BREAKING NEWS: Biden administration to sue Georgia over its GOP-enacted voter restrictions
Inbox
POLITICO <alert@email.politico.com> Unsubscribe
10:13 AM (1 hour ago)
to me
The Justice Department is suing the state of Georgia over its controversial voting rights bill, a person familiar with the department’s plans confirmed.
Republican state legislators around the country have pushed a host of provisions that would make it more challenging for people to vote — moves that have targeted Democratic-leaning voters and disproportionately affect people of color.
Georgia’s Election Integrity Act, which was passed on a party-line vote and signed into law by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp in late March, contained a slew of changes to election laws in the state. Perhaps most notably, it stripped Georgia’s secretary of state of power on the state elections board, making the board majority-appointed by the state legislature.
Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state, clashed repeatedly with former President Donald Trump following the 2020 election. Trump tried to pressure Raffensperger into trying to overturn the results in the state, but Raffensperger pushed back privately and publicly, insisting the election was a free and fair one.
The state elections board is also now able to remove local election administrators from their posts.
The new law also changed how voters can cast their votes. It replaced the state’s signature verification system for absentee ballots with an ID-based system and tightens the window that those ballots can be requested. It codified the use of dropboxes in state law, while severely restricting their use in and around the Democrat stronghold of Atlanta, compared to the emergency authorization during the 2020 election.
The law also drastically shortened the runoff period in Georgia, after Republicans lost a pair of high-profile Senate races earlier this year. The law does expand in-person early voting in many smaller counties in the state, while maintaining the status quo in larger counties that already had more expansive options.
One of the provisions of the bill that caught the most attention was a prohibition on the practice of “line warming” — the practice of sharing food and water with voters waiting in line.
As all this has unfolded, the Justice Department has grappled for ways to combat the state-level trends. Earlier this month, Garland announced that the department’s Civil Rights Division would double the number of people it has focused on protecting voting rights. He also said the department was scrutinizing new laws limiting access to voting, as well as post-election audits.
The Justice Department announcement came as voting rights attorneys and political operatives are awaiting the outcome of two pending Supreme Court cases from Arizona that are likely to lay out standards for future litigation over voting-process rules and changes in states across the country.
The American TFP > Catholic Perspective > For Pope Francis, the Holy Eucharist Is the “Bread of Sinners,” for Saint Thomas Aquinas, It Is “Panis Angelorum”
For Pope Francis, the Holy Eucharist Is the “Bread of Sinners,” for Saint Thomas Aquinas, It Is “Panis Angelorum”
June 23, 2021 | Luiz Sérgio Solimeo
For Pope Francis, the Holy Eucharist Is the “Bread of Sinners,” for Saint Thomas Aquinas, It Is “Panis Angelorum”
Corpus Christi is the grand and solemn liturgical feast in praise of the Blessed Sacrament. Inspired by Saint Juliana of Mont Cornillon (1193–1258), it originated in the Middle Ages. Pope Urban IV approved it with the Bull Transiturus of September 8, 1264, and asked Saint Thomas Aquinas to compose its liturgical office.
Hence, we owe to Saint Thomas’s theological genius (he was also an inspired poet) the beautiful hymn Lauda Sion, that is part of the new feast’s Mass. In its verses, we find the beautiful expression “Ecce panis angelorum” (behold the Bread of angels), which came to be used frequently to designate Holy Communion. That is easy to understand because one can receive it only in the state of grace, which renders men similar to angels.
On the Feast of Corpus Christi, Pope Francis Turns the “Bread of Angels” Into “Bread of Sinners”
Pope Francis took advantage of the commemoration of the Feast of Corpus Christi on June 6 to change the meaning of the Sacrament of the Eucharist into one entirely contrary to the Church’s perennial teaching. Thus, changing the poetic but theologically safe formulation of Saint Thomas, he transforms the designation “Bread of Angels” into “Bread of sinners.”
As he had done on another occasion,1 at the Angelus on that feast day, Pope Francis presented Judas, the traitor, as an example of divine mercy. He said that, at the Holy Supper, Jesus knew of Judas’s betrayal. And “what does Jesus do? He reacts to the evil with a greater good. He responds to Judas’s ‘no’ with the ‘yes’ of mercy. He does not punish the sinner but rather gives His life for him.”2
Pope Francis adds, “When we receive the Eucharist, Jesus does the same with us: he knows us; he knows we are sinners; and he knows we make many mistakes, but he does not give up on joining his life to ours.”
Concluding his thought, he says that Jesus “knows that we need it, because the Eucharist is not the reward of saints, no, it is the Bread of sinners. This is why he exhorts us: ‘Do not be afraid! Take and eat.’”
A Doctrine Contrary to the Council of Trent
The above words and the example of Judas when designating the Eucharist as “bread of sinners” make one wonder if Pope Francis suggests that the proper effect of Holy Communion is to forgive mortal sins, not just venial ones. That would run counter the Council of Trent: “Can. 5. If anyone says that the special fruit of the Most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that from it no other fruits are produced: let him be anathema.”3
Another error equally opposed to that Council and the Scriptures, and seemingly insinuated in Pope Francis’s words, is that being in the state of grace is not required to receive Holy Communion. However, quoting Saint Paul, the Council of Trent says:
[A]ssuredly, the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly sacrament are understood by a Christian, the more diligently ought he to give heed that he approaches not to receive it but with great reverence and holiness, especially as we read in the Apostle those words full of terror: He that eat and drink unworthily, eat and drink judgment to himself (1 Cor. 11:29). Wherefore, he who would communicate ought to recall to mind the precept of the Apostle: Let a man prove himself.4
The moralists Antonio Lanza and Pietro Palazzini explain, “[by] divine right, all who are in mortal sin cannot licitly approach Communion.”5
Effects of the Sacrament of the Eucharist
These moral theologians summarize the effects of Eucharistic Communion as follows: “The specific effects of Holy Communion are: a) uniting us with Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body, the Church, in a more intimate way; b) increasing sanctifying grace in us; c) nurturing and fortify our spiritual life; d) weakening concupiscence; e) giving us a sign of eternal life. The effects will be all the more abundant the better are the dispositions [with which one receives It].”6
Holy Communion can indirectly erase a mortal sin when a person, unaware that he is in sin, receives Communion piously. In these cases, “theologians incline to the opinion, that in such exceptional cases the Holy Eucharist can restore the soul to the state of grace.”7
Communion in Amoris Laetitia
Given Pope Francis’s new designation of the Holy Eucharist as the “bread of sinners,” one understands better why, in his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, he opened in a footnote the possibility for people living in adultery to receive Holy Communion.8
In that Apostolic Exhortation, he says that a person can be in an “objective situation of sin” but still “living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.” In a note, he states, “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments” because the Holy Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”9
The bishops of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region made entirely clear what Amoris Laetitia said confusingly. They say that in certain cases when the first marriage cannot be the object of annulment, “Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (see notes 336 & 351). In turn, these dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the power of grace.”10
In his response to these bishops, Pope Francis praises their pronouncement and adds, “The writing is very good and makes fully explicit the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.”11
Pope Francis thus deems authentic the interpretation of the Argentine bishops, according to which married couples in adultery can receive sacramental absolution and Communion without abandoning their sinful situation. This is perfectly consistent with seeing the Holy Eucharist as the “bread of sinners.”
It is good to add that, according to the traditional doctrine sanctioned at the Council of Trent, a confession made without repentance and the firm purpose of abandoning sin is invalid and a profanation of the sacrament.12
Unanswered Dubia
On September 19, 2016, four cardinals of Holy Church—Carlo Caffarra, Joachim Meisner (both deceased), Raymond Burke, and Walter Brandmüller—addressed to Pope Francis a request for clarification in the form of dubia (doubts) on the new doctrines contained in Amoris Laetitia, especially on the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance. They wrote:
It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxoriowithout fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio [as husband and wife]?13
To this day, almost five years later, Pope Francis has not responded to the dubia. His silence in this regard is now public and notorious throughout the Catholic world.
The following year, on July 16, 2017, a group of Catholic theologians and intellectuals published a document titled Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis. They showed the same concern as the cardinals. They wrote forcefully, “Several passages of Amoris Laetitia, in conjunction with acts, words, and omissions of Your Holiness, serve to propagate seven heretical propositions.”14
The Sacrament and Repentant Sinners
Is it not a blasphemy to call the Holy Eucharist “bread of sinners”? The sacraments bestow grace on those who receive them worthily. None of them can be given to an adult who is not in a condition to receive them. Even for Penance or Confession (currently called the Sacrament of Reconciliation), to produce its effects of restoring a sinner to the state of grace, he needs to seriously confess his sins with perfect or at least imperfect repentance (attrition) and a firm resolve to abandon sin.
According to Lanza-Palazzini, “Whoever consciously receives the Sacrament without the proper dispositions, commits a serious sin of sacrilege because it renders useless the rite that Christ instituted as an effective sign of grace.” They conclude: “The profanation of a very holy thing is a grave insult against the Divine Founder. Concretely, the state of grace is required to receive the Sacraments of the living;15 if that is missing, sacrilege is committed.”16
Pope Francis’s singular teaching that the Holy Eucharist, the “Bread of Angels,” is the “bread of sinners” has serious practical consequences. No one can deny that he is at least silent on this matter regarding the dubia. Furthermore, instead of supporting courageous bishops who take Catholic doctrine seriously and publicly state how allowing such politicians to receive Holy Communion is incompatible with Catholic doctrine, Pope Francis consistently favors concessive prelates.
Ecce Panis Angelorum
Let us close with the verses of Saint Thomas Aquinas recited in the Sequence of the Mass of the Feast of Corpus Christi:
Antonio Lanza-Pietro Palazzini, Sacramentos y Vida Sacramental, vol. 3 of Principios de Teologia Moral (Madrid: Ediciones Rialp S.A., 1958), 166.
Ibid., 148.
Joseph Pohle, s.v. “The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909), accessed June 13, 2021, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm.
“Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagates,” accessed June 13, 2021, Correctiofilialis.org.
The sacraments are divided into “sacraments of the dead” and “sacraments of the living.” The former, such as Baptism and Penance, infuse the primary grace or restores to grace those who are spiritually dead through sin. All other sacraments are administered to the living, i.e., those who are spiritually “alive,” and increase the grace they already possess. The Holy Eucharist is the most sublime of them.
Lanza-Palazzini, Sacramentos y Vida Sacramental, 40–41.
WASHINGTON, June 24, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — As the dust settles after the U.S. bishops gathered online for their Spring Assembly last week, the bishops’ conference has released a brief clarifying note on the proposed document on the meaning of the Eucharist in the life of the Church, stating, “There will be no national policy on withholding Communion from politicians.”
The document, which was given the approval to be drafted, has piqued interest from Catholic and non-Catholic media alike, with the suspicion that despite avoiding singling out any particular group, it might nevertheless affirm teaching which would prohibit abortion supporters from receiving Holy Communion.SUBSCRIBEto LifeSite’s daily headlinesSUBSCRIBEU.S. Canada World Catholic
Such a thought was evidently on the minds of the virtually assembled clerics, as Cardinals Blaise Cupich, Joseph Tobin, and Wilton Gregory, as well as Bishop Robert McElroy, attacked the document, opposing any policy of denying the Eucharist to individuals, saying it would even be out of line with the Gospel.
Clarifying note rules out any national policy on Holy Communion
Now, however, the USCCB has issued a one-page note in an apparent attempt to regain control of the media narrative, a concern which was even raised by certain bishops during the meeting. The note addresses certain key questions on the Eucharistic document, namely why it is being drafted, whether the USCCB voted to ban pro-abortion politicians from Holy Communion, if there will be a policy on such a question, and whether the move is in line with the Vatican.
The document notes that there was no vote or even debate on banning pro-abortion politicians, or indeed anyone, from Holy Communion.
Instead, the bishops wrote in the note: “Each Catholic — regardless of whether they hold public office or not — is called to continual conversion, and the U.S. bishops have repeatedly emphasized the obligation of all Catholics to support human life and dignity and other fundamental principles of Catholic moral and social teaching.”
Furthermore, the note clearly stipulates what Rhoades mentioned at the Spring Assembly: There will be no new national policy on the reception of the Eucharist in the Eucharistic document.
“There will be no national policy on withholding Communion from politicians. The intent is to present a clear understanding of the Church’s teachings to bring heightened awareness among the faithful of how the Eucharist can transform our lives and bring us closer to our creator and the life he wants for us.”
The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is always wrong because it kills an innocent human being, thus violating the Church’s prohibition on murder, a teaching which “remains unchangeable.”
“Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense,” reads the Catechism of the Catholic Church. “The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.”
Any state which deprives a certain category of persons of their inalienable rights, particularly the right to life from conception until death, is thus “denying the equality of all before the law,” and undermines its own foundations.
Furthermore, the Church’s Canon Law stipulates that under no circumstances are those who persist in manifest grave sin to receive the Holy Eucharist. “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
It was based on this very directive of Canon Law that Fr. Robert E. Morey of St. Anthony Catholic Church in Florence, South Carolina, refused to give Biden Holy Communion in 2019. In comments to media in the aftermath, Morey explained his reasons: “Holy Communion signifies we are one with God, each other and the Church. Our actions should reflect that.”
“Any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of Church teaching,” he added.— Article continues below Petition —PETITION: Urge U.S. Bishops to publicly excommunicate Joe Biden (and other pro-abortion politicians)
25,604 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 30,000!Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country…USACanadaAaland IslandsAfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuracaoCyprusCzech RepublicDemocratic Republic of the CongoDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland IslandsFaroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard and McDonald IslandsHondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacauMacedoniaMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesiaMoldovaMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNetherlands AntillesNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorth KoreaNorthern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPalestinePanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarRepublic of KosovoReunionRomaniaRussiaRwandaSaint BarthelemySaint HelenaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint MartinSaint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint MaartenSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth KoreaSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan Mayen IslandsSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanTajikistanTanzaniaThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVatican CityVenezuelaVietnamVirgin Islands (British)Virgin Islands (U.S.)Wallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabwe State…AlabamaAlaskaAmerican SamoaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFederated States Of MicronesiaFloridaGeorgiaGuamHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarshall IslandsMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaNorthern Mariana IslandsOhioOklahomaOregonPalauPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirgin IslandsVirginiaWashingtonWashington D.C.West VirginiaWisconsinWyomingArmed Forces EuropeArmed Forces AmericasArmed Forces Pacific Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues. Sign this Petition
Hence, as the USCCB looks set to studiously avoid the topic of Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians, most especially in the form of drafting a “national policy,” the Eucharistic document would appear to be already moot, since it will avoid one of the most pressing issues of the Church in the U.S., namely, having a “Catholic” president who supports and promotes the murder of the unborn, and still presents himself for Holy Communion.
In fact, while the USCCB attempt to avoid this topic by rejecting any national policy, the Church has already spoken for the bishops in a universal manner, through the official texts and laws which bind all Catholics, both clerical and lay.
Our world is becoming increasingly violent; a world where people are led and misled by half-truths, slogans and ideological clichés. This violence is directed against individuals and institutions; and a new term – cancel culture – has been coined to describe what can happen to individuals, especially to historical figures and even institutions that may not meet the standards of a new and intolerant orthodoxy. We are now all too familiar with the removal and destruction of statues and other forms of art deemed offensive and no longer acceptable. Cancel culture has also become a feature of the Church’s life at least here in North America.
Catholic media have of late reported on a number of cases where priests have been quite simply cancelled, summarily removed from their pastoral assignments and charges, most often without the benefit of any prior consultation or due process. Although it is a phenomenon principally affecting priests in parishes, it has also resulted in the defenestration of members of seminary faculties. There is little of the much vaunted accompanying charity in what may be compared to a drive by shooting; and the church of accompaniment appears more like a church of expulsion and exclusion. It seems as if from the corridors of power resembling a totalitarian regime an order has been issued to engage in what amounts to a war of annihilation (vernichtungskrieg) against perceived enemies, representatives of a church that no longer exists, to quote a career auxiliary bishop; obstacles to the hoped and dreams of those who wish for a ‘modern church’. In a widely viewed and commented on segment, Church Militant TV recently provided a forum for nine America priests, all of whom have been or are in the process of being cancelled. It is a sad episode to watch; one which however anyone who loves their Catholic Faith should watch to the bitter end (This Has to End | The Vortex (churchmilitant.com) so as to understand the gravity of this situation and also to see the palpable pain and sorrow inflicted upon good and zealous priests; men who have suffered and continue to suffer injustice because of their dedication to upholding and promoting the integrity of the Catholic Faith in all its splendor.
Some claim that the numbers of cancelled priests is in the hundreds but such a claim is difficult to substantiate unless one posits that cancel culture has been part of the Church’s culture for quite some time now, certainly for the last fifty tumultuous years and counting. A case may be made for the ascendancy and prevalence of cancel culture in the Church since the aftermath of the Vatican Council and specifically, since the introduction of the Novus ordo Missae, the Mass of Paul VI. It is not an exaggeration to maintain that some elements in the Church have in fact led the way for the ascendancy of cancel culture and in this regard at least the modern church has been a guiding light of sorts, lumen gentium as it were. An unrelenting process of cancellation followed the revolutionary council – so designated by some of its more influential participants and later, by its sober critics. (Even if the texts of the council were themselves on the whole rather conservative)
II
Almost everything was affected by the rebellious Ness of the ‘Spirit of the Council’ unleashed among clergy, religious and the laity. Ironically, and we have been subjected to an overabundance of irony over these many years, this rebelliousness fractured the ideal of unity so succinctly expressed in Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls (Dei Verbum, 10). The ‘demythologizing’ of Scripture, the rejection of Tradition especially in traditional liturgical expressions, and the outright refusal on the part some influential theologians to respect the teaching authority of the Church (the Magisterium) all contributed to a collapse of the Catholic world. This is the assessment of none other than Pope Paul VI, the enigmatic pontiff who oversaw the Council’s deliberations and its subsequent implementation.
It is not insignificant that on October 13, 1977, on the 60th anniversary of the last apparition of Our Lady at Fatima, Pope Paul VI observed: The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic World. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church. A few years earlier he had lamented: We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms and of darkness of searching and uncertainties…It is as if from some mysterious crack, no it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God (Sermon of June 29, 1972). The spiritual erosion witnessed and experienced by many of us when these frightening words were spoken and since, has now reached a critical mass.
When the Mass of Paul VI was officially promulgated, five full years of liturgical experimentation had already done much to solidify what in retrospect we may define as a hermeneutic of rupture. It was at this point that priests who operated out of what Pope Benedict described as the hermeneutic of continuity and who endeavoured to maintain an integrated perspective and ministry scripturally, canonically and pastorally began to experience the effects of cancel culture either through retirements or in the case of younger priests, through banishment to the peripheries, to use a phrase now in vogue. This has been the game plan for decades. Fr. John Zulhsdorf recently observed: in many cases tradition-inclined priests have been treated savagely by their bishops and other priests. Traditional Catholics have been too. They have been for years, even for decades, prevented by authority (usually through bullying) from doing what their consciences tell them is the right thing to do. They are forced, year in and year out, to do what they think is, if not outright wrong, at least inferior to what could be done with a little leeway and compassion. They are in a perpetual bind, caught between the desire to be a good member of the presbyterate and one with the bishop, while knowing that they can’t stand your ‘rightful aspirations’, as John Paul II called them.
III.
To claim that there are in Catholic dioceses cadres of tradition-inclined or to use a political term, ‘conservative’ priests, is quite simply untenable at this point. Time has taken its toll and ‘liberal Catholics’ who continue to engage a war against so called ‘conservatives’ are now battling phantoms. Tradition-inclined priests are rare because to put it simply, the odds are stacked against such priests or candidates for the priesthood from the get go. Pope Benedict’s Summorum pontificum may have inspired and perhaps even emboldened some priests to be better disposed towards and to embrace Sacred Tradition, but the Francis effect has put an end to this; and it would seem that we have now reached a point where the level of tolerance for traditional ways and practices is at all-time low. Some have quipped that the seventies are back. And this may explain this latest spate of attacks on tradition-inclined priests.
As for the cancelled priests, some may think that it was the celebration of the Traditional liturgy that has brought about their demise but this is certainly not the case absolutely because owing to a glaring defect in their formation, most Latin Rite priests today have no facility in their ritual language – legislation mandating its knowledge notwithstanding. It is more than a matter of liturgical preferences that has resulted in their removal. Some have been sent to psychiatric institutions for upholding the Church’s moral teaching; others have been silenced for their bold preaching. A consistent and integrated pastoral praxis is what has caused them to be treated savagely by their fellow priests, bishops and even by groups of parishioners who over these many decades have been ill formed and by poor catechesis, bad preaching and a liturgy that has devolved into entertainment.
If some priests have looked to Tradition as a guide they have certainly not been unfaithful to the Church’s teaching. Rather, it is those who treated them savagely with the implicit and explicit approval of the hierarchy that have betrayed the Church’s doctrine and broken the bond of charity. Sent into parishes that were pastorally and liturgically mismanaged for decades, against all odds these men have made the desert bloom. More often than not, their reputations were ruined by the outgoing pastor before they even set foot in their new parish. Slandered and defamed, their pastoral assignments began with bitterness and difficulty. Nevertheless, they persevered; enriching the life of the parish principally though not exclusively through their solicitude for the integrity of the sacred liturgy because contrary to what is generally done in most parishes, there is nothing more important than the liturgy. It is in the liturgy, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, that ‘the work of the redemption is accomplished’, and it is through the liturgy especially that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2).
IV.
In giving primacy to the sacred liturgy as the action of Christ, the pastoral efforts of the cancelled priest included more often than not the ad orientem celebration of the Mass, the placement of the Tabernacle in the centre of the sanctuary and the option of receiving Holy Communion on one’s knees and on the tongue. Though more can certainly be said, these actions are often perceived as a declaration of war on the modern church, and the beginning of the campaign of accusations of being divisive and pastorally ineffective often on the part of a vocal minority of parishioners who have no interest in being Catholic, at least not in the traditional understanding of this term. Notwithstanding the rubrics in the Roman Missal, it is not uncommon to hear of bishops ordering priests to avoid ad orientem celebrations of Holy Mass. Ironically, seldom is such haste encountered in correcting liturgical abuses which continue to proliferate and to weaken the faith of those who still attend Holy Mass. The liturgical protocols of the ‘rite of covid’ have not helped.
Nevertheless, the labours and of the prayer and penance of the tradition-inclined priest are not without effect: the number of those attending daily Mass and Feast Days increases exponentially, there is an increase in those who regularly avail themselves of the Sacrament of Confession and the parish community becomes not only vibrant but also a beacon for tradition-inclined laity. As a result, Catholics join such a parish, often driving long distances so as to participate in an authentic and sober liturgy, to be formed by sound preaching and to be enriched by the vast patrimony of Catholic culture and Tradition especially communicated through the rhythm and cycle of the liturgical year. It is hard to believe that a bishop would destroy such a parish but this is what in fact happens when its pastor is cancelled. The callous manner in which violence is visited upon not only the priest of such a parish but also the faithful is nothing short of scandalous.
St. John Vianney, the patron of priests said that the priesthood is the love of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. It is evident from even from a cursory knowledge of these cancelled priests and their parishes that their pastoral praxis or plan to use a modern idiom, is that of the saintly Curé of Ars: a life of genuine piety and devotion that is profoundly Eucharistic, Marian and sacrificial. In such a parish, the schedule revolves around the needs of the faithful and the Church’s calendar; not the pastor’s day off and his vacation times. Perhaps this alone is enough to earn the ire of fellow members of the presbyterate who have reduced their own priesthood to the role of an events coordinator.
The demonization of the conservative priest, the rigid seminarian, the pious faithful and above all of all things traditional has created a hostile environment and many priests who would otherwise be more than favourably disposed to enriching their own priestly ministry and the life of their parishioners with the treasures of tradition are afraid to betray the standards and mores of the liberal establishment. For these men we must pray; that they may be gifted with fortitude. Much of what defines modern Catholicism was born of a rebellious and revolutionary spirit; born of entitlement and a spirit of pride. In the desert that the Church has become over these many years, perhaps the cancelled priest is meant to serve as a witness and model of what it means to depend on Divine Providence. The Psalmist reminds however, that the salvation of the just is from the Lord, and He is their protector in the time of trouble (Ps. 37:39).
V.
The generous response of the faithful in support of these men has been more than encouraging. Whether these men elect to appeal their status, if such an appeal is even possible, is not important. What matters most is that they continue to serve God and His holy Church through their prayer and suffering; and that the lay faithful assist them as best they can. We do well to recall the words of Our Lord: If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you (Jn. 15:18). The hatred and injury these men are suffering comes not from the world but from a worldly church that at face value is laying waste to what by all accounts is actually working and bearing fruit. How the cancellation of priests and by consequence the communities they faithfully served can be reconciled with the mission of the Church is indeed a mystery. It is spiritually quite disturbing to witness and to experience this hatred without cause (Cf. Jn. 15:25). Such however, is the mystery of iniquity.
Tradition-inclined priests have for a long time now been inconvenient, a reproof, a burden; because their manner of life is unlike that of others (Cf. Wis. 2:12-15). One would think that given the state of the world and the reduction of much of the Church to a worldly vassal, that the hierarchy would be grateful for the dedication and witness of such self-sacrificing men as a source of strength and renewal for presbyterates that are divided and demoralised and increasingly balkanised. Let us pray for these men and for others like them who suffer for their fidelity. In the economy of salvation their suffering may be needed as a source of renewal or perhaps of encouragement to constancy and fidelity for the lay faithful who also suffer with them for their own fidelity. We know that the gates of hell will not prevail and that God will not be mocked. The faithful, both priests and laity who are now suffering for their adherence to the Church’s Magisterium, to the Sacred Scriptures and to Tradition are a remnant, chosen by grace (Rom. 11:5).
When we are confronted with situations that appear incomprehensible we do well to consider them contextually and comparatively. This is what I have attempted to do in this reflection. So-called cancel culture has a long pedigree. The feast day of every martyr recalls an encounter with the forces of cancel culture. As a feature of Catholic life in our time it points to the extent that the spirit of the spirit of the world, the spiritus mundi has come to define the life and activity of the Church in our time. To engage in the struggle to restore the Church as the lumen gentium, light of the nations, and to suffer for this cause is in fact a privilege for despite all the difficulties and all the sacrifices this may entail, as the universal sacrament of salvation, the Church is the only hope for this our fallen world. As it always has been for those who endeavour to follow Our Lord along the path of devout humility, there is also for us today a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus (Rev. 14:12). The struggle that the Church is enduring requires a generous response of prayer and penance and of a spirit of sacrifice. As for the priests who are now suffering, victims of the politics of personal destruction, may our prayers assist them especially in times of discouragement and sadness. Especially for those who may bitterly feel that they have been thrown away, we invoke the intercession of St. John Henry Newman, himself a victim of clerical intrigue. It was he who composed this timeless meditation:
God has created me to do Him some definite service. He has committed some work to me which He has not committed to another. I have my mission. I may never know it in this life, but I shall be told it in the next. I am a link in a chain, a bond of connection between persons. He has not created me for naught. I shall do good; I shall do His work. I shall be an angel of peace, a preacher of truth in my own place, while not intending it if I do but keep His commandments. Therefore, I will trust Him, whatever I am, I can never be thrown away. If I am in sickness, my sickness may serve Him, in perplexity, my perplexity may serve Him. If I am in sorrow, my sorrow may serve Him. He does nothing in vain. He knows what He is about. He may take away my friends. He may throw me among strangers. He may make me feel desolate, make my spirits sink, hide my future from me. Still, He knows what He is about.
The media, government, left-leaning organizations, and ignorant mobs of people today are constantly calling the absurd action of defunding police. Certain politicians do not stand behind and support the police. These people would have you believe that police, who are sworn to preserve, protect and defend the rights of citizens are not worthy of our admiration and respect and deserve disdain. Thanks to a corrupt and inept media, many today hate the police because they wear a blue uniform and a badge. I have something to say about this. Several of my family have served in the New York City Police Department. One died in the line of duty at age 32. Another continues to serve as a Detective First Grade and another as a Captain. All have seen their share of horror and man’s inhumanity towards their fellow man. So, I’d like to share with you some perspectives about the thousands of men and women who are part of The Blue Line and the Badge they proudly wear. Consider this: ● This badge ran towards certain death to save lives as the Towers collapsed on 9-11. ● This badge ran into the line of fire to save the people in the Pulse Night Club. ● This badge sheltered thousands as bullets rained down from the Mandalay Hotel in Las Vegas. ● This badge protected a BLM rally that left five officers dead in Dallas. ● This badge ran into the Sandy Hook School to stop a school shooter. ● This badge killed the Oregon District massshooter in seconds. ● This badge has done CPR on your drowned child. ● This badge has safely delivered a baby in the back seat of a patrol car. ● This badge has fist fought the wife-beater who left his spouse in a coma. ● This badge has run into burning buildings to save the occupants. ● This badge has been shot execution-style while sitting in a patrol car. ● This badge has waded through floodwaters to rescue the elderly trapped on the roof. ● This badge has intentionally crashed into the wrong-way driver to protect innocent motorists. ● This badge has helped find the lost child so his mother would stop crying hysterically. ● This badge has helped the injured dog off the road and rushed it to the vet. ● This badge has escorted the elderly woman across the streetbecause she couldn’t see well and was afraid to cross. ● This badge has bought food for hungry kids because they had been abandoned and bought shoes for homeless people shivering in the street or subways. ● This badge has been soaked in blood and tears. ● This badge has been covered by a mourning band to honor those who have sacrificed everything in service. Despite your undeserved hate and anger, this badge will await the next call for help. And, this badge and I will come running without hesitation, just like the thousands of men and women across this great nation who are a part of The Blue Line. This badge serves you and yours. Try to remember this the next time you hear shouts of police brutality or defund the police.
Defending Viganò: Two of the archbishop’s editors respond to Professor de Mattei’s accusations
We thought that, by virtue of our work and close collaboration with His Grace, we might be competent to speak for and defend him.Wed Jun 23, 2021 – 8:57 pm EST
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò speaks at the Rome Life Forum in May 2018.
June 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The following text is a composite response from Professor Brian McCall and Dr. Maike Hickson, both of whom are involved in book projects with collections of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s writings of the last years.
We thought that, by virtue of our work and close collaboration with His Grace, we might be competent to speak for and defend him. We do so in two consecutive texts, written individually. We are both honored to add our Apologiae pro Viganò to those already published by Dr. Taylor Marshall and Robert Moynihan.
Sadly, Professor Roberto De Mattei decided to publish a calumnious attack on Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò[1]. Before addressing this surprising and disappointing attack, I wish to state that I have had great respect for Professor De Mattei. I have highly recommended his book: The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story. I was very much taken by surprise when he came out so forcefully in favor of totalitarian government measures and mandatory vaccines this past year. Yet, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Living in Europe, and especially Italy, this past year must have been devastating. Yet, when I saw this scandalous attack on Archbishop Viganò, I was left speechless. Finally, a bishop of the Church responds to the crisis in the Church the way Traditionalists have urged the hierarchy to respond. Finally, a bishop has his eyes opened to the revolution that De Mattei meticulously documents in his book. Yet, Professor De Mattei hurls insults rather than opening his arms in acceptance to someone who is clearly indebted to his very work.
De Mattei levels three main accusations at the Archbishop: (1) the Archbishop’s public statements from 2020-2021 exhibit “discrepancies” from his statements from 2018—2019 and are essentially not in continuity; (2) the Archbishop’s more recent statements are “pompous” and “sarcastic;” and (3) the Archbishop is not the real author of the statements attributed to him recently and there is some secret alter ego author publishing them under his signature.SUBSCRIBEto LifeSite’s daily headlinesSUBSCRIBEU.S. Canada World Catholic
As to the first criticism, from someone who has studied the Archbishop’s writings extensively (both for publication through Catholic Family News) and for editing and explanation in the book A Voice in the Wilderness, I find absolutely no discrepancies between the identified time periods. I see a perfectly logical and coherent development of understanding running through the four-year period. As I explain at length in A Voice in the Wilderness, that logical progress goes from seeing a serious problem with corruption (and in particular sodomy and its harboring) in the highest levels of the hierarchy to tracing the root causes of that moral corruption to Vatican II and the New Mass. This is frankly the consistent and logical course of development that Traditionalists have been urging and praying for the priests and bishops of the world to follow. Archbishop Viganò avoids falling into the pit we have been criticizing “conservatives” for landing in for years: seeing the moral corruption as an isolated problem not connected to liturgy or doctrine. Rather than denouncing the Archbishop for discrepancies or being inconsistent, we should be congratulating and encouraging him for following the evidence wherever it led, even when it led to denouncing the conservative position and the “hermeneutic of continuity’ he had accepted during his Vatican career.
As to the second charge concerning the tone and manner of his more recent interventions, I am surprised to see them called “pompous.” As I explain in A Voice in the Wilderness, his message these past years has been incredibly humble. His Grace has done what so few clerics are willing to do and which takes humility: admit he was wrong. Even when his critics have blamed him for “criticizing” Pope Benedict XVI or claiming that Benedict “deceived” the whole Church, the Archbishop has been quick to respond and make clear that we were all deceived. He has disputed the ability of the “hermeneutic of continuity” to save us from the crisis, but he has made clear that he believes Pope Benedict offered it with good motives and with a love for the church. He has many times admitted his own fault in not seeing the problems with the Council earlier. Rather than pompously telling others “I told you so,” he has merely decried our mutual suffering at the hands of the great deception.
Yes, some of his expressions and criticisms have been strongly worded. Yes, he has called the Vatican of Pope Francis the New Sanhedrin. Yes, he alleged that there are those in the Vatican, including Francis, who are wittingly or unwittingly advancing the agenda of the “invisible enemy.” A grave crisis calls for strong words. The first step to healing is to admit one has a serious problem. Tiptoeing around a problem with euphemisms when the one suffering refuses to admit there is a crisis is not helpful. I remind readers that the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was often criticized for using strong language to denounce the infiltration and betrayal of the Church. In his famous November declaration he referred to Paul VI’s Vatican as “Neo-Protestant and Neo-Modernist Rome.” In his famous sermon at Lille, he referred to the new rites as “bastard sacraments.” When we are living in self-denial, we sometimes need to be shocked out of it. I admit that some of Archbishop Viganò interventions include some sarcasm. Rather than a fault, I see these instances as strengthening his texts. Some of the things we have witnessed, the veneration of the Pachamama for example, are so outrageous that they deserve sarcasm. Yes, his language has been sometimes powerful, graphic, and sarcastic (although justified) but never pompous.
I also must note that in my regular personal, direct communication with Archbishop Viganò, I have found him to be kind, gentle, and very understanding. Much like Archbishop Lefebvre, I have noted his strong public statements when necessary are in tandem with his very gentle and supportive personal communication. I find this combination not disconcerting but saintly. I am also aware that Archbishop Viganò has provided caring and paternal spiritual guidance and assistance to many lost souls in this time of crisis. He has shown real compassion to help those who reach out for help.
As to the final and in my opinion most outrageous accusation, I find it extremely disappointing that such an accomplished historian would level such an accusation with no evidence or proof. I have already noted that I believe his public interventions are perfectly consistent with a mind open to the truth and reality who sifts the mountains of evidence of the past five decades that lead one to the Council and its New Mass. Certainly, many of the Archbishop’s interventions have been composed in Italian and translated by different translators over the past few years. I do not dispute that one might be able to point to some minor semantic differences in the English translations but there is nothing of substance that I find inconsistent with a developing understanding of the reality of the past five decades. I find it most bizarre that Professor De Mattei specifically attacks in this criticism the “philosophy of history” in the Archbishop’s writings. In these texts, I discover a philosophy of history that is clearly indebted to Professor De Mattei. Rather than seeing the Second Vatican Council as a collection of abstract texts, His Grace has come to see the Council as an entire historical event, and one that is part of a larger revolution. This is the same philosophy that I read in The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story. Is Professor De Mattei disturbed that Archbishop Viganò has become his pupil of history?
As to this absurd and unfounded accusation that there is some secret behind the scenes author, how does Professor De Mattei explain the fact that many of the interventions of the past year are transcripts of conferences given by Archbishop Viganò personally and recorded in video or audio form (until YouTube deletes them). For example, his text from the Catholic Identity Conference was delivered via video. His speech at the Jericho March in Washington was also preserved in video as was his speech to the Venice Philosophy Festival. Does Professor De Mattei think that there is some Archbishop Viganò impersonator who gave these recorded lectures? The Archbishop himself publicly denied this scurrilous accusation (although I guess De Mattei might claim that was merely his double speaking).
After his first article, Professor De Mattei issued a second missive that purported to present linguistic evidence that there is a double who wrote the recent texts. He argues that since the Archbishop’s texts use the following expressions, which are also used by a blogger writing for Opportune Importune under the pseudonym Baronio, this Baronio must have authored the texts attributed to Viganò: “counter-church,” “conciliar sect,” “innovators,” and “idol” in reference to the Council. De Mattei claims further proof exists in that both Baronio and Viganò claim an equivalence between Vatican II and the New Mass and both claim that the New Mass was composed by progressives and those suspected of Freemasonry. He also adds that both refer to the New Mass as the “reformed rite” or “Montinian Rite.” This flimsy evidence is unworthy of such an eminent historian. The listed phrases are found all throughout Traditionalist literature and conferences for decades. Does de Mattei claim this Baronio is the secret author behind Michael, Davies, Chris Ferrara, and even Archbishop Lefebvre, all of whom have used some or all of these expressions? I have repeatedly claimed a deep equivalence between the Council and the New Mass and have written and spoken on the Freemasonic and Progressives who forged the New Mass. Am I next to be accused as a puppet of this Baronio?
Further, de Mattei claims that this Baronio is an Italian named Pietro Siffi, someone whom I do not know but who apparently is a controversial figure in Italian traditional circles. His main fingering of Siffi as Baronio/ Viganò II is a defense of Siffi on Baronio’s blog. Then to add insult to injury after using the flimsy vocabulary claims to link Viganò to Baronio and then just asserting that Baronio is Siffi, he intimates that Siffi is a practicing homosexual or at least sympathetic towards such lifestyle. This last intimation defies reason. Archbishop Viganò has been one of the few prelates of our time to unambiguously condemn sodomy and the attempt to temper Catholic doctrine on the intrinsic evil. We are now to believe that the power behind the miter is a homosexual! We are to believe all this on the basis of an anonymous blogger also using terms like “counciliar sect.”
Sadly, this attack on Archbishop Viganò is another example of a criticism often justly lobbed at Traditionalists. Too often some in the Traditionalist movement do not embrace with open arms those who find the truth late. They are often pushed away or mocked. We should rejoice for any Catholic, lay or clerical, who is willing to follow the evidence to its root. We should be tolerant of any rash or overly zealous language they may employ in discussing their newly found knowledge. (Not that I am claiming that the Archbishop has been overly rash or imprudently zealous). Too often we attack rather than welcome brave souls like Viganò.
I for one stand behind Archbishop Viganò. I welcome his contributions to the debate over the crisis in the Church. I read in all his texts, even his strongly worded ones, a true love for the Church and for lost souls. I admire his courage and his humility. To anyone scandalized by the recent attack, I would urge put these accusations aside and read the texts authored by Archbishop Viganò. Decide for yourself if he speaks consistent truth or not. I assure you that I find nothing in his public addresses or his personal correspondence with me that is inconsistent or contradictory. Finally, pray for Archbishop Viganò. His brave stand against the New Mass and the Council will bring persecution, even from unlikely corners. Pray that he receives the grace to persevere to the end.
Although Cardinal Joseph Bernardin (above) is most often credited with originating the “Consistent Life Ethic,” McHugh claimed that the basic concept originated with his 1972 Respect Life Program
By: Randy Engel
In the final installments of this series on the influence of Bishop James T. McHugh and other homosexual prelates on the Right-to-Life Movement, the reader will have an opportunity to see how McHugh’s “prolife” and “anti-abortion” compromise policies and strategies became the formal policies of the American bishops via the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/U.S. Catholic Conference (NCCB/USCC), later the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), and how these instruments of compromise and accommodation to the Antilife Establishment have worked against the interests of the unborn child in the past, and will continue to do so in the future unless the McHugh legacy is buried forever in the prolife consciousness of Catholic laymen and clerics alike.
I’ll begin with some background archival material on how the Prolife Movement successfully operated in its early years using the U.S. Coalition for Life (USCL) as an example, and how, in contrast, the programs and strategies employed by McHugh and implemented by the bishops’ bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. and carried out by the State Catholic Conferences ultimately served the interests of the Antilife Movement.
McHugh Originally Favored the U.S. Coalition for Life
First, to clear the air, it should be noted that McHugh initially favored the research and legislative agenda of the U.S. Coalition for Life.
In the early 1970s, Msgr. James McHugh, head of the Family Life Office of the U.S. Catholic Conference mailed a confidential memo to all American bishops regarding major U.S. prolife organizations. Entitled, “Analysis of Prolife Groups,” the memo provided basic information on funding, leadership, goals, and effectiveness of twelve of the top prolife groups in the nation.[1] The stated purpose of the memo was to aid individual bishops in pursuing a more active role in coordinating or facilitating the work of the several groups within their own dioceses.
According to the special and exclusive report to The Wanderer, an unidentified writer who was obviously not a McHugh fan, reported:
Since Msgr. McHugh crucially influences the policy considerations of the American bishops, he is, for better or worse, one of the most important single individuals in the country as far as the success or failure of prolife efforts are concerned (bold added). Therefore, his rating of the several prolife groups is a matter of considerable public interest.
McHugh’s highest compliments go to the U.S. Coalition for Life (USCL), directed by Mrs. Randy Engel , and the National Youth Pro-Life Coalition, headed by Thomas Mooney.
Concerning the Pittsburgh-based USCL, Msgr. McHugh writes that “the group does a good job of following legislation and the activity of government agencies, and provides information to a larger constituency by way of a newsletter [The Pro-Life Reporter]. On specific legislative proposals, the coalition generally seeks assistance from Washington sources.”[2]
In addition to Msgr. McHugh’s initial approval of the USCL, the enemies of life also shared a special interest in the rise of the newly established USCL, but for different reasons.
Antilifers Monitor USCL Closely
In January 1974, Family Planning Digest – a bi-monthly publication of the Bureau of Community Health Services, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C., that was prepared under government contract with the antilife Center for Family Planning Program Development, the Technical Assistance Division of Planned Parenthood-World Population – carried an article on the new and worrisome “roadmap” the Right-To Life Movement was taking thanks to the USCL:
Combining selective quotations regarding family planning, sterilization, abortion, and demographic developments with editorial comment and “action line” directives, The Pro-Life Reporter, a newsletter of the U.S. Coalition for Life, is a roadmap of the direction in which this movement is traveling in its opposition to specific aspects of family planning such as the IUD, contraceptive sterilization and postcoital contraceptives. The newsletter makes clear that the right-to-life groups have broadened their interest from opposition to abortion to concern with every aspect of family planning, including government policy and funding, and scientific research. Aimed at educators, physicians and population agencies, in addition to its own constituency, the newsletter should be helpful to those in family planning concerned with what this well-organized and committed group is saying and doing (bold added).[3]
USCL Team Confronts Population Controllers
In the summer of 1974, the USCL raised $22,000 in six weeks to send a 12-member prolife team to the United Nations World Population Conference (WPC) and Tribune in Bucharest, Romania. Leading the Right-to-Life contingent was economist Professor Albert T. Kapusinski (USA), and Rev. Paul Marx (USA), aided by agricultural specialist, George Barmann (USA); Child and Family editor, Dr. Herbert Ratner (USA); Constitutional lawyer, Charles Rice (USA); writer and editor John Harrington (Canada); Rev. Pedro Richards (Uruguay); Dr. John Linklater (England); Rev. Michel Welters (Haiti); Dr. H. Patrick Dunn (New Zealand); demographer Rev. Anthony Zimmerman (Japan), and prolife activist, Frances Frech (USA), the only woman on the USCL team.
Joining up with the Vatican delegation, the USCL team took the NGO Tribune by storm sending shock waves through the Antilife Establishment, which thought it had the World Population Conference all tied up.[4] Conference logistics were handled by Pittsburgh’s People Concerned for the Unborn Child. The editors of national Catholic papers including The Wanderer, the National Catholic Register, and Our Sunday Visitor, and prolife newsletters across the country including the National Right to Life News provided free advertising for the effort.
To the amazement and chagrin of the Antilife Movement, the international USCL-team turned the WPC on its head. This was a typical example of the way things got done in the early years of the unified, grassroots Prolife Movement in the United States.
New Right-to-Life Roadmap Riles Eugenicists
In 1976, with the creation of the International Foundation for Genetic Research/Michael Fund by the USCL as a prolife alternative to the National Foundation/March of Dimes, the Eugenics Establishment became even more concerned with the expanding USSCL roadmap that the Prolife Movement was following.
At the Johnson Foundation’s “International Summit on Prevention of Mental Retardation from Biomedical Causes,” held at Wingspread in Racine, WI, December 15-16, 1977, and attended by eugenicists from major U.S. antilife medical centers and universities, as well as mental retardation groups including the National Foundation/March of Dimes and the National Association for Retarded Citizens (NARC), Dr. Richard Koch, Professor of Pediatrics and Medical Genetics at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, spoke in his concluding remarks about the danger his fellow eugenicists faced from the emerging Right-to-Life-Movement:
VIII. Potential Danger of the Right to Life Movement
The recent coalescence of the Right to Life movement into a national force of significant proportions, I believe has been a surprise to all of us. To some, this has been an unwelcome development. If we do not meet this force head-on, it could become a threat to the science of genetics to amniocentesis programs, to sex education in public schools, and to our efforts to help with the problem of teen-age pregnancy, and it could seriously diminish our effort to prevent mental retardation. I am suggesting that we confront this force by linking up with other organizations such as the National Organization for Women, AMA, Planned Parenthood, Community Medicine, and abortion rights organizations and public health officials working for the rights of all women to opt for or against abortion of their own free will. We must emphasize the importance of the protection of equal rights – the right of the child to be well born and the right of the mother to have healthy children. At the same time, we must respect the fact that in a country as diverse as ours, there is room for difference of opinion, and for the greatest good, both forces should join hands to spur progress so that abortion will become an unnecessary solution. For that to occur, much tact and effort will be needed.[5]
USCL Part of a National Volunteer Coalition
I mention these little snippets of the Prolife Movement’s early history because many of the readers of this series, including many young people and their parents who attend the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. every year, were not yet born when the grassroots prolife movement spontaneously sprung up in the late 1960s and early 1970s, years before Roe v. Wade.
Please note that the USCL, created in 1972, was just one of the hundreds of independent prolife organizations that made up a nation-wide coalition of predominantly Catholic lay volunteers. Like most of its prolife counterparts, the USCL operated with no formal office, no elaborate bylaws, no dues, and no paid employees, on a budget that rarely exceeded four digits.
In these early years, most Congressional prolife business was conducted from kitchen and dining room tables manned by self-taught wives and mothers who were as politically sophisticated and knowledgeable as any women’s libber thanks to aides like Robert G. Marshall’s classical prolife political action handbook, Bayonets and Roses.[6]
The particular strength of the USCL laid in its large International and National Advisory Board composed of the best prolife minds (and spirit) in the world, and volunteer lobbyists from the Long Island Coalitions for Life who kept the prolife fires burning under the feet of every U.S. congressman and senator in Washington, D.C., to achieve absolute and unconditional protection for unborn children from the immoral and lethal scourge of abortion; and for the elderly and handicapped from the mounting dangers of euthanasia.
This loose coalition strategy employed by almost all local, state, and national right-to-life groups in the early years of the Prolife Movement was successful beyond imagination as we can see by the obvious panic it set off within the Antilife Establishment as described above.
Proabortion Movement Checkmated
As Dr. John Grady noted in his 2015 essay “Abortion – Yes or No,” by the early 1970s, grassroots prolifers were already well organized at the State level. Once they were on the move, proabortion activists at the State level were checkmated at every turn by prolifers:
… By 1971 pro-life organizations were functioning well. No major abortion legislation passed any state in 1971, and liberal abortion laws were defeated in at least 28 states. Some states which had enacted the new abortion laws began to reverse their liberal position.[7]
However, when the proabortion movement was slowed to a stop in the state legislatures the battle shifted to the courts. … It was inevitable that the matter would ultimately be heard by the United States Supreme Court. [8]
Readers should never forget that in 1972, two years after the Governor Nelson Rockefeller-led New Yok State Legislature passed an abortion-on-demand law, that same proabortion legislature reversed itself and voted to restore New York’s pre-1970 anti-abortion law. This had never happened before or since. This remarkable achievement was accomplish under the magnificent leadership of Republican Senator James Donovan backed by a political rag-tag coalition of New York prolifers who relentlessly lobbied assemblymen and state senators within their districts, day and night, for two years, in defense of the unborn child. They won, only to have the frenzied Governor Rockefeller veto the measure.[9]
McHugh Creates A New Bureaucracy
Under the early prolife coalition structure, dedicated Catholic laity, supported by their parish priests and diocesan bishop, provided the fundamental leadership that drove the movement’s successful anti-abortion engines throughout the United States. Gradually, they were joined by hundreds of Protestants from mainline churches and a handful of Jewish Orthodox rabbis.
But not everyone was satisfied with the successful formula being pursued by Catholic grassroots prolife activists.
Msgr. James McHugh, spokesman for the American bishops’ NCCB/USCC bureaucracy on all matters prolife, entertained a different vision for the Right-to-Life Movement following Roe v. Wade – a vision that eventually split the movement into two separate and competing camps.
In “The Intellectual Legacy of James T. McHugh,” Richard M. Doerflinger,[10] a Wormtongue at McHugh’s service and Deputy Director for the USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, explains his boss’ vision for the formation of “a new grassroots movement for sustained political change.”[11]
It is, of course, the abortion issue with which Bishop McHugh became most closely associated in the public eye. On this issue there may seem to be little new that anyone could contribute in the late 20th Century, because the Church’s teaching has been so consistent and of such long standing. To assume this, however, would be to underestimate the divergent approaches taken by Catholics as American society began to accept abortion, and especially as the Supreme Court decided to legalize abortion virtually on demand in 1973. Agreeing with and accepting the decision was not a serious option for anyone committed to Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life – though certainly there were dissenting voices that favored just that approach. But the Church in the U.S. could simply have denounced the decision and moved on, urging Catholics to retreat into their own separate culture on this and related matters… . Or Catholics could have organized as a protest movement, like the pacifist movement, that would remain outside established political channels while insisting that abortion is unacceptable.
Under Monsignor McHugh’s guidance, the Church in the U.S. chose neither option. The abortion decisions were not only anti-Catholic but antihuman, for they violated a fundamental natural right and disregarded the founding ideals of the American republic. Catholics could not simply retreat into their own families, because the radical individualism of the abortion liberty would erode the very idea of the family. And while there was a valid role for prophetic protest, organizing to reverse a Supreme Court decision would take more – it meant the formation of a new grassroots movement for sustained political and cultural change. Thus was born the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities of 1975, an unprecedented national blueprint for activating Church structures to help Catholics organize as a social and political force (Bold added).[12] …
Monsignor McHugh helped the bishops to chart a middle course – not a course of compromise, but one of discernment that carefully distinguished the essentials of Catholic teaching from the contingent details of particular strategies or legislative proposals. He charted and set forth a theological basis for the Church’s approach to incremental change on abortion policy – an approach ultimately endorsed by Pope John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) (Bold added).[13]
Bishops Champion McHugh’s New Blueprint
In truth, the Prolife Movement did not “need” McHugh’s “help,” given his miserable, anti-life track record documented in Part I of this series.
But, unfortunately, it got it anyway.
On November 20, 1975, almost three years after Roe v. Wade, the American bishops voted to implement and finance McHugh’s “Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities,”[14] designed to oppose “permissive abortion.”[15] The almost immediate result was a disastrous paradigm shift at every operational level of the Prolife Movement.
McHugh’s blueprint for “a new grassroots movement” called for the creation of a vast “systematic” bureaucracy headquartered in Washington, D.C. under the leadership and direction of the Bishop’s Pro-Life Office, and the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment (NCHLA), an entity of the NCCB/USCC, created in 1974.[16] I’ll be returning to the NCHLA at the end of this series.
State leadership was centered on State Catholic Conferences, each having a State Coordinating Committee composed of a Director and a battery of diocesan prolife coordinators (bishops’ representatives), and assisted by various “respect life coordinators,” Conference liaisons, public affair and information advisors, legal advisors, parish prolife committee representatives and Congressional district representatives, etc., etc. etc. I’m sure the reader quickly gets the picture.
Not surprisingly, the financing of the NCCB/USCC’s Pastoral Plan which included the salaries of an endless number of paid “prolife” bureaucrats at the national, state, diocesan and parish level, siphoned off millions of dollars that could have been used to underwrite the expenses of thousands of volunteer grassroot prolife Catholic activists and organizations who were the real workhorses of the Prolife Movement.
Logistically speaking, the overall support and cooperation local bishops and priests once gave to prolife grassroots organizations working in dioceses with local parishes was now transferred to “official” diocesan prolife employees and organizations. If there was a conflict of interest or difference of opinion on pending abortion legislation or the legitimacy of antilife organizations such as the March of Dimes, the hierarchy and clergy almost always backed the NCCB/USCC and the later, the NCHLA over prolife grassroot organizations.
McHugh and the “Consistent Life Ethic”
The emerging split in the Prolife Movement was exasperated by the American bishops’ adaptation of the “Seamless Garment,” later renamed the “Consistent Life Ethic” – the precursor of “Consensus,” a policy of surrender currently being promoted and financed by the Knights of Columbus and the March for Life leadership.[17]
Although Cardinal Joseph Bernardin is most often credited with originating the “Consistent Life Ethic,” McHugh claimed that the basic concept originated with his 1972 Respect Life Program.[18] McHugh sought to broaden the prolife tent by expanding the Prolife Movement’s primary opposition to abortion and euthanasia to include other so-called “social justice” issues favored by the NCCB/USCC including welfare reform, opposition to capital punishment (however, abortion is not viewed as the most common form of capital punishment), and civil liberties (particularly those of homosexuals).[19] McHugh’s strategy now permitted pro-abort State and Congressional legislators to claim they were “pro-life” as they supported the NCCB/USCC’s “social justice” agenda except for baby killing in the womb and in the laboratory.
The 1975 Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities incorporated McHugh’s “consistent life ethic,”[20] stating:
16. Although the primary purpose of the intensive educational program is the development of pro-life attitudes and the determined avoidance of abortion by each person, the program must extend to other issues that involve support of human life: there must be internal consistency in the pro-life commitment.
17. The annual Respect Life Program sets the abortion problem in the context of other issues where human life is endangered or neglected, such as the problems facing the family, youth, the aging, the mentally retarded, as well as specific issues such as poverty, war, population control, and euthanasia. This program is helpful to parishes in calling attention to specific problems and providing program formats and resources.
The split between Catholic lay prolife leaders and the NCCB/USCC Prolife offices did not escape the attention of anti-life leaders who welcomed and exploited legislative differences and conflicts between “official” Church representatives and Catholic prolife grassroots groups.
The Battle Over S. 158 – A Human Life Bill
In early 1981, the split reached its apex in the on-going fratricidal war that erupted over a S. 158,[21] a Human Life Bill (HLB). The HLB was introduced by Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois and Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina. The measure was not intended to replace the need for a Constitutional Human Life Amendment (CHLA), but to jump start and invigorate Congressional backing for such an amendment.
The stated purpose of the HLB was to recognize that the life of each human being begins at fertilization and to enforce the 14th amendment to the Constitution by extending its protection to the life of every human being. It also affirmed that every human being has intrinsic worth and equal value regardless of its (sic) stage, or condition.[22]
The first legal effect of the passage of S. 158 would have required the Supreme Court to reconsider its holding in Roe v. Wade that unborn children are not persons entitled to protection of their lives under the 14th amendment.[23] The second legal effect was that it would require the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1973 holding that found the right to privacy to include abortion, and that permitted abortion on demand throughout the term of pregnancy.[24] The third legal effect of S. 158 was that no state would be able to deprive an unborn child of life without due process of the law.[25]
Unlike a Constitutional Human Life Amendment, the Senate measure needed only a majority vote in the House and Senate – and prolifers had close to those necessary votes. The HLB was backed by all grassroots prolife organizations because, as Constitutional lawyer Charles Rice said, “It was a win-win situation.”[26]
Then, while the Human Life Bill was still in committee, Wilfred Caron, the USCC general counsel, publicly declared the measure to be unconstitutional,[27] and therefore the USCC would oppose the measure.
In its place, the NCCB/USCC legal apparatus with the assistance of the Bishops’ Pro-Life Office and the NCHLA, proposed still another of its “States’ Rights amendment” to the Constitution that was introduced by McHugh’s Man of the Hour, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah on September 21, 1981.
It was an act of sabotage and every right-to-lifer knew it. The Hatch Amendment was not formally a Human Life Amendment at all as it offered no mandatory protection for the pre-born child for whom death would still be a matter of geography.
Once the Hatch Amendment was introduced, the NCCB/NCHLA used its bureaucratic minions to whip the American bishops into shape.
By the time of the annual NCCB meeting in Washington, D.C. on November 14-16, 1981, President Archbishop John R. Roach and Cardinal Terence Cooke, Chairman of the Bishops’ Pro-Life Committee – both homosexuals as noted previously in this series – had already publicly expressed support for Hatch. After a formal NCCB vote to approve Hatch, lobbyists for the bishops and the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment began to pressure pro-life Congressmen to support the Hatch Amendment or face the threat or being labeled “pro-abort!”
Next on the NCCB/NCHLA hit list came National Right to Life[28] which originally opposed the Hatch States Rights Amendment, but on December 12, 1981, after an all-day battle, voted to endorse Hatch.
While the grassroots Prolife Movement held its ground and continued to support S. 158, it could not repair the damage inflicted on S. 158 by the NCCB/USCC, the Committee for Pro-Life Activities, its Secretariat, and the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment.
The U.S. Senate ultimately rejected the Helms Human Life Bill (modified) by a 47 to 46 motion to table – a difference of only one vote! The Senate also rejected the Hatch Amendment. But the NCCB/NCHLA could not care less, since the real aim of introducing the Hatch Amendment was to defeat the Helms-Hogan Human Life Bill.
Words cannot adequately express the harm done to the grassroots Prolife Movement that year by the Bishops’ Washington D.C. bureaucracy’s engineering and promotion of the Hatch Amendment, but USCL Advisor Professor Charles Rice of Notre Dame came pretty close when he spoke to The Wanderer’s reporter Paul Fisher in a March 1982 interview:
Initially, the bishops were betrayed by McHugh and Company. Then they partook in the betrayal by confirming the HatchAmendment. They made their separate peace with the enemy.[29]
Professor Rice concluded that support for the dangerous Hatch Amendment (as worded) was akin to “racing out to mid-ocean in a helicopter to board the Titanic.”[30]
Seven years later, on December 17, 1989, Auxiliary Bishop Edward O’Donnell of the St. Louis Archdiocese, a member of the USCCB Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Affairs explained in plain wrapper and unmistakable language what the American bishops’ corporate position on induced abortion was.
O’Donnell told Pittsburgh Press reporter, Ann Rogers-Melnick that, while in terms of theology, the bishops reject any willfully procured abortion, “… [in] terms of public policy, the bishops support legislation allowing a far broader range of abortions to save the life of a mother.” And that for the sake of political expediency, they were willing to accept anti-abortion legislation with rape and incest exclusions, O’Donnell said. “We recognize that we live in a pluralistic society,” he continued. “We teach our people and attempt to hold them to that. It’s not that every iota of Catholic teaching needs to be enacted into law,” he concluded (bold added).[31]
The reader may well want to reread Bishop O’Donnell’s statement until his words really sink in.
In truth, the HATCH strategy that killed S. 158, along with the McHugh-Bernardin-based NCCB/USCC’s systemic disastrous policies of “incrementalism,” and “the seamless garment” and “dialogue,” and “accommodation” with the Antilife Establishment, was akin to eviscerating the Prolife Movement – a near deadly act from which the Prolife Movement never fully recovered.
Almost half a century after Roe v. Wade, prolife forces have been to hell and back politically speaking. The Constitutional Human Life Amendment has been all but forgotten. More than 330 Human Life Amendments have been introduced in the House and Senate,[32] most dying in committee. Only one, the one sentence NCCB/USCC- Hatch-Eagleton States Rights Amendment, “A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution,” ever made it to the full Senate for a vote in July 1983. It failed, which turned out to be a blessing in disguise as few prolife organizations would have worked for a Constitutional amendment that failed all the requirements of a valid Human Life Amendment and would not have given mandatory protection and due process to the unborn child.
[In the final installment of this series, Randy Engel describes how, thanks to McHugh’s legacy, unborn children continue to die while an inept USCCB squanders millions of dollars provided by the faithful.]
Since 1972, the U.S. Coalition for Life, under the direction of Randy Engel, has been leading the charge for a Human Life Amendment. The Coalition has never compromised and it never will. Click below to join their mailing list.
[1] “Msgr. McHugh Analyzes Prolife Groups,” Special to The Wanderer, 1974 (?), p. 1.
[2] Ibid. The other groups mentioned in the McHugh memo were Americans United for Life, Americans Against Abortion, the Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life, Life Lobby, Inc. [William Devlin and John Short], the National Right to Life Committee, Inc., Operation Pro-Life Rite, the American Right to Life Association, Inc., Women for the Unborn, the Committee Against and Judicial Power, and the Committee of Ten Million [Gilbert Durand].
[4] “USCL Special Report on U.N. World Population Conference-Tribune, Bucharest, August 19-30, 1974.
[5] “International Summit on Prevention of Mental Retardation From Biomedical Causes,” HEW Publication No. (HDS) 78-21023, U.S. Dept. of HEW, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Human Development, President’s Committee on Mental Retardation, Washington, D.C., p. 198.
[6] Robert G. Marshall, Bayonets and Roses: Comprehensive Pro-Life Political Action Guide, Falls Church, Virginia, 1976. Distinguished political prolife activist, Bob Marshall created this book to serve as “a citizens’ political action manual containing the information necessary to combat the entrenched evil of abortion in America.” The 364-page handbook served as a political staple in every prolifer’s home for decades. Marshall’s updated Civics 101 prolife political guide, Reclaiming the Republic: How Christians and Other Conservatives Can Win Back America, Tan Publishes, Charlotte, NC, 2018, is available from Amazon in hardcover and Kindle format at https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Robert+G.+Marshall&i=stripbooks&ref=nb_sb_noss.
[7] Dr. John Grady, “Abortion – Yes or No,” Insight, 2015, p. 43, (self-published).
[9] Arlene Doyle, “Do you need permission to save an unborn child- A Pro-life study of power struggle within the Right to Life Movement and the comparison of two kinds of organization – Directorship vs. Coalition,” June 1974, p.1. Available as a free download at http://uscl.info/edoc/doc.php?doc_id=88&action=inline.
[10] Richard Doerflinger was responsible for the Office of Human Research Protections (HHS) fraudulent federal definition of “pregnancy” and “fetus.” He was instrumental in promoting the definition of “pregnancy” and “fetus” as the products of conception beginning at implantation in the uterus, when in fact, pregnancy occurs in the woman’s fallopian tube when the sperm first makes contact with the oocyte. And the term “fetus” refers to the unborn child at nine weeks after fertilization. See https://www.medicalmuseum.mil/assets/documents/collections/hdac/stage01.pdf.
[15] The term “permissive abortion,” is used throughout the text of the Pastoral Plan as if to imply that the goal was to merely restrict rather than end induced abortions.
[21] The Human Life Bill – S. 158 Report, 97th Congress, First Session, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, N0.97. Reprinted by the University of Michigan Library. S. 158 enunciated that protecting the lives of human beings is the highest duty of government and unborn children are human beings .It noted that the question of when human life begins – when an individual member of the human species comes into existence- is answered by scientific, factual evidence. In Roe v. Wade the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t say that unborn children were not human beings, but that the Court was unable to rule when human life began. S. 158 stated that contemporary scientific evidence provides the answer for the Court – The zygote resulting from the union of the male spermatozoon and the female oocyte is the beginning of a human being. The text of S. 158 plus a section on the opposition viewpoints to the measure by the U.S. Catholic Conference legal staff is available from https://www.amazon.com/Human-Life-Bill-S-158-report/dp/B003TU28V2/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=The+Human+Life+Bill+-+S.+158+Report&qid=1600272284&s=books&sr=1-1.
[26] Paul A. Fisher, “Horse trading on Hatch,” The Wanderer, March 4, 1982, p.1.
[27] Senator Hatch defended his opposition to S. 158 by quoting Yale Law Professor Robert Bork who claimed that the bill was unconstitutional. But supporters of the bill argued that Congress has both the authority and the duty to disagree with the result of an earlier Supreme Court decision based on an investigation of facts and on a decision concerning values that the Supreme Court has declined to address. They also noted that the Supreme Court retains full power to review the constitutionality of S. 158.
[28] National Right to Life (NRL), had its origin as the National Right to Life Committee, a subsidiary of McHugh’s Family Life/Prolife office at the NCCB/USCC. In June 1973, NRL morphed into a super-corporate structure as the “flagship” of the Prolife Movement. The saving grace of NRL, when compared to that of McHugh’s Church bureaucracy, was that state-run NRL affiliates around the county were coalition-based, and despite troubles at the Washington office, they continued to work with and promote projects of other national groups including the USCL, so the damage done by internal squabbling at the NRL in D.C. were minimum in these early years until the S. 158 – Hatch States Rights battle.
[29] Paul A. Fisher, “Horse trading on Hatch,” The Wanderer, March 4, 1982, p.1.
[31] A. Rogers- Melnick, “Anti-Abortion Groups Resent Papal Puppet Portrayal,” Pittsburgh Press, December 17, 1989, p. 10. How far have the bishops strayed from 1974 when Cardinal Madeiros of Boston stated, “The prohibition against the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life should universal and without exception.”https://www.nytimes.com/1974/03/08/archives/4-cardinals-urge-us-abortion-ban-but-they-refuse-to-endorse.html.
Memo to Joe: Crime Is a Criminal ProblemThe surge in violence is the direct result of Democrat urban policies, not a “gun problem.” By: Mark AlexanderThe Patriot PostJune 23, 2021(emphasis added)
“To prevent crimes, is the noblest end and aim of criminal jurisprudence. To punish them, is one of the means necessary for the accomplishment of this noble end and aim.” —James Wilson (1790)
After a year of promoting violence and advocating for defunding police departments in urban centers perennially controlled by Democrats, apparently, Joe Biden and his Demo Party hacks are now SHOCKED to learn violent crime is continuing the surge they seeded last summer. As the Demos’ “summer of rage” was heating up, featuring their Black Lives Matter and antifa movement constituent base of “peaceful protesters,” The New York Times noted, “Across 20 major cities, the murder rate at the end of June was on average 37 percent higher than it was at the end of May.” Of course, they blamed the surge on the pandemic. By August, a Wall Street Journal report on homicide found “double-digit increases in 36 of 50 biggest cities amid pandemic.“ While the FBI’s 2020 crime data will not be released until the end of July, the preliminary report indicates murder rates swelled by 25% — meaning the number of homicides would exceed 20,000 for the first time since Bill Clinton was blaming guns back in 1995. Aggravated assaults increased by 10% in 2020. Based on data from the first quarter of 2021, homicides are up again, a whopping 20% over the same period in 2020. Democrat political fortunes tend to suffer when crime surges, especially when there are countless examples of Demos, in effect, advocating lawlessness in the cities where those surges are occurring. Clearly, Biden and his Demo cadres are guilty of criminal negligence. Now that Biden has single-handedly ended the pandemic, he’s falling back on the Demos’ knee-jerk scapegoat for explaining the violent effluent of their failed social policies: It’s a “gun problem.” A quick search of Leftmedia propaganda platforms in advance of Biden’s remarks today returned the following predictable parrot-media “gun crime” headlines: “Biden’s plan to … tighten gun regulations” (Washington Post); “Biden to Speak on Gun Violence”(New York Times); “Biden set to announce his gun crime prevention strategy” (CNN); “Biden plans new steps to combat gun violence” (Reuters); “Biden to … focus on gun violence” (The Hill); “Biden to Launch Gun Crime Strategy” (Bloomberg); “Biden’s strategy to combat violent crime will focus on guns” (CNBC); “Biden to launch national effort to fight gun violence” (CBS). Ad infinitum — ad nauseam! Indeed, the Biden administration just released his “fact sheet” on his “Comprehensive Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gun Crime” — the plan for his “gun problem” solutions. It asserts, “Biden believes that the surge in gun violence that has affected communities across the country over the last year and a half is unacceptable.” Well, that is just special. Did he come up with that all by himself? For the record, Biden has been promoting the BIG Lie that “white supremacy” is “the most lethal threat to the homeland today” — a claim to perpetuate his delusional assertion that the Capitol riot was a white supremacist insurrection, and thus all Trump supporters are white supremacists. Despite the fact that Biden repeated that inflammatory fabrication in his intentionally divisive Tulsa remarks earlier this month, for some reason “white supremacists” and “right-wing extremists” are not mentioned in his “comprehensive strategy” to stop murder and violence. Recall that Biden also declared, “We can’t give hate a safe harbor.” Indeed, I have argued that all murders are “hate crimes,” yet nowhere in Biden’s strategy is the word “hate” mentioned. Moreover, there is only one mention of the gross racial disparity regarding murder and violent assaults: “Black and brown Americans are disproportionately harmed by the direct and indirect consequences of gun violence.” That is a load of spin. Actually, “Black and Brown Americans are disproportionately harmed” by Black assailants. According to the FBI’s latest national crime statistics regarding interracial crime between Blacks and Whites, Black people committed 90% of interracial felonies despite representing just 13% of our population. And of course, there is no mention of the fact that in cases where the victim’s race was known, in 88% of murdered Black people, the suspect is also Black. Further, this racial disparity is also true in other crime categories, which dispels the assertion that somehow prisons have more Black inmates because of “systemic racism.” America is no more besieged by systemic racism than it is besieged by white supremacists. This gross racial disparity in criminal assailants is not a new issue, as was made clear in a 2015 Harvard study of Black-on-Black violence. In that study, former New York City Democrat Mayor Michael Bloomberg noted: “Ninety percent of all people killed in our city — and 90 percent of all those who commit the murders and other violent crimes — are Black and Hispanic. It is shameful that so many elected officials and editorial writers have been largely silent on these facts.“ The Biden administration is, and will remain, completely and deliberately “silent on these facts.” What Biden will also not mention in his “gun violence” plan is the murder of a police officer in his home state of Delaware a month before his disgraceful and divisive Tulsa comments. It will go unnoted in part because a Black hater, after assaulting an elderly White couple, murdered White police officer Keith Heacook without a firearm. He beat the officer to death. (Shades of another Black hatermurder in Biden country…) All of Biden’s proposed “solutions” are just temporary salves for the symptoms of the disease. Nothing he is proposing will treat the core disease that underlies urban violence, because that would require a massive shift in the Democrat Party’srace-hustling social policies. Again, despite Biden’s assertion about the “consequences of gun violence,” the fact is, “Black and brown Americans are disproportionately harmed by the direct and indirect consequences of” Demos statist urban policies, and “gun violence” is the outcome. The fact is, violence is a Demo-induced culture problem, not a “gun problem.“ Criminals commit crimes, and until Democrats reverse course on the social policies that have devastated American families and communities for decades, the consequential violence will continue. But Demos never miss an opportunity to deconstruct the Second Amendment.
Memo to Joe: Crime Is a Criminal ProblemThe surge in violence is the direct result of Democrat urban policies, not a “gun problem.” By: Mark AlexanderThe Patriot PostJune 23, 2021(emphasis added)
“To prevent crimes, is the noblest end and aim of criminal jurisprudence. To punish them, is one of the means necessary for the accomplishment of this noble end and aim.” —James Wilson (1790)
After a year of promoting violence and advocating for defunding police departments in urban centers perennially controlled by Democrats, apparently, Joe Biden and his Demo Party hacks are now SHOCKED to learn violent crime is continuing the surge they seeded last summer. As the Demos’ “summer of rage” was heating up, featuring their Black Lives Matter and antifa movement constituent base of “peaceful protesters,” The New York Times noted, “Across 20 major cities, the murder rate at the end of June was on average 37 percent higher than it was at the end of May.” Of course, they blamed the surge on the pandemic. By August, a Wall Street Journal report on homicide found “double-digit increases in 36 of 50 biggest cities amid pandemic.“ While the FBI’s 2020 crime data will not be released until the end of July, the preliminary report indicates murder rates swelled by 25% — meaning the number of homicides would exceed 20,000 for the first time since Bill Clinton was blaming guns back in 1995. Aggravated assaults increased by 10% in 2020. Based on data from the first quarter of 2021, homicides are up again, a whopping 20% over the same period in 2020. Democrat political fortunes tend to suffer when crime surges, especially when there are countless examples of Demos, in effect, advocating lawlessness in the cities where those surges are occurring. Clearly, Biden and his Demo cadres are guilty of criminal negligence. Now that Biden has single-handedly ended the pandemic, he’s falling back on the Demos’ knee-jerk scapegoat for explaining the violent effluent of their failed social policies: It’s a “gun problem.” A quick search of Leftmedia propaganda platforms in advance of Biden’s remarks today returned the following predictable parrot-media “gun crime” headlines: “Biden’s plan to … tighten gun regulations” (Washington Post); “Biden to Speak on Gun Violence”(New York Times); “Biden set to announce his gun crime prevention strategy” (CNN); “Biden plans new steps to combat gun violence” (Reuters); “Biden to … focus on gun violence” (The Hill); “Biden to Launch Gun Crime Strategy” (Bloomberg); “Biden’s strategy to combat violent crime will focus on guns” (CNBC); “Biden to launch national effort to fight gun violence” (CBS). Ad infinitum — ad nauseam! Indeed, the Biden administration just released his “fact sheet” on his “Comprehensive Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gun Crime” — the plan for his “gun problem” solutions. It asserts, “Biden believes that the surge in gun violence that has affected communities across the country over the last year and a half is unacceptable.” Well, that is just special. Did he come up with that all by himself? For the record, Biden has been promoting the BIG Lie that “white supremacy” is “the most lethal threat to the homeland today” — a claim to perpetuate his delusional assertion that the Capitol riot was a white supremacist insurrection, and thus all Trump supporters are white supremacists. Despite the fact that Biden repeated that inflammatory fabrication in his intentionally divisive Tulsa remarks earlier this month, for some reason “white supremacists” and “right-wing extremists” are not mentioned in his “comprehensive strategy” to stop murder and violence. Recall that Biden also declared, “We can’t give hate a safe harbor.” Indeed, I have argued that all murders are “hate crimes,” yet nowhere in Biden’s strategy is the word “hate” mentioned. Moreover, there is only one mention of the gross racial disparity regarding murder and violent assaults: “Black and brown Americans are disproportionately harmed by the direct and indirect consequences of gun violence.” That is a load of spin. Actually, “Black and Brown Americans are disproportionately harmed” by Black assailants. According to the FBI’s latest national crime statistics regarding interracial crime between Blacks and Whites, Black people committed 90% of interracial felonies despite representing just 13% of our population. And of course, there is no mention of the fact that in cases where the victim’s race was known, in 88% of murdered Black people, the suspect is also Black. Further, this racial disparity is also true in other crime categories, which dispels the assertion that somehow prisons have more Black inmates because of “systemic racism.” America is no more besieged by systemic racism than it is besieged by white supremacists. This gross racial disparity in criminal assailants is not a new issue, as was made clear in a 2015 Harvard study of Black-on-Black violence. In that study, former New York City Democrat Mayor Michael Bloomberg noted: “Ninety percent of all people killed in our city — and 90 percent of all those who commit the murders and other violent crimes — are Black and Hispanic. It is shameful that so many elected officials and editorial writers have been largely silent on these facts.“ The Biden administration is, and will remain, completely and deliberately “silent on these facts.” What Biden will also not mention in his “gun violence” plan is the murder of a police officer in his home state of Delaware a month before his disgraceful and divisive Tulsa comments. It will go unnoted in part because a Black hater, after assaulting an elderly White couple, murdered White police officer Keith Heacook without a firearm. He beat the officer to death. (Shades of another Black hatermurder in Biden country…) All of Biden’s proposed “solutions” are just temporary salves for the symptoms of the disease. Nothing he is proposing will treat the core disease that underlies urban violence, because that would require a massive shift in the Democrat Party’srace-hustling social policies. Again, despite Biden’s assertion about the “consequences of gun violence,” the fact is, “Black and brown Americans are disproportionately harmed by the direct and indirect consequences of” Demos statist urban policies, and “gun violence” is the outcome. The fact is, violence is a Demo-induced culture problem, not a “gun problem.“ Criminals commit crimes, and until Democrats reverse course on the social policies that have devastated American families and communities for decades, the consequential violence will continue. But Demos never miss an opportunity to deconstruct the Second Amendment.
By Michael Haynes
Join the discussion…
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.