All articles from May 13, 2021






  • Nothing is published in Video on May 13, 2021.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on May 13, 2021.


Ohio gov. announces $5 million lottery, full scholarships to encourage taking COVID vaccine

The money will come from existing federal Coronavirus Relief Funds.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 9:30 pm EST
Featured Image
Governor Mike DeWine of Ohio. NBC4 Columbus / YouTube
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

COLUMBUS, Ohio, May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Ohio’s Republican Gov. Mike DeWine unveiled Wednesday an unusual incentive to encourage more residents to take one of the experimental COVID-19 vaccines: entering recipients in weekly drawings for one million dollars.

As of May 13, almost 4.3 million Ohioans have been fully vaccinated, which is approximately 36% of the state’s population. Policymakers across the country have expressed frustration at a lack of interest in getting vaccinated by many Americans beyond the initial rush.

DeWine’s solution is to enter adults who have at least obtained the first injection of a coronavirus vaccine into a lottery for one of five drawings of one million dollars apiece, announced every Wednesday for five weeks starting May 26.

“The Ohio Department of Health will be the sponsoring agency for the drawings, and the Ohio Lottery will conduct them,” the governor said. “The money will come from existing federal Coronavirus Relief Funds.”

“I know that some may say, ‘DeWine, you’re crazy! This million-dollar drawing idea of yours is a waste of money,’” he continued. “But truly, the real waste at this point in the pandemic – when the vaccine is readily available to anyone who wants it – is a life lost to COVID-19.”

He also announced that minors between the ages of 12 and 17 will also be incentivized to take the injections with five drawings for a “full, four-year scholarship to our state universities.”

Some took issue with the propriety of using taxpayer dollars to effectively entice people to take a new vaccine around which significant controversy remains. “Fear mongering, much?” asks Townhall’s Rebecca Downs. “It's worth nothing that the Pfizer vaccine was just approved for those 12-15 years old mere days ago.”

More than 117 million Americans have received coronavirus vaccines so far, but hesitancy persists among much of the population. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found, for instance, that 73% of Americans say they are unwilling to take the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, use of which was temporarily paused due to concerns about blood clots. 

The currently available vaccines have been given “Emergency Use Authorization” (EUA). According to the FDA, an EUA is “a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic.”

The FDA acknowledges that EUAs permit the use of “unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products” in situations where “there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”

While many officeholders and media figures blame online “misinformation” for lingering vaccine hesitancy, considerably less contemplation has been spent on how the government’s own actions contribute to mistrust, from public health officials’ contradictory guidances on every major aspect of the pandemic, to mixed messaging about vaccinated people still potentially transmitting the virus to others. On Thursday, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) finally announced that vaccinated Americans can eschew masks and social distancing, both indoors and outdoors.

Clinical trials for the currently-authorized COVID-19 vaccines were performed in less than a year, when such trials traditionally take a minimum of two to four years. One of the innovations of the Trump administration’s “Operation Warp Speed” was conducting various aspects of the development process concurrently rather than sequentially, but that does not fully account for the condensing of clinical trial phases — each of which can take anywhere from 1-3 years on its own — to just three months apiece. 

Skeptics argue that leaders’ widespread preference for pressuring Americans into compliance and shutting down debate on the subject evidences a lack of interest in earning Americans’ confidence by getting to the bottom of deaths possibly related to the coronavirus vaccines. The need for financial incentives such as the Ohio lottery to get people to do something ostensibly for their own good indicates a failure among public officials to alleviate holdouts’ concerns.

Kripsy Kreme has offered Americans who show their CDC-issued vaccine cards one free donut every day for the rest of 2021. Other incentives for vaccinated customers from various businesses have included marijuana, cheesecake, and arcade tokens.

  coronavirus, covid vaccine, covid-19, covid-19 vaccine, gop, mike dewine, ohio, public health, republicans


Gender unicorns, BLM, rainbow flags: Jesuit university worships at the altar of ‘woke’ culture

Saint Louis University frequently invokes its 'Catholic' identity. The school is anything but.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 8:46 pm EST
Featured Image
Emily Mangiaracina Emily Mangiaracina Follow

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


ST. LOUIS, Missouri, May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A student at Saint Louis University (SLU) is dismayed to find that his “Catholic” university openly celebrates gravely immoral sins and is beholden not to a Christian worldview but to secular “woke” culture.

“Saint Louis University’s Indoctrination runs deep,” said Michael*. “I came to SLU because they lured me with a promise. They told me that if I attended SLU I would not only grow academically, at a school with a strong reputation, but I would also grow in my faith. The Jesuit tradition is a holistic approach, one that aims to set the world on fire by crafting men and women for others for Greater Glory of God (AMDG).”

“At least it used to be,” he continued. “Nowadays, Jesuits seem to care more about progressive politics and virtue-signaling than the message of Jesus Christ.”

SLU repeatedly invokes its “Catholic Jesuit identity” in its messaging, and claims on its website that it “ensures that the principles and traditions of Catholic, Jesuit higher education, and the mission and core values of SLU are integrated into “programs and practices” and the “formation of its students.”

However, glimpses of the textbook curriculum, as well as campus messaging, show that the university espouses an ideology that is radically antithetical to the Catholic faith. The examples of this are so numerous, said Michael, that it is virtually impossible to share them all.


An egregious and telling sign of the university’s secular — and not only anti-Catholic, but anti-Christian and anti-life underpinnings — is found in an answer to an online history quiz that Michael shared with LifeSiteNews, which says that the Christian Coalition has been “successful” in “denying reasonable access to abortion for women.”

Michael decried the course as a “sick joke,” continuing, “They do this to not only minimize the role Planned Parenthood plays in murdering innocent babies, but they also are trying to paint the Christian Coalition of the 90s (and today) as these out of touch, unreasonable, cruel people. Disgusting.” 

A part of Michael’s Human Growth and Development (HGAD) class curriculum also shows that SLU makes no attempt to conform its curriculum to Catholic beliefs or even to a “Judeo-Christian” worldview.


The book says that “Western society tends to have a Judeo-Christian orientation toward prayer, holidays and values,” which “can result in conflict and discomfort for children with other religions” and “confuse them.”

One slide from the same class says that spirituality “may influence growth and development” by “providing a positive outlook,” helping us to “connect to others” and possibly reducing stress.

“They treat religion as if it is a fun exercise Catholics do for their health. They don’t treat it as it is: The truth, the way, the life,” said Michael.

The homage to Islam at SLU doesn’t stop at its curriculum. Michael shared an email from the SLU provost asking that faculty be mindful of the needs of students observing a Ramadan fast during exam time.

“We have many students, faculty, and staff who observe other religious traditions at SLU, and I want to ensure that we are being respectful to all members of our community,” wrote the provost.

— 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

Indeed, at SLU, the concept of the “sacred” is entirely subjective. Its website reveals that the university “offers two interfaith sacred spaces on campus” that “are open to students, faculty and staff of any faith tradition or of none.”

The most pervasive anti-Catholic and anti-Christian practice of SLU is an active support of LGBT lifestyles and of gender ideology, which is strangely presented as an extension of its “Jesuit” and Christian principles. 

Michael shared that not only are rainbow “pride” flags displayed around the school, such as in its campus Panera, but SLU has a “Rainbow Alliance Club” that aims to “engage the SLU community in a dialogue about the complexity of gender and sexuality” and “empower those who are marginalized because of their sexual orientations and/or gender identities/expressions.” The club’s web page goes so far as to state, “The purpose of the organization” is “in accordance with Saint Louis University’s Jesuit Mission and the principles of social justice.”

Here, the campus culture lines up with the university’s curriculum. One presentation slide for Michael’s HGAD class reads, “Gender and sexuality are socially constructed concepts that vary across place and time,” and “LGBTQ persons experiences family through a variety of biological and social structures that include kinship ties and chosen families.”

The course goes even further to define gender as “Culturally held and transmitted beliefs, attitudes, and feelings that are associated with biological sex.” 


It continues, “Gender can be conforming (congruent with biological sex) or non-conforming (not congruent with biological sex). Gender identity: Internal sense of being male, female, a combination of both, somewhere in between, or neither.”
The students are presented with a “Gender Unicorn” graphic from “Trans Student Educational Resources” (TSER), which is meant to demonstrate that “gender identity,” “gender expression,” biological sex, physical attraction, and emotional attraction are all completely independent of each other.

The course slides go on to explain that someone who is “gender fluid” “remains open and not limited to the expected social beliefs about themselves.” It then defines “transgender,” “cisgender,” and “agender.”
The students were asked to listen to a talk by a transgender guest speaker as part of their coursework.


This gender ideology is so deeply ingrained in SLU culture that students are openly encouraged to introduce themselves with their “preferred gender pronouns,” and Student Government Association (SGA) members sign off emails with their preferred pronouns next to their names.

Here, too, far from acknowledging that this ideology is in conflict with Christian belief and natural law, SLU invokes the name of Christ to justify these practices. In one dorm bathroom, Michael found sheets explaining the importance of using someone’s preferred gender pronouns, one of which was issued by “More Light Presbyterians,” a coalition that aims toward the “full participation of LGBTQIA+ people in the life, ministry and witness of the Presbyterian Church — and in society.” 


“As those who seek to be welcoming in the name of Christ, we hope to see everyone in the midst as themselves, as children of God. Creating space where people name their pronouns both shows our welcome and invites people to share their full selves with us and with God,” the sheet reads.

Another sheet posted next to it said, “It’s important to respect pronouns, as it validates a person’s identity,” and “Disrespecting a transgender person’s pronouns could threaten their safety. Living a life where people naturally assume your correct pronouns is a privilege that not everyone experiences.”  

The sheet goes on to say, “If you don’t know someone’s pronouns, don’t assume gendered pronouns, and use gender-neutral ones, like they or ze.” 

“Gender non-conforming” students can even be given special housing accommodations, as the school’s LGBTQIA+ Resources page reveals.

The university also embraces the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and anti-family Black Lives Matter BLM movement. Michael revealed that BLM slogans and messaging are found all over campus, and that students are made to watch Ted Talks from the founders of BLM. The campus has also held a few BLM protests, during which students are allowed to get within distances of each other that would normally violate “social distancing” protocols.

SLU puts a heavy emphasis on “racial justice” in its culture and curriculum. While of course Catholicism is opposed to racism and any other form of hatred or prejudice, SLU president Fred Pestello’s language demonstrates how the university selectively invokes its “Catholic identity.” 


Pestello sent an email during the deliberation of the Derek Chauvin trial that demonstrates this: “Entering into Christ’s suffering means embracing our broken world for what it truly is and in doing so, suffering with every child of God. This compassion is the heart of the Jesuit Charism, not a faith of just “thoughts and prayers” but a faith that does justice. And it will be in full view during an all-faiths vigil at the Clock Tower on Wednesday, April 21 at 3 p.m.”

Another email announcing “upcoming SLU-approved events planned to process the verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial and grieve the endless violence and loss that Black and Brown folks face at the hands of white supremacy” invoked SLU’s “Catholic Jesuit Identity.”

“Let it be known that SGA stands boldly and unapologetically in solidarity with our Black and Brown peers and in defense of their lives. Our university’s mission and Catholic Jesuit Identity calls us to do so.”

In 2020, the SLU’s President’s Office announced a “faculty led” #ScholarStrike to “bring awareness to racial inequities,” with an email that said, “Saint Louis University promotes freedom of speech and expression and views them as foundational to our Catholic, Jesuit identity, as well as to the Academy.”

Just what does SLU mean by “Catholic Jesuit Identity”? That would presumably be described on their “Jesuit Tradition at SLU” webpage, which reads:

“At Saint Louis University, the nearly 500-­year­-old Jesuit tradition inspires everything from the kinds of classes students take to how they spend their free time. But just what does it mean to be ‘Jesuit?'”

The page reads, “Inspired by the Jesuit practice of  ‘finding God in all things,’ students take a broad range of study, which is grounded in the theological and philosophical foundations of the Catholic intellectual tradition.”

“Then there’s the idea of ‘the magis’ (more), which leads to excellence in all pursuits. This ties into the Jesuit legacy of academic rigor, which requires students to go deeper, think critically and solve problems creatively for the glory of God and the service of humanity.”

These statements are strongly misleading at best, as SLU promotes ideas that are totally incompatible with Catholic intellectual tradition and that are directly opposed to the “glory of God,” as St. Ignatius of Loyola and the original Jesuits conceived it, in accordance with Scripture.

Michael commented, “They hide behind, and they justify their liberal politics and stances by twisting our Catholic faith. When it is convenient to be a Catholic, they will talk about how 'It is our duty and mission as a Catholic school to act.' They say that because they know no one can push back on that." 

"This practical incongruence with their self-professed 'Catholic identity,' like that of the majority of so-called 'Catholic' universities today, is largely a product of the 1967 'Land O’ Lakes Statement,' which deliberately severed Catholic universities from 'authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself.'”

As Cardinal Newman Society president Patrick Reilly explained, “Over the course of just a few years following the statement, most Catholic colleges and universities in America shed their legal ties to the Church and handed their institutions over to independent boards of trustees. In the quest for secular prestige and government funding, many went so far as to remove the crucifixes from their classroom walls and to represent their Catholic identity in historical terms (such as, ‘in the Jesuit tradition’).”

Reilly noted that in 1990, the “Land O’ Lakes Statement” was “soundly repudiated by St. Pope John Paul II in Ex corde Ecclesiae, the apostolic constitution for Catholic universities.”

However, violations of authentic Catholic teaching remain the norm for “Catholic” universities, to such an extent that only 15 residential Catholic colleges, and two non-residential Cathoilc colleges in the United States, had made The Cardinal Newman Society’s recommended colleges list for “their commitment to a faithful Catholic education.”

Michael maintains that not only is the school un-Catholic, it doesn’t truly promote diversity and acceptance as it claims to, “because everyone who disagrees with their liberal ideology is bullied into silence. I can't stand up to my teachers, or I will fail the class. I cannot stand up to administration, because they do not care at all what I have to say. They stifle and ignore dissent.”

He warned, “To all those parents considering spending thousands of dollars thinking that their child will receive a Catholic education, I warn them to save their money. Until SLU feels financial repercussions from their indoctrination, they will not change.”

*The source of this story prefers to remain anonymous. Michael is a pseudonym.

  abortion, anti-catholicism, black lives matter, catholic, ex corde ecclesiae, gender ideology, gender pronouns, gender unicorn, islam, jesuit universities, land o' lakes statement, lgbtq curriculum, rainbow alliance club, st. louis university


Bombshell report: CDC cited misleading stats to force Americans to needlessly wear masks outdoors

The New York Times violated YouTube's misinformation policy by reporting the risk of contracting COVID-19 outside was grossly inflated, but the news outlet was not flagged.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 7:39 pm EST
Featured Image
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

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

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) has been caught citing misleading stats in order to justify forcing Americans to wear masks outdoors, where the risk of contracting COVID-19 is near zero.

The CDC long maintained that there is about a 10 percent chance of COVID-19 transmission when the actual number is likely anywhere from one percent to less than 1/10th of a percent, according to multiple experts. That means the CDC has inflated the possible risk — and the fears of Americans who rely on information and recommendations supplied by the government organization — up to 100 times higher than actually warranted. 

The number “seems to be a huge exaggeration,” according to University of St. Andrews virologist Dr. Muge Cevik in a statement to The New York Times (NYT), which broke the story.  

“Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving,” averred the NYT report. 

In fact, “there is not a single documented Covid infection anywhere in the world from casual outdoor interactions, such as walking past someone on a street or eating at a nearby table,” NYT reporter David Leonhardt wrote. Further, much of the data comes from cases at buildings such as schools and construction sites in Singapore that were eventually and inaccurately classified as outdoor transmissions.  

Has the NYT run afoul of social media community standards by telling the truth?

By uncovering the CDC’s exaggerated stats, the leftist NYT has conducted the same sort of truthful reporting that led YouTube to permanently deplatform LifeSiteNews in February.   

“NYT report violates YouTube’s Covid-19 misinformation policy,” noted the Wall Street Journal’s Jason Willick in a tweet, “which prohibits ‘content that contradicts WHO or local health authorities’ guidance” including on “transmission” and “social distancing and self-isolation guidelines.”

The U.S. government’s campaign of fear and shame

The CDC’s unself-conscious campaign of fear has had a huge impact on vast segments of the U.S. population.

— 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

Pollsters at the Morning Consult found that people who received the COVID-19 vaccine are more afraid of returning to normal life than those who have not been vaccinated. The following chart, published by Fox News, displays the stunning level of fear still experienced by the vaccinated:

Morning Consult Poll results SOURCE: Tucker Carlson Tonight/Fox News screenshot

“What does this tell us?” asked Tucker Carlson on his Fox News show. “Among other things, it tells us that we’ve long ago left the realm of science, and are instead in a state of mass hysteria and mass manipulation.” 

“Many Americans are too scared to think clearly,” noted Carlson. “If you’ve had the vaccine, which you say you believe is effective, but you’re too afraid to rent a car for fear of getting COVID, you’re not thinking clearly. And you’re not thinking clearly because you’re too afraid. And you’re afraid because you’ve been told for more than a year that you are required to be terrified.” 

“And the arrival of the vaccine has not calmed you at all,” continued the Fox News host.  “Instead, demagogues have instructed them to channel their fear into hate, and turn it on anyone who disobeys their orders. The result is vaccinated Americans in masks cannot be happy or feel safe, or feel any relief at all, until every other person in the country joins them in getting the shot, and covering their faces. That’s not rational. That’s not science. It’s something much darker than that. What began as public health measures have become instruments of social control.”

Separating sheep from the goats: California County creates C19 vaccine database

Carlson focused on Santa Ana, California, where earlier this week citizens protested against Orange County’s new vaccine passport program:

Politicians in Orange County are building a digital database of residents who’ve been vaccinated against COVID. Not surprisingly, some citizens fear that information could be used going forward to violate their privacy, or to limit their constitutional rights. No matter where you are on vaccine passports, those are obviously valid concerns. They’re not crazy. 

If authorities in Orange County decided to start a database of everyone infected with HIV, or every woman who’d had an abortion, civil libertarians and others would, of course, ask vigorous questions about it. But with COVID, there are no questions allowed. Orange County’s board of supervisors effectively ignored Tuesday’s protest. One of the supervisors, a Democrat called Katrina Foley, dismissed the protestors with undisguised contempt. "They don’t believe in vaccines," she snorted.

Today, the CDC announced new guidance allowing those who have received the COVID-19 vaccination to ditch their masks while those who have not received the jab must continue to wear them both indoors and outdoors, and continue to practice social distancing.  

By issuing differing directives for the vaccinated and unvaccinated, the CDC is attempting to cast shame on those who must continue to wear masks.  

By abstaining from the C19 jab, is a U.S. Senator revealing himself to be a ‘Russian asset?’

After Republican U.S. Senator Ron Johnson told Carlson on Monday that since he has already had COVID-19 and after having consulted with his physician, he decided to abstain from the C19 vaccine. 

“There is no medical reason for him to get the vaccine,” noted Carlson. “People shouldn’t take medicine they don’t need. Ron Johnson has decided for these reasons against getting the shot. Now, that is not a crazy position. In fact, it’s an entirely rational position.”

Yet in a brief video clip, MSNBC’s Brian Williams denounced Sen. Johnson’s declaration on Fox News, suggesting that he may be acting as stooge for Russia:

I know really smart, educated, substantial people who believe (Sen. Johnson) to be a witting or an unwitting asset of Russia — who would sound a lot like that — in American society.

  covid-19, misinformation, outdoor transmission, the new york times, u.s. centers for disease control, virologist


Wisconsin Senate approves bill to dissolve dead bodies, dump them in sewer

Alkaline hydrolysis, or 'water cremation,' which involves liquifying the human body and dumping the remains into the sewage system, is already approved in 20 states.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 7:10 pm EST
Featured Image
Raymond Wolfe Follow

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

MADISON, Wisconsin, May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Wisconsin senators approved a bill earlier this week allowing dead bodies to be dissolved in a chemical bath and disposed like sewage.

The bill, Senate Bill 228, authorizes a practice called alkaline hydrolysis, or “water cremation,” which liquifies the human body using a mixture of water, heat, and chemical agents, leaving only bones behind. The liquid is then dumped into the sewage system or boiled off, and bones can be crushed and deposited in an urn.

The Republican-led Senate passed the legislation without debate on Tuesday over the objection of the Catholic bishops of Wisconsin. 

“Catholic teaching is centered on the life and dignity of the human person because each person is created in the image and likeness of God,” Kim Vercauteren, executive director of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, wrote to the senate health committee. “The heart, mind, flesh, and bones of a human person are all elements of a unique creation, down to the DNA, which must be honored even after death.” 

“Our concern is that with alkaline hydrolysis, remains are washed into a wastewater system as though the body created by God never existed,” Vercauteren added. “Wastewater does not honor the sacredness of the body, nor does it allow the grieving to honor the dead after disposition.”

Sen. Patrick Testin, R-Stevens Point, who sponsored SB 228, argued for the measure as a means to promote “consumer choice.” At a hearing for the bill, he said that “Wisconsin funeral directors are receiving more and more requests for flameless or water cremation.” “I believe in allowing consumers choices. And if a consumer chooses flameless cremation, I would like to empower Wisconsin funeral directors the means to fulfill that choice,” Testin said.

Catholic leaders have sternly rejected that reasoning. “Respect and reverence for human bodies must not be sacrificed for a cheaper, quicker disposition,” the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops said two years ago, after attempts to authorize alkaline hydrolysis were introduced in the Lone Star State. 

“We must treat the remains of all human beings, no matter how long they lived or how they died, with dignity, charity, and respect. Chemical digestion of the human body fails to follow this simple principle,” the bishops said, likening the practice to dumping aborted babies down drains. 

Clergymen across the United States have similarly spoken out against “water cremation” and other “alternative” disposition methods, including in Missouri, Ohio, and Washington. Around 20 states nevertheless have approved alkaline hydrolysis in recent years. 

According to the Cremation Association of North America (CANA), the practice involves a pressurized vat that typically can hold around 100 gallons of liquid. Deceased people placed in the chamber can be heated at up to 302 degrees and bathed in lye, an industrial chemical agent used as a drain cleaner, to induce rapid decomposition. 

The full process of alkaline hydrolysis takes between three to 16 hours, ultimately producing a “sterile” liquid devoid of tissue and DNA. “In some cases, the water is diverted and used for fertilizer because of the potassium and sodium content,” CANA said. 

Proponents of alkaline hydrolysis claim that it is “greener” than traditional cremation, with fewer carbon emissions, arguments that the Wisconsin Catholic Conference has dismissed as well. “The practice can use anywhere from 100 to 300 gallons of water and can influence pH levels in the water supply,” Vercauteren said. “We question whether a process that alters the chemical composition of large amounts of clean water … is good stewardship.”

The Catholic Church emphasizes burial of bodies but has softened its stance on traditional cremation since the 1960s, permitting cremation “unless this is chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching.” Human remains must be buried in cemeteries, entombed in a mausoleum, or inurned, and may not be scattered, the Church holds. 

  catholic, catholic bishops of wisconsin, cremation, hydrolysis, water cremation, wisconsin legislature


Fauci urges children to get vaccinated after CDC approves Pfizer jab for 12–15 year-olds

Even though there's minimal chance of kids getting COVID-19, they're nonetheless being 'encouraged' to protect themselves and not pass it on to someone else.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 6:36 pm EST
Featured Image
David McLoone David McLoone Follow

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

May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – America’s lockdown czar Dr. Anthony Fauci recommended that children as young as 12 years old avail themselves of the opportunity to receive one of the experimental gene therapy vaccines against COVID-19, telling CBS that, while he is unsure whether children should be forced, “we should be encouraging them.”

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Rochelle Walensky yesterday signed off on Pfizer’s experimental mRNA, abortion-tainted vaccine for use in children between ages 12 and 15, announcing that the “CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away.”

The decision to allow young children to be vaccinated with the experimental product – which only has Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – was agreed upon unanimously by a supposedly independent advisory group to the CDC, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, following a report from Pfizer claiming 100 percent effectiveness of their jab in the 12–15 age bracket. Walensky added that the development was “another important step to getting out of the COVID-19 pandemic, and closer to normalcy.”

In an attempt to quell the fears of parents who may be looking at the growing list of serious side-effects reported after taking one of the available shots, Fauci claimed that the vaccine “safety profile is really quite firm and sound.” He also claimed that, as yet, “no long-term effects that anyone could notice” have come to light.

Given that the vaccine has only been administered over the last six months, this is not only unsurprising but entirely expected.

Further pressurizing children to take the jab, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director added an emotional dimension to their considerations, saying children “could inadvertently and innocently pass the infection on to someone else, perhaps another member of the family who is vulnerable and could get into trouble.” 

“You have the capability of protecting yourself as a young person, 12 to 15, but also knowing that you're not going to pass it on to someone else,” he encouraged. “You even want to call upon the young people to say, ‘I want to protect myself, but I want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.’”

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

Fauci also suggested that children are at risk from COVID-19 despite their age: “We are starting to see younger people get into serious trouble, again at a very low rate, but serious trouble.” The vaccine, he instructed, is “highly efficacious … That's something that you shouldn't walk away from.”

Contrary to Fauci’s assertions, evidence demonstrates that neither do children pose any particular threat as vectors of the virus to their family members, nor are they particularly susceptible to the dangers presented by infection with COVID-19.

Dr. Mark Trozzi, an emergency physician of 25 years writing for Evidence not Fear, explained that “Children are safe from COVID-19 and do not pass it on to relatives, teachers or friends.”

In fact, a statistical analysis from Trozzi showed that children are at a far greater risk of dying in a car accident or being struck by lightning than they are of dying from the coronavirus.

Taking the Swedish example, where schools were not closed and children were not required to wear face masks, the nation recorded no deaths “among 1.8 million children” from COVID-19. Compared with other professions, teachers in Sweden had no increased risk of infection with the virus.

A study from the Kaiser Health Institute discovered that among parents of 12–15-year-olds, only around 30 percent said they will vaccinate their child as soon as it is an option. Twenty-six percent of those surveyed answered that they will “wait to see how it is working,” and 18 percent committed to vaccinating their child only if it is required by the child’s school. And 23 percent of parents in the survey said they would definitely not allow their child to be vaccinated.

In a bid to secure more ready uptake, Fauci cautioned against mandating vaccination for children. “You've got to be careful when you make the requirement of something,” he said, “that usually gets you into a lot of pushback — understandable pushback.” 

In addition, the NIAID director reiterated the CDC’s recent adjustment to its face mask guidance, offering vaccinated individuals the liberty of going mask-free in situations of outdoor gatherings, granted in small numbers: “If you were vaccinated, you don't have to wear a mask outside.” 

But even this small concession was sharply caveated by the country’s most prominent public health official, who added that “If you were going into a completely crowded situation where people are essentially falling all over each other, then you wear a mask. But any other time, if you're vaccinated and you're outside, put aside your mask. You don't have to wear it.”

Following the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) giving their assent to the use of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine in 12-15-year-olds, the agency is now considering whether to permit two- to 11-year-olds, a CNN report detailed.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla confirmed Tuesday that, since receiving EUA for some children, the company “expect to have definitive readouts and submit for an EUA (emergency use authorization) for two cohorts, including children age 2-5 years of age and 5-11 years of age, in September” for their experimental mRNA vaccine. Bourla later added that a submission will be made within “the fourth quarter of 2021” for authorization to inject children from six months to two years.

  anthony fauci, children, covid-19, emergency use authorization, mark trozzi, mrna vaccine, national institute of allergy and infectious diseases, pfizer, rochelle walensky, u.s. centers for disease control, u.s. food and drug administration, vaccines


South Carolina governor bans vaccine passports and mask mandates

'Vaccine passports will have no place in South Carolina,' Gov. Henry McMaster said. 'The very idea is un-American to its core.'
Thu May 13, 2021 - 6:11 pm EST
Featured Image
South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster Alex Wong / Staff / Getty
Raymond Wolfe Follow

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

COLUMBIA, South Carolina, May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Gov. Henry McMaster of South Carolina signed an executive order on Tuesday banning “vaccine passports” and prohibiting local officials and school districts from issuing mask mandates. McMaster’s order also allows parents to opt out of mandatory masking for their children at school.

“We have known for months that our schools are some of the safest places when it comes to COVID-19,” McMaster said. “Whether a child wears a mask in school is a decision that should be left only to a student's parents.” He added that “we must move past the time of governments dictating when and where South Carolinians are required to wear a mask.”

Gov. McMaster has not imposed a mask mandate during the COVID-19 crisis, instead allowing local governments to determine masking rules. The state Department of Education has required students and employees to use masks when entering school buildings and in hallways. McMaster called mask mandates for students “ridiculous” two weeks ago. 

The education department nevertheless announced that it will continue to enforce masking requirements for children on school buses, in accordance with guidelines by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

— 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 January, the Biden administration issued orders mandating mask use nationwide, including on buses and other forms of transportation. The scientifically dubious and uniquely harsh rules apply to children as young as 2, flying in the face of standard practices among developed nations.

“The CDC’s mandate that children as young as two years old must wear facemasks is among the most stringent face mask age requirements in the world,” a group of three dozen U.S. senators and congressmen wrote to the CDC in April. “For example, in Switzerland, children under the age of 12 do not have to wear a mask. In the UK and France, children under the age of 11 are exempt.”

“Within the United States, children younger than age five account for approximately six percent of the population but only two percent of total coronavirus cases,” the lawmakers added. They noted that masking requirements have led to parents being removed from flights or banned from airlines due to toddlers’ inability to keep masks on

With McMaster’s executive order on Tuesday, South Carolina also joins several states, including Arizona, Florida, and Texas, that have banned COVID-19 vaccine credential systems in recent weeks. The White House has been working with major corporations to develop vaccine passport guidelines, federal officials revealed in March. 

“President Biden and the Democrats want to force Americans to present a ‘vaccine passport’ upon demand, yet they oppose presenting an ID to cast a vote,” McMaster has said. “Vaccine passports will have no place in South Carolina. The very idea is un-American to its core.”

  ban, biden administration, covid-19, department of education, henry mcmaster, mask mandate, south carolina, vaccine passports


Two new studies may upend current attitudes toward sexual orientation change efforts

The researchers’ findings underscore the damage being done by the widespread suppression of sexual orientation change efforts for those seeking to deal with unwanted same-sex attraction.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 4:13 pm EST
Featured Image
Psychologist Shutterstock
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A pair of recently published scholarly studies challenge the long-held politically-charged notion that counseling efforts to help individuals who experience unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA) are harmful, and may well turn the tide on escalating legal efforts to ban sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) that have been waged in the past decade.

Branded with the pejorative label “conversion therapy,” SOCE have been villanized by special interest groups seeking to bolster the idea that homosexuality is an immutable trait in order to substantiate sweeping changes in laws that have served to erode humanity’s understanding of marriage; allowed a barrage of attacks undermining religious liberty; killed the operation of many Christian social programs, especially adoption and foster care organizations; and justified the purposeful denial of fathers and mothers to a generation of children being raised in same-sex households.

In our current political/cultural climate, the significance of these two studies is stunning, as one of them notes:

Currently SOCE provided by licensed therapists have been legally prohibited for minors in 20 states and numerous municipalities in the United States. Efforts to expand the scope of these bans to include adult consumers and non-licensed religious providers are currently underway.

Universally flawed studies by the psychology profession, until now

The investigative studies conducted over the last couple of decades which have led to overwhelming negative attitudes toward SOCE share a universal commonality: They draw their data exclusively from LGBT-identifying populations. In fact, LGBT-identity is among the “inclusion criteria” for the studies. So anyone with same-sex attraction who does not identify as LGBT would likely be excluded, and yet there is a significant minority of individuals with SSA who do not identify as LGBT, but instead prioritize their religious identity.

Because they have, by definition, been excluded from LGBT studies, their experiences are not represented in the bulk of research, leading to skewed, unfounded conclusions and disastrous, ill-advised legislative and judicial outcomes. And yet, the number of same-sex attracted men and women who identify as ex-LGBT is significant.

A second flaw in the majority of LGBT psychological studies is that they’ve failed to take into account pre-SOCE levels of distress. In other words, researchers failed to ask each participant if they were suicidal before entering counseling to change. The studies only asked “Did you attempt SOCE?” and if so, “What is your suicidal tendency now?”

Learning from those who reject identifying as gay

Two new studies, drawing from populations of men who are same-sex attracted but reject identifying as gay, although based on data collected a decade apart, have generated remarkably similar conclusions by the researchers.

Sexual Minorities Who Reject an LGB (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual) Identity: Who Are They and Why Does It Matter?” by Rosik, Lefevor, and Beckstead, published in the Spring 2021 Issues in Law & Medicine found that participants who rejected an LGB identity did not have worse levels of depression, anxiety, and psychosocial flourishing than those who were LGB identified.

“The authors conclude by warning against the assumption that theories and constructs acquired from LGB-identified population samples necessarily generalize to sexual minorities who reject LGB identity,” noted André Van Mol, M.D., in a summary of the study published by Chrisian Medical & Dental Association. “They likewise caution against using studies derived from or dominated by LGB-identified individuals rejecting or alienated from traditional faith communities for crafting laws or advocacy that affect sexual minorities in traditional religious communities. Calling out the tribalization of legal and mental health organizations, the psychologists propose that legal, official, and clinical guidance must be derived from data from population-based samples able to identify non-LGBT sexual minorities or those that deliberately recruit such individuals. Mental health professionals are instructed not to assume religious conservative sexual minorities are harming themselves by rejecting LGB identity.”

“The researchers bravely noted the possibility that LGB-rejection and heterosexual identity prioritization represented ‘principles religious conviction more than health-diminishing shame or self-loathing,’” wrote Van Mol.

“Well said,” he added.

The second study, “Efficacy and risk of sexual orientation change efforts: a retrospective analysis of 125 exposed men” by Sullins, Rosik, and Santero, opens up questions about the American Psychological Association’s (APA) 2009 report on “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.”

“The APA Report discouraged practices designed to facilitate change but fell short of recommending ethical or legal bans on any professional practices,” note the authors. “Given the opposition to SOCE from professional and funding organizations, it is not surprising very few studies since the time of the APA Report have been conducted offering even modest support for change efforts.”

— 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 researchers findings underscore the damage being done by the widespread suppression of sexual orientation change efforts for those seeking to deal with unwanted same-sex attraction:

Prior to SOCE participation, the large majority of married men (71%) engaged in homosexual sex. After SOCE, that proportion plummeted to only 14%, and was only about half as prevalent among the married men as among unmarried men. From the standpoint of the men in the sample, one of the most important indications of perceived SOCE efficacy may be its association with drastically reduced unwanted same-sex activity which conflicts with the religious norms of their marriages.

“On the one hand, our findings are consistent with converging evidence from twin, genome-wide association studies, population studies and narrative reports that sexual orientation 1) is not an immutable genetic trait, influenced approximately twice as much by environment as by genetic inheritance; 2) is observed to be changeable, even fluid, for some over the life course, 3) is reported to change under strong religious influence,” wrote the researchers. “On the other hand, our findings support prior evidence that sexual orientation is not usually or easily changeable.”

“Overall, we found that a large majority of these sexual minority men perceived their engagement in SOCE to enhance their well-being. Less than 5% of participants reported experiencing negative changes,” they continued. “Reports of positive change were stronger and more widely distributed than those of negative change, most strongly for depression, but also for self-esteem, social functioning, self-harm, suicidality, and alcohol/substance abuse.”

The importance of religious faith

A key observation from the study underscored the high degree of significance of religion in the lives of those most helped by SOCE:

Perhaps the clearest indicator of this divide is the sharply divergent religiosity reported by change-oriented and LGB-identified samples. Fully 88% of our participants reported attendance at religious services weekly or more often, and only 2.4% reported attending rarely or never. By contrast, in a recent population sample of LGB-identified sexual minorities only 9% reported at least weekly religious service attendance and 69% reported attending seldom or never …

It is possible that the prospect of change or stability in sexual orientation is linked to the notably high religiousness of the change-oriented sample and the notably low religiousness of the LGB-identified sample. Future research that incorporates both populations could help to clarify this possibility.

The report concludes by pointing out the weakness of the psychology profession’s approach to efforts to change sexual orientation in recent years and the damage done by their unfounded dismissal of those efforts:

The polarization within organized psychology over SOCE appears to have led to insular research that treats one subgroup of sexual minorities as representative of the whole population, with detrimental consequences for accurately comprehending the complexities of sexual orientation change among these individuals.

  homosexuality, same-sex attraction, sexual orientation change efforts


BREAKING: Texas bans aborting babies with beating hearts, bill heads to gov’s desk for signature

When signed into law, the Texas Heartbeat Act will abolish elective abortions as early as six weeks, when the preborn child’s heartbeat is detectable using methods according to standard medical practice.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 3:58 pm EST
Featured Image
Photograph of 26-week-old baby in womb. Lennart Nilsson

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

AUSTIN, Texas, May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – This morning, May 13th, the Texas Senate gave final approval (amendment concurrence) for the final passage of the pro-life Texas Heartbeat Bill, SB 8 authored by Senator Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) and sponsored by Representative Shelby Slawson (R-Stephenville).

The bill passed by a bipartisan vote of 18-12 and is now on its way to Governor Greg Abbott for his signature. The policy would take effect on September 1, 2021.

Rep. Shelby Slawson is serving in her first legislation session and has shown she is ready to lead on such an important issue, while Senator Bryan Hughes is a veteran of the Texas Legislature and one of the most distinguished pro-life members at the Texas Capitol.

Gov. Greg Abbott has already stated twice in Twitter posts that he will sign the Texas Heartbeat bill.

“A heartbeat is a universal sign of life, and that’s why so many Texans believe that when a heartbeat of an unborn child is detected, that child should be protected. The Texas Heartbeat Act is different than Heartbeat laws in others states, by relying on civil actions to enforce the law making it near impossible for the usual claims of a constitutional violation,” said Jonathan Saenz, president and attorney for Texas Values. 

“Today is a great day for all future preborn children in Texas. The strongest pro-life bill in Texas history will soon be on the Governor’s desk. We are grateful the Legislature recognizes the importance of life,” said Mary Elizabeth Castle, Policy Advisor at Texas Values.

When signed into law, the Texas Heartbeat Act will abolish elective abortions as early as six weeks, when the preborn child’s heartbeat is detectable using methods according to standard medical practice.

A heartbeat is a universal indicator of life and a key medical indicator that an unborn baby will reach live birth. SB 8 requires physicians to check for a baby’s heartbeat and inform the mother if the presence of a heartbeat is detected. Once a heartbeat is detected, the doctor must take all necessary steps to protect the life of the child.

The bill also creates civil liability for a doctor that performs an abortion after a heartbeat is detected, and for aiding and abetting an abortion. SB 8 empowers citizens to file civil actions to enforce the Heartbeat law.

However, the Texas Heartbeat Act is novel in approach, allowing for citizens to hold abortionists accountable through private lawsuits. No heartbeat law passed by another state has taken this strategy. Additionally, the bill does not punish women who obtain abortions.

Since the government will not be in the position of enforcing the law, this makes it nearly impossible for there to be a claim of an unconstitutional violation. The government must be the one enforcing the law for there to be a constitutional violation or a successful pre-enforcement challenge.

— 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

Since 2013, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee have all signed into law a similar Heartbeat bill, with Texas about to be the next.

Texas Right to Life Senior Legislative Associate Rebecca Parma welcomed the news, saying: “The Texas Heartbeat Act is the strongest Pro-Life bill passed by the Legislature since Roe v. Wade and will save thousands of lives. This is a historic day and now is the time to build on our momentum. State lawmakers must use the remaining weeks of session to pass additional life-saving legislation like the Texas Abolition Strategy and the Respecting Texas Patients' Right to Life Act.” 

The Texas Heartbeat bill has been supported by a number of groups and individuals, looking to defend the life of the unborn.

Some key groups supporting the Texas Heartbeat Bill include: Texas Values, Human Coalition Action, Family Policy Alliance, Concerned Women for America (CWA) Texas, Texas Right to Life, Janet Porter (Faith 2 Action), Chairman Allen West (RPT), SBA List,  Texas Eagle Forum, ACLJ, Texas Teens for Life, Fredericksburg Tea Party, Texas Young Republicans, Baylor Bears for Life/Students for Life Action, Texas Pastor Council, Texas Faith & Freedom Coalition, Ethics and Religious Liberty Committee of SBTC.

Key pro-life leaders supporting the Texas Heartbeat Bill: Abby Johnson, Gov. Greg Abbott, Dr. James Dobson, Ann Hettinger, Lauren Muzyka, Jason Jones, Kelly Shackelford, Janet Porter, Jonathan Saenz, Abortion survivors Gianna Jessen and Claire Culwell, Walter Weber, Pastor Frank Pomeroy, Tim Von Dohlen, Karen Garnett, Pastor Dave Welch, Jessica Colon, Tim Lambert.

  abortion, abortionists, greg abbott, heartbeat abortion bans, pro-life legislation, texas heartbeat act, texas right to life, texas values


School vaccination clinics and informed consent: putting children on the vaccine ‘assembly line’

At best, school based vaccination programs could be described as ‘assembly line’ medicine that overrides and ignores children’s legal right to make a voluntary, informed decision about the vaccine treatment they are submitting to. At worst, the Mature Minor doctrine as applied to children captive to public health dictates in the school setting, is a profound violation of the spirit and intent of ethical and legal norms in medicine.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 3:15 pm EST
Featured Image
Tatevosian Yana/Shutterstock
Vaccine Choice Canada

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

May 13, 2021 (Vaccine Choice Canada) – Editor’s note: this article was originally written in 2017.

Part 1: Tim Sullivan and the Ontario College of Teachers

In February of 2017, Ontario high school science teacher, Tim Sullivan, was called before a disciplinary committee of the Ontario College of Teachers for unprofessional conduct. The allegations against him are contained in the Notice of Hearing (pdf). He was found guilty and will find out what penalties he faces later in March. The Counsel for the Ontario Teachers has recommended a one-month suspension and anger management training

Sullivan’s concern was about proper informed consent procedures for students. As he told the Globe and Mail reporter, “I’m not an anti-vaxxer,” he said. “I’m pro-informed consent, pro-science, pro-asking questions.” Some of Mr. Sullivan’s students rallied around him by posting an on-line petition of support, which has received over 2,000 signatures to date.

The press (see herehere and here) ran the story under “anti-vaccine” headlines. An observer who attended the Hearing reported to us that the issue of proper informed consent procedures was never addressed at the hearing. Unfortunately, Mr. Sullivan did not have legal representation at the hearing. Apparently each time he attempted to discuss informed consent, the lawyer for the Ontario College of Teachers objected. As the local newspaper reports:

“An[sic] Norfolk science teacher accused of pushing anti-vaccination views, scaring students and berating a public health nurse has been found guilty of professional misconduct.

“Sullivan, a teacher at a Norfolk high school, denied the accusations, but admitted to leaving class once to speak with nurses and to telling one student that a side effect of one of the vaccines was death.

“He maintains that the students weren’t given proper information to consent to the vaccine, including information about potentially serious, but rare, side effects of the shots.”

The two allegations that stand out as most egregious in Tim Sullivan’s disciplinary case are that as a teacher he:

  1. ‘harassed’ public health nurses during an in school vaccination day for inquiring whether they provide students with the risk information listed in the vaccine product monograph prior to vaccination,
  1. that he “abused” students by frightening them about vaccine risks.

Several obvious questions arise:

  1. Why is it “harassment” for a science teacher to ask medical professionals if they obtain informed consent from students prior to injecting them with complex biochemical pharmaceutical products that carry a risk of injury and death for some?
  1. Why would it be considered “abuse” of students when a science teacher initiates a discussion about published risks disclosed in the vaccine manufacturer’s product monograph about pharmaceutical products students may receive by injection in the school setting?
  1. Why is published information which vaccine manufacturers are required by law to disclose prior to obtaining licensure for their vaccine products, forbidden to be discussed with students in the school setting?
  1. Why is the concept of informed consent forbidden to be discussed with students?

Part 2: Informed consent

Informed consent is the ethical cornerstone of the practice of medicine. Every medical professional, including nurses, is taught the theory and application of medical ethics. As such, nurses understand that informed consent is the foundational medical ethic on which ethical medical practice rests. Nurses also understand that obtaining informed consent from the patient prior to any medical procedure, including vaccination, is an essential requirement both legally and ethically.

Every human being, prior to submitting to a medical treatment that carries known risks, has the right to know the risks and side effects that can result from such a medical treatment, has the right to consider the risks and benefits prior to making a voluntary, informed decision and has the right to accept or reject the treatment. Informed consent to medical risk taking is accepted as a basic human right.

The informed consent ethic is enshrined in numerous international treaties to which Canada is signatory. The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights is one such treaty: 1

Article 6 – Consent in the treaty reads as follows:

“Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be expressed and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” 1

The medical ethic of informed consent is also clearly articulated in provincial health acts referred to below.

A. Ontario’s Health Protection and Promotion Act

It is a widely documented medical fact that vaccines can and do cause a range of side effects and injuries, including death in some people. A particular procedure for informing consenting persons of certain adverse events is set out in Ontario’s Health Protection and Promotion Act3, Section 38 titled, Immunization Definitions.

First, in section 38 (1) reportable events are defined:

(1) In this section…“reportable event” means,

(a) persistent crying or screaming, anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock occurring within forty-eight hours after the administration of an immunizing agent,

(b) shock-like collapse, high fever or convulsions occurring within three days after the administration of an immunizing agent,

(c) arthritis occurring within forty-two days after the administration of an immunizing agent,

(d) generalized urticarial [hives], residual seizure disorder, encephalopathy, encephalitis or any other significant occurrence occurring within fifteen days after the administration of an immunizing agent, or

(e) death occurring at any time and following upon a symptom described in clause (a), (b), (c) or (d).

Next, section 38 (2) articulates the medical providers’ duty to inform the patient of the importance of reporting reportable events that may occur following vaccination

Duty to inform

(2) If consent to the administration of an immunizing agent has been given in accordance with the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, the physician or other person authorized to administer the immunizing agent shall cause the consenting person to be informed of the importance of immediately reporting to a physician or a registered nurse in the extended class any reaction that might be a reportable event.

So a patient would necessarily need to have a list of reportable events that relate to the vaccine or vaccines being administered and the window of time within which they need to let the person who administered the vaccine know that such an event has occurred.

— 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

Section 38 (3) then sets out one more duty for anyone who administers a vaccine:

Duty to report reactions

(3) A physician, a member of the College of Nurses of Ontario or a member of the Ontario College of Pharmacists who, while providing professional services to a person, recognizes the presence of a reportable event and forms the opinion that it may be related to the administration of an immunizing agent shall, within seven days after recognizing the reportable event, report thereon to the medical officer of health of the health unit where the professional services are provided.

This Act therefore clearly sets out a chain of events that are to take place regarding certain serious adverse reactions for both patients and their health care provider. To our knowledge this law is not generally being followed or enforced.

In this regard, the 2014 Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario 4 noted the importance of reportable events information in Recommendation 10 reproduced below [emphasis ours].

Recommendation 10

To enable meaningful analysis of adverse events following immunization and to help prevent future adverse events, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, in conjunction with Public Health Ontario, should:

require health-care providers who administer vaccines to give patients standardized information about which adverse events should be reported;

collect information on health-care providers who have administered vaccines associated with adverse events; and

follow up on any unusual trends, including areas where adverse event rates look unusually low or high.

B. Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act

This act is very clear about the parameters of Informed Consent. While the protections provided by the Act insure that individuals are protected from medical overreach, public health officials override these protections in the school setting resulting in a gross abuse of public health authority.

Stipulations of the Health Care Consent Act 8, Part II: Treatment

No treatment without consent

(1) A health practitioner who proposes a treatment for a person shall not administer the treatment, and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it is not administered, unless,

(a) he or she is of the opinion that the person is capable with respect to the treatment, and the person has given consent; or

(b) he or she is of the opinion that the person is incapable with respect to the treatment, and the person’s substitute decision-maker has given consent on the person’s behalf in accordance with this Act.

Elements of consent

(1) The following are the elements required for consent to treatment:

The consent must relate to the treatment.

The consent must be informed.

The consent must be given voluntarily.

The consent must not be obtained through misrepresentation or fraud.

Informed consent

(2) A consent to treatment is informed if, before giving it,

(a) the person received the information about the matters set out in subsection (3) that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would require in order to make a decision about the treatment; and

(b) the person received responses to his or her requests for additional information about those matters.

(3) The matters referred to in subsection (2) are:

The nature of the treatment.

The expected benefits of the treatment.

The material risks of the treatment.

The material side effects of the treatment.

Alternative courses of action.

The likely consequences of not having the treatment.

Are public health nurses providing students and parents with “reportable event” information prior to vaccination as stipulated by Section 38 (2) of Ontario’s Health Protection and Promotion Act? If not, why not?

What is the reason for vaccine nurses’ reluctance to fully disclose the known risks and side effects of vaccine products prior to injecting students in the school setting (as stipulated in the Health Care consent Act)?

Are Ontario’s public health nurses obtaining proper informed consent prior to injecting students of various ages with these complex biochemical pharmaceutical products?

C. Adverse Events and Informed Consent

Vaccines can trigger a range of side effects from very mild symptoms, like soreness at the injection site, to extreme injuries that can result in damage to the immune system that result in autoimmune diseases, neurological injuries like Guillain Barre syndrome as well as brain damage. This is well documented in the medical literature 2, corroborated by cases in the U.S. vaccine injury compensation system [ ]. This is also corroborated by Canada’s vaccine adverse events reporting systems run by Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada as discussed in this VCC Vaccine Safety Report

At this point in time, there is no medical testing that can be done prior to vaccination to determine who is at risk of injury.

Canadian Medical Law stipulates that patients must be informed of all material risks, no matter how small or remote, prior to consenting to any medical treatment. The consent must also be voluntary and not obtained through coercion, manipulation or fraudulent information. When voluntary informed consent is not properly obtained prior to any medical procedure, it constitutes a “battery” as articulated by Canadian Medical Law.

The Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) provides clear guidelines about Informed Consent for doctors and other healthcare providers. Their detailed document on the requirements for valid consent states that,

“For consent to serve as a defence to allegations of either negligence or assault and battery, it must meet certain requirements. The consent must have been voluntary, the patient must have had the capacity to consent and the patient must have been properly informed.” 6

The document goes on to emphasize that as the law on consent to medical treatment has evolved, it has become a “basic accepted principle” that,

“every human being of adult years and of sound mind has the right to determine what shall be done with his or her own body.” Clearly physicians may do nothing to or for a patient without valid consent. This principle is applicable not only to surgical operations but also to all forms of medical treatment and to diagnostic procedures that involve intentional interference with the person.” 6

Furthermore, in the context of “voluntary consent”, the CMPA guidelines caution that,

“Patients must always be free to consent to or refuse treatment, and be free of any suggestion of duress or coercion. Consent obtained under any suggestion of compulsion either by the actions or words of the physician or others may be no consent at all and therefore may be successfully repudiated.” 6

Part 3: The Mature Minor Doctrine and its application in school vaccination clinics

The Mature Minor doctrine incorporated into Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act in 1996, allows minor children of no specific age (some as young as age 11), to make their own medical decisions without parental knowledge or consent. The Mature Minor doctrine as explained by the CMPA guidelines holds that,

“an individual who is able to understand the nature and anticipated effect of proposed medical treatment and alternatives, and to appreciate the consequences of refusing treatment, is considered to have the necessary capacity to give valid consent.” 7

The Mature Minor doctrine also gives children the same basic human right as adults enjoy, namely the right to voluntary informed consent when considering a medical treatment, and the right to refuse it. Public health officials are given free rein to conduct vaccine clinics in Ontario schools and have for decades ignored the informed consent ethic as it applies to underage children.

The legal and ethical right to voluntary informed consent is regularly abused by public health nurses conducting vaccination programs in the school setting in several ways;

When parental consent has not been obtained, and when a legal vaccine exemption is not on file, minor children of no specific age are told by public health nurses that they don’t need their parents’ permission to get the shots and that they have the right to make their own vaccine decision.

Factual vaccine risk information as disclosed in manufacturers’ information sheets is withheld from underage children.

Children in Ontario are told that if they don’t get the shots being offered, they will be suspended from school, creating a climate of fear, intimidation and coercion.

While children are told that they can make their own vaccine decision, and that they can sign their own consent form, they are at the same time threatened with school suspension if they don’t submit to the injections. Normal parameters of the basic human right to voluntary, informed consent are violated.

When children are threatened with school suspension, and are not informed that they have the legal right to refuse vaccination, it constitutes an extreme form of bullying and coercion and could be construed under Canadian Medical Law as a “battery”.

The “mature minor” doctrine usurps parental authority giving governments the power to coerce children into making health care decisions that conflict with family values. Every reasonable person knows that an 11 year old child does not have the maturity or life experience to evaluate the risks or benefits of receiving one or multiple vaccines. A child this young is incapable of making an informed decision about complex medical issues. Added to this insult is the pro-vaccine propaganda disseminated in the public school system which paints a rosy picture of vaccines without disclosing the very real risks of injury associated with all vaccines.

At best, school based vaccination programs could be described as ‘assembly line’ medicine that overrides and ignores children’s legal right to make a voluntary, informed decision about the vaccine treatment they are submitting to. At worst, the Mature Minor doctrine as applied to children captive to public health dictates in the school setting, is a profound violation of the spirit and intent of ethical and legal norms in medicine. The Mature Minor doctrine enables public health employees to prey on the vulnerability of minor children, to impose its vaccine agenda, and enables public health officials to override all normal ethical and legal rules governing medical treatments.

At no time are children told that vaccination is VOLUNTARY in Canada as the following statement from Health Canada confirms:

“Unlike some countries, immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution. Only three provinces have legislation or regulations under their health-protection acts to require proof of immunization for school entrance. Ontario and New Brunswick require proof for diphtheria, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella immunization. In Manitoba, only measles vaccination is covered [since retracted]. It must be emphasized that, in these three provinces, exceptions are permitted on medical or religious grounds and reasons of conscience; legislation and regulations must not be interpreted to imply compulsory immunization.” 17

See also: /exemptions/immunization-is-not-mandatory-in-canada/

When students are not adequately informed of the published, documented risks associated with vaccination as outlined in Section 38 of Ontario’s Health Promotion and Protection Act or as disclosed in vaccine product monographs or the medical literature 2, when they are not properly informed of their legal right to refuse this medical procedure as stipulated by both the Health Care Consent Act and the Immunization of School Pupils Act 9, we have a complete abandonment of protection of the legal rights of minor children and imposition of medical tyranny on a captive population.

A decision by a British Columbia court 10, when parents of an 11 year old student who was coerced by a public health nurse to submit to a hepatitis B vaccination, over the child’s own protests and without her parents’ knowledge or consent, provides insight into how the legal system views this issue. Cases of children captured by the public health vaccination dragnet are periodically reported in the media.11,12,13

Unanswered concerns in vaccinology

There is profound and just reason for exercising informed consent prior to vaccination. A 2013 Institutes of Medicine vaccine safety review 14 found that,

“Most vaccine-related research focuses on the outcomes of single immunizations or combinations of vaccines administered at a single visit. Although each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of review of that vaccine, elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Thus, key elements of the entire schedule – the number, frequency, timing, order and age at administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies.”

Between 1987-2011, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada received 115,837 reports of adverse events following immunization (AEFI).20 Of these, 6,180 were reports of serious adverse events (SAE) which resulted in a life threatening event, hospitalization, congenital deformity, disability or death.

The VCC Vaccine Safety Report 2  provides evidence from periodic vaccine adverse events reports published by the Canadian government, that the vast majority of adverse events and injuries following immunizations occur in children and continues to rise. In 2014 children of all ages experienced 80% of serious adverse events (SAEs). In 2015 this had risen to 84%. In 2014 babies and infants under the age of 2 experienced 60% of SAEs. In 2015 this had risen to 63%. 

It is an accepted fact that only between 1-10% of vaccine reactions and injuries are reported to government agencies. This means the 6,180 serious adverse events reports, the vast majority of which were experienced by children, represent somewhere between 618,000 and 61,800 actual total serious adverse events in the 25 year time span.

A 2011 Supreme Court decision in the U.S. found that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe”15. Vaccination cannot be both “safe and effective” as claimed by the medical industry, and be ‘unavoidably unsafe’ at the same time. In the U.S., the National Vaccine Injury Compensation System has to date paid out over $3.3 billion dollars in compensation to vaccine injury victims since its inception in 1986. It is estimated that as few as 1-10% of vaccine injuries are reported and only a tiny fraction of these are compensated. Examples of vaccine injuries settlements paid by the U.S. government is provided in reference #16.

Canada has no federal vaccine injury compensation system. When a person is vaccine injured 18,19, they and their families are on their own.

Reprinted with permission from Vaccine Choice Canada

  informed consent, mandatory vaccines, mature minor, school vaccines, vaccine choice canada, vaccine industry


Wife of pro-life Canadian MP: ‘He stands for what he believes in. And he’s right.’

‘I’m incredibly proud of my husband.’
Thu May 13, 2021 - 2:51 pm EST
Featured Image
Derek and Jennifer Sloan LifeSiteNews
LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

OTTAWA, Ontario, May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Jennifer Sloan, wife of outspokenly pro-life Canadian MP Derek Sloan, told LifeSiteNews in a short video interview at today’s National March for Life in Ottawa that she thanks God that her husband “is the way he is.”

“He stands for what he believes in,” said Sloan. “And he’s right. He’s right on everything that he’s stood up for. And I’m very thankful for that.”

Derek Sloan was booted from the Conservative Party caucus under pro-abortion Leader Erin O’Toole. “I’m incredibly proud of my husband,” said Jennifer Sloan, the mother of two daughters and a son.

  2021 march for life, abortion, derek sloan, jennifer sloan, march for life ottawa 2021


What you need to know about COVID ‘vaccine’ shedding

Dr. Ardis notes how reports have showed that shedding has occurred when unvaccinated people are in contact with "those who have been vaccinated by the COVID-19 vaccines."
Thu May 13, 2021 - 2:27 pm EST
Featured Image
LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In the latest episode of Ladies of LifeSite, Dr. Brian Ardis, founder of Ardis Labs, joins Rebekah and Maddie to discuss the COVID vaccine, spike protein shedding, and what you can do to protect yourself and boost your immune system. The doctor’s mission is to educate people on the dangers of America’s institutes and methods of health, including vaccines, and has been advocating for medical consent and medical freedom worldwide.

Dr. Ardis notes how reports have shown that shedding has occurred when unvaccinated people are in contact with “those who have been vaccinated by the COVID-19 vaccines.” He says that the genetic material and particles of the shots inside the body of the vaccinated person can be transmitted to anyone through several ways, including breathing and sweating. Ardis backs up his statements with a 146-page document from Pfizer, which he says admits this information.

Listen to the full episode:

One of the findings in the document is that pregnant women were not allowed in the Pfizer trials because of concerns for pregnancy complications. Yet, the shot has been now approved for pregnant women in the United States and other countries, which Ardis says is because “you are the experiment.”

Dr. Ardis mentions how in India, “within 10 days of introducing vaccines,” COVID cases and the death rates became higher than at the peak of the pandemic in 2020. He also details that when in the past inoculations against coronaviruses were being developed, and they underwent animal trials, “100 percent of all the animals died from an enhanced reaction.”

Ardis says that prior to any COVID shot being released, complications to “pregnancy and birth outcomes were actually a serious adverse event expected to be reported.” He highlights how from the first trimester up to the first three years of a baby’s life, a child’s immune and nervous system is still being developed, and that vaccines cause risks of neurological damage. He does not recommend that children before the age of three and pregnant women ever take any vaccine.

Regarding building up immunity and protecting yourself from coronavirus and vaccine shedding, Dr. Ardis talks about taking actions that aid your immune system to produce natural killer cells that combat any virus infection. He references several vitamins that can be taken every day, including 10,000 mg of Vitamin C, 8,000 IU of Vitamin D, 200 mg of Zinc, and 200 mcg of Selenium.

Ardis notes that people do not have to live in fear that COVID-19 will kill them, and then take the shots, which he says do not “keep you from getting sick.” Instead, he recommends boosting immune systems through natural methods that have been used for decades.

For a different take on vaccine shedding, click here.

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.

  covid-19, covid-19 treatments, covid-19 vaccine, ladies of lifesite, vaccine shedding, vitamin c, vitamin d, zinc


Canadian March for Life organizer: Politicians need to start ‘constantly’ bringing forward pro-life bills

'We need an activist MP, times a hundred, or more, to just constantly bring forward bills to protect children in the womb.'
Thu May 13, 2021 - 2:08 pm EST
Featured Image
LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

OTTAWA, Ontario, May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – At today’s National March for Life in Canada’s capital of Ottawa, Jeff Gunnarson, the president of Campaign Life Coalition, said that Canada needs “politicians who are not just pro-life, but they actually have to believe in passing legislation. And the way you pass it is by asking. So we need pro-life MPs to ask to end abortion, to bring bills to end abortion.”

In a video interview with LifeSite’s John-Henry Westen, Gunnarson explained, “Under Trudeau’s government, we don’t see anything passed.”

“We need an activist MP, times a hundred, or more, to just constantly bring forward bills to protect children in the womb,” said Gunnarson, whose organization is responsible for the annual National March for Life.

  abortion, jeff gunnarson, march for life ottawa 2021, national march for life


BREAKING: Hundreds of Canadians march in defense of life in Canada’s capital

Canada as a nation is ‘broken’ by allowing abortion and euthanasia to take place, said Rod Taylor, National Leader of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, at the rally preceding the event.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 1:51 pm EST
Featured Image
2021 Canadian National March for Life LifeSiteNews
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

CLICK HERE for photos from the rally and march.

OTTAWA, Ontario, May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Pro-life Canadians are marching in the nation’s capital to peacefully protest against government-sanctioned abortion on demand and euthanasia in the 2021 Canadian National March for Life.

The march began at around 1:30 p.m., with hundreds, if not thousands, demanding “legal protection for every human being from conception to natural death.”

Pro-life Independent MP Derek Sloan spoke at the rally preceding the march. His family was present, as well. “I don’t believe that having families, that having children slows down your life,” said Sloan.

“I’ve always been pro-life, I haven’t always been super faithful, I am now … I’ve always had issues with abortion, it just doesn’t seem fair. It’s violent, it violates one of the most peaceful areas we have in life, it doesn’t seem fair to the baby.”

Rod Taylor, National Leader of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, said his party has been supporting pro-life policies for 35 years.

“Almighty God still has dominion from sea to sea,” said Taylor, adding that Canada as a nation is “broken” by allowing abortion and euthanasia to take place, adding to not “lose heart” in the pro-life fight.

Debbie Duval, National Capital Organizer for Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), the organizer of the event, said, “We are here to changes the minds of our leaders and their hearts.”

“Welcome to you, the grassroots, thank you for showing up,” she exclaimed, noting that the Canadian March for Life is not an anti-mask rally, but about “the right to life” for everyone, “from conception to natural death.”

CLC President Jeff Gunnarson said at the rally that the people in attendance “are the prayer warriors” coming out “after a year of hibernation.”

“It is an honor to be here with you … it is your prayers … that changes from the culture of death to the culture of life,” said Gunnarson. “Why is it that abortion is an essential service… who came up with that idea, why are we going to let that happen … There is more of us then there are of them. Why are you here today? The answer to that is pro-life.”

CLICK HERE for photos from the rally and march.

— 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

Haley Kimball, a mother of three, said she knows without a doubt about the “humanity of the child inside the womb.”

Angelina Steenstra, National Coordinator for the Silent No More Awareness Campaign Canada, said that “you’re child is really — has an identity. Be not afraid … proclaim the truth that you can choose life. You are not alone.”

Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, explained that euthanasia is “about killing people … denying proper care.” He added, “It’s about a culture of abandonment … our challenge now is to promote a culture of life.”

According to CLC, every day in Canada almost “300 Canadian women undergo an abortion, in which a baby is killed before birth through surgical or chemical means,” adding that on any given day more than “15 vulnerable Canadians are killed by euthanasia or assisted suicide.”

Along with the in-person rally and march, there is a “full program of virtual events,” which started on May 9 and will continue until May 16.

The 2021 Canadian March for Life Youth Conference will take place on Friday, May 14, with an exceptional line-up of pro-life advocates. Titled “I Am With You,” the online event will be taking place from 3 to 8 p.m. EST.

The free event will be hosted by CLC Youth and Niagara Region Right to Life. Speakers are Toni McFadden, the founder of the program Relationships Matter, Joseph Backholm of the Family Research Council, Jay Watts, founder and president of Merely Human Ministries, Inc., and Will Witt, a media personality who works for PragerU.

Participants can join the “I Am With You” conference by filling out the online registration form.

  abortion, derek sloan, euthanasia, march for life ottawa 2021


Canadians march against abortion, the ‘greatest human rights injustice of our age’

‘Because of the urgency and importance of life issues like abortion and euthanasia, we have a duty to hold our legislators to account.’
Thu May 13, 2021 - 1:50 pm EST
Featured Image
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

OTTAWA, Ontario, May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Thousands of Canadians are marching to the steps of the nation’s Parliament Hill in Ottawa today to peacefully protest against government-sanctioned abortion on demand and euthanasia in the 2021 Canadian National March for Life.

The National March for Life began at 1:15 p.m. EST. According to event organizers, this march is a “scaled down version,” with groups “of organizers and local grassroots intent on attending” to demand “legal protection for every human being from conception to natural death.”

According to Debbie Duval, National Capital Organizer of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), the Canadian National March for Life is “at its core” a protest against the “greatest human rights injustice of our age.”

“Because of the urgency and importance of life issues like abortion and euthanasia, we have a duty to hold our legislators to account,” Duval told LifeSiteNews.

Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) is the organizer of the event, which last year was held virtually due to COVID-19 lockdowns. A year later, COVID-19 restrictions are still in place in Ontario, banning large gatherings outdoors — but that has not deterred pro-lifers for a second time.

The in-person rally began at 12:30 p.m. EST today before the march on the steps of Canada’s Parliament Hill.

Event organizers say there is a planned speaker line-up which is expected to include both people from CLC and prominent figures from the pro-life and pro-family movement in Canada.

The march will return to Parliament Hill around 2 p.m. for “Silent No More Awareness Testimonies.”

Along with the in-person rally and march, there is a “full program of virtual events,” which started on May 9 and will continue until May 16.

Event organizers told pro-lifers to check the CLC Facebook page for live information regarding the rally and march at

President of CLC Jeff Gunnarson said that although the march will be smaller this year, he believes that it is “important for a core group of representatives to bring the concerns of many Canadians to the steps of our Parliament.”

“Even during an ongoing pandemic, the federal government continues to increase abortion funding overseas, abortion is prioritized as an essential service by the federal and provincial governments, and a majority of our parliamentarians voted to expand euthanasia and assisted suicide, despite exposed cracks in our health care system. This cannot go unopposed,” said Gunnarson.

CLC earlier stated that despite COVID-19 and related restrictions, “we do still have a constitutional right to peacefully demonstrate, as delineated in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” against abortion and euthanasia.

According to CLC, every day in Canada almost “300 Canadian women undergo an abortion, in which a baby is killed before birth through surgical or chemical means,” adding that on any given day more than “15 vulnerable Canadians are killed by euthanasia or assisted suicide.”

Event planners advise of “legal and health risks associated with attending the National March for Life in Ottawa”

— 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 March for Life has advised all those who choose to come to the in-person rally of their own free will that “every attendee must assess what level of risk they are personally willing to assume” by coming to the event.

“Please be advised of both the legal and health risks associated with attending the National March for Life in Ottawa. We will do our best to mitigate those risks,” noted the organizers. “If you do decide to attend the rally and March for Life, please act respectfully and responsibly, and follow all relevant health measures, outlined here.”

The 2021 Canadian March for Life Youth Conference will take place on Friday, May 14, with an exceptional line-up of pro-life advocates. Titled “I Am With You,” the online event will be taking place from 3 to 8 p.m. EST.

The free event will be hosted by CLC Youth and Niagara Region Right to Life. Speakers are Toni McFadden, the founder of the program Relationships Matter, Joseph Backholm of the Family Research Council, Jay Watts, founder and president of Merely Human Ministries, Inc., and Will Witt, a media personality who works for PragerU.

Participants can join the “I Am With You” conference by filling out the online registration form.

There will be an online Rose Dinner on May 13, emceed by David Bereit, the founder of 40 Days for Life and a pro-life speaker, starting at 7:30 p.m. Tickets for the event can be purchased by clicking HERE.

For a full schedule of events including online speakers, you can click HERE.

  2021 march for life, abortion, campaign life coalition, euthanasia, march for life ottawa


PHOTOS: Canadians march for life at Parliament Hill, demand end to injustice of abortion

Click here for photos from the 2021 National March for Life in Ottawa.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 1:32 pm EST
Featured Image
LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

CLICK HERE for a first report from today’s rally and march.

OTTAWA, Ontario, May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Pro-life Canadians are currently marching for life in Canada’s capital of Ottawa, demanding an end to the country’s brutal abortion-until-birth regime. Canada has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world.

“Even during an ongoing pandemic, the federal government continues to increase abortion funding overseas, abortion is prioritized as an essential service by the federal and provincial governments, and a majority of our parliamentarians voted to expand euthanasia and assisted suicide, despite exposed cracks in our health care system. This cannot go unopposed,” said Jeff Gunnarson, president of Campaign Life Coalition, which organized the march.

LifeSiteNews is on the ground in Ottawa. Below are some photos of the rally and march unfolding. Continue to check back to this page, and, for more breaking reports, photos, and video.

MPP Derek Sloan

  abortion, campaign life coalition, euthanasia, march for life ottawa 2021, national march for life 2021


WATCH: Elderly Catholic woman in tears kisses feet of angry LGBT activist, then they make sign of Cross together

As the young activist continues her ranting, the elderly woman approaches her, kneels down on the sidewalk, and kisses her feet.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 12:39 pm EST
Featured Image
An elderly Polish woman makes the sign of the Cross with a young LGBT activist, April 29, 2021, Warsaw, Poland. Świat Rolnika / Youtube video grab
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

POLAND, May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – A video out of Poland making the rounds on social media captures the powerful moment when an elderly Catholic woman in tears kneels down on the ground to kiss the feet of a young female LGBT activist who has come out to mock and disrupt the woman’s group which is praying. The elderly woman begins a dialogue with the LGBT activist which stunningly ends in the activist imitating the woman in making the sign of the Cross.

The elderly woman was part of a group praying the Chaplet of Divine Mercy on April 29 outside a courthouse in Warsaw as Catholic station Radio Maria was inside defending itself against the latest attack from leftists, who were attempting to silence the conservative outlet.

Video captures the group praying while holding signs in support of Radio Maria. Suddenly, a young woman wrapped in a rainbow “gay pride” flag and wearing a rainbow-colored mask enters the scene. She dances to music playing on a hand-held device while smoking a cigarette. She attempts to shout down the group with slogans, cursing and swearing at them.

The elderly woman kisses the feet of the LGBT activist. SOURCE: Świat Rolnika / Youtube video grab

As the young activist continues her ranting, the elderly woman approaches her, kneels down on the sidewalk, and kisses her feet.

Video captures the dialogue that ensues between the elderly woman and the LGBT activist. The LGBT activist, apparently moved by the woman’s gesture, tells the woman to go on “calmly” with her words, asking her “please don't cry.”

The elderly woman explains how sad she is to see where her country is going after fighting for it her whole life.

The elderly Polish woman cries while speaking to the LGBT activist, April 29, 2021, Warsaw, Poland. SOURCE: Świat Rolnika / Youtube video grab

“I am 83 years old and I love you. I fought for Poland my whole life. Soon I will leave this world and Poland is divided. I am very sorry for that and I feel it very much,” the elderly woman said in tears.

“And these children, our poor children, who were raised by Polish Poles,” she adds in reference to the young woman.

The two hug one another at one point.

When the elderly woman is finished speaking, she says goodbye to the LGBT activist and makes the sign of the Cross on her body. Amazingly, the LGBT activist imitates her in making the sign of the Cross on her body.

The Remnant’s Michael Matt called this moment of the woman and the LGBT activist making the sign of the Cross together a “beautiful little sign of hope.”

The elderly woman and LGBT activist after making the sign of the Cross together, April 29, 2021, Warsaw, Poland. SOURCE: Świat Rolnika / Youtube video grab

“What you just saw is a small sign, but it's a powerful sign, it's a magnificent sign, it's a sign that has been repeated, over and over and over again,” he said on his May 8 The Editor's Desk show.

Matt said that as the world struggles under the weight of the fallout from the Coronavirus with the loss of freedoms, the trampling of rights, the closure of churches, the plans for a great reset, the Cross of Christ has the power to save and will always be there, no matter what may come.

“We're going through hell right now. The world is crazy. Everything's upside down, everything's evil,” he said.

“When all is said and done and every political option is exhausted, the Cross of Christ will save the world. The Cross of Christ will save you. The Cross of Christ will save me. The Cross of Christ will save our children,” he added.

May 14, 2021 correction: The original report stated the group was praying the rosary whereas they were praying the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. This has now been corrected. 

  catholic, homosexuality, radio maria poland


Tucker Carlson: Fauci more responsible for COVID pandemic than ‘any other single living American’

Fox News commentator, Tucker Carlson, cited a recent article by Nicholas Wade outlining how Dr. Anthony Fauci approved funding for the controversial gain-of-function research in Wuhan that, according to Wade, led to the pandemic.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 11:41 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.

May 13, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) – Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson took aim this week at two (in his words) “political operatives” — Jeffrey Zients and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Specifically, Carlson raised questions about both men’s roles, past and present, in the pandemic.

In the “Tucker Carlson Tonight” segment below, Carslon asked these two questions:

  1. Why was Jeffrey Zients, former management consultant at Bain & Company, who sat on the board of Facebook and also ran President Biden’s transition team — someone with no background at all in science or medicine — appointed White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator?
  2. Why isn’t Dr. Anthony Fauci under criminal investigation for his role in creating the COVID pandemic?

On the Fauci question, Carlson cited an article by Nicholas Wade in which the science writer and former New York Times reporter lays out the evidence behind the theory that COVID originated in — and escaped from — the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

According to Carlson, Wade presents “insurmountable evidence” that COVID originated in the lab where scientists were conducting U.S. taxpayer-funded gain-of-function experiments. Who approved that funding? Fauci, according to Wade.

Carslon said:

“Wade makes it clear that more than any other single living American, Tony Fauci is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Watch Tucker Carlson here:

© May 13, 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.

  anthony fauci, children’s health defense, covid-19 origins, masks, tucker carlson, wuhan institute of virology


Within hours, French National Assembly first rejects, then approves COVID health passport

The large majority of votes — 205 in favor, 85 against — was obtained by a repeat vote on an article of the draft law that had been rejected a few hours earlier by 108 votes against, and 103 in favor.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 11:32 am EST
Featured Image
French National Assembly Shutterstock
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent Follow Jeanne
By Jeanne Smits

PARIS, May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The French National Assembly adopted the principle of a sanitary passport during the night from Tuesday to Wednesday, approving a “health pass” that will be required as of June 9 for some events and expanded at the end of June for large public gatherings to prove vaccination, COVID-19 negativity or recent infection (and therefore immunity) from the virus. The large majority of votes — 205 in favor, 85 against — was obtained by a repeat vote on an article of the draft law that had been rejected a few hours earlier by 108 votes against, and 103 in favor.

It was just another episode in a parliamentary comedy that saw the centrist allies of the government party, “La République en Marche,” first slam the “vagueness” and lack of precise detail of the proposed sanitary pass and then allow it to be adopted.

In exchange, the opposition had asked for a reduction of the state of sanitary emergency that is also being prolonged by the law. The government rewrote the bill that same evening to include a shortening of the state of emergency but without modifying dispositions regarding the health pass, and submitted it immediately for a new vote.

As determined by the National Assembly, the government will retain its extraordinary powers until the end of September instead of the end of October — small comfort, when considering that the surveillance state is striding forward with requirements that will be specified via executive decrees. The precise circumstances in which the health pass being set up will be compulsory are not included in the law, meaning they can be modified — and extended — at will by the government without parliamentary control.

The law has yet to be approved by the French Senate, and will discuss the draft law as of May 18.

France is the first member of the European Union to institute a compulsory sanitary passport. This will likely streamline the EU’s upcoming “green pass” that is expected to mature by summer.

Hope had arisen when, in an unexpected turnabout, the French National Assembly had rejected the present government proposal to mandate a sanitary pass for international travel and large public gatherings as of June on Tuesday evening.

At the end of a day of heated debate, the centrist party, MODEM, complained about the lack of precision of the text and accused the government of refusing to listen to concerns about the “red lines” of the text and the vagueness of its dispositions.

“There is a constitutional risk regarding the lack of clarity, a risk of appeals about gauges and the places included or not in the use of the pass. And there is a problem of balance between the legislative and the executive, whose prerogatives would be stronger outside the state of health emergency,” said the spokesman of MODEM, Philippe Latombe.

As the law is presently worded, it would not only institute the tyrannical health pass but give a lot of leeway to the executive branch to extend its use. This has now been accepted by MODEM after a short-lived rebellion.

LREM lost its absolute majority in May last year when 17 deputies of the brand new, supposedly representative movement tailored to measure for the election of Emmanuel Macron as President of the French Republic decided to leave the party and create their own political group at the National Assembly.

It looked as if members of the “Chambre des Députés” were truly questioning the government’s authoritarian measures to combat COVID. France is at present under the tightest COVID regime in Europe, with a 7 p.m. nationwide curfew, so-called “non-essential shops” closed and restaurants and bars not allowed to receive the public either inside or out.

As it turns out, only very minor parties, not represented in parliament, are presently combating the sanitary dictatorship, as well as some isolated members of the National Assembly. On the other hand, protests against COVID restrictions are gaining traction in France.

— 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

Florian Philippot, a former member of the Rassemblement National of Marine Le Pen (she was not present and did not vote on this major issue), who organizes weekly demonstrations under the windows of health minister Olivier Véran, tweeted: “The members of the House who voted for #SanitaryPass voted for apartheid. They will forever carry the weight of shame and dishonor.”

He added, “We will need to organize and boycott the institutions that will use #PassOfShame!”

While SARS-CoV-2 infections are steadily declining, as are deaths attributed to COVID, the French government is still touting vaccination as the only possible way to get out of restrictions, and only predicts a (more or less) complete “return to normal” by September, at the earliest. Prominent media personalities have gone on record saying that vaccination should be made compulsory because otherwise, the minimum of 70 percent of the population vaccinated will not be reached, and social media surveys are pushing vaccine passports as the only way to freedom for which the French are clamoring.

Strangely, the principle of a sanitary passport was first approved on Monday evening by the National Assembly by a limited number of representatives, before the same article was rejected on Tuesday evening by the short margin evoked earlier in this story, and then adopted again.

On Tuesday evening, Prime Minister Jean Castex downplayed the rebellion of the LREM’s main ally, stating on the national news show on state-run France 2 television channel at 8 p.m.: “The disagreement was not about the health pass, but about the date of exit from the health emergency. To be on the safe side, we had set a date of October 31. Several members of the majority wanted a date of September 30.”

“There will be a sanitary pass,” he pounded, promising that a new vote would take place the same evening. It did, in the early hours of Wednesday.

Castex’s statement does not agree with the facts, as it was clearly the health pass that was rejected. But some commentators noted that the opposition was seeking a negotiation tool in order to force the government to shorten the state of emergency that is being prolonged, with extra measures open to the authorities.

In particular, article 4 of the law that was debated provides for isolating COVID-19 positive but asymptomatic citizens in places that are not clearly identified by the draft law, at the government’s discretion. One deputy, Martine Wonner, a former member of LREM, a psychiatrist with experience as an emergency physician, said this was a totally unacceptable curb on public liberties without even the judiciary control of an independent judge.

The same article aims to set up heavier repressive measures for those who disregard COVID restrictions (first offenders already risk a €135 fine, and up to €3,750 plus six months imprisonment for breaking the rules three times within a period of 30 days).

When announced by Emmanuel Macron a few weeks ago, the sanitary pass was presented as a COVID-status app (or printed document) proving vaccination, a recent negative test, or prior COVID-19 infection within the last six months. He said it would be required for public exhibitions and commercial fairs with more than 5,000 people attending as of June 9, and then at public events with more than 1,000 visitors as of June 30. He added that “everyday” situations — visiting friends, going to the restaurant or the movies — would not be included.

However, the draft law contains none of the limits suggested by the president, nor does it fix a limit to the duration of its use, although the government’s “Scientific Counsel” recommended that use of a health pass remain temporary. It would also be applicable for all children older than 11.

This Wednesday, the official digital public liberties watchdog CNIL approved the sanitary passport on the condition that it will be pulled as soon as the health crisis is past, that the government clearly defines when and where it can be required — and never for everyday activities — and that private professionals be barred from taking the initiative of subjecting access to their business to the presentation of the pass.

The French Academy of Medicine is not content with the plan and is now pleading for a fully-fledged vaccine passport for all. A communiqué published at the end of April rejected the possibility of giving a free pass to people who tested negative or those whose COVID infection was healed, because of the “uncertain or ephemeral” character of these data. “A certificate of vaccination at present constitutes the best proof of acquisition of immunity against COVID-19,” said the statement.

The institution added that this would be a way of exerting pressure on those who refuse the vaccine, by making it the condition of their freedom of movement in Europe and in the world.

At the same time, the Academy of Medicine wants “barrier gestures” to continue to be observed, and it had nothing to say about fully vaccinated people who are infected with the coronavirus, and even in some cases go to hospital or even die. Nor did it raise the issue of COVID-positive persons who develop infections after being vaccinated.

  france, french national assembly, vaccine passports


Elite Australian Catholic boys’ school says student’s attempted gender change ‘welcome’

Given that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI previously called 'gender theory' a 'profound falsehood,' Xavier College's Catholic ethos is now called into question.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 11:25 am EST
Featured Image
College principal, William Doherty Screenshot/Xavier College
LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

MELBOURNE, Australia, May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – A high school senior at one of Melbourne’s most prestigious boys’ schools who now identifies as female has been encouraged to “come out” by his school principal and Jesuit chaplain.  

After an extensive period of personal discernment, specialist advice and counselling, we note that a Year 12 student has today announced to the Xavier community her [sic] identity as female,” Principal William Doherty wrote in a letter to parents seen by the Melbourne-based Herald Sun. 

We welcome the opportunity of companioning her [sic] through this emotional and challenging time in her life, through her remaining at the College and into her life beyond at Xavier,” Doherty continued. 

The letter was co-signed by Xavier College Rector, Father Chris Middleton, SJ.  

Both Doherty and Fr. Middleton have declined to provide further comment.   

Xavier College is one of Melbourne’s most prestigious boys’ schools, with annual school fees equivalent to $23,000 USD per student. Founded in 1878, the school boasts beautiful architecture and a “distinct Jesuit character.” 

The announcement comes just weeks after VicHealth and a several other lobby groups began a renewed push for students across the state of Victoria to avoid using terms like “mum and dad,” and begin using more “gender inclusive language. 

Part of the #speakingupspeaksvolumes campaign also targets parents, suggesting they ask for a person’s pronouns before addressing them.    

The Catholic Church’s teaching on gender remains unchanged, calling into question the Catholic identity and ethos of Xavier College, since it is in violation of the Catholic teaching on this matter. 

As recently as 2019 the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education released the document Male and Female He Created Them, doubling down on the Church’s traditional teaching that the human person is a body-soul composite, and therefore no amount medication, surgery or change in the presentation or self-identification of an individual can change their inherent maleness or femaleness.  

— 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 teaching has been summed up well by Pope Francis, himself a Jesuit: “The young need to be helped to accept their own body as it was created.”  

In 2012, Pope Benedict XVI dealt with the issue of so called “gender theory” in his curial address, saying that “The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious.” 

Benedict clarified the Catholic position, stating that “being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God.” 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches that “Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.”  

Furthermore, the CCC adds that every “man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.” 

For respectful communication: 

Xavier College - [email protected] 

Archdiocese of Melbourne – [email protected]  

  australia, catholic, gender ideology, gender reassignment, homosexuality, melbourne, transgenderism, xavier college


Children not a ‘vector of transmission’ of COVID-19, nor at risk from it themselves

Official evidence shows that children have nothing to fear from COVID–19, nor are they 'super spreaders' of the disease.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 10:23 am EST
Featured Image
Dr. Mark Trozzi

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

May 13, 2021 (Evidence not Fear) – Children are safe from COVID-19 and do not pass it on to relatives, teachers or friends. This short guide highlights the main facts that are backed up by credible mainstream sources.

No risk to children

COVID-19 poses no risk to children, even those in the vulnerable category. The chart below, using data from the Office for National Statistics, compares the number of deaths from young people in England and Wales in 2003 with COVID-19 in 2020. Although there have been deaths among children, those who died were already seriously ill.


England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Jenny Harries says that children are at more risk from flu or car accidents. Statistically speaking, they have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than dying of COVID-19.

Children do not pass on COVID–19

Evidence shows that children are not super spreaders or even a vector of transmission. Schools in Sweden were kept open for children 15 and younger and did not enforce masks or mass testing. It has had zero COVID-19 deaths among 1.8 million children and teachers didn’t have an excess infection risk.

A study of 100 institutions in the UK, one of the largest studies in the world on coronavirus in schools, has shown similar results. Professor Russell Viner, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said: “A new study that has been done in UK schools confirms there is very little evidence that the virus is transmitted in schools.”

According to leading epidemiologist and SAGE member Mark Woolhouse, there has been no recorded case of a teacher catching the coronavirus from a pupil anywhere in the world. He told The Times in July 2020 that it may have been a mistake for the UK to close schools.

Strengthen the immune system

Being ‘too clean’ has long been known to create weaker immune systems. Exposure to germs at a young age helps strengthen a child’s ability to mount a defense against pathogens. Professor Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford, says: “evidence is mounting that early exposure to these various coronaviruses is what enables people to survive them.”

The measures in place for COVID-19, such as social distancing and frequent use of hand gels, may end up making them more susceptible to disease. In fact, while hand hygiene is an important method of protecting against coronaviruses, overuse of gels and disinfectants may also be breeding superbugs.

No masks

There is no strong medical consensus on whether face masks help outside of health care settings. Further, there seems to be growing evidence that wearing masks at best gives a false sense of security and at worst end up making healthy people more susceptible to getting sick. Dr. Jenny Harries, the UK’s deputy chief medical officer, warned that masks could increase risk of infection: “For the average member of the public walking down a street, it is not a good idea…In fact, you can actually trap the virus in the mask and start breathing it in. Because of these behavioural issues, people can adversely put themselves at more risk than less.”

Professor Russell Viner says that not only is there very little evidence for the use of masks in schools, children could potentially spread the virus if they wear masks. This is because masks are intended to be used for short periods together with other personal protection equipment before disposal.

Children are safe

We collect information for this site from official government data, mainstream news sources and world-renowned experts. Please browse through the articles to reassure yourself that children are safe from COVID-19.

Supporting articles.

Reprinted with permission by Evidence not Fear

  children's safety, covid-19 restrictions, masks


Biden isn’t fuelling anyone with his useless agenda

This country is staring down crises in energy, the economy, the job market, Middle East, and the border, and what is this administration doing? Opening more transgender restrooms.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 5:00 pm EST
Featured Image
Tony Perkins Tony Perkins
By Tony Perkins

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

May 13, 2021 (Family Research Council) – Joe Biden wants to be FDR, but he may have to settle for Jimmy Carter. The eerie echoes of those days are starting to replay in a lot of Americans minds as they watch the world unravel – almost overnight.

By nightfall Tuesday, the lines for gas up and down the east coast were so long that the traffic jams spilled onto the main streets. People everywhere raced to fill up tanks and whatever else they could hold, as panic spread. Along the southern border, the state of emergency hit a fever pitch when the surge hit a two-decade high. In Israel, Arab terrorists are on the verge of “full-scale war.” Prices are skyrocketing, inflation is shooting fear throughout the market, and what is the president's response? “This is progress.”

Five days after saying America is moving in the “right direction,” Biden’s team is scrambling to put out fires that they seem completely unprepared to confront. The bad news has only compounded since last Friday, when the dismal jobs report started to confirm what we all suspected: this White House's radical approach isn’t working.

After four months of acting on their pet LGBT and climate change projects, the administration is alarmingly out of its depth in the current global meltdown. The president seems dazed by the situations spiralling out of control under his watch – and many worry these catastrophes will only get worse.

Since the Colonial Pipeline was hacked over the weekend, governors like Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) have been furious with the administrations’ non-response. Stations up and down the seaboard are running out of fuel, and all the administration has managed to say about the cyberattack is “Do not fill plastic bags with gasoline.”

“The Biden administration needs to take this seriously,” DeSantis argued. “Their initial response is, ‘Oh, this is a private pipeline,’ and just shrug their shoulders. This is important infrastructure for our country, and it could impact our economy greatly if they don't respond.” Despite prices climbing 10-20 cents a gallon since Saturday, Mr. Biden, who campaigned on closing down the oil industry, seems unconcerned.

His team has been just as indifferent about the border, where the numbers continue to be a jaw-dropping indictment of this administration's policy. According to the data released Tuesday, 178,622 illegal immigrants tried to cross into the country in April – the highest one-month total in two decades. That's not “seasonable migration,” NRO's Jim Geraghty points out, rebutting the president's earlier claim. Anyone who tries to suggest that months of record-breaking numbers are nothing out of the ordinary is selling a “load of bull,” he argues. “These are cold, hard numbers which prove that Biden's assessment of the situation in late March was completely wrong.”

Twenty governors are now banding together to demand action immediately. “The crisis is too big to ignore and is now spilling over the border states into all of our states,” they said in a letter to President Biden. “We have neither the resources nor the obligation to solve the federal government’s problem and foot the bill for the consequences of this administration's misguided actions.”

Americans are even less reassured about the economy, as the sticker-shock over everything from eggs to lumber points to leaner days ahead. The worker shortage is already hitting employers hard, but now, to spread the pain around, the country is experiencing the single largest price increase on consumer goods since 2008.

— 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

Inflation, even liberal media outlets warn, is “accelerating at its fastest pace in more than 12 years.” And yet, none of that seems to deter Biden from his $4 trillion dollars in new projects. If they pass, taxpayers will be looking at $10 trillion dollars in new spending in about a year.

This country is staring down crises in energy, the economy, the job market, Middle East, and the border, and what is this administration doing? Opening more transgender restrooms.

Not that anyone should be surprised. This is, after all, what Joe Biden said he would do. And most extremists (including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.) would agree, he’s been remarkably efficient at it. Of the 43 executive orders he's signed since January, only a handful deal with something other than his extreme social agenda for the environment, race, gender, sexuality, health care, courts, the military, or education.

On everything else, Biden struggles to look even mildly competent. The world is literally on fire, and this administration can’t even decide whether vaccinated people should wear masks.

Evil preys on weakness – and that’s what this president is projecting to our enemies all around the globe. If something doesn’t change, and soon, America won't be the only one who suffers. Israel, our allies, the persecuted, they're all in jeopardy under an administration as feeble and misguided at this one.

“At the end of the day, every bully on the planet feels emboldened,” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said soberly. “... I’ve never seen so much deterioration of our national security in such a short period of time, as I do right now. On multiple fronts, America is weaker, and the world is more dangerous. And I blame Joe Biden.”

Reprinted with permission from Family Research Council

  colonial pipeline, democrats, gender ideology, homosexuality, joe biden, middle east


What happens when a sex shop owner runs the school board?

Bellingham School promotes gender ideology to first graders, while the school board president runs her own sex toy shop.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 4:44 pm EST
Featured Image
Meg Kilgannon

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

May 13, 2021 (Family Research Council) – It’s a story that’s becoming all too common. First grade students in Bellingham, Washington, were read a book in class about a child who claims to have "a boy body but a girl brain." When concerned parents complained that six-year-olds shouldn't be confronted with such sensitive topics at school, the teacher explained that she was just following school policy. After all, the book is from the school library’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion collection, she informed the worried parents.

As Young America’s Foundation reported:

Concerned parents reached out to school administrators and the school board, both of whom refused to take action.

An investigation by YAF revealed that Jennifer Mason, president of the Bellingham School Board, owns and operates a self-described "all-ages" sex toy shop.

According to a local paper, “[Mason] said while the store only sells to those ages 16 and older, people of any age can be in the store.”

“I want to show people if sex isn’t something to be ashamed about, then I should be able to be an elected official and own a sex shop at the same time,” Mason told the local paper. “That’s what it means to live your values.”

Got that? According to Mason, owning a sex toy shop catering to the needs of various paraphilias for all ages including children while serving the public as president of the Bellingham County School Board is “what it means to live your values.”

Interesting then, that she made no mention of her profession in her campaign videos or on her campaign website:

— 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

“I’m proud to be endorsed by the Whatcom Democrats, Young Democrats of Whatcom County, 42nd District Democrats, 40th District Democrats, Riveters Collective, and many community leaders. If elected as a school board member, I am committed to listening to your concerns, helping to find solutions, and being a voice for all students and families.”

Unless your concerns are the dignity of the human person, preserving the innocence of children, and parents as primary educators of their children, it seems.

Harvard-trained Dr. Greg Baker is the Bellingham Schools superintendent. According to his biography, he was “awarded the 2014 Washington state Crystal Apple Award, in recognition of his commitment to inclusive and transparent communications...”

Interesting that this commitment doesn’t include the need to post an email address on the school board website.

If you live in the school district, we encourage you to respectfully let the Superintendent Baker hear from you. He can be called by phone at this number: 360-676-6501.

You can email the entire school board at this address: [email protected]

School boards like these need parental supervision. As Christians, we extoll the beauty of God’s plan for human sexuality. We value and appreciate the power of the marital embrace and we value the children that can be conceived in it. Perhaps the school board members of Bellingham, Washington need a refresher course in human dignity.

Reprinted with permission form Family Research Council

  children's literature, children's rights, family research council, gender ideology, sex education, sex shops


On pathological science: Darwinian evolution and the devaluing of man

Darwin claims that an accumulation of slight differences through natural selection and mutation can produce the enormous differences among living things. But where is the evidence of such a claim? There are no facts to support Darwin’s claim. There is not even one example of a 'missing link.'
Thu May 13, 2021 - 2:30 pm EST
Featured Image
D.C. Arangno

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

May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Questions regarding such theories as the origins of the universe, the emergence of life on earth, the meaning of human existence, and the concept of personhood are more pivotal to contemporary intellectual thought than ever before. These questions, which form the undergirding platform for the most existential controversies of our time, and the inevitable answers to these questions, wield momentous implications and consequences for science, technology, and society as a whole, profoundly impacting civilization and humanity itself. The contemporary response to these theoretical concepts is the ideological triad of, secularism, relativism, and materialism (SRM).  SRM constitutes a new world religion; and the prophets of this New Age creed are Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx.  

The basic tenets of this new dogma are essentially this: (1) Secularism – that nature is mechanistic, a self-perpetuating, self-validating, evolutionary automaton encompassing the sum total of reality. And, employing Occam’s Razor, with a Nihilistic twist, if there is no creation, it follows that there can be no talk of a creator. (2) Relativism – that there are no absolute truths, (viz., moral virtues), that constitute the undergirding concepts which ground the ideas “right” and “wrong.” Instead, relativism asserts that all moral talk is comprised of pseudo-moral statements, artificial constructions, devoid of objective reality; and (3) Materialism – that Man is a purely material being, bearing no distinction from any other material being save for the fact that his existence is inherently harmful to the rest of the natural world, but that, nevertheless, on his own – through social and biological engineering – he is capable of modifying his own nature.   

Alone secularism, relativism, and materialism constitute largely unsustainable philosophical positions; but the triad, SRM, emerges as the new orthodoxy, a militant belief system. Its adherents are zealous and dogmatic, indeed evangelical, in their mission to indoctrinate the unbeliever.  

In short, SRM is a world view based on methodological naturalism in the absence of absolutes, and buttressed by the Darwinian myth about the descent of Man – that anthropological fantasy that the human being is merely an outcropping of an evolutionary chain of random events.   

The consequences of SRM are vitiating. SRM makes possible – and inevitable – the exploitation of the environment, and all sentient species, including human beings, where human personhood is utterly de-valued and eviscerated (e.g., abortion, genocide, slavery (human trafficking of all stripes). SRM’s vicious disregard for personhood has been justified by the secular materialists’ creed of relativism, rationalized by Darwin’s theory of evolution.  

Darwinian evolution  

In 1953, Nobel laureate Irving Langmuir coined the expression “Pathological Science” as the “science of things that aren’t so”.  Nowhere is this more applicable theory than Darwin’s theory of evolution.  

Today, in academia and throughout all public discourse, Darwin’s theory is presented as fact, something clearly and definitively known by scientific authority – it is never questioned, never referred to as a hypothesis. From elementary school through college, students are indoctrinated by the dogma’s tenets, they are required to memorize its particulars and to recite its details on exams and in oral presentations without scrutiny or critical analysis. This is a strange and puzzling attitude, because it is incumbent upon educators and scientists of all stripes to vet stories, hypotheses, and theories presented as facts but requiring validation or proof. Following the Scientific Method, it should obligate us to apply the same rigor to Darwinian dogma as we do to all other scientific claims.  Nevertheless, Darwinian dogma is strangely viewed as a belief system, which is committed to memory by the devoted, expounded upon with unerring reverence, and taught in the hushed tones of scribes solemnly pouring over revered texts.  Modern educators, like clerics, preach to students as if they were disciples, with something akin to an evangelical fervor. We should be alarmed that in teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution we are preaching a pseudo-religious ideology. It is that ideology which is espoused by SRM as the genuine creed—supplanting Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And anyone who might dare to question this new dogma is cast out of the assembly as an infidel, to be derided and vilified as a heretic.  

The fact is Darwin’s theory is incomplete and unverifiable – something that Darwin himself confessed...  It has never been substantiated by evidentiary proof (such as a discovery of a so-called “missing link”). No one repudiates the fact that Darwin’s theory contains many contradictions, and broken chains of explanatory reasoning (ranging from organisms of “irreducible complexity”, to the Cambrian explosion).   Indeed, a growing body of scientists, including biochemists, cosmologists, paleontologists, embryologists, and geneticists, have found Darwin’s main hypothesis – namely, evolution by way of an unguided process of random events and environmental dynamics – to be lacking explanatory depth or validity.   

A principal concern of these scientific authorities emanate from the theory’s inadequate ability to explain the highly ordered complexity, and mind-boggling variety found in Nature.  Indeed, the intricacy, diversity, poetic beauty, and mathematical precision of biological organisms seem rather to suggest deliberate process, which we have come to designate “Intelligent Design.”    

Perhaps we can account for the inadequacies of his theory, if we reflect that Darwin – though once a deeply religious man – began to doubt the correlative relationship he once believed existed between God and Man. As his world view became secular, his theory took shape upon open questions and fabulous conjectures. But neither Darwin nor his contemporary Wallace, were in any way revolutionary in their hypothesis about evolutionary changes to explain the nature of the physical earth and its life forms. An amusing example can be found in the beliefs of the Ionian philosopher-scientist Anaximander (565 B.C.) who believed that human beings evolved from fish.   

And many early scientists, in studying the natural world, assumed “spontaneous generation” was responsible for the appearance of life forms which they had not discovered before. 

A surprising example can even be found in the Medieval philosophy of St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) who believed that God created through the word (logos), and the word found its expression in an unfolding (evolution) of things over time, according to a Divine Plan (Logoi spermatikoi).   

In short, there is nothing whatsoever unique or novel about Darwin’s concept of evolution in general. 

Actually, Darwin’s version had been rejected and debunked in his own day, by his own contemporaries…. Why then did it “sprout legs” (to use an idiom of evolution)? 

Darwin’s theory of evolution was eagerly embraced by secular philosophers of his century, such as Nietzsche. We can trace its ascendancy in the United States back to the radical campus movement of the 1960’s; a period during which a vocal community of discontent academics and cultural elite were preoccupied with challenging traditional authority of every kind – moral, social, and political. And these “anarchists” found a perfect vehicle in Darwin’s ideas. This failed theory became a mechanism to explain away God; to dispense with the “Watchmaker”, and in so doing, liberate individuals from the Ultimate Authority – and laws, altogether. 

The theory of evolution took root. And the pernicious ideology of relativism spread like a noxious weed. 

But what about his central tenets? Do they have any validity?  

It turns out there are many fatal problems with Darwinian evolution. Let us consider a few of the many flaws and inconsistencies and inadequacies of Evolution. 

What is life? 

The biggest problem with any effort to explain the origins of Life, is that no one understands what it is.   

Life is not merely intrinsic and essential biological existence only: it is not mere matter.   

It is consciousness, a state of being entailing awareness – if even at a most primitive level. 

It is the real which transcends the corporeal. 

The cells of a strand of hair are not aware; amoeba, are. 

The fallen leaf is not sensible; the hemoglobin coursing through a squirrel’s veins, is. 

Moreover, while Man certainly can clinically duplicate the essential facts, events and conditions that permit and sustain Life, he cannot transform that prepared set of organic substance and primed conditions to actual living state.  There is some energy, some reality, here at work, which transcends the purely corporeal world. Perhaps something…. spiritual. 

So: if we can not even say with any understanding what Life ishow can we be so arrogant as to claim we know how it began?   

The question of what Life is, and how it occurred to begin with, is beyond the scope of science.  Therefore, any scientist who claims to know makes a theological claim based on religious beliefs, not scientific knowledge. 

— 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 the final analysis, any person who claims to know – scientifically – how and when life occurred, is a fraud, because any “explanation” of those things is purely religious and must be accepted on faith!   

Here is a perfect example of how we rely upon both science and faith to attain a lucid understanding of the important questions: biology can certainly explain satisfactorily how living organisms behave, but it requires faith to assert why it exists at all.  So, if Darwin claimed to explain the origins and teleology of Life, he offered a religious doctrine, not a scientific theory.   

The origin of Life – in that life transcends the purely corporeal – remains a mystery to science. It is beyond the scope of empirical study; it is the realm of theology.    

Invoking theology 

In the absence of actual empirical evidence, proponents of evolution invariably resort to non-scientific justifications. Darwinists feel compelled to employ theological argument to establish their claim about a purely scientific matter.   

For example: “if it had been designed by ‘God’ it would be perfect: and as it is not, it must be the outcome of evolution,” as though we were in a position to determine whether an organism were flawed or “perfect”, and as though evolution could be the only possible alternative explanation.  Read Paul A. Nelson (in his article in the journal Biology and Philosophy)1, and Cornelius George Hunter (Darwin’s God) 2 for more on the role of theological arguments in defending a supposedly scientific position.  Other evolutionary biologists and psychologists address the questions of meaning and purpose, which are strictly the domain of philosophy, and which cannot be addressed in a scientific theory at all. 

Take for example the classic debate over the Human eye. 

Biologist Kenneth R. Miller explains: “In Darwin’s day, the very existence of an organ of extreme perfection like the eye was taken by many as proof of a Designer. How else could all the intricate organs and substructures of the eye have come together in just the right way to make vision so possible, so perfect? But it turns out the eye isn’t exactly perfect after all. In fact, the eye contains profound optical imperfections [which] are proof, in a sense, of the evolutionary ancestry of the eye.” 3 

This argument in defense of evolution is fallacious in a couple of glaring ways. 

First, in a matter of science, the only thing that counts is evidence. It is inappropriate to couch the supporting argument solely in theological terms.  

And secondly, it does not follow that even if flaws exist, Darwin’s outlandish claims must all be true: that even if a life form is not “perfect”, it must mean that natural selection was responsible. As if there were no other explanations. 

But thirdly! It turns out that:

“despite Miller’s claim, the vertebrate eye seems to be a masterpiece of engineering!... The light-sensing cells in the eyes of higher vertebrates are extremely efficient at amplifying faint light. The efficient, hard-working tips of the light-sensing cells need lots of energy, and they also need to be constantly regenerated. The energy is provided by a dense bed of capillaries, and the regeneration is facilitated by a special layer of epithelial cells. If the tips of the light-sensing cells faced forward, as Miller thinks they should, incoming light would be blocked by the dense capillary bed and the epithelial layer. Such an eye would be much less efficient – and therefore less perfect – than the one we have now, because the capillaries and epithelial cells are now behind the retina instead of in front of it. And although this arrangement [creates] a blind spot, vertebrates have two eyes, and the blind spots cancel out.   

Another problem with Miller’s argument is its implication that the retina of vertebrate eyes is ‘backwards’ because evolution was forced to tinker with something it already had. This is false. [More primitive] vertebrates all have retinas that face forward. There is no backwards retina in a primitive animal that [according to evolution] could have served as an evolutionary precursor to the vertebrate eye.  So where is Miller’sproof of the evolutionary ancestry of the vertebrate eye’?”  (Getting the Facts Straight, Discovery Institute Press, 2001) 4

Common ancestry 

To begin with, Darwin’s main claim as spelled out in The Origin of Species, is that all forms of life on earth evolved from a single “tree of life”; that the great variety of life, all descended from one common ancestor; that all flora and fauna evolved from a single ancestral root by an unguided process of random events, and natural selection in response to changing environments. His claim is that all living things are the unintentional result of an undirected natural sequence of random events

That, given enough time, anything can take place by random events, within the laws of nature.   

This was Darwin’s best effort to eliminate the idea of deliberate design from the question of how life forms came into being.   

This is fundamentally a contradiction, because “randomness” implies the absence of governing “laws.” There cannot simultaneously exist laws that dictate process, and at the same time haphazardness of process, which is, a kind of “natural anarchy.”  

The bigger problem with ancestry  

For one thing, Darwin claimed that natural selection was responsible for creating not only new species, but in fact completely new forms of organisms. That given enough time, not only would a frog “turn into” a lizard, but that a lizard would “turn into” a bird! He asserted that natural selection relies on randomness, over time improving the success of an organism within a changing environment. 

The only evidence of natural selection is that minor changes continually occur within a species, but never produce new species, higher forms of organisms, or entirely new and different organisms.    

Even strictly within a given species, according to Darwin’s theory, complex specialized organs can form as a result of innumerable changes over time. The idea is, that a biological organism somehow incorporates self-remediating paradigms, which result in an increasingly sophisticated and complex organ. Besides the fact that this is purely hypothetical – and there is no evidence even to support it – no one has ever fully defined an actual complete theory, that is, no one has been able to offer an explanation of the mechanism involved, not even in a single kind of “transmutation” between life forms. 

As observed by Stephen Meyer in Darwin’s Doubt, “genes that are obviously variable within natural populations seem to affect only minor aspects of form and function—while those genes that govern major changes, the very stuff of macroevolution, apparently do not vary or vary only to the detriment of the organism.” 5 

Instead, it is more reasonable to conclude that a species progresses much in the same way that an individual creature matures over its lifespan, going from embryo to adult, in realizing its full genetic potential and biological capacity in order for it to compete and succeed.   

Moreover, one would expect that, in the same way neural networks function along electrical pathways, biological evolutionary changes would route from primitive to advanced state along paths of least resistance. That is, modifications to an organism’s programming or design would follow along the simplest lines, and only accomplish the most elementary basic and rudimentary changes, resulting in the least complexity. And the changes – modifications of design and variations – would be within the closed system of the species.    

Presumably, Nature – left on its own – would prefer a kind of economy of design and functionality. But this did not happen in reality. 

The fact is, (as is evidenced in the so-called “Cambrian explosion” as elsewhere throughout the fossil record), organisms and their design components are unnecessarily complex and ….. beautiful. Biological design does not appear to be solely justified by necessity, as it would have to be if evolution theory applied. 

If anywhere there were evidence for Darwin’s theory, we would expect to find it in bacteria. Scientists have studied tens of thousands of generations over the past few decades, and yet no new species have emerged. Bacteriologist Alan H. Linton wrote recently: “Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.” 6              

Anyway, mere similarity is insufficient to establish Darwinian descent as a product of a chain of haphazard modifications or adaptations to changing environments. 

In fact, the fossil record does not – and cannot – show us ancestry and descent. Maybe some of the fossils we saw were ancestral to others, within a species, but as Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature wrote in 1999: “the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent…. To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story – amusing, perhaps, even instructive, but not scientific.” 7 

Mere similarity between fossils does not prove an ancestor-descendant relationship, but may merely demonstrate similarity of deliberate design, in the same way an automobile manufacturer produces different vehicle models of a similar design or whose components have similar functionality.   

Evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin argues (referring to specimens of a jellyfish, a millipede, a beetle and a crab): “Evolution tinkered with fish to make limbs, …. The question is, what sort of tinkering led to these body plans?” 8   

But, according to Francois Jacob, a “tinkerer” works according to a plan, which perhaps is not preconceived (as perhaps, one designed by an engineer), but it is deliberate, nonetheless. 9 

And the very act of tinkering suggests thoughtful consideration, and an element of creativity.  

No evidence of such thoughtfulness or creativity has been found in Nature. Nor has any natural process been suggested which would emulate deliberate tinkering. 

On the other hand, this may very well support the theory that all of these life forms, whether separate species, or transitional forms of the same species, were created by an intelligent designer. Unless we can define a natural mechanism, and show that it was capable of producing the myriad complexity, diversity and mathematical precision of every organism that ever lived, then how can Darwin’s theory have any credibility whatsoever, let alone conclude the final doctrine of The Origin of Species?  

Darwin claims that an accumulation of slight differences through natural selection and mutation can produce the enormous differences among living things.  But where is the evidence of such a claim? As we have already said, there are no facts to support Darwin’s claim. There is not even one example of a “missing link”. (And the missing link is crucial to the credibility of so much of his theory.)  

“Similarities and differences among living species, among fossils, and between fossils and living species, were already known to scientists, long before Darwin, but they attributed them to clearly intentional design rather than to unguided random evolution. There has never existed, and cannot be found, any evidence that natural selection can do what Darwin said it did, or that it is random. Where is the proof?” (Getting the Facts Straight, Discovery Institute Press) 10

Science must be based on proof. 

The more we examine Darwin’s ideas, the more we realize his theory of evolution is not science ­– simply pathological science. Or rather a Naturalistic philosophy, having nothing to do with science.  

On mutation and irreducible complexity 

Another problem is Darwin’s evolutionary claim that there were countless mutations over a span of hundreds of thousand years that “fine-tuned” and refined organs such as the Human brain, for example, to give it all the incredible powers it has today.   

But nobody is able to suggest the process by which mutations would so modify an organ or affect its functionality or capacity, or result in its amazing powers of creativity.   

Moreover, there is no evidence that genetic mutations can do anything so extraordinary, even over an enormous span of time. 

As a matter of fact! all known mutations that affect development are invariably harmful. And in Nature, all of these changes would have been eliminated by “natural selection.” 

Nevertheless, for instance, when geneticists experimented by inserting a mouse eye gene into a fruit fly, it produced a fruit fly eye, not a mouse eye. That is, the mouse gene was not responsible for the architecture of the organ in the other species; it was only a “switch” for the insect to make an eye when and where it needed. But it did not determine what kind of eye was produced: that was determined by the unique genetic programming of the insect species itself. 11  

Darwin wrote that natural selection takes slow small incremental steps, it does not “jump”. And modifications in an organism are not simultaneous. Natural selection distinguishes the slightest variations, rejecting those that adversely affect survival and preserving those changes that provide an advantage. 

Consider then the example suggested by celebrated biochemist Michael Behe – that of the bacterial flagellum, described as one of the most efficient machines in the universe. 12 This microscopic organelle is essentially a perfectly designed outboard motor – complete with a stator, u-joint, drive shaft, environmental sensors, electromagnet, and water-cooled motor. This rotating motor consists of a number of necessary parts in a particular organized way, any part without which the machine will not work. 

If each part had to result from an individual separate evolutionary change, that part on its own, would have had to provide an evolutionary advantage. However, the part independent of the complete mechanism, would have not itself provided any benefit – if it can even be believed that the u-joint for example would have evolved for no particular reason, by random chance. Instead, that part would not be passed on to the next generation by replication. The flagellum could not be built over generations incrementally, in steps. Natural selection would eliminate any characteristic in successive generations, short of a complete functioning flagellum mechanism. Integrated complexity of the organelle presents an insurmountable obstacle to the fundamental claims of Darwinian evolution. 

This is an example of what Darwin feared, an organism of irreducible complexity

Darwin himself acknowledged that the existence of even one such process or organism would invalidate his entire construct. “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” - Charles Darwin, Origin of Species.

At the molecular level, there are tens of thousands of such examples, which were unknown to anyone in Darwin’s day, of which the bacterial flagellum is just one. However, not only are specific parts necessary – the number and exact kind of components – but the organization and precise assembly is required for the flagellum to function. This is a complex molecular machine which is irreducible in every aspect. Consider the construction of the motor involved: the ring structure of the stator, the rod of exact proportions, a u-joint to fit precisely of a specific size at a precise angle… And the blueprint, the set of instructions for the design of the apparatus is detailed in the DNA. 

DNA itself is one of the most definite arguments against evolutionary theories involving random process. 

DNA, resembling a ladder twisted into a double helix, contains compressed genetic information. Each rung of the ladder is a pair of nucleotides. The order and sequence of these nucleotides form words, which are Genes, a set of cellular instructions for the growth and development of every cell of the organism. Mutation resulting in a new gene involves a random change to a random 150-link chain, each link of which is separately selected from 20 possible amino acids.   

Douglas Axe of Cambridge determined that of all 150-link amino acid sequences, one in 1077 will possibly fold into a stable protein, the rest will be gibberish from which a useful protein is statistically impossible. 

DNA coding of the blueprint of life is so mind-bogglingly complex and complete, that it is unthinkable it could have occurred by random chance, by amino acids accidentally coming into contact randomly over the millennia. 

It is more credible that the complete works of Shakespeare might have been produced by typewriter tumbling down a 1000-foot staircase. 

DNA is the most densely packed and complete set of information in the known universe. 

In any organism, DNA contains the specific genetic instructions required for all cellular functions. 

Without DNA there is no replication. But without replication there is no Natural Selection.  

However, Natural Selection cannot explain DNA, hence elementary cell biology categorically refutes chemical evolution according to very basic logic. 

The evolutionary “Big Bang” 

Still yet, another evolutionary quandary has to do with the event known as the “Cambrian explosion”; the sudden appearance of fossils, which Darwin himself regarded as an almost insurmountable problem for his theory.   

If all creatures, in fact, all life, descended from a common ancestor as Darwin claimed, we would expect to find that animal life began with one discrete form – an irreducibly simple life form – and this single organism gave rise to other forms, which eventually diverged and became differentiated from each other. Eventually, after millions of generations, the major differences that now distinguish species would result.   

But the fact is that in the actual fossil record, these major differences appear first! The fossil record is exactly opposite of that Darwin’s theory would have described. Darwin thought this contradiction would rectify itself when more fossils had been found…But after more than a century of fossil collecting since his claim, the only evidence has shown that Darwin was actually wrong. How is it that during this early period, in a spontaneous explosion of diversity, all these complex and advanced creatures “suddenly came out of nowhere?” That side by side with phytoplankton and amoeba, were amazingly complex and advanced creatures, such as dinosaurs and mammoths.  

All evolutionists can say is that the Cambrian explosion is “still something of a mystery.” 

But Darwin himself was more honest, saying “If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.”  

Equally troubling is the diversity of life during the Devonian period: this also presents an insurmountable puzzle which Darwin cannot explain in the simple terms of evolution.  

This remains problematic for the proponents of Darwinian evolution, in addition to a failure  1) to establish common ancestry, viz., the supposed finding of a “missing link”;  and 2) to nullify the argument of “irreducible complexity.” 

On mathematical capacity and reason 

The disinterested and dispassionate observer will acknowledge that Mathematics is the basis of the natural order of the universe – the very order which science itself seeks to discover. And we further observe the obvious: that order cannot result from random processes, the kind of randomness upon which Darwin’s theory of evolution is based. 

But, in purely Human terms, Mathematics can be viewed as a linguistic – a semantic through which the human can communicate abstract ideas and formally represent universals and intangibles. One thing in particular, which the laws of evolution cannot explain is Mathematics. Mathematics is not a product of Human invention, it is external to the Human mind, yet can be discovered by the Human mind alone. How did the Human mind attain mathematical capacity? Darwin’s theory provides no explanation. 

Nor can evolution explain how the Human can reflect upon himself, and even wonder about abstract ideas, like the questions of purpose or of order, to begin with. 

The very fact that we can inquire about the nature of the Universe and questions of purpose and identity are evidence of a Transcendent Rationality. And undermines any confidence we might have in Darwin’s nonsense about Man as a mere outcropping of a lineage of primitive creatures evolving from a primordial soup of protoplasm. 

The problem of creativity and the question of altruism  

Evolutionary Psychologists have attempted to explain away creative action which Humans have proven to be capable of – art, literature, music, etc. – by inventing the term “memes.” Not only is this an unnecessary contrivance, but it actually introduces a notion which comes into conflict with Darwin’s theory of evolution.   

Memes, which evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould dismissed as a “meaningless metaphor” for invention, science, art and ultimately history, actually compete with genes, which could not be possible in a natural world strictly governed by random process and natural selection.13 We are talking about something which transcends the purely natural world, and evolution is incapable of explaining how creativity is possible, or how it began, what biological process precipitated it, how it resulted from some random mechanical chain of events. The perplexing thing is that evolutionists actually rely on a dubious theory which ultimately casts doubt on their belief in evolution, in order to put a Darwinian spin on everything, including Human culture, in a bizarre attempt to force “absolutely everything into a Darwinian framework,” even if it raises more questions than Darwin’s theories could possibly answer... Even biologist Jerry A. Coyne referred to this as “a work not of science, but of extreme advocacy.” 14 

Some naturalists claim the Human Being is an intruder, whose presence in Nature is undesirable and harmful to the ecosystem. Ironically, it is when you deliberate on Man’s destructive power that he actually “fits” into Nature, in complying with two predominant natural laws – those of entropy and survival. 

But, when you focus on Man’s creative powers you see that he transcends the purely natural realm. His ability to invent systems of law and justice, bodies of art and language and music and Mathematics…his ability to wonder about the reality that eludes physical experience, and to make into reality the substance of his visions and dreams,…then Man no longer “fits” the corporeal confines of his nature – being more akin to the Divine. 

When we look at the Human’s capacity for creativity, heroism and acts of selflessness, then it is clear that we do not have a natural place in the purely corporeal world. For, while the rest of creation is comfortable in the temporal, material existence, we cannot be… no matter how prosperous our species is.  

And when we understand this truth, we realize that selflessness is not some anomaly, rather it is a moral imperative unique to the Human species. 

Hence, an even greater problem for Darwin’s theory is Altruism. Altruism is defined biologically as “increasing the fitness of another at the expense of one’s own fitness. But an altruist thereby reduces his or her own chances for survival; so in the context of evolutionary theory, altruism should not survive or evolve. Yet altruistic people exist.” (Getting the Facts Straight, Discovery Institute Press)15 And altruism, in the words of Edward O. Wilson remains the “culminating mystery of all biology.”16 

On transcendence and free will 

Most importantly, one crucial thing which laws of random events and probabilities cannot explain, is Human free will, the ability of any creature to defy its own nature. 

Man tempers his natural appetites with moral reflection; he weighs each act and each compulsion and mood against the standards of a transcendent Absolute, and not the mercurial circumstances or temporal dictates, or social mores of his situation. 

Animals, in contrast, knows no better than to serve their immediate and momentary needs, and devote their energies to the urges of their nature. It is because they are constrained to the natural realm, which Man transcends

But he possesses rational powers, and moral conscience, faculties which are supernatural. 

It is a spiritual dimension. This is what we refer to as free will. The Human is not constrained by natural law. The urges of other creatures are governed by instinct, which the Human does not possess. The only government he can exercise is rational and moral self-determination. 

The Human is capable of moral choice, hence his actions have a moral dimension. 

Only Humans are capable of “evil.” 

Indeed, it is precisely his ability – if not his propensity – to do evil that distinguishes Human from beast. The animal cannot perpetrate wrongs, as beasts are subject to their natures, governed by their design, ruled by their instincts, whereas the Human must rise above his natural urges if ever to be truly Human. 

This is a great paradox.

If, as Darwin decreed, we were merely soul-less biological outcroppings of some evolutionary chain of random events, then when we yield to natural urges it would be “good” because we are obeying our nature, as it is with other creatures. In fact, the reality of the conscience, and Free Will, is the most salient argument against Materialism. 

That any organism, no matter how advanced in a stage of evolution, might be capable of denying its own natural impulses, that is, of countermanding its own genetic programming, contradicts the fundamental tenets of Darwin’s model of Nature.  (Where here we distinguish between natural urges, necessitated by survival  or perpetuation of the species – such as the drive to kill or procreate, and instinct which is Nature’s mechanism for governing those basic urges and regulating animal behavior.) 

In short the most important problem with Darwinism is two-fold: not only that Man can willingly defy his own nature, but that indeed he lacks any natural instinct at all, to govern his basic appetites and urges which are essential to his physical well-being and perpetuation of his species.   

As evidence of our distinction from the purely natural world, also consider the question of hunger. For the Human, hunger has a spiritual dimension. The very experience of eating has a metaphysical quality. The appeal of food goes beyond the mere satiating of a bodily need, but it feeds the soul, too.   

Indeed, we hunger not so much for food, but for validation of our existence. That is, not only for preservation of our existence, but for proof of our reality… and our importance in the vast universe in which we find ourselves. 

In particular, were we mere creatures as Darwin asserted, we would never eat to excess. But we seek a spiritual quality in food: it is the hunger of the soul we wish to sate. But it is a misplaced spirituality. More dangerous, too, is that we do not even recognize it for what it is. 

A dog does not savor; he does not sip, nor mull food on his palate. He wolfs his food; he swallows it, untasted. 

To a beast, the purpose of food is to nourish, only – to satiate the physical hunger which compels him to seek that nourishment. And once the hunger is abated, his need filled, he ceases to consume, because he ceases to crave. 

The Human is otherwise. Rather than enslaved by his natural compulsion to fill his needs, as a beast does, whether to slay or consume or procreate, he is exhorted by his spiritual nature to rise above these natural urges and deny himself. 

The creature’s appetites are purely corporeal. Submitting to its natural hunger, the creature is behaving in accordance with its design. But it is precisely in denying those same corporeal appetites that we are fully Human. For the Human being transcends the purely Natural realm, and so our hunger is for greater things – that reality which transcends and in fact contains the natural – Truth. Our hunger is for this Truth. And we respond to that hunger by exercise of Free Will, to choose right, and control our appetites.   

For though, like other creatures, we possess urges, we do not possess as they the instinct by which to govern these urges, but rather only reason, and the spiritual guidance of our conscience. Moreover, observe that the reason is the implementation of the will – it exists only to serve us in our exercise of Free Will. Natural compulsions do not rule us as they do the creature, for we may freely will otherwise. 

It is precisely when the Human denies his nature that he attains true Humanity, in becoming more obedient to a higher government – his conscience, and less obedient to the world.    

Indeed, the Human, ever restless, finds no final comfort in the physical world. 

Ultimately, Man is distinguished from other creatures in one most important respect: he is self-aware. This is the consequence and the mechanism by which he is able to exercise free will. He is able to reflect upon the morality of his choices. 

And Man’s unique identity rests in the fact his awareness transcends that of a mere creature of Nature and all other living organisms. He resides not only in the organic realm, but in the moral realm. His is a spiritual reality.   

How can we, the reflection of the Infinite, be content in confinement to the finite

How can we, the heirs to the eternal be subdued by the temporal

The forbidden fruit syndrome 

Theories of natural selection are absurdly inadequate when it comes to explaining Human self-awareness, or the morality of Human action. 

Because we exist in both the Natural and the moral realms, it is precisely when we rise above our natures – when we deny our natural appetites – that we are fully human

We have no power over the outcome of choices, that is, whether they are good or evil, but only over the intention. We have power over agency, if not destiny. We can determine whether to conform our wills to what is right. 

And the true purpose of religion (and in fact, the thrust of civilization), is to habituate the Human Being to virtue. Persons of good conscience become virtuous by practicing virtue.   

And it will be clear that moral action derives from spiritual conviction and religious belief, recognizing that we are free agents, who aspire to the Divine…and accountable as such to a higher order.   

That is, Man answers to a supernatural Authority – the Creator of the very same natural world which Darwin attempted to explain by explaining the Creator away

Karl Marx was to some degree correct: “Religion” is today as ever the “opiate of the people.” 

But it is not traditional religion which subdues the modern masses, but rather a blind faith in our mortal masters. 

We demonstrate blind faith in the naïve belief that government and technology can solve all our problems and perfect our nature: that laws and bureaucratic policy and New Age psychology can somehow “save” the human race. 

We have so eagerly surrendered our utter and unreasoned trust in technology’s capacity to regulate and improve our lives, such that even when they prove despotic, we would divest ourselves of our own self-government and invest it in the hands of bureaucrats and demagogues and scientists and social engineers, trading autonomy for security, like so many fatted calves. 

The new totalitarianism 

All this being said, let us not forget, that science only pertains to what is measurable, testable, observable. 

Anything else is religion….. or simply mythology. 

Geneticist Gabriel Dover wrote:

The problem with [evolutionists’] story telling is not some minor irritation…. The problem runs much deeper and wider, embracing many new disciplines of evolutionary psychology, Darwinian medicine, linguistics, biological ethics and sociobiology.  Here quite vulgar explanations are offered, based on the crudest applications of selection theory, of why we humans are the way we are…. There seems to be no aspect of our make-up that does not receive its supposed evolutionary explanation from the sorts of things our selfish genes forced us to do 200,000 to 500,000 years ago…. Not only is there the embarrassing selfish genetic determinism, but we are also shackled with their self-imposed justification in giving ‘scientific’ respectability to complex behavioral phenomena in humans which we simply do not so far have the scientific tools and methodologies to investigate.” 17 

Indeed, it is only the naïve and the gullible who accept evolution with all its inconsistencies and contradictions and fallacies, as valid science.    

The Darwinian hypothesis of evolution by way of  use and disusenatural selection and mutation lack scientific validity. Yet modern secularists have uncritically embraced carte blanc this unscientific collection of “just so” stories that constitute Darwinian evolution, and are zealous in advocating evolution, solely because they abhor the idea of the existence of a Creator, and need a theory such as Darwin’s to explain away the “fingerprints of God” found in Nature.  

The sole objective of secular humanists is to undermine other people’s belief in a Supreme Being.  Their agenda is to establish atheism as the world religion, and they have used Darwin’s theory to do this.  

And this is the chief incentive to teach Darwin in the schools: to indoctrinate the public to accept evolution without critical examination or challenge.   

Indeed, Huston Smith, an authority on world religions, asserts that Darwinism has been a major factor in the “modern loss of faith in transcendence basic to the traditional/religious worldview.” Smith declares that “Darwinism is supported more by atheistic philosophical assumptions than by scientific evidence.” 18 

From Darwin’s theory has emerged a new brand of religion, the “creed” of modern secular materialism, a faith which exacts from its followers absolute and unreasoning loyalty. And its insidious influence harms the virtuous and the corrupt alike.   

Its devout followers trust blindly in it, and do not question its authority. And with complete abandon, this “New Age flock” completely entrust their faith in the institutions of men – in government or in science – to rule them, to provide for them, to judge them, and to dictate their fate.   

Darwinian racism 

Conveniently unspoken and ignored, are Darwin’s blatantly racist views espoused in his treatise, Descent of Man. As Austin Anderson observed: 

Not only does Darwin believe in white supremacy, he offers a biological explanation for it, namely that white people are further evolved.… Darwin’s theory claims that Africans and Australians are more closely related to apes than Europeans are. The spectrum of organisms is a hierarchy here, with white Europeans at the top and apes at the bottom. In Darwin’s theory, colored people fall somewhere in between. Modern human is essentially restricted only to white Europeans, with all other races viewed as somehow sub-human.” 

Moreover, Anderson notes: “Darwin’s theory applies survival of the fittest to human races, suggesting that extermination of non-white races is a natural consequence of white Europeans being a superior and more successful race. Further, Darwin justifies violently overtaking other cultures because it has happened regularly throughout natural history.” 19 

It is clearly spelled out in From Darwin to Hitler, in which Richard Weikart lays out the inexorable link between the evolutionary materialistic view of Humanity, the principle of survival of the fittest embraced by ideologues and megalomaniacs, and the Human rights atrocities that inevitably result. 

As Paul Kengor describes the Darwinian roots of Marx’s and Engels’ attitude toward humanity: “They viewed human beings as made not in the image of God — the imago Dei — but in the image of apes…. To Marx and Engels, Darwin was the figure to look to, not God — who, after all, didn’t exist….Darwin was hailed by leading Marxists in god-like language….This materialistic-atheistic ideology would beget over 100 million deaths in the 20th century alone“. 20. 

In summary 

We must realize that the biggest danger with preaching the creed of Darwin is that public policy and popular sentiment is dominated by relativism. In the absence of absolutes, we cannot distinguish right from wrong.   

The essential issue here, underlying the debate over how life evolved, is the question whether Humans possess an animal nature, or are just animals

Many demagogues are inclined to adopt the New Age mantra “a dog is a pig is a boy”. In other words, if we yield to the view that the human race is nothing more than the biological outcropping of an evolutionary chain of events, then we permit a society in which human life is easily devalued. The terrors of the “Brave New World” loom possible, and there is rumor of terrible things…. and in all there prevails – in the words of St. Pope John Paul II –  the “culture of death.” 

Mainstream rhetoric reflects this slide toward subjectivity, and the denunciation of absolute truth. And with it, public policy is increasingly weighted toward the utility of persons versus their intrinsic worth

Moreover, if we embrace the pernicious teaching that evolutionary success depends upon natural selection – survival of the fittest, and that there are no absolute truths which govern good and evil, then a person’s value is relative, and only the strong might prevail. Our ethos, and codes of behavior would necessarily reflect this terrible ideology. Consequently, we will find it difficult to justify the defense of the weak, the infirm or the disenfranchised.   

This slide toward utilitarianism has already begun. 


1.     Paul a. Nelson. “The Role of Theology in Current Evolutionary Reasoning”. Biology and Philosophy 11 (1996), 493-517 

2.     Cornelius George Hunter. Darwin’s God. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press (2001). 

3.     Kenneth R. Miller. PBS “Evolution”. Evolution Project/WGBH Boston, (June 2001) 

and Finding Darwin’s God. New York: Cliff Street Books (2000). 

4.     Getting the Fact Straight: A Viewer’s Guide to PBS’s “Evolution”. Discovery Institute (2001).  

5.     Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt  Harper Collins, 2013 

6.     Alan Linton. The Times Higher Education Supplement (April20, 2001), 29. 

7.     Henry Gee. In Search of Deep Time. New York: The Free Press (1999). 

8.     Neil Shubin. PBS “Evolution”. Evolution Project/WGBH Boston, (June 2001) 

9.     Francois Jacob. “Evolution and Tinkering”. Science 196 (1977), 1161. 

10.  Getting the Fact Straight: A Viewer’s Guide to PBS’s “Evolution”. Discovery Institute (2001). 

11.  Ibid 

12.  Michael Behe.  “Darwin’s Black Box”, Free Press, Simon & Schuster, 2006   

13.  Stephen Jay Gould. “Sociobiology: The Art of Storytelling”. New Scientist (Nov 16, 1978) 530 

14.  Jerry A. Coyne. “The Self-Centered Meme”.  (book review) Nature (April 29, 1999) 767. 

15.  Getting the Fact Straight: A Viewer’s Guide to PBS’s “Evolution”. Discovery Institute (2001). 

16.  E.O.Wilson. Sociobiology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, (paperback edition 1980). 

17.  Gabriel Dover. Dear Mr. Darwin. Berkeley: University of California Press (2000) 44-5. 

18.  Huston Smith. “Huston Smith Replies to Barbour, Goodenough, and Peterson”. Zygon 36, no.2 (June, 2001)  Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief. New York: Harper Collins (2001). 

19.  Austin Anderson.  “The Dark Side of Darwin”, 2016, 

20.  Paul Kengor, 

  catholic, charles darwin, creation, dignity of man, evolution


Abp. Viganò on Fatima day: Supplication to the Most Holy Virgin Mary

I exhort faithful Catholics to recite the Holy Rosary daily during this month dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, adding this supplication.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 9:41 am EST
Featured Image
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — For over a year, the whole world has been held hostage by an elite that, under the pretext of the pandemic, intends to create the conditions for the Great Reset and the establishment of the New World Order. This latest revolution, planned by the enemies of God and the human race, is certainly an infernal work, and as such it must be combated by recourse to the spiritual weapons of prayer, fasting, and penance. I exhort faithful Catholics to recite the Holy Rosary daily during this month dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, adding this supplication. May the Mediatrix of All Graces, the Queen of Victories, assist us with her patronage in these moments of apostasy and grant us the virtue of Fortitude to resist evil and obtain the conversion of sinners.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

August Lady and Queen of Heaven, turn your gaze upon us Your children in this hour of darkness and affliction. Do not disdain to hear and answer our humble and confident prayer, at a moment when the forces of the Enemy are multiplying their infernal assault against God, His Church, and the human family.

You who are the model and example of humility and obedience to the will of God, enlighten our rulers, so that they may remember that the authority they exercise comes from the Lord, and that they will have to answer to Him, the Just Judge, for both the good they have not done as well as the evil they have committed. You who are the Virgin Most Faithful, teach those who administer public affairs to honor the moral obligations of their office, refusing any connivance with vice and error.

You who by your intercession before the Throne of God heal the evils of soul and body and are rightly invoked as Health of the Sick, guide doctors and health care workers in their profession. Help them to care for the sick and to give assistance to the weakest among us. Give them the courage to oppose those who would force them to cause death or illness with inappropriate treatments or harmful drugs. Invoke the Divine Physician of our souls, Our Lord Jesus Christ, asking Him to awaken in their conscience an awareness of their role and their duty to promote the life and health of the body.

You who during the Flight into Egypt saved Your Divine Son from the massacre of Herod, deliver our children from the moral and spiritual threats that loom over them. Protect our little ones from the true pestilence of sin and vice, and from the criminal plans of the ideological dictatorship that wants to strike them in body and spirit. Strengthen parents and educators to oppose the experimental use of a dangerous and morally illicit drug on our children. Thwart the attacks of those who assault their innocence, trying to pervert them from an early age by corrupting their morals and warping their intellect.

You who were consoled by the presence of Your Son in your passage to eternal life, be close to the sick, the elderly, and the dying, especially those who, due to inhuman regulations, face death alone in a hospital bed, deprived of the Sacraments. Bring them comfort. Inspire in them repentance for the sins they have committed and the desire to offer their sufferings in reparation for these sins, so that they may close their eyes with the consolation of the friendship of God.

You who are called Mother of the Priesthood, enlighten our Shepherds. Open their eyes to see the present threat. Make them consistent witnesses to Christ Your Son, courageous defenders of the flock that the Lord has entrusted to them, and valiant opponents of error and vice. Shake off from them, Virgin Most Holy, all human respect and all connivance with sin. Inflame them with love for God and their neighbor, enlighten their minds, and strengthen their will.

Our Lady of Fatima

You before whom all the demons of Hell take flight, defeat the diabolical plans of this hateful tyranny, the deception of the pandemic, the lie of the workers of iniquity. Make the light of Truth shine upon the lie, just as the true light of Christ shines upon the darkness of error and sin. Confuse Your enemies and humiliate under Your Foot the proud head of those who dare to challenge Heaven and want to establish the Reign of Antichrist.

You who by divine decree are Mediatrix of All Graces and Our Co-Redemptrix, obtain for us the grace of seeing the triumph of Your Immaculate Heart, to which we consecrate ourselves, our families, our communities, the Holy Church, our Homeland, and the whole world.

So may it be.

13 May 2021

In Ascensione Domin
In Apparitione B.M.V. Immaculatæ

  carlo maria viganò, our lady of fatima


The LGBT movement’s destructive history and legacy

To understand what is happening now, it is helpful to understand how the LGBT movement got so powerful.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 9:15 am EST
Featured Image
Homosexual pride flag Shutterstock
Thomas Coy
By Thomas Coy

May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — As the new Democrat-controlled Congress prepares to advance its LGBT agenda with the Equality Act, the possibility of the federal government mandating that biological boys share girls’ dressing rooms and compete in girls’ sports is very real. That possibility is just the latest consequence of a political movement that can be accurately described as one of the most destructive in American history. To understand what is happening now, it is helpful to understand how the LGBT movement got so powerful.

Here is a brief history of the LGBT movement in America:

The birth of LGBT power of intimidation came in the early 1970s when gay activists harassed psychiatrists and protested the American Psychiatric Association’s classification of homosexuality as a disorder. Gay activists soon partnered with liberal psychiatrists to take over the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association, and in 1973 homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).[1] The removal of homosexuality from the DSM was not based on clinical science, but rather on political pressure from gay activists.[2] The vast majority of psychiatrists still saw homosexuality as a disorder or a symptom of a disorder, but only a few were willing to go toe to toe with the gay activists.[3] As a result, the LGBT bully was born and impowered.

Liberal leaders of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association gradually allowed their homosexual members to control the dialogue on homosexuality. LGB (no T yet) divisions and sub-associations were created within these two APAs, and the APAs became extensions of the LGB movement.[4] As a result, fifty years of clinical science on the causation and treatment of homosexuality were systematically removed from treatment manuals and textbooks.[5] Gay activists and their allies continued their attacks on psychiatrists and psychologists who publicly disagreed with the non-disorder classification.[6] Within a short span of years, the APAs’ support for objective clinical science on homosexuality became a thing of the past.

At the same time, in the early 1970s, gay rights activists in the universities were pressuring administrators to acknowledge them through gay student organizations. These student organizations eventually led to gay and lesbian student centers and LGB administrative divisions which dictated university policies on anything LGB.[7] The influence of LGB centers of power in the universities led to the loss of objectivity regarding the clinical science on homosexuality, and intolerance for any view which did not hold homosexuality on an equal status with heterosexuality. In recent history the loss of objectivity was extended to transgender clinical science when LGB became LGBT.

Once LGBT activists were controlling the dialogue on homosexuality in the APAs, they moved to expand their influence over therapists’ and counselors’ treatment strategies for clients with unwanted same-sex attraction, and children showing signs of gender confusion. It took years of continued effort, but in 2009 LGBT mental health professionals succeeded in using the American Psychological Association to condemn the practice of helping those with unwanted homosexuality try to move toward heterosexuality.[8] The client’s self-determination no longer mattered if he/she sought to overcome homosexuality. Using the APA Task Force Report, LGBT activists extended their influence to legislative law, making it illegal in many states for a therapist to help a person who wishes to change their homosexual orientation.[9] These same activists have sought — and succeeded in part — to make it impossible for parents to get professional help for a child struggling with their sexual or gender identity, if the desire of the parent is to move the child toward a heterosexual identity or toward acceptance of their biological gender.[10]

Local governments and corporate America have also succumbed to the LGBT bully. LGBT activists have pushed the inclusion of “sexual orientation” into corporate anti-discrimination policies. Once “sexual orientation” has become part of the policy, LGBT activists have been able to punish workers who do not view homosexuality as moral or equal to heterosexuality.[11] This is similar to how LGBT activists have been able to punish opponents in the university setting and in the public-school systems.[12]

The most widespread intimidation tactic of the LGBT movement has been the creation of the word’s “homophobia,” “homophobic,” “homophobe,” and recently “transphobia.” These terms do not mean fear of homosexuals or transgenders. Rather, they mean being opposed to LGBT social objectives. LGBT activists have projected that being homophobic is akin to being a racist or a bigot. The terms are meant to slander, shame, and intimidate,[13] in the same manner a racist or bigot uses slanderous words to demean people they don’t like.

To indoctrinate the younger generations, LGBT activists and their allies have used teachers’ unions,[14] library organizations,[15] publishers,[16] and professional organizations [17] to advance their LGBT social objectives. What students are told about homosexuality and transgender identities often comes from LGBT activists and their allies.[18] Students are not taught the science on the causes and changeability of homosexuality or transgenderism. In addition, if the health risks of male homosexual activity are not taught, the school system will endanger vulnerable students.[19] Schools that follow LGBT guidelines will not help students identify with their biological sex. Thus, more and more students will suffer from sexual identity issues and identify as homosexual and transgender.[20]

Any LGBT doctrinal teaching in the school system that professes that homosexuality and gay marriage are equivalent to heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage is a moral viewpoint. It is an anti-God moral viewpoint. Part of the LGBT political agenda is to force their morality on America. The authority to define the morality of American culture is supposed to come from the people. Unfortunately, too many citizens in America have been unwilling to fight against the LGBT activists for the moral high ground on sexuality.

— 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

It seems the only group the LGBT movement has not completely intimidated is (some) Christians. The LGBT movement has targeted Christian bakers, Christian florists, Christian wedding establishments, Christian adoption agencies, and even Christian churches. Some have bowed to the demands of LGBT activists, but there continues a faithful remnant that will not surrender to their intimidation.[21]

Most Americans are bewildered at the recent normalization of transgender identities. Many are unaware that transgenderism used to be considered a mental health disorder first termed “gender identity disorder,” and then “gender dysphoria.” Recently, gender dysphoria was revised in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals of Mental Disorders) so that a transgender person is only considered to have a mental disorder if they have “clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.”[22] In plain language, the APAs are telling us the transgender person who fully believes they are the opposite biological sex doesn’t have a mental disorder. Only a transgender person who thinks he/she may have a problem or is unable to successfully play the part of the opposite gender is considered to have a mental health disorder. The same type of classification change took place when the American Psychiatric Association normalized homosexuality.

Americans are acutely aware that LGBT activists are demanding that transgender people be allowed to use the locker rooms and restrooms associated with their gender identity. They recoil at the LGBT movement’s effort to have biological males play in female sports. This is only their most recent demand. Make no mistake, like any other powerful bully, the LGBT political bully will continue to force its intolerant, anti-science, and anti-Christian agenda upon the American people until the public rises up to confront and stop this bully.

Thomas Coy earned his Master of Liberal Studies at the University of Michigan-Flint with a major in American culture in 2012. His master’s thesis was titled, “The Professional Division Over the Treatment of Homosexuality and How It Has Been Influenced by the Gay Political Movement.”


[1] Bayer, R. (1981). Homosexuality and American Psychiatry – The Politics of Diagnosis. New York, NY: Basic Books.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Information on the Association for LGBTQ Psychiatrists can be found at or Information on the LGBTQ Division of the American Psychological Association can be found at

[5] Bayer, R. (1981).

[6] Ibid.

[7] Burris, N. “About Us.” As an example, this article shows that the University of Michigan’s LGBT Office of Affairs grew out of Student Government recognizing the Gay Liberation Front as a student organization in the early 1970s.

[8] Glassgold, J. M., L. Beckstead, J. Drescher, B. Greene, R. Lin Miller, and R. Worhington (2009) Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, American Psychological Association, 2009.

[9] American Psychological Association (March 10, 2020). “A Growing Number of States ban sexual orientation change efforts.

[10] Karlamangla, S. (November 10, 2013 - Los Angeles Times). “New Jersey court ruling another blow to gay conversion therapies.”

[11] Kramer, S. (April 16, 2020 – Alliance Defending Freedom). “This U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Could Create More Stories Like Chief Cochran’s.”

[12] American Freedom Law Center. “Crystal Dixon v University of Toledo.”;

Tedesco, J. (January 4, 2013 – “The Julea Ward Settlement: A Win For Religious Liberty.”

[13] McWhirter, D. and A. Mattison (1984). The Male Couple – How Relationships Develop. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall. (p. 138)

[14] National Education Association. “LGBTQ+.”

[15] American Library Association and its Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Round Table (November 1, 2018 Press Release). “ALA, GLBTRT continue to voice support for LGBTQ civil liberties”.

[16] GLSEN. “Rainbow Library.”

[17] The National Association of School Psychologists. “LGBTQ Youth.”

[18] GLSEN. “Resources”

[19] “HIV diagnosis rates are 57 times higher among men who have sex with men (MSM) than among heterosexual men.” Source: CDC (July 20, 2016). “Gay and Bisexual Teen Males No More Likely than Heterosexual Teen Males to Engage in Several Sexual Risk Behaviors; Still at Substantially Higher Risk of HIV Infection.”; Conservapedia (April 9, 2019). Homosexuality and Parasites.

[20] Jones, J. (February 4, 2021 – Gallup). “LGBT Identification Rises to 5.6% in Latest U.S. Estimate.”

[21] Alliance Defending Freedom. “You Are Free to Believe, but Are You Free to Act?”

[22] Turbin, J. (November 2020 – American Psychiatric Association). “What Is Gender Dysphoria?”

  american psychiatric association, american psychological association, gender ideology, homosexuality, transgenderism


Malta politician introduces bill to decriminalize abortion

Malta — a small island country in the Mediterranean — is the only nation in the European Union to completely ban abortion.
Thu May 13, 2021 - 5:19 pm EST
Featured Image
Malta, south of Sicily Shutterstock
Jonathon Van Maren Jonathon Van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon Van Maren

May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Last June, I interviewed Dr. Miriam Sciberras of the Life Network Foundation Malta in this space on the ongoing pressure faced by the Maltese government to legalize abortion. With a pro-life prime minister and a pro-life president — Dr. George Vella — who both stated that they will not sign any abortion legislation as long as they are in office, it seemed unlikely at the time that any real political threat to the pro-life regime was imminent.

But on May 12, independent Member of Parliament Marlene Farrugia made global headlines by putting forward a bill that would decriminalize abortion, a first step towards legalization. Malta is the only nation in the European Union to completely ban abortion, and abortion activists such as Lara Dimitrijevic of the Women’s Rights Foundation called Farrugia’s bill “a very important first step.”

Farrugia’s proposal — which involves striking three articles from the Maltese Criminal Code, including the prohibition on “procuring a miscarriage” as well as penalties for doctors performing abortions — shocked parliamentarians, and “triggered a ripple of muttering from stunned MPs,” according to one Maltese media outlet. It appears, however, that Farrugia had coordinated her efforts with abortion activists, who had already gathered outside parliament with banners reading “Trust Women” and “Abortion is already in Malta.” A pro-abortion social media campaign was promptly launched, as well. Not everyone was surprised.

Previously, Farrugia was not known as a pro-choice politician, so it seems likely that this move has been planned for some time. Both of Malta’s prominent political parties have claimed to be pro-life, so abortion activists likely hope that a shock move combined with a groundswell of support from planned protests and international pressure might jar reluctant politicians into action.

In fact, Environment Minister Aaron Farrugia of the Labour Party stated that the matter would have to be discussed, and opposition leader Bernard Grech told the press that the Nationalist Party would discuss the bill in private. Pro-life groups, of course, responded with horror, and the chairman of the Labour Party’s TV station Jason Micallef told Farrugia to “get stuffed.” The pressure from all sides to pass the bill now that it has been put forward, however, will be enormous.

According to some studies, about 400 women travel to procure an abortion each year, while around 200 order abortion pills via the internet. Prosecutions are incredibly rare. Nevertheless, Farrugia proposes that all penalties for abortion and facilitation be removed in favor of a ten-year prison term for anyone perpetrating a forced abortion. A number of abortion activists have already stated that the proposed bill does not go nearly far enough, indicating that any compromise would be short-lived.

There is no guarantee that the bill will pass, and the government, which sets the parliamentary agenda, can stop the legislation from being debated if it chooses. Farrugia and Malta’s abortion activists are gambling that forcing the debate and demanding that individual politicians stand up and be counted on the abortion issue will result in cowardice and climb-downs. Malta’s pro-life politicians and pro-life movement will need to fight hard, fight wisely, and refuse to back down. If they do, pre-born children will retain their rights. If they do not, Malta will go the way of the rest of the West — with all the carnage that accompanies our bloody abortion regimes.

  abortion, malta, marlene farrugia


CDC: Fully vaccinated people can now dump masks

‘Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physical distancing.’
Thu May 13, 2021 - 5:06 pm EST
Featured Image
Dirty mask on the ground Shutterstock
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have just issued new guidance allowing those who have received the COVID-19 vaccination to throw away their masks while those who have not received the jab must continue to wear them both indoors and outdoors, while continuing to practice social distancing.

“Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physical distancing,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky explained today. “If you are fully vaccinated, you can start doing the things that you had stopped doing because of the pandemic.”

The CDC website now says:


The CDC update warns that those who “are NOT fully vaccinated” must continue “taking all precautions until you are fully vaccinated.”

USA Today suggests, “The new recommendations from the CDC could also serve as an incentive for the tens of millions of eligible Americans who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19 to get their shots.”

By issuing differing directives for the vaccinated and unvaccinated, the CDC is attempting to cast shame on those who must continue to wear masks.

For those of us who have no intention of being vaccinated, we are all Hester Prynnes now, wearing the 21st century version of The Scarlet Letter. And perhaps this is not far from the Nazi practice of forcing Jews to wear yellow stars, a psychological tactic to isolate and dehumanize.

Demonstrating just how dehumanizing and imprisoning the dreaded masks have been for all, and also demonstrating their obedience to the CDC, today Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Joni Ernst pulled off their masks and yelled “freedom” as they stepped off a Capitol Hill elevator after the CDC issued its revised guidance on indoor mask-wearing, according to a tweet by The Hill staff writer Alex Bolton.

  cdc, coronavirus restrictions, coronavirus vaccine, mask mandates


German priests to their bishops allowing LGBT ‘blessings,’ intercommunion: ‘Leave the path of heresies!’

'You are carrying out the work of the wolves.'
Thu May 13, 2021 - 10:12 am EST
Featured Image
Bishop Georg Bätzing YouTube / screenshot
Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike
By Maike Hickson

May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Communio veritatis, a priestly group in Germany, issued today a statement (full text below) rebuking the head of the German bishops’ conference and all those German bishops who are in agreement with him regarding the blessing of homosexual couples and intercommunion both of which have been rejected by Rome. These priests accuse the bishops of promoting heresy at their Synodal Path.

Addressing Bishop Georg Bätzing, the head of the German bishops' conference, and his complicit fellow bishops, with strong words, these priests write: “We accuse you of doing the opposite [of leading souls to the path of salvation]. You are carrying out the work of the wolves.”

They continue: “You are tearing apart the Body of Christ by disregarding the Word of God and falsifying the teachings of His Church. You are driving the flock into the abyss of your Synodal Path. You are killing the sheep because you are spreading heretical deceit.”

With these accusations, the priests sum up the doctrinal confusion that has been fostered in the last years by the German bishops under Bätzing and his predecessor Cardinal Reinhard Marx, who are promoting such controversial ideas as female “ordination,” blessing of homosexual couples, intercommunion, democracy in the Church, and contraception. In 2019, they had started a so-called “Synodal Path” that aims at discussing these matters. Even though Rome has sent different letters, such as one rejecting the German bishops’ idea of intercommunion, or a recent one rejecting the blessing of homosexual couples, the German bishops have continued to insist upon their agenda. It is to be seen in the light of this episcopal support that more than 100 German priests organized a public initiative, blessing homosexual couples in their churches on May 10.

The priestly group Communio veritatis, out of concern for the salvation of souls, has seen it now fit to present to these responsible bishops their responsibility before God and the dangers they are placing to the souls under their care. For this purpose, the priestly group headed by Father Frank Unterhalt, a diocesan priest of the Archdiocese of Paderborn, recalls statements by three holy women – all of them doctors of the Church – which point to the danger of receiving Holy Communion unworthily, of living an unchaste and even sodomitical life, and of losing one's soul and suffering eternally the pains of hell.

For example, these German priests quote St. Theresa of Ávila describing a vision she once had: “Later, however, I had another vision of horrible things, namely, of the punishments and chastisements for certain vices. […] So I don't know how we can calmly watch that the evil enemy daily seizes so many souls. […] Oh, if I could make them understand this truth who defile themselves with the most lewd and heinous sins, so that they would remember that they are not committed in secret; if I could make them understand what a just abhorrence God has for such sins, since they are committed in the immediate presence of His Majesty and we behave so disrespectfully before Him! I saw how cheaply hell is earned by a single mortal sin.”

In light of the grave duty of bishops to lead the souls entrusted to them to heaven instead of perdition, the priestly group concludes their urgent appeal:

Bishop Bätzing, against this background we call out to you today: Consider that the Most High will demand an account from you! Return to Christ and His Church, which He has built on the foundation of the Apostles! Leave the path of heresies and embrace the truth of the Catholic Faith!

This is not the first time that this priestly group has raised its voice of opposition to the heterodox leadership of the Catholic Church in Germany.

Communio veritatis formed in light of the 2018 debate in Germany about giving Holy Communion to some Protestant spouses of Catholics. Communio veritatis strongly opposed this idea and published a statement opposing their own archbishop in Paderborn, Hans-Josef Becker. Since then, the group expanded, and more priests from other places joined them or associated with them.

In January 2019, this group called upon Cardinal Reinhard Marx – then still the head of the German bishops – to resign for “abusing your spiritual office by obviously considering the Church's Sacraments as your personal property which you sacrifice at your own whims on the altar of the Zeitgeist.”

Later that same year, in June, Communio veritatis issued a statement against Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis’s post-synodal exhortation on marriage and the family, in which they reminded the public of the Church's practice, “in line with Holy Scripture [...] according to which the remarried divorcees who live more uxorio [as husband and wife] may not be admitted to Holy Communion.” They re-stated this teaching since Pope Francis, in October 2017, gave public support to the guidelines of the bishops of the region of Buenos Aires, Argentina which admitted some divorced and “remarried” couples to Holy Communion without them changing their way of life. These guidelines had been based on Amoris Laetitia.

The leader of Communio veritatis, Father Unterhalt, also rebuked Pope Francis for his 2020 encyclical Fratelli tutti, saying that it contained a “Masonic tone,” due to its tendency toward religious indifferentism and the call to universal fraternity. However, this priest reminds Pope Francis of the Church's duty to proclaim the Church of Christ.

“In this apocalyptic time of the False Prophecy,” he writes, “in which the diabolical lie is limping around, the Church of the Lord has the duty to proclaim Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as the only Savior and true Redeemer.” 

Please see here the new statement of the priestly group Communio veritatis:

Leave the Path of Heresies!

“Go out into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature! He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk 16:15-16).

Bishop Bätzing, with this appeal we turn to you and to your fellow bishops who are in conformity with you.

Today, Our Lord Jesus Christ has sent out His Apostles as witnesses of the truth (cf. Mt 28:19-20).

It is His Church that He has purchased at the cost of His Precious Blood on the Cross (cf. Acts 20:28).

He has entrusted the shepherds to feed His flock and lead them on the path of eternal life.

We accuse you of doing the opposite.

You are carrying out the work of the wolves (cf. Acts 20:29-30).

You are tearing apart the Body of Christ by disregarding the Word of God and falsifying the teachings of His Church.

You are driving the flock into the abyss of your Synodal Path.

You are killing the sheep because you are spreading heretical deceit.

You show off as lords of the faith and owners of the sacraments.

Since you always emphasize that you want to listen especially to the voices of women,[1] we would like to have three famous female Doctors of the Church speak to you today. Their words answer your conduct. The remarks of these great holy women show who you are and where you stand.

1. Bishop Bätzing, with your disastrous plea for intercommunion you attack the very heart of the Church by saying: “Whoever believes in his conscience what is celebrated in the other denomination will also be able to join and not be rejected. […] Whoever is Protestant and comes to Communion can receive Communion.”[2]

This is a blatant contradiction to the teaching of the Catholic Church, which is clear: “To receive Holy Communion, one must be fully incorporated into the Catholic Church and be in the state of grace.”[3]

St. Hildegard of Bingen, Doctor of the Church,[4] in her work Scivias, shows you how disastrous the unworthy reception of the Most Holy Eucharist is for the human soul: “Verily I say unto you: Whoever eats the bread of life or partakes of the cup of the Lord – that is, the Sacrament of the Lord over heaven and earth – in an unworthy manner and polluted with sins, will thereby make himself guilty. Why? He receives the body and blood of the Lord, that is, of the Savior of the world, in an offending manner, and himself unto death. Because he leans toward evil, is soiled with impurity, and forgets the fear of the Lord. Thus defiled, he enters the sanctuary (palatium) of the salvific Redemption. And that is why he commits murder there. Why? Because he inflicts many wounds on himself and, without the soothing and bath of repentance, hides his offenses and treats this sacrament presumptuously. Therefore, I also say to him: ‘O wretched and bad (amarissime) man, how dare you plunge your Lord, for whom the citizens of heaven in their [beatific] vision yearn, into such a miserable pit?’ […] For whoever treats this sacrament badly, because he does not purify himself from the filth of wickedness and receives it unworthily, incurs a judgment of vengeance, because he eats and drinks it in an impure state.”[5]

2. Bishop Bätzing, scandalously you openly oppose the Roman No to the blessing of homosexual partnerships.[6] Thus you betray the Creator and deny the testimony of Holy Scripture.

Based on the clear biblical message, the Permanent Magisterium of the Catholic Church has always protected marriage and family. Thus, especially today, it must not be concealed that homosexual practices are among the grave sins that massively violate chastity[7] and are vehemently rejected by Holy Scripture (cf. Gen 19:1-29; Lev 18:22; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10). The Catechism reminds us of the “crying-out-to-heaven” [“himmelschreiend”] dimension of the guilt of the sodomites.[8]

St. Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church, in her work Treatise of Divine Providence, shows you how much the Lord condemns homosexual acts: “The wretched do even worse and commit the accursed sin against nature. And like blind fools whose reason is clouded, they do not perceive the rottenness and misery in which they find themselves. Not only to Me, who I am the highest eternal purity, it is disgusting (so detestable indeed that for this one sin I destroyed five cities by My divine judgment, since My righteousness would not bear it any longer), but even to demons.”[9]

3. Bishop Bätzing, you, like your fellow bishops, have a special responsibility before God (cf. 2 Tim 4:1-5). Your behavior and the corresponding words, on the other hand, show that you completely ignore the eschatological dimension of your deeds. However, you will experience in the Judgment the retribution of Him to whom the Church belongs in truth (cf. Rev 22:12).
In her harrowing vision of hell, St. Theresa of Ávila, Doctor of the Church, saw that many souls would be eternally lost. She experienced the unimaginable sufferings of damnation in body and soul: “I do not know how to describe this inner fire, this despair at such tremendous torment and pain. […] There is no light, but all is deepest darkness […] Later, however, I had another vision of horrible things, namely, of the punishments and chastisements for certain vices.”[10]

From her own experience “also stems the extraordinary pain I feel over so many souls who are heading for eternal damnation […] so that in truth it seems to me that I would suffer death a thousand times over with the greatest joy so that even a single soul might escape such horrible torments. […] So I don't know how we can calmly watch that the evil enemy daily seizes so many souls. […] Oh, if I could make them understand this truth who defile themselves with the most lewd and heinous sins, so that they would remember that they are not committed in secret; if I could make them understand what a just abhorrence God has for such sins, since they are committed in the immediate presence of His Majesty and we behave so disrespectfully before Him! I saw how cheaply hell is earned by a single mortal sin.”[11]

Bishop Bätzing, against this background we call out to you today:

Consider that the Most High will demand an account from you!

Return to Christ and His Church, which He has built on the foundation of the Apostles!

Leave the path of heresies and embrace the truth of the Catholic Faith!

May 13, 2021
Solemnity of the Feast of Ascension
Anniversary of the First Apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima

Priestly Group Communio veritatis

[1] Cf. Georg Bätzing, Predigt zur Wiedereröffnung und Altarweihe Frauenfrieden [Sermon for the Reopening and Altar Consecration Frauenfrieden], in: bischof.bistumlimburg, November 22, 2020.
[2] Haus am Dom, “Auf dem Weg zum ÖKT 21: Abschluss” [“On the Way to the ÖKT 21 [Ecumenical Church Day 2021]: Conclusion”], April 22, 2021, in:, 37:50 and 42:50, accessed May 3, 2021.
[3] Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 291.
[4] Georg Bätzing, op. cit.: “Hildegard of Bingen was certainly the most famous woman in Europe in the 12th century: Scholar, mystic, healer, abbess, prophetess, 'Trumpet of God' they called her. In 2012, she was elevated to the status of Doctor of the Church. And that can mean nothing other than that we allow her, as in her lifetime, to speak to the conscience of the powerful in church and politics with her knowledge and spiritual experience. She never shied away from it. She never lacked clear words.”
[5] Hildegard of Bingen, Scivias. Wisse die Wege. Eine Schau von Gott und Mensch in Schöpfung und Zeit [Scivias. Know the Ways. A Vision of God and Man in Creation and Time], Augsburg 1991, 2nd part, 6th vision, no. 58, p. 259.
[6] Cf. Matthias Altmann, “Bätzing: Teile Unverständnis über Nein zu Segnung homosexueller Paare” [“Bätzing: I share the incomprehension about no to blessing of homosexual couples”], in:, March 24, 2021.
[7] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2396.
[8] Ibid, 1867.
[9] Catherine of Siena, Dialogue III, 124, in: Gespräch von Gottes Vorsehung [Treatise of Divine Providence], Einsiedeln 1993 (4th ed.), p. 163.
[10] Theresa of Ávila, Life, 32,2, in: Aloysius Alkofer, Das Leben der heiligen Theresia von Jesu [The Life of St. Teresa of Jesu], 1st volume, Munich and Kempten 1973 (4th edition), pp. 311-312.
11] Theresa of Ávila, 32,5 and 40,10, in: Aloysius Alkofer, p. 313, 416.

  catholic, georg bätzing, german bishops, german bishops conference, homosexuality, pope francis

Featured Image

Episodes Thu May 13, 2021 - 10:11 am EST

Biologist weighs in on COVID vaccine shedding


Renowned biologist Pamela Acker joins the Ladies of LifeSite to share her research into the COVID vaccine shedding, specifically it's impacts on women's reproductive health.

Pamela Acker is an expert on the use of aborted fetal cells in vaccines and in vaccine development testing. Acker recently wrote the book Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective, which is available here.

Grab your cup of coffee, tea, or beverage of choice and join us for conversation that is sure to educate and inspire!

We hope that you will be inspired and spiritually strengthened through this podcast and share it with a friend, mother, sister, or daughter in your life.