recently tweeted to draw attention to the extreme views held by Biden: “they are fully in favour of (very) LATE TERM ABORTION, right up until the time of birth, and beyond — which would be execution.”

The Democrats blocked a 2019 bill that would have required medical staff to provide care to “preserve the life and health of the child” born alive, even after an abortion. Kamala Harris was one of those who voted against the bill.

In an article on LifeSite a few days ago, James Agresti explained how Biden’s support for Roe is in fact support for abortion up to birth. Doe v. Bolton, released on January 22, 1973 as a complement to Roe, permits abortion at any stage if claims are made that it is better for the mother’s health to have an abortion. The definition of a health threat is extremely wide and open to interpretation by the abortionist.


  2020 election, abortion, big tech, censorship, facebook, joe biden, kamala harris, susan b. anthony list

News

Joe Biden: 8-year-olds should be able to decide they’re transgender … ’zero discrimination’

The Democrat presidential candidate promised to change transgender laws and eliminate 'every' Trump administration executive order.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 5:21 pm EST
Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden came out in favor of reinforcing gender confusion in children as young as eight years old, and for eliminating “every” executive order President Donald Trump has signed related to transgenderism.

The declaration came during ABC’s Biden town hall Thursday evening, in response to an audience question:

“I’m the proud mom of two girls, 8 and 10. My youngest daughter is transgender,” Mieke Haeck began. “The Trump administration has attacked the rights of transgender people, banning them from military service, weakening non-discrimination protections, and even removing the word transgender from some government websites. How will you, as president, reverse this dangerous and discriminatory agenda and ensure that the lives and rights of LGBTQ people are protected under U.S. law?”

“I will flat out just change the law,” Biden answered. “Every -- eliminate those executive orders, number one.”

He then told an alleged story from his youth, about his father explaining to him the sight of two men kissing in Wilmington, Delaware with “It’s simple. They love each other.” Biden has used the anecdote in speeches for years, despite lingering doubts about the plausibility of two men kissing in a crowded public place at a time and place where homosexuality was illegal, or that, as writer Alex Griswold wrote in 2015, “Biden was so touched by his father’s insanely prescient approval of homosexuality… he went on to oppose gay marriage for nearly his entire career, right up to the exact moment public opinion flipped?”

“The idea that an 8-year-old child or a 10-year-old child decides, ‘you know I decided I want to be transgender, that's what I think I'd like to be, it would make my life a lot easier’ – There should be zero discrimination,” Biden continued. I promise you there is no reason to suggest that there should be any right denied your daughter … that your other daughter has a right to be and do. None, zero.”

Despite Biden’s “rights” formulation, society does not generally recognize children’s “right” to judge what medical or psychological treatment is in their own best interests, and most cases of childhood gender confusion resolve themselves unless imposed or reinforced by adults. Further, a wealth of social science literature indicates that indulging a child’s gender confusion, whether surgically or psychologically, is harmful in the long run. 

In 2017, the University of Cambridge’s Stonewall report found that 96 percent of trans students in Scotland attempted self-harm through actions such as cutting themselves, and 40 percent attempted suicide. Forty percent in the United States have attempted suicide, as well, according to a 2016 survey from the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE). According to a 2011 study out of Sweden, trans people remain 19 times more likely to commit suicide than the general population, even after surgery to reconstruct their bodies.

The fallout is even more severe for chemical or surgical “reassignment” procedures, such as puberty-blocking hormones or removal of a child’s breasts or penis. “Each of these procedures has serious negative side effects — up to and including permanent sterilization,” the Family Research Council warns. “Despite claims to the contrary, these procedures are often not reversible.”

Biden also declared that “too many transgender women of color are being murdered.” While few would disagree that any number of murders is “too many,” the “transgender murder epidemic” narrative is based on compilations by activist groups such as the so-called Human Rights Campaign, which does not confirm the victims’ “gender identity” was a motivating factor in every example, and ignores that the transgender murder rate (1.8 per 100,000 as of 2018) is actually lower than America’s overall murder rate (4.9 per 100,000).

Biden, who claims to be Catholic, has endorsed the so-called Equality Act, which would force a wide variety of public and private entities to recognize and accommodate individuals’ claims to be the opposite of their actual sex; and promises to “ensure that LGBTQ+ individuals have full access to all appropriate healthcare treatments and resources,” which “includes covering care related to transitioning — including gender confirmation (sic) surgery.”

— 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, democrats, gender confusion, gender transition, gender-reassignment, joe biden, lgbt, transgender children, transgenderism, transitioning

News

‘There is no nuance’: Bishops spar over endorsement of pro-abortion Joe Biden

Bishop Thomas Daly of Spokane, Wash. spoke out against Bishop Robert McElroy’s recent downplaying of the importance of abortion in a virtual meeting.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 5:20 pm EST
Featured Image
Bp. Thomas Daly of Spokane, Wash. John the Son of Thunder / YouTube
Charles Robertson
By

October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Thomas Daly of Spokane, Wash. has spoken out against Bishop Robert McElroy’s recent downplaying of the importance of abortion in a virtual meeting on October 13.

During the meeting, McElroy, the bishop of San Diego, Calif., questioned the claim that “candidates who seek laws opposing intrinsically evil actions automatically have a primary claim to political support in the Catholic conscience.” Additionally, he lamented the fact that many have publicly denied Democrat vice presidential candidate Joe Biden’s Catholic identity, saying, “Such denials are injurious because they reduce Catholic social teaching to a single issue.”

In an interview with the National Catholic Register, Bishop Daly said McElroy’s comments “effectively constituted a defense of Biden and other prominent Catholic elected officials who publicly support unrestricted abortion.” Daly disputed McElroy’s minimalist view of what it means to be Catholic, saying the belief that “life begins at conception and must be protected and reverenced until natural death ... forms who we are as Catholics.”  

McElroy opposes treating abortion as the “pre-eminent” issue in the upcoming election. In 2019, together with Cardinal Cupich of Chicago, he opposed calling the threat of abortion the “pre-eminent” priority for voters in the new introductory letter appended to the bishops’ document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” At the Fall General Assembly last year, he told the bishops, “It is not Catholic teaching that abortion is the pre-eminent issue that we face as the world in Catholic social teaching.”

In a February 2020 talk that seems to have been the basis for his recent comments, McElroy claimed that “[t]here is no mandate in universal Catholic social teaching that gives a categorical priority to either of these issues [i.e. abortion and climate change] as uniquely determinative of the common good.” In that talk, he stressed the possible long-range consequences of climate change to justify treating climate action on par with the immediate consequences of permissive abortion laws.

In an article endorsed and promoted by Denver archbishop Samuel J. Aquila, Fr. Luis Granados directly countered McElroy’s form of argumentation. Granados emphasized the indirect nature of the harm to the environment caused by good human action. Acknowledging that we are sometimes morally responsible for even indirect effects of our actions, “our responsibility is limited to the consequences we can reasonably foresee (and in the measure of our action, not in the measure of the whole effect).” Ultimately, the gravity of these indirect “sins against the environment” is “significantly smaller than in the case of abortion and euthanasia.”

While McElroy does admit that abortion is intrinsically evil, he emphasizes that prudential considerations could lead one to prioritize other issues. Further, in his February talk, he stressed that it is the candidate, not the issues, on the ballot.

— 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

As if in response to this line of argument, Bishop Daly noted what kind of candidate a ballot in favor of Joe Biden would be supporting: “He has moved in an aggressive way to do all he can to make sure abortion is available. He has walked away from the Hyde Amendment. If elected, he will push for legislation that furthers abortion. He is not passive on this issue. There is no nuance. He has taken a strong stand.”

Given both the record of the candidate and the importance of protecting unborn life, Daly wonders how McElroy could countenance a prudential choice in favor of the Democrat politician: “But if abortion is intrinsically evil, which Bishop McElroy admits to, how can Catholics vote for a candidate like Biden?”

RELATED

US archbishop rebukes brother bishops for claiming abortion not ‘preeminent’ voting issue

Bishop McElroy, how is climate change deadlier than abortion?

US bishop says ‘climate change’ more deadly than abortion: threatens ‘very future of humanity’

1 in 3 US bishops at fall meeting vote to downplay abortion by citing Pope Francis


  2020 election, abortion, catholic, joe biden, robert mcelroy, thomas daly

News

WATCH: The best moments from Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination hearings

Did you miss Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination hearings? Check out our highlight videos for a great recap!
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 5:10 pm EST
Featured Image
Amy Coney Barrett
Madeleine Jacob Madeleine Jacob Follow
By


October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held four days of hearings with Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Judge Barrett carefully and thoughtfully answered Senator’s questions while also elaborating on her approach to the law.

Judge Barrett was continually asked by Democrats how she would rule on certain hot button political issues, such as Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges. She politely declined to comment saying it was improper for a nominee to opine on a case or topic that may come before the court. She cited Justice Ginsburg who famously said, “no hints, no previews, no forecasts.”

In case you missed the hearings, or if you just wanted to recap, we’ve collected “The Best of Amy” clips from the four days of hearings:

If you don’t have 20 minutes to watch “The Best of Amy,” we’ve also collected the top 8 most memorable moments from the hearings:


  acb, amy coney barrett, hearings, scotus

News

WATCH: Trump urges faith in God, not masks, tells Americans to ask ‘help from the Boss’

'Masks, no masks, everything, you can do all you want, but you know, you still need help from the boss,' Trump said, pointing to the sky as an audience member shouted 'amen'
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 4:53 pm EST
Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

GREENVILLE, North Carolina, October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – No amount of COVID-19 precautions in the world can eliminate the need to rely on God, President Donald Trump said Thursday at a campaign rally in Greenville, North Carolina.

“Masks, no masks, everything, you can do all you want, but you know, you still need help from the Boss, we need help from the Boss, that’s what happens, we need help,” Trump said, pointing to the sky as an audience member shouted “amen.”

“Somebody said to me the other day, ‘You're the most famous person in the world by far,’” the President continued. “I said, ‘No I'm not’ [...] They said, ‘Who's more famous?’ I said, ‘Jesus Christ.’ I'm not taking any chances.’ [...] And let me look up and I'll say, ‘And it's not even close.’” 

Trump promised elsewhere in the speech to stop the “radical indoctrination” by leftists of school children.

“We will stop the radical indoctrination of our students and restore patriotic education to our schools. We will teach our children to love our country, honor our history and always respect our great American flag. And we will live by the timeless words of our national motto, ‘In God we trust,’ and that won't be changed."

— 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

“They took the word God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and they got absolutely disseminated, they put it back, they said, ‘No, no. We didn't mean it,’” he continued. “And then they took it out a couple of other times, that's where they're going but it's not gonna happen, not even gonna come close. For years you had a president who apologized for America, now you have a president who is standing up for America.”

As president, Trump has worked to oppose federal funding of abortion and the abortion industry, including restoring and expanding the Mexico City Policy (which bars foreign aid to abortion groups), excluded organizations involved in abortion from family planning funds, and endorsed legislation to fully defund Planned Parenthood and ban late-term abortion, as well as prioritized protection of religious liberty.

By contrast, former Vice President Joe Biden is campaigning on a plan to enshrine virtually-unlimited abortion into federal law at taxpayer expense, and has declared his opposition to recent Supreme Court decisions which have safeguarded the religious liberties of Christian organizations like the Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor.


  2020 election, 2020 presidential election, christianity, coronavirus, covid-19, donald trump, faith, god, masks, prayer, religion

News

List of cardinals, bishops, priests who are warning Catholics about pro-abortion Biden-Harris ticket

'But if abortion is intrinsically evil...how can Catholics vote for a candidate like Biden?'
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 3:45 pm EST
Featured Image
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris appear on stage outside the Chase Center after Biden delivered his acceptance speech on the fourth night of the Democratic National Convention from the Chase Center on August 20, 2020 in Wilmington, Delaware. Win McNamee/Getty Images
Charles Robertson
By

October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – More than a dozen Catholic cardinals, bishops, and priests have spoken out strongly against the pro-abortion presidential ticket of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, not only because of their assault against the preborn but also because of their positions on marriage and religious liberty.

Although Catholic prelates cannot officially endorse a candidate for the upcoming election, they are able to form the consciences of the faithful by highlighting the most important issues and moral principles to consider while casting their vote. Sometimes they also point out how certain policies or party platforms relate to those issues. More rarely, they implicitly or explicitly attempt to dissuade people from voting for one or the other candidate.

The following is a list of Catholic clergy who make it clear how Catholics should form their consciences in the 2020 election.

Raymond Cardinal Burke: “A Catholic may not support abortion in any shape or form because it is one of the most grievous sins against human life, and has always been considered to be intrinsically evil” and any support of abortion is “a mortal sin.” Speaking in reference to Joe Biden, Burke said in the same interview: “And the person in question has not only been actively supporting procured abortion in our country, but has announced publicly in his campaign that he intends to extend that make the practice of procured abortion available to everyone in the widest possible form, and to repeal the restrictions on this practice which have been put in place.” Source

Gerhard Cardinal Mueller: "You cannot say ‘I am Catholic, I’m a Christian, I believe in God but I accepted the legislation which includes the possible killing of people in the mother’s womb and outside the mother's womb…And it’s better to vote for a good Protestant than for a bad Catholic. We must judge according to what they are doing and not only [according] to their words. That is biblical criteria. Look to the fruits.” Source

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano: “Joe Biden does not have his own identity: he is only the expression of a power that does not dare reveal itself for what it truly is and that is hiding itself behind a person who is totally incapable of holding the office of President of the United States, also because of his weakened mental capabilities; but it is precisely in his weakness for pending complaints, in his ability to be blackmailed for conflicts of interest, that Biden reveals himself as a marionette maneuvered by the elites, a puppet in the hands of people thirsting for power and ready to do anything to expand it. We would find ourselves facing an Orwellian dictatorship desired by both the “Deep State” and the “Deep Church,” in which the rights that today are considered fundamental and inalienable would be trampled with the complicity of mainstream media.” Source

— 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 Thomas Paprocki (Springfield, IL):

  • Biden and Harris “support the Democratic Party Platform promoting abortion and calling for the use of federal taxpayer funding of abortion and the appointment of pro-abortion judges. Biden also pledged to restore the Obama-Biden policy that mandates churches, businesses, colleges, and religious orders like the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide coverage for abortion pills in their employees’ health insurance plans.” Source
  • “...voting for someone with the intent to support abortion is formal cooperation and is always sinful...It can be argued that the cooperation is mediate because that one person’s vote may not be essential to the procurement of abortion. But mediate cooperation in a grave evil requires a proportionately grave reason to be justified... It is hard to see how voting for someone who opposes the death penalty would be a proportionately grave reason to justify voting for that same candidate who promotes abortion.” Source

Bishop Thomas Daly (Spokane, WA): “But if abortion is intrinsically evil, which Bishop McElroy admits to, how can Catholics vote for a candidate like Biden? He has moved in an aggressive way to do all he can to make sure abortion is available. He has walked away from the Hyde Amendment. If elected, he will push for legislation that furthers abortion. He is not passive on this issue. There is no nuance. He has taken a strong stand.” Source

Bishop Richard Sticka (Knoxville, TN): “Don't understand how Mr. Biden can claim to be a good and faithful Catholic as he denies so much of Church teaching especially on the absolute child abuse and human rights violations of the most innocent, the not yet born. And he also praises his sidekick who has shown time and time again in senate hearings that she is an anti-Catholic bigot. So sad for this team.” Source See also Catholic bishop rebukes Biden for supporting ‘the ultimate child abuse’

Father James Altman:

  • “You can not be Catholic and be a Democrat. Period! Their party platform absolutely is against everything the Catholic Church teaches.” Source
  • “Joe Biden wants you to believe that he is a faithful Catholic. Faithful Catholics do not support expanding the ‘right’ to murder millions of unborn babies. Faithful Catholics do not personally celebrate same-sex ‘weddings’. Faithful Catholics do not vow to force nuns to provide contraception and abortifacients in insurance plans. And faithful Catholics do not remain silent while anarchists desecrate Catholic churches and statutes.” Source

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

Bishop Thomas Tobin (Providence, RI): “Biden-Harris. First time in awhile that the Democratic ticket hasn’t had a Catholic on it. Sad.” Source

Fr. Kevin M. Cusick: “Joe Biden is not a practicing Catholic. And practicing Catholics cannot vote for Biden for president in good conscience.” Source

Fr. Stephen Imbarrato: “He (Biden) is a walking and talking scandal to his Catholic faith and has rightly been refused the Eucharist because he persists in ongoing mortal sin thus separating himself from communion with the Church. He scandalizes the Catholic faith in so many ways that objectively he actually seems “anti Catholic” in his beliefs.” Source

Fr. Frank Pavone: Biden’s “failure to protect the unborn puts him not only in conflict with the Catholic faith but with the Christian Gospel, the Founding principles of America, the very meaning of public service, and basic human decency. You can’t kill babies, and you can’t authorize anyone else to do so.”  Source

Fr. Michael Orsi: “Joe Biden has stubbornly and contumaciously ignored Church teaching on abortion and Religious Freedom” Source

Fr. Edward Meeks:

  • “Today we have a man running for the office of President of the United States who very publicly proclaims what a devout Catholic he is while proudly and aggressively advocating for abortion up to the moment of birth...He has chosen a running mate who holds even more extreme views than he does...And where are the bishops who for the benefit of this man’s immortal soul should be thundering with one unavoidable apostolic voice at this Catholic candidate, ‘How dare you! How dare you present yourself so publicly as a faithful Catholic while trampling on some of the Church’s most serious and most fervently held moral precepts!’” Source
  • “On these [sanctity of life, marriage, and religious liberty] and other critical issues, there is one presidential candidate who stands in very public [and] very obstinate opposition to Church teaching — namely, former vice president Joe Biden.” Source

Related:

Priest devotes homily to dangers of a Joe Biden presidency for Catholics

Top US pro-life priests: ‘No Catholic can vote for Joe Biden’

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

Catholic bishop rebukes Biden for supporting ‘the ultimate child abuse’

Bishop contrasts pro-abortion Biden with pro-life Trump to help voters decide

New Fr. Altman video explains why Joe Biden is a fake Catholic

Cardinal Burke: Joe Biden is not a Catholic in ‘good standing’, should not receive Communion


  2020 election, abortion, joe biden, kamala harris

News

US bishop: Voting for Biden requires ‘reason that outweighs’ 860,000 abortions

Bishop Thomas Paprocki asked, ‘Is it a sin to vote for Biden?’
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 3:30 pm EST
Featured Image
Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois
Charles Robertson
By

SPRINGFIELD, Illinois, October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Thomas Paprocki said that voting for pro-abortion Democrat Joe Biden in the upcoming election would require “a proportionately grave reason that outweighs the killing of 860,000 babies per year,” adding that even the death penalty is no such reason.

In a follow-up to his recent video contrasting President Donald Trump’s pro-life record with his opponent’s pro-abortion stance, the bishop of Springfield, Illinois, attempted to answer the question, “Is it a sin to vote for Joe Biden?

After detailing the extreme pro-abortion records of the Democrat candidate and his running mate, Paprocki briefly explained the moral principles involved in cooperation with the sins of others.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them,” whether by direct or indirect participation (CCC 1868). Indirect participation in the sins of others is usually called “cooperation” in the tradition of Catholic moral thought.

Noting that voting is itself a good act, Paprocki said that “voting for someone who promotes an intrinsic evil raises the question of cooperation with evil.” He distinguished formal cooperation from material cooperation. Formal cooperation is always wrong, he explained, because it involves consenting to or agreeing with the evil action of another person. Consequently, to vote for Biden because of his pro-abortion policies would necessarily be a sin.

In material cooperation, a person offers some kind of help in enabling the evildoer to accomplish a bad action. Paprocki explained that this kind of cooperation can sometimes be morally justified, but that it “requires a proportionately grave reason. The more proximate the cooperation, the more proportionately grave the reasons needed for the action to be justified.”

Voting for a pro-abortion candidate at the very least involves material cooperation in that candidate’s ability to do evil. Consequently, Paprocki considers that the reason in favor of voting for that candidate needs to be “a proportionately grave reason that outweighs the killing of 860,000 babies per year.”

As an example of what some consider to be a proportionately grave reason to vote Democrat, Paprocki mentioned opposition to the death penalty. He concluded, “It is hard to see how voting for someone who opposes the death penalty would be a proportionately grave reason to justify voting for that same candidate who promotes abortion.”

On the one hand, Paprocki said, capital punishment, unlike abortion, is not intrinsically evil. “While abortion is considered to be an intrinsic evil, the death penalty has been called ‘inadmissible’ by Pope Francis, which is not the same as calling it an intrinsic evil, but is more of a prudential judgment about its efficacy,” he argued.

Paprocki’s second reason for saying that opposition to the death penalty fails justify voting for pro-abortion presidential candidate Joe Biden is that far more people are killed by abortion than by capital punishment. “While over 860,000 abortions took place in our country in the last reported year, there were a total of 22 executions of prisoners in seven states in 2019, with zero executions in the State of Illinois.”

— 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

Paprocki left it to his faithful to fill out the rest of the argument for themselves. “I am not saying that you must vote to re-elect President Donald Trump. My objective is to provide you with a sound framework based on Catholic moral principles to guide your decisions with a well-formed conscience as you prepare to vote.”

Joe Biden, meanwhile, repeatedly signaled his willingness to undo pro-life policies instituted by the Trump administration.

Biden dedicated one section of his Agenda for Women released in July to “Reproductive Health,” which is generally a reference to abortion. The former vice president under President Barack Obama said he “will work to codify Roe v. Wade, and his Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate Roe v. Wade.”

Roe v. Wade is the 1973 Supreme Court ruling essentially imposing abortion on all 50 states under the guise of a woman’s right to privacy.

During a townhall event earlier this month, Biden said that if the Supreme Court overturned the ruling, “the only responsible thing to do would be to pass legislation making Roe the law of the land. That’s what I would do.”


  2020 election, abortion, cooperation with evil, joe biden, moral theology, thomas paprocki, voting

News

WHO’s COVID infection number when compared to death number indicates virus no more dangerous than flu

According to WHO’s executive director of emergencies, about '10 percent of the global population may have been infected by this virus.' With only 1,061,539 deaths attributed to the virus, this means that there is an infection fatality rate of roughly 0.14%, which is right in line with seasonal flu.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 2:57 pm EST
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Patrick Delaney Patrick Delaney Follow
By

GENEVA, October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In an apparent attempt to incite a level of fear regarding the spread of COVID-19, World Health Organization (WHO) officials released what at first glance appears to be an alarming infection rate number. When that number is compared to the number of deaths, however, it proves that the death rate of the novel coronavirus is comparable to the seasonal flu, something that many experts and close observers have been claiming for months.

According to the AP, the WHO’s executive director of emergencies, Dr. Michael Ryan, indicated as much on October 5th during a “special session of the WHO’s 34-member executive board focusing on COVID-19.”

“The disease continues to spread. It is on the rise in many parts of the world,” Ryan stated. “Our current best estimates tell us that about 10 percent of the global population may have been infected by this virus.” 

WHO spokeswoman Dr. Margaret Harris elaborated further explaining this “best estimate” of 10 percent, came from averaging the results of antibody studies around the globe, and emphasized that the virus still had “opportunity” to continually spread to the remaining 90 percent “if we don’t take action to stop it.”

Though reporting by many news outlets remained consistent with the words and tone of the WHO officials, promoting a pronounced fear of the virus and of a resulting “difficult period” ahead, Kit Knightly of OffGuardian observed that this 10 percent figure is “actually good news.”

Given a world population of approximately 7.8 billion people, the total number of COVID-19 infections would be around 780 million individuals.  With “the global death toll currently attributed to Sars-Cov-2 infections at 1,061,539,” this would equate to “an infection fatality rate of roughly 0.14%,” which Knightly affirms is “right in line with seasonal flu,” along with the research and “predictions of many experts from all around the world.”

Indeed, even Dr. Anthony Fauci, on February 28 of this year, published a paper with two colleagues which predicted that “the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968).”

— 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

Just 12 days later, however, while advocating for severe lockdown measures at a congressional hearing, Dr. Fauci stated that the novel coronavirus had “a mortality rate of 10 times” that of the seasonal flu.

Contributing to such alarm in early March, helping justify severe lockdown measures around the globe, the WHO asserted that the death toll from the virus was 3.4% globally, more than 24 times larger than the 0.14% result from their “best estimate” above.

According to several months of data, as tracked and presented by Swiss Policy Research (SPR), it is the early Fauci prediction and the current “best estimate” of the WHO which remains correct: the overall death rate of COVID-19 “ranges between 0.1% and 0.5% in most countries, which is comparable to the medium influenza pandemics of 1957 and 1968.”

Knightly emphasizes that even these numbers may be significantly inflated due to “over-reporting” for which there remains ample  evidence (here, here, here, here). Still, SPR clarifies that, even according to the present numbers, the risk of death “for the healthy general population of school and working age is comparable to a daily car ride to work.”


  coronavirus, michael ryan, world health organization

News

Joe Biden’s son sought $30M for introducing VP to shady Chinese energy exec: email leak

The latest revelation comes a day after the New York Post reported the Bidens' link to a Ukrainian energy company.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 1:57 pm EST
Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Among the revelations contained in the bombshell Robert Hunter Biden emails obtained by the New York Post are details on precisely how the son of former Vice President Joe Biden enriched himself by arranging meetings between his family and influential international figures, including those with ties to the government of Communist China.

The Post’s first report detailed emails indicating that Hunter introduced his father to Vadym Pozharskyi, a top adviser to the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma, less than a year before the elder Biden openly pressured the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor tasked with investigating the company. It went viral after Facebook and Twitter attempted to block the link and limit its reach.

A follow-up report in the Post sheds more light on Hunter’s activities, including a deal in which he would receive $10 million a year for three years from a “consulting” contract with CEFC China Energy Co. “for introductions alone.”

CEFC chairman Ye Jianming “Changed that deal after we me(t) in MIAMI TO A MUCH MORE LASTING AND LUCRATIVE ARRANGEMENT to create a holding company 50% percent (sic) owned by ME and 50% owned by him,” the vice presidential son wrote in an August 2017 email chain. “Consulting fees is one piece of our income stream but the reason this proposal by the chairman was so much more interesting to me and my family is that we would also be partners inn (sic) the equity and profits of the JV’s (joint venture’s) investments.”

The Post noted that Ye “has ties to the Chinese military” and disappeared in 2018 after being charged with bribing foreign government officials. CEFC went bankrupt earlier in 2020.

Regarding Wednesday’s original allegation, the Biden campaign told Politico that no meeting between the former vice president and Pozharskyi appears on his official schedules, though it “would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi.” Biden representatives have yet to respond to inquiries about Ye.

— 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, china, corruption, democrats, hunter biden, joe biden

News

Trudeau slams Tories for investigating WE Charity corruption amid COVID crisis

Investigations were cut short in August when the Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 1:23 pm EST
Featured Image
Justin Trudeau / Flickr
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

OTTAWA, Canada, October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau criticized Conservatives this week for trying to renew investigations into the WE Charity corruption scandal that were cut short in August when he chose to prorogue Parliament.

Trudeau said at a press conference Tuesday that the government’s priority is to help Canadians deal with the coronavirus crisis, the National Post reported.

“We are entirely focused on the second wave of COVID-19,” the pro-abortion prime minister emphasized. “We will continue to stay focused on what we need to do to support Canadians facing a very difficult time right now. The Conservatives continue to want to focus on WE Charity, so be it.”

Trudeau’s remarks came a day after Conservative MPs Michael Barrett and Pierre Poilievre announced that they are asking that a special “anti-corruption” committee be formed to investigate the WE affair.

The Bloc and NDP also tabled separate motions to create a special committee to look into the matter, reported Canadian Press.

Before Parliament was prorogued, four Commons committees had started, or were preparing to start, digging into details of the Liberals’ decision to award WE Charity a now-cancelled no-bid contract to manage a CA$902 million national student volunteer grant program.

WE would have received CA$43.5 million to administer the now-defunct program.

The Liberals were already under fire over the sole-source contract when it emerged that Trudeau’s mother, Margaret Trudeau, and brother, Alexandre Trudeau, had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees and expenses from WE over the last four years, the National Post reported.

As the scandal grew, the ethics commissioner launched an investigation of Trudeau and then-Finance Minister Bill Morneau, whose family also had close ties to the charity founded by Ontario brothers Marc and Craig Kielburger.

Both Trudeau and Morneau apologized for not recusing themselves from cabinet discussions on the WE contract, and Trudeau insisted the decision was made by public servants.

— 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

On August 17, Morneau resigned his seat, and a month later, WE Charity announced it was closing its Canadian operations.

Meanwhile, the RCMP “continues to examine this matter carefully with all available information and will take appropriate actions as required,” a spokesman told LifeSiteNews in an email statement.

“However, we generally would not confirm or deny if an investigation is underway unless criminal charges would be laid. It would therefore be inappropriate for us to provide any more comments on this matter at this time.”

Trudeau suggested Tuesday that there are more important issues to deal with, and he dodged a question asking if he opposes a special committee to investigate the WE affair, Huffington Post reported.

“We have an awful lot of work to do, we’re going to continue doing it, but that needs to remain our focus,” Trudeau said. “The opposition can focus on whatever it is they want. We will stay focused on Canadians.”

He contended the Liberals have been open about the circumstances surrounding the WE deal. “I appeared at committee myself months ago, we released thousands of pages of documents, we’ve been open and transparent on these questions,” the prime minister said.

“But the Conservatives continue to want to focus on that. They certainly can. We will stay focused on Canadians while we let committees do their work independently.”

However, the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc Québécois have all criticized the extensive redactions in the documents the Liberals provided, according to the National Post.

Moreover, the non-partisan House of Commons law clerk told the pre-prorogation committee in August that the government appeared to have redacted more information than was necessary.

Despite this, the documents seemed to suggest the public service was “nudged in WE’s direction by Youth Minister Bardish Chagger,” Huffington Post noted.

The legislative session ended when Trudeau prorogued Parliament in August, and when the House resumed sitting on September 23, committees were reconstituted with new agendas.

As a minority government, the Liberals do not have the majority of votes on committees, and opposition parties can control agendas if they vote together, noted the National Post.

But opposition members of both the ethics and the finance committees attempting to renew investigations of the WE affair have been met with Liberal obstructionism.

Last Friday, the ethics committee met to vote on a motion to have the agency used by WE Charity, Speakers’ Spotlight Bureau, provide details of speaking fees paid since 2008 for Trudeau, his wife Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, as well as Margaret Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau.

The Liberal members of the committee filibustered for four-and-a-half hours and the meeting ended without a vote when a Bloc Québécois MP joined the Liberals to vote to adjourn. The Liberals employed the same strategy at Thursday’s meeting.

Barrett, the Conservative ethics critic, said Monday that the opposition wants to know what’s in the redacted documents.

“There has to be something pretty significant, pretty explosive in those documents, to shut down Parliament, to stop their release and then, once Parliament resumes, to filibuster committee for days on end to prevent their further release,” he said.

He told Canadian Press that the Conservatives will persevere no matter how long the Liberals filibuster.

It’s not clear when the finance committee will convene again after chair Wayne Easter, a Liberal MP, suspended last Thursday’s meeting to assess if a motion on WE Charity was in order, the National Post reported.

The NDP’s motion proposes the special committee also look into the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, “which was allegedly the target of a line-crossing lobby campaign by Rob Silver, who is married to Trudeau’s chief of staff, Katie Telford,” political analyst Kady O’Malley wrote in iPolitics.

The NDP also wants the committee to investigate “the procurement of personal protective equipment,” which O’Malley interpreted as an implicit reference “to a COVID-19-related contract awarded to a Quebec ventilator manufacturer owned by a former Liberal MP.”

RELATED

Scandal-plagued WE Charity shuts down Canadian operations, will leave ‘endowment’

Trudeau govt in ‘chaos’ as finance minister resigns amid WE Charity scandal

Top pro-life org hopes WE Scandal will take down pro-abortion Trudeau regime

Why I would never let my kids go to WE Day

‘Trudeau! Trudeau!’: We Day leads 16,000 youth in chant for Canada’s new pro-abortion prime minister


  corruption, justin trudeau, tories, we charity

News

Pope Francis calls for a global education pact with humanity at its center

Although he made a reference to social doctrine being inspired by ‘the Word of God and Christian humanism,’ the pontiff did not mention Jesus Christ. ‘Fraternity,’ however, was mentioned several times.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 12:19 pm EST
Featured Image
VATICAN NEWS / YOUTUBE
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

ROME, Italy, October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis has called for the creation of a global education system yesterday with humanity, not God, at its center. 

The Argentinian pontiff introduced his plan in a video released at the delayed “Global Compact on Education” event at the Pontifical Lateran University yesterday afternoon. In the Italian-language video, Pope Francis reflected on the Covid-19 pandemic’s impact on children’s education, called “an education catastrophe”, but did not focus on reading, writing or arithmetic. Instead he called for an education that will create a new, universal, “culture” that will serve the whole world. 

“Education, as we know, is meant to be transformative,” the pope declared.

 “To educate is to take a risk and to hold out to the present a hope that can shatter the determinism and fatalism that the selfishness of the strong, the conformism of the weak and the ideology of the utopians would convince us is the only way forward,” he continued.

The pontiff underscored that for him “education” is not about imparting facts and developing skills but grasping the interdependence of humanity. 

 “To educate is always an act of hope, one that calls for cooperation in turning a barren and paralyzing indifference into another way of thinking that recognizes our interdependence,” he declared.  

“If our educational systems are presently marked by a mindset of replacement and repetition, and are incapable of opening up new horizons in which hospitality, intergenerational solidarity and the value of transcendence can give birth to a new culture, would this not signify that we are failing to take advantage of the opportunity offered by this historic moment?”

The historic moment to which the pontiff referred is apparently the coronavirus epidemic, which he had said had added 10 million children to the 250 million children already out of school. 

Pope Francis wants a “process of education” that leads future generations to pay attention to “grave social injustices, violations of rights, terrible forms of poverty, and the waste of human lives.” He wants the “integral process” to take into consideration the problems that beset young people today, such as “depression, addiction, aggressiveness, verbal hatred, and bullying.” This process should also pay attention to the “scourge of violence, the abuse of minors, the phenomenon of child marriage and child soldiers [and] the tragedy of children sold into slavery” as well as the “sufferings’ endured by our planet.” 

The pope included neither abortion nor gender ideology among the injustices to children he listed.   

— 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

Pope Francis called for an end to education systems he feels are “superficial”, “bureaucratic” and “atomized” in favor of one that will create a new worldwide culture. 

“Today, we are called to have the necessary parrhesía [frankness] to leave behind superficial approaches to education and the many short-cuts associated with utility, (standardized) test results, functionality and bureaucracy, which confuse education with instruction and end up atomizing our cultures,” he said. 

“Instead, we should aim to impart an integral, participatory and polyhedral [many-sided] culture,” he continued. 

“The value of our educational practices will be measured not simply by the results of standardized tests, but by the ability to affect the heart of society and to help give birth to a new culture.”

The pontiff read a list defining the principles of his global education pact. The first declared “human persons” at the center of this initiative:

“To make human persons in their value and dignity the centre of every educational programme, both formal and informal, in order to foster their distinctiveness, beauty and uniqueness, and their capacity for relationship with others and with the world around them, while at the same time teaching them to reject lifestyles that encourage the spread of the throwaway culture.”

The others were to “listen” to children and young people; to “encourage” the education of women; to understand the family as the first school; to “educate and be educated” about the need to accept and be open to “the most vulnerable and marginalized”; to create new concepts of economics, politics, growth, and progress that serve everyone “within the context of an integral ecology”; and to preserve the environment. 

On this seventh point, Pope Francis committed himself to a radical environmentalism, one that calls for a “circular economy” where waste and pollution are eliminated and all resources are renewable. The partners in the “Global Compact on Education” aim, therefore,  “to safeguard and cultivate our common home, protecting it from the exploitation of its resources, and to adopt a more sober lifestyle marked by the use of renewable energy sources and respect for the natural and human environment, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity, solidarity, and a circular economy.”

The pontiff stated also that “radical decisions” must be made “at certain moments in history” and that this is one of those moments. 

“Amid the present health crisis – and the poverty and confusion it has caused – we believe that it is time to subscribe to a global pact on education for and with future generations,” he said. 

“This calls for a commitment on the part of families, communities, schools, universities, institutions, religions, governments and the entire human family to the training of mature men and women.

Pope Francis declared that he and his partners are committed to implementing this plan within “all of our countries.” The Holy See’s contribution alone would not be negligible. According to the Global Catholic Education Report for 2020, over 62.2 million children are educated in Catholic schools. 

Although he made a reference to social doctrine being inspired by “the Word of God and Christian humanism,” the pontiff did not mention Jesus Christ. “Fraternity”, however, was mentioned several times.

The pope’s speech was followed by presentations by a panel and by video messages from collaborators in the Holy Global Education Pact. 

The panel included Cardinal Giuseppe Versaldi, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education; Archbishop Angelo Vincenzo Zani, secretary of the dicastery; Vincenzo Buonuomo, the Rector of the Pontifical Lateran University;  Professor Franco Anelli, Rector of Rome’s University of the Sacred Heart; and Professor Silvia Cataldi, a lecturer in sociology at Rome’s Sapienza University. 

Cardinal Versaldi clarified that Pope Francis feels that the current “development model” for poor parts of the world does not work and that which is needed is “a new cultural model”. This is the motivation for the pope’s education pact.

"If we don’t change our thoughts, if we don’t change the way in which we see the world, if we don’t change our approach to reaching our goals, we cannot change our development model,” Versaldi explained. 

“That’s why, according to the pope, the new cultural process starts from education. It’s difficult to change the mentality of the older generations, and that’s why we have to focus on the newer ones,” he continued. 

“We have to change the way young people think so, as the pope says, they can break that chain of events and pessimism which are the result of ideologies that oppose the true good for humanity. That’s why the pope wishes to launch this initiative.”  

The Director-General of UNESCO also took part in yesterday’s event. A message by Audrey Azoulay was streamed to the audience in which she expressed her gratitude to Pope Francis for his commitment to peace, education, and the role the United Nations’ organization can play in his mission. Azoulay said that UNESCO was “delighted” to be part of the pontiff’s Global Education Pact because “its goals reflect our own.” 

Jose Maria Del Corral, the Argentine president of the“Foundation Scholas Occurrentes” and a long-time collaborator of the then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, gave a video presentation in Spanish. He reflected that Scholas was created for a global education pact, for even thirty years ago, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio thought the education system was “broken.”  

Professor Diane Desierto of the Keough School of Global Affairs atNotre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana also sent a video message to express Notre Dame’s support for the pope’s initiative. 

There were also remarks from a number of students and professors from the audience. They included a Buddhist student from Japan, a Muslim student from Algeria, and a woman religious from Congo. A short film about the hope a Catholic vocational school gives poor young people in Cambodia was aired.  

The Global Compact on Education event was supposed to take place in May but was postponed until yesterday because of the coronavirus pandemic. Currently in Italy people are allowed to gather indoors as long as they wear masks and can maintain social distancing. 


  education, global education pact, pope francis, vatican news

News

Priest devotes homily to dangers of a Joe Biden presidency for Catholics

'There are certain realities about the candidates and their parties that directly impact our Catholic faith,' said Fr. Ed Meeks in Sunday's homily. He then laid them out.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 11:09 am EST
Featured Image
Fr. Ed Meeks. Fr. Edward Meeks / YouTube
Colette Hazinski
By

TOWSON, Maryland, October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A Catholic priest of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter gave a straightforward and courageous homily that clearly laid out Joe Biden and the Democratic Party’s stance on the non-negotiables on Sunday, October 11, 2020.

Father Ed Meeks, the founding pastor of Christ the King Church in Towson, Maryland, declared, “There are certain realities about the candidates and their parties that directly impact our Catholic faith, and we must be aware of these realities before we cast our vote.”

Fr. Meeks admitted that it is not his place to tell his parishioners how they should vote, but he said, “It is my place as your priest and pastor to help you see how your vote may or may not line up with the teachings of the church.”

For this reason, he exhorted the faithful to vote in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church, which are based on Sacred Scripture and the living tradition contained in the Church’s Magisterium.

Citing Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis, Fr. Meeks told his parishioners that the three non-negotiables for Catholics are the sanctify of life from conception to natural death, the sanctity of marriage as a lifelong sacramental union between a man and a woman, and the preservation of religious liberty.  

“On these [non-negotiables] and other critical issues, there is one presidential candidate who stands in very public [and] very obstinate opposition to Church teaching — namely, former vice president Joe Biden,” Fr. Meeks announced.  

“I’d like to share with you the five things that every Catholic needs to know about ‘Catholic’ Joe Biden and how these line up with the non-negotiables,” he added.

The first thing Fr. Meeks called his parishioners’ attention to is that Biden is “unabashedly pro-abortion.” He reminded them that Biden and the Democratic Party support ending the lives of young children up to birth and even afterward. He also pointed out that Biden’s party repeatedly opposed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and that they advocate for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which would force all American taxpayers to fund abortions.

— 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. Meeks then brought up the fact that Biden stands in direct opposition to the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. He recalled that Biden publicly endorsed so-called “same-sex marriage” in 2012 when he was vice president and that he officiated the “marriage” of two men in 2016.

In addition, Fr. Meeks warned his parishioners that a “Biden presidency would be a danger to our already dwindling religious liberty.” He cautioned that Biden would restore the Obamacare mandate requiring religious organizations to fund contraception for their employees and that if Biden were to institute a nationwide shutdown, such an action “would once again close our churches.”

Fr. Meeks also made his parishioners aware that a Biden presidency would “open the door” for the United States to quickly become a socialist country. He reminded them that Biden signed on to Bernie Sanders’s socialist agenda and that non-partisan groups have called his running mate, Kamala Harris, the “most leftist member of the U.S. Senate.”

Finally, Fr. Meeks alerted the faithful that Biden’s stance on the four previous issues subverts the “position of nominal and misinformed or poorly catechized Catholics.” Biden’s position is a disservice to Catholics and Christians because it gives the false impression that “what he holds isn’t that bad,” Fr. Meeks said.

Fr. Meeks’s homily serves as a warning about if Biden is elected president and an exhortation to Catholics and Christians everywhere to stand up to the politicians who contradict and subvert Catholic teaching and tell them “enough is enough.”


  2020 election, abortion, catholic, ed meeks, homosexuality, joe biden, marriage

News

We’d ‘rather die from COVID than loneliness’: Nursing home residents protest lockdowns

The heartbreaking demonstration in Colorado saw residents protest with signs reading 'Prisoners in our own home,' and 'Give us freedom,' as well as 'We want families back,' with one that read they would 'rather die from COVID than loneliness.'
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 10:58 am EST
Featured Image
CBS Denver / YouTube screengrab
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

COLORADO, October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) –  Residents at a Colorado nursing home recently held an outdoor protest to show their anger against state COVID-19 visitor regulations which prevent physical contact with family members. 

The heartbreaking demonstration saw residents protest with signs reading “Prisoners in our own home,” and “Give us freedom,” as well as “We want families back,” with one that read they would “rather die from COVID than loneliness.”

The protest took place on October 8 at Fairacres Manor located in Greeley, Colorado. Local news channel, CBS4 reported that around 20 residents participated in the protest, many of whom were in wheelchairs. 

Colorado’s indoor visitation guidelines are extremely strict, allowing only for those 18 years or older to visit following “social distance guidelines” and mask-wearing. 

Outdoor visiting is allowed with no age restrictions, but the guidelines state that visitors must wear a mask and keep a six-foot distance intact, meaning physical contact is not possible.

One resident told a local news station that all they want is a “simple hug.” 

“We did this because one thing we have to look forward to is a simple hug,” said Fairacres Manor resident Sharon Peterson in the CBS4 report. 

“We used to be lucky here at Fairacres to show each other what we mean to one another and we cannot do that anymore….. We did this because one thing we have to look forward to is a simple hug.”

Peterson, who is 75, is a long-term resident of Fairacres Manor and acts as its Resident Council President. The long-term care facility offers its residents nursing and rehabilitation services, and according to their website, is part of the Vivage - Senior Living communities group. 

An assistant administrator at Fairacres Manor, Ben Gonzales, said in the CBS4 report that residents wanted to “hug their grandchildren,” and “be able to hold the hands of their loved ones.” 

— 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

According to a Greeley Tribune report regarding the protest, Gonzales noted that both residents and staff had sent a letter in August to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment as well as to Democratic Governor of Colorado Jared Polis, pleading with them to allow physical contact. 

While Gonzales noted in the Tribune report that they did not hear a reply from Polis or the health department, the day after news broke of the protest, Polis issued a statement which was reported in the CBS4 report. 

“We absolutely understand how difficult it has been for residents of residential care facilities and their families. Social interaction is essential to physical and mental health, and so we have provided guidance to residential care facilities that allows for that interaction while also keeping residents safe from COVID-19,” read Polis’s statement.

Polis has been a vocal advocate for the wearing of masks and following “social distancing” protocols in Colorado.  This week he warned that his state needs to get COVID-19 “under control now” after a rise in case numbers. 

While most COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. and Canada have been attributed to those over the age of 65, alarms have been raised over their treatment in care homes.

In July, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise blasted New York Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis in his state, in particular his decision to force nursing homes accept COVID-19 patients. 

In August, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) requested data from the Democrat governors of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, whose states “required nursing homes to admit COVID-19 patients to their vulnerable populations,” according to the DOJ.   

In May, a report by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) alleged serious healthy and safety issues in five Ontario nursing homes,  including evidence of malnourished and neglected residents, insect infestations, spoiled food, and a lack of proper safety precautions.


  canada, colorado, coronavirus restrictions, freedom, nursing homes

News

New York court backs Christian adoption org that refused to place kids with same-sex couples

The New York Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) had told the adoption agency to change their policy or close.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 8:12 am EST
Featured Image
NEW AFRICA / SHUTTERSTOCK
Michael Haynes
By

SYRACUSE, New York, October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A Christian adoption agency which only places children with married couples of one father and one mother, has received a court ruling allowing it continue operating, after the agency was ordered to change its policy or close.

In 2018, New Hope Family Services was told by the New York Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) to alter their position as it fell foul of the New York adoption policies

The OCFS continued by claiming that New Hope’s position was “discriminatory and impermissible” against same-sex couples, and that the agency must reverse its policy or close. It required the agency to state “that placement with unmarried or same sex couples is in the best interests of the child.” 

New Hope clearly identifies as a Christian agency, and states that its “policy is an exercise of its religious faith.”

Consequently, New Hope filed a lawsuit seeking both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, to halt OCFS from preventing them from finding homes for children through adoption. They stated that OCFS were forcing them to “violate their religious convictions and say things that they believe to be false—or shut their doors.”

The appeal for preliminary injunction was turned down in 2019, prompting New Hope to turn to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the original decision in July of this year.

There, the Court of Appeals ruled that there was “a plausible suspicion that OCFS acted with hostility towards New Hope because of the latter’s religious beliefs.” 

The case returned to the New York District court, where New Hope emerged victorious in the proceedings on October 5. They were granted a preliminary injunction and the court ordered that “OCFS may not revoke New Hope’s perpetual authorization to place children for adoption during the pendency of this litigation.”

It declared that OCFS’s action “demonstrates some animosity towards particular religious beliefs.”

Roger Brooks, the senior counsel from Alliance Defending Freedom, New Hope’s legal counsel, said in a statement issued in response to the victory that government officials have no business forcing faith-based providers to choose between contradicting their religious convictions and closing their doors. 

— 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 need for adoption services in New York, whether public or private, is huge, and New Hope’s faith-guided services do not coerce anyone and do nothing to interfere with other adoption providers who have different beliefs about family and the best interests of children,” Brooks said.

“Today’s ruling signals that the state’s attempt to shutter New Hope violated core rights protected by the First Amendment…this ruling means that New Hope can continue offering the exceptional support it has provided for decades while its lawsuit challenging the state’s unconstitutional policy continues,” he continued.

New Hope describes itself as “Christ’s hands extended to offer help and hope to those with pregnancy, parenting and post-abortion needs in the Syracuse area; and with adoption needs throughout New York State.” The organisation receives no state funding and relies entirely on donations.

The organisation holds that there are two sexes, male and female, made by God, and it is the union of man and wife in marriage which is the best place to raise children.

Since its founding in 1965, it has “placed over 1,000 children into loving adoptive homes throughout the State of New York” and the organisation says that, through its adoption programme, it “strives to save the lives of babies that God has created.”  


  adoption, adoption agencies, courts, marriage and family, new york, religious freedom

News

Pro-lifer whose talk at Google went viral to debate pro-infanticide philosopher, abortionist

Stephanie Gray Connors will debate abortionist Dr. Malcolm Potts and pro-infanticide philosopher Dr. Peter Singer.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 6:00 am EST
Featured Image
Pro-life activist Stephanie Gray Connors loveunleasheslife.com
Charles Robertson
By

October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – This month Stephanie Gray Connors, the Catholic human rights activist who founded the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, will debate abortionist Dr. Malcolm Potts and pro-infanticide philosopher Dr. Peter Singer. The debates will be live-streamed on October 20 and 22 respectively.

Singer, a Princeton professor, has argued in favor of bestiality, killing newborns, euthanasia, and experimenting on and even raping the disabled.

Gray Connors (née Gray) is a speaker with vast experience presenting pro-life arguments. Since leaving the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform (CCBR) in 2014, she has offered training courses and speaking engagements internationally. She is perhaps best known for her 2017 “Talks at Google” appearance, which has been viewed over 200,000 times. 

In a recent interview, Gray Connors recounted how she became convicted that she was to spend her life in the service of the unborn. The prompting came during a talk by pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf during her undergraduate studies. “He taught us how to be winsome and persuasive and logical and reasonable, and during that presentation he said ‘there are more people working full-time to kill babies than there are working full time to save them,” she said. She trained with Klusendorf over the course of her studies and started working full-time in the pro-life movement once she graduated in 2002.

Her upcoming debates with Potts and Singer will cover some old territory and some new. Gray Connors has debated Potts several times before. One of those debates can be viewed here.

Potts is a professor of public health at the University of California Berkeley and was the first Medical Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. In a 2010 editorial for The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, he wrote that he was “was perhaps the first Western physician to do outpatient vacuum aspiration abortions under local anaesthesia.” The debate between Gray Connors and Potts will be aired live on Matt Fradd’s Pints with Aquinas on October 20

But the October 22 debate will be the first time that Gray Connors has debated Singer, the infamous Princeton Professor of Bioethics, whose radical views on human life will be familiar to many LifeSiteNews readers

Image

A dedicated utilitarian, Singer’s arguments generally begin from the premise that the conscious ability to experience pleasure or pain is the fundamental criterion for determining which lives have value. He pioneered the concept of “speciesism,” the idea that it is mere prejudice that makes human beings think that animals are inferior life forms. Gray Connors’ debate with Singer is being hosted by the Harvard Right to Life Club and sponsored by Massachusetts Citizens for life. The Zoom seminar has a limit of 500 participants, but the debate will also be will be live-streamed on several venues, including Facebook, YouTube, and the Massachusetts Citizens for Life website. The debate will take place on October 22 at 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Gray Connors’ debate with Potts will be live-streamed here. Information on her debate with Singer and how to watch it live can be found here.

RELATED:

Celebrated moral philosopher: It’s OK to rape the disabled

Bigot Peter Singer: Don’t pay to treat disabled babies

This man supports bestiality, infanticide and experimenting on the disabled: and he’s the most-celebrated moral philosopher of our time

Activist shares pro-life truth at Google HQ, gets more views than Planned Parenthood chief

A debate with a late-term abortionist: the banality of evil

Pro-abort students demand Brock U. drop charges after disrupting pro-life event


  abortion, canada, debates, infanticide, malcolm potts, peter singer, stephanie gray

Opinion

‘Kill my baby,’ she told the nurses…until she heard her baby cry

I once met a labor and delivery nurse who told me about a particularly traumatic abortion-related story.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 8:43 pm EST
Featured Image
Natalia Lebedinskaia / Shutterstock.com
Stephanie Gray Connors Stephanie Gray Connors
By Stephanie Connors

October 16, 2020 (Love Unleashes Life) — When someone cries, how do compassionate people respond? The cries of another typically elicit a reaction from the hearer to comfort and console those whose tears express what words cannot.

I once met a labor and delivery nurse who told me about a particularly traumatic abortion-related story.* A patient presented at the hospital the nurse worked at. The patient was in labor at 25 weeks pregnancy (pregnancy typically goes to 40 weeks). Earlier that day, she had gone to a late-term abortion clinic where she had Step 1 of a multi-step procedure to induce the death of her pre-born child. Potassium chloride (KCL) had been inserted into the heart of the baby to bring about a heart attack in the child. Then, in the following days, the doctors were going to go in and pull that baby’s body parts out piece by piece.

Since labor had begun unexpectedly, the woman went to a hospital, but it was a hospital that does not do abortions. When the woman told the medical personnel what she had gone through earlier in the day, she said to them, “I came in for an abortion. I want an abortion. I don’t want this baby. I want the abortion now.”

— 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 doctors and nurses gathered. They listened for a heartbeat and, unexpectedly, the KCL had not stopped the baby’s heart. They discussed the situation and determined that they had a responsibility to resuscitate the baby if the child came out alive.

The woman said, “I don’t want that. I want an abortion. Kill my baby!”

The medical team said no; if the baby came out with a heartbeat, they would attempt resuscitation. The woman continued with her labor. And when the baby was born, the infant cried. Upon hearing the cries of her child, the mother screamed, “Save my baby!”

Feeling the child kick had not softened her hard heart. Hearing the heartbeat had not softened her hard heart. But hearing the cries of her own flesh and blood had drawn out from within her the instinctive and maternal response to alleviate the suffering of the vulnerable in her midst.

Unfortunately the choice the woman had made earlier in the day had a permanent consequence: Resuscitation did not work, and the baby passed away.

There’s an important lesson here, and that is the power of a cry. For pre-born children, however, their screams are silent. We cannot hear, at an audible level, their plea for our aid. But we who know they exist, we who know their very lives are in jeopardy by legalized abortion, have a responsibility to raise our voices in their place, to make an appeal to the consciences of others to help — not harm — them.

*This story was told by Stephanie at the March for Life in Victoria, BC, in May 2019.

Published with permission from Love Unleashes Life.

Note: The author is scheduled to debate prominent pro-abortion philosopher Peter Singer. Find more information here.


  abortion, family

Opinion

In a crisis pregnancy, a mother can find strength in her child

The protective role of parents was brought to light in a powerful story I recently learned about.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 8:33 pm EST
Featured Image
aslysun / Shutterstock.com
Stephanie Gray Connors Stephanie Gray Connors
By Stephanie Connors

October 16, 2020 (Love Unleashes Life) — On a recent call-in radio program I did with Catholic Answers Radio, the lines were open only to people who support abortion in order to have on-air debate with me; one caller, who was defending abortion, referenced the pregnant woman as a mother. Which led me to ask what a mother is.

The reality is, not all females are mothers. The term mother doesn't simply imply having two X chromosomes. Instead, it also implies having offspring. Which leads to the next important question: What do civil societies expect of mothers in relation to their children?

The obvious answer is that we expect mothers to care for their children, not harm them. That is why abortion ought to be rejected — it is a brutal betrayal of the nature of a parent-child relationship.

— 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 protective role of parents was brought to light in a powerful story I recently learned about: In June 2019, a father, his 7-year-old son, and the father's friend endured a harrowing, near-death experience. Maike, Julian, and Stephen went fishing off the Caloundra coast in Australia. They planned for something they had done before — an overnight trip, sleeping in their little boat, anchored but surrounded by the vast ocean. In the darkness of the night, their resting bodies awoke to water around them as their boat rapidly sank. For more than 6 hours, the three souls bobbed amidst the freezing waves, hanging onto two air-filled buckets that just barely kept them afloat. The documentary of their ordeal, and interviews with each person, reveal just how close to death they were. What struck me most was the love of the father for his son.

Maike Hohnen did what he could to preserve his son's life, treading water while holding onto his body, which was unconscious for most of the time. When a helicopter finally arrived, Maike's predominant thought was that his son be taken first. Rescue crews considered Julian dead but did CPR. When he was miraculously brought back to life, they thought he could have brain damage. But he was perfectly fine.

Like Maike Hohnen, a woman in a crisis pregnancy may feel like she's drowning. She may feel overwhelmed by the waves of life crashing around her, seeming to threaten her very existence. Abortion tempts her to let go. But Maike Hohnen demonstrates that love teaches us to hang on.

When Maike, Julian, and Stephen's boat first capsized, Maike said of his son, "[He] calmed me down. He said, 'It will be alright, dad.' He actually pointed towards Caloundra and said, 'We just have to swim that way, dad.'"

They weren't able to swim "that way." But, as the child predicted, everything was alright. Because the father knew to hang on. And therein lies the lesson for the mother in a crisis pregnancy: To hang on. To realize that she is not alone; that there is the presence of another; that the other is her child; and that her child needs her. With that insight lies the power to calm her down until rescuers arrive who, by their actions, affirm that her life, and her child's, is worth fighting for.

Postscript: In an interview, Maike said that if Julian had died in his arms in the ocean, he would have let go and drowned himself because he wouldn't have wanted to go on living without his son. His emotional reaction is understandable because his love was so great. Having said that, it doesn't mean that such a course of action would have been correct. And so, there lies another lesson here, which is that our ultimate love must be in Creator and not creature. Even when our most beloved of relatives depart from this earth, God still has a purpose for us who are left behind. There are others to love and be loved by, and even when we face excruciating suffering like the loss of a beloved, as Holocaust-survivor and psychiatrist Dr. Viktor Frankl observed, we should seek to find meaning in suffering so as not to despair.

Published with permission from Love Unleashes Life.

Note: The author is scheduled to debate prominent pro-abortion philosopher Peter Singer. Find more information here.


  abortion, crisis pregnancy, culture of life, family

Opinion

American grandfather gives 25 reasons why he’s voting for President Trump

Number one on the list is defense of the right to life.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 7:02 pm EST
Featured Image
Shutterstock
Paul Fuchs
By

October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – I’m a father to three grown children and a grandfather to my children’s children. I recently told them my reasons for voting for President Trump. Except for my number one reason, the other reasons are not listed in order of importanceHere they are:  

1. Pro-Life. Staunch defender of the God-given, inalienable right to life of all unborn infants from the moment of conception to birth. First President to attend the March for Life. Started to defund Planned Parenthood. Supports the Hyde Amendment (bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape). 

2. Pro-School Choice. Supports charter schools. Allows minorities an opportunity to escape inferior inner-city public schools. 

3. Pro-First Amendment. Defender of freedom of speech and religion. Crucial as both rights are under ferocious attack by the left. Mayors and governors mandate that churches and synagogues close and/or limit religious services. Big tech (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter) censors the internet, leftists physically harass conservative speakers on college campuses, administrators enforce "correct" pronoun usage and establish safe spaces, and social media verbally attacks and/or cancels anyone with a politically incorrect opinion. 

4. Pro-Second Amendment. Defender of the right to own guns. 

5. Pro-Capitalism. Continues to reduce federal regulations. Promotes pro-employment domestic economic policies. Does not believe that the poor are poor because the rich are rich. Wants to provide an opportunity for economic success to anyone willing to work. 

6. Pro-Minorities. Non-racist approach to problems afflicting primarily inner-city blacks. Promotes minority economic independence over continued government dependence. Recently proposed the Economic Empowerment "Platinum Plan" for black America. 

7. Pro-National Sovereignty. Favors the nation’s interests over socialistic and godless globalism. Pro-national borders and pro-legal immigration. Supports a physical barrier on the southern border. 

8. Pro-Israel. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and is the closest ally of the United States. 

9. Pro-Military. Reversed the decline in military/defense spending that occurred under President Obama. Increased military pay by 2 percent to 3 percent each year for the past four years.  

10. Pro-American worker. Changed trade policy with the totalitarian CCP leaders of China. Increased tariffs on imports. China uses slave labor and government financial support to produce cheap products, and places significant tariffs on American products. 

11. Backs Police. More than a dozen police organizations have endorsed Trump, including a unanimous endorsement from the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the largest law enforcement labor organization in the country. 

12. Position on Islamic Iran. Imposed additional economic sanctions. Withdrew from the nuclear arms deal with Iran, the major sponsor of worldwide terrorism and a looming threat to develop nuclear weapons. 

13. Position on Climate Change. Skeptic of role of man-made contributions to naturally occurring cyclic climate change. Withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord. Opposes Green New Deal. 

14. Position on the Middle East. Ability to bridge the gap between Israel and other nations in the Middle East. Uniquely bypassed the "Palestinians," who do not want peace with Israel. Best exemplified by the recently signed agreements to establish formal diplomatic relations between Israel and both Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. 

15. Pro-Peace. Unlike recent predecessors, has not started any military wars. Trump has received three nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. 

16. Withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO, a major funder of abortion in underdeveloped nations, cooperated with China's CCP to hide the truth about the dangers of COVID-19 from the rest of the world. Along with the CCP, officials at the WHO share responsibility for the over 1,000,000 deaths in the pandemic.  

17. Strengthened NATO. Insisted that member nations pay the agreed upon share of the financial burden to support the international defense organization. 

18. Promotes Law & Order. Respects legitimate protest, but condemns riotous and violent behavior. A stark contrast with his Democrat opponents. 

19.  Condemns the fascist Antifa and Marxist BLM, the latter an anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-nuclear family, and anarchist movement. 

20. Selects conservative constitutionalists as Supreme Court Justices. Amy Coney Barrett is a prime example. Has also appointed over 300 conservative jurists to lower level federal courts. 

21. Respects the constitutional principle of Federalism, the limitation of the powers of the central (federal) government over individual states and citizens. Refuses to impose a national mask mandate, which would exceed the President's constitutional powers. 

22. A Fighter. Never backs down from a principled position. Perhaps the only Republican politician not intimidated by the leftist media. Able to withstand the never-ending barrage of venom and hate and personal attacks directed against him by the mainstream media. Yet stays the course and fearlessly defends and promotes a conservative agenda. 

23. Loves America. Believes the United States, although imperfect, is a fair and just society, devoid of systemic racism, and a strong moral force for good in the world.  

24. Defends American Exceptionalism. The unique founding principle of the United States that the rights of the individual flow from God rather than granted by the government.  

25. A Better Choice. Without a doubt. Despite personal flaws in character, on every issue President Trump is a far better choice than either Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, both who clearly have their own serious character flaws. 

— 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

  antifa, black lives matter, capitalism, climate change, donald trump, federalism, first amendment, iran, islam, israel, middle east, military, national sovereignty, nato, pro-life, school choice, second amendment, u.s. supreme court

Opinion

How the Amy Coney Barrett hearings reveal flaws in LGBT ‘marriage’ logic

The Democrats — who are usually so quick to lecture others on following 'the science' — have apparently not kept up with the science on sexual orientation.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 12:05 pm EST
Featured Image
Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Stefani Reynolds-Pool / Getty Images
Peter Sprigg
By Peter Sprigg

October 16, 2020 (FRC Action) — Among the Left's desperate attacks on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, one of the silliest has to be their railing against her use of the term "sexual preference" in answering a question during her confirmation hearing related to the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision in which the Supreme Court unilaterally redefined civil "marriage" for all fifty states.

In response to a question the morning of October 13 from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Barrett said, "I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference."

One would think that the Left would be celebrating this apparent endorsement of their prized principle of "non-discrimination." Instead, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) attacked Barrett that afternoon for using the term "sexual preference" — which she dubbed "offensive and outdated." (The more politically correct term, you see, is "sexual orientation.") Hirono insisted the term "sexual preference" is "used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice."

Linguistically, it does no such thing. It seems self-evident that if a person has a homosexual "orientation" (often defined as having same-sex sexual attractions), then that person "prefers" sex with people of the same sex. The terms "sexual orientation" and "sexual preference" are essentially synonyms. And they were treated as such in the dictionary — until Tuesday night, when Merriam-Webster's online dictionary suddenly added a statement that using "preference" as a synonym for "orientation" is considered "offensive." This is notwithstanding the fact that the internet is crawling with examples of liberal heroes — including Joe Biden and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — using the term "sexual preference."

Orwellian dictates regarding terminology were not the only issue in Hirono's attack on Judge Barrett, though. It came in the context of a lengthy speech about the Obergefell decision, in which Sen. Hirono declared, "That sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable was a key part of the majority's opinion in Obergefell."

This is an accurate description of that opinion — and a key part of the reason why it was profoundly in error. I wrote about this at length in a blog post at the time. Justice Kennedy wrote twice about the supposed "immutability" of sexual orientation in his majority opinion in Obergefell. He wrote that laws prohibiting same-sex civil "marriages" are unconstitutional because they prevent an entire class of people — self-identified gays and lesbians — from ever being able to exercise the "fundamental right" to marry. This claim, however, only makes sense if two premises are true — first, that the principal purpose of marriage is the gratification of sexual desire; and second, that a homosexual orientation is immutable.

But even the amicus brief cited by Justice Kennedy — from the American Psychological Association — did not say that sexual orientation is "immutable." Instead, it affirmed the multi-faceted nature of "sexual orientation" — which includes not only "sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions," but also "an individual's sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."

Contrary to the stereotype presented by Sen. Hirono, FRC and most other social conservatives do not consider same-sex attractions to be a "choice." However, "behaviors," "membership in a community," and to a large extent "personal and social identity" are primarily a choice. The APA even said in its brief that "sexual orientation ranges along a continuum." FRC's own amicus brief in Obergefell pointed out the "remarkable (but heretofore unnoticed) fact that dozens of the plaintiffs in the same-sex marriage cases that have been brought over the last twenty-four years previously had been married to a person of the opposite sex." This is proof on its face that either: a) people with a homosexual orientation are capable of marriage to the opposite sex; or b) people's sexual orientation can change during the life course; or both.

— 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 Democrats — who are usually so quick to lecture others on following "the science" — have apparently not kept up with the science on sexual orientation. Perhaps they are still deceived by the myth that homosexuality is caused by a "gay gene" — which science has largely debunked. Or perhaps they are unaware of the major academic paper, "Scrutinizing Immutability" — co-authored by lesbian scholar Lisa Diamond — which declared that "arguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are unscientific, given what we now know from longitudinal, population-based studies of naturally occurring changes in the same-sex attractions of some individuals over time." (FRC analyzed these studies here.)

Judge Barrett chose not to be drawn into commenting on the statement by Justice Thomas earlier this month, signed by Justice Alito, after the Supreme Court recently denied an appeal from Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who conscientiously objected to giving marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Although both Sen. Hirono and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) quoted Justice Thomas's statement that in Obergefell, "the Court has created a problem that only it can fix," they ignored the two justices' plain description of what that "problem" was — namely, that "those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society" because of the decision's "ruinous consequences for religious liberty."

Again, Judge Barrett refused Sen. Booker's bait, saying only, "I don't know what Justices Thomas and Alito were thinking — you'd have to ask them."

But when it comes to "sexual preference," we should be glad that the Supreme Court nominee has spent the last couple decades studying, teaching, and interpreting the law, rather than surfing the web to keep up with the vagaries of the latest politically correct or incorrect terminology.

Published with permission from FRC Action.


  2020 election, amy coney barrett, homosexuality, mazie hirono, supreme court

Opinion

Priest ordained one year after Roe: No law can change humanity of babies targeted for abortion

Has the humanity of the preborn changed during these past forty-seven years? No.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 11:43 am EST
Featured Image
shutterstock.com
Fr. Jim Hewes
By Fr. Jim Hewes

October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — As the Senate deliberations on Amy Coney Barrett continue, an important area of deliberation centers on the Roe v. Wade decision. The question to consider is this: has anything changed from 1973 until now, 47 years later, in 2020? Roe v. Wade allowed abortions to at least 24 weeks’ gestation. (Doe v. Bolton, Roe’s companion decision, allowed it up to the moment of birth.) A recent study showed that 15% of premature infants at 23 weeks survive, and the record includes 11 cases of infants surviving at 22 weeks and two at 21 and 20 weeks’ gestation. “Viability” is younger than ever.

Has the humanity of the preborn changed during these past forty-seven years? No, viability measures the advancement of medical technology and the availability of neonatal intensive care units. It measures the external life support systems, not the humanness of the premature infant. Viability is, in fact, unrelated to the question of whether the pre-born are living human beings.

Dependency does not define a person’s humanity. It reflects the fragile state of the human being’s situation at different stages of pregnancy, not his humanity. Viability measures the medical community’s ability to sustain life, not the status of that life.

Medical technology is not yet able to provide an alternative environment for babies younger than about 20–23 weeks to survive. Some researchers predict, however, that if an artificial womb and placenta are developed, as well as further development of the use of oxygen-saturated liquid (instead of air), many pre-born infants could survive at less than 20 weeks of gestation. (By 12 weeks, the preborn child’s whole system is developed and fully functioning.) Viability is not a fixed or definitive line or place and has certainly changed since 1973.

In addition, since 1973, we have the incredible medical advancements in fetology and perinatology, especially significant advances in medical technology, such as the electronic fetal monitors (EFM). EFMs were not widely used until after Roe v. Wade, and uniform standards for EFMs were not firmly established until 1997.

Use of the fetoscope began in the 1980s. The first intrauterine surgery done successfully on a pre-born child occurred in 1981. It reminded the world that a doctor is treating two patients, not just one. We now have an amazing “window to the womb” with 3D ultrasound developed in the 1980s and 4D ultrasound in the 1990s, all of which preclude the thinking of “out of sight, out of mind.”

Some studies show that 80–95% of abortion-minded women who agree to see an ultrasound of their baby before having an abortion choose not to kill the baby. These mothers experience their pre-born children in real time instead of being purposely shielded from that reality at abortion facilities. In addition to these dramatic transformations, the internet, websites, and social media since 1973 have facilitated on-site videos and instant communication with photos of pre-born children, including pictures of the terrible aftermath of abortions. This helps us understand why Nicholai Berdyaev stated at the beginning of the 20th century: “The greatest sin of this age is making the concrete abstract.” The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas puts it this way: “the only thing that really converts people is the face of the other.”

Since 1973, many laws have been enacted restricting abortion in most states, which certainly has shifted public opinion on the issue. Between 2001 and 2010, 189 abortion restriction laws were passed. From 2011 to 2019, there were 424 abortion restrictions in state laws, and this past year, there were 350 bills to restrict abortions, more laws than ever. Forty-three states have passed some type of gestational laws. These facts may explain in part why in the early 1990s, there were more than 2,000 abortion facilities in America, and now there are about 750. There are no abortion facilities available in at least 85% of the counties in the United States (compared to over 3,000 crisis pregnancies centers all over America), which reflects the fact that a significant number of Americans view abortion differently from how they viewed it in 1973 and now know the reality of pre-natal human life within the womb.

Melissa Ohden, Josiah Presley, Claire Caldwell, Heidi Hoffman, and Gianna Jessen — they are abortion survivors because of the advancement in medical technology since 1973. The “Abortion Survivors Network” includes over 300 who survived attempted abortions. They are not insignificant “fetuses,” a term meaning “young one,” or mere “products of conception” or simply meaningless “clump of cells.” They are real people (victors) who survived a horrendous, brutal attempt on their lives. They bring home the reality of the undeniable consequences of abortion to visible people (not just an abstract concept). They are the visible ones, whom we are really talking about in the discussion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.

There was a lack of knowledge in Roe v. Wade of how abortion would change a person. Thus, since 1973, we have seen the rise of so many post-abortion healing programs. Thousands of women have gone through Project Rachel over the last 35 years, as well as other Christian post-abortion ministries throughout the United States. In addition, thousands of women have shared their stories of sorrow and regret through the “Silent No More” Campaign, which readers can view at I regret my abortion.com, abortiontestimony.com, Lumina, After Abortion, and Abortion Recovery International.

— 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

Dr. Theresa Burke is founder and director of the Rachel’s Vineyard Retreats, which take place in 49 states and 70 countries, with 1,000 retreats held annually. She estimates that more than 150,000 women (and men), with stories of devastation and brokenness, have made one of these retreats. This was certainly not foreseen by the seven justices who thought abortion would not have such a negative fallout and definite adverse aftermath years later.

Roe v. Wade has relegated the father of the child irrelevant to the abortion decision. The decision was left to the pregnant woman alone (It’s “my body!”) without any consideration for her pre-born child or anyone else, including the father. Previously, the courts tried to balance the decision between men and women in terms of divorce or parental rights. Roe v. Wade gave them a free pass to leave everything on women, and too often, many of these men end up with practically zero consequences or accountability. One of the roles of men and fathers is to be a protector and a provider. A man must be present in a family to fulfill that role. Yet, sadly, over 80% of fathers do not marry the teen mother of their babies. Women head over 80% of single-parent households, and almost half of children living only with their mothers are poor. I don’t think it is a coincidence that woman too often bear the brunt of poverty, including suffering severe consequences physically and emotionally, because Roe v. Wade laid the foundation for absentee fathers at one of the most vulnerable, insecure, and fearful points of a woman’s life.

Another consideration is that over 250,000 black American pre-born lives are destroyed each year through abortions. It is estimated that since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 15 million. (Seventy-five percent of Planned Parenthood’s abortion facilities are in minority neighborhoods.) About 13% of American women are black, but they submit to over 28% of the abortions. This no doubt contributed to the fact that black Americans are no longer the largest minority in our country. Latinos represent 12% of the population but account for 20% of the abortions (140,000 pre-born Latinos children are destroyed each year). This outcome of destructiveness for non-white people was not envisioned in 1973 by Roe v. Wade.

Despite over 60 million abortions in the last 47 years, America has experienced more teenage pregnancies, more divorces, more spousal abuse, more sexually transmitted diseases, more women and children in poverty, etc. The list of negative consequences goes on and on. Killing innocent pre-born children and failing to support women in crisis and untimely pregnancies will never resolve the difficult situations pregnant women face, nor will it help decrease our social problems. Roe v. Wade has contributed significantly to a more self-centered society and opened the floodgates for using violence to solve problems. Moving forward, in 2020, these women, these men, and their pre-born children, as well as our society, deserve a better solution than abortion, which has stimulated so much violence in the last 47 years.

Father Jim Hewes has been a diocesan priest in the Diocese of Rochester for 46 years and is currently a “senior” priest in residence at St. Mark’s in Rochester, New York. He was one of the founding members of the Rochester Right to Life Committee (1968), which was one of the first pro-life groups in the country. Being concerned about the difficult situations that women with crisis pregnancies were faced with, he helped start one of the first Birthrights in the country. Later on, he helped start the Human Life Commission in the Diocese of Rochester in 1978. He helped established Project Rachael in his diocese and directed the post-abortion healing ministry for eighteen years.


  abortion, catholic, roe v. wade

Blogs

French government imposes curfew on 20 million citizens to handle COVID crisis

Meanwhile, the ‘second wave’ of COVID-19 infections in France appears to be only a wavelet.
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 2:52 pm EST
Featured Image
Kanuman / Shutterstock.com
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

PARIS, France, October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A strict curfew will take effect as of Saturday in eight major cities in the Eastern half of France as well as the greater Paris region, affecting over 20 million people — close to one third of the French population.

By ordering people off the streets from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. for four weeks — or six, if Parliament approves the “state of sanitary emergency” law until April 1, 2021, that has already obtained the vote of the National Assembly (or lower chamber) — the government officially aims to slow down hospitalizations and occupation of ICU beds in hospitals due to COVID-19.

How such closures — when only about 10 percent of known contamination clusters appear in restaurants, bars and other evening venues — are going to change anything remains a mystery.

The announcement was made on Wednesday evening during a television interview that saw French president Emmanuel Macron explain, “We are slowly learning again how fully to be a nation; we had gradually become used to being a society of free individuals. We are a nation of citizens in solidarity.”

His words were widely interpreted, both on social media and by a small but slowly increasing number of journalists, as meaning that personal freedoms are no longer acceptable in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic — which is now sending ten times fewer people to the hospital than at the height of the pandemic in March and April, and causes only slightly more daily deaths at present than an above average flu season. The Wuhan coronavirus appears to have weakened in strength even though it is “circulating actively” throughout the country, as the authorities repeatedly warned.

The curfew, which is enforced with a €135 fine (about $150) for first-time offenders, and €1,500 to €6,000, and even up to six months imprisonment, for repeat offenders, came as a shock to the French because it is reminiscent of the time of the German occupation in 1940–1944 during the Second World War. The only other curfew Parisians can remember dates back to the “Guerre d’Algérie,” the war of independence of France’s former colony Algeria at the beginning of the 1960s.

It is in practice a death penalty for an estimated 30 percent of restaurants in the affected areas, with bankruptcies, job losses and indirect losses to suppliers and related businesses, as many of these establishments, especially the most prestigious ones, make a large proportion of their income from dinner guests after 8 p.m. Bars, theaters, cultural activities and cinemas will also be heavily hit as young people are deprived of their meeting points, while families will not be able to invite their friends given working hours up to 7 p.m. or later, and the time it takes to reach home before the fatal “21 hours” mark turns all and sundry into potential delinquents.

In any case, Emmanuel Macron told the two adoring journalists who carefully served him softball questions that the French must observe the “rule of six”: no more than six people at restaurant tables, no more than six people grouped in the street, and the “strong recommendation” not to exceed six people at dinner parties at home all over the country. Wedding receptions and students’ parties in public places have also been outlawed in the whole of France. Many cities and smaller towns, including Paris, have mandatory mask rules both indoors and outdoors, despite the avowed ineffectiveness — and even harm — of face coverings in the context of the coronavirus, especially in the way they are worn: repeatedly put on and taken off, shoved in pockets and continually reused.

On the other hand, public transport will run as usual, with crowded subways and stuffy trains.

Macron told the French that they should wash their hands, under some circumstances wear masks even in the home, and open windows for ten minutes three times a day.

He also announced that further millions of euros would be injected into the economy to help businesses hurt by the curfew decisions and restrictions on receiving the public: this help will take the form of government loans that will have to be repaid in a context of economic contraction and a depression that will be much worse than in 1929.

This fact partly answers the question about whether a curfew is really something to complain about when so many people live in warzones or in poverty and distress. But the loss of personal freedoms, the crackdown on social life and person-to-person meetings and interaction, risking a heavy fine even if you pull your mask under your nose or step outside after a given time, being told where to stand and sit and walk, being considered as an enemy of society by virtue of your very existence, is the sure sign of totalitarianism. With modern surveillance that rests on ever more efficient identification and artificial intelligence algorithms, the path is wide open towards a China-like society, where the mainstream media systematically ridicules those who question the set-up.

— 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

“Why?” many people ask. Is the threat of a modern-day plague so great? But not all question government decisions: a remarkable proportion of the population is actually complaining that the curfew is not nationwide, and in towns where masks are not compulsory, up to two thirds of the population wear them in the streets.

The truth is hard to come by because government statistics are broadcast in an incomplete way, and gauges keep changing without notice. At the height of the pandemic, which claimed about 30,000 lives in France from March to the end of May (the lockdown in France was from March 17 to May 11), including the very old and frail with many comorbidities, only some regions were hit and faced full ICU and COVID-19 sections. However, private clinics received no COVID patients although they begged to help, and in the provinces most hospitals and clinics were empty, waiting for a “wave” that never came, and prevented from caring for any but the most urgently ill — although abortions continued to take place as an “essential” service.

At the end of August, health minister Olivier Véran announced that ICU beds would soon double as compared to those available during the “first wave” — it was their scarcity, about 6,000 to 7,000 nationwide, that was invoked in order to impose the lockdown, to “flatten the curve,” as they said.

This has not happened. Instead, massive amounts of PCR tests have been conducted, revealing thousands of new “cases” as positive results roll in due to their sensitivity that identifies people who may have been infected months ago or who have such small viral charges that they can infect no one. “Asympomatic” patients are all the rage: they are well and feel well, but are considered as dangerously contagious. Hence masks, seven day quarantines for “contact cases,” curfews and the obstacles to social life.

Since the beginning of September, “infections” have risen sharply, while deaths have risen somewhat but are nowhere near March and April figures, as this diagram shows. It is not clear whether these deaths are “COVID deaths” or deaths of severely ill people who happen to be COVID-positive. ICU beds are at present occupied to the tune of 1,600 by COVID positive patients, who are not necessarily true COVID patients, while the “red alert” threshold for occupation has been surreptitiously brought down from 40 to 30 percent.

Authorities insist that the “second wave” is here — as they have been doing for over a month, but in many zones the peak of the wavelet seems to have passed — and many scientists and health professionals are accusing the French government of outright lying and manipulation — but that’s another story.

Hospital admissions appear to be on the rise — as they are every fall and winter, with recurring media coverage about the saturation of emergency wards — but not many people are dying of COVID: they receive anticoagulants early on, as well as corticotherapy, which was banned in spring. Less than a third of ICU COVID patients are receiving invasive respiratory treatment, which has been mostly replaced by the plain administration of oxygen. Stays in ICU units have shortened dramatically, and COVID-19 is now considered to be a condition that is treatable for the most part.

So how long will restrictive measures and curbs on fundamental liberties continue, at a time when many only observe them nominally to avoid being fined? It’s anyone’s guess: clearly, the government is hoping that the population will clamor for a vaccine. There are also local political considerations for Macron who portrays himself as the savior of the nation; beyond that, the crisis is being used to impose even more anti-life laws and to adopt “greening” measures that have already included the closure of nuclear plants. The slow collapse of the French economy will also make an increasing number of citizens dependent on the State, while at the same time workers’ unions are complaining of having to work in “dangerous” conditions because the lockdown is not complete.

If there’s a war on in France — a war against the virus, Macron said in March — morale is sadly low. And that is much worse than the “invisible enemy” which is achieving less and less.


  covid-19, curfew, emmanuel macron, france, lockdowns, paris

Blogs

Archbishop Viganò: We have to remain ‘steadfast’ in the faith, not found a new church

‘We must not go down those steps, just as Christ did not descend from the Cross, nor to we look elsewhere for that salvation that comes only from the altar, from the immaculate Victim, from the Cross of Christ…’
Fri Oct 16, 2020 - 10:33 am EST
Featured Image
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike
By Maike Hickson

October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In answering an open letter from Vivente Montesinos, a Spanish blogger, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò sets out for all faithful Catholics a program on how to respond to the current crisis in the Church. Our answer cannot be to found a new church – which is what the Modernists are trying to do – but, rather, “to remain steadfast, to resist strong in Faith,” to preserve our own humility – remembering our own lack of understanding in the past – and to preserve our charity toward those who are now helping to destroy the faith.

We must “remain where we ought to be, like that priest dressed in sacred vestments [during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass]. We must not go down those steps, just as Christ did not descend from the Cross, nor to we look elsewhere for that salvation that comes only from the altar, from the immaculate Victim, from the Cross of Christ,” Viganò tells this Spanish author, and with it, all of us.

Montesinos, in his September 25 Open Letter to Archbishop Viganò, had thanked him for his work and witness, for his encouragement of all those Catholics who find themselves now accused of being “against the Pope.” Montesinos assured Viganò of the prayers of thousands of Catholics. He stated: “We will never succumb to the lie of the world, spread today by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the ecclesial hierarchy, the majority of the episcopate and the vast majority of consecrated persons, who want us to believe that we are not Catholics because ‘we do not obey the [current] Pope.’” In some ways, adds the journalist, Archbishop Viganò acts today “morally” more like a pope that the Pope in Rome.

“My personal belief is yes,” the journalist wrote, “and you will forgive me for the audacity to express this idea to you.”

With regard of the problem of obedience to a Pope that is leading Catholics today into error, the blogger continues by saying: “The Catholic must be with the Pope… yes… but as long as the Pope is with Christ.”

Responding to these words (see full statement below), Archbishop Viganò makes it clear that he does not wish to be described as having the role of a Pope. The fact that the Church in crisis, he answers, “is not a sufficient reason to attribute to me an authority that I do not and cannot have.”

But Archbishop Viganò encourages us to apply our duty to obedience only when it is in accordance with the Faith. Thus, obedience is conditional on what a Catholic is asked to do. For example, the archbishop states, “the faithful who refuse to receive Communion in the hand do not disobey their ecclesiastical superior, because that order is a sacrilegious abuse.”

But even if we at times need to disobey, the prelate continues, this does not “authorize us to create a parallel order, a utopia in which the flock gives itself its own shepherd and builds its own sheepfold; this would signify a usurpation of the authority of God.” Herewith, Archbishop Viganò seems to reject any idea or proposal to be part of establishing a parallel structure in opposition to the existing hierarchy of the Church, much of which seems tainted with Modernism and error.

One of these “self- proclaimed liberators from the Roman yoke,” he continues, are actually the “Modernists and their followers.” They attempted at “superimposing upon her [the Church] a spurious entity that claims her name but renounces her Faith.” This new creation is “a sort of monstrum,” which occupies much of the hierarchy of the Church and thus is “able to deceive the Clergy and the faithful.”

It is here the problem of “obedience to the Sacred Pastors” lies. But the answer cannot be “a revolution in the traditional sense” as a response to the “Conciliar revolution.” The answers are “true obedience” and “true humility.”

“It is in loving fidelity to the Truth of Christ that the fanatical dogmatism of the heretics is conquered.”

In light of Modernists errors, may the faithful Catholics stay firm but humble.

Our humility, according to Viganò, stems also from the fact that “many of us, only a few years ago, were still not yet aware of the deception perpetrated against the holy people of God.” Many missed the deeper “understanding of the creeping apostasy” that was taking place in the Church.

It is here that Archbishop Viganò calls us to remain steadfast in the faith, just as every priest offers the Sacrifice of the Mass every day, independent of his own moods and independent of the amount of the faithful present.

Please see here the full statement by Archbishop Viganò. The text was first published by Marco Tosatti, and is reprinted here with permission.

Dear Doctor Montesinos,

I read, with great attention to and agreement with your sentiments, the open letter which you addressed to me, which was published at Stilum Curiae (here). I ask your pardon for my delay in responding.

Some of the questions you ask me answer themselves, but it is good to reiterate that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). But precisely because we need to obey God, we must also not seek in men the hope of salvation that comes only from the Lord: “It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man” (Psalm 117:8). I recognize your good faith and your ardent zeal in your desire to be guided by faithful Pastors, but hearing me called “vicar of the Vicar” causes me a certain embarrassment. The fact that restating what the Church has always taught, denouncing the current drift, is not a sufficient motive, is not a sufficient reason to attribute to me an authority that I do not and cannot have.

This does not mean that the exercise of obedience must be uncritical. Reason first allows us to understand whether an order given by legitimate authority is coherent with the end to which it is ordered, and this applies in a particular way to questions concerning the Faith. In other cases – such as for example the obedience owed by monks to their abbot – even planting turnips upside down can be an instrument of sanctification; but here we are speaking of Christian perfection, of ascesis.

Each one of our actions places us before a choice and has consequences. It allows to obtain merit before God, to exercise our free will in adhering either to good or to evil, in allowing ourselves either to be conquered by Grace or to give in to temptation. Obedience is no exception: in choosing to obey or not we are put to the test, placed at a crossroads. The Christian who is faced with the choice of burning incense to an idol or facing martyrdom does not disobey the authority of the Emperor but obeys the superior authority of God. The priest whom the judge orders to violate the seal of Confession obeys the command of God by disobeying the illegitimate order of the judge. The faithful who refuse to receive Communion in the hand do not disobey their ecclesiastical superior, because that order is a sacrilegious abuse.

But this disobedience of ours – which is not disobedience at all, because it reaffirms obedience to a higher order which has been abusively violated by the one who is constituted in authority – does not authorize us to create a parallel order, a utopia in which the flock gives itself its own shepherd and builds its own sheepfold: this would signify a usurpation of the authority of God. On closer inspection, this is what all the heresiarchs tried to do, who pointed to the true Church as the whore of Babylon only so that they could have an alibi that would allow them to make a grotesque imitation of the Church, amputated in the Sacraments, in the Books of Sacred Scripture, in Doctrine, Morals, and Liturgy. And also in the Hierarchy.

The latest in this long series of self-proclaimed liberators from the Roman yoke are the Modernists and their followers. They have devised an even more subtle stratagem, attempting to obscure the Bride of Christ by superimposing upon her a spurious entity that claims her name but renounces her Faith. It is not another church, but a sort of monstrum that shares almost the entire Hierarchy with the true Church and thus is able to deceive the Clergy and the faithful. Thus, obedience to the Sacred Pastors finds itself today in conflict, often in the same person, with dutiful disobedience to the mercenaries. The fact that these mercenaries are nominally recognized as Catholics does not prevent them from expelling true Catholics from the sacred enclosure, accusing them of schism. This situation of bipolarism implies that those who remain faithful to the depositum fidei must pay homage to a sacred authority which, however, must be resisted by disobedience when it is exercised for purposes that conflict with the purpose for which it was instituted by Our Lord.

As I have written many times, a revolution in the traditional sense is not and never can be the response to the Conciliar revolution. On the contrary, it is in true obedience that is hierarchically ordered that the invincible weapon against the rebellion may be found, even when this rebellion is carried out by one’s Superiors. It is in true humility that one fights against the pride of the heretic or the fornicator, on the one hand; and the servility of the fainthearted or the courtier, on the other. It is in loving fidelity to the Truth of Christ that the fanatical dogmatism of the heretics is conquered. It is in the practice of virtue and in the life of Grace that the root of vice and sin which we denounce in certain prelates is eradicated, evils from which we cannot say that we ourselves are infallibly exempt, if only because of our connatural inclination to evil that we have inherited from Adam. “Whoever thinks he is standing must be careful not to fall” (1 Cor 10:12).

It is true: the Church is undergoing a tremendous crisis, which began before the Council and today has reached a point that appears humanly irreversible. It is true: we have heard words and seen actions, even from the highest Throne, that arouse scandal in the faithful and are in obvious contradiction with the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs. It is true: the majority of the faithful and clergy are molded into doctrinal and moral error, while anyone who remains firm in the Faith is accused of being an enemy of the Church and the Pope. If this was not the case, there would be no crisis. But if Providence has seen fit to test us today – to punish for decades of moral and doctrinal deviations – giving us a drunken Noah for a father (Gen 9:20-27), it is nevertheless our duty to cover his nudity with filial piety, without however denying the intoxication of the half-undressed old man. Once he has regained sobriety, he will bless those who have laid the cloak of Truth and Charity over his shame.

Whoever has the grace not to be misled in either Faith or Morals should not be proud of having a presumed state of purity, but rather must take account of the very great responsibility he has before God, the Church, and his brethren. This is true for the simple faithful and even more for the Shepherds. First of all, obedience to the teaching of Christ is not a merit but a duty for each one of us. Second, our adherence to what the Divine Master has taught us by means of Holy Mother Church does not place us in a condition of human privilege, since “to whomever much has been given, much will be asked; to whom more has been entrusted, even more will be demanded” (Lk 12:48). The fear of God makes us understand how important it is that what we believe and profess with the mouth is also believed in the heart, and that what we believe with the heart is also understood by the intellect.

Dear Vincent, if as you say, “We are where we have always been, and we have not moved: we are with Sacred Scripture, sound doctrine, the Holy Tradition, and the Magisterium of two thousand years,” nevertheless we have the duty to implore Heaven for the conversion of those whom the world, the flesh, or the devil have seduced. We do not know the vicissitudes of their life or the unfathomable depths of their soul. Indeed, we recall that many of us, only a few years ago, were still not yet aware of the deception perpetrated against the holy people of God. Our blindness at the time and the lack of understanding of the creeping apostasy is not very different from the situation in which many souls find themselves today, especially among the simple. The Sacrament of Confession – to which priest and layman, children and the elderly, rich and poor have recourse – reminds us of our corrupt nature and the need to place our total trust in God, the giver of all Graces. “Without Me you can do nothing,” Our Lord said (Jn 15:8).

We must likewise consider our belonging to the Mystical Body as the proof of the infinite Mercy of God, who with divine magnificence welcomed “good and bad” at the banquet (Mt 22:10), deigning to offer them also the wedding garment, that is, justification by means of Baptism. Before this royal gift, our humility lies in accepting the wearing of the precious garment of Grace, which erases our miseries and makes us worthy to sit at the table of the King. Expecting to participate at the banquet with our rags would not be humility, but presumption; believing that that garment is owed to us would make us worthy of the outer darkness. We see rather that we are like servants of the King, sent to the crossroads to call to the banquet “the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame” (Lk 14:21).

Understandably, in addition to being aware of what is happening and analyzing the causes, it is also necessary to identify concrete action. To the question, “What should we do?” that priests and laity ask me and others, I respond with an analogy.

When the priest is at the altar, he is turned toward God and intercedes for the holy people. There are days on which only a few of the faithful unite themselves to the Holy Sacrifice, others on which the Church is packed; days when the commotion of the street and the noise of traffic echoes in the nave, others when sacred silence and recollection are accompanied only by the song of sparrows or the tolling of a bell; days when the celebrant ascends the altar with serenity and joy in his heart, others when his soul is oppressed by sorrow and discouragement. But he is there: standing, always facing the Cross, always faithful to the command to renew the Sacrifice of Christ in order to implore the Divine Majesty for graces and blessings for the Church, to adore the Most Holy Trinity, to expiate the sins of men. This must be our attitude in the face of the present crisis: to remain where we ought to be, like that priest dressed in sacred vestments. We must not go down those steps, just as Christ did not descend from the Cross, nor do we look elsewhere for that salvation that comes only from the altar, from the immaculate Victim, from the Cross of Christ. We must do that which has been done for two thousand years “semper, ubique, et ab omnibus”: immolate ourselves with Faith and Charity, with humility and constancy, with the fear of God and zeal for souls. The Popes and the Princes of the Church will pass away, all the powers of the earth and the stage of this world will also fade, but the Mass and the Priesthood will remain until the Day of Judgment.

Peter Kwasniewski writes: That is why I repeat: our sanctifying work, planned for us by God in His eternal Providence, is to remain faithful to tradition and to prayer, come what may; to bide our time, keep our sanity, hold steady, and wait for the Lord. He is still and always among us, not far away in utopian pastures” (here).

May Heaven grant that, if today, turning around for the Dominus vobiscum, the priest sees only a few faithful kneeling, tomorrow he may see gathered around the altar all those whom the Grace of God will have deigned to touch. Nothing else is asked of us, as Ministers of God and as simple faithful: to remain steadfast, to resist strong in Faith (1 Pt 5:9), praying to Our Lord and His Blessed Mother asking that they may shorten these times of trial which humanly speaking seem destined to last forever. The day will come when our firmness, rooted “in Him who gives me strength” (Phil 4:13), will be blessed by those who today deride us and despise us. The day will come when they will thank God for the apparent disobedience of those who, in the absence of Authority, remained faithful.

I respond to your final question by quoting Saint Paul: “I refer to the fact that each of you is saying: “I belong to Paul,” “I instead belong to Apollos,” “And I to Cephas,” “And I to Christ!” Is Christ then divided?  Was perhaps Paul crucified for you, or is it in the name of Paul that you were baptized?” (1 Cor 1:12-13). We do not look to those who proclaim the Word of God, but rather we try to conform ourselves to the will of Our Lord, in order to be an example and edification for our brothers. “So must your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Mt 5:16).

To you, dear Vincent, and to all the associates of Adoración y Liberación, I give my heartfelt Blessing.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

13 October 2020
Anniversary of the final apparition at Fatima

Official translation.


  carlo maria viganò, catholic, marco tosatti, pope francis