All articles from October 23, 2020






  • Nothing is published in Video on October 23, 2020.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on October 23, 2020.


Tired of ‘corruption,’ pro-life Canadian husband and wife forming new political party

Jim Karahalios, who was barred from running for the Conservative Party's leadership position, and his wife Belinda are seeking signatures to officially register New Blue Ontario.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 8:01 pm EST
Featured Image
Jim and Belinda Karahalios. Jim Karahalios / YouTube
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

CAMBRIDGE, Ontario, October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A husband-and-wife team consisting of a lawyer who was prevented from running as leader of the federal Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) and an independent member of provincial Parliament (MPP) in Ontario announced they are forming a new provincial party called New Blue Ontario.

Socially conservative MPP for Cambridge Belinda Karahalios, along with her husband Jim Karahalios, announced that they have been given the green light from Elections Ontario to form their new party.

The pair announced the news on YouTube Thanksgiving Monday, saying a new party is needed in Ontario as an alternative to the “corrupt” Ontario Progressive Conservative (P.C.) party under Ontario premier Doug Ford.

“People have reached out to us, said, ‘You can’t stop. You gotta run again, Belinda. You guys need to, together, not give up, and so that’s the solution: creating a new party in Ontario, because the Ontario P.C. party, there’s no democracy inside of it to fix things up,” said Jim Karahalios in the YouTube announcement of New Blue on October 11.  

In their video announcement, Jim asked Belinda if there was “any hope on fixing the party from the inside” to which she said a firm “no.”

“No, and that’s the thing. So, people keep saying — so, if we had a different leader, that it would be different, but the party is so far gone, it’s so corrupt, that it doesn’t matter who the leader is. It doesn’t matter. It’s not going to change,” said Belinda to her husband, Jim.

LifeSiteNews reached out to Belinda and Jim to ask them about their new party, but they were unable to provide a comment in time for this report’s deadline.

Belinda Karahalios was kicked out of the Ontario P.C. Party in the summer of 2020 for voting against a COVID-19 recovery bill introduced by the Ford government.

— 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

Her husband, Jim Karahalios, was twice disqualified from running in the CPC leadership race in the spring of 2020 upon rulings of the CPC’s Leadership Election Organizing Committee (LEOC).

Karahalios’s lawyers said the party had disqualified him “as a result of a complaint filed by the Erin O’Toole campaign requesting his disqualification.”

O’Toole, who identifies as pro-abortion, won the CPC leadership race in a close contest in August

The pair’s YouTube video also touched on the internal politics of the CPC and the Ontario P.C. party, seeing Jim Karahalios give insight into what he called the “corruption” of “stuffing ballots” within the Ontario P.C. Party.

The announcement of New Blue caught the attention of People’s Party of Canada Leader and former CPC M.P. Maxime Bernier on social media.

“Watch this discussion between @jimkarahaliosand @KarahaliosPC if you want to know more about the corruption within the @CPC_HQ during their recent leadership race. Nothing has changed. Update from Belinda and Jim,” wrote Bernier on Twitter.

In their YouTube message, the Karahalioses said there is “no way” Belinda can run again for the Ontario P.C. party, which left them with no other option but to start a new provincial party.

“There’s no way for you to run the P.C. nomination, so there’s really no other option for — not only for us, but for voters in Ontario who believe in grassroots democracy, who believe that the parties should not all be agreeing with each other on every major policy, and who want to deliver a platform of defending the taxpayer, not destroying small businesses, protecting places of worship,” said Jim Karahalios.

“And so, we’ve got no other option to help but to start a new party, so it’s the New Blue Party of Ontario for us moving forward.”

To be registered as an official party, the married couple is looking for 1,000 signatures from Ontario residents who are of voting age.

Jim Karahalios said in his YouTube message that another option would be to work with existing “smaller parties” in Ontario to “speed up the process.”

Belinda and Jim are asking those interested in helping them out to visit their website, where one can fill out an Elections Ontario “Petition to Register a Political Party” form, which, when filled, can be scanned and emailed back to [email protected]

  belinda karahalios, conservative party of canada, erin o'toole, jim karahalios


New Irish law banning gatherings threatens prison for priests who say Mass

Ireland's health minister claims that the law doesn't apply to religious services, but nothing in the law as written exempts them.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 7:41 pm EST
Featured Image
Svetlana.Is /
Michael Haynes Michael Haynes Follow

DUBLIN, Ireland, October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — As a result of an astonishing new law passed in Ireland last night, members of the clergy could now face imprisonment for celebrating Mass or other ceremonies.

An amendment was made to the 1947 Health Act, concerning temporary restrictions in the nation-wide lockdown, and passed into law by the Irish Parliament, or Dáil, on October 22. Article 8 of the new regulations outlines restrictions on events, and reads: “A person shall not organise, or cause to be organised, a relevant event in a relevant geographical location other than in accordance with paragraph (2).”

Paragraph (2) lists the only two permissible exceptions to the law, which are if the event takes place “only outdoors” and if the organizer “takes all reasonable steps to ensure that the event is attended, or proposed to be attended, by persons residing in no more than 2 different places of residence.”

The now amended Health Act specifically states that forbidden events include gatherings for “religious or other reasons.”

Funerals are permitted under the law, but only with the strict condition that there be no more than 25 people present, excluding the priest.

Anyone contravening the law has committed an “offence” against the Health Act, for which the penalty is “a class C fine, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or both.” A Class C fine is one that does not exceed €2,500 (about $3,000).

The Iona Institute first reported the news, noting that the last time priests faced such a penalty for saying Mass was in the penal times, when Catholics in Ireland were under bloody persecution.

Minister for health Stephen Donnelly seemed unaware of the text of the legislation, claiming that “I assure the Deputy and other colleagues that with regard to penalties, religious services are non-penal in that there is no penalty attached to them.”

— 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

However, Deputy McNamara, the recently appointed chair of the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Response, issued a blistering attack on the government: “Priests will be committing a criminal offence if they open the doors of their churches for Mass.”

He continued, “Is the Government is going to send Gardaí after priests who decide to say Mass? If the Government is thinking of that, I have one word to say: Don’t.”

The Irish Constitution holds that “[f]reedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.”

It also states: “The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.”

The Irish government has provided a list of “essential retail outlets” that are permitted to remain open, among which are included normal supermarkets, opticians, shops with animal supplies, and food markets.

The government originally re-closed the churches on October 5, despite widespread compliance from religious communities with the existing government measures to stop the spread of COVID-19.

Senator Rónán Mullen expressed his confusion about the heavy-handed restrictions on churches: “It is strange that there is this lack of nuance and sophistication in the government’s recommendations or regulations because in all groups of society those who are attending Masses and services are probably the most compliant.”

At the time, the four archbishops of Ireland expressed their concern that people be allowed to continue to attend Mass. “While we fully support the guidance of the public health authorities, we will continue to engage constructively in the coming days with the civil authorities to ensure that our people have continued access to the support of Mass and the Sacraments and essential spiritual nourishment for these challenging times.”

  catholic, coronavirus, ireland, lockdowns, police state, religious persecution


Massive prayer rally in DC set for hours before Amy Coney Barrett final confirmation vote

'This is a moment where we partner with Heaven to change the future of our nation!' 'Let Us Worship' leader Sean Feucht said.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 7:17 pm EST
Featured Image
A 'Let Us Worship' rally took place in September in California. Twitter video screenshot
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Thousands of Christians are expected to descend on the nation’s capital this Sunday for a 4 p.m. ET prayer rally on the National Mall, just hours before the Senate is scheduled to vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

While the event, “Let Us Worship,” was planned weeks ago, its serendipitous timing is seen by its leader, Sean Feucht, as guided by God’s hand.

“YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP!” declared Feucht on Twitter earlier this week, referring to an article announcing the Senate vote to occur on Monday.   

“Only God could have ordained Let Us Worship on the National Mall the night before this vote!”  

“This is NOT a concert. This is NOT just another nice event,” emphasized Feucht in an Instagram post. “This is a moment where we partner with Heaven to change the future of our nation!” 

Feucht, who is already in town for the event, posted a video invitation from the White House urging Christians to come to D.C. on Sunday.

“We are praying today for a spirit of revival, for a spirit of awakening across America,” explained Feucht.  

The giant prayer gathering “is going to be an historic moment for the future of our nation,” promised Feucht. 

Feucht, a missionary, artist, speaker, author, activist, and founder of, has organized other large worship rallies across America in recent months, focusing on the nation’s most troubled cities.

Amid the ongoing heavy-handed lockdowns in many states and local jurisdictions, cutting Christians off from worship and fellowship, the Let Us Worship movement has led the plea to end the damaging tyrannical measures imposed by political leaders. 

“Something is happening in America, and it should sound the alarm for every confessing Christian,” wrote Feucht at The Federalist last month. “Simply put, hostile efforts in many cities now threaten to suppress the First Amendment rights of all people to exercise our faith freely. In unprecedented acts of government-authorized injustice, Christians are being told they cannot gather for worship, they cannot sing songs of praise, and they cannot observe church ordinances.”

“While followers of Jesus are being told we cannot worship in public spaces, violent paid rioters are taking over our streets and being given license to occupy and destroy entire sections of our cities,” said Feucht. “Churches are being covered in graffiti and even burned while civic leaders call for defunding the police. Never did I dream that this would happen, and never have I been more determined to do something about it.” 

He continued: 

All across America, however, Christians are rising up. In recent weeks, thousands upon thousands have gathered and marched to assert their God-given freedoms. I’ve stood before them, armed with only a copy of the Bible and a simple guitar. 

People have asked me why we are holding these “worship protests” across the country, and the answer is simple: God is moving, and our nation needs it now more than ever in my lifetime.

Secular forces, including popular media outlets and social media titans, have attempted to stop the movement dead in its tracks by issuing dire-sounding warnings that the large prayer gatherings serve as coronavirus superspreader events.  

— 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 fear mongering ignores the fact that Franklin Graham’s September 26 Prayer March, which brought 75,000 together in close quarters on the National Mall to pray for and repent on behalf of the nation, failed to produce an uptick in China virus cases.   

Feucht and his family have also been threatened as a result of the reckless negative reporting about the Let Us Worship movement. 

“Thanks to the crazy hit piece articles published by the Daily Beast, Drudge Report and many others, the death threats against my family and I have only increased leading up to Washington D.C.,” claimed Feucht in a recent, widely circulated Facebook posting

“Thank you for praying and for standing with us in this hour!” said Feucht. “What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?’”

  amy coney barrett, churches, franklin graham, let us worship, lockdowns, national mall, prayer march, prayer rally, sean feucht, u.s. supreme court, washington, d.c.


Pro-life SBA List calls out private company for possibly illegal Joe Biden contribution

The pro-Biden 'political propaganda' email 'betrays the trust of Expensify's clients, including pro-life Americans and SBA List staff,' said SBA's president.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 7:10 pm EST
Featured Image
Drew Angerer / Getty Images
LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — This morning David Barrett, CEO of Expensifyblasted an email to Expensify users urging them to vote for Joe Biden for President. Expensify is a private company and a paid vendor of the national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) and its partners including Women Speak Out PAC. Many SBA List staff members received the propaganda email.

Susan B. Anthony List is filing a request with the FEC to investigate whether Barrett’s email represents an illegal campaign contribution to the Biden-Harris campaign.

“David Barrett’s email betrays the trust of Expensify’s clients, including pro-life Americans and SBA List staff who agreed to receive emails from Expensify regarding their company expenses and reimbursements — not political propaganda from a Silicon Valley CEO,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser.

“We have successfully used Expensify’s services for six years now, including to keep track of our ongoing efforts to re-elect President Trump and a pro-life Senate majority. However, after receiving this unsolicited campaign email, I have instructed our accounting team to immediately find an alternative expense management tool for use by our growing team.”

  2020 election, joe biden, susan b. anthony list


Employee sues university health system for refusing religious exemption from flu vaccine

The university told the employee, 'Stating that you are a Christian and citing biblical verses that do not address vaccinations is not sufficient basis for granting an exemption[.]'
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 6:32 pm EST
Featured Image
sheff /
Liberty Counsel

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Virginia, October 23, 2020 (Liberty Counsel) — An employee at the University of Virginia Health System (UVA Health) has been threatened with disciplinary action despite asking for a religious accommodation from the flu vaccine several times. 

UVA Health has threatened the employee with “discipline,” which could lead to suspension and termination if he does not comply by November 13, 2020. 

Represented by Liberty Counsel, this employee has submitted four requests for a reasonable religious accommodation from the UVA Health directive to have the flu vaccine. This employee chooses not to accept anything that would “defile” his body, which includes vaccines made from aborted fetal cell lines or vaccines developed by companies that profit from aborted fetal tissue. 

Liberty Counsel is prepared to file a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) if UVA Health does not grant the exemption request.

It is unlawful for an employer to refuse a reasonable accommodation for a flu vaccine exemption request. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs if doing so does not pose an undue hardship on the employer. Federal conscience protection law for health care workers [42 U.S.C. §300a-7 (c) (2)] also prohibits “biomedical or behavioral research” grant recipients from discriminating against health personnel because employees refuse to perform an activity on the grounds that their performance “would be contrary to religious beliefs or moral convictions.” 

UVA Health denied the employee’s most recent request by asserting: “Stating that you are a Christian and citing biblical verses that do not address vaccinations is not sufficient basis for granting an exemption from the vaccine requirement. Christian philosophy does not have absolute rules that must be followed regarding vaccinations. Therefore, your request is one of a personal belief rather than religious doctrine and does not fall within the allowed exemptions.” 

This employee is willing to wear a face covering while working on UVA Health property as is currently required for COVID-19. 

— 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

UVA Health’s rejection of the employee’s religious exemption request is like those in the federal complaint filed by the Justice Department and EEOC in other flu vaccine religious exemption denials. For example, the DOJ filed a lawsuit in 2018 against Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, because the county discriminated against a former nursing assistant at a nursing home by failing to accommodate her religious beliefs when she sought an exemption for a flu vaccine. In another instance, Mission Hospital, Inc., a North Carolina corporation based in Asheville and the main hospital of Mission Health System, had to pay $89,000 and furnish other relief to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the (EEOC). Mission Hospital violated federal law when it refused to accommodate and fired employees who declined flu vaccinations based on their religious beliefs. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Federal law protects the religious convictions of employees to avoid making them choose between following their conscience or facing punishment. It is unlawful for UVA Health to force employees to violate their conscience, especially where there are reasonable options to accommodate their religious convictions. Liberty Counsel is prepared to file a complaint to the EEOC on behalf of this employee.” 

Published with permission from Liberty Counsel.

  abortion, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, modern medicine, university of virginia, vaccines


It’s ‘false’ Joe Biden never discussed business with son Hunter: former colleague

Joe Biden’s son and brother ‘were paranoid about keeping Joe Biden’s involvement secret,’ former business associate Tony Bobulinski said.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 5:07 pm EST
Featured Image
Tony Bobulinski during a press conference on October 22, 2020 Fox News / YouTube
Emily Mangiaracina Emily Mangiaracina Follow

October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A former business associate of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, said Thursday night that Joe was in fact involved in Hunter’s business dealings with China. Joe, the Democratic presidential candidate, still maintains that he had “never discussed business with Hunter.”

“I have heard Joe Biden say he has never discussed his dealings with Hunter. That is false,” said Tony Bobulinski, the former naval lieutenant who has worked with the Bidens, during a press conference mere hours before the second and last presidential debate yesterday.

His revelations come a little over a week after Rudy Giuliani alleged that Hunter Biden’s computer hard drive, which he now possesses, provides “clear evidence of crime” by the Biden family. Giuliani, who was given the hard drive by a repairman after Hunter failed to pick it up, has claimed that its contents reveal that the Bidens “have been business partners with the Chinese communist government.”

“This Biden family was engaging in the business of crime,” said Guiliani, the former mayor of New York City. “And their commodity? Joe’s public office. And Joe, you will see, shared in the proceeds.”

Bobulinski explained that his business dealings with the Bidens began after he was told that they “wanted to form a new entity with CEFC China Energy, which was to invest in infrastructure, real estate, and technology in the U.S. and around the world.” Bobulinski agreed to be CEO of this entity, to be called “Sinohawk.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, “CEFC, whose founder and chairman had a background in military intelligence, was in the midst of a rapid, well-funded global expansion that often made investments that dovetailed with the priorities of China’s president, Xi Jinping, and his global program to build infrastructure.”

— 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

Referring to Sinohawk, Bobulinski said, “On May 13, 2017, I received an email concerning allocation of equity, which says 10 percent held by H for the ‘Big guy.’ In that email, there’s no question that H stands for Hunter, Big guy for his father, Joe Biden.”

“On numerous occasions it was made clear to me that Joe Biden’s involvement was not to be mentioned in writing, but only face to face. In fact, I was advised by Gillian Walker that Hunter and Jim Biden were paranoid about keeping Joe Biden’s involvement secret,” he continued. Jim Biden is Joe’s brother.

Bobulinski explained that at one point he objected to Hunter’s desire to have $5 million in funds meant for Sinohawk directly wired to another entity affiliated with Hunter. Bobulinski said he protested that this was “contrary to our written agreements concerning Sinohawk.”

According to Bobulinski, Hunter said, “referring to the chairman, his father, that CEFC was really investing in the Biden family, that he held the trump card and that he was the one putting his family legacy on the line.”

Despite assurances from the CEFC that those funds would be transferred to Sinohawk, “they were never sent to our company,” said Bobulinski. “Instead, I found out from (Wisconsin) Senator (Ron) Johnson’s September report that the five million dollars was sent in August 2017 to entities affiliated with Hunter.”

Bobulinski said, “I was told this past Sunday by somebody who was also involved in this matter, that if I went public with this information, ‘It would bury all of us, man. The Bidens included.’”

“I have no wish to bury anyone,” he clarified. “I’ve never been political. The few contributions I have made have been to Democrats. But what I am is a patriot and a veteran. To protect my family name and my business reputation I need to ensure that the true facts are out there.”

Bobulinski finished the press conference by saying that he would be meeting with Senate committee members and provide the FBI the devices that corroborate his testimony.

  censorship, corruption, hunter biden, joe biden, tony bobulinski


Chinese nationals are censoring conservatives on Facebook, insider reveals

At least half a dozen Chinese nationals ‘are working on censorship’ for the social media giant.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 2:22 pm EST
Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — China’s influence on social media and its users extends well beyond Big Tech’s subservience to the pro-China World Health Organization, according to a Facebook insider who has revealed that the company employs several Chinese nationals trained at Chinese schools to censor content in the United States.

On Monday, the New York Post published an interview with a Facebook insider who detailed discontent within the company over Facebook’s actions to censor the Post’s reporting about emails that appear to detail how the Biden family made millions by selling meetings with former Vice President and current Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden around the world.

The next day, the Post published a follow-up revealing there are at least half a dozen “Chinese nationals who are working on censorship,” according to an employee directory provided by the insider.

Primarily based in Seattle, these members of Facebook’s “Hate-Speech Engineering” team include graduates of Chinese schools such as the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Jilin University, and Nanjing University. They previously worked at Chinese companies such as Huawei and the Beijing National Railway & Design Institute of Signal and Communication.

The team’s work focuses on using machine learning to determine which types of content are prioritized or diminished in users’ newsfeeds, such that disfavored “borderline” content “shows up dead last.”

“What they don’t do is ban a specific pro-Trump hashtag,” the insider explained. Rather, “content that is a little too conservative, they will down-rank. You can’t tell it’s censored.”

“We are a stronger company because our employees come from all over the world,” a Facebook spokesperson responded. “Our standards and policies are public, including about our third-party fact-checking program, and designed to apply equally to content across the political spectrum. With over 35,000 people working on safety and security issues at Facebook, the insinuation that these employees have an outsized influence on our broader policies or technology is absurd.”

Such statements are unlikely to convince Facebook’s critics in light of the company’s broader record of bias.

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

This summer, another Facebook insider provided footage of content moderators openly discussing how they would like to delete “every Donald Trump post I see on the timeline” and “delete all Republicans … for terrorism” if they so much as post a photo “wearing a MAGA hat.”

Yet another described witnessing moderators “deleting on average 300 posts or actioning 300 posts a day” in a way “that just targeted conservatives or favored liberals,” with personnel equating Trump supporters with violent hate groups, while expressly making an exception for overtly hateful posts by the moderators’ pro-homosexuality and pro-transgenderism allies in the name of supporting so-called “pride” month.

The New York Post’s experience has renewed calls for the federal government to step in. Many have advocated modifications to the federal law that immunizes websites from liability for user content, and Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has called on the Federal Elections Commission to investigate whether their suppression of the story, less than a month before the presidential election, qualifies as an illegal in-kind contribution to the Biden campaign.

The Justice Department filed a major antitrust lawsuit against Google this week, and on Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for questioning.

  big tech, censorship, china, facebook, free speech, social media bias


UK’s prime minister warns COVID-19 airport testing only 7% accurate

Boris Johnson based his statement on modeling done by Public Health England.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 2:13 pm EST
Featured Image
Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom.
Michael Haynes Michael Haynes Follow

LONDON, England, October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom said that only a small percentage of coronavirus tests performed at airports actually deliver accurate results.

During a BBC interview broadcast on September 4, the prime minister addressed the issue of airport testing replacing quarantines.

Johnson stated that “everyone thinks you can have some test at the airport that will answer whether you’ve got (the coronavirus) or not. Unfortunately, it only works in seven percent of the cases; 93 percent of the time you could have a real false sense of security, false sense of confidence when you arrive and take a test.”

The figure given is based on modeling done by Public Health England (PHE), which estimated that testing passengers only once upon arrival into the country would pick up just 7 percent of those who had the virus.

A second test, administered between five and 10 days later, would have an 85 percent or 98 percent chance, respectively, at identifying those who were supposedly infected. The model assumed that all the passengers in the scenario would be infected.

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab also talked about the statistics but appeared to interpret the figures differently. In an interview on Sky News, Raab stated that “the false positive rate is very high. It’s only 7 percent of tests that will be successful in identifying those who actually have the virus, so the truth is that you can’t just rely on that.”

While Johnson spoke of 7 percent accuracy relative to all tests performed, Raab seemed to imply that of all positive tests, only 7 percent would actually be accurate.

After the video was widely shared on social media, Reuters reported that Raab’s department clarified he meant that tests would only pick up 7 percent of positive cases of COVID-19. They referred back to PHE’s report as evidence.

However, more recently a study was published that disparaged PHE’s figures, as quoted by Johnson. Commissioned by a group of airlines and airports, Edge Health and Oxera Consulting released a report in which they claimed the PHE model “makes the assumption that 100 percent of the symptomatic as well as the asymptomatic passengers who are detectable at the time of boarding do not fly.”

Consequently, the report stated that the “widely quoted 7 percent excludes anyone who is in theory detectable or symptomatic before the flight takes off. This evidently isn’t the case, and it leads to an underestimation of the effectiveness of testing on arrival.”

Edge and Oxera said that “up to 63 percent of infected passengers attempting to enter the UK could be prevented from doing so with a testing scheme.”

— 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 conflicting figures regarding the effectiveness of airport testing, combined with calls to open up travel routes, has led to the development of the digital COVID passport, or “CommonPass.” The smartphone program is designed to provide evidence of a negative COVID-19 test in order to allow the passenger freedom of travel.

CommonPass is promoted by, among others, the World Economic Forum and the Rockefeller Foundation. A description on The Commons Project website states that the pass would allow “individuals to access their lab results and vaccination records, and consent to have that information used to validate their COVID status without revealing any other underlying personal health information.”

While only in a trial stage at London’s Heathrow Airport, the concept is being pushed in other countries, with Denmark releasing a version of the passport in July. The Danish system allows passengers to download a document that gives proof of having tested negative for the virus within the last seven days.

Former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair even suggested the use of digital IDs as a means of assessing one’s “disease status,” so as to determine who can travel based on whether they are infected, are immune, or have had any future vaccine.

The American Civil Liberties Union strongly warned against such concepts, as they present “potential to harm public health, incentivize economically vulnerable people to risk their health by contracting COVID-19, exacerbate racial and economic disparities, and lead to a new health surveillance infrastructure that endangers privacy rights.”

Johnson caught the coronavirus in April and was treated for it in the ICU.

  boris johnson, commonpass, covid-19, dominic raab, testing, united kingdom


UK priest: ‘I will be arrested’ before denying sacraments to the faithful again

Parts of the United Kingdom are undergoing another lockdown with canceled religious services.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 1:35 pm EST
Featured Image
View of the town hall in Nottingham, England Shutterstock
Emily Mangiaracina Emily Mangiaracina Follow

NOTTINGHAM, England, October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A priest in the United Kingdom vowed rather to be arrested than to stop offering Mass for the faithful during a potential second lockdown. He also expressed regret over having stopped public Masses earlier this year.

“Wales has decided to close the Churches again,” Fr. David Palmer tweeted. “I will be arrested before I deny the sacraments to the people of God again. And I repent for having backed down before. Eternal life comes before this life... or our faith means nothing.”

Palmer, a priest of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, is himself based in Nottingham, England, not in Wales, and is thus not directly affected by the prohibition of public Masses.

Some Twitter users objected to Palmer’s resolution, including a priest who said that “a momentary abstention from the Eucharist will do no harm. Especially when done for the sake of a good greater than our individual selves.” However, many others have rallied to support his decision, including, remarkably, “atheist” and non-religious tweeters.

The Real O’Neil tweeted, “I’m an atheist and I still believe you’re correct to take this stance. People should be free to observe their faith. To deny people that right is a moral crime.

I believe we have a moral duty to breach immoral laws.”

— 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 Athanasius Schneider said earlier this year, “If a priest observes in a reasonable manner all the necessary health precautions and uses discretion, he has not to obey the directives of his bishop or the government to suspend Mass for the faithful. Such directives are a pure human law; however, the supreme law in the Church is the salvation of souls.”

“Priests in such a situation have to be extremely creative in order to provide for the faithful, even for a small group, the celebration of Holy Mass and the reception of the sacraments. Such was the pastoral behavior of all confessor and martyr priests in the time of persecution,” Bishop Schneider said.

Palmer tweeted his message along with a Premier Christian News article from Monday that explained the Welsh government’s planned temporary lockdown.

“The Welsh Cabinet have decided to enforce a ‘short, sharp shock' to slow down the virus, which will start at 6pm this Friday,” the article stated.

The lockdown will close places of worship, except for funerals, wedding ceremonies, and to allow ministers to broadcast worship services to their congregations.

The BBC reported that the church closings are part of a shutdown of all “non-essential” businesses, including pubs, restaurants, hotels and community centers. Gathering indoors and outdoors with people other than those in one’s household will also be banned.

“A total of 40,253 people have now tested positive and 1,756 are known to have died with the virus in Wales,” according to recent numbers. “A total of 1,062,714 tests have been carried out in Wales, on 683,358 people, with 643,105 testing negative.”

The BBC reported, “More men than normal are dying at home from heart disease in England and Wales, and more women are dying from dementia and Alzheimer’s, figures show.”

“In contrast, deaths in hospitals from these causes have been lower than usual. The Covid epidemic may have led to fewer people being treated in hospital …”

In the U.S., following restrictions on “non-essential” gatherings, including religious worship, during the COVID-19 crisis, many have argued, and some judges have ruled, that restrictions on group assembly, including assembly for worship, are a violation of the First Amendment.

Dr. George Delgado said that he has “been associated with legal teams seeking to overturn restrictions in New York State, California, Illinois and Delaware. So far, most judges are in agreement that states and counties have overstepped their bounds in placing unreasonable restrictions on religious bodies.”

Lockdowns are also being legally challenged in the U.K.

  catholic, covid-19, david palmer, lockdowns, wales


Canadian doctor calls out govt, blasts lockdowns: ‘Induce fear, create compliance’

Dr. Stephen Malthouse's letter to British Columbia's provincial health officer doesn't pull any punches.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 1:13 pm EST
Featured Image
Have a nice day Photo /
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

BRITISH COLUMBIA, October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) –  A Canadian physician practicing family medicine for over 40 years has written to his province’s top doctor to blast the latter’s COVID-19 lockdown policy.

“How is it possible that a doctor with your previous training and experience did not anticipate the collateral damage of your public health policies — the economic disruption, the psychological and physical health consequences, and the deaths from despair?” wrote Dr. Stephen Malthouse in a letter addressed to Dr. Bonnie Henry, British Columbia (B.C.)’s provincial health officer.

“The mainstream media has created a religion out of public health, one based on superstition, not science, with the power to rule over an obedient public. The news channels have raised you to almost saint-like status[.] … Yet, your public directives do not make sense, contradict the research, and are causing people a great deal of harm. As a fellow doctor, I appeal to you to re-examine your policies and change direction before Public Health causes irreparable damage to our province’s health and economic well-being.”

In his letter, Malthouse states that there “appears to be no scientific or medical evidence for” the continuance of lockdowns, face masks, social distancing, the “arbitrary” closing of schools and businesses, and the “the closing down of or restrictions on religious places of worship.”

“According to the CDC Pandemic Severity Index, none of these measures have been warranted. The Great Barrington Declaration, signed by more than 30,000 health scientists and medical doctors from around the world, adds support for this statement,” wrote Malthouse. The Great Barrington Declaration blasts the harm caused by lockdowns.

Malthouse wrote that like most doctors in Canada, he was prepared for a “COVID-19 tsunami,” which he noted never materialized.

“The early intent of mitigation measures to ‘flatten the curve, when we knew very little about SARS-CoV-2, its mode of transmission, and the severity of COVID-19, was reasonable. I believe that most physicians in Canada, myself included, whether active or retired, prepared themselves to take part on the front lines for the expected COVID-19 tsunami,” wrote Malthouse.

“Very soon it was apparent that the expected overwhelming of the hospital system was not going to occur, and now BC physicians have questions about the appropriateness of your public health policies.”

Malthouse has been in the “family medical practice” for over 40 years and has been a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. since 1978. Currently, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia lists Malthouse as an actively practicing family physician in Denman Island.

In his letter to Henry, Malthouse wrote that the “epidemiological evidence clearly shows” that the COVID-19 “pandemic” is indeed over.

— 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

“No second wave will follow. The evidence has been available for at least 4–5 months and is irrefutable. Yet, in spite of this substantial body of research, your office is perpetuating the narrative that a pandemic still exists and a second wave is expected,” wrote Malthouse, referencing a report noting a former Chief Science Officer for Pfizer who said, ‘there is no science to suggest a second wave should happen.’”

“This false story is being used to justify public health policies that appear to have no health benefits, have already caused considerable harm, and threaten to create more harm in the future.”

As of today, B.C. lists 254 deaths attributed to COVID-19. On Monday, despite 69 people listed as in hospital and 18 in the ICU due to COVID-19, Henry sounded the alarm that her province is in its “second wave.”

“One can say that we are in our second wave here of our COVID-19 storm in B.C. But we have control over what that wave looks like," said Henry to reporters Monday.

Currently, B.C. is in Phase 3 of its re-opening regime, with restrictions still in place for many businesses such as restaurants and bars, which must close by 11:00 P.M. 

Churches and other places of worship are still limited to only 50 attendees, far below the limit in the neighboring province of Alberta, which does not put a limit on how many can attend church.  

In his letter to Henry, Malthouse mentioned the nation of Sweden, which did not have extreme lockdown measures, as a place that has “largely escaped” the mess caused by lockdowns.

“As you are aware, Sweden took an entirely different approach … and has also largely escaped the financial ruin and catastrophic mental health problems experienced in other countries, including Canada and the U.S.A,” wrote Malthouse.

Malthouse blasted the fact that promoting the use of vitamins and minerals as a way to boost one’s immune system in the fight against sickness has been “absent” from published government information on COVID-19.

“Surprisingly, the recommendation for reducing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality by supplementing with vitamin D, a measure that is supported by high-quality research, has been absent from your frequent public broadcasts and professional bulletins,” wrote Malthouse.

He then said that as far as he was aware, Henry has never noted something “as simple as vitamin D supplements” as a “convenient” way of improving one's immune system, especially for those most vulnerable to COVID-19.

“Optimizing nutrition is a convenient, inexpensive, and safe method of improving immune resistance and has been confirmed through numerous studies for both prevention and treatment of COVID-19,” wrote Malthouse.   

In his letter, Malthouse also mentioned the controversy around the accuracy of PCR tests as the method to detect COVID-19, bringing up a New York Times report that concluded that PCR testing can show up to 90% false positives.

“The PCR test was never designed, intended or validated to be used as a diagnostic tool,” wrote Malthouse.

Regarding “case counts” of those who show a positive COVID-19 test result, Malthouse wrote that Henry should not use this as a means to cause “panic” in the public.

“The public health definition of a ‘case’ is very broad. As all experienced doctors know, a ‘case’ is a patient with significant symptoms who is often hospitalized. A ‘case’ is not a person who simply has a questionably positive PCR test and presents with no symptoms or an unrelated diagnosis,” wrote Malthouse.

“Nevertheless, your public announcements repeatedly emphasize that the “case” counts are rising and we are in big trouble[.] ... It is your duty as the provincial health officer to provide facts, not propaganda, and make every effort to stop the public panic. The only reason for emphasizing ‘cases’ is to induce more fear and thereby compliance in the name of promised safety.”

  coronavirus, lockdowns, modern medicine, police state


Australia: 4 babies dead after COVID-19 lockdowns prevent life-saving surgery

Draconian lockdowns in the state of Victoria made airlifting the babies from Adelaide to a hospital in Melbourne impossible.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 12:26 pm EST
Featured Image
Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne Whatmov
Victoria Gisondi Follow

ADELAIDE, Australia, October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Four babies with heart conditions have died in the Australian city of Adelaide within the last four weeks because coronavirus travel restrictions prevented them from being transferred to an out-of-state hospital capable of providing life-saving surgery.

The Women’s and Children’s Hospital of Adelaide, where the infants were born, was not equipped with a cardiac unit to save the babies’ lives. Normally, the hospital would have simply transferred the children to Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital in the state of Victoria. However, the babies could not be brought to the clinic because of Victoria’s draconian lockdowns.

Dr. Catherine Lennon, New South Wales president of Doctors for Life, told LifeSiteNews, “The tragic deaths of four infants in Adelaide who were unable to have lifesaving heart surgery needs urgent investigation by the government. The border closures are so strict that lifesaving treatment in other states was not allowed. The [COVID-19] pandemic has caused lengthy unpredictable state border closures in Australia.”

“However, not enough medical exemptions are being considered nor compassion for these families,” continued Lennon. “This is causing unnecessary suffering such as the deaths of these four newborn babies. Their heart problems should have been treated urgently at Melbourne or another specialised centre that provides Paediatric Cardiothoracic surgery.”

The cluster of deaths triggered a review by authorities. John Svigos, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Women’s and Children’s Hospital, addressed a Select Committee of Health Services in Southern Australia in which he affirmed that Adelaide was the only mainland capital that did not perform pediatric cardiac surgery. Infants and children in critical condition were transferred interstate.

Svigos told the South Australian parliament’s public health services committee, “In our current COVID situation … the usual process of referral to the Melbourne cardiac unit is no longer tenable.”

It remains unclear why the government did not lift the very travel restrictions designed to save lives in these infants’ life-or-death circumstances. It is also not clear why the babies were not airlifted to a hospital with a cardiac unit geared towards newborns in a state other than Victoria.

Meanwhile, Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews denies any restrictions are to blame.

— 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

In an interview with ABC Radio Adelaide, the former chief executive of Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne, Dr. John de Campo, explained “the practice over the past two decades had been to send severely ill infants from Adelaide to Melbourne for specialist treatment … I don’t know the reason these babies weren’t sent, nor the diseases they had and whether they were operable diseases or not — that’s all behind the curtain.”

A review is underway and is expected to last a few weeks. Deputy Chief Public Health Officer Mike Cusack had said that an internal investigation of the Adelaide hospital showed no signs of negligence on their part.

  australia, covid-19, lockdowns, victoria, australia


Pope Francis in TED talk: ‘We only have a few years’ to fix climate change

The Holy Father didn’t mention God, or Jesus Christ, in his 13-minute video.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 11:02 am EST
Featured Image
Pope Francis giving his October 2020 TED talk TED / YouTube
Michael Haynes Michael Haynes Follow

VATICAN CITY, October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis once again called for action to be taken on “climate change,” this time making the alarmist claim that there are less than 30 years to do so. The Holy Father didn’t mention God, or Jesus Christ, at all in his 13-minute video.

The new video is part of TED’s “Countdown” series, which seeks “to accelerate solutions to the climate crisis” and has the goal of building “a better future by cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030, in the race to a zero-carbon world.”

Pope Francis opens by saying, “Science tells us, every day, with more precision, that urgent action is needed … if we are to keep the hope of avoiding radical and catastrophic climate change.” He reemphasizes the point, “This is a scientific fact.”

He calls for radical change, declaring that a fundamental shift in the way we live was inevitable, but stops short of giving concrete examples of what would change. “From this crisis none of us must come out the same — we cannot come out the same: from a crisis, we never come out the same — and it will take time, and hard work, to overcome it.”

“We will have to … persuade those in doubt; imagine new solutions,” he continues, referring to those sceptical of the climate change agenda. He further states that the goal must be to build “a world where we can meet the needs of the present generations, including everyone, without compromising the possibilities of future generations.”

Pope Francis makes note of the concept of “integral ecology,” a chapter title and a dominant theme in his 2015 encyclical Laudato Si, which he characterizes as a common response to the “cry of the Earth” and “the cry of the poor.” This concept, according to the Pope, reminds us that we are “interdependent on each other, as well as on our Mother Earth,” and should be the guiding principle of future life.

The pontiff proposes three globalist courses of action, which are drawn from his teaching in Laudato Si.

The first step is education which is centered on care of the earth, “developing the understanding that environmental problems are linked to human needs.” He praises the “new ecological and social awareness” as well as the fight which some wage for “defense of the environment and for justice.”

As a second issue, the Pope mentions water and nutrition: “Providing adequate nutrition for all, through non-destructive farming methods, should become the main purpose of the entire cycle of food production and distribution.”

Thirdly, Pope Francis calls for the replacement of “fossil fuels with clean energy sources.” He states that scientist think there are less than “30 years” in which to “drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.”

— 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 globalist theme continues, as the Pope suggests “excluding from investments those companies that do not meet the parameters of integral ecology” whilst rewarding those that do.

In a decidedly environmentalist turn of phrase, the Pope states: “In fact, the Earth must be worked and nursed, cultivated and protected. We cannot continue to squeeze it like an orange. And we can say that this — taking care of the Earth — is a human right.”

The Pope also attacks the current predominant economic system, stating that it is “unsustainable.” Consequently, we have a “moral imperative, and the practical urgency, to rethink many things: the way we produce; the way we consume; our culture of waste; our short-term vision; the exploitation of the poor and our indifference towards them; the growing inequalities and our dependence on harmful energy sources.”

Integral ecology is what the Pope identifies as being the foundation of a new relation between man and nature. He continues by saying that it leads to a “new economy,” focused on “integral well-being of the human being and to the improvement — not the destruction — of our common home.”

This system of life would also necessitate a revolution, or renewal in the political system, which is termed as “one of the highest forms of charity” since love “involves all peoples and it involves Nature.”

Pope Francis closes by stating that “we must act with urgency.”

In the 13-minute video, the Pope never mentions God, or Jesus Christ, or even the importance of religion. The only two paragraphs of the transcript containing the word “faith” do not refer to Catholicism, but simply ask people of any faith or none to commit to the climate change prevention effort.

The Pope is no stranger to promoting the climate change argument, and despite referring to scientists in his talk, has been corrected by scientists who say the “Pope is getting terrible advice from some exalted churchmen who are seriously deficient in scientific knowledge.”

In 2017, Pope Francis appeared in a film warning of the dangers of climate change, and more recently encouraged climate change activist Greta Thunberg to continue her alarmist campaign for fighting climate change.

Pope Francis also sent a message to the United Nations 2019 conference on climate change, demanding political action to prevent climate change, as well as trying to ensure that the poor in society would be protected from its effects.

Prior to that, in his message for the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation, the Pope said, “We have caused a climate emergency that gravely threatens nature and life itself, including our own.”

  climate change, pope francis, ted talk


El presidente de Brasil impulsa la “lucha contra la cristofobia” mundial en la ONU

"Hago un llamado a toda la comunidad internacional para proteger la libertad religiosa y luchar contra la cristofobia," dijo el presidente Jair Bolsonaro.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 10:45 am EST
Featured Image
Pres. Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil. Andressa Anholete / Getty Images
Emily Mangiaracina Emily Mangiaracina Follow

NUEVA YORK, 7 de octubre de 2020 (LifeSiteNews) - El presidente brasileño, Jair Bolsonaro, pidió a las naciones de todo el mundo que combatan la hostilidad hacia los cristianos en un discurso que pronunció en las Naciones Unidas el 22 de septiembre.

“Hago un llamado a toda la comunidad internacional para proteger la libertad religiosa y luchar contra la cristofobia,” dijo el presidente Bolsonaro.

Frances Marcel de Breitbart dijo que el comentario de Bolsonaro "probablemente fue una referencia a las crecientes tasas de violencia anticristiana y persecución cristiana en naciones de mayoría musulmana."

Union of Catholic Asian News informa que “la pandemia se ha convertido en un pretexto para intensificar la persecución contra los cristianos” de los gobiernos autoritarios.  Según Paul Robinson, director ejecutivo de Release International, en China, los cristianos son arrestados por realizar oraciones en línea, mientras que en Eritrea, los cristianos que huyen de la persecución "no pueden acceder a los campamentos de refugio y otros sistemas de apoyo de la ONU."

Bolsonaro no amplió esta declaración en su reciente discurso ante la ONU, que de otra manera dedicó en gran medida a la discusión de COVID-19, temas económicos y ambientales.

Cerró su discurso diciendo: "Brasil es un país cristiano y conservador, y tiene a la familia como base."

El escritor brasileño y conservador cultural Julio Severo señaló que el informe oficial de la ONU cubrió gran parte de lo que Bolsonaro discutió en su discurso, pero no mencionó su comentario sobre la "cristofobia" o su comentario de que Brasil es un "país cristiano y conservador."

"Las Naciones Unidas no mencionaron nada para no ofender a Arabia Saudita, Irán, China y otras naciones que persiguen a los cristianos," comentó Severo.

El apoyo vocal de Bolsonaro a los cristianos y el conservadurismo recuerdan su historia de acciones cristianas y a favor de la familia, como su proclamación de consagrar Brasil al Inmaculado Corazón de María, su promoción de la educación sobre la abstinencia y su oposición a la ideología de género LGBT. Según Severo, "[l]a lucha contra el adoctrinamiento homosexual de los escolares hizo famoso a Bolsonaro entre los conservadores, aunque hoy su lucha no es tan fuerte como en el pasado."

Para consternación de los conservadores, solo unos días después del discurso de Bolsonaro en la ONU, decidió nominar a Kassio Nunes Marques para la Corte Suprema de Brasil. Según Severo, Marques es "elogiado por toda la izquierda en Brasil."

La abogada brasileña Janaína Paschoal, conocida por solicitar la destitución de la ex presidenta socialista Dilma Rousseff, “estaba perpleja de que en una tesis sobre salud, Marques abordara el aborto como un problema de salud de la mujer, no como un asesinato, no como un asunto de vida o muerte,” Severo. dijo.

Severo continuó: “Quizás el legado más importante de un presidente es su nombramiento para la Corte Suprema. ¿Qué tipo de legado pretende dejar Bolsonaro para el futuro de Brasil en la Corte Suprema?”

Bolsonaro había dicho en el 2019: “El estado es laico, pero somos cristianos. O plagiar a mi querida [ministra] Damares [Alves]: Somos terriblemente cristianos. Y ese espíritu debe estar presente en todas las ramas del gobierno. Por lo tanto, mi compromiso: puedo nombrar dos ministros para el Tribunal Supremo Federal. Uno de ellos será terriblemente evangélico.”

Si bien algunos evangélicos han expresado su consternación por la nominación de Marques por parte de Bolsonaro, el presidente de Brasil les ha asegurado que su próxima nominación se alineará con la identidad "evangélica" que les prometió en el 2019.

Bolsonaro dijo el lunes: “Vamos a tener un ministro muy evangélico en la corte suprema. Más que alguien muy evangélico, si Dios quiere, tendremos un ministro.”

  brazil, christianity, español, freedom of religion, islam, jair bolsonaro, jihad, persecution of christians, united nations


‘Well beyond’ court packing: Biden proposes commission to transform Supreme Court

Biden said he will ask a ‘bipartisan commission of scholars’ for recommendations ‘as to how to reform the court system.’
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 9:18 am EST
Featured Image
Joe Biden at Sept. 29, 2020 debate with President Trump.
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

October 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — In an apparent attempt to defuse lingering question as to whether he would “pack” the Supreme Court as president, Democrat nominee Joe Biden will establish a “bipartisan commission of scholars” to propose ways to “reform” the federal judiciary, if elected.

“Court-packing” refers to expanding the number of Supreme Court justices to rig outcomes in the president’s favor, which President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously attempted in hopes of stopping the court from striking down his New Deal economic policies. Modern Democrats and their supporters have called for doing the same if they regain power, particularly as a response to the impending confirmation of President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

In a new interview with 60 Minutes, the former vice president said he will ask a “bipartisan commission of scholars” to “come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it’s getting out of whack.”

“And it’s not about court packing,” Biden said. “There’s a number of other things that our constitutional scholars have debated and I’ve looked to see what recommendations that commission might make.”

“There’s a number of alternatives that are — go well beyond packing,” he added. “The last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just a political football, whoever has the most votes gets whatever they want. Presidents come and go. Supreme Court justices stay for generations.”

— 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

For weeks, Biden and his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) have come under fire for their refusal to say whether they support court-packing. Earlier this month, Biden said voters will “know my opinion on court packing” when the election is over, and “don’t deserve” to know beforehand. His latest proposal appears to be an attempt to satisfy those in his base who want court-packing without explicitly endorsing the practice, which has outraged even some moderates.

“Truly radical,” responded Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who has proposed a constitutional amendment to lock the number of Supreme Court justices at its current number of nine. “Our constitutional rights hang in the balance, and we are One Vote Away.”

  2020 election, 2020 presidential election, court packing, court-packing, democrats, joe biden, judiciary, supreme court


US bishop on aborted babies: ‘Their blood cries out for justice’

Bishop Ricken encouraged Catholics in Wisconsin to vote for life.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 9:00 am EST
Featured Image
Bishop David L. Ricken Diocese of Green Bay / Vimeo
Colette Hazinski

GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Referring to the number of 61 million babies killed in abortion in the United States since 1973, Bishop David L. Ricken said, “Their blood cries out for justice. Let it not continue.”

In his message on October 18, 2020, the bishop of Green Bay, Wisconsin, reminded the faithful of the sanctity of life and the need to create a culture of life.

As part of the series of pro-life rosaries with the bishops of Wisconsin leading up to the presidential election, Bishop Ricken encouraged Catholic voters to vote for life because it is “an issue of humanity,” not just a Catholic issue.

“Life begins at conception … Every person conceived is created by God and has a right to be born and to live, because every life is sacred,” he said.

After asking why the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) made the right to life the preeminent priority of the Catholic Church in the United States, Ricken explained, “The answer is really very simple: because every life is sacred.”

“Did you know that it’s 61 million now? 61 million innocent lives have been taken in the womb in the United States since 1973, when the Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court sanctioned and legalized abortion,” he added.

Ricken explained further, “The right to be born and the right to live is the most fundamental and foundational human right. That right is the sine qua non, which is Latin for ‘without which’ there are no other rights. Without this right, there is no right, no other right. And no other right applies.”

He then pointed to the “signs of hope” and the “great strides [we have made] in honoring the dignity of our unborn brothers and sisters as well as providing for the care of their mothers.” He identified the good that ultrasounds and the work of hundreds of pregnancy centers and clinics have been able to accomplish throughout the U.S.

Moreover, Ricken affirmed the ministries working to help women find healing from their abortions and in turn help other women make the decision to choose life. “[Those women] don’t want them to be trapped in that cycle of death,” he said.

“We can have hope that there is a new generation now. A young generation that calls itself the pro-life generation, which is speaking boldly in defense of all life and working with great zeal to change the law as we know it, as well as to care for those in need,” declared Ricken.

Ricken affirmed the good work that pro-life advocates are already doing, but he also encouraged people to mobilize for mission. He said, “There is still much to do … As the protection and care for life increases, your prayers and your cooperation with the Holy Spirit will be needed even more.”

“More and more people are going to wake up to what abortion really is and what it does. And, the secrets will be hidden no more. We will need to be there for people when they realize that has been in their life,” Ricken said.

He advised the faithful that they will need to support women and families undergoing crises even more and help with adoption services. “We will need to put our words and prayers into action in a multitude of tangible ways,” he noted.

Ricken also reminded Catholics that even though building a culture of life is a huge and difficult task, “God’s love is up to it.”

For this reason, he encouraged them to invoke the powerful intercession of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Holy Innocents to help them build a culture of life. He also thanked people who have been involved with the pro-life movement, specifically 40 Days for Life, an international 40-day campaign that aims to end abortion locally through prayer and fasting.

“You, too, are having a lasting impact for life,” he said.

Not only did Bishop Ricken encourage people to build a culture of life, he also encouraged them to take action. He urged anyone who has experienced or been involved with an abortion in some way to repent, go to confession, and embrace Jesus’ mercy.

Finally, he enjoined all Catholics to elect pro-life candidates to public office. “[V]ote for life … Every child has a right to be born and a right to live,” he said emphatically.

“As a nation, let’s protect that right once again. Brothers and sisters, the insanity must stop. Bloodshed and destruction of the body and soul of these the most innocent of human beings, innocent children in the womb and children just outside the womb. That must stop,” he declared.

In closing, Bishop Ricken declared that the unborn child deserves to be protected because it is the most vulnerable life, and has rights, too. He also observed abortion has been the cause of many other problems in the U.S., and that the nation needs to heal from this sin.

  2020 election, abortion, catholic, david ricken, pro-life, wisconsin


El diccionario Webster altera la definición de la palabra para que coincida con el discurso pro-LGBT de la senador

El cambio a la entrada de 'preferencia' se produjo el mismo día en que la senadora Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) se quejó con Amy Coney Barrett sobre el uso de esta última del término 'preferencia sexual' para describir la homosexualidad.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 4:16 am EST
Featured Image
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

14 de octubre de 2020 (LifeSiteNews) - Después de que la senadora de Hawái Mazie Hirono (D) atacara a la jueza Amy Coney Barrett por usar el término "preferencia sexual" para hacer referencia a la homosexualidad, alegando que era "ofensivo" y "desactualizado," Webster's Dictionary rápidamente cambió la definición en línea de la palabra.

"No una sino dos veces usó el término 'preferencia sexual' para describir a aquellos en la comunidad LGBTQ," dijo. “Y permítanme aclarar: 'preferencia sexual' es un término ofensivo y desactualizado. Es utilizado por activistas anti-LGBTQ para sugerir que la orientación sexual es una elección. No lo es. La orientación sexual es una parte clave de la identidad de una persona. Que la orientación sexual es una expresión normal de la sexualidad humana e inmutable fue una parte clave de la opinión de la mayoría en Obergefell, con la que, por cierto, Scalia no estaba de acuerdo."

“Con solo dos palabras, Amy Coney Barrett reveló cuán parcial es ella contra las personas LGBTQ,” gritaba un titular de LGBTQNation, que sugería que “Barrett usó la frase ofensiva 'preferencia sexual,' un silbato de derecha que sugiere que las personas LGBTQ puede ser curadas."

Más tarde ese mismo día, el Diccionario Webster modificó su definición de "preferencia" para indicar que el término es "ofensivo" cuando se usa para referirse a la orientación sexual.

El cambio, y su oportunidad, no pasó desapercibido por mucho tiempo.

“Tan recientemente como el mes pasado, el Diccionario Webster incluyó una definición de 'preferencia' como 'orientación' o 'preferencia sexual,'” tuiteó Steve Krakuaer. "HOY lo cambiaron y agregaron la palabra 'ofensivo.'"

"Una locura. Acabo de revisar Wayback Machine y es real," agregó.

Definición del diccionario Webster más temprano en el día de ayer (izquierda), y después del cambio de anoche (derecha).

Definición del diccionario Webster más temprano en el día de ayer (izquierda), y después del cambio de anoche (derecha).

Evidentemente, hasta ayer, sólo la senadora Hirono había pensado que "preferencia" era un término ofensivo.

El candidato presidencial demócrata Joe Biden pronunció recientemente las palabras "preferencia sexual." "Biden usó el término en mayo de este año," observó AGHamilton29 (AG). "Según algunos demócratas de hoy, eso debería descalificarlo para un cargo público."

"¿Alguien va a preguntarle a Mazie Hirono sobre esto?"

"Cómico," exclamó AG en un tweet posterior. "Aquí está The Advocate Magazine que usó el término" preferencia sexual "hace 3 semanas. Justo antes de que se volviera ofensivo."

"Salir de esa historia para poder ahora, como director, contar estas historias ... sobre jóvenes que simplemente se sienten cómodos con quienes son, sin importar cuál sea su preferencia sexual," tuiteó The Advocate, la revista nacional principal de publicación LGBT. "Es simplemente glorioso y muy satisfactorio."

  amy coney barrett, español, homosexuality, mazie hirono, scotus, supreme court, webster's dictionary


“La enseñanza cristiana se interpretaría como actos delictivos,” advierten los Obispos canadienses sobre la prohibición de la terapia

Si el proyecto de ley C-6 se convierte en ley, los padres podrían estar sujetos a "enjuiciamiento penal" por conversaciones privadas con sus hijos, y se podría prevenir que las personas que buscan "salir de la transición,” vivan castamente o superen el trauma sexual.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 4:07 am EST
Featured Image
Victoria Gisondi Follow

Read this article in English here.

CANADÁ, 23 de octubre de 2020 (LifeSiteNews) - Un proyecto de ley que prohíba la terapia para las atracciones sexuales no deseadas podría someter las "conversaciones privadas entre padres e hijos sobre cuestiones de sexualidad humana" a un "proceso penal,” advirtió la Conferencia Canadiense de Obispos Católicos en una nueva carta.

El proyecto de ley C-6 prohíbe la llamada terapia de conversión, que define se como “una práctica, tratamiento o servicio diseñado para cambiar la orientación sexual de una persona a heterosexual o identidad de género a cisgénero, o para reprimir o reducir la atracción o el comportamiento sexual no heterosexual.“

Según la Conferencia Canadiense de Obispos Católicos (CCCB), el proyecto de ley no deja espacio para la libertad religiosa en su idioma.

En una carta del 7 de octubre al gobierno canadiense, el CCCB enfatizó que los medios de conversión coercitivos o involuntarios no son éticos y no respetan la dignidad de la persona. Sin embargo, los Obispos argumentaron que el lenguaje del proyecto de ley está lleno de ambigüedades que podrían convertir la instrucción religiosa y las conversaciones privadas en ilegales y dificultar que las personas que buscan revertir las llamadas cirugías de "cambio de sexo" lo hagan. Evitaría que aquellos que buscan superar sentimientos intrusivos y no deseados accedan a la ayuda que desean.

El CCCB declaró: “Existe la posibilidad de que dentro de las familias, las conversaciones privadas entre padres e hijos sobre temas de sexualidad humana se consideren públicas y sujetas a enjuiciamiento penal, lo que a su vez plantea serias dudas sobre la legitimidad de la vigilancia gubernamental, la confidencialidad profesional y violación de la privacidad. Como principales educadores de sus hijos, los padres tienen derecho a criarlos de acuerdo con sus creencias religiosas legítimas y éticas. Cualquier intervención estatal no debe anular el derecho principal de los padres a cuidar de sus hijos y tomar decisiones para su bienestar.”

“Existe un peligro real de que las enseñanzas cristianas, religiosas y éticas con respecto a la sexualidad humana se interpreten como actos criminales,” advirtieron los Obispos Católicos. “El proyecto de ley podría incluso criminalizar ministerios y grupos Católicos, líderes religiosos o pastores que alientan a las personas con atracción por el mismo sexo a vivir castamente y de conformidad con las enseñanzas del Evangelio, los principios morales de la Iglesia Católica y los dictados de sus propia conciencia.“

Junto con la intromisión del gobierno en los asuntos privados de la familia, el proyecto de ley también es problemático porque no especifica cómo manejará el discurso público y la instrucción religiosa sobre sexualidad y género, haciéndolos vulnerables a la criminalización. No hay ninguna disposición en el proyecto de ley sobre creencias religiosas, filosofías o incluso estudios científicos sobre la sexualidad humana que puedan divergir de la ideología impuesta por el gobierno.

Si se interpreta literalmente, el proyecto de ley podría evitar que las personas reciban tratamiento médico de médicos, psicólogos, psiquiatras y otros expertos en salud mental porque obligaría a los profesionales médicos a retener terapias bajo pena de ley.

“Por ejemplo, las personas transgénero que deseen libremente salir de la transición podrían no tener acceso a la asistencia profesional necesaria para explorar esta opción. De manera similar, los médicos podrían verse inhibidos de defender un enfoque prudente y con apoyo profesional hacia los niños pequeños con disforia de género,” escribió el CCCB.

El CCCB no está solo en su lucha contra el proyecto de ley. La Comunidad Evangélica de Canadá también ha emitido su propia carta abierta al actual Ministro de Justicia y Fiscal General de Canadá, David Lametti. La carta de la EFC dice: “... [L] os términos‘ práctica, tratamiento o servicio,’ aunque a menudo se usan en un contexto médico o terapéutico, no están definidos en el Proyecto de Ley C-6 y pueden interpretarse y aplicarse de varias maneras. Tal como están redactados, estos términos podrían incluir grupos de apoyo buscados voluntariamente para aquellos que eligen vivir sus vidas de acuerdo con sus creencias religiosas."

Read this article in English here.

  bill c-6, de-transition, español, free speech, freedom of speech, homosexuality, sex change, sex change regret, therapy ban, transgenderism, unwanted same-sex attraction


US Catholic bishops fund network that endorses Biden, abortion, strippers

Direct proof from the group's own websites and social media feeds show that it has no intention of following the U.S. bishops' poorly enforced funding guidelines.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 8:16 pm EST
Featured Image
Michael Hichborn Michael Hichborn Follow Michael
By Michael Hichborn

October 23, 2020 (Lepanto Institute) — Last week, the Lepanto Institute published a report showing how the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), through the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), is funding a network of community organizers openly committed to helping Joe Biden get elected as the next president of the United States.  The community organizing network, “Faith in Action” (formerly the PICO Network), has forty-nine affiliate members, twenty-nine of which received $1.5 million from pewsitting Catholics last year.  In 2016, the CCHD provided a $500,000 grant directly to PICO/Faith in Action, meaning that the CCHD has funded the national network in recent years and is currently funding more than half of the network’s affiliate members.

Our previous report provided evidence from Faith in Action’s (FIA) own website and social media feeds proving a direct partisan push in favor of Joe Biden and against Donald Trump for the 2020 national election. However, this is not the only problem with the Faith in Action network. While researching FIA’s partisan activity, we also uncovered evidence of FIA promoting abortion, homosexual activism, open rebellion, and the abolition of police while making excuses for rioting and violence.


FIA’s Director of National Policy is “Bishop” Dwayne Royster.  He is also Faith in Action’s Northeast Regional Director, so he represents FIA’s regional and national policy decisions.  On April 1, 2019 Democrat candidates for the 2020 Presidential Election participated in the “We the People Summit.” Royster gave the opening remarks at the summit, kicking off the day’s events.  After being proudly introduced by Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s executive director Kelley Robinson, Royster called for a round of applause for Robinson “for her great leadership,” before proclaiming a revolutionary vision that “women have the right to control the destinies of their own bodies” and work for “all the issues and all the people that are represented in this room in the intersection of all our demands…women’s rights and worker’s rights, racial justice and reproductive justice!”  So, not only is FIA’s National Policy Director opening a partisan political event, calling for “victory in November,” but he specifically and directly endorsed the Democrat’s pro-abortion agenda.  Here is a clip from the conference showing Royster being introduced, and his subsequent opening remarks:

Royster’s nonchalant attitude toward the direct and intentional killing of preborn babies extends to FIA as a whole. For instance, FIA’s Live Free project issued the following re-tweets as this report was drafted (NOTE: Because you can’t post a direct link to a “retweet” that doesn’t go to the original tweet, in order to find the retweet, you’ll have to scan the timeline for the date indicated in the image below):


Live Free’s moral compass is entirely skewed as can be seen by its re-tweet of a “get out the vote” video featuring highly suggestive posing of nearly-nude Atlanta based strippers. Again, we must ask if this is really what the US Bishops intended to fund with the 1.5 million going to this network!  WARNING!  This video is very graphic!  Sadly, it is necessary to post it as is to prove what is being promoted by organizations receiving Catholic funding:

[LifeSite has elected not to embed the video. Readers who feel the need to watch it can do so at this article's original location, here.]


In August of 2020, FIA’s national Live Free project promoted a 4-day online festival called Into Action.  Live Free was also identified as one of Into Action’s “Community Partners” for the event. Live Free’s Facebook posts promoting this event demonstrate that FIA knew what sort of topics this event was going to cover, including the promotion of homosexual activism and abortion “reproductive justice.”

This Aug 5 Facebook post from Live Free clearly mentions LGBTQ activism:


This video posted on Aug 18 by Live Free states “my body, my business” giving a strong idea what will be covered by Into Action (also note the light up “pro-choice” purse in the background):

The actual Into Action videos, each of which clearly identifies FIA’s project, Live Free as a “community partner,” were filled with LGBT and transgender activism, as well as the promotion of abortion.

The clips which follow (taken from the full video, here) present a small sample representing the depraved nature of the entire event.  You will see the moderator introduce the president of the Trans Latina Coalition, Bamby Salcero, who opens by speaking in Spanish and then explains that it was a “customary thing he does to honor [his] higher power.”  He then claims that the Trump administration is attempting to “erase” transgenders and says that his organization is suing the Trump administration.  This clip is followed by a brief statement from Dolores Huerta, a strident pro-abortion activist.  Huerta talks about the importance of “cross-sectionality” between the immigrant rights movement, the workers movement, the LGBT movement, and the pro-abortion movement.

Into Action also produced a video for International Youth Day that featured heavy amounts of transgenderism (click here to see the full video).  Featured in these video clips is an interview with transgender activist, Alok Vaid-Menon, and a transgender skateboard professional called Cher Strawberry.

In this series of clips, you’ll see Alok states that gender boils down to “my body my choice,” and the claims that the idea that there are two genders is “a harmful myth.”  You’ll also see Cher Strawberry attempt to normalize queer and transgender activities for youth by presenting as a popular pro-skateboarder who also happens to be a transgender activist.

Bear in mind as you watch these clips that the Live Free is a project of a network receiving large amounts of funding from the US Bishops.

The promotion of homosexualism is not just confined to the national level. On July 1 of this year, FIA member Inland Congregations United for Change (ICUC) posted on Facebook an image of its logo superimposed on a rainbow flag, stating, “As Pride Month comes to a close, we would like to let all our LGBTQIA+ community know ICUC stands with you 365 days a year in the fight for equality.”  ICUC received $75,000 from the CCHD for 2019-2020.


Speaking of ICUC, this organization not only supports homosexual activism, it also openly condones violence and the destruction of public property.

In this May 30th Facebook post, ICUC reposted Pico California co-director Rev. Ben McBride’s comparison of rioters burning of the Minneapolis police headquarters to the burning bush witnessed by Moses.  ICUC and McBride suggest that the burning bush and the burning building are both calls from God to “go confront Empire.”

Do the US Bishops REALLY want to be sponsoring a group that thinks that God calls us through such violent acts as this?


Another FIA member promoting violent revolution is $25,000 CCHD grantee, Faith in the Valley San Joaquin.  On May 28, Faith in the Valley posted Rev. Ben McBride’s video presentation against the police.  In the video, McBride excused the burning of private property – like a Target store in Minneapolis – calling such acts “not rioting, but rebellion.”  He also stated that FIA’s effort to defund the police called “Bring the Heat” is ultimately concerned with abolishing the police altogether.

NOTE: This video was still available prior to the publication of our first report, but has since been deleted by both Faith in the Valley and Ben McBride.  But the Lepanto Institute saved the entire video before publishing, knowing that the evidence would soon start disappearing once we published our first report.  To view the complete video, click here.

What follows is a condensed version of the full video, showing Ben McBride using a racial slur, calling the US government the “Jewnited States government” while quoting the anti-semite Farrakhan saying he doesn’t have to follow the rules of the United States.  You’ll also see McBride promoting actual rebellion and the burning of retail stores; calling Trump a “totalitarian” who is starting a police state; calling for a race war; admitting that their aim is to completely abolish the police; calls burning down buildings a “tactical action against white racists”; calls the USA a “wicked empire”; calls the Republican party a “racist system” and that they “say they are pro-life but they want to control women’s bodies, they just want people born so they can rape them.”

This echoes Ben McBride’s own twitter posts on the matter.  On May 20, he retweeted a call to “stop using the term ‘riot’ to describe the current actions in MN. These are REBELLIONS.”  To this, Ben McBride added, “Yes, it is REBELLION!”  Given this very clear and open statement, there can be no doubt that the CCHD is funding actual calls for rebellion against the United States.


In this tweet from May 27, Ben McBride – again, the Director for PICO California – said, “Stop telling Black people to be peaceful.”


In this tweet from May 28, PICO California Director Ben McBride referred to buildings set on fire by arsonists as “burning bushes” with the hashtag “BringTheHEAT.  He suggested that the fires spoke to the people about “oppression” and called “out for justice.”


Again, on May 29, PICO California Director Ben McBride appeared to be egging on arsonists by posting a photo of arson and calling the burning building “Burning Bushes,” presenting the hashtag #BringTheHEAT.


All of this coincides with Faith in Action’s member organizations and the Live Free project’s calls to either defund or abolish the police.  The examples we have collected are too numerous to post all of them, but here are some samples:

On August 21, Faith in Actions’ Live Free Project tweeted a call to “Defund the Police.”  Keep in mind that Ben McBride, the brother of the director of the Live Free project, Michael McBride, explained on video that defunding the police was a step toward abolition.


After the presidential debate on September 29, where President Trump mentioned the support he has from police departments across the country, Faith in Action tweeted, “Defund the police.”


On October 7, the Live Free project quoted PICO California’s director, Ben McBride, who called for the abolition of police.


Faith in Action is a hard-left, pro-abortion, pro-violent-revolution, transgender-promoting, organization that is clearly committed to help Joe Biden get elected in November.  And the majority of its affiliates are receiving CCHD funds.

This is all direct proof from FIA’s own websites and social media feeds that it has NO intention of following CCHD’s poorly enforced guidelines. This entire network must be defunded immediately and the CCHD must be held to account for its continued slipshod and absolutely faithless handling of Catholic money.

Please contact your bishop and the CCHD, telling them what you think about the CCHD funding members of Faith in Action!

Click here for the contact information for your bishop.

Click here for the name and email address of your diocesan CCHD director.

Ralph McCloud, CCHD Director 202-541-3367 [email protected]
Lydia Jiles, Grants Administrator 202-541-3210 [email protected]
Juan Aranda, Grants Specialist for Area D 202-541-3370 [email protected]
Main Number . . . . . . . . . . 202-541-3210
Fax Number . . . . . . . . . . 202-541-3329
Main Email . . . . . . . . . . [email protected]

Grant Specialists
Area A   Ian Mitchell   202-541-3371   [email protected]
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont

Area B   Gene Giannotta   202-541-3211   [email protected]
Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin

Area C   Randy Keesler   202-541-3369   [email protected]
Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee , Virgin Islands, Virginia, West Virginia

Area D   Juan Aranda   202-541-3370   [email protected]
Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas

Area E   Sean Wendlinder   202-541-3212   [email protected]
Alaska, California, Colorado, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming

Published with permission from the Lepanto Institute.

  2020 election, abortion, catholic, catholic campaign for human development cchd, faith in action, joe biden, lepanto institute, united states conference of catholic bishops, us bishops


40 million Christians who sit out elections need to be motivated to vote this year

They could be the ones to stop the threat of Marxism portended by the Democrat Party.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 7:58 pm EST
Featured Image
Michael Nedderman
By Michael Nedderman

October 23, 2020 (WorldNetDaily) – Every American who doesn't want to see our beloved nation transformed into a godless, socialist, "workers' paradise" must vote to stop the threat of the systemic Marxism that has infected our society through the efforts of today's Democratic Party. Sadly, about 40 million Christians don't take this threat seriously enough to even vote (15 million Christians not registered; the total of non-voting adults, registered and not registered, was 102.7 million in 2016, or 44.4 percent of the 231.5 million eligible voters).

Those non-voting Christians are a huge percentage (44 percent) of the 90 million eligible Christians (all denominations). How is it possible that so many who aspire to Christian moral responsibility are so cavalier about such a consequential civic responsibility, one that has such grave moral significance? To comprehend this threat, please read the evidence at every link and compare the differences between party platforms on these subjects: abortion, marriage, free expression of religion, limited government and preserving America's Christian heritage. 

Who should better understand the urgency of this existential threat, with its eternal consequences, than liberty-loving Christians who see the true nature of what the Democratic Party advocates as anti-familyanti-Christian culture, increasingly anti-American and anti-God (the party's policies, not individual Democrats), and anti-civilization (pro-abortion, and tacitly approving rioting/looting/burning, often fomenting police-hatredadvocating abolishing/defunding police, etc.)? The Democratic Party is promoting Marxism.

If the threat of the Democratic Party's systemically Marxist policies/practices and promises doesn't motivate those non-voting Christians by itself, perhaps they will be persuaded by understanding the dire consequences of supporting that danger within the context of both of Jesus' pledge, first, to bless those who acknowledge him publicly (in this regard, politically) and, second, to condemn those who publicly deny him:



" … everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father … ; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father. …" – Matthew 10:32-33

The Democratic Party, which actually booed God at its 2012 convention, will certainly deny Jesus "before men" if its candidates control the government.

People who boo God deny that the founders actually dedicated the nation to Jesus Christ by officially, perpetually and gratefully "acknowledg(ing) (him) before men" ("before a candid world" in the Declaration of Independence) when they referenced him four times in the document, one being an undisguised prayer (see below). That acknowledgment obligated Jesus to acknowledge our nation "before (his) Father", thus, explaining America's massive blessings.

The founders acknowledged Jesus as:

  1. the moral authority for independence in the Declaration's first sentence;

  2. the beneficent source of our unalienable rights and individual political sovereignty in the Declaration's second sentence; and

  3. when offering an undisguised prayer to Jesus (see below) for protection and guidance in that document's concluding paragraph – yes, the Constitution (which outlaws socialism) is one answer to those prayers;

  4. all of the above is the "American Theory of Government";

  5. therefore, we are truly "one nation under (and dedicated to that) God."

This work is derived from my ebook, "America's Primal Prayer: Is Jesus Christ the God of the Declaration; Did the Founders Dedicate the Nation to Him; is the Constitution Woven From Christian Fabric; and Why it Matters." That ebook explains that we are "one nation under (and blessed by that) God" because America officially and perpetually acknowledges Jesus Christ "before men" in many ways, but specifically in the Declaration of Independence.

The reference to the "Supreme Judge of the world" in the concluding paragraph of the Declaration is a clear reference to Jesus Christ inserted into Jefferson's draft as an undisguised prayer by the Christians in Congress, the Declaration's actual author (because diests deny that God judges, they don't pray). That prayer to Jesus Christ clarifies Jefferson's less specific references to "Nature's God" and "Creator" (in the first and second sentences) and to Congress' prayer for "the protection of divine Providence" (in the Declaration's last sentence), with an explicit identification that Jesus Christ is the God to whom the nation perpetually prays for righteousness using his well-known biblical title:

" appealing (praying) to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude (righteousness) of our intentions. …" (Emphasis on Jesus' title, bracketed comments added.)

While the phrase, "one nation under God," wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, it's an explicit reference to the historical fact of the Declaration's Christ-based "Chain of Delegated Authority" (God>man>servants in limited government), and of that Chain's manifestation in the symbiotically-linked Constitution as the unamendable "Liberty Equation" inherent in the American form of government — that our rights are a gift from God — which has a 240 year history of not being the theocracy the secular (godless) left falsely alleges.

Such an understanding desperately needs the political support of those non-voting, and Democratic voting, Christians. Voting would be an important way for them (and you?) to "acknowledge (Jesus) before men"" and, thus, revitalize the founders' official and perpetual acknowledgment of Jesus "before men" while also claiming Jesus' promise for themselves by politically opposing the Democratic Party's attack on the God-acknowledging American Theory of Government.

Consider these questions:

  • Does failing to vote at all constitute tacit support for the Democratic Party's naked attempt to fundamentally transform the United States of America, and is that failure to vote a denial of "America's Christian acknowledgment of Jesus" "before men" in the Declaration of Independence?

  • Will an actual vote for Democrats constitute an overt denial of Jesus "before men" such that it will mean that Jesus must deny "before (His) Father" all those who vote Democratic, including denying the nation if Democrats nationalize their denial of Jesus?

  • Will Jesus' denial "before (His) Father," if Democrats take us down that Marxist "path," mean that the blessing of our liberty-enhancing, limited form of government will be changed into their Orwellian "Democratic Socialism" (aka, Marxism)?

  • What are the personal consequences for each voter or non-voter of such a denial of Jesus "before men"?

Each person must decide and vote accordingly after reviewing this information.

America needs a revival of Christian patriotism by those who vote and who know the 40 million Christians who don't vote (or the millions of Christians who vote Democratic) to motivate them to do their civic and Christian moral duty to vote and restore America's historical acknowledgment of Jesus "before men" ("before a candid world") and, thus, preserve his blessings on America, and save the nation from the godless, America-hating Marxism systemically infecting "before a candid world" today's Democratic Party.

This knowledge will be decisive in the 2020 election, and beyond, if those reading this pass it on to their pastors, fellow parishioners/congregants and family/friends, as well as to as many media personalities as possible.

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

This article was initially published on WorldNetDaily and is republished by LifeSiteNews with permission of the author.

Michael Nedderman is a California-based writer and author of the ebook, "America's Primal Prayer," who loves history, photography, martial arts, prospecting for gold, writing letters to the editor and exploring the meaning of life. He can be reached at [email protected]

  2020 presidential election, declaration of independence, democrat party, marxism, socialism


Archbishop Viganò responds to reports Pope will skip Midnight Mass on Christmas

This latest news has left the faithful bewildered, scandalized and abandoned by a hierarchy that found a way to gather in the Basilica of Santa Maria in Ara Cœli for a syncretistic rite presided by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, but which does not hesitate to suspend the celebration of Holy Mass on the Night in which the Church celebrates the Birth of the Savior.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 12:32 pm EST
Featured Image
Pope Francis on December 24, 2014 Franco Origlia/Getty Images
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – On October 19, an article appeared in the Italian daily, Il Messaggero, entitled, “Christmas, the Pope’s midnight Mass is skipped over; restrictions on All Saints’ Day celebrations: the bishops impose rigor.” According to its author, Franca Giansoldati, the Midnight Mass on Christmas has not been included on the calendar of papal liturgical celebrations, while the December 25 Blessing Urbi et Orbi is indicated.

This news, insofar as it corresponds to the actual decisions of the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff, suggests that the Holy See wants to replicate the unfortunate lockdown of past months, which deprived the faithful of the Mass and the Sacraments, even on Easter. If this were the case, it would confirm the Holy See’s intention to support the “pandemic” media narrative. Yet, according to recent statements made by the Italy’s Higher Institute of Health, the “pandemic” has a mortality rate equal to the normal seasonal flu.

This latest news has left the faithful bewildered, scandalized and abandoned by a hierarchy that found a way to gather in the Basilica of Santa Maria in Ara Cœli for a syncretistic rite presided by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, but which does not hesitate to suspend the celebration of Holy Mass on the Night in which the Church celebrates the Birth of the Savior.

The process of demolishing the faithful’s most beloved traditions, carried out by those to whom the Lord has entrusted the government of His Church, continues relentlessly. On the one hand, through the utopian affirmation of a Masonic brand of human fraternity that is independent of God’s paternity, and on the other, through the methodical cancellation of liturgical solemnities, beginning with Holy Easter and continuing with Christmas.

I invite all Catholics to pray and do penance, imploring Heaven that this umpteenth outrage against the Majesty of God, the honor of the Church, and the souls of the faithful be averted. I also exhort the Shepherds of the Church to raise their voices in defense of the flock entrusted to them, reminding them of their grave responsibility before the Lord.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Official translation

  catholic, christmas 2020, coronavirus, pope francis


Abp. Viganò: Here is what the Pope’s ambiguous statements are doing to the Church

And it is exactly this, in my opinion, that Bergoglio’s 'magic circle' wants to achieve: to reach the paradoxical situation in which the one who is recognized as Pope is at the same time in a state of schism with the Church he governs, while those who are declared by him to be schismatic for disobedience will find themselves expelled from the Church because of the fact that they are Catholic.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 10:29 am EST
Featured Image
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Yesterday, on the occasion of the Rome Film Festival, the director Evgeny Afineevsky presented a documentary called Francesco, which proposes several interviews done with Jorge Mario Bergoglio over the course of the last few years of his pontificate. Among other disconcerting statements, there are several about the legitimization of homosexual civil unions: “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they [homosexuals] are legally covered. I stood up for that.

I think that both the simple faithful as well as bishops and priests feel betrayed by what Bergoglio has affirmed. It is not necessary to be theologians to understand that the approval of civil unions is in clear contradiction of the Magisterial documents of the Church, including recent ones. Such approval also constitutes a very grave “assist” to the LGBTQ ideology which today is being imposed on the global level.

In the coming days the Italian Parliament will be discussing the approval of the so-called Zan law [against so-called “homophobia”] proposed by the Democratic Party (PD). In the name of protecting homosexuals and trans-sexuals, it will be considered a crime to affirm that the natural family is the building block of human society, and those who affirm that sodomy is a sin that cries out to God for vengeance will be punished. Bergoglio’s words have already been received by the gay lobby worldwide as an authoritative support for their claims.

Carefully reading Bergoglio’s statements, someone has already observed that it does not include an approval of homosexual marriage, but only a gesture of welcome – perhaps poorly formulated – towards those who ask the secular state for juridical protection. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already unequivocally clarified that in no case may a Catholic approve of civil unions, because they constitute a legitimization of public concubinage and are only a step towards the legal recognition of so-called homosexual marriages. So much so that in Italy today it is even possible for people of the same sex to “marry” each other, after having been assured for years – even by self-styled Catholic politicians – that [civil unions] would in no way question marriage as it is defined in the Italian Constitution.

After all, experience teaches us that when Bergoglio says something, he does it with a very precise purpose: to make others interpret his words in the broadest possible sense. The front pages of newspapers all over the world are announcing today: “The Pope Approves Gay Marriage” – even if technically this is not what he said. But this was exactly the result that he and the Vatican gay lobby wanted. Then the Vatican Press Office will perhaps say that what Bergoglio said was misunderstood, that this was an old interview, and that the Church reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality as intrinsically disordered. But the damage has been done, and even any steps backwards from the scandal that has been stirred up will ultimately be a step forward in the direction of mainstream thought and what is politically correct. Let us not forget the nefarious results of his famous utterance in 2013 – “Who am I to judge?” – which earned him a place on the cover of The Advocate along with the title “Man of the Year.”

Bergoglio has declared: “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.” All the baptized are children of God: this is what the Gospel teaches. But these children may be either good or evil, and if they break God’s Commandments, the fact that they are His children will not prevent them from being punished, just as an Italian who steals does not avoid going to prison solely because of the fact that he is a citizen of the nation where he commits the crime. The Mercy of God does not prescind from Justice, and if we think of how in order to redeem us the Lord shed His Blood on the Cross, we cannot but strive for holiness, conforming our behavior to His will. Our Lord has said: “You are my friends, if you do what I command you” (Jn 15:14).

If familial or social exclusion results from provocative behaviors or from ideological claims that cannot be shared – I am thinking of Gay Pride – this is only the result of an attitude of challenge, and thus such exclusion has its origin in those who use that attitude to hurt their neighbor. If instead that discrimination results only from being a person who behaves like everyone else with respect for others and without any imposition of one’s own lifestyle, it should be rightly condemned.

We know very well that what the homosexualist lobby wants to obtain is not the integration of normal and honest people but rather the imposition of seriously sinful, socially destabilizing models of life that have always been exploited to demolish the family and society. It is no coincidence that the promotion of the homosexual agenda is part of the globalist project, in conjunction with the destruction of the natural family.

One of the most ardent supporters of the LGBTQ agenda and of the indiscriminate welcoming of homosexuals in the Church, the Jesuit James Martin, has been made a Consultor in the Dicastery for Communication of the Holy See. As soon as the news came out about Bergoglio’s statements, Martin stormed social media with tweets, expressing his uncontainable satisfaction with this action which, in contrast, scandalized the majority of the faithful.

Along with Father Martin, there are cardinals, bishops, monsignors, priests, and other clerics who belong to the so-called “lavender mafia.” Some of these have been investigated and condemned for very grave crimes, almost always linked to homosexual environments. How can we think that a clique of homosexuals in the command post does not have every interest in pushing Bergoglio to defend a vice that they share and practice?

In fact, I would say that it is part of Bergoglio’s intended behavior that he plays with equivocation and provocation – such as when he said, “God is not Catholic,” or when he leaves it to others to finish a discourse which he initiates. We have seen this with Amoris Laetitia: although he did not clearly contradict Catholic doctrine on the impossibility of the divorced and remarried accessing the Sacraments, he allowed other bishops to do so, later approving their statements and stubbornly remaining silent in response to the Dubia of the four Cardinals.   

It may be asked: why would the Pope act in this way, especially when his predecessors were always very clear on moral matters? I do not know what Bergoglio has in mind: I limit myself to making sense of his actions and words. And I think I can affirm that what emerges is an attitude that is deliberately two-faced and Jesuitical. Behind all of his utterances there is the effort to arouse the reaction of the healthy part of the Church, provoking it with heretical statements, with disconcerting gestures, with documents that contradict the Magisterium. And at the same time, his statements please his supporters, above all non-Catholics and those who are Catholic in name only.

By dint of provoking, he hopes that some bishop will grow tired of daily feeling afflicted by his doctrine and morals; he hopes that a group of cardinals will formally accuse him of heresy and call for his deposition. And by doing so, Bergoglio would have the pretext of accusing these prelates of being “enemies of the Pope,” of placing themselves outside the Church, of wanting a schism. Obviously, it is not those who want to remain faithful to the Magisterium who separate themselves from the Church: this would be absurd.

In a certain way, Bergoglio’s behavior is of the same matrix as that of the Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte: both of them, in hindsight, were desired in their roles by the same élite, who are numerically a minority but are powerful and organized, with the purpose of demolishing the institution that they represent; both of them abuse their own power against the law; both of them accuse those who denounce their abuses of being the enemy of the institution, when in reality the denouncers are defending the institution from their destructive intent. Finally, both of them are distinguished by a bleak mediocrity.

If canonically it is unthinkable to excommunicate a Catholic for the mere fact that he wishes to remain so, politically and strategically this abuse would allow Bergoglio to expel his adversaries from the Church, consolidating his own power. And I repeat: we are not talking about a legitimate operation, but of an abuse that, despite being an abuse, no one would be able to prevent, since “the First See is judged by none” – prima Sedes a nemine judicatur. And since the deposition of a heretical Pope is a canonically unresolved question on which there is no unanimous consent of canonists, anyone who would accuse Bergoglio of heresy would be going down a dead end and would obtain a result only with great difficulty.

And it is exactly this, in my opinion, that Bergoglio’s “magic circle” wants to achieve: to reach the paradoxical situation in which the one who is recognized as Pope is at the same time in a state of schism with the Church he governs, while those who are declared by him to be schismatic for disobedience will find themselves expelled from the Church because of the fact that they are Catholic.

Bergoglio’s action is above all directed outside the Church. The encyclical Fratelli Tutti is an ideological manifesto in which there is nothing Catholic and nothing for Catholics – it is the umpteenth embrassons-nous [“let’s embrace”] of the Masonic matrix, in which universal brotherhood is obtained not, as the Gospel teaches, in recognizing the common fatherhood of God through belonging to the one Church, but rather by the flattening of all religions into a lowest common denominator that is expressed in solidarity, respect for the environment, and pacifism.

With this way of acting, Bergoglio is a candidate for “pontiff” of a new religion, with new commandments, new morals, and new liturgies. He distances himself from the Catholic religion and from Christ, and consequently from the Hierarchy and the faithful, disavowing them and leaving them at the mercy of the globalist dictatorship. Those who do not adapt to this new code will therefore be ostracized by society and by this new “church” as a foreign body.

On October 20 in Rome, Pope Francis prayed for peace along with representatives of the world religions: the motto of that ecumenical ceremony was “No one is saved alone.” But that prayer was addressed indiscriminately to both the True God as well as to the false gods of the pagans, making it clear that the ecumenism propagated by Bergoglio has as its goal the exclusion of Our Lord from human society, because Jesus Christ is considered “divisive,” “a stumbling stone.” This modern man thinks that he can obtain peace by leaving aside the One who said of Himself: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through Me” (Jn 14:6). It is painful to note that this apostasy of formerly Christian nations is accompanied by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who ought to be the Vicar of Christ, not his enemy.

Three days ago, the press announced that the Pope will not celebrate Midnight Mass on Christmas. I will limit myself to one observation: a few days ago, in the midst of the full-fledged “Covid emergency,” it was possible to celebrate an ecumenical rite in the presence of the faithful and the civil authorities, all wearing masks. And yet, on the contrary, someone has decided that it would be imprudent to celebrate the Birth of the Savior on the Holy Night of Christmas in the far vaster space of the Vatican Basilica.

If this decision is confirmed, we will know that Jorge Mario Bergoglio prefers to celebrate himself by supporting the mainstream thought and syncretistic ideology of the New World Order, rather than kneeling at the foot of the manger where the King of Kings is placed.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
22 October 2020

Official translation

  carlo maria viganò, catholic, civil unions, homosexuality, pope francis


Bishop Schneider calls faithful to pray for Pope Francis to ‘convert’

'Every true Catholic, every true Catholic priest, every true Catholic bishop must with deep sorrow and a weeping heart regret and protest...'
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 10:15 am EST
Featured Image
Bp. Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary of Astana, Kazakhstan. Marcellus / YouTube
Bishop Athanasius Schneider

October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The Catholic Faith in the voice of the Magisterium of all times, the sense of the faith of the faithful (sensus fidelium) as well as common sense clearly reject any civil union of two persons of the same sex, a union which has the aim that these persons seek sexual pleasure from each other. Even if persons living in such unions should not engage in mutual sexual pleasure — which in reality has been shown to be quite unrealistic — such unions represent a great scandal, a public recognition of the sins of fornication against nature and a continuous proximate occasion of sin. Those who advocate same-sex civil unions are therefore also culpable of creating a kind of structure of sin, in this case of the juridical structure of habitual fornication against nature, since homosexual acts belong to sins which cry to heaven, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (see n. 1867). Those who advocate same-sex civil unions are ultimately unjust and even cruel against those persons who are living in these unions, because these persons will be confirmed in mortal sin, they will be solidified in their interior psychological dichotomy, since their reason tells them, that homosexual acts are against reason and against the explicit will of God, the Creator and Redeemer of men.

Every true Catholic, every true Catholic priest, every true Catholic bishop must with deep sorrow and a weeping heart regret and protest against the unheard fact, that Pope Francis, the Roman Pontiff, the successor of the apostle Peter, the Vicar of Christ on earth, uttered in the documentary film “Francesco” that premiered on October 21, 2020, as part of the Rome Film Festival, his support for civil same-sex unions. Such support of the pope means support for a structure of sin, for a lifestyle against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, which was written with the fingers of God on stone tables on Sinai (see Ex.  31:18) and delivered by the hands of Angels to men (see Gal. 3:19). What God has written with His hand, even a pope cannot erase nor rewrite with his hand or with his tongue. The Pope cannot behave as if he were God or an incarnation of Jesus Christ, modifying these words of the Lord: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5:27-28) and instead of this say, more or less, the following: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’, ‘if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination’ (Lev. 20:13), ‘men who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God’ (1 Cor. 6:9); ‘the practice of homosexuality is contrary to sound doctrine’ (1 Tim. 1:10). But I say to you that for persons who feel same-sex attraction “we have to create a civil union law. That way they are legally covered”.

Every Shepherd of the Church, and the Pope above all, should always remind others of these serious words of Our Lord: “Anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:19). Every pope has to take very much to heart what the First Vatican Council proclaimed: “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.” (Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus, chap. 4)

The advocating of a legal union so that a lifestyle against the explicit Commandment of God, against human nature and against human reason will be legally covered, is a new doctrine, which “sews cushions under every elbow and makes pillows for the heads of persons” (Ez. 13:18), a new doctrine that “perverts the grace of our God into sexual pleasure” (Jude 4), a doctrine which is evidently against Divine Revelation and the perennial teaching of the Church of all times. Such a doctrine is scheming with sin, and is therefore a most anti-pastoral measure. To promote a juridical lifestyle of sin is against the core of the Gospel itself, since persons in same-sex unions through their sexual acts grievously offend God. Our Lady of Fatima made the maternal appeal to all humanity to stop offending God, who is already too much offended.

The following voice of the Magisterium is faithfully echoing the voice of Jesus Christ, Our Divine Master, the Eternal Truth, and the voice of the Church and the popes of all times:

  • “Civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.” (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium vitae, 72)
  • “Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, n. 6)
  • “It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behavior, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behavior as a private phenomenon and the same behavior as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more far-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior”. Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.” (ibid.)
  • “Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.” (ibid., n. 7)
  • “By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.” (ibid., n. 8)
  • “The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it. There are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.” (ibid.)
  • “It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society” (ibid., n. 9)
  • There is always “a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons, July 24, 1992, n. 14)

All Catholics whether they be lay faithful as little children, as young men and young women, as fathers and mothers of family, or as consecrated persons, as cloistered nuns, as priests and as bishops, are inviolably keeping and “fighting for the faith which was once and for ever delivered to the Saints,” (Jude 3), and who are for this reason despised and marginalized at the periphery in the life of the Church of our days, should weep and cry to God that, through the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, who in Fatima said that people should stop  offending God, who is already too offended, Pope Francis may convert and retract formally his approval for the civil same-sex unions, in order to confirm his brethren, as the Lord has commanded him (see Luke 22:32).

All these little ones in the Church (children, young men, young women, fathers and mothers of family, cloistered nuns, priests, bishops) would surely say to Pope Francis: Most Holy Father, for the sake of the salvation of your own immortal soul, for the sake of the souls of all those persons who through your approval of the same-sex unions are by their sexual acts grievously offending God and exposing their souls to the danger to be eternally lost, convert, retract your approval and proclaim with all your predecessors the following unchangeable teaching of the Church:

“The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, n. 11)

“Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.” (ibid., n. 11)

By the incredible approval of same-sex unions through the pope, all the true children of the Church feel like orphans, no more hearing the clear and unambiguous voice of the Pope, who should inviolably keep and faithfully expound Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.

The true children of the Church of our days might use these words of Psalm 137, saying: We feel as if in exile, by the rivers of Babylon, weeping when remembering Zion, when remembering the luminous and crystal-clear teaching of the popes, of our Holy Mother Church. Yet we unshakably believe in the words of Our Lord, that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. The Lord will come, even if He will come late, only in the fourth watch of the night, to calm the storm within the Church, to calm the storm within the papacy of our days, and He will say: “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid. O you of little faith, why did you doubt? And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.” (Mt. 14:27;32-33) Our Lord will say also to Pope Francis: “For what does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, and suffers the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works.” (Mt. 16:26-27); and Our Lord will say in addition to Pope Francis: “I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and that once you have converted, you must strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32)

This article originally appeared on Edward Pentin’s blog. It is published with permission from Bp. Schneider.

  athanasius schneider, catholic, civil unions, homosexuality, pope francis


Archbishop Viganò sees evidence ‘that the end times are now approaching before our eyes’

'We now find ourselves in this doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary cone of shadow.' But, we are not yet at the end stage of this disastrous development. 'It is not yet the total eclipse that we will see at the end of time, under the reign of the Antichrist,' the prelate adds.'But it is a partial eclipse, which lets us see the luminous crown of the sun encircling the black disk of the moon.'
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 4:51 pm EST
Featured Image
Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike
By Maike Hickson

October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In a speech delivered today via video at the Catholic Identity Conference (CIC) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò analyzes in depth the causes of the current Church crisis that go back 60 years. This was the first video appearance by the archbishop since he went into hiding in 2018.

Viganò sees that the resister to the Anti-Christ, which is the Catholic Church, has been so much weakened that by now she has practically ceased to resist; for him, there is evidence, therefore, “that the end times are now approaching before our eyes.” But he does not leave us in despair here, encouraging the faithful to remain loyal to the Catholic Faith.

“Scapegoating Francis: How the Revolution of Vatican II serves the New World Order,” is the title of the Italian prelate's talk (see full text below), and he presents us here with a dire description of the state of the Church which has been “occupied” by those who wish to subdue her to the One World Order as planned and organized by Freemasonry.

The archbishop calls the part of the hierarchy that collaborates with the forces of the One World Order the deep church; they are for him a minority, but extremely influential. About the New World Order, Viganò states:

We know that the New World Order project consists in the establishment of tyranny by Freemasonry: a project that dates back to the French Revolution, the Age of Enlightenment, the end of the Catholic Monarchies, and the declaration of war on the Church. We can say that the New World Order is the antithesis of Christian society, it would be the realization of the diabolical Civitas DiaboliCity of the Devil – opposed to the Civitas Dei – City of God – in the eternal struggle between Light and Darkness, Good and Evil, God and Satan.

According to Archbishop Viganò, the Catholic Church has always been the resister – the kathèkon – to the plans of the Anti-Christ. “And Sacred Scripture warns us,” he says, “that at the manifestation of the Antichrist, this obstacle – the kathèkon – will have ceased to exist.” When the Church – especially her pope – ceases to resist the Evil One, something will happen. “It seems quite evident to me,” add the archbishop, “that the end times are now approaching before our eyes, since the mystery of iniquity has spread throughout the world with the disappearance of the courageous opposition of the kathèkon.”

It is also clear that Viganò regards Pope Francis as the leader of this deep church that collaborates with the One World Order, instead of remaining loyal to Jesus Christ and His Teaching. (Here, Pope Francis's October 21 public endorsement of civil unions of same-sex marriages can be seen as a crucial proof of this claim.) For example, the Italian prelate speaks of Fratelli Tutti which aims to “justify dialogue, ecumenism, and the universal brotherhood of the Bergoglian anti-church.”

For our archbishop, this new church has created extraordinary conditions, not “normal” ones as we knew them from before. “In extraordinary times,” he explains, “events go beyond the ordinary known to our fathers. In extraordinary times, we can hear a Pope deceive the faithful; see Princes of the Church accused of crimes that in other times would have aroused horror and been met with severe punishment; witness in our churches liturgical rites that seem to have been invented by Cranmer’s perverse mind; see Prelates process the unclean idol of the pachamama into St. Peter’s Basilica; and hear the Vicar of Christ apologize to the worshippers of that simulacrum if a Catholic dares to throw it into the Tiber.” Here, even the usual canonical categories seem to fail.

But the “Bergoglian anti-church” has a beginning before the time of Pope Francis, according to Viganò; it goes back 60 years. During that time, “we have witnessed the eclipse of the true Church by an anti-church that has progressively appropriated her name, occupied the Roman Curia and her Dicasteries, Dioceses and Parishes, Seminaries and Universities, Convents and Monasteries.” According to the archbishop, this anti-church has “usurped her authority, and its ministers wear her sacred garments; it uses her prestige and power to appropriate her treasures, assets, and finances.”

Archbishop Viganò can speak on this matter, since, after his ordination in 1968 – shortly after the Second Vatican Council – he has witnessed much moral, doctrinal, liturgical, and financial corruption within the heart of the Vatican, as a high-ranking servant in the Vatican's Diplomatic Service.

Thus he can now say: “We now find ourselves in this doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary cone of shadow.” But, we are not yet at the end stage of this disastrous development. “It is not yet the total eclipse that we will see at the end of time, under the reign of the Antichrist,” the prelate adds. “But it is a partial eclipse, which lets us see the luminous crown of the sun encircling the black disk of the moon.”

This is certainly a time to wake up and make a firm commitment to remain loyal to Our Lord and His Teachings and His Love.

This eclipse has come down to us with the help of the spreading of Modernism in the Church especially since the Second Vatican Council, according to Archbishop Viganò, and he once more praises those who resisted that modernist influence. “The case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and a few other Prelates confirms,” he writes, “the far-sightedness of these shepherds.”

Viganò goes on to remind us of the powerful and protective role that Our Lady is playing in the midst of this crisis and assures us that the “synthesis of all heresies” represented by Modernism and its updated conciliar version, “can never definitively obscure the splendor of the Bride of Christ, but only for the brief period of the eclipse that Providence, in its infinite wisdom, has allowed, to draw from it a greater good.”

The Italian prelate also sees that the Church's hierarchy has lost the supernatural viewpoint, with the innovators in the Church now even believing that one can even change the Church's teachings. He speaks here of “the abandonment on the part of the ecclesiastical Hierarchy, even at the top, of the supernatural dimension of the Church and its eschatological role,” thereby “creating an entity of human origin similar to a philanthropic organization.” The Catholic Church is looking more and more like an NGO, as other have observed. And the new papal encyclical Fratelli tutti is the best example for it. States Viganò: “Fratelli tutti sees the fulfillment of an earthly utopia and social redemption in human brotherhood, pax œcumenica between religions and welcoming migrants.”

Moreover, the archbishop detects a “sense of inferiority” in the Catholic Church which leads her to believe that she needs to be in accord with the world. But this is an “ideological approach” based on the “false assumption that, between the Church and the contemporary world, there can be an alliance, a consonance of intent, a friendship.” No, the prelate reminds us, “there can be no respite in the struggle between God and Satan, between Light and Darkness.”

Unfortunately, this sense of inferiority, according to Viganò has led many faithful to follow and obey the church leaders into decisions that go against the depositum fidei, the deposit of the Faith. One of the worst blows, he says, was the changing of the Roman Rite of the Liturgy following the Second Vatican Council. He writes:

The coup de grâce of this attitude was codified in the Reformed Liturgy, which manifests its embarrassment of Catholic dogma by silencing it – and thus denying it indirectly. The ritual change engendered a doctrinal change, which led the faithful to believe that the Mass is a simple fraternal banquet and that the Most Holy Eucharist is merely a symbol of Christ’s presence among us.

The change of the Rite of the Mass gravely affected the way Catholics pray and the way they look upon the Real Presence. The responsibility, Archbishop Viganò writes, lies most of all in the Church's authority who fought against the traditionalists who resisted the changes and at the same time was lenient toward Modernists.

Here, he also takes aim at those Catholics who belong “conservative” camp and who end up “'carrying water' for the Revolutionaries because, while rejecting their excesses, it shares the same principles.” Their error, he continues, “lies in giving a negative connotation to traditionalism and in placing it on the opposite side of progressivism.” But this is a false dichotomy. “Their aurea mediocritas [via media] consists in arbitrarily placing themselves not between two vices, but between virtue and vice. They are the ones who criticize the excesses of the pachamama or of the most extreme of Bergoglio’s statements, but who do not tolerate the Council’s being questioned, let alone the intrinsic link between the conciliar cancer and the current metastasis.”

But today, there is to be made a decision. States the archbishop: “The Catholic Church lives under the gaze of God; she exists for His glory and for the salvation of souls. The anti-church lives under the gaze of the world, pandering to the blasphemous apotheosis of man and the damnation of souls.”

In light of these difficulties each Catholic today is facing, Archbishop Viganò is calling us to return to the traditional Holy Liturgy and to the traditional practice of the Faith. “The only way to win this battle,” he states, “is to go back to doing what the Church has always done, and to stop doing what the anti-church asks of us today – that which the true Church has always condemned.”

Thus, he continues, “Let us put Our Lord Jesus Christ, King and High Priest, back at the center of the life of the Church; and before that, at the center of the life of our communities, of our families, of ourselves. Let us restore the crown to Our Lady Mary Most Holy, Queen and Mother of the Church.”

Below is the full talk by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò:

Catholic Identity Conference
October 24th, 2020


How the Revolution of Vatican II serves the New World Order

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, Apostolic Nuncio

“Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.”
Mt 8:22


As each of us has probably understood, we find ourselves in an historical moment in time; events of the past, which once seemed disconnected, prove now to be unequivocally connected, both in the principles that inspire them and in the goals they seek to achieve. A fair and objective look at the current situation cannot help but grasp the perfect coherence between the evolution of the global political framework and the role that the Catholic Church has assumed in the establishment of the New World Order. To be more precise, one should speak about the role of that apparent majority in the Church, which is actually small in number but extremely powerful, and which, for brevity’s sake, I will summarize as the deep church.

Obviously, there are not two Churches, something that would be impossible, blasphemous, and heretical. Nor has the one true Church of Christ today failed in her mission, perverting herself into a sect. The Church of Christ has nothing to do with those who, for the past sixty years, have executed a plan to occupy her. The overlap between the Catholic Hierarchy and the members of the deep church is not a theological fact, but rather a historical reality that defies the usual categories and, as such, must be analyzed.

We know that the New World Order project consists in the establishment of tyranny by Freemasonry: a project that dates back to the French Revolution, the Age of Enlightenment, the end of the Catholic Monarchies, and the declaration of war on the Church. We can say that the New World Order is the antithesis of Christian society, it would be the realization of the diabolical Civitas Diaboli City of the Devilopposed to the Civitas Dei – City of God – in the eternal struggle between Light and Darkness, Good and Evil, God and Satan.

In this struggle, Providence has placed the Church of Christ, and in particular the Supreme Pontiff, as kathèkon – that is, the one who opposes the manifestation of the mystery of iniquity (2 Thess 2:6-7). And Sacred Scripture warns us that at the manifestation of the Antichrist, this obstacle – the kathèkon – will have ceased to exist. It seems quite evident to me that the end times are now approaching before our eyes, since the mystery of iniquity has spread throughout the world with the disappearance of the courageous opposition of the kathèkon.

[With regard to the incompatibility between the City of God and the City of Satan, the Jesuit advisor to Francis, Antonio Spadaro, sets aside Sacred Scripture and Tradition, making the Bergoglian embrassons-nous his own. According to the Director of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Encyclical Fratelli Tutti

also remains a message with a strong political value, because – we could say – it overturns the logic of the apocalypse that prevails today. It is the fundamentalist logic that fights against the world, because it believes that it is the opposite of God, that is, an idol, and therefore to be destroyed as soon as possible in order to accelerate the end of time. The abyss of the apocalypse, in fact, before which there are no more brothers: only apostates or martyrs running “against” time. [...] We are not militants or apostates, but all brothers.”[1]

This strategy of discrediting the interlocutor with the slur of “integralist” is evidently aimed at facilitating the action of the enemy within the Church, seeking to disarm the opposition and discourage dissent. We also find it in the civil sphere, where the democrats and the deep state arrogate to themselves the right to decide whom to grant political legitimacy and whom to condemn without appeal to media ostracism. The method is always the same, because the one inspiring is the same. Just as the falsification of History and of the sources, is always the same: if the past disavows the revolutionary narrative, the followers of the Revolution censor the past and replace historical fact with a myth. Even St. Francis is a victim of this adulteration that would have him be the standard-bearer of poverty and pacifism, that are as alien to the spirit of Catholic orthodoxy as they are instrumental to the dominant ideology. Proof of this is the last, fraudulent recourse to the Poverello of Assisi in Fratelli Tutti to justify dialogue, ecumenism, and the universal brotherhood of the Bergoglian anti-church.]

Let us not make the mistake of presenting the current events as “normal,” judging what happens with the legal, canonical, and sociological parameters that such normality would presuppose. In extraordinary times – and the present crisis in the Church is indeed extraordinary – events go beyond the ordinary known to our fathers. In extraordinary times, we can hear a Pope deceive the faithful; see Princes of the Church accused of crimes that in other times would have aroused horror and been met with severe punishment; witness in our churches liturgical rites that seem to have been invented by Cranmer’s perverse mind; see Prelates process the unclean idol of the pachamama into St. Peter’s Basilica; and hear the Vicar of Christ apologize to the worshippers of that simulacrum if a Catholic dares to throw it into the Tiber. In these extraordinary times, we hear a conspirator – Cardinal Godfried Danneels – tell us that, since the death of John Paul II, the Mafia of St. Gallen had been plotting to elect one of their own to Peter’s Chair, which later turned out to be Jorge Mario Bergoglio. In the face of this disconcerting revelation, we might well be astonished that neither Cardinals nor Bishops expressed their indignation nor asked that the truth be brought to light.

[The coexistence of good and evil, of saints and the damned, in the ecclesial body, has always accompanied the earthly events of the Church, beginning with the betrayal of the Judas Iscariot. And it is indeed significant that the anti-church tries to rehabilitate Judas – and with him the worst heresiarchs – as exemplary models, “anti-saints” and “anti-martyrs,” and thereby legitimizing themselves in their own heresies, immorality and vices. The coexistence – I was saying – of the good and the wicked, of which the Gospel speaks in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, seems to have morphed into the prevalence of the latter over the former. The difference is that vice and deviations once despised are today not only practiced and tolerated more, but even encouraged and praised, while virtue and fidelity to the teaching of Christ are despised, mocked and even condemned.]


For sixty years, we have witnessed the eclipse of the true Church by an anti-church that has progressively appropriated her name, occupied the Roman Curia and her Dicasteries, Dioceses and Parishes, Seminaries and Universities, Convents and Monasteries. The anti-church has usurped her authority, and its ministers wear her sacred garments; it uses her prestige and power to appropriate her treasures, assets, and finances.

Just as happens in nature, this eclipse does not take place all at once; it passes from light to darkness when a celestial body inserts itself between the sun and us. This is a relatively slow but inexorable process, in which the moon of the anti-church follows its orbit until it overlaps the sun, generating a cone of shadow that projects over the earth. We now find ourselves in this doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary cone of shadow. It is not yet the total eclipse that we will see at the end of time, under the reign of the Antichrist. But it is a partial eclipse, which lets us see the luminous crown of the sun encircling the black disk of the moon.

The process that led to today’s eclipse of the Church began with Modernism, without a doubt. The anti-church followed its orbit despite the solemn condemnations of the Magisterium, which in that phase shone with the splendor of Truth. But with the Second Vatican Council, the darkness of this spurious entity came over the Church. Initially it obscured only a small part, but the darkness gradually increased. Whoever then pointed to the sun, deducing that the moon would certainly obscure it, was accused of being a “prophet of doom,” with those forms of fanaticism and intemperance that arise from ignorance and prejudice. The case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and a few other Prelates confirms, on the one hand, the far-sightedness of these shepherds and, on the other hand, the disjointed reaction of their adversaries; who, out of fear of losing power, used all their authority to deny the evidence and kept hidden their own true intentions.

To continue the analogy: we can say that, in the sky of the Faith, an eclipse is a rare and extraordinary phenomenon. But to deny that, during the eclipse, darkness spreads – just because this does not happen under ordinary conditions – is not a sign of faith in the indefectibility of the Church, but rather an obstinate denial of the evidence, or bad faith. The Holy Church, according to Christ’s promises, will never be overwhelmed by the gates of hell, but that does not mean that she will not be – or is not already – overshadowed by her infernal forgery, that moon which, not by chance, we see under the feet of the Woman of the Revelation: “A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev 12:1).

The moon lies under the feet of the Woman who is above all mutability, above all earthly corruption, above the law of fate and the kingdom of the spirit of this world. And this is because that Woman, who is at once the image of Mary Most Holy and of the Church, is amicta sole, clothed with the Sun of Righteousness that is Christ, “exempted from all demonic power as she takes part in the mystery of the immutability of Christ” (Saint Ambrose). She remains unbruised if not in her militant kingdom, certainly in the suffering one in Purgatory and in the triumphant one in Paradise. St. Jerome, commenting on the words of Scripture, reminds us that “the gates of hell are sins and vices, especially the teachings of heretics.” We know therefore that even the “synthesis of all heresies” represented by Modernism and its updated conciliar version, can never definitively obscure the splendor of the Bride of Christ, but only for the brief period of the eclipse that Providence, in its infinite wisdom, has allowed, to draw from it a greater good.


In this talk, I wish especially to deal with the relationship between the revolution of Vatican II and the establishment of the New World Order. The focal element of this analysis consists in highlighting the abandonment on the part of the ecclesiastical Hierarchy, even at the top, of the supernatural dimension of the Church and its eschatological role. With the Council, the Innovators erased the divine origin of the Church from their theological horizon, creating an entity of human origin similar to a philanthropic organization. The first consequence of this ontological subversion was the necessary denial of the fact that the Bride of Christ is not, and cannot be, subject to change by those who exercise vicarious authority in the name of the Lord. She is neither the property of the Pope nor of the Bishops or theologians, and, as such, any attempt at “Aggiornamento” lowers her to the level of a company that, in order to garner profit, renews its own commercial offer, sells its leftovers stock, and follows the fashion of the moment. The Church, on the other hand, is a supernatural and divine reality: she adapts the way she preaches the Gospel to the nations, but she can never change the content of a single iota (Mt 5:18), nor deny her transcendent momentum by lowering herself to mere social service. On the opposite side, the anti-church proudly lays claims to the right to perform a paradigm shift not only by changing the way doctrine is expounded, but the doctrine itself. [This is confirmed by the words of Massimo Fagggioli comment on the new Encyclical Fratelli Tutti:

Pope Francis’ pontificate is like a standard lifted up before Catholic integralists and those who equate material continuity and tradition: Catholic doctrine does not just develop. Sometimes it really changes: for example on [the] death penalty, [and] war.”[2]]

Insisting on what the Magisterium teaches is useless. The Innovators’ brazen claim to have the right to change the Faith stubbornly follows the modernist approach.

The Council’s first error consists mainly in the lack of a transcendent perspective – the result of a spiritual crisis that was already latent – and in the attempt to establish paradise on earth, with a sterile human horizon. In line with this approach, Fratelli tutti sees the fulfillment of an earthly utopia and social redemption in human brotherhood, pax œcumenica between religions and welcoming migrants.


As I have written on other occasions, the revolutionary demands of the Nouvelle Théologie found fertile ground in the Council Fathers because of a serious inferiority complex vis-à-vis the world. There was a time, in the postwar period, when the revolution led by Freemasonry in the civil, political and cultural spheres, breached the Catholic élite, persuading it of its inadequacy in the face of an epochal challenge that is now inescapable. Instead of questioning themselves and their faith, this élite – bishops, theologians, intellectuals – recklessly attributed responsibility for the imminent failure of the Church to her rock-solid hierarchical structure, and to her monolithic doctrinal and moral teaching. Looking at the defeat of the European civilization that the Church had helped to form, the élite thought that the lack of agreement with the world was caused by the intransigence of the Papacy and the moral rigidity of priests not wanting to come to terms with the Zeitgeist, and “open up.” This ideological approach stems from the false assumption that, between the Church and the contemporary world, there can be an alliance, a consonance of intent, a friendship. Nothing could be further from the truth, since there can be no respite in the struggle between God and Satan, between Light and Darkness. “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15). This is an enmity willed by God Himself, which places Mary Most Holy – and the Church – as eternal enemies of the ancient serpent. The world has its own prince (Jn 12:31), who is the “enemy” (Mt 13:28), a “murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44) and a “liar” (Jn 8:44). Courting a pact of non-belligerence with the world means coming to terms with Satan. This overturns and perverts the very essence of the Church, whose mission is to convert as many souls to Christ for the greater glory of God, without ever laying down arms against those who want to attract them to themselves and to damnation.

[The Church’s sense of inferiority and failure before the world created the “perfect storm” for the revolution to take root in the Council Fathers and by extension in the Christian people, in whom obedience to the Hierarchy had been cultivated perhaps more than fidelity to the depositum fidei. Let me it be clear: obedience to the Sacred Pastors is certainly praiseworthy if the commands are legitimate. But obedience ceases to be a virtue and, in fact, becomes servility if it is an end in itself and if it contradicts the purpose to which it is ordained, namely Faith and Morals. We should add, that this sense of inferiority was introduced into the ecclesial body with displays of great theater, such as the removal of the tiara by Paul VI, the return of the Ottoman flagship banners conquered at Lepanto, the flaunted ecumenical embraces with the schismatic Athenagoras, the requests for forgiveness for the Crusades, the abolition of the Index, the Clergy’s focus on the poor in place to the alleged triumphalism of Pius XII. The coup de grâce of this attitude was codified in the Reformed Liturgy, which manifests its embarrassment of Catholic dogma by silencing it – and thus denying it indirectly. The ritual change engendered a doctrinal change, which led the faithful to believe that the Mass is a simple fraternal banquet and that the Most Holy Eucharist is merely a symbol of Christ’s presence among us.]


The Council Fathers’ sense of inadequacy was only increased by the work of the Innovators, whose heretical ideas coincided with the demands of the world. A comparative analysis of modern thought confirms the idem sentire [same feeling or same mind] of the conspirators with every element of the revolutionary ideology:

[- the acceptance of the democratic principle as the legitimizing source of power, in place of the divine right of the Catholic Monarchy (including the Papacy);

- the creation and accumulation of organs of power, in place of personal responsibility and institutional hierarchy;

- the erasure of the historical past, evaluated with today’s parameters, which fail to defend tradition and cultural heritage;

- the emphasis on the freedom of individuals and the weakening of the concept of responsibility and duty;

- the continuous evolution of morality and ethics, thus deprived of their immutable nature and of any transcendent reference;

- the presumed secular nature of the State, in place of the rightful submission of civil order to the Kingship of Jesus Christ and the ontological superiority of the Church’s mission over that of the temporal sphere;

- the equality of religions not only before the State, but even as a general concept to which the Church must conform, against the objective and necessary defense of the Truth and the condemnation of error;

- the false and blasphemous concept of the dignity of man as connatural to him, based on the denial of original sin and of the need for Redemption as a premise for pleasing God, meriting His Grace and attaining eternal beatitude;

- the undermining of the role of women, the contempt and a contempt for the privilege of motherhood;

- the primacy of matter over spirit;

- the fideistic relationship with science[3], in the face of a ruthless criticism of religion on false scientific grounds.

All these principles, propagated by Freemasonry ideologues and New World Order supporters, coincide with the revolutionary ideas of the Council:

- the democratization of the Church began with Lumen Gentium and today it is realized in the Bergoglian synodal path;

- the creation and accumulation of organs of power has been achieved by delegating decision-making roles to Episcopal Conferences, Synods of Bishops, Commissions, Pastoral Councils, etc.;

- the Church’s past and glorious traditions are judged according to the modern mentality and condemned in order to curry favor with the modern world;

- the “freedom of the children of God” theorized by Vatican II has been established regardless of the moral duties of individuals who, according to the conciliar fairytales, are all saved regardless of their inner dispositions and the state of their soul;

- the obfuscating of perennial moral references has led to the revised doctrine on capital punishment; and, with Amoris Laetitia, the admission of public adulterers to the Sacraments, cracking the sacramental edifice;

- the adoption of the concept of secularism has led to the abolition of a State Religion in Catholic nations. Encouraged by the Holy See and the Episcopate, this has led to a loss of religious identity and the recognition of rights of sects, as well as the approval of norms that violate natural and divine law;

- the religious freedom theorized in Dignitatis Humanae is today brought to its logical and extreme consequences with the Declaration of Abu Dhabi and the latest Encyclical Fratelli Tutti, rendering the saving mission of the Church and the Incarnation itself obsolete;

- theories on human dignity in the Catholic sphere have led to confusion about the role of the laity with respect to the ministerial role of the Clergy and a weakening of the hierarchical structure of the Church. While the embrace of feminist ideology is a prelude to the admission of women to the Holy Orders;

- an inordinate preoccupation with the temporal needs of the poor, so typical of the left, has transformed the Church into a sort of welfare association, limiting her activity to the mere material sphere, almost to the point of abandoning the spiritual;

- subservience to modern science and technological progress has led the Church to disavow the “Queen of the Science” [Faith], to “demythologize” miracles, to deny the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, to look at the most sacred Mysteries of our Holy Religion as “myths” or “metaphors,” sacrilegiously suggesting that Transubstantiation and the Resurrection itself are “magic” (not to be taken literally but rather symbolically), and to describe the sublime Marian dogmas are “tonterias” [nonsense].]

There is an almost grotesque aspect of this leveling and dumbing down of the Hierarchy to comply with mainstream thought. The hierarchy’s desire to please its persecutors and serve its enemies always comes too late and is out of sync, giving the impression that the Bishops are irremediably outdated, indeed not in step with the times. They lead those who see them so enthusiastically conniving with their own extinction to believe that this demonstration of courtesan submission to politically correct comes not so much from a true ideological persuasion, but rather from the fear of being swept away, of losing power, and no longer having that prestige that the world still pays them, nonetheless. They do not realize – or do not want to admit – that the prestige and authority whose custodians they are, comes from the authority and prestige of the Church of Christ, and not from the miserable, pitiful counterfeit of her which they have fashioned.

When this anti-church is fully established in the total eclipse of the Catholic Church, the authority of its leaders will depend on the degree of subjugation to the New World Order, which will not tolerate any divergence from its own creed and will ruthlessly apply that dogmatism, t fanaticism and fundamentalism that many Prelates and self-styled intellectuals criticize in those who remain faithful to the Magisterium today. In this way, the deep church may continue to bear the trademark “Catholic Church,” but it will be the slave of the New Order thinking, reminiscent of the Jews who, after denying the Kingship of Christ before Pilate, were enslaved to the civil authority of their time: “We have no other king but Caesar” (Jn 19:15). Today’s Caesar commands us to close the churches, wear a mask, and suspend the celebrations under the pretext of a pseudo-pandemic. The communist regime persecutes the Chinese Catholics, and the world hears nothing but silence from Rome. Tomorrow a new Titus will sack the Council temple, transporting its remains to some museum, and divine vengeance at the hands of the pagans will have been achieved once again.


Some might say that the Council Fathers and Popes who presided over that assembly, did not realize the implications that their approval of the Vatican II documents would have for the future of the Church. If this were the case – i.e., if there had been any subsequent regrets in their hasty approval of heretical texts or texts close to heresy – it is difficult to understand why they were unable to put an immediate stop to abuses, correct errors, clarify misunderstandings and omissions. And above all, it is incomprehensible why the ecclesiastical Authority has been so ruthless against those who defended the Catholic Truth, and, at the same time, were so terribly accommodating to rebels and heretics. In any case, the responsibility for the conciliar crisis must be laid at the feet of the Authority which, even amid a thousand appeals to collegiality and pastoralism, has jealously guarded its prerogatives, exercising them only in one direction, that is, against the pusillus grex [little flock] and never against the enemies of God and of the Church. The very rare exceptions, when a heretic theologian or revolutionary religious has been censored by the Holy Office, only offer tragic confirmation of a rule that has been enforced for decades; not to mention that many of them, in recent times, have been rehabilitated without any abjuration of their errors and even promoted to institutional positions in the Roman Curia or Pontifical Athenaeums.

This is the reality, as it emerges from my analysis. However, we know that, in addition to the progressive wing of the Council and the traditional Catholic wing, there is a part of the Episcopate, the clergy, and the people that attempts to keep equal distance from what it considers two extremes. I am talking about the so-called “conservatives, that is, a centrist part of the ecclesial body that ends up “carrying water” for the Revolutionaries because, while rejecting their excesses, it shares the same principles. The error of the “conservatives” lies in giving a negative connotation to traditionalism and in placing it on the opposite side of progressivism. Their aurea mediocritas [via media] consists in arbitrarily placing themselves not between two vices, but between virtue and vice. They are the ones who criticize the excesses of the pachamama or of the most extreme of Bergoglio’s statements, but who do not tolerate the Council’s being questioned, let alone the intrinsic link between the conciliar cancer and the current metastasis. The correlation between political conservatism and religious conservatism consists in adopting the “center,” a synthesis between the “right” thesis and the “left” antithesis, according to the Hegelian approach so cherished by moderate supporters of the Council.

[In the civil sphere, the deep state has managed political and social dissent by using organizations and movements that are only apparently opposition, but which are actually instrumental to maintaining power. Similarly, in the ecclesial sphere, the deep church uses the moderate “conservatives” to give an appearance of offering freedom to the faithful. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum itself, for example, while granting the celebration in the extraordinary form, demands saltem impliciter [at least implicitly] that we accept the Council and recognize the lawfulness of the reformed liturgy. This ploy prevents those who benefit from the Motu Proprio from raising any objection, or they risk the dissolution of the Ecclesia Dei communities. And it instills in the Christian people the dangerous idea that a good thing, in order to have legitimacy in the Church and society, must necessarily be accompanied by a bad thing or at least something less good. However, only a misguided mind would seek to afford equal rights to both good and evil. It matters little if one is personally in favor of good, when he recognizes the legitimacy of those who are in favor of evil. In this sense, the “freedom to choose” abortion theorized by democratic politicians finds its counterbalance in the no less aberrant “religious freedom” theorized by the Council, which today is stubbornly defended by the anti-church. If it is not permissible for a Catholic to support a politician who defends the right to abortion, it is even less permissible to approve a Prelate who defends the “freedom” of an individual to endanger his immortal soul by “choosing” to remain in mortal sin. This is not mercy; this is gross dereliction of spiritual duty before God in order to curry the favor and approval of Man.


This analysis would hardly be complete without a word on the neo-language so popular in the ecclesiastical sphere. Traditional Catholic vocabulary has been deliberately modified, in order to change the content it expresses. The same has happened in the liturgy and preaching, where the clarity of the Catholic exposition has been replaced by ambiguity or the implicit denial of dogmatic truth. The examples are endless. This phenomenon also goes back to Vatican II, which sought to develop “Catholic” versions of the slogans of the world. Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize that all those expressions that are borrowed from secularist lexicons are also part of the neo-language. Let us consider the Bergoglio’s insistence on the “outgoing church,” on openness as a positive value. Similarly, I quote now from Fratelli tutti:

A living and dynamic people, a people with a future, is one constantly open to a new synthesis through its ability to welcome differences” (Fratelli Tutti, 160).

The Church is a home with open doors” (ibid. 276).

We want to be a Church that serves, that leaves home and goes forth from its places of worship, goes forth from its sacristies, in order to accompany life, to sustain hope, to be the sign of unity… to build bridges, to break down walls, to sow seeds of reconciliation” (ibid.).

The similarity with the Open Society sought after by Soros’ globalist ideology is so striking as to almost constitute an Open Religion counterpoint to it.

And this Open Religion is perfectly in tune with the intentions of globalism. From the political meetings “for a New Humanism” blessed by the leaders of the Church to the participation of the progressive intelligentsia in green propaganda, it all chases after the mainstream thought, in the sad and grotesque attempt to please the world. The stark contrast with the words of the Apostle is clear: “Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

The Catholic Church lives under the gaze of God; she exists for His glory and for the salvation of souls. The anti-church lives under the gaze of the world, pandering to the blasphemous apotheosis of man and the damnation of souls. During the last session of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, before all the Synod Fathers, these astonishing words of Paul VI resounded in the Vatican Basilica:

The religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the council. A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it. The attention of our council has been absorbed by the discovery of human needs (and these needs grow in proportion to the greatness which the son of the earth claims for himself). But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind.[4]

This sympathy [– in the etymological sense of συμπάϑεια, that is, participation in the sentiment of the other –] is the figure of the Council and of the new religion (for such it is) of the anti-church. An anti-church born of the unclean union between the Church and the world, between the heavenly Jerusalem and hellish Babylon. Note well: the first time a Pontiff mentioned the “new humanism” was at the final session of Vatican II, and today we find it repeated as a mantra by those who consider it a perfect and coherent expression of the revolutionary mens [frame of mind] of the Council.[5]

Always in view of this communion of intent between the New World Order and the anti-church, we must remember the Global Compact on Education, a project designed by Bergoglio “to generate a change on a planetary scale, so that education is a creator of brotherhood, peace and justice. An even more urgent need in this time marked by the pandemic”.[6] Promoted in collaboration with the United Nations, this “process of formation in the relationship and culture of encounter also finds space and value in the common home with all creatures, since people, just as they are formed to the logic of communion and solidarity, are already working “to recover serene harmony with creation”, and to configure the world as “a space of true brotherhood” (Gaudium et Spes, 37).”[7] As can be seen, the ideological reference is always and only to Vatican II, because only from that moment on did the anti-church place man in the place of God, the creature in the place of the Creator. 

The “new humanism” obviously has an environmental and ecological frame into which are grafted both the Encyclical Laudato Sì and Green Theology – the “Church with an Amazonian face” of the 2019 Synod of Bishops, with its idolatrous worship of pachamama (mother earth) in the presence of the Roman Sanhedrin. The Church’s attitude during Covid-19 demonstrated, on the one hand, the hierarchy’s submission to the diktats of the State, in violation of the Libertas Ecclesiae, which the Pope should have firmly defended. It also put on display the denial of any supernatural meaning of the pandemic, replacing the righteous wrath of God offended by the countless sins of humanity and nations with a more disturbing and destructive fury of Nature, offended by the lack of respect for the environment. I would like to emphasize that attributing a personal identity to Nature, almost endowed with intellect and will, is a prelude to her divinization. We have already seen a sacrilegious prelude to this, under the very dome of St. Peter’s Basilica.

The bottom line is this: conformity on the part of the anti-church with the dominant ideology of the modern world establishes a real cooperation with powerful representatives of the deep state, starting with those working towards a “sustainable economy” involving Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Bill Gates, Jeffrey Sachs, John Elkann, Gunter Pauli.[8]

[It will be useful to remember that the sustainable economy also has implications for agriculture and the world of work in general. The deep state needs to secure low-cost labor through immigration, which at the same time contributes to the cancellation of the religious, cultural and linguistic identity of the nations involved. The deep church lends an ideological and pseudo-theological basis to this invasion plan, and at the same time guarantees a share in the lucrative business of hospitality. We can understand Bergoglio’s insistence on the theme of migrants, also reiterated in Fratelli Tutti: “A xenophobic mentality of closure and self-restraint is spreading” (ibid. 39. “Migrations will constitute a founding element of the future of the world” (ibid. 40). Bergoglio used the expression “founding element,” stating that it is not possible to hypothesize a future without migrations.]

Allow me a brief word about the political situation in the United States on the eve of the presidential election. Fratelli Tutti seems to be a form of Vatican endorsement of the Democratic candidate, in clear opposition to Donald Trump, and come a few days after Francis refused to grant audience to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Rome. This confirms which side the children of light are on, and who the children of darkness are. 


The theme of brotherhood, an obsession for Bergoglio, finds its first formulation in Nostra Ætate and Dignitatis Humanae. The latest Encyclical, Fratelli Tutti, is the manifesto of this Masonic vision, in which the cry Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité replaced the Gospel, for the sake of a unity among men that leaves out God. Note that the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together signed in Abu Dhabi on February 4, 2019 was proudly defended by Bergoglio with these words:

From the Catholic point of view the document did not go one millimeter beyond the Second Vatican Council.

Cardinal Miguel Ayuso Guixot, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, comments in La Civiltà Cattolica:

[With the Council, the embankment gradually cracked and then broke: The river of dialogue has spread with the Council Declarations Nostra Ætate on the relationship between the Church and believers of other religions and Dignitatis Humanae on religious freedom, themes and documents that are closely linked to each other, and have allowed St. John Paul II to give life to meetings such as the World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi on October 27, 1986 and Benedict XVI, twenty-five years later, to make us live in the city of St. Francis the Day of Reflection, Dialogue and Prayer for Peace and Justice in the World – Pilgrims of Truth, Pilgrims of Peace. Therefore,] the Catholic Church’s commitment to interreligious dialogue, which opens the way to peace and fraternity, is part of her original mission and has its roots in the Council event.[9]

Once again, the cancer of Vatican II confirms that it is at the origin of Bergoglian metastasis. The fil rouge [common thread] that unites the Council with the cult of the pachamama also passes through Assisi, as my Brother Athanasius Schneider rightly pointed out in his recent speech.[10]

And speaking of the anti-church, Bishop Fulton Sheen describes the Antichrist: “Since his religion will be brotherhood without the paternity of God, he will deceive even the elect.[11] We seem to see the prophecy of the venerable American Archbishop coming true before our eyes.

It is no surprise, therefore, that the infamous Grand Lodge of Spain, after having warmly congratulated its paladin raised to the Throne, has once again paid homage to Bergoglio with these words:

[The great principle of this initiatory school has not changed in three centuries: the construction of a universal brotherhood where human beings call themselves brothers to each other beyond their specific beliefs, their ideologies, the color of their skin, their social extraction, their language, their culture or their nationality. This fraternal dream clashed with religious fundamentalism which, in the case of the Catholic Church, led to harsh texts condemning the tolerance of Freemasonry in the 19th century.] Pope Francis’ latest encyclical shows how far the present Catholic Church is from its previous positions. In “Fratelli Tutti”, the pope embraced the Universal Brotherhood, the great principle of modern Freemasonry.[12]

The reaction of the Grande Oriente of Italy is not dissimilar:

These are the principles that Freemasonry has always pursued and guarded for the elevation of Humanity.”[13]

[Austen Ivereigh, the hagiographer of Bergoglio, confirms with satisfaction this interpretation that a Catholic would rightly consider at least disturbing.[14]]

I remember that in the masonic documents of the Alta Vendita, since the nineteenth century, an infiltration of Freemasonry into the Church was planned:

You, too, will fish some friends and lead them to the feet of the Apostolic See. You will have preached revolution in Tiara and Cope, proceeded under the cross and banner, a revolution that will need only a little help to set the quarters of the world on fire.”[15]


Allow me to conclude this examination of the links between the Council and the present crisis by emphasizing a reversal that I consider extremely important and significant. I am referring the relationship of the individual layman and community of the faithful with God. While in the Church of Christ the relationship of the soul with the Lord is eminently personal even when it is conveyed by the Sacred Minister in the liturgical action, in the conciliar church the community and the group relationship prevails. Think of their insistence in wanting to make the Baptism of a child, or the wedding of a married couple, “an act of the community”; or the impossibility of receiving holy Communion individually outside of Mass, and of the common practice of approaching Communion during Mass even without the necessary conditions. All of this is sanctioned on the basis of a Protestantized concept of participation in the Eucharistic banquet, from which no guest is excluded. Under this understanding of community, the person loses his individuality, losing himself in the anonymous community of the celebration. So too, the relationship of the social body with God disappears in a personalism that eliminates the role of mediation of both the Church and the State. Individualization in the moral field enters into this as well, where the rights and preferences of the individual become grounds for the eradication of social morality. This is done in the name of an “inclusiveness” that legitimates every vice and moral aberration. Societyunderstood as the union of several individuals aimed at the pursuit of a common goalis divided into a multiplicity of individuals, each of whom has his own purpose. This is the result of an ideological upheaval that deserves to be analyzed in depth, because of its implications both in the ecclesial and civil spheres. It is evident, however, that the first step of this revolution is to be found in the conciliar mens, beginning with the indoctrination of the Christian people constituted by the Reformed Liturgy, in which the individual merges into the assembly by depersonalizing himself, and the community devolves into a collection of individuals by losing their identity.]


Philosophy teaches us that to a cause always corresponds a certain effect. We have seen that the actions carried out during Vatican II have had the desired effect, giving concrete form to that anthropological turning point which today has led to the apostasy of the anti-church and the eclipse of the true Church of Christ. We must therefore understand that, if we want to undo the harmful effects we see before us, it is necessary and indispensable to remove the factors that caused them. If this is our goal, it is clear that accepting – or even partially accepting – those revolutionary principles would make our efforts useless and counterproductive. We must therefore be clear about the objectives to be achieved, ordering our action to the goals. But we must all be aware that in this work of restoration no exceptions to the principles are possible, precisely because failure to share them would prevent any chance of success.

Therefore, let us put aside, once and for all, the vain distinctions concerning the presumed goodness of the Council, the betrayal of the will of the Synod Fathers, the letter and spirit of Vatican II, the magisterial weight (or lack thereof) of its acts, and the hermeneutic of continuity versus that of rupture. The anti-church has used the label “Ecumenical Council” to give authority and legal force to its revolutionary agenda, just as Bergoglio calls his political manifesto of allegiance to the New World Order an “encyclical letter.” The cunning of the enemy has isolated the healthy part of the Church, torn between having to recognize the subversive nature of the Council documents, thus having to exclude them from the Magisterial corpus, and having to deny reality by declaring them apodictically orthodox in order to safeguard the infallibility of the Magisterium. The Dubia represented a humiliation for those Princes of the Church, but without untying the doctrinal knots brought to the attention of the Roman Pontiff. Bergoglio does not respond, precisely because he does not want to deny or confirm the implied errors, thus exposing himself to the risk of being declared a heretic and losing the papacy. This is the same method used with the Council, where ambiguity and the use of imprecise terminology prevent the condemnation of the error that has been implied. But the jurist knows very well that, in addition to the blatant violation of the law, one can also commit a crime by circumventing it, using it for evil purposes: contra legem fit, quod in fraudem legis fit. [what circumvents the law is against it.]


The only way to win this battle is to go back to doing what the Church has always done, and to stop doing what the anti-church asks of us today – that which the true Church has always condemned. Let us put Our Lord Jesus Christ, King and High Priest, back at the center of the life of the Church; and before that, at the center of the life of our communities, of our families, of ourselves. Let us restore the crown to Our Lady Mary Most Holy, Queen and Mother of the Church.

Let us return to celebrate the traditional Holy Liturgy worthily, and to pray with the words of the Saints, not with the ramblings of the modernists and heretics. Let us begin again to savor the writings of the Fathers of the Church and the Mystics, and to throw into the fire the works imbued with modernism and immanentist sentimentalism. Let us support, with prayer and material help, the many good priests who remain faithful to the true Faith, and withdraw all support from those who have come to terms with the world and its lies.

And above all I ask you in the name of God! let us abandon that sense of inferiority that our adversaries have accustomed us to accept: in the Lord’s war, they do not humiliate us (we certainly deserve every humiliation for our sins). No, they humiliate the Majesty of God and the Bride of the Immaculate Lamb. The Truth that we embrace does not come from us, but from God! Let Trutht be denied, accept that it must justify itself before the heresies and errors of the anti-church, is not an act of humility, but of cowardice and pusillanimity. Let us be inspired by the example of the Holy Maccabees Martyrs, before a new Antiochus who asks us to sacrifice to idols and to abandon the true God. Let us respond with their words, praying to the Lord: “So now, O Sovereign of the heavens, send a good angel to spread terror and trembling before us. By the might of your arm may these blasphemers who come against your holy people be struck down” (2 Mac 15:23).

Let me conclude my talk today with a personal memory. When I was Apostolic Nuncio in Nigeria, I learned about a magnificent popular tradition that came out from the terrible war in Biafra, and which continues to this day. I personally took part in it during a pastoral visit to the Archdiocese of Onitsha, and I was very impressed by it. This tradition – called “Block Rosary Children” – consists in gathering thousands of children (even very young ones) in each village or neighborhood for the recitation of the Holy Rosary to implore peace – each child holding a little piece of wood, like a mini altar, with an image of Our Lady and a small candle on it.

In the days leading up to November 3rd, I invite everyone to join in a Rosary Crusade: a sort of siege of Jericho, not with seven trumpets made of ram’s horns sounded by priests, but with the Hail Mary’s of the little ones and the innocent to bring down the walls of the deep state and of deep church

Let us join with little ones in a Block Rosary Children, imploring the Woman clothed with the Sun, that the Reign of Our Lady and Mother may be restored, and the eclipse that afflicts us shortened.

And may God bless these holy intentions.

[1]          Padre Antonio Spadaro sj, Fratelli Tutti, la risposta di Francesco alla crisi del nostro tempo, in Formiche, 4 Ottobre 2020 (qui).

[2]          «Pope Francis’ pontificate is like a standard lifted up before Catholic integralists and those who equate material continuity and tradition: Catholic doctrine does not just develop. Sometimes it really changes: for example on death penalty, war»,



[3]          «Dovremmo evitare di cadere in questi quattro atteggiamenti perversi, che certo non aiutano alla ricerca onesta e al dialogo sincero e produttivo sulla costruzione del futuro del nostro pianeta: negazione, indifferenza, rassegnazione e fiducia in soluzioni inadeguate»,


[4]          «Religio, id est cultus Dei, qui homo fieri voluit, atque religio - talis enim est aestimanda - id est cultus hominis, qui fieri vult Deus, inter se congressae sunt. Quid tamen accidit? Certamen, proelium, anathema? Id sane haberi potuerat, sed plane non accidit. Vetus illa de bono Samaritano narratio excmplum fuit atque norma, ad quam Concilii nostri spiritualis ratio directa est. Etenim, immensus quidam erga homines amor Concilium penitus pervasit. Perspectae et iterum consideratae hominum necessitates, quae eo molestiores fiunt, quo magis huius terrae filius crescit, totum nostrae huius Synodi studium detinuerunt. Hanc saltem laudem Concilio tribuite, vos, nostra hac aetate cultores humanitatis, qui veritates rerum naturam transcendentes renuitis, iidemque novum nostrum humanitatis studium agnoscite: nam nos etiam, immo nos prae ceteris, hominis sumus cultores». Paolo VI, Allocuzione per l’ultima sessione del Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II, 7 Dicembre 1965,



[6]          Cfr.

[7]          Congregazione per l’Educazione Cattolica, Lettera Circolare alle scuole, università e istituzioni educative, 10 Settembre 2020, cfr.

[9]          Card. Miguel Ángel Ayuso Guixot, Il documento sulla Fraternità umana nel solco del Concilio Vaticano II, 3 Febbraio 2020. Cfr.


[11]        Mons. Fulton Sheen, discorso radiofonico del 26 Gennaio 1947. Cfr.




[15]        «Vous amènerez des amis autour de la Chaire apostolique. Vous aurez prêché une révolution en tiare et en chape, marchant avec la croix et la bannière, une révolution qui n’aura besoin que d’être un tout petit peu aiguillonnée pour mettre le feu aux quatre coins du monde». Cfr. Jacques Cretineau-Joly, L’Église romaine en face de la Révolution, Parigi, Henri Plon, 1859 (qui).

  carlo maria viganò, catholic, catholic identity conference, modernism, new world order, vatican ii


Trump shines, Biden stumbles despite bias of second presidential debate

All that remains to be seen is how many minds last night changed.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 4:20 pm EST
Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — For more than a few Trump voters (myself included), last month’s debacle of a first debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden (with assistance from Fox News “moderator” Chris Wallace) left us relieved that the second planned debate didn’t happen. 

But with Thursday night’s final debate (video, transcript), the president managed to turn things around (as he’d say) bigly.

While Trump could have handled a few questions better, and will never be the guy to expect, shall we say, an abundance of rhetorical precision out of, on the whole his performance was confident, collected, and vastly improved over his previous debate. 

By contrast, the best that can be said of Biden’s performance is that he managed another extended public appearance without feeding suspicions that he may be in cognitive decline. Beyond that, he was angry and evasive throughout the night, frequently falling back on non-responsive cliches. He lied just as much as he did last time, but the difference is that this time, it looked like he was lying even to those who weren’t already familiar with the subject matter. 

It surely helped somewhat that Kristen Welker of NBC News was nowhere near as hostile as Wallace. But that’s not to say the event was without bias, which primarily took the form of what subjects weren’t discussed — nothing about abortion, or Biden’s recent statements on court-packing and transgenderism. No pressing Biden on his former running mate endorsing Biden and violent protesters in the same message. 

And the questions that were asked were typically slanted to the left. On foreign policy, for instance, one might think it would be of some interest to the American people to ask Biden about the Trump administration brokering Middle Eastern peace deals unseen during the Obama-Biden administration’s eight years. 

But the closest Welker got to foreign policy was raising the specter of “foreign election interference” — meaning, in a nutshell, foreign actors buying advertising or sending junk mail to Americans that represents a drop in the bucket of American electioneering, which means very little to the lives of most Americans but means everything to lefty “journalists” desperate for a boogeyman to explain away Trump’s 2016 win. 

So naturally, it was up to Trump himself to raise the issue of the Biden family using the vice presidency to cash in around the world:

All of the emails, the emails, the horrible emails of the kind of money that you were raking in, you and your family. And Joe, you were vice-president when some of this was happening, and it should have never happened. And I think you owe an explanation to the American people. Why is it, somebody just had a news conference a little while ago who was essentially supposed to work with you and your family, but what he said was damning. And regardless of me, I think you have to clean it up and talk to the American people. Maybe you can do it right now [...]

I don’t make money from China. You do. I don’t make money from Ukraine. You do. I don’t make money from Russia. You made $3.5 million, Joe, and your son gave you, they even have a statement that we have to give 10% to the big man. You’re the big man, I think. I don’t know, maybe you’re not, but you’re the big man, I think. Your son said we have to give 10% to the big [man]. Joe, what’s that all about? It’s terrible.

Biden’s response? Declaring that he himself has “not taken a penny from any foreign source ever” and that no investigator ever “said anything [Hunter] did was wrong in Ukraine” (claims that are highly unlikely to withstand scrutiny), and … trying to change the subject to Trump’s tax returns, which turned out to be the definition of “nothingburger.”

— 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

Most significant, however, is the fact that Trump supporters aren’t the only ones who recognized the above. A focus group organized by pollster Frank Luntz (a Republican but most definitely not a Trump fan) found that Trump beat Biden among undecided voters, who had the following to say about the candidates:

Now, all that remains to be seen is how many minds last night changed, and whether the Trump campaign can effectively reinforce these takeaways among the people they need to reach less than two weeks from now.

  2020 election, 2020 presidential election, debate, donald trump, joe biden, kristen welker, presidential debate


Chaste same-sex attracted Catholics, feeling betrayed by Pope Francis, urge him to repent

Those who heroically reject homosexuality and choose day in and day out to live chaste lives are now offering poignant commentary on the harm inflicted by Pope Francis’s infelicitous remarks.
Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 2:02 pm EST
Featured Image
Milos Bicanski / Getty Images
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

October 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In the aftermath of Pope Francis’s pronouncement in a just-premiered documentary seemingly supporting the legalization of gay civil unions, chaste same-sex attracted Catholics are struggling to find the right words to express the sense of betrayal and outrage they’re now experiencing.    

While conservative prelates and Catholic scholars have been quoted extensively in religious and secular media around the globe over the last 48 hours explaining the problematic nature of the pontiff’s troubling assertion, those who heroically reject homosexuality and choose day in and day out to live chaste lives are now offering poignant commentary on the harm inflicted by Pope Francis’s infelicitous remarks.

“Most of us are just depressed and humiliated by him,” said Jeremy Schwab, speaking on behalf of many chaste same-sex attracted (SSA) Catholics

After leaving homosexuality and returning to his Catholic faith, Schwab founded Joel 2:25 International, a Christian ministry supporting men, women, youths, and families affected by SSA.

It is possible for him as an individual to be heretic and to take those stances, but he can’t change Church teaching. It is still emotionally traumatizing to all of us.

Before I became Catholic, I had studied the history and knew about the scandals of medieval Popes and the worst sinners in Church history. None of that disturbs me the way this Pope does.

“My first thought upon reading Pope Francis’s words was, ‘Oh, no!’” Paul Darrow told LifeSiteNews. Darrow is one of three chaste SSA Catholics featured in the movie Desire of the Everlasting Hills, produced by the Courage Apostolate.

Yes, he was merely expressing his personal opinion. But the Pope’s opinion was like a shot felt around the world, and that shot went straight to my heart.

As a Catholic with SSA, I was called to see the bigger picture and to turn away from my sex-addicted life. In that picture I recognized the real purpose of sexual intimacy and discovered that my body truly is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

One of the saddest things a chaste, faith-filled Catholic like me could hear is that the successor to the Chair of Peter has just endorsed civil unions — the first stage of the rockets that brought gay “marriage” into being.

“This story may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back that is my Catholic faith,” Thomas Berryman told LifeSiteNews. “I do not think Pope Francis knows how much pain he’s causing because he doesn’t care.”

Berryman explained:

In 2013 and 2014, when I was going through RCIA, I made a conscious effort to ignore all of the signs that I was entering what I would call a “target-rich environment.” Instead, I concentrated on being celibate, believing that is what Holy Mother Church wanted.

Over the past six years, I’ve ignored all kinds of things. For example, I’ve ignored the moribund state of Courage and the robust state of Dignity in our Archdiocese. I ignored Cardinal Tobin’s “nighty night, baby” text and his seemingly odd decision to invite a random guest student at Seton Hall University to live with him (a wannabe actor and model with a penchant for appearing shirtless). I sort of ignored Pope Francis when he invited a transgender man from Spain (Diego Neria Lejarraga) to the Vatican (and paid for all the costs). Then he sent money to trans sex workers who were having financial difficulties.

Pope Francis doesn’t merely preside over a church with a homosexual sub-culture and problems with its priests being unable to keep their hands off boys. He is the gay leader of a gay church dominated by a homosexual super-culture. I read somewhere that, privately, at least, James Martin mocks men with same-sex attraction who are celibate. Is that the attitude of many (or even most) priests? I suspect that it is Pope Francis’s attitude.

“Where does this leave me? Who can I trust?” asked Berryman. “Celibate priests and bishops in Detroit [Berryman’s diocese] are an endangered species.” 

— 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

“How do I go to anyone for counseling who probably thinks I’m a fool and holds me in contempt?  How do I seek absolution from someone who thinks the sins I’m confessing are funny and thinks I’m a fool for believing them to be sins?” he wondered. 

“What is particularly galling is that most of us who have lived [as homosexuals] learned not to trust people.  In other words, most of us already have trust issues,” lamented Berryman, who urged bishops to “get off the fence and take a stand.”

“Under the papacy of Francis, after a series of increasingly specific statements about homosexuality ... pro-gay priests and LGBT Catholic ministries are very much in the ascendancy and have become increasingly bold in their actions and public statements,” Joseph Sciambra told LifeSiteNews. 

A former gay porn star, Sciambra has become perhaps the most strident voice within the Church sounding the alarm over the persistent presence and influence of a powerful gay subculture within the ranks of Catholic clergy.

“Myself, and my friends, to a certain degree, always felt rejected by the local parishes and diocese, but now we feel rejected by Rome as well,” he declared. 

Andrew Comisky, a same-sex attracted man who is married (i.e., to a woman) and is the founder of Desert Stream Ministries, who became a Catholic a decade ago, urged Pope Francis to repent in an open letter published yesterday:

How can we who die daily to the seduction of a global culture intent on fanning our vulnerabilities into an expanding list of fractured “selves” when you bless and advocate legal “cover” over them? Pope Francis, wake up. These forces are unseen robbers who are intent on destroying lives. We who through God’s mercy have repented of our sins and who now fight for the chaste dignity of our comrades are hindered, not helped, by the dissociation of your beliefs and pastoral application.

Comisky continued:

A true father fights for the dignity of his children, especially when they become worldly, conformed to other 'selves' and mastered by disordered desires. You have not fought for us. Instead, you have done us sinners a disservice, granting us false assurance in our divided states. I repeat: you have not fought for us. Love is more stern and splendid than mere acceptance.

You have exhibited compromise and confusion in your pastoral care of persons with same-sex desires. Your merciful intentions are not trustworthy to me and to those I represent.

As we have repented, so can you, Pope Francis.

  catholic, civil unions, homosexuality, pope francis

Featured Image

Episodes Fri Oct 23, 2020 - 1:43 pm EST

Your vote for life is crucial to this election

By Mother Miriam

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

Watch this episode of Mother Miriam's Live aired on 10.23.2020. Mother Miriam calls on Catholics to vote for life in this election. If you know someone who doesn’t plan to vote for life, please encourage them to listen to this episode!

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

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