All articles from April 23, 2021






  • Nothing is published in Video on April 23, 2021.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on April 23, 2021.


Petition asks Vatican to cancel ‘health’ conference featuring abortion activists, Fauci, Big Tech oligarchs

Chelsea Clinton, Cindy Crawford, Jane Goodall, and CEOs from Pfizer and Moderna are among the speakers.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 8:25 pm EST
Featured Image
Victoria Gisondi Follow Victoria
By Victoria Gisondi

April 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – A new petition from LifeSite asks the Vatican to cancel its upcoming “health” conference featuring a slew of globalist and pro-abortion speakers, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, Chelsea Clinton, and the CEO of abortion pill-producing drug company Pfizer.

The theme of the conference this year is Exploring the Mind, Body & Soul. It will be held “virtually” from May 6 to 8. The cover photo on the conference website features a spoof of Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam in which the hands of God and Adam are both covered in rubber gloves. 

Vatican News describes the event as bringing “together physicians, scientists, ethicists, religious leaders, patient rights advocates, policymakers, philanthropists and commentators to discuss the status quo in medical research and technology, and how these are implemented at a global level.” 

A special opening conversation on “shaping the future of healthcare for a healthier world” will be hosted by the experimental vaccine-pushing, double-masking Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has assured the World Health Organization that the Biden regime is committed to funding abortions

Clinton, vice chair of the corrupt, pro-abortion Clinton Foundation, is on the list of speakers along with former super-model Cindy Crawford, a public supporter of abortion who has attended events to benefit the National Abortion League. Crawford is also famous for posing nude.

Population control advocate Jane Goodall will also speak. 

Marc Benioff, chair and CEO of tech giant Salesforce, is on the list of speakers. Salesforce has discriminated against and maligned conservatives who questioned the integrity of the elections.

Another speaker is Albert Bourla, chairman and CEO of Pfizer. In addition to making an abortion-tainted experimental coronavirus mRNA vaccine, Pfizer also makes an abortion pill.

Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, also has a place of honor along with Dr. David Feinberg, head of Google Health.
The speakers are so unapologetically anti-Catholic this year that Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò said the Holy See is “making itself the servant of the New World Order.”

“The fact that the deep church has managed to elect its own member so as to carry out this infernal plan in agreement with the deep state is no longer a mere suspicion, but a phenomenon which it is now essential to ask questions about and shed light on,” Viganò expressed in a letter published by LifeSiteNews. “The submission of the Cathedra veritatis to the interests of the Masonic elite is manifesting itself in all its evidence, in the deafening silence of the Sacred Pastors and in the bewilderment of the People of God, who have been abandoned to themselves.”

“Further demonstration of this degenerate libido serviendi of the Vatican towards the globalist ideology is the choice of speakers to give testimonials and lectures: supporters of abortion, of the use of fetal material in research, of demographic decline, of the pan-sexual LGBT agenda, and last but not least, of the narrative of Covid and the so-called vaccines,” the archbishop continued. 

Commenting on the conference’s main image of The Creation of Man with God’s and Adam’s hands masked, Viganò wrote, “In this sacrilegious representation, the order of Creation is subverted into therapeutic anti-creation, in which man saves himself and becomes the mad author of his own health 'redemption.' Instead of the purifying laver of Baptism, the Covid religion proposes the vaccine, the bearer of disabilities and death, as the only means of salvation. Instead of Faith in the Revelation of God, we find superstition and the irrational assent to precepts that have nothing scientific about them, with rites and liturgies that mimic true Religion in a sacrilegious parody.”

LifeSite’s petition asking the Vatican to cancel the conference notes that the event is so “beyond an outrage, it is a closer to a sacrilege.” 

The petition and more information can be found here.


Vatican hosting Fauci, Chelsea Clinton, Pfizer CEO, Big Tech oligarchs at ‘health’ conference
Viganò on Vatican ‘health’ conference with Fauci: Holy See is ‘making itself the servant of the New World Order’
The two most dangerous men in the world?
Fauci endorses double-masking, even after COVID vaccine
Fauci assures World Health Org. Biden regime is committed to funding abortions

  anthony fauci, carlo maria viganò, catholic, chelsea clinton, cindy crawford, exploring the mind, body and soul, jane goodall, moderna, pfizer, salesforce, vatican


Arizona’s Republican governor vetoes bill protecting students from sex-ed, gender ideology

The legislation was proposed to fight the use of ‘sex-ed as a vehicle to sneak in’ the agenda of the left, such as acceptance of transgenderism and homosexuality.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 7:39 pm EST
Featured Image
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey
Emily Mangiaracina Emily Mangiaracina Follow

CONTACT YOUR AZ state legislators: Tell them to support parental rights and override Ducey's irresponsible veto! Click to contact your state legislators, now.

April 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey vetoed a bill Tuesday that would require parents to opt into any instruction involving “sexuality, gender identity, or gender expression” in addition to any formal sex education.

“Clearly, this bill gets in the way of the political agendas of some,” said Republican state Senator Nancy Barto, who introduced the legislation. “The left has long used sex-ed as a vehicle to sneak in their agenda, but they rarely admit it.”

“In an interview on my bill, a spokesperson for Human Rights Campaign Arizona said, ‘Sex education is a logical venue to help all youth learn about and encourage acceptance for LGBTQ people and families.’ When Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the Secular Coalition oppose a measure, that is a telling indicator of what’s really going on,” Barto continued.

Barto noted that 23 of the largest school districts in Arizona teach sex-ed to children in kindergarten through fourth grade, and insisted that “at that age, students should be focused on foundational subjects, not be exposed to sensitive topics that most aren’t yet ready to, or need to handle.”

In addition to prohibiting the teaching of sex-ed from kindergarten through fourth grade, Bill SB1456 would have prohibited schools “from providing sex education instruction” unless the pupil's parent provides written permission for the child to participate in the sex education curricula.”

The part of the bill that drew the most anger from liberals attempted to shield students from indoctrination into acceptance of homosexual lifestyles.

— 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 bill specifically would have created “procedures by which parents will be notified in advance of and given the opportunity to opt their children into any instruction, learning materials, or presentations regarding sexuality, gender identity or gender expression in courses other than formal sex education curricula.”

“Just as any other child, LGBTQ children should be able to see themselves in school curriculum, be affirmed, and have the opportunity to learn about themselves,” commented Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a left-wing LGBT lobbying giant.

Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, noted, “Today’s sex-ed has morphed into sex indoctrination.” He also maintained that what is touted as “scientifically correct” sex ed is more concerned with what is “politically correct.” 

“At the end of the day, it’s the parent’s right or not to include their child in whatever type of curriculum they want to do for them, based on the values of their home,” he said. 

“Why is it, as a parent, I am forced to do something that I see differently in my family?” said Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake.

Instead of signing SB1456, Gov. Ducey issued his own Executive Order that merely “requires all sex education curriculum to be posted online for parents to review, without exception.” A press release from his office stated that the order “includes more aggressive transparency requirements than Senate Bill 1456,” because “under that bill, posting sex education materials online would have been optional.”

The executive order also requires the State Board of Education to hold “at least two public hearings” before the governing body approves any sex education course of study.

The governor’s press release insisted that Ducey “called the legislation overly broad and vague, which could lead to unintended consequences, including concerns it could put vulnerable children at risk by limiting discussion around sexual abuse prevention.”

While the release says that “Arizona already has among the most pro-parental choice laws in the country around sex education,” the governor failed to address concerns about sexuality and gender indoctrination, now common in schools, upon which Americans are deeply divided.

The Family Research Council’s Cathy Ruse documented the sexualization of children and LGBT indoctrination found in public school education in a 2020 pamphlet on the subject. She noted, “Many public schools are beginning to teach the radical, anti-science proposition that biological sex is meaningless, that some kids are born in the wrong body,” and that “The American College of Pediatricians calls this psychological child abuse.”

She also noted that sex education today is now “saturated with LGBTQ sexuality” and that “Lessons can be highly manipulative — carefully designed to get children to approve of the concept of sexual rights and fluid sexual ‘identities,’ and to reject their religious beliefs, the authority of their parents, and even physical reality itself.”

  arizona, arizona house, arizona senate, doug ducey, lgbtq, nancy barto, sex education


Priest who spoke out against flying ‘pride’ flag outside Catholic schools expelled from diocese

A Polish priest in the Diocese of Hamilton, Ontario said his ouster was not for defending Catholic teaching against LGBT backers but for his approach to the pandemic.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 6:41 pm EST
Featured Image
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

BURLINGTON, Ontario, April 21, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A priest who argued that the LGBT “pride” flag does not reflect the Catholic faith has been asked to leave his diocese. But it was his approach to the pandemic, not his bishop’s support for the flag, that sparked his removal. 

“The issue of the flag is not the reason for my expulsion, but the difference between (Bishop Douglas Crosby and me) in the pastoral approach towards the pandemic,” Father Janusz Roginski told LifeSiteNews by email.

“(This) made the Bishop lose trust in my capacity to be a pastor in his diocese.” 

The priest did not say what these differences are alleged to have been. 

Roginski, 49, has been the pastor of St. Gabriel’s Catholic Church in Burlington, Ontario since 2018 and has served the Diocese of Hamilton since 2006. A native of Poland, Roginski impressed Catholics throughout his chosen home when he gave a presentation before the Halton District Catholic School Board (HDCSB) on Tuesday, arguing against a proposal to fly the “Pride” flag outside their schools. 

“Most of the Catholics passing by the school and seeing this flag in the school would think that we accept the homosexual lifestyle and what it represents,” Roginski testified

“We cannot do that. We would be a cause of scandal and (would be) misleading people rather than leading them to heaven.”

He suggested that instead of flying the homosexual flag in June, the schools dedicate the month to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and teach their students about the love of Jesus Christ, which is “all-inclusive.” 

Roginski’s witness was in contrast with the Diocese of Hamilton’s support for the pride flag proposal, which manifested both as a document commissioned by the Episcopal Vicar for Education for the Catholic Partners of the Diocese of Hamilton and as a memo from the Chancellor forbidding priests from mentioning the proposal in either their homilies or the announcements. A pro-LGBT Catholic school trustee in nearby Toronto, Maria Rizzo, congratulated Bishop Crosby, 71, for his support over Twitter. 

— 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 HDCSB meeting was Tuesday, and when the Hamilton Diocese 2021 clergy appointments were published Thursday, Roginski’s parishioners were aghast to see that he was leaving, not only St. Gabriel’s but the diocese. Word spread that it was because of the priest’s presentation of Catholic doctrine at the Catholic school board meeting. 

However, Roginski has been assuring those who ask him that this was not the case. He told LifeSiteNews that the Diocese of Hamilton told him of their decision about a month ago. Meanwhile, the priest is happy that he has been accepted by the Diocese of St. Catharines. He is also grateful that he has received so much support for his presentation to the Halton Catholic school board. 

“I am happy to see an overwhelming positive response from lay Catholics and from priests of our diocese through emails, messages and phone calls,” he said.

“From these communications (I see) that the lay Catholics feel abandoned by their shepherds, bishops and priests in their fight for the teachings of the Catholic Church,” he continued. 

“Some of them pointed out that at school discussions the representatives of the Hamilton diocese often sided with those who were against established Catholic teachings regarding the issues of abortion, euthanasia and LGBTQ. This is very disturbing and disappointing.”

Roginski believes that many people are confused by what the LGBT rainbow flag really means. He said that proponents of the flag presented the Halton Catholic school board trustees with positive meanings (like inclusiveness, diversity, love, and the dignity of every person). However, the flag also stands for homosexual pride parades, which are “very offensive to any Catholic with their immodest display of sexuality that borderlines on pornography,” he said.  

In addition, the flag represents physical homosexual acts, the redefinition of marriage, and the adoption of children by homosexual couples, the priest noted. 

“All these issues are contrary to the teachings of Jesus and His Church, which calls for holiness, virtue and chastity,” Roginski said. 

The pastor posited that the Catholics who don’t pay attention to this aspect of the rainbow flag honestly believe that it is a symbol that could make schools a safe environment for children struggling with their sexual and gender identities. But in reality it is something completely different. 

“This symbol (…) fails to signify the values they have in mind,” Roginski said.  

“Instead, it becomes a sign of division, controversy, and a scandal to many Catholics who see in this flag a sign of opposition to the well-established Roman Catholic teachings,” he said. 

“It becomes a sign of promotion of sin. As such it can never be used in any Catholic context. It would be a betrayal of the Gospel, of the teachings of holy Roman Catholic Church and of Jesus Christ himself. We cannot allow it.”

One of Roginski’s parishioners wrote to LifeSiteNews to state her belief that the real reason her pastor is being replaced is because he is “conservative.”

“St. Gabriel's has been a good parish for conservative Catholics, but it appears that Bishop Crosby wants to turn it into a liberal parish,” she wrote. 

“It appears that Bishop Crosby doesn't want these conservative priests and conservative faithful in his diocese.”

LifeSiteNews reached out to Bishop Crosby and Rizzo and is awaiting their replies. 

To support Fr. Roginski’s witness against LGBT ideological symbols and values in Halton District Catholic schools, please contact the following HCDSB school trustees: 

Patrick Murphy
[email protected]

Brenda Agnew
[email protected]

Marvin Duarte
[email protected]

Peter DeRosa
[email protected]

Nancy Guzzo
[email protected]

Vincent Iantomasi
[email protected]

Helena Karabela
[email protected]

Tim O’Brien
o’[email protected]

Janet O’Hearn-Czarnota
o’[email protected]

  catholic teaching, diocese of hamilton, diocese of st. catharines, douglas crosby, halton catholic district school board, janusz roginski, lgbt, pandemic, pride flag, rainbow flag


Scientists successfully create embryo from both human and monkey cells

Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 6:15 pm EST
Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

April 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In an alarming new development in biological experimentation, scientists have created a hybrid embryo comprised of human and monkey cells.

“Interspecies chimera formation with human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) represents a necessary alternative to evaluate hPSC pluripotency in vivo and might constitute a promising strategy for various regenerative medicine applications, including the generation of organs and tissues for transplantation,” reads the summary of the paper, published in the journal Cell. “We demonstrated that hPSCs survived, proliferated, and generated several peri- and early post-implantation cell lineages inside monkey embryos.”

“Using hPSCs to generate human-animal chimeric embryos provides an experimental paradigm for studying early human development and holds great potential for diverse applications in regenerative medicine as well as for producing human tissues and organs for replacement therapies,” the researchers argue.

Defenders of the research argue that it’s necessary to learn how to grow viable human organs to save the thousands who die annually on waiting lists for organ transplants, and growing them inside pig and sheep embryos has thus far been ineffective. But NPR quotes several scientists who still have ethical qualms.

“My first question is: Why?” said Kirstin Matthews of Rice University’s Baker Institute. “I think the public is going to be concerned, and I am as well, that we’re just kind of pushing forward with science without having a proper conversation about what we should or should not do.”

“Should it be regulated as human because it has a significant proportion of human cells in it?” she continued. “Or should it be regulated just as an animal? Or something else? At what point are you taking something and using it for organs when it actually is starting to think and have logic?”

Stanford bioethicist Hank Greely, meanwhile, wrote that he found this particular study acceptable, but recognized another potential danger that could follow: the creation of animals with human reproductive cells.

“Nobody really wants monkeys walking around with human eggs and human sperm inside them,” he warned. “Because if a monkey with human sperm meets a monkey with human eggs, nobody wants a human embryo inside a monkey's uterus.”

  bioethics, chimera, embryos, hybrid, medical experimentation, medical research


Ontario police can now demand ID from children to enforce COVID rules

After Peel Regional Police were tasked with investigating a recent incident involving a 12-year-old boy, the new police directives were issued.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 4:35 pm EST
Featured Image
Canadian police Shutterstock
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

April 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Police in the Canadian province of Ontario can now demand identification from children if he or she is deemed to be taking part in public gatherings banned due to new COVID rules.

After Peel Regional Police were tasked with investigating a recent incident involving a 12-year-old boy, the new police directives were issued. The boy (video of which has since gone viral) was pushed to the ground by a member of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) for not wearing a mask in a skate park in Gravenhurst this past weekend.

According to Const. Danny Marttini with the Peel Regional Police, asking kids for ID “is in regards to gatherings or social groups that are coming together” in violation of Ontario lockdown rules.

“If (police) see something like that going on, in which case they would ask to identify all parties that are participating,” said Marttini, according to the National Post. “Generally speaking, the idea is to treat everybody the same that will engage, explain what should be going on, and then hopefully educate and then that should take care of it.”

Peel Regional Police said its officers are not allowed to ID kids under the age of 12. However, the practice of “carding” kids comes despite the fact that in Ontario, one must be at least 16 years of age to qualify to obtain a provincial photo identification card.

LifeSiteNews contacted Peel Regional Police to ask how it plans on demanding ID from kids aged 12 to 15, despite the fact that those in that age group cannot obtain official government ID. As of press time, there has been no reply.

Ontario’s solicitor-general Sylvia Jones said in statement that police have been given the power to “obtain information from individuals including youth involved in a social gathering to determine if they are complying with the restrictions on social gatherings.”

However, according to Steps to Justice, an Ontario organization which helps those with legal issues in the province, when it comes to the practice of “carding” or “street checks,” one can refuse to produce ID, so long as they are not driving a car or riding a bike.

“In most cases, if the police stop you on the street, you do not have to show the police your ID or answer any questions,” says Steps to Justice on its website. “The police must have a good reason to ask for your ID. They are not allowed to ask for your ID: because of your race, because you are in a high-crime area, because you refused to answer a question or walked away, to meet a target for how many IDs they want to collect. If you decide not to give the police your ID or tell them who you are, they can’t stop you from leaving.”

Steps to Justice says that a “street check does not have to be for a specific crime, it can be for general criminal activity,” but police have to follow “certain rules when they do a street check.”

The Gravenhurst skate park was closed under enhanced “stay at home orders” introduced by Ontario Premier Doug Ford a week ago.

As part of new measures introduced last week, the Ford government extended a stay-at-home order, placed a 10-person limit on church service attendance size, closed playgrounds, implemented provincial border checks, and gave police the power to stop anyone for any reason, if they were outside their home, without cause.

— 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

After public backlash, the Ford government walked back some of its coronavirus rules less than a day later. Playgrounds were allowed to stay open, and police must have “reason to suspect that you are participating in an organized public event or social gathering” in order to question people.

The backtracking of some of the rules came about after dozens of local police forces in Ontario, in multiple statements, said they would not be conducting random stops and searches of people just because they had left their homes.

  id, ontario, police


Chair of Catholic School Board calls illegal meeting to promote LGBT agenda

The Chair of Trustees indicated that no delegates will be permitted to speak at Monday’s illegal meeting.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 3:58 pm EST
Featured Image
Patrick Murphy Halton Catholic DSB / Twitter
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

BURLINGTON, Ontario, April 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The Chair of the Trustees for a Catholic school board has called an illegal meeting to force a decision on demands for LGBT symbols and ideology in the district’s schools.

Patrick Murphy, the Chair of the Halton District Catholic School Board, has called the “emergency meeting” for Monday, April 26, bypassing the usual procedures and violating the bylaws for such meetings.

On Tuesday, the Trustees considered a proposal to show allegiance to the LGBT movement in the Halton District’s Catholic schools, both by flying the rainbow “Pride” flag outside the schools in June and by posting pro-LGBT signs inside classrooms. There were many delegates in the online meeting, representing both the pro-LGBT view and the faithfully Catholic view. At 10 p.m., the Chair asked the Trustees if the meeting could continue overtime. According to the bylaws, a two-thirds majority is needed to continue a meeting after 10 p.m. If the meeting does not continue, unfinished business is dealt with at the next scheduled meeting.

Murphy did not get the two-thirds majority, and so the question of the place of LGBT activism in Catholic schools was deferred until Tuesday, May 4, 7:30 p.m. This gave the public two weeks in which to apply to become delegates and prepare their opinions.

However, last night the Chair summoned Trustees to an “emergency meeting” on Monday, April 26, which will be solely about the LGBT question, and will therefore merely be an “overtime” continuation of this Tuesday’s meeting. Thus, Murphy has violated both the bylaws governing meetings and ignored the Trustees’ vote.

In addition, Murphy has indicated that no delegates will be permitted to speak at Monday’s illegal meeting, and thus the public will be cut out of a decision that will have both a deeply symbolic and irrevocable effect on the region’s Catholic schools.

The applicable bylaws for special meetings of the Halton District Catholic School Board are as follows:

4.3.2 Unfinished Business

Any unfinished business will resume under Item 14 of the Regular Meeting of the Board Agenda.

4.1.8 Adjournment

Meetings of the Board shall adjourn not later than 10:00 p.m., unless two/thirds (2/3) of the members present and voting agree to an extension of time. In any event, the Board shall not conduct its business beyond 10:30 p.m. without the unanimous consent of members’ present, save for the item on the table. Unanimous consent is required every half hour thereafter.

Murphy is believed to want the LGBT proposals to go through, in part because of an April 19, 2021, memo he sent to Ontario Minister of Education Stephen Lecce, regarding “Inclusive Racial and Cultural Curriculum.”

In this letter, Murphy said he was writing on behalf of the Halton District Catholic School Board to “request a review and revision of the Ontario curriculum to ensure diverse perspectives and experiences are better reflected in our classrooms.”

Citing a Catholic commitment “to creating safe, inclusive, and welcoming learning environments that support student achievement and well-being in our schools” and the Ministry’s own “Ontario Equity Action Plan”, Murphy asked for an ideology-based overhaul of the province’s school curriculum.

“[W]e are writing to formally request a review and revision of the Ontario curriculum to better incorporate the culture and history of racialized and marginalized students and staff, including: women, people with disabilities, Black and Indigenous People, People of Colour, and 2SLGBTQ+ individuals,” he wrote.

A trusted source told LifeSiteNews that Murphy may propose alternative measures to help the LGBT movement gain access to his schools in exchange for dropping the flag proposal. The flag, the source suggested, is only a cover for the real agenda: creating “safe spaces” in Catholic schools so that Catholic doctrine about sexuality, marriage and the family cannot be taught there. During Tuesday’s meeting, pro-LGBT delegates indicated that hoisting the Pride flag was only “the beginning.”

In addition to being the Chair of the HDCSB, Patrick Murphy is a “past-Grand Knight” of the Holy Rosary Knights of Columbus (Council #6777) in Milton, Ontario.

LifeSiteNews has reached out to the Chair, but is still waiting for a response.

To make your opinions respectfully known to the Trustees of the Halton District Catholic School Board, please contact:

Patrick Murphy
[email protected]

Brenda Agnew
[email protected]

Marvin Duarte
[email protected]

Peter DeRosa
[email protected]

Nancy Guzzo
[email protected]

Vincent Iantomasi
[email protected]

Helena Karabela
[email protected]

Tim O’Brien
[email protected]

Janet O’Hearn-Czarnota
[email protected]

  catholic, catholic schools, halton catholic district school board, homosexuality, patrick murphy


College of the Ozarks sues Biden for trying to force boys into girls’ dorms

The College of the Ozarks is suing to prevent itself from being forced to change its longstanding policy of separating male and female students in intimate facilities such as dormitories.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 3:31 pm EST
Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

POINT LOOKOUT, Missouri, April 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the College of the Ozarks against the Biden administration’s efforts to force the religious institution to house “transgender girls,” i.e., actual boys, in female housing, including as roommates to actual girls.

One of President Joe Biden’s earliest acts was signing an executive order declaring the “policy of my Administration to prevent and combat discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, and to fully enforce Title VII and other laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.” It cites cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bostock decision claiming that federal law’s prohibition on discrimination “because of … sex” extends to “discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.”

The Daily Wire reports that the College of the Ozarks is suing to prevent itself from being forced to change its longstanding policy of separating male and female students in intimate facilities such as dormitories.

“Occupancy and access in the college’s residence halls are separated by biological sex, not identity, and that residence in student housing depends on compliance with the student code of conduct, including the commitment to avoid all sexual relations outside of a marriage between one man and one woman,” says the suit. But the White House’s edict “requires private religious colleges to place biological males into female dormitories and assign them as females’ roommates.”

“The government cannot and should not force schools to open girls’ dorms to males based on its politically motivated and inappropriate redefinition of ‘sex,’” declared ADF Senior Counsel Julie Marie Blake. “Women shouldn’t be forced to share private spaces — including showers and dorm rooms — with males, and religious schools shouldn’t be punished simply because of their beliefs about marriage and biological sex. Government overreach by the Biden administration continues to victimize women, girls, and people of faith by gutting their legal protections, and it must be stopped.”

In March, Biden followed up that executive order with two more orders. One created a White House Gender Policy Council, which is tasked with “establish(ing) and pursu(ing) a comprehensive approach to ensure that the Federal Government is working to advance equal rights and opportunities, regardless of gender or gender identity”; the other directed the U.S. Department of Education to undertake a comprehensive review of “all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions” for compliance with the goal of an “educational environment free from discrimination on the basis of sex, including discrimination in the form of sexual harassment, which encompasses sexual violence, and including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

  college of the ozarks, joe biden, lgbt, religious freedom, transgenderism


Cdl. Cupich tries to torpedo bishop’s airtight argument for denying pro-abortion politicians like Biden communion

Denver Archbishop Samuel Aquila had publicly explained why pro-abortion politicians who say they are Catholic cannot receive Holy Communion.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 3:13 pm EST
Featured Image
Chicago Cardinal Blasé Cupich Facebook / University of Chicago IOP
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

April 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — After Denver Archbishop Samuel Aquila wrote a hard-hitting article last week explaining why pro-abortion politicians who say they are Catholic — without mentioning President Joe Biden by name — cannot receive Holy Communion, Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago wrote to him to express “a number of concerns,” urging the archbishop to issue a “public clarification.”

In an April 14 piece published in America Magazine, titled “For the church to live in eucharistic coherence, we must be willing to challenge Catholics persisting in grave sin,” Archbishop Aquila argues that love demands that shepherds speak the truth of the faith when it comes to them receiving the Body of Jesus.

He references St. Paul who outlined the danger to one’s soul of receiving the body and blood of Jesus in an unworthy manner. Aquila makes the case that the Church fails to “properly love” those who jeopardize their souls by unworthy reception when she minimizes the danger of such an unworthy reception.

“The truth may be hard to speak and hard to hear, but love speaks the truth. To approach the Eucharist casually and without the fear of possible condemnation is to risk one’s eternal salvation,” he wrote.

The Archbishop goes on to quote canon law (can. 915), according to which those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” He makes the case that individual conscience cannot override God’s law and the laws of the Church.

Aquila called it an error for Catholics to hold that “any baptized Catholic can receive Communion if he or she simply desires to do so.”

“None of us have the freedom to approach the altar of the Lord without a proper examination of conscience and proper repentance if grave sin has been committed. The Eucharist is a gift, not an entitlement, and the sanctity of that gift is only diminished by unworthy reception,” he wrote.

“Because of the public scandal caused, this is especially true in the case of public officials who persistently govern in violation of the natural law, particularly the pre-eminent issues of abortion and euthanasia, the taking of innocent life, as well as other actions that fail to uphold the church’s teaching regarding the dignity of life,” he added.

It was especially Aquila’s line that the “sanctity of that gift is only diminished by unworthy reception” that disturbed Cupich, prompting him to write the archbishop the very same day the article appeared to voice his concerns.

“I respectfully note that to claim that we can do anything to diminish the Eucharist, or its effects, is contrary to the church’s longstanding teaching,” Cupich wrote, reported The Pillar about the letter. The Pillar reported that it had viewed the letter sent from Cupich to Aquila.

“Catholic sacramental theology is based on the premise that the sacraments are the work of Christ, which is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation at Trent (DS 1608) that the sacraments act ex opere operato, or, as St. Thomas wrote in the Summa, III, 68,8: ‘The sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.’ Owing to the nature of God, Christ and his works can never be diminished by any act on our part,” wrote Cupich in his letter to Aquila.

“I write as a brother bishop with the suggestion that you consider offering a public clarification of your point,” he added.

Cupich, who was made a cardinal by Pope Francis in 2016 and is considered to be one of the most outspoken champions of the Pope’s agenda for the Catholic Church, has previously defended giving Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians and has made it clear that he sees no problem for same-sex couples and the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion in accordance with their consciences. In January, Cupich rebuked the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) for issuing what he called an “ill-considered” statement on the day of President Biden’s inauguration. The USCCB warned in its Jan. 20 statement about Biden’s pledge to pursue anti-life and anti-family policies that would advance “moral evils” in the areas of “abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender.”

It appears that Aquila accepted Cupich’s suggestion of offering a “public clarification,” writing in Catholic World Report on April 18 that “one bishop expressed a concern” about his words and had asked for a clarification.

“Because of the confusion I may have caused, I promised the bishop that I would make a public clarification,” Aquila wrote, without naming Cupich.

Aquila goes on to offer what he calls an “amplification of the point” he had previously made about grace being “diminished by unworthy reception.” The Archbishop writes that he holds, “as does the Church, that grace is available ex opere operato, that is, the valid enactment of the sacraments makes available the grace of the sacraments.”

“Thus, neither the minister of the sacrament or the person partaking of the sacrament can dimmish the grace of the sacrament. However, how it is received (ex opere operantis), that is, the benefit of receiving the sacrament, is dependent upon the condition of the subject’s spiritual disposition.”

He goes on to quote St. Thomas, St. Augustine, St. Paul, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Second Vatican Council as evidence that the Church does, in fact, teach that “unworthy reception of the Eucharist diminishes the effect of the sacrament.”

Aquila concludes his argument with a note of warning that those who receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin participate in a lie since they are neither in communion with Christ nor his Church.

“When one partakes of the Eucharist, one is stating by one’s very action that one is in communion with Christ and his Church. However, if one is in mortal sin when receiving Communion, one is telling a lie, for, in being in a state of mortal sin, one is neither in communion with Christ nor his Church,” he writes.

— 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 Archbishop ends his piece with a note about why he is obligated to speak out on this matter.

“I take seriously my obligation, lest I be condemned, to proclaim clearly, fully and coherently what the Church believes and teaches, for only then am I feeding the faithful under my care the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” he writes.

Aquila’s two pieces come at a time when U.S. bishops grapple with what is to be done about the fact that the president of the United States calls himself Catholic, attends Mass regularly, and receives Holy Communion, all while championing positions on life, marriage, and the family that are explicitly contrary to Catholic moral teaching.

Several high-ranking Catholic shepherds, such as Cardinal Raymond BurkeArchbishop Joseph Naumann, and Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, have suggested that pro-abortion politicians such as Biden must be denied Communion to safe-guard the sacrament, to avoid scandal, and to call the sinner to repentance.

A doctrinal committee of the U.S. bishops is now examining a letter on “eucharistic coherence” to the faithful that was drafted by a now-dissolved special working group of the USCCB that was formed last November to deal with how to navigate the relationship between the bishops and Biden. It’s expected that the bishops will decide at an upcoming virtual meeting in June if the letter will be released.

  blase cupich, canon 915, catholic, communion, communion to pro-abortion politicians, eucharistic coherence, holy communion, joe biden, pro-abortion catholic politicians, pro-abortion catholics, samuel aquila, usccb


Canadian bishop again bans Mass, baptisms, confessions, confirmations

‘Baptisms should be discouraged until the lock-down ends, but may be celebrated in danger of death,’ said Bishop Fabbro.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 2:47 pm EST
Featured Image
Bishop Ronald Fabbro in a June 2020 video. Diocese of London / Youtube
Michael Haynes Michael Haynes Follow Michael
By Michael Haynes

LONDON, Ontario, April 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Following the recently announced lockdowns in the province of Ontario, Bishop Ronald Fabbro has once again decided to impose a near-complete ban on baptisms and confessions, with exceptions only being granted in “danger of death,” and if a priest decides that there is “a serious need.”

Bishop Fabbro, of the Diocese of London, made the announcement in a press release issued April 17, curtailing nearly the entire public life of the Church in his diocese.

“Baptisms should be discouraged until the lock-down ends, but may be celebrated in danger of death,” he wrote.

A similar restriction was placed by the bishop upon the sacrament of confession, although with somewhat of a greater concession as to when the sacrament could be administered: “Confessions should be discouraged until the lock-down ends, but may be celebrated if the pastor determines a serious need; to be determined on a case-by-case basis; to be celebrated only by appointment.”

There was no guidance as to how a priest would determine whether a “serious need” existed.

The ban on the sacraments comes as the diocese aims to conform to the latest severe restrictions announced by Ontario Premier Doug Ford last Friday. Due to what Ford described as the “strictest measures in all of North America,” a new 10-person limit was imposed upon churches and places of worship.

Meanwhile, big box retail stores will also be reduced in capacity, but not to the extent seen in churches, as they are allowed to operate at 25 percent capacity.

Due to the extreme curtailing on numbers permitted inside the church buildings, Fabbro also moved to cease public Masses, saying that they would instead be “live-streamed or recorded and up-loaded.” This measure he justified by explaining that it ensured the diocese remained “in keeping with the directive of the provincial government and our previous practice.”

Furthermore, he stipulated that “celebrations of First Communion are deferred until the lock-down ends,” as were confirmations, although they could be celebrated “in danger of death.”

Two religious services still offered to the faithful, without any additional restrictions from the diocese, are marriages and funerals, both of which are permitted to take place with the civil restrictions of ten people.

With this sweeping move, cutting the vast majority of the faithful off from the reception of the sacraments, Bishop Fabbro appears to be in violation of the canon law of the Catholic Church. Canon 213 states, “The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.”

It is not the first time since the arrival of the coronavirus that Bishop Fabbro has infringed upon the rights of the Catholic faithful. Back in March 2020, he banned Mass, including funerals, and baptisms.

Confessions were also banned, although permitted “in cases of danger of death.” A later directive reaffirmed this ban, adding that “‘Drive-thru’ confessionals are simply not acceptable,” due to the potential to cause people to gather.

Instead of receiving sacramental absolution, Fabbro urged people to make an act of contrition, and then “experience God’s loving forgiveness.”

Later that same year, Bishop Fabbro issued an ultimatum to any priests in his diocese who did not obey his stringent COVID-19 rules for churches. Clergy who did not ban non-masked people from entering a church or did not force the faithful to receive Holy Communion on their “bare hand,” could face “prosecution,” and even the closure of their churches, warned Fabbro.

The bishop admitted at the time that his dictates went “beyond the requirements in most health unit orders and local by-laws.”

Indeed, his decrees even went beyond his power as bishop: Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, a Thomistic theologian and liturgical scholar, previously told LifeSiteNews in July that bishops who ban Holy Communion on the tongue are abusing their authority.

“Many bishops are abusing their authority right now because … they’re supposed to uphold Canon Law, and Canon Law is really clear that the faithful have the right to receive communion on the tongue. That’s it,” he said.

— 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 fact, retired Polish Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga last March warned bishops and priests who insist on giving Communion in the hand that their actions put them in danger of “hell.”

While Bishop Fabbro is enacting his most recent restrictions on the spiritual life of the faithful in response to the restrictions imposed by Premier Ford, some of his brother clergy strongly disagree with such a stance.

In an open letter published in May, Catholic clergy — led by former papal nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Cardinals Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Joseph Zen, and Janis Pujats — reminded politicians around the world that “the state has no right to interfere, for any reason whatsoever, in the sovereignty of the church.”

Archbishop Viganò also mentioned in a talk at the Catholic Identity Conference that “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.”

These words of Archbishop Viganò are supported by the testimony of Canon Law, since Canon 212 §3 instructs the faithful that “they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful.”

LifeSiteNews contacted the Diocese of London for comment regarding the prohibitions and restrictions on the various sacraments, but did not receive a response at the time of publishing.

The entirety of Ontario, where the diocese is located, recorded roughly 437,000 cases of positive COVID tests, with 7,863 deaths. More than 14,5 million people live in Ontario, meaning that only .05 percent of the population died with a positive COVID test in the course of about 13 months.

  catholic, coronavirus restrictions, diocese of london, ronald fabbro


French archdiocese gives money to build large mosque

The Archdiocese of Tours’ financial situation has been badly affected by the COVID-19 crisis, leading to a dramatic appeal from Archbishop Vincent Jordy this month.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 1:46 pm EST
Featured Image
Mosque Shutterstock
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

TOURS, France, April 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Vincent Jordy, recently named archbishop of Tours in the center of France, has been forced to publish a statement after declarations by a local Muslim leader revealed that the Catholic diocese has given funds for the construction of a large mosque, and that these funds can be said to have been financed by the “denier du culte”: parish contributions given by Catholics in the diocese for its upkeep and operating costs.

The story broke ten days ago when a local newspaper, la Nouvelle République, published a story for the beginning of Ramadan on April 13, with comments by the president of the Muslim community of the department of Indre-et-Loire in the Loire valley explaining that the new Grand Mosque of Menneton was not yet ready to receive the Muslim faithful, in particular in its areas destined for public worship.

Salah Merabti, talking about COVID restrictions that will prevent the faithful from “breaking the fast” in communal dinners at their present mosque, said he hoped that next year, works will have been completed in the new building, for which €4 million euro (nearly $5 million) have already been spent. 2 million euro worth of funds are lacking at present to pay for the roof, the dome, and sealing work. The construction project is already several weeks or months late because of COVID-19, and now the price of building materials has risen steeply, compromising the Muslim community’s ability to finance future contracts.

It was at this point that Merabti spoke about those who had helped or are still helping with the funding of the project: “In Paris, I met the boss of Coca-Cola Algeria who gave us the sum of €150,000 for the roof. This is exceptional. We also received gifts from elected officials of the [Tours] metropolis, from the Jewish community of Tours, and from the diocese, for the worshiping area of the mosque. This is a great comfort.”

The story was picked up by the independent Catholic website “Riposte-Catholique,” which asked: “Are we to understand that parish funding of the church has been diverted for the needs of the Muslim community? This is a question that should be put to the accounting office of the diocese.”

The diocese of Tours ordinarily receives a yearly global budget of some €1.6 million through parish contributions, compared to yearly operating costs of about €6.7 million, for which Sunday collections, gifts on the occasion of weddings and funerals and Mass intentions also provide.

While the diocese had a comfortable sum of nearly €9.5 million stashed away at the end of 2019, its financial situation has been badly affected by the COVID-19 crisis, leading to a dramatic appeal from Bishop Jordy this month. He underscored the “total decrease” of Sunday collections since the measures to contain the pandemic began, as well as an almost total decrease of contributions on the occasion of some sacraments and of parish funding; even gifts for Mass intentions have declined “very significantly,” he deplored. Jordy asked all the Catholics of his diocese to chip in, adding that this was “vital.”

Under these circumstances, the timing of Salah Merabti’s expression of thanks to the Archdiocese of Tours could hardly have been more unfortunate, especially when it was picked up by Riposte catholique and commented on in social media, and questions followed to diocesan officials.

Bishop Vincent Jordy published a statement on April 15, only two days after the news of diocesan funding for a mosque in Tours broke:

In 1996, during the visit to Tours of Pope Saint John Paul II, as subsidies were almost non-existent, the diocese had launched an appeal for donations to ensure the funding of this reception. On this occasion, the Muslim community of Tours wished to make a symbolic donation. In return, the diocese of Tours wished to make a similar and symbolic donation on the occasion of the launching of the Tours mosque project more than 15 years ago.

He added (in a largely incomprehensible phrase that appears to put Christian and Muslim celebrations on a par): “As Christian communities live in the light of the Easter celebrations and Muslim communities have entered the period of Ramadan, this reminder allows us to measure up to our lives as believers.”

It therefore appears that the archdiocese’s donation for the construction of a Muslim place of worship actually took place under Jordy's predecessor, and quite a long time ago. But local Catholics are asking for explanations: why were they not informed of this donation? How much was given for the visit of John Paul II by the Muslims, and was an equivalent sum donated for the mosque? What did the bishop mean by a “similar” and “symbolic” gift? One member of a Catholic internet forum wrote:

As for the ‘reminder’ of a donation made by a Muslim community of Tours in 1996, 25 years ago, for the visit of John Paul II, which would justify a donation in return today, it is a complete joke. I don’t know why this Muslim community wanted to make this donation, if it is true, but in any case, this Muslim community has never financed the building of a church. The fact that the Tours diocese wants to appear as one of the financiers of the Tours mosque marks the end of its existence as a Catholic diocese. Let it apologize to its donors, if it still has the strength.

Other Catholics underscored that is one thing to help pay for the visit of a Pope to a local community, and another to fund the construction of a lasting place of worship. Such criticism has of course been fueled over the last years after a number of Islamic attacks hit France, including the cutting of the throat of an old priest, Fr. Jacques Hamel, while he was celebrating Mass, and another terrorist attack on Catholics in a church in Nice at the beginning of last year. But even without these tragic incidents, the presence of a growing and vital Muslim community in France, which benefits from local “anti-discrimination” laws, has led to fears and tensions.

It is a sign of the times that last year, president Emmanuel Macron joined a Muslim feast celebrating the end of Ramadan in June, but did not even send Christmas or Easter wishes to French Catholics in the last few months.

Questions were also raised about the diocese’s right to use funds given by Catholic donors for an object that is so obviously distant from the reasons for which they were given. The faithful contribute to the financing of Catholic worship in all its dimensions, including the upkeep of parish churches and diocesan buildings, and income for diocesan priests — not the funding of places of worship for other religions. The diocesan association of Tours official statutes laconically recall that its funds are to cover “the upkeep of worship.” Catholic worship, of course…

A local Catholic complained: “If I had wanted to fund the construction of a mosque, I would have done it myself directly.” Another remarked: “John Paul II went away, but the mosque will remain.”

— 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 is not the first time that a French diocese has given money donated by the faithful towards Islamic interests. The rebuilding of an Islamic place of worship that was destroyed by arson was helped along to the tune of €5,000 by the diocese of Auch (southwest France) in 2015. “Charity knows no borders,” explained the local Bishop, Maurice Gardès, at the time. This donation also triggered a wave of criticism, leading the diocese to state later that it had also given €12,000 for persecuted Christians in the Middle East.

At least the diocese of Auch publicly announced the gift when it was made. The news led to a sharp decline in parish funding donations. In the Catholic weekly Famille chrétienne, a specialist of Islam, Annie Laurent, also underlined the danger of relativism linked to such participation in the building of Islamic mosques in France: “The Koranic message aims to discredit the great Christian mysteries of the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Redemption, the Resurrection of Jesus, etc.,” she wrote.

In May of last year, the diocese of Bordeaux called on local Catholics to give generous donations to the local mosques’ social benefit funds account in order to help “sub-Saharan students living in Bordeaux and its surroundings.” Due to COVID restrictions, four local mosques had asked for money to pay for food packages for destitute Muslims who would otherwise have joined meals at the mosque. Such food aid is obviously on another level than the funding of places of worship, but at the same time the Catholic diocese of Bordeaux has recently multiplied events together with Islamic dignitaries that go beyond humanitarian gestures, such as when a local imam, Hassan Belmajdoub, known for having invited radical preachers to his mosque, was asked to speak in a Catholic church in November 2017 on the theme: “Encountering the other in all sincerity.”

  archdiocese of tours, mosque, muslims, vincent jordy


Canadian gov’t. to introduce first-ever internet control bill

‘People will see what will be in the bill once it is tabled,’ commented Canada’s heritage minister.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 11:31 am EST
Featured Image
Internet censorship Shutterstock
David McLoone David McLoone Follow

CONTACT YOUR MP and Senator: Tell them to oppose plans to censor the internet!  Click to contact your MP and Senator, now.

OTTAWA, Ontario, April 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In a legislative first, the Canadian government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is introducing a bill that will censor the internet for its own citizens. The bill proposes to ban “hate speech,” including “hurtful” language against politicians.

Canada’s Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault said Monday that the bill will be considered in Parliament within the next fortnight during a videoconference with the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

The legislation, if successful, will force social media platforms to remove content deemed harmful almost immediately. “Once a publication is flagged it will have to be taken down within 24 hours of having it being flagged,” Guilbeault confirmed.

Compliance with hate speech removal orders will be policed by a newly established regulatory body. Failure of tech companies to censor content could result in financial penalties, according to a report in iPolitics.

“My job is to ensure the safety and security of the Canadian population. That’s what I’m here for,” Guilbeault declared as he unveiled the censorship bill. “I think it’s going to be a really good remedy to a number of problems, but it won’t solve everything. One of the issues I’ve learned, looking at different models, is you shouldn’t try to tackle everything from the get-go,” he said.

The minister explained that “ultimately,” the goal of tighter internet control “is to create a safer environment for all people online and not just for a handful.”

Earlier in the month, Guilbeault pre-empted new online regulations, complaining on liberal thinktank Canada 2020’s podcast of having “seen too many examples of public officials retreating from public service due to the hateful online content targeted towards themselves.”

Guilbeault added that “[as] a dad and a stepdad to six kids, I know more can and should be done to create a safer online environment.”

The minister derided the current freedom of the internet as “a nightmare” for many people, forcing some to “take themselves out of that public debate because the conditions under which we’re asking them to participate simply aren’t sustainable.” No specific or explanatory examples were offered.

“We know it’s a minority of actors but a very organized, a very loud minority, and something must be done,” he said.

While he remarked on the censorship of “hurtful” comments online, Guilbeault did not divulge any further details on the implications of the new legislation. Rather, he gave vague, broad-brush comments on safeguarding “core values shared by Canadians,” including “[d]emocracy, inclusive and accountable governance, peaceful pluralism and respect for diversity and human rights.”

“Hate speech will definitely be part of the legislation that will be tabled, but we also want to encompass other online harms that are taking place,” he said.

Guilbeault explained that web-based content providers will have to censor what they publish, no matter where they are based in the world: “With the legislation we will be tabling, it won’t matter whether or not the company is Canadian. It won’t matter where the company is registered or where their servers are located.”

Guilbeault admitted that the government has not held “a public-wide consultation” on the details of the proposal. “That being said, obviously once the bill is tabled there will be further consultations by a parliamentary committee, and once the bill is adopted — and I’m confident it will — there will be further consultations.”

“People will see what will be in the bill once it is tabled,” he commented.

CONTACT YOUR MP and Senator: Tell them to oppose plans to censor the internet!  Click to contact your MP and Senator, now.

Speculations probing the possibility of a hidden purpose behind this latest legislative manoeuvre have been raised, given that the country has had hate speech laws since at least 1970.

An email statement issued by Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), Canada’s national pro-life, pro-family political lobbying group, and obtained by LifeSiteNews, takes aim at the Minister for Heritage for “doing his utmost to undermine and subvert our heritage by pushing for speech police, censorship, and strict controls on the media and internet.”

CLC Campaigns Manager David Cooke speculated that “online hate speech” is a term wielded by the Liberal Party to attack and malign speech that doesn’t align with the Left’s “un-Canadian” values. “If Mr. Guilbeault has his way, what were once free and open channels of communication — where ideas could be exchanged, and differences aired — will become a propaganda mouthpiece for the government,” Cooke said.

Guilbeault referenced a survey conducted by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation as proof that he has widespread support for the proposed speech infringements, claiming that 93 percent of Canadians “believe that online hate speech and racism are a problem,” and 80 percent “want social media companies to be required to remove racist or hateful content within 24 hours.”

On the back of this survey, Guilbeault commented that the conclusions “are clear.”

“Hate speech has no place in our society. It’s time to step up against online hate. The numbers are disturbing, but they come as no surprise.”

Cooke, on the other hand, characterized Guilbeault’s heightened push as “totalitarian creep … reminiscent of the rise of Adolf Hitler.”

“Truly, I have no interest in Mr. Guilbeault safeguarding my ears and eyes online. That’s my own concern. And I think most Canadians feel the same way! We do not need ‘big brother’ deciding what we can and cannot see online. No thank you.”

CONTACT YOUR MP and Senator: Tell them to oppose plans to censor the internet!  Click to contact your MP and Senator, now.

  censorship, justin trudeau, steven guilbeault


Motherhood and Mission: Activist Mommy speaks about life’s seasons and God’s calling

Elizabeth Johnston speaks about the importance of motherhood, raising children, and focusing on your family.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 10:21 am EST
Featured Image

You can still enter the win Pamela Acker’s book on vaccines, sign-up to receive email alerts for the Ladies of LifeSite podcast here.

April 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In today’s episode of Ladies of LifeSite, Elizabeth Johnston, also known as Activist Mommy, joins the ladies to discuss motherhood, mission, and life’s seasons.

Listen to the full episode:

Johnston is “an activist, blogger, speaker, and best-selling author who educates and inspires the public on the burning social and moral issues of the day.”

Johnston begins the episode by telling listeners that she got involved in activism when security guards were being arrested for telling 200 pound men they couldn’t go in the women’s restroom.

She thought, “I no longer recognize my country, this is super dangerous.”

Realizing her little daughters were also going into these same restrooms,  Johnston knew she needed to “get off the sidelines and get on the frontlines because this is a war for our families. This is an all out culture war.”

As she addressed this topic and asserted a parent’s right to protect their child, her content went viral and launched her mission.

Johnston continues, sharing how she has been involved in the pro-life movement since she became a mom about 20 years ago and started taking her kids to pray and witness outside of abortion centers.

Seeing moms change their minds and choose life had a profound impact on Johnston and all of her children.

Johnston tells listeners that her kids grew to love praying outside of the abortion center. They were the ones waking her up on Saturday mornings, she says.

She encourages parents to get their kids off of the couch and involved in life changing work, even if it means buying diapers and bringing them into the crisis pregnancy center.

Johnston tells listeners she has always felt strongly that “if your ministry and your mission takes you away from your children then maybe it’s not the right season for you.”

She recalls the birthing and “stair step toddler phase” where your kids need constant care and attention. She didn’t have an activist platform then — and she didn’t want one, as she was focused on raising and homeschooling her children. “That in and of itself is a full time ministry, no guilt!” Johnston says of motherhood. “Pour everything into your family and never feel guilty for that. If that is all you do and you do it for the glory of Jesus Christ, well done, good and faithful servant.”

Johnston tells listeners that she wouldn’t be able to do what she is doing now if she hadn’t built a solid foundation at home.

“I was really focused for 20 years on making sure my family was the focus and I did not volunteer for everything out there and pull myself away all of the time … Pour the time in, it is just a season.”

She continues to discuss how her focus was always on her family. Even when she went to college, she got a degree in education as she knew she wanted to homeschool her children and be a stay-at-home mom.

Johnston encourages moms not to feel guilty for wanting to be a stay-at-home mom no matter what the culture may tell us.

She also shares some great advice and thoughts for moms who are considering homeschooling, but may be on the fence or don’t feel capable.

This is a MUST-listen episode for all of the faithful Christian moms out there looking for some encouragement from a mamma who has been there and done that.

The Ladies of LifeSite is a weekly podcast aimed at providing other like-minded women with the encouragement they need to get through the week while facing the unique challenges of being moms, aunts, sisters, and daughters. To be notified via email when we publish a new episode, click here.

You can subscribe to The Ladies of LifeSite on Spotify, Soundcloud, and on Acast.

  activist mommy, elizabeth johnston, ladies of lifesite, motherhood


Amount of aluminum in infant vaccines ‘akin to a lottery,’ researchers say

A new study led by Christopher Exley, Ph.D. found the aluminum content in infant vaccines is largely unmonitored and sometimes exceeds the amount listed on the product insert. Exley’s team also released a study showing a strong link between aluminum exposure and a type of Alzheimer’s disease.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 10:15 am EST
Featured Image
Children’s Health Defense
By Children's Health Defense

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

April 23, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) – The Defender recently wrote about Keele University’s decision to cut off the primary funding stream — charitable donations — for the world-famous UK-based aluminum research group, led by bioinorganic chemistry professor Christopher Exley, Ph.D.

As the direct result of Keele’s actions, the Exley lab will close Aug. 31, ending three decades of independent, cutting-edge research elucidating aluminum’s effects on health across the human lifespan.

Even in the face of their lab’s imminent closure, the Exley group continues to publish and add to its already impressive roster of approximately 200 publications.

The researchers’ two latest studies — one focusing on the largely unmonitored aluminum content of infant vaccines, the other on the strong association of aluminum in familial Alzheimer’s disease — underscore why independent research is so important, and so threatening to the status quo.

Aluminum in infant vaccines — ‘akin to a lottery’

One of the studies, published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, found the amount of aluminum an infant receives in a vaccine, far from being predictable or controlled, seems to be “akin to a lottery.”

The group analyzed the aluminum content of 13 infant vaccines manufactured by GlaxoSmithKlineMerck, Sanofi Pasteur and Pfizer. In 10 of 13 vaccines, the measured quantity of aluminum failed to match up to the amount of aluminum reported by manufacturers in patient information leaflets. Analysis across vaccines and vaccine lots revealed the following:

Six of the vaccines (about half), including Pfizer’s Prevnar 13, contained a statistically significant greater quantity of aluminum compared with manufacturer data.

Four of the vaccines contained significantly less.

For each single vaccine brand, the range of aluminum content “varied considerably.”

Neither the European Medicines Agency nor the U.S. Food and Drug Administration could confirm they independently or routinely measure the aluminum content of infant vaccines, instead indicating that they rely upon manufacturers’ (flawed) data.

These “not reassuring” findings suggest, according to the researchers, “that vaccine manufacturers have limited control over the aluminium content of their vaccines” and the aluminum content “of individual vaccines within vaccine lots vary significantly.”

Given aluminum’s known neurotoxicity, the researchers also emphasized we “cannot afford to be complacent about its injection into infants” — a position the Exley group has repeatedly emphasized, and which is shared by other experts.

— 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

Aluminum in familial Alzheimer’s disease

The second study, published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease Reports, builds on the Exley group’s extensive body of work linking aluminum to Alzheimer’s disease. The new study focuses on cases of familial Alzheimer’s disease, which is driven by predispositions that run in families.

The Mayo Clinic defines young- or early-onset Alzheimer’s as cases that affect individuals under age 65. The new Exley study examines human brain tissue from three Colombian familial donors with early-onset Alzheimer’s (ages 45, 57 and 60).

In all three cases, the researchers observed “neuronal cells loaded with aluminum” and noted the aluminum’s “unequivocal” co-location with neurofibrillary tangles across multiple brain regions. Neurofibrillary tangles (formed by misfolded tau protein inside the brain cells) are an important feature of and biomarker for Alzheimer’s.

The Exley group’s conclusion, which dovetails with their other studies of brain tissue and neurodegeneration — including findings showing extraordinarily high levels of aluminum in autism brain tissue — is that “these data support the intricate associations of aluminum in the neuropathology of fAD [familial Alzheimer’s disease].”

Young and old at risk

In recent years, the American insurance industry has reported a 200% increase in diagnosed dementia and Alzheimer’s among younger adults. UK researchers who looked at 20-year dementia trends in the U.S. and other western nations reported in a 2015 study in Surgical Neurology that dementias are starting “a decade earlier than they used to.”

Recognizing that roughly nine in 10 cases of young-onset Alzheimer’s have no genetic explanation, Exley has suggested in prior work that aluminum may act as a catalyst for early-onset Alzheimer’s in individuals “without concomitant predispositions, genetic or otherwise.” He proposes viewing Alzheimer’s as “an acute response to chronic intoxication by aluminum.”

As the Exley group points out in its new paper on infant vaccines, the aluminum adjuvants in the vaccines start the clock ticking on a lifetime body burden of aluminum.

Are we seeing some of the effects of this body burden in the younger adults in their 30s and 40s who now represent 15% of those diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and dementia?

The Exley group also asks, what are the implications for children’s longer-term health when babies receive significantly more aluminum in their vaccines than the amounts that manufacturers and regulators (without convincing data) proclaim “safe”?

If universities continue to choke off funding for vital research, it may become increasingly difficult to answer these all-important questions.

© April 23, 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.

  aluminum, alzheimer's disease, children’s health defense, dementia, glaxosmithkline, keele university, merck, pfizer, vaccine side effects, vaccine studies, vaccines


There is a pathway forward to return to normalcy after 14 months of failed approaches

Stopping COVID at all costs is not a policy and is leading to great harm in the world, and leaders need to start relying on hard data analyses and critical thinking.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 9:14 pm EST
Featured Image
Paul E. Alexander

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

April 23, 2021 (American Institute for Economic Research) – Is there a chance to recover and to effectively vanquish Covid-19, at least to end the pandemic and return to normal lives again? We function here as prognosticators and contrarians that seek to inform and share and to learn, and we thus argue yes, and while we were blindsided and there were grave initial mistakes and some very consequential such as the very flawed and botched initial testing by the CDC that left the United States vulnerable and flying blind and allowed the virus to seed for four to five weeks initially, the following are the key components of the Covid-19 response that should have been enacted from inception (save three-four weeks initially to understand the pathogen) and which should be urgently implemented based on the experiences over the last 14 months or so. In our opinion. 

We offer this as a pathway forward and ask that we consider these as we try to deal with essentially failed approaches thus far, and use our common sense and deductive reasoning and logic to interpret the science and make informed decisions. We call on the medical experts who inform governments to likely for the first time, use some common sense and logic and some critical thinking; if it is all about the science, we implore the medical decision-makers to follow the data and science and to use it and use critical analysis of the data; we argue they have not; these decision-makers must understand the impact of their policies and stopping Covid “at all costs” is not a policy and not attainable; if a policy is devastating and causing great harm to the population, you stop it, you do not harden it and reapply it as that is patently absurd and harmful; as such, we also ask our decision-makers to conduct the appropriate hazard analyses and cost-effective analyses.

Our pathway forward is as follows:

  1. Properly and strongly protect the high-risk elderly persons with medical conditions and vulnerable persons e.g. frail persons with comorbid conditions, obese persons; elderly persons in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, long-term care facilities etc. are most at risk for severe illness or death from Covid-19 and they must be protected as a basis for any response to work; staff infecting nursing home residents remains the key breach in transmission and the rate-limiting step and has to be focused on immediately; stop staff from entering the nursing homes and infecting residents (sequester staff on site for one to two weeks at a time with no prejudice if they cannot, or use nursing home students or nearby hotels for residence to control transmission); we have failed to secure our nursing home residents and we have caused tens of thousands of deaths and we still continue to not secure the nursing homes

  2. Immediately end all societal lockdown, shelter-in-place, mask mandate, and school closure policies; we must reopen all of our economies in the U.S., Canada (provinces such as Ontario), U.K., etc. as there are tremendous harms to these economic closures; there are catastrophic costs to these policies and evidence accumulated across one year now strongly suggests that these are highly ineffective and do not work; they are absolutely baseless and without merit; stop relying on hypothetical “worst case scenario” projection models, as they have been incredibly inaccurate and grossly flawed; the crushing harms and devastation from these far outweigh any benefit and the harms are most pronounced among the poorer in society who are least able to afford the restrictions; the lockdown itself kills people, destroys families, prevents education of our children; child abuse is being missed by closed schools and the lockdowns promotes child abuse; lost jobs cause stress in the household and with closed schools, children are vulnerable as the visibility is gone and this is catastrophic; there is near zero risk to children from Covid and we are harming them by school closures, it was one of the most devastating misapplications of public policy; most of the decisions made by the governments and their medical advisers including Dr. Fauci who I have much respect for, are illogical, absurd, irrational, nonsensical, specious, and in most part reckless and have caused far greater harms with their policies

  3. Isolate ONLY the sick/symptomatic persons (no isolation of asymptomatic persons); stop contact tracing where the virus has already spread extensively as it confers no benefit; stop isolating persons who are not sick/not symptomatic (are asymptomatic); stop wide testing of asymptomatic persons

  4. Foster improved hand-washing hygiene and improved sanitation

  5. Promote and offer early ambulatory outpatient therapeutics including combined and sequenced antivirals and anti-infectives and for some drugs as prophylaxis (hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, doxycycline, bromhexine, colchicine, favipiravir, quercetin etc.), corticosteroid (budesonide, dexamethasone, prednisone and methylprednisolone etc.), and antithrombotic drugs (aspirin, enoxaparin etc.) as needed for those who do become ill, especially high-risk persons and those in congregate settings such as nursing homes, assisted living facilities, long-term care facilities etc.; we recognize that future research would clarify and define the benefit of these early treatments; we believe that it is not possible to overstate the philosophy that since early in-center treatment with already available medications (repurposed) in nursing homes and similar settings is associated with a large reduction in mortality among nursing home residents, there can be no scientifically sound reasons, nor moral rationale for not utilizing these forms of treatment; we are trying to prevent hospitalizations and save lives and strongly believe that this approach can be impactful and merits strong consideration; the accumulating early treatment evidence is compelling and deserving of very serious consideration and study as a therapeutic option, given this emergency. To do otherwise is to fail our patients 

  6. Vaccines should be mainly available to those over 70 years of age who are high-risk and only after shared decision-making with their clinicians whereby patients can make informed decisions and consent to being fully informed; offer vaccines to high-risk front line medical staff who interact with high-risk persons; we however believe that this pandemic could have been and can be ended without vaccines e.g. via the simultaneous use of combined strong protections of the elderly and high-risk, early outpatient treatment, isolation of the sick only, hand-washing hygiene, and allowing the low-risk portion of the population to become infected naturally and harmlessly with reasonable precautions as part of normal living; a vast amount of our views on this is based on the lack of safety data and testing for these vaccines, leaving us unable to judge the future impact; we are already seeing adverse effects and even deaths recorded due to the vaccines

  7. Thus, vaccines are not to be given/prioritized for those under 70 years of age who are healthy, and at no time be given to young persons e.g. those under 19 years of age; no vaccines are to be administered to pediatric/children age e.g. 6 months to 19 years or so as there is no evidence to support vaccinations; the benefits do not outweigh the risks

  8. Begin immediate testing for T-cell immunity before vaccinating the designated group, if we are vaccinating the higher-risk persons; we do not vaccinate persons who have active infection or who have recovered from infection

  9. Routine public service announcements (PSAs) are to be given on the benefits of Vitamin D supplements for persons with darker skin colours and those confined within congregate settings for prolonged periods, as well as messaging about the benefits of weight loss for those overweight and obese

  10. Use a more reliable test other than the RT-PCR test and if this is to be used, use a positive threshold cut-point or cycle count threshold (Ct) of 25 cycles/amplifications and below to denote a positive case (infectious and possibly pathogenic); above Ct of 25 denotes nonculturable, nonviable virus and essentially prior infection or viral dust or fragments

  11. Allow and foster the low-risk persons in the population e.g. infants, children, teenagers, young adults, middle-aged adults and all those who are reasonably healthy with no serious medical conditions, to live unfettered normal lives with sensible precautions so as to allow for natural exposure immunity; it is this portion of society that will substantially help develop population level “herd” immunity (either via natural exposure, a vaccine, a combination of both, or even from therapeutics such as early treatment that reduces symptoms and thus transmission)

  12. Recognize that asymptomatic spread is rare if at all and urgently provide messaging to the public that all persons who get infected are not at equal risk of severe illness or death; that there is an age gradient to severity of outcomes e.g. 25-year-old David, who is a healthy male is not at the same risk of severe illness or death if infected with SARS-CoV-2 as 80-year-old Janet, who is very sick with two underlying medical conditions such as renal disease and cardiovascular disease and who is obese

  13. Recognize that a more “focused” pandemic response (Great Barrington Declaration) approach that is targeted to age and risk is the best approach; “one size does not fit all” when we are devising a pandemic response

  14. Ensure hospitals are equipped and do not get overwhelmed

  15. Understand that the immune systems of children are developing and being set for life and as such, we must allow them to engage freely with the environment; we may be damaging their immune systems long term and we must allow their immune systems to be taxed and tuned up daily; children must not be confined indoors as transmission is far greater when confined indoors and it is just common sense

  16. End masking and social distancing in any manner for children given their near-zero risk of infection or spreading Covid virus as well as their exceedingly low risk of severe illness or death if infected; the science behind 6-feet social distancing was not there and was pseudo-science, embarrassingly weak and fear-based

  17. Stop the mass media hysteria and fear about variants and mutations, as this is a good aspect, as when viruses mutate they typically mutate to much milder versions; the vast majority of people who are infected do not have a serious problem with Covid; infections are not important and a serious problem and one may argue ‘who cares’ about that number; what is critical is not the fear over infections, it is the hospitalization, ICU use, and deaths, not the number of infections; we need to get a grip and stop the fear mongering; if the infections do not result in consequential cases that need hospitalization or end in death, then we must stop the misinformation, hysteria and fear to the public

Contributing Authors

  • Paul E Alexander, MSc PhD, McMaster University and GUIDE Research Methods Group, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada [email protected]

    Paul E. Alexander received his bachelor’s degree in epidemiology from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, a master’s degree from Oxford University, and a PhD from McMaster University’s Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact.

  • Howard C. Tenenbaum, DDS, Dip. Perio., PhD, FRCD(C) Centre for Advanced Dental Research and Care, Mount Sinai Hospital, and Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada [email protected]

  • Dr. Parvez Dara, MD, MBA, [email protected]

    Reprinted with permission from the main author and American Institute for Economic Research. 

  cdc, covid testing, covid-19, lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccines


How can the Church’s teachings about her own unity be reconciled with the current crisis?

Given the dramatic division amongst those who call themselves Catholics, it is clear that we are faced with an enormous problem. The problem is that this division in the profession of faith amongst persons claiming to be Catholic appears to contradict the Church’s own teaching.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 4:42 pm EST
Featured Image
S.D. Wright

April 16, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — This is the third and final part of a three part series. See Part I for an overview of the Church’s teaching on her own unity, and some examples of modern problems. See Part II for a more in-depth discussion of aspects of this teaching.

Though they may be utter strangers to each other in the flesh, and divided in temporal position as far as men can be divided from their fellow-men, there will be found one and the self-same faith, one and the self-same rule of morals, the self-same sacraments, and the self-same belief respecting those sacraments; there will be found but one mind, one heart, and one voice, as regards all the doctrines and commandments of the Church. This is unity, and it is divine; it is no mere human coincidence or contrivance. The finger of God is here, reversing the confusion of Babel. It is the unity of God's one Church throughout the universal globe; and it has been her unity through more than eighteen centuries and a half. It is a matter to be looked to, and a test to be applied, for the absence of such unity denotes the absence of God.

- The Visible Unity of the Catholic Church Maintained against Opposite Theories Vol I, M.J. Rhodes, 1870 [1]

The Church of Christ – which not only subsists in the Catholic Church, but is exclusively the Catholic Church – is only obscured and eclipsed by a strange extravagant Church established in Rome, according to the vision of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. 

+ Carlo Maria Vigano, 1 September 2020 [2]

Apologia for the previous two articles

Some might disapprove of our exposition of the Church’s teaching on her unity of faith. They might say that events have proved this teaching wrong, exaggerated or misunderstood. They might say that it is time-bound to the early twentieth century, and based on outmoded notions of the Church taken from dusty old manuals, which we are free to reject. They might say that we should be silent in case we endanger people’s faith. Shouldn’t we cover the Church’s nakedness, like Shem and Japheth did to Noah?

To such ideas, we reply: we must believe and share the teaching of the Church in season and out of season. Sharing these ideas should not endanger faith, but rather clarify and strengthen it. 

Remaining silent is also dangerous: not everyone can ignore the apparent contradiction between the facts and the teaching. The absence of clear articulation of these issues has driven people to various extremes, including the catastrophic acceptance of modernist errors against the faith, and the loss of belief in God altogether. This is indeed the progression described by St Pius X in Pascendi:

[…] By how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism. [3]

If the truth is dangerous, then at least it is less dangerous than error.


Without the extensive exposition of the Church’s doctrine on her own unity of faith, it is difficult to understand the nature or extent of the problem of disunity. If we don’t understand the problem, we won’t understand the solution, or our pressing need for one. For this reason, Part I and Part II must be read before reading this part, which could well be misunderstood if read in isolation.

As we demonstrated in both previous parts, the prayer of Christ (“That they all may be one” John 17.21) was, according to Church teaching, the efficacious cause of her own remarkable unity of faith and charity; and this prayer was not a mere wish or aspiration, but rather established an essential property of the Church. [4]

Given the dramatic division amongst those who call themselves Catholics, it is clear that we are faced with an enormous problem. The problem is that this division in the profession of faith amongst persons claiming to be Catholic appears to contradict the Church’s own teaching.

A sports team can tolerate internal divisions with no effect on its continuing existence, or who are its members. But the divisions we face, according to authoritative teaching established in previous articles here and here, cannot and does not exist within the Catholic Church. The Church’s nature is, among other things, one of a society of men visibly professing the same faith. This is an essential definition of her nature and it cannot change. A substantial change in her constitution would be a defection, which would contradict several articles of faith, and forever undermine her reliability as a teacher. 

But this cannot be, for reasons established in the disciplines of apologetics, fundamental theology and ecclesiology. So ultimately, we are faced with two options:

Either we disregard the clear and constant teaching of the Church from her popes and theologians, and we accept that she universally misunderstood her nature for a period, or even for centuries (an option impossible for those wishing to remain Catholics).

Or we recognize that the body of men – even of those appearing to hold authority – that flagrantly deny Catholic teaching are not Catholics, and are not members of the Catholic Church.


The second option means that there are fewer Catholics than one may have previously thought. But this does not contradict any article of the faith, and it is simply the application of what Pius XII taught in Mystici corporis:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. [5]

Note that this is not a gnostic “church of the pure” or the protestant idea of an “invisible church” of the elect. It is the plain teaching of the authors cited throughout the previous parts. It is expressed succinctly by the great Cardinal Louis Billot:

[If] the unity of the profession of faith, which is dependent on the visible authority of the living magisterium, is the essential property by which Christ wanted His Church to be adorned forever, it follows clearly that those cannot be part of the Church who profess differently from what its magisterium teaches. For then there would be a division in the profession of faith, and division is contradictory to unity. [6]

The essence of the problem is that this body of non-Catholics are firmly considered to be in good standing by the institution based in the Vatican. The conclusion that follows from this is dramatic. Let us summarise it in a syllogism:

  1. A body of lay and clerical non-Catholics (mixed with a body of Catholics) are all firmly considered to be Catholics in good standing with an institution (which is therefore externally divided in its profession of faith); 

  2. But the Catholic Church is the body of baptised men who externally profess the same true Faith (in other words, a body of Catholics, of men united in their profession of faith); 

  3. Therefore, we cannot just say, without any qualification, that that organisation taken as a whole is the Roman Catholic Church.

If this is a new idea, please re-read those points, taking note of what the conclusion does and does not say.

It does not say that the Church has defected, and it does not say that the Church has been suddenly and wholly swapped for a false sect, and it does not say that every single bishop in the whole world has lost office, and it does not say that everyone in good standing with that organisation is not a Catholic. It is not a claim that the Catholic Church has lost her visibility, or is some invisible, secret group of chosen gnostics who are superior to everyone else. We reject all of these claims. 

The Church is the visible body of the baptised, who profess the same Catholic faith, and who are governed by legitimate pastors. This body is evidently still in the world, shown in part by the fact that we are discussing the issue. Probably most people who are inclined to read a study like this will be members of that body, and will be visibly so. The Roman Catholic Church is still here, with her essential nature intact – this must be believed with certainty. But this body is eclipsed, in that another body of men are obscuring it, through their false claims to be Catholics. Many have rhetorically called this second body a “false church.” This whole hypothesis may seem far-fetched to some: but it seems more far-fetched to us to claim that the Church’s teaching is wrong or has been misunderstood for centuries.

During an eclipse, the sun remains in existence and visible – materially visible as an object; formally visible as a light through its corona; and distinctly visible as our sun itself, from other parts of space (and indeed elsewhere in the world). The temporary obscuration might make it difficult for a large group of individuals to locate or see it, but that does not affect its objective visibility – not does it change that the moon is objectively not the sun.

What this theory resolves

We will briefly discuss some ways in which this hypothesis resolves key problems.

The Church is visible - but visibly what? She is not just a materially visible organization like any other, but she is distinctly visible as the Church, and visibly one and united. Far from undermining her visibility, this theory defends it. Those who say that a disunited organization is the Catholic Church are essentially denying her visible unity by redefining both visibility and unity. They take the moon eclipsing the sun as one, single object; they redefine the sun to be a floating white ring.

The Roman Catholic Church must be united in her profession of faith: this means that those who are visibly disunited from this profession are not Catholics. This is a necessary conclusion: although the status of any individual is not relevant to the overall argument, namely an organization that is visibly disunited cannot be the Catholic Church. Such an institution could, however, be a merely material grouping of a sect of non-Catholics and the part of the Church that remains materially connected to them, mistakenly taken by many as one body. Once understood, we see that the unity of the Church is preserved, the necessary distinctions are clarified, and our Catholic faith is “renewed like the eagle’s.” (Ps 102.5) 

The unity of faith entails submission to the magisterium: but not to those who are not Catholics and have no teaching or governing authority because they do not hold office. If those who appear to hold office are denying the virgin birth, or the plain meaning of Holy Scripture, giving their blessing to sin, or rejecting or doubting other dogmas, then they are not members, and they do not hold offices in a body of which they are not members. This claim may need to made good elsewhere, but suffice it to say that this is standard Catholic doctrine, and St. Robert Bellarmine says that it is the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and cites the authority of Cyprian, Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Thomas Aquinas, Pope Celestine I and Pope Nicholas I. [7]

This also resolves the paradox that those who have remained Catholic are, by and large, not submissive to those people, and do not take the daily preaching of “the Church” as their proximate rule of faith. It also makes good the claims of some Catholics who are in supposedly “irregular canonical situations.” Being suspended or excommunicated by doubtful authorities has no intrinsic bearing on whether such groups are Catholics or not, nor on their duty to minister to souls. Just as the “material grouping” mentioned above is misleading, so are such merely material divisions here. All stand ready to submit to the voice of the Church when she is clearly heard.

Finally, the external unity of faith is preserved as a motive for credibility of the Church’s claims, even if it is not currently available. Our hypothesis contends that it is obscured, whereas alternatives entail that it has ceased, even if only temporarily. This is untenable for those who wish to remain Catholic.

Although our case is based on doctrine, we cannot neglect to mention that various prophecies and apparitions have touched on the idea of a “counterfeit church” – such as Anne Catherine Emmerich, [8] Our Lady of La Salette, [9] Padre Pio, [10] Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, [11] Fr E. Sylvester Berry, [12] and others. Further, many with public platforms have been using rhetoric about false or counterfeit churches for years. The respected Catholic speaker and writer Frank Sheed even felt the need to address the question by writing his book Is it the Same Church? in 1968. 

It will be for others to develop just what qualifications might need to be made, and to present its further implications. The issue has already been dealt with in great detail by other writers. [13]


Some insist against this idea that there cannot be two churches, because there is only one Church. They say that we cannot talk of a “new church” or a “Bergoglian Church” because, in spite of being occupied by those betraying or twisting the faith, it has not been replaced with a new church.

Aside from wrongly limiting the problems to Francis’s reign, this is to mistake rhetorical terms as a dialectic affirmation that there really are two churches. No-one believes this: there is the Church and a false, ragtag body of non-Catholics obscuring her.

Such critics have also said that there is only one Church, but which contains, in a fragmented sense, different theologies and philosophies. They allow us to talk of a Bergoglian theology, philosophy, morality and religion, but forbid us from referring to it as a new or Bergoglian church. 

Such a distinction does not do the work that its proponents suppose. It is not compatible with the various authorities cited: the Church has tolerated different methodologies in theology, but not different theologies (or indeed religions) in this sense. This is a clear admission of visible disunity – but this is impossible for the Catholic Church. In fact, this has more in common with the Anglican conception of a “broad church.” 

While our hypothesis is dramatic, it does not contradict any aspect of the faith and is indeed the only way key doctrines can be preserved.


In this series of articles we have considered just one aspect of the unity of faith, which is itself only one aspect of the Church’s unity. This is not to give the impression that, as long as someone professes the same Catholic faith, they are thereby a Catholic. Someone can also depart from the Catholic Church through schism or by excommunication. But even just this “aspect of an aspect” demonstrates the enormous problems caused by trying to claim that the institution discussed just is the Catholic Church, with no further qualifications.

How could it be that such a large chunk of the Catholic Church could break away, and yet still be taken by most of the world to remain a part of her? It is as if a sect of non-Catholics have progressively forced their way into sacrilegious pseudo-communion with the Catholic Church – or as if more and more have lost the faith and yet not been properly expelled by authority. How has it happened that the Church has not called them back to the faith, or forced them away and condemned them? How can it be that, while retaining perfect unity of faith amongst her true members, it appears (though impossible) that she is divided in that profession? This mystery is outside the scope of these articles and requires careful prayer and study.

In the meantime, we state again the beautiful passage of Pope Pius XII, which can never be repeated often enough:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. [14]

The hypothesis, that there really is a false body obscuring the Catholic Church and that this is not just rhetoric, may be really very shocking to some. It is, however, the only hypothesis that preserves the Church’s unity of faith – not to mention her credibility in teaching anything at all. 


[1] The Visible Unity of the Catholic Church Maintained against Opposite Theories Vol I, M.J. Rhodes,  1870. p 35


[3] Pascendi Dominici Gregis 39. 

[4] Satis cognitum 6,, Mortalium animos 7.

[5] Mystici corporis Christi 22.

[6] Thesis XI, §1. Translated by Fr Julian Larrabee from de Ecclesia, from a document provided by Mr John Lane.

[7] St Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff: In Five Books Second Edition, translated by Ryan Grant, Mediatrix Press 2017, pp 315-6.

[8] She “saw how […] another dark church arose in Rome.” 

[9] “31. ‘The Church will be eclipsed, the world will be in consternation.” The secret given to Mélanie, translation by Ronald L. Conte Jr, from The Bible and the Future of the World, available at 

[10] Fr Frank Unterhalt states that Padre Pio said the following to Fr Gabriel Amorth: “It is satan who has entered the womb of the Church, and within a short while, he will rule over a false church.” 

[11] “It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. There will be a mystical body of the antichrist, which will resemble in all its externals the Mystical Body of Christ.” Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West, Bobbs-Merril Company, Indianapolis, 1948. Accessed from: 

[12] “The prophecies of the Apocalypse [book of Revelation] show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ.” E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, B. Herder Book Co. London 1927. p 119

[13] Consider the debate these texts:

Fr Jean-Michel Gleize: and 

Mr John Lane: 

Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais (2013):

[14] Mystici corporis Christi 22.


Part I: What does it mean for Catholics to believe in ‘One’ Holy Catholic Apostolic Church?

Part II: What does it mean for the Catholic Church to be visibly one?

Why early 20th-century theology manuals are vital for Catholics today

  crisis in the catholic church, theology


Denying the transcendent turns us into animals, cannibals, or fertilizer

The one thing that’s held as (sort of) ‘transcendent’ is science.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 12:04 pm EST
Featured Image
Abandoned church in North Macedonia Shutterstock
Fr. Michael P. Orsi

April 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Today, in our increasingly secularized world, there’s an ongoing attack on the transcendent. We’re told the only things that exist are those we can see, touch and measure. Nothing exists beyond.

The one thing that’s held as (sort of) “transcendent” is science. A great cliché of our time is the idea of “settled science” — an assortment of theories, most of which actually aren’t all that settled, but are nonetheless put forth as the answers to everything.

This outlook is really just a twist on old-fashioned materialism, and it’s been with us for millennia. But it got a strong boost in the 19th century from Charles Darwin. His pivotal work, On the Origin of Species (1859), laid out a master plan for the evolution of living things. In reality, that plan was no plan at all. Darwin posited that every form of life evolved by sheer chance from some earlier form.

Applying the evolutionary principle, scientists have been able to explain much about our world, and made many remarkable advances. At the same time, a lot of people have drawn the false conclusion that life thus exists on its own. No superior will or intelligence — nothing transcendent — is required to have set the evolutionary process in motion or regulate its progress. Because there is nothing beyond the here and now.

This is the dominant idea being passed on to our young people today (and quite a few older people as well). It’s caused all manner of misbehavior and destruction.

If nothing is transcendent, then there is no external standard of right and wrong by which people can measure their actions. There’s no such thing as sin, because sin can only be identified in reference to the Law of God.

So — no transcendence, no God. No God, no Law. No Law, no sin.

As the great Russian writer, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, put it in his novel, The Brothers Karamazov, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.”

Which brings us immediately to another popular line of thinking: determinism. We do not choose to do wrong, because there is no such thing as free will. Our choices and actions are determined by our biology and our environment. Nothing is universally right or wrong. Any rules that exist are man-made and arbitrary. Or so this (scientific) theory goes.

Yet, we know there must be order in society. Individual action must be restrained, or civil life becomes impossible. Anarchy prevails, and anarchy must be avoided. Without any sort of transcendent moral standard, the only recourse is to the power of government. This has been the path taken in Communist countries and other authoritarian regimes.

We are seeing a movement toward this situation in our own country right now. Anti-Christian, ideologically driven groups such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter are creating chaos in our cities, and threatening to extend that chaos into suburban communities and rural areas.

Our government, corporate, and media elites have provided cover for these activities. The line has been that a little anarchy may be necessary to make America face up to the injustices of our history, and take the proper steps toward reform.

Of course it’s no coincidence that this chaos has been useful to those elites in advancing their own agendas. It will be even more useful when the time comes to crush it, justifying a more complete extension of government power.

Thus, sin raises the danger of anarchy. Anarchy calls forth government power — unrestrained power, that is, since there is no transcendent morality to limit it. And the exercise of that power leads to totalitarianism. Throughout history the result of this process has been endless human suffering, all as a result of denying the transcendent.

— 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

So fundamental is this denial that it corrupts not only politics but even science itself. Three recent developments will illustrate:

  • Researchers have combined human and monkey genes with the goal of creating therapeutic stem cells.
  • Genetic research has given rise to what’s called the Laboratory-Grown Meat Industry. This new business is synthesizing food from the cultured tissues of animals and even human beings.
  • There is a movement to legalize composting of the human body after death (it’s already being done in Washington State) through an accelerated process of decomposition.

These undertakings, born of the materialist mindset, reduce us to the status of animals, cannibals, or even just fertilizer. Such are the consequences of denying the transcendent.

A priest of the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, Rev. Michael P. Orsi currently serves as parochial vicar at St. Agnes Parish in Naples, Florida. He is host of “Action for Life TV,” a weekly cable television series devoted to pro-life issues, and his writings appear in numerous publications and online journals. His TV show episodes can be viewed HERE.

  charles darwin, science, transcendence


COVID vaccines, the common good, and moral liceity: A response to Professor de Mattei — Part I

By now, it should be perfectly obvious that the argument for COVID vaccination as necessary to protect 'the commongood' has no credible basis. Even the promised benefit of these vaccines for individual symptom alleviation — the only promise ever made, which de Mattei does not appear to recognize — is fast eroding, with endless abortion-derived 'booster shots' in the offing.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 10:02 am EST
Featured Image
Christopher A. Ferrara
By Christopher Ferrara

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

April 23, 2021 (Catholic Family News) – Introduction    I have great admiration for Roberto de Mattei. I admire him for his intellect, his first-class historical scholarship, and his courageous defense of unpopular positions, including a thoroughgoing critique of the post-conciliar divagation of the Church from the path of Tradition (with an appropriate emphasis on the disastrous Bergoglian pontificate), his opposition to the pseudoscience of evolution (a secular creation myth), and his willingness to call the intrinsic disorder of homosexuality what it is: a “contagion” that contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire. His willingness to speak the truth amidst today’s career-ending “cancel culture” has cost him dearly in terms of mainstream respectability in the Church, causing him to be characterized as the ultimate ecclesial undesirable: an “ultra-traditionalist.”

Yet despite my admiration for Professor de Mattei, I feel compelled to join the critics of his astonishing apologia for government imposition of “mass vaccination” with abortion-derived COVID vaccines that are dubiously effective, potentially and actually harmful, and in the vast majority of cases not even medically necessary, as the following discussion will show. In his “Moral Liceity of the Vaccination Against Covid” (MLV), Professor de Mattei asserts, “If those governing consider that the common good of the population requires mass vaccination, they have a right to impose it, according to the principle that the common good takes precedence over the good of individuals, of course providing that they do not legislate against the Christian natural order.” (MLV, p. 55).

MLV (pp. 53-54) even goes so far as to provide a pro-compulsory vaccination gloss to the CDF declaration of December 21, 2020 concerning COVID vaccines, which, quite to the contrary of Prof. de Mattei’s position, states: “It is evident, in the light of practical reason, that the vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and must therefore be voluntary,” adding only that if the common good so indicates then “it is good to permit recommendation of vaccination, in particular to protect those who are weakest and more exposed.” MLV somehow construes this merely precatory advice to mean that “the argument that it would, in principle, be illicit to impose an obligation of vaccination against Covid or other diseases, is a liberal argument, which does not correspond to Catholic doctrine” because it supposedly neglects the common good. (MLV, p. 54).

But MLV goes still further, belittling Catholic objections to a state-imposed “medical dictatorship” and suggesting that the tyrannical COVID-19 “lockdowns” afflicting the entire Western world are warranted, citing inapt historical examples of brief, localized epidemic controls in the 19th century before the dawn of modern medicine (MLV, pp. 58-59). Thus, in responding to MLV, it seems appropriate to first address the political, social, spiritual, economic, juridical, and even medical indefensibility of the COVID-19 status quo as a whole, compulsory mass vaccination included, before any consideration of the supposed moral liceity of vaccines developed and produced using cell lines derived from various parts of the bodies of children murdered by abortion.

COVID-19 lockdowns: A crime against humanity

Consider, at the outset, MLV’s apparent concessions to the totalizing authority of the modern secular state, with its false notion of the “common good” and its tyrannical abuse of the term “emergency” as seen in the greatest public policy debacle in modern political history (outside of outright Communist or Socialist regimes): endless, immensely destructive “lockdowns” of civil society and the State’s micromanagement of virtually every aspect of people’s lives, including divine worship. This veritable crime against humanity, which I have opposed in numerous civil tribunals in the United States as a civil rights attorney, has been perpetrated on the pretext of “containing” a viral illness no more containable than influenza, with a median infection fatality rate (IFR) of .27% (less than 3/10th of 1%) even with a survey bias toward “locations with high death tolls.” [1] And, as shown below, only 2/10th of 1% of the US population has even arguably died from the virus, with those deaths heavily concentrated among the very elderly with life-shortening comorbidities, nearing the end of their life expectancy.

Never before in the history of epidemics and pandemics, and on such dubious grounds, have entire nations been subjected to a universal quarantine of the vast majority of the healthy along with a tiny minority of the sick, amounting to the de facto house arrest of the better part of a billion healthy people in Western nations under threat of criminal penalty. These intolerably oppressive “sanitary dictatorships” have caused incalculable harm precisely to the common good: deprivation of divine worship and the sacraments, even for the dying; loss of livelihood, widespread bankruptcy, and impoverishment; alienation, loneliness, depression; and increases in suicide, drug abuse, and domestic violence. And what is more, innumerable excess deaths resulting from an official obsession with COVID that turns nursing homes into locked-down COVID-19 incubators and defers diagnosis and treatment of diseases that would have been curable had they been caught in time.

Yet MLV (pp. 58-59) implicitly defends COVID-19 lockdowns throughout virtually the entire Western world on the basis of the historical example of strict but localized and brief quarantine measures imposed on the Papal States by Pope Gregory XVI during the Italian cholera epidemic of 1837. The endless stream of outrages the modern state system is inflicting on hundreds of millions of people in the name of “containing the spread” of COVID-19 — an effort about as successful as containing the wind — can hardly be equated with Pope Gregory’s erection of some military barricades, a 14-day quarantine, and a temporary suspension of large religious festivals and other gatherings (but no suspension of attendance at Mass) during a three-month epidemic. What entire populations are needlessly forced to suffer today is a far cry from merely “clos[ing] borders to protect national health” or requiring “a medical certificate from non-EU immigrants wishing to cross our borders[.]” (MLV, p. 58). In fact, those very measures are rejected as “xenophobic” by today’s left-liberal regimes, now including the United States — the same regimes that impose tyrannical restraints on their own citizens rather than controlling immigration (for which effort President Donald Trump was ceaselessly denounced).

Moreover, in the 19th century cholera was an untreatable disease with infection and case fatality rates that dwarf those of COVID-19. In the city of Forio, for example, 316 people out of 5500 — nearly six percent of the total population — died during the 1837 outbreak. [2] By comparison, COVID-19 has proven fatal to 2/10th of 1% (0.2%) of Italy’s population (115,000/60,000,000) and less than 2/10th of 1% of the US population (547,000/320,000,000), with one-third or more of total deaths occurring in nursing homes in which the victims were imprisoned under government policies, allowing the virus to spread like wildfire among very elderly, already ailing residents nearing the end of their lifespans. [3] These death tolls are a fraction of those from cancer or heart disease, from which many of the COVID patients who died were already suffering.

To recognize these facts is not to “deny the existence of the pandemic,” as MLV rather demagogically suggests (p. 49), but is rather to recognize its true scope and what that should mean for a sane public policy, which certainly does not require vaccination of the entire Western world. Let us look a little more deeply into the epidemiological truth of the matter.

Obscuring the truth with statistical dishonesty

As I have demonstrated in civil litigation, even the official COVID death tolls showing the limited scope of the pandemic are patently unreliable, conflated statistics that vastly exaggerate the virus’s role in mortality among the only cohort that has ever been at widespread risk from it: those over age 70 who are already suffering from multiple life-shortening comorbidities. In the United States, for example, the CDC’s Table 1 of deaths “involving” COVID-19, which is stated to be 547,724 as of April 16, 2021 notes that “COVID-19 deaths are identified using a new ICD–10 code. When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death — or when it is listed as a ‘probable’ or ‘presumed’ cause — the death is coded as U07.1. This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation.”

This “new code” departs from all prior death-reporting practice by establishing the rule of “when in doubt, call it COVID.” No one would seriously advocate tabulating as cancer deaths “probable or presumed” deaths from cancer “with or without laboratory confirmation.” But such is the statistical dishonesty that prevails when it comes to COVID-19 — and COVID-19 alone, in all the history of mortality statistics. In short, statistical reporting on COVID-19 deaths (it would appear by design) makes it impossible to assess the true lethality of the virus standing alone, although its lethality is not to be doubted.

This much, however, is certain: COVID-19 has never been a significant threat to the vast majority of the population, as is cholera in the undeveloped world, which has an IFR of 50-60% if left untreated. In Italy, for example, of the 116,000 deaths attributed (very loosely, at that) to COVID-19, fewer than 15,000 have occurred among those younger than 70 and fewer than 5,000 among those younger than 60. [4] Below age 70, therefore, COVID-related deaths do not amount to a statistically significant deviation from Italy’s recent average annual death toll of 630,000, whereas COVID-attributed deaths in Italy clearly overlap deaths from heart disease, cancer, and other terminal conditions. [5] Given these facts, it is the height of institutional insanity to lock down the entire nation of Italy (population 60,000,000) instead of focusing protection on the elderly while the rest of the population lead normal lives, as numerous prominent physicians and epidemiologists from the world’s most prestigious institutions have been advocating since last October. [6] With good reason are Italians, after a year of this insanity, rioting in the streets.

Given the muddled and unreliable COVID death statistics, one way of getting at the truth about the gravity of this pandemic is to examine the data on annual “excess deaths” overall, meaning the number of deaths in excess of those to be expected according to national statistical trends in mortality. A study recently published by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany shows that in 2017 there were 470,700 excess deaths in the United States, resulting in a total loss of 13 million additional years of life, whereas for the year 2020 the CDC estimated excess deaths “involving” COVID at 376,504. Given the advanced age of COVID victims, with deaths especially heavily concentrated in the 85+ cohort, “In 2017 excess deaths and years of life lost in the United States represent a larger annual loss of life than that associated with the COVID-19 epidemic in 2020.” [7]

It might be objected that this statistical focus is ghoulish, but it is precisely statistics and statistical dishonesty that have driven media hysteria and unprecedented governmental suppression of basic human liberties, including the very worship of God. Statistical manipulation is essential to the official narrative that depicts COVID-19 as a world-ending plague justifying open-ended impositions on human liberty, including suppression of divine worship, by the same militantly anti-Christian governments Prof. de Mattei inexplicably seems to trust as good-faith defenders of “the common good.” (Cf. MLV pp. 51, 53, 54, 55, 58, 60, 62).

The Common Good does not require abortion-derived COVID vaccines

Turning to COVID vaccinations in particular, MLV’s references (pp. 55-56) to historical examples of the localized imposition of compulsory vaccinations for smallpox in Naples, Palermo, and the Papal States in the early 19th century — untreated smallpox having a staggering IFR of 30% even today [8] — hardly provide a current warrant for “vaccination for all” (p. 57), including children, with experimental, abortion-derived COVID vaccines. As to children, even left-leaning “fact checkers” are forced to admit that they are far more at risk from influenza than from COVID.  [9] And yet there is no mandatory flu vaccination for children—or anyone else, for that matter, not even the most vulnerable elderly, who die of influenza by the tens of thousands every year.

Yet MLV appears to accept as a given that compulsory mass vaccination for COVID-19 is necessary for the common good. That assertion has been launched into the Catholic world with no apparent consideration of the limited utility of these vaccines, as their own manufacturers admit. None of the COVID-19 vaccines now being administered indiscriminately to young and old alike on the basis of “emergency use” were even tested during trials for prevention or transmission of infection, but only for reduction of symptoms in infected individuals. There is no hard scientific evidence that vaccines not even designed for that purpose will stop or even limit the spread of the virus in the community at large.

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

On the contrary, as an article in the prestigious journal Nature admits: “It’s possible that vaccines won’t stop or significantly lessen the chances of infection. But jabs might make infected people less able to pass the virus on, or make them less infectious, and so reduce transmission.” [10] Studies thus far are limited and tentative, whereas the hard data supplied to the FDA by Moderna, for example, shows a statistically trivial difference in asymptomatic cases in the vaccinated group of around 14,000 versus an unvaccinated control group of the same size. [11] As a report by Reuters concludes: “[T]here is currently no conclusive evidence to claim the COVID-19 vaccine stops people spreading the virus that causes the disease — nor is there for the opposite.” [12]

It is hardly surprising, then, that Chile, which leads the world in mass vaccinations for COVID, has seen no slackening in the rise of COVID-19 “cases” —the word “cases” being itself a fear-mongering abuse of terminology to denote mere positive PCR test results rather than actual cases of clinical illness (a “casedemic” rather than a pandemic). On the contrary, as of April 16 there has been a record-breaking “spike” in “cases” — now up to 1.1 million. It is clear that the vaccines have had no lessening effect on widespread transmission, which is the unstoppable natural course of a virus in any case, leading to herd immunity. “We never said vaccination was going to be the only answer,” protested Chile’s Health Minister Enrique Paris. “We have to vaccinate, but we also have to remain mindful of other things like reduced mobility, wearing masks, washing our hands and social distancing so that the virus doesn’t get disseminated.” [13] In other words, the vaccines have proven useless for preventing viral transmission. Even after mass vaccinations, nothing changes in the COVID-19 regime.

Hence in the United States, where vaccination mania has reached farcical proportions, “health experts” [14] and their media collaborators, [15] led by the insufferable Anthony Fauci, [16] now unanimously declare that even with vaccination one must still wear masks in public (nay, two masks [17]), practice “social distancing” of six feet (the arbitrary rule that seems to have dropped from the sky), and avoid large gatherings for the foreseeable future, or perhaps forever. Even more ludicrously, the government, the “experts,” and the media have begun floating claims that “variants” of the virus may escape the current vaccines and that new abortion-derived vaccines, administered annually, will be necessary, along with new lockdowns. [18] Meanwhile, Pfizer has just announced that a third dose of what was supposed to be a two-dose vaccine will be required in the next six to 12 months, with annual revaccinations thereafter, including “booster shots” for “variants.” [19] And all of this for a vaccine that cannot even be guaranteed to prevent viral spread! But there is certainly a lot of money to be made by the purveyors of abortion-derived COVID vaccines.

By now, it should be perfectly obvious that the argument for COVID vaccination as necessary to protect “the commongood” has no credible basis. Even the promised benefit of these vaccines for individual symptom alleviation — the only promise ever made, which MLV does not appear to recognize — is fast eroding, with endless abortion-derived “booster shots” in the offing.

That the COVID vaccines, by the government’s own admission, are essentially useless for preventing the natural and inevitable course of viral spread brings to the fore growing evidence of dangerous defects in these hastily authorized, abortion-derived therapeutics. At this very moment, even the politically corrupted FDA has recommended “a pause” in the use of Johnson & Johnson’s experimental abortion-derived vaccine (all COVID vaccines being experimental) because a number of people who have taken it, particularly women of child-bearing age, are suffering a rare, and in some cases fatal, blood-clotting disorder. [20] AstraZeneca’s abortion-derived vaccine is causing the same potentially fatal disorder in Europe, prompting “a cascading number of European countries” to suspend its use. [21] Dr. Richard Kuhn, a Purdue University virologist, observes of the US and European incidents that “it does seem the vaccine triggers an antibody response that activates platelets, leading to clots.” [22]

The EudraVigilance database of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) already records 7,000 COVID vaccine-related reports of death: 4,036 deaths after inoculation with Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, 1,922 deaths after Moderna’s vaccine was administered, and 1,234 deaths following injection with AstraZeneca’s product. In the United States, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) already records 3,005 deaths and 56,869 “adverse events” from coronavirus injections, including “620 instances of Bell’s Palsy and 110 post-vaccination miscarriages.” [23] The reported deaths and adverse events are probably a fraction of the total number.

Evincing corporate knowledge of just how dangerous their experimental abortion-derived vaccines could turn out to be, Big Pharma, in partnership with Big Government, has arranged total immunity for itself under the PREP Act against claims for COVID vaccine-related injury and death, forcing the victims to have recourse to the same federal government fund which has almost never paid even the limited amount allowed for PREP Act claims against pharmaceutical giants. [24]

Also missing from MLV’s resolutely pro-COVID vaccine commentary is any mention of the dishonest manner in which emergency use authorization (EUA) was obtained for these vaccines in the first place. An EUA is obtainable by a drug manufacturer only if “there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives” for treatment of a disease. [25] But there are several alternatives for treatment which the industry-captured FDA could have approved, if not for political interference clearly intended to leave no alternative but abortion-derived vaccines.

Consider, first of all, hydroxychloroquine combined with zinc, which happens to be the standard of care for early onset COVID throughout Asia, where COVID-related deaths are far lower per capita than in the West. As one white paper observes, while hydroxychloroquine “has somehow become a political football in the West” — merely because Trump endorsed it, as everyone knows — Asian countries have employed it with great success in the early stages of infection. [26] Even Italy has reconsidered its politics-driven rejection of hydroxychloroquine. As the journal Nature reports: “Doctors in Italy are once again authorized to prescribe hydroxychloroquine to COVID-19 patients,” following a December 2020 decision by the Consiglio di Stato, Italy’s highest administrative court, which lifted an earlier idiotic health agency ban. [27]

My own father received hydroxychloroquine and zinc in the New Jersey nursing home in which he was trapped by the state’s COVID regime, causing him to contract the virus from infected residents. His death in the hospital at age 96 was caused by kidney failure due to chronic dehydration during the lockdown, not the COVID-19 he contracted in the nursing home, of which he showed no symptoms after the administration of hydroxychloroquine. But, given the statistical dishonesty noted above, his death certificate states that respiratory failure due to COVID-19 was the cause of death — a blatant lie, perhaps incentivized by higher hospital reimbursements for COVID-related deaths.

In the United States, however, the FDA, succumbing to political pressure from the Trump-hating media, the Democrats, and Big Pharma revoked its EUA for off-label hydroxychloroquine used to treat COVID in June of 2020. [28] Yet study after study has shown the therapy to be highly effective if administered early enough. [29] Not persuasively to the contrary are a spate of hastily done studies claiming to show no benefit, including a shoddy piece of work in The Lancet that had to be retracted — a huge embarrassment for that august journal — because the authors had made errors “a first year statistics major” could spot. [30] As one commentator rightly observed: “It seems to me that in the effort to disprove Trump, some of these studies involving chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine have been politicized. I’d take any results with a huge spoonful of salt. Such a shame, I expect better of the scientific community, do not let politics affect the objectivity of a study. And I’m saying this as someone who doesn’t even like Trump.” [31]

Also available as an alternative treatment is Ivermectin, the widely hailed, Nobel Prize-winning “wonder drug” derived from a microorganism found in Japanese soil and already FDA-approved for anti-parasitic uses. There is powerful evidence from numerous studies, both observational and randomized-controlled, of major improvement in outcomes, including dramatically lower mortality, from prophylactic, early, and even late treatment. [32] Despite a fusillade of criticism from Big Pharma, the Democrats, the media and the FDA, similar to the anti-Trump establishment’s jihad against hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin is in use throughout the world for treatment of COVID-19. [33] In testimony before Congress, Dr. Pierre Kory, who has treated his patients with Ivermectin, called it a “miracle” that “basically obliterates transmission of this virus.” [34] The video of his testimony was censored by YouTube, evincing the steely determination of the powers that be to allow people to die for lack of a treatment that might have saved them so that COVID vaccines can be portrayed as the only option.

Inexplicable naivete regarding the COVID-19 regimes

While the foregoing facts show that abortion-derived COVID vaccines are, according to the government’s own intimations, basically worthless as measures for the common good, they are serving quite well as instruments for population control via the “vaccine passports” now being threatened by the State and already being required by corporate hegemons, employers, and mass venues with the State’s encouragement. Yet Prof. de Mattei scoffs at the idea that vaccines could be part of a “macro-conspiracy causing damage to humanity…” (MLV, p. 50). And, at Rorate Caeli, he defends his booklet by depicting its critics as “anti-vax” in general, belittling their protests against a “sanitary dictatorship” by placing that phrase between contemptuous quotation marks, [35] while surely aware that Bishop Athanasius Schneider has rightly condemned a global “sanitary dictatorship” [36] whose existence is self-evident. He further suggests that his critics are partisans of a baseless “conspiracy” theory who should (it would appear) simply place their trust in Big Government and Big Pharma. How dispiriting it is to see Prof. de Mattei resort to demagogic pejoratives (e.g., “anti-vaxer,” “conspiracy theorist”) which he must know are the kiss of death in the court of public opinion. Would he appreciate being denominated a “militant vaxer,” a “Covidian,” or an apologist for “coronafascism”?

As for the subject of “a macro-conspiracy causing damage to humanity,” Prof. de Mattei surely knows that the word conspiracy is derived from the Latin conspirare, meaning “to breathe together,” which connotes much more than the caricature of secret meetings of sinister figures in underground lairs or private islands. And, just as surely, he knows that the entire course of human history since the overthrow of Altar and Throne has been a breathing together of those forces, both public and private, that seek to “damage humanity” by subordinating everyone and everything to the power of the secular state. The same secular state that closes the churches in the name of containing a virus while abortion mills, marijuana dispensaries, and liquor stores remain open — and that exempts Muslims during Ramadan but not Christians during Easter from draconian limits on the size of public gatherings [37] — is hardly the trustworthy authority on protecting the common good that Prof. de Mattei seems to presume it is.

On this score, Prof. de Mattei would do well to review such evidence of the powers that be “breathing together” as a remarkable document entitled “The SPARS Epidemic of 2025-2028” (SPARS) published by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in October 2017, during the first year of the Trump administration. This “futuristic scenario for public health risk communicators” presents an imaginary novel coronavirus pandemic and provides a literal playbook for persuading the public to submit to mass vaccinations with “novel and/or investigational drugs” that turn out to have serious side effects. By way of sample documents and hypothetical scenarios, SPARS eerily anticipates, more than two years before the emergence of COVID-19, the very elements of the COVID-19 regimes that now oppress hundreds of millions of souls:

How to handle internet sources that contradict the official narrative and are consulted by people who “interact only with those with whom they agree…” (p. 1)

A hypothetical news article and “health alert” about a “novel coronavirus,” called SPARS, first contracted by churchgoers, and which is declared impossible to contain by the usual measures, as shown by “spikes” when people leave their homes on Thanksgiving Day. (pp. 5, 8)

Government-subsidized trials for novel SPARS vaccines, with emergency use authorization and immunity from liability under the PREP Act. (p. 12)

Hypothetical alternative source news coverage arousing opposition when the public learns that the new vaccine does not actually prevent or reduce viral transmission (p. 14), and advice on using social media to counteract this bad publicity (p. 18). [38]

A scenario dealing with news of serious and even deadly side effects from a novel SPARS vaccine, called “Corovax,” including negative statements by “Several members of Congress” who are using social media “to spread their own personal beliefs under the guise of public positions.” (pp. 19-20)

Points for discussion on how government and health experts can promote Corovax as “the antiviral of choice” despite public fears. (p. 24)

Using celebrities, hip-hop stars, and a former President to promote Corovax after the public realizes that the fatality rate for SPARS is not as high as originally depicted. (pp. 26)

The need for “highly visible figures” to be seen being vaccinated. (pp. 26, 28)

Government control of the narrative through social media outlets, countering critical message board threads and not neglecting “several popular platforms” where a counter-narrative is flourishing. (pp. 29-30)

Pushing back against criticism of the FDA and the health experts on “Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Vine, and ZapQ,” where people are saying that “the changing messages merely proved that scientists knew very little about how to deal with SPARS” and “the burgeoning natural medicine movement” is gaining traction. (pp. 31-32)

Dealing with “waning public confidence in official statements about antiviral risks and benefits” and “how authorities [can] best lay the groundwork for the release” of Corovax. (pp. 34-34)

How to respond to “Republican ZapQ groups” widely reporting on protests against public health policy as “yet another example of liberal politics at work,” causing “Republicans [to stop] following the news feeds and Twitter accounts of their state and local public health departments.” (pp. 33-34)

Government monitoring and presence at social media sites to counter the “growing trend of people building their own ‘situational awareness’ of an event via social media…” (pp. 39-40)

Dealing with religious objections to how Corovax was developed (using the thinly veiled example of Muslims objecting to the vaccine because it is derived from one used on pigs). (p. 44)

Manipulating Google searches and YouTube videos depicting negative effects of the Corovax so as to force viewers to look at contrary positive content before accessing what they have chosen to view, an initiative that “required government officials to leverage relationships in the information technology industry, including the many companies involved with social media…” (p. 55)

Handling the worrisome development that once Corovax distribution began, “the anti-vaccination movement mobilized their resources” and began “spreading the message that Corovax was inadequately tested and had unknown, long-term side effects…” (pp. 43-44)

Dealing with the public’s discussions on Facebook, Tumblr, Snapchat, YouTube, and ZapQ forums about “growing concern over Corovax’s side effects.” (pp. 45-46)

Showcasing examples of formerly anti-vax politicians who “redeemed” themselves by submitting to vaccination. (p. 47)

Communication strategies for “breaking into, and engaging with otherwise self-isolating groups who oppose” the vaccine “and might be placing themselves and others at risk during the outbreak…” (p. 48)

Communication strategies to deal with emerging neurological symptoms and other long-term effects of Corovax and the public outcry when the PREP Act fund appears to be inadequate for compensation of victims. (pp. 60-63)

A public relations strategy for consoling victims of harm from the vaccine, including a Presidential address “to acknowledge the sacrifice that vaccine recipients had made on behalf of their communities or to console them in their grief over that sacrifice.” (pp. 64-65)

Dealing with “Conspiracy theories” that the virus causing the pandemic had “escaped from a government lab secretly testing bioweapons.” (p. 66)

It is stunning that the SPARS document appeared more than two years before anyone heard anything about a “novel coronavirus” that would upend our world with an endless “health emergency” that has played out almost exactly like this “war games” scenario. One could not ask for better evidence that the COVID-19 regimes now in place were long in the planning, including the maniacal push to inoculate the entire planet with a novel vaccine — again and again, no less.

Only an inexplicable naivete in an otherwise acute critic of political modernity could explain MLV’s passive acceptance of the COVID-19 status quo as simply government protecting the common good rather than the long-awaited paradigm of the Great Reset that, of course, Pope Bergoglio incessantly promotes, as the World Economic Forum is pleased to note in an article entitled, “Here’s the pope’s prescription for resetting the global economy in response to COVID-19”.

Perhaps the same naivete would explain why someone who is also an acute critic of the Bergoglian pontificate would draw no adverse inferences from an upcoming Vatican conference on “Global Health” featuring addresses by the CEOs of Moderna and Pfizer (mass marketers and distributors of abortion-derived COVID vaccines), the pro-abortion Chelsea Clinton, the omnipresent Anthony Fauci (a petty tyrant and flack for the pharmaceutical industry), the Vice President of Google Health and, for his own special insights into “global health,” Joe Perry of Aerosmith, who has no doubt  “taken the jab” in order to provide the celebrity example the SPARS document foresees.

One session on the agenda is “Religion and the Pandemic,” in which “Religious leaders discuss topics ranging from why we have a pandemic to our social responsibilities…and how we can have an impact.” Tellingly, there will be no discussion of the tyrannical suppression of religion by the COVID-19 regimes. Which regimes Bergoglio — who dons a useless ceremonial face mask at the appropriate times — also defends, with dreary predictability, including an Op Ed in the New York Times in which he “slams anti-lockdown protesters.” [39]


Given all the points presented here, I am mystified as to how Prof. de Mattei cannot see that the COVID vaccine issue arises in the context of a never-ending “quarantine theater” of the absurd in which the more restrictions and demands the government imposes the more distant the goal of a return to normality and restoration of basic human freedoms becomes — because the COVID-19 regimes were never about the common good but rather the “New Normal” of the Great Reset, in which universal vaccines originating in abortion would serve as a kind of unholy communion.

Heedless of facts indicating that abortion-derived vaccines are not at all essential to protecting the common good, MLV uncritically adopts the line of Big Government and Big Pharma, dismissing all objections to the program as merely the view of “a small minority… generally speaking, made up of doctors with little authority, seeking media exposure and unable to provide documented evidence for their claims.” (MLV p. 50). Prof. de Mattei is an otherwise subtle thinker, but it is the worst sort of polemical crudeness to dismiss as mere publicity seekers frontline treating physicians, scientists, and other well-informed critics of an unprecedented worldwide government push for inoculation with abortion-derived vaccines that are not even shown to prevent viral spread and are already demonstrating life-threatening side effects causing widespread suspension of their use.

The factual context I have sketched in this Part I should suffice to indicate that, socially, spiritually, politically, juridically and even medically speaking, MLV defends a status quo that is really quite indefensible, even before we arrive at the purely moral problems presented by vaccines that would not exist if children had not been murdered in the womb. One wonders why, therefore, Prof. de Mattei even considered it necessary to argue at such length for the “moral liceity” of abortion-derived COVID vaccines, to which argument I will turn in Part II of this series.

To be continued.

Reprinted with permission from Catholic Family News

[1] John P. Ioannidis, “Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data,” Bulletin of World Health Organization, Oct. 14, 2020 (revised version, p. 7).

[2] Cf. Pascal James Imperato, “The Second World Cholera Pandemic (1826-1849) in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies with Special Reference to the Towns of San Prisco and Forio d’Ischia,” Journal of Community Health, Dec. 2015.

[3] Cf. “One-Third of U.S. Coronavirus Deaths Are Linked to Nursing Homes,” NY Times, Mar. 31, 2021.

[4] Cf.

[5] Cf.

[6] Cf. “Great Barrington Declaration,” whose signatories include faculty members at Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, and Cambridge.

[7] Samuel H. Preston and Yana C. Vierboom, “Excess mortality in the United States in the 21st century,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (for Apr. 20, 2021).

[8] Cf. World Health Organization, “Smallpox”.

[9] Cf. Phil Galewitz, “True or False? DeSantis Says COVID is a Lower Risk for School-Aged Kids than Flu,” Kaiser Health News, Aug. 20, 2020. (“For children 14 and younger, Florida’s COVID-19 mortality rate is 0.009%, far below the 0.01% for flu for that age group.)

[10] Smriti Mallapaty, “Can COVID vaccines stop transmission? Scientists race to find answers,” Nature, Feb. 19, 2021.

[11] “Do Coronavirus vaccines stop coronavirus transmission? Here’s what research says,” Advisory Board, Mar. 4, 2021. (“For its part, Moderna found in its supplemental research submitted to FDA—based on nasal swab test data—that only 14 of the 14,134 people given its vaccine had an asymptomatic case of Covid-19, compared with 38 of the 14,073 people in the control group.”)

[12] “Fact check: Scientists do not yet know whether the COVID-19 vaccine reduces transmission of the virus,” Reuters, Jan. 18, 2021.

[13] Rafael Romo, “Chile’s vaccination rollout was fast and broad. So why are COVID-19 cases spiking?”, CNN, Apr. 15, 2021.

[14] Cf. Katie Kerwin McCrimmon, “Keep wearing a mask even after getting your COVID-19 vaccine,” UCHealth, Jan. 20, 2021.

[15] Cf. Apoorva Mandavilli, “Here’s Why Vaccinated People Still Need to Wear a Mask,” NY Times, Dec. 8, 2020 (updated Apr. 2, 2021).

[16] “Dr. Fauci Explains Why You Should Still Wear a Mask After Getting the COVID Vaccine,” NBC Chicago, Mar. 5, 2021.

[17] Cf. Adrianna Rodriguez, “Are two masks better than one? Double masking ‘just makes common sense’ to help prevent COVID-19 spread, Fauci says,” USA Today, Jan. 26, 2021.

[18] Cf. Apoorva Mandavilli and Benjamin Mueller, “Virus Variants Threaten to Draw Out the Pandemic, Scientists Say,” NY Times, Apr. 3, 2021.

[19] Berkeley Lovelace, Jr., “Pfizer CEO says third Covid vaccine dose likely needed within 12 months,” CNBC, Apr. 15, 2021.

[20] Cf. “Joint CDC and FDA Statement on Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine,” Apr. 13, 2021.

[21] Frank Jordans, “Major European nations suspend use of AstraZeneca vaccine,” Associated Press, Mar. 15, 2021.

[22] Dr. Amanda Benarroch, “Scientists exploring possible link between Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca vaccine blood clot issues,” ABC News, April, 17, 2021.

[23] Raymond Wolfe, “10,000+ deaths after COVID shots reported by U.S., European agencies,” LifeSiteNews, April 14, 2021.

[24] Cf. MacKenzie Sigalos, “You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won’t compensate you for damages either,” CNBC, Dec. 17, 2020.

[25] FDA, “Emergency Use Authorization”.

[26] Dr. Christina Lin, “Why do Asian countries use hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 despite Western rejection?”, ISPSW Strategy Series, Issue No. 711, Aug. 2020.

[27] Fabio Turone, “Ruling gives green light for controversial COVID-19 therapy,” Nature, Dec. 18, 2020.

[28] Cf. FDA News Release, “Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine,” June 15, 2020.

[29] See, e.g., (“Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows”) and See also (on the use of); (on the science of); (general info).

[30] Erika Edwards, “The Lancet retracts large study on hydroxychloroquine,” NBC News, June 4, 2020.

[31] Cf.

[32] Cf. FLCCC Alliance, “Ivermectin in COVID-19”. See also (collecting studies).

[33] Ibid. (map of countries and regions adopting Ivermectin).

[34] Cf. U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hearing, “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution, Part II,” Dec. 8, 2020. Video of Dr. Kory’s testimony is also available here.

[35] “Roberto de Mattei: 10 Questions to All Those Holding the ‘Anti-Vax’ Position,” Rorate Caeli, Apr. 9, 2021.

[36] “Bishop Schneider: Living Faith When Public Worship is Prohibited,” Mar. 24, 2020.

[37] Chris Tomlinson, “French Police Instructed to Bend Lockdown Rules for Muslims During Ramadan,” Brietbart, Apr. 17, 2021.

[38] Anthony Fauci did exactly that in response to Tucker Carlson’s query about why masks and social distancing are necessary if the vaccine really works. (CNN interview, Apr. 14, 2021,

[39] Oma Seddiq, “Pope Francis slams anti-lockdown protesters and praises healthcare workers in New York Times op-ed,” Business Insider, Nov. 27, 2020.

  abortion, abortion-tainted vaccines, catholic, catholic family news, common good, covid-19 lockdowns, covid-19 restrictions, covid-19 vaccine, great reset, moderna, pfizer, roberto de mattei, vatican, world economic forum


Fear of COVID-19 and blind acceptance of the ‘vaccines’ threaten to tear apart American families

Throughout history, parents and grandparents have striven above all to protect their progeny, but with the onslaught of mass media, toxic social media, and the wholesale censorship by those who control what and how information is disseminated to the public, the once revered wise counsel of the storied family trust has been sorely dissipated. 
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 9:15 am EST
Featured Image
Patricia McCarthy
By Patricia McCarthy

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

April 23, 2021 (American Thinker) – It would be funny if the stakes were not so high, but political differences within families seem to fall along the same lines as party differences.  Who could have predicted that all those Trump-haters who swore they would never submit to a vaccine that President Trump had brought to market with Operation Warp Speed are those who now are lining up like bleating sheep to get vaccines that are experimental?  Or that millions of those who support the former president are much more likely to be wary of the four vaccines now available?

All one has to do is visit the websites of the vaccine-manufacturers themselves to discover that those Big Pharma companies do not claim that their jabs can prevent COVID or its transmission.  They claim only that they may reduce the severity of symptoms.  

And as the number of serious adverse reactions and even deaths by vaccine mount, those who have succumbed to the media fear-mongering and Biden administration heavy-handed promotion still ignore the many, many obvious factors that mitigate against all four of the vaccines, all of which may have serious consequences down the road when other viruses come along.

Those of us of a certain age are perhaps more likely to research the vaccines than younger generations, and conservatives are certainly more likely to be suspicious of anything the government pushes so aggressively, especially when tried and true, inexpensive, and effective treatment is available.

As Dr. Ryan Cole notes in his short video advising against the vaccines, it is illegal to produce a vaccine for an illness for which there is treatment.  Dr. Cole reminds as well that these are not vaccines, but a form of gene therapy.  The oh, so disingenuous Dr. Fauci should soon fall from grace for his shameless promotion of the vaccines in which he has a financial interest, and his relentless derision of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.  

He knew from the outset that those drugs could easily reduce the severity of symptoms and, taken prophylactically, can prevent COVID.  He knew and lied.  Hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved by the use of HCQ and ivermectin in all the nursing homes.

Nearly all who of lost their lives were deficient in Vitamin D.  Had those lost been given large doses of Vitamin D they might have survived.  But Fauci and the media not only kept all that to themselves, they frightened people away from these simple preventatives and treatments.  Fauci and his handmaidens in the media and Big Pharma have much blood on their hands.  Follow the money.

Everyone surely knows by now that young people are at very low risk of getting COVID and even less of dying from it, yet many of our adult children are rushing to be vaccinated and want their children jabbed when there is virtually no risk to them!  The vaccines are a risk to children.  

So it is yet another point of contention between grandparents, adult kids, and grandkids who were perhaps already at odds over the 2020 election.  Those of us who have read much of the literature out there that lays out the potential dangers down the road are supremely frustrated by our adult kids’ refusal to listen to us, their refusal to read the volumes of information warning against the shots, and who line up to get it.

What do we do now?  We worry and watch them carefully if possible, and we try to stop them from vaxxing their own young children.  We wonder how these young people, many of them college-educated, came to be lemmings.  Why are they so susceptible to obvious propaganda?  See this column by Peter Savodnik for a possible explanation.  At least two generations of Americans have been rendered vulnerable to nonsense.

President Trump obviously meant well when rushing a vaccine to availability.  He had no idea that Fauci had been funding that lab in Wuhan, that despite legal prohibition of gain-of-function (making known viruses more lethal) experiments in the U.S., he was funding that research in China as well.

— 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

He and his cohorts at NIAID resemble mad scientists who for twenty years had been dying to experiment on human beings using mRNA despite having no idea what the long-term effects may be.  And the fact that Bill Gates has been in on this scheme for years should give everyone pause.  He is a known depopulation advocate who, at the same time, funds mass vaccinations around the world, sometimes with murderous results.

What do we do to protect the grandkids?  Try to convince their vaxxed parents not to submit their children to what is an experimental trial with potentially lethal consequences.  The use of these vaccines is an affront to essential medical ethics.  

Throughout history, parents and grandparents have striven above all to protect their progeny, but with the onslaught of mass media, toxic social media, and the wholesale censorship by those who control what and how information is disseminated to the public, the once revered wise counsel of the storied family trust has been sorely dissipated.  To paraphrase the words of Thomas Paine, these are truly the times that try men’s souls.

Reprinted with permission from American Thinker

  big pharma, covid-19 treatments, covid-19 vaccine, donald trurmp, joe biden, operation warp speed, vaccine safety, vaccine side effects


7 reasons why Catholic schools should not fly the gay pride flag

The Catholic Church already has beautiful powerful symbols to show what love looks like. It’s time for Catholic schools to start using them.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 5:33 pm EST
Featured Image
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

April 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – As the month of June approaches, Catholic school boards in Ontario are facing increasing pressure to follow the world in declaring June as “Pride Month” and to fly the rainbow-striped homosexual “pride flag” atop school masts in the name of diversity, inclusivity, and acceptance. There are seven good reasons why the pride flag should never be flown atop any Catholic institution.

1. Flags are flown by those who hold control. The pride flag was created in 1978 by open homosexual and drag queen Gilbert Baker. The flag as a whole, composed of various colored stripes, has become an international symbol of the homosexual movement and its view of the human person and sexuality that is at odds with biology, the social sciences, the world’s major religions, and specifically with the Catholic faith. To fly the rainbow flag at Catholic schools would simply mean that the homosexual agenda has taken control of Catholic education and that Catholic children are no longer receiving an authentic Catholic education at such schools. The pride flag should not be flown at Catholic schools because the formation of Catholic children should not be ceded to homosexual activists. Catholic children require Catholic formation, not homosexual propaganda.

2. The term “pride” in salvation history denotes an explicit refusal to follow God and his rule. The Book of Proverbs warns that “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (16:18). God’s laws are especially revealed in the Bible, which warns in numerous places against homosexual behaviors. Those who engage in such behaviors are ultimately rejecting God’s laws. Pride drives them to choose their own way over God’s ways. The pride flag is especially symbolic of supporting actions and behaviors that are specifically condemned in the Bible and contradict Catholic sexual morality. A flag that symbolizes a refusal to follow God and his rule should not be flown at Catholic schools. Catholic children should not be formed in the vice of pride, which is one of the seven deadly sins, but in the virtue of humility in imitation of Our Lady’s fiat, “let it be done unto me according to your word.”

3. The rainbow was originally a religious symbol of God’s covenant with man that God used to convey to Noah (Genesis 9:13-17) that he would never again destroy the world by a flood. LGBT activists co-opted the rainbow to create a flag where the different colors are often interpreted as signifying sexual “diversity.” While a naturally occurring rainbow has seven colors, the LGBT flag has only six, a number that is biblically associated with sin, imperfection, and even Satan. The loud blaring rainbow colors have become a political symbol for the acceptance of sexual lifestyles and behaviors that contain an implicit rejection of God’s plan for sexuality. A flag that warps the biblical meaning of the rainbow to mean a celebration of the rejection of God’s laws should never be flown over Catholic schools. Catholic children should instead rally under the primary sign of the Catholic faith, the cross of Jesus Christ, which is the greatest sign of God’s love for everyone.

4. The Catholic Church calls everyone, including children, to a life of chastity. The pride flag, however, is closely associated with those who promote lifestyles of sexual hedonism. To fly the pride flag at Catholic schools would send children the false message that there is no problem with them exploring lifestyles and behaviors that are contrary to the life of chastity. In order to not contradict the message that Catholic children are called to chastity, not immorality, pride flags should not be flown at Catholic schools.

5. Catholic schools exist to help parents teach their children the Catholic faith. There is no place in such schools for ambiguity concerning Catholic doctrine. They must present Catholic teaching in a clear and convincing manner. The pride flag, however, is inextricably linked to promoting an LGBT agenda that is at extreme odds with the faith. To fly the pride flag at Catholic schools would mean to betray the responsibility that Catholic parents placed in the schools when the parents sent their children to these schools. Catholic schools must not betray the trust that parents place in them. They must form students with the truths of the authentic Catholic faith.

6. Catholic schools teach children about God and his laws. God teaches through Scripture and the Church that homosexual lifestyles and behaviors are not part of his plan for mankind. Flying the pride flag, which supports homosexual lifestyles and behaviors, would amount to a betrayal of God who has made it clear through salvation history, as quoted in the Catechism, that homosexual actions are one of the “sins that cry to heaven.” A flag that betrays God should not be flown from Catholic schools. Catholic schools should honor God by following his laws and teaching children to do the same. As Jesus says, “If you love me, keep my commandments.”

7. June is the month of the Sacred Heart where Catholics especially venerate the mercy and the love of God. Instead of honoring a symbol closely associated with lifestyles and behaviors condemned by the Church, Catholic schools should honor and promote the image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus on account of his all-inclusive love from which nobody is excluded. Catholic children should be given images and messages that help them on the path to salvation, not symbols that could potentially lead them along the path to damnation.

In the end, Catholic schools should celebrate virtue, not vice. They should promote chastity, not immorality. They should turn to the symbols of their own faith when it comes to promoting messages that all are loved, accepted, and wanted. The greatest symbol of love that Christianity boasts of is the cross of Jesus. If messages of inclusivity and acceptance are wanted in Catholic schools, what greater symbol can there be but of the God who became man, who stretched out his arms on the cross in an invitation for all to come to him who are weary and burdened, and he would give them rest in his sacred heart? Jesus’ arms on the cross are open wide for anyone to come to him to receive his love. The Catholic Church already has beautiful powerful symbols to show what love looks like. It’s time for Catholic schools to start using them.

  catholic, catholic schools, gay pride flag, homosexuality, pride flag


‘It’s evil’: Why we can’t accept vaccine passports

'This is unacceptable. It is immoral, and we cannot accept this as the new normal,' the head of Liberty Counsel said today.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 4:21 pm EST
Featured Image
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

April 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Mat Staver is a senior pastor, as well as the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Christian, pro-life organization that seeks to uphold religious freedom and a Biblical worldview. He explains on my podcast today the moral problems with the COVID vaccine and proposed mandatory vaccine passports.

“There’s serious concerns, not only with the very essence of some of these experimental vaccines — and they’re still, by the way, as you know, in the experimental phase — but also with their use of aborted fetuses, cells, and tissue in their development and in some cases in their implementation.”

“I’m really distressed, frankly, about some leaders, Protestant and Catholic, … that have come out. And they essentially said, oh, there’s no big deal. This is a remote evil. Well, it’s an evil!”

He further explained that Christians cannot accept mandatory COVID-19 vaccine passports.

“This is unacceptable. It is immoral, and we cannot accept this as the new normal. We are very much pushing back against these mandatory vaccine passports.”

He said that “what we cannot do is sacrifice freedom for some supposed safety and security. It’s never worked out well in the past for any generation or any society. These vaccine passports and the tracking and tracing apps are more about collecting data and controlling than they are about dealing with any kind of disease or virus.”

Mat and I also spoke about the possibility of the Biden regime expanding the Supreme Court as well as the connections Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra, the pro-abortion head of the Health and Human Services department, have to Planned Parenthood. Be sure to tune in. 

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

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

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

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


* indicates required

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

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

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

  coronavirus vaccine, covid passports, covid-19, covid-19 passport, covid-19 vaccine, liberty counsel, mandatory passport, the john-henry westen show


When schools go wrong, it is time to attack home education

Fraser Nelson, editor of the right-wing weekly Spectator, argued that home education became worth worrying about only now that it has grown.
Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 11:27 am EST
Featured Image
Home education Shutterstock
By Dr. Joseph Shaw

April 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The year-long lockdown had a disastrous effect on the education of many of those children who were relying on conventional schools, which did not always rise to the challenge of teaching remotely. Many parents, again, found it difficult, at short notice, to create an environment in which their children could learn effectively, whether through lack of technology, physical space, or for other reasons. These children were still enrolled in schools, and it was the school system which failed them. Children being home-educated, by contrast, found their education disrupted the least of anyone’s.

What happened in 2020 illustrates the robustness of home education. Tailored to the needs and circumstances of the family and the child, it can deal with the disruption caused by things like illnesses or the family moving house far more easily than a bricks-and-mortar institution. Similarly, providing tuition for a child who wants to study a relatively obscure subject may not be easy for a home-educating family, but in most schools it would be out of the question. All things considered, it’s not going to be home-educated children who are still suffering educationally two or more years from now.

The natural reaction to this situation for some is to attack the very concept of home-education. The latest is Fraser Nelson. He lets the cat out of the bag when he says that it became worth worrying about only now that it has grown, partly thanks to the epidemic. It is not the failure of home education, in other words, that Nelson is worried about, but its success.

Nelson is the editor of the right-wing U.K. weekly Spectator, and he is writing in the Daily Telegraph. Why does a supposedly conservative journalist seek to ridicule the idea that home-education is a “sacred right”? Like a lot of intellectuals on the political right, he seems to have no sense of the importance of the family, and like his colleagues on the left instinctively assumes that state intervention is the only way to deal with problems, whatever their origin. When he sees some families looking after an important aspect of life, the education of children, so successfully that other families realize this could be a possibility for them as well, he is worried. What if it all goes wrong?

What if schools go wrong, Fraser? But it’s too late for that: they have gone wrong, and that is why we are having this discussion right now. When schools go wrong, it is time to attack home education. To punish the dog, kick the cat.

Nelson’s arguments are instructive. The two categories of children he is really concerned about are those served by unregistered schools, and those who have been excluded or “off-rolled” from schools.

In the U.K., a school by definition provides education for a minimum number of hours for a minimum number of days a year. If it does not, it’s not a school, but a provider of educational services. If it does, it is subject to a great deal of regulation. Nelson is worried about institutions which are teaching for more than this minimum number of hours, and are not registered or regulated. They are breaking the law, and the people involved can face heavy fines. It appears that the state’s educational apparatus has not enforced the law effectively. What on earth has this got to do with the need for new laws on home education? The children at these institutions are by definition not being home educated.

On exclusions, educational fashion — assisted by the state’s inspection regime — has dismantled effective discipline in many schools. The result is that some schools are places where children can be knifed and raped, but receive little education. As a way of dealing with the situation, the government has instituted public “league tables” ranking schools by their pupils’ performance in standard examinations. But how do schools — under intense pressure not to impose order on the chaos — improve their rankings? Well, they could chuck out the worst pupils, who often have nowhere else to go.

Formal expulsions are actually difficult for schools to do, so they came up with an ingenious scheme. Who says state bureaucracies can’t be creative? They now sit down with the parents of difficult children, and persuade or bully them into removing their children. This is called “off-rolling”. If the parents have no effective plan for educating their children outside school, this is no longer the school’s problem. In principle, local authorities should be providing them, if necessary, with tutors, but unsurprisingly this system doesn’t always work well.

— 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

Fraser Nelson has mentally categorized these children as “home schooled”: They are not enrolled in schools, true, but these are not parents who have made a decision to home educate. This is a problem created by schools, which can only be solved by schools. Home educated children should be left alone.

  home education, homeschooling, nelson fraser, public schools

Featured Image

Episodes Fri Apr 23, 2021 - 4:45 pm EST

‘It’s evil’: Why we can’t accept vaccine passports

By John-Henry Westen   Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

Mat Staver is senior pastor, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Christian, pro-life organization that seeks to uphold religious freedom and a Biblical worldview. He explains on The John-Henry Westen Show the moral problems with the COVID vaccine and proposed mandatory passports.