Mini-Feature: The End of Childhood Innocence

The American Mind Apr 9

Children are often considered and referred to as “innocent.” When does that cease?

When they first knowingly do wrong. The scale of such novice wrong acts, however, is usually so minor (due to the limited capabilities of the child inside and out) that the generic innocence of children is still felt to cling to them.

The closer you get to the age of maturity, however, the more reasons to knowingly do wrong accumulate, and there is no escape from learning this too over the same time span. So the real end of innocence comes not just when you know you’ve chosen to do wrong and do it, but when you know that you have done this at a point in your life when even you reasonably expect yourself to “know better” when it comes to dealing with the often sudden irruption of these decision points into your day and your soul.

Such a realization can come earlier in some than others, and the deep context surrounding one’s status in this regard that can make the difference between punishment and clemency is typically only the province of family and very close friends.

The attempt to codify these subtle shades of gray into legal doctrines has not been very successful, nor has been the countervailing effort to grant judges the legal authority to parse the shades from the bench. Children are innocent of the law in this double sense: not only as people granted clemency where adults would not be, but people whose development into moral maturity operates in ways ultimately beyond the reach, or even the comprehension, of the law.

-James Poulos, executive editor of The American Mind

---

The innocence of children is overemphasized, if by “innocent” we mean a lack of malice or nastiness. No one is more selfish, demanding, and petulant than children, and their incessant lying is only cute because it is so poorly executed. It is a measure of the great forbearance and mercy of the law courts of Victorian England that, though they frequently sentenced young children to death by hanging for stealing apples, these sentences were rarely carried out.

Students of the brain now purport to have discovered that the parts that govern self-control and the moral sense may not reach full development until we are in our mid-twenties. Hence, goes the argument, it is not really fair to assign criminal responsibility to murderers or rapists who still have to put down a large deposit in order to rent a car. But you could make the opposite argument, from a eugenic standpoint—though it wouldn’t be popular: by aggressively removing our young deviants from the prospective mating pool, we could select for high impulse control and gentleness in the population.

On the other hand, this could hasten the softening of America, with a population of dopey looking Eloi types sniffing flowers. We need our youth to have some aggression, or else who will fight the forever wars? The answer is probably mandatory military school, rather than prison or the death penalty, for the most obstreperous youth.

But seriously, though, if we accept the idea that people don’t really lose their innocence until they are 25 or so, what are we to make of proposals to lower the voting age to 16? If voting is the most sacred duty of all—the most precious exercise of “Our Democracy”—then why should the franchise be extended to the precocious and half-formed? 

The smart thing would be to raise the voting age, in order to ensure that our electorate is composed of responsible, sober adults. Probably the best system would set the voting age for a particular office at the minimum age of service for that office. Thus, only people 30 and up could vote for senator, and 35 and up for president. 

Another idea would be to assign votes by the number of birthdays the voter has had. This would dilute the childishness of younger voters while rewarding those who bothered to stick it out and remain alive.

-Seth Barron, managing editor of The American Mind

IN-Equality Act Reinforces the Second SexBy: Kathleen Brush, Ph.D.April 9, 2021(emphasis added) With unanimity from the Left, the so-called Equality Act passed the House of Representatives. The Left crowed that Conservatives didn’t vote for it because they are anti-women. The Equality Act has nothing to do with equality for women, and everything to do with transgender equality. Legalizing this equality, discriminates against women.  Jim Crow laws were written to be race neutral and the Equality Act is written to be gender neutral, but the impact is clearly greater on females. Statistics are imprecise, but the number of transgender females is believed to be about four times that for transgender males.  When it comes to sports, advocates for the bill say Conservatives are making much ado about nothing because transgender women can already compete in women’s sports in some states and the impact has been minimal. Tell that to the affected females. How long will the impact be minimal? This survey from Gallup highlights how current trends encouraged by the Equality Act can make this issue a lot larger. In just a few years the presence of transgenders has jumped from 0.3% to 0.6% of the population, but this includes a lot of old timers that weren’t raised in a society that socially accepts and legally protects people re-selecting their gender. The survey didn’t include anyone under 18, but among 19-24 and 25-40 year-olds the transgender populations are 1.8% and 1.2% respectively. There is a similar trend in the growing population of LGBTQs. For boomers it is 2% but for Gen Z it’s 15.9%.  What about women in prison? In Washington State, men that self-identify as women can be transferred to a women’s prisonnow. It’s been reported that there are 150 transgender women waiting for transfers. This is about 0.9% of the male prison population, however in the women’s prison this would represent 9% of the population and almost all with their penis intact. Ninety-nine percent of transgender women retain their penises. There have already been reports of female prisoners raped by transgender women.  Transgenders commonly retain the heterosexual attraction of their biological sex. Caitlyn Jenner’s partner is Sophia Hutchins. Rachel Levine’s partner is Stephanie Haynes. Transgender women are 180% more likely to endure intimate partner violence than cisgender women. Because federal funds are used for many battered women shelters, not allowing transgender women could result in closures or limiting access. Battered women are already severely underserved. It’s not presently illegal to keep biological women separate and they have been kept separate. Will there be the same problems in shelters as those in prisons? A battered woman being raped in a shelter would be tragic – even in the name of equality.  Then we have the locker rooms and bathrooms. Is the government really promoting equality if women feel uncomfortable disrobing in a female space?  Isn’t this law really about making women’s spaces gender neutral, while men’s spaces remain relatively private to men? What about young women in gym class? Is it equal when girls are afraid to disrobe in their locker rooms, but boys are not?  Or is the solution as some states are doing, like Washington, to teach school children as young as five that some boys have penises, and some girls have vaginas and it’s no big deal who has what. They also learn if they want to change to the other sex, puberty blockers and sex hormones can be started without parental consent. That is also possible in Oregon and California and many other states through Planned Parenthood. In Oregon, it is legally possible for a child to have gender reassignment surgery without parental consent. Officials say they believe that will be rare. It seems reasonable that passage of the Equality Act could make this less rare and not just in Oregon.  What schools are not teaching is that 50% of transgender girls attempt suicide. For those that undergo gender reassignment surgery, suicide rates have been found to be 20 times over the normal rate, and there are much higher rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and death due to neoplasm and cardiovascular disease.  There is so much science about the ill effects of puberty blockers, sex hormones, and gender reassignment surgeries that woke legislators and educators are ignoring by labeling them transphobic.  In 1972, women’s sports either got equal treatment or federal funds were withheld.  Under the Equality Act, funds will be withheld from women’s sports if they deny participation to biological men that identify as women. People defending women’s sports for biological women can also find draconian measures from the NCAA and a lawsuit from the ACLU.  Why is the Left hell bent on reinforcing women as the second sex?  Conservatives shouldn’t miss the opportunity to demonstrate that they know what gender equality is and is not.

Hat Tip: Rip McIntosh

IN-Equality Act Reinforces the Second SexBy: Kathleen Brush, Ph.D.April 9, 2021(emphasis added) With unanimity from the Left, the so-called Equality Act passed the House of Representatives. The Left crowed that Conservatives didn’t vote for it because they are anti-women. The Equality Act has nothing to do with equality for women, and everything to do with transgender equality. Legalizing this equality, discriminates against women.  Jim Crow laws were written to be race neutral and the Equality Act is written to be gender neutral, but the impact is clearly greater on females. Statistics are imprecise, but the number of transgender females is believed to be about four times that for transgender males.  When it comes to sports, advocates for the bill say Conservatives are making much ado about nothing because transgender women can already compete in women’s sports in some states and the impact has been minimal. Tell that to the affected females. How long will the impact be minimal? This survey from Gallup highlights how current trends encouraged by the Equality Act can make this issue a lot larger. In just a few years the presence of transgenders has jumped from 0.3% to 0.6% of the population, but this includes a lot of old timers that weren’t raised in a society that socially accepts and legally protects people re-selecting their gender. The survey didn’t include anyone under 18, but among 19-24 and 25-40 year-olds the transgender populations are 1.8% and 1.2% respectively. There is a similar trend in the growing population of LGBTQs. For boomers it is 2% but for Gen Z it’s 15.9%.  What about women in prison? In Washington State, men that self-identify as women can be transferred to a women’s prisonnow. It’s been reported that there are 150 transgender women waiting for transfers. This is about 0.9% of the male prison population, however in the women’s prison this would represent 9% of the population and almost all with their penis intact. Ninety-nine percent of transgender women retain their penises. There have already been reports of female prisoners raped by transgender women. 
Transgenders commonly retain the heterosexual attraction of their biological sex. Caitlyn Jenner’s partner is Sophia Hutchins. Rachel Levine’s partner is Stephanie Haynes. Transgender women are 180% more likely to endure intimate partner violence than cisgender women. Because federal funds are used for many battered women shelters, not allowing transgender women could result in closures or limiting access. Battered women are already severely underserved. It’s not presently illegal to keep biological women separate and they have been kept separate. Will there be the same problems in shelters as those in prisons? A battered woman being raped in a shelter would be tragic – even in the name of equality.  Then we have the locker rooms and bathrooms. Is the government really promoting equality if women feel uncomfortable disrobing in a female space?  Isn’t this law really about making women’s spaces gender neutral, while men’s spaces remain relatively private to men? What about young women in gym class? Is it equal when girls are afraid to disrobe in their locker rooms, but boys are not? 
Or is the solution as some states are doing, like Washington, to teach school children as young as five that some boys have penises, and some girls have vaginas and it’s no big deal who has what. They also learn if they want to change to the other sex, puberty blockers and sex hormones can be started without parental consent. That is also possible in Oregon and California and many other states through Planned Parenthood. In Oregon, it is legally possible for a child to have gender reassignment surgery without parental consent. Officials say they believe that will be rare. It seems reasonable that passage of the Equality Act could make this less rare and not just in Oregon.  What schools are not teaching is that 50% of transgender girls attempt suicide. For those that undergo gender reassignment surgery, suicide rates have been found to be 20 times over the normal rate, and there are much higher rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and death due to neoplasm and cardiovascular disease.  There is so much science about the ill effects of puberty blockers, sex hormones, and gender reassignment surgeries that woke legislators and educators are ignoring by labeling them transphobic.  In 1972, women’s sports either got equal treatment or federal funds were withheld.  Under the Equality Act, funds will be withheld from women’s sports if they deny participation to biological men that identify as women. People defending women’s sports for biological women can also find draconian measures from the NCAA and a lawsuit from the ACLU.  Why is the Left hell bent on reinforcing women as the second sex? 
Conservatives shouldn’t miss the opportunity to demonstrate that they know what gender equality is and is not. 

Controlling the Public Vocabulary and Imagery.

The Mainstream Media, routinely establish lists of wordings to better describe the persons, events or objects for which they have decided to enforce vigorous “virtue signaling” and distribute them to their acolytes in the press rooms and political war rooms.

First, a label that the left uses without constraints nor reason for conservatives that they are racists. 

Now this needs to be changed once and for all. Even an uneducated but pure at heart observer will notice that whatever the left charges conservatives for, they are way more guilty of the accusation. Psychologists call this phenomenon “projection”. The left sees racism in everything they look at in conservatives. Looking at everything through the prism of racism, makes it clear that they are obsessed with racism. That makes them the much better racists.

Trump was accused of belittling women and viewing in them only as sex objects, when liberals have won all the medals for sexual harassment and even for rape.  Even their empty suit leader, Biden, is accused of rape. This again an example of the left projection psychosis.

We will not call them “racists” nor “rapists” because that is all the symptom of their delusion. We should call them the “PROJECTORS”. When the general public asks “why projectors?” we will explain in full details.

But for those of us who are more concerned about the metaphysical sphere than the natural sphere we should denounce them for what is even more egregious: doing the work of the Evil One. It is clear in matter of unbridled sexuality, abortion, so called genders, hate of religion, violence, etc. they are Satan’s little minions. We also should call them the “DIABOLICS”.

Next, the Symbol of the Democratic party used to be a jack ass or simply a humble burro, representing the little guy that they were supposed to defend. 

But all this changed. As evidence, when they are siding with the powerful unions against the simple worker, they can no longer pretend to show more interest to defend the little guy.

Instead of the Burro, they deserve two new iconic animals… The splitting of these icons into two animals is only to begin highlighting their morbid schizophrenia.

First is the unicorn. Why the unicorn? The unicorn is the symbol of naïve and unnatural expectations. Believing that there is a myriad of genders in unnatural. Believing that same sex unions are good for the sex confused and for society is both naïve and unnatural. The Unicorn current started a while ago when the left preferred bending to the Soviet Union rather that building a strong army in the hope that the policy would mollify communists. That was totally naïve and unnatural.

The second iconic animal for the left would be the Tasmanian Devil, at least for the reputation given by prevalent culture to the real animal. The left is unrelentingly vindictive and would never cease plotting and attacking those who they view as archenemies because they do not share their views or, worse, tend to oppose them. There is not a sliver of doubt that when President Trump was elected in 2016 that the left would start to plot all types of maneuvers, mostly illegitimate, to steal the following elections. That is what they do. Now, in power, they conduct of policy of scorched earth against all the great executive orders that Trump put in place during his administration.

Please use this vocabulary and imagery and refuse to work around their own, so that we can regain control of the discourses on the public square.

-Sophocles

TAXATION EXPLAINED IN SIMPLE TERMSA RESPONSE TO Dr. ROBERT HOWARD’S APRIL 6 2021 ESSAYAN EASY TO UNDERSTAND GUIDE TO CORPORATE INCOME TAXES AND THE BIDEN LIEBy E.P. UnumApril 8, 2021 Just as a follow up to the above excellent essay by Dr. Howard. Knowing how much all of you are excited to pay your taxes to help support our government and its spending habits, here is another explanation of our tax system that will help you understand the nuances of the U.S. Tax Code so that, when you complete your tax returns, you never have anything to fear from the I.R.S and can take comfort in knowing you have contributed your fair share to help fund various governmental programs that are, as we all know, intended to help you. THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED Suppose that every day, ten men, all high school friends who have achieved various degrees of success in life and various levels of wealth from the poorest to the wealthiest, meet and play basketball each week. They then go out to drink beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100… If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this… The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. They have a zero tax rate. This is important to remember! The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7.. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that’s what they decided to do.. The ten men played basketball and drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner of the bar threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers, I’m going to reduce the cost of your beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80. Cheers for the bartender! The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share ? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. Lord knows we can’t have that! WHAT TO DO???????? Once again the bartender comes to the rescue! So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And So, The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. Bernie Swindler, the sixth man said “I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” He pointed to the tenth man, Warren Bigshot “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, Chuck E. Schlump. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!” “That’s true!” shouted Dick Dumber, the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? Heck, he got 50% of the entire savings the good bartender passed along to us. Damn, the wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, Dewey, Cheatcha, and How and AOL.. “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!” (it almost sounds like these are all Democrats!) The nine men then surrounded Warren Bigshot the tenth man, beat him up, and drove him out of town!       Battered and beaten, Warren relocated overseas where he made new friends and still played basketball and drank beer with his new buddies. The next night, Warren the tenth man didn’t show up for basketball or for drinks. So the nine men recruited a tenth man (of modest means just like them, a guy named Barry O’ Bummer), played their weekly game, then sat down and had their beers without their old buddy. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, like our famous tenth man, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, or refuse to understand, no explanation is possible. They have ears, but do not hear. And that ladies & gentlemen concludes today s lesson on taxation and addresses all of the rumors and nonsense politicians throw at you, especially in an election year! Final lesson: stop worrying about what everyone else gets or does and keep your eyes focused on the positives not the negatives. Your life and your psyche will be much better off. And, most important, think for yourselves. Thank you, Dr. Howard, for providing the inspiration for me to present this follow up to your worthy essay. In truth, I have been using this piece without the name references, in my college accounting and finance classes for at least the past ten years.

HAT TIP: RIP MCINTOSH

X

Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day.SUPPORT THE STREAM

---

The Fake News Got it Wrong About Sidney Powell

facebook/SidneyPowellAuthor

By MIKE HUCKABEE Published on April 6, 2021

Mike Huckabee

The last we heard about Sidney Powell, conservatives were scratching their heads about a story concerning her defense in Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit against her.

Case Dismissed?

According to news reports, Powell’s attorneys were embarking on a surprising defense: that what she’d said about Dominion Voting Systems was so outrageous, so downright crazy, that “no reasonable person” would believe it. And if people don’t believe what she’s been saying, then how can Dominion be damaged in any significant way? (Good question; I can almost hear the gavel pounding and the judge saying, “Case dismissed!”)

But when Trump supporters who distrusted the outcome in states with electronic voting systems, particularly Dominion’s, heard about this defense strategy, many had a hard time with it. Pundits accused Powell of shooting holes through her own theory of election cheating in order to avoid Dominion’s retaliation. I didn’t think she was doing that at all, and said as much. Considering that Dominion itself had called her claims “outrageous,” etc., she appeared to be turning that around on them. Little did we know the media had gotten the story wrong.

Powell is Back

Powell is back, in an interview on Rumble with Dinesh D’Souza. Please keep in mind that most media platforms will not allow any examination of the 2020 election, let alone an interview with Sidney Powell that specifically discusses Dominion Voting Systems, so the difficulty in finding her has nothing to do with her believability, only with the realities of censorship and “cancel culture” in 2021.

In Part 1, D’Souza introduces Powell as the attorney for Michael Flynn; recall that she completely upended the non-defense that Flynn had been receiving and helped him change his plea from guilty to not guilty, and hijinks ensued. We all stood up and cheered that Flynn, after being so abused by the FBI and Obama White House, was finally getting the mother-bear defense he deserved.

Recall that even when the Justice Department finally withdrew the case against him, Judge Emmet Sullivan wouldn’t let it go and weirdly continued to act as prosecutor. It took a pardon from President Trump to stick a fork in this overbaked case. My point: Sidney Powell is one powerhouse attorney. As D’Souza points out, she’s been the lead attorney in over 500 federal appeals, 350 of these as assistant U.S. attorney, in addition to her many other credentials. She’s well known for her book Licensed to Lie.

She does not back down, and she is no crackpot. So when my team and I accepted the odd story about her defense, it was because we assumed there must be a method to her madness.

The Stuff We’re “Not Supposed to Talk About”

D’Souza begins the interview by saying, “We’re gonna talk about all the stuff we’re ‘not supposed to talk about’” because “the digital moguls have decided that we can’t.” And then they do.

He repeats the argument on the left, notably from CNN’s Jake Tapper, that Powell’s defense against Dominion is “a big win for his [Tapper’s] side” because it means that what she’d been saying about Dominion was opinion, not fact. He asks her flat-out if she’s backtracking from what she’d said in the beginning about Dominion.

And she says that no, she isn’t. She is taking back nothing in her original claims.

The Data Does Not Lie

She says that news reports referring to her DC Circuit case have misquoted a statement from the decision or have taken it out of context. In other words — who would believe it? — reporters got it wrong.

It’s not what I said at all, she tells D’Souza. No, I firmly believe everything I said was true. It was based on thousands of pages of affidavits, expert reports, mathematical analysis that cannot be challenged, statistical work that cannot be challenged. I mean, the data does not lie.

Let me make it clear, I’m simply passing along what Sidney Powell is saying about her personal belief that there was widespread fraud. It is a fact that she believes this, and what I say here is a correction to a previous widely-reported story that falsely suggested she doesn’t. I do not have hard evidence that widespread fraud changed the outcome of the election, but Sidney Powell claims it’s there, and I’m quoting her.

She accuses NBC of reporting “a bald-faced lie” when they said she doesn’t believe what she had said about Dominion.

It’s a complete mischaracterization of what we said in our pleading and what I believe and know to be the truth. I’m not backin’ up one inch.

Everything I said about Dominion, I had a factual basis for, she continues. Any reasonable person looking at the evidence I’ve seen would have to come to the same conclusion.

And There’s More …

The interview is divided into four parts. Here’s Part 2, which includes her claims about voting machines “weighing” votes differently — she said this should have resulted in a federal criminal investigation — and also what she called orchestrated foreign interference.

In Part 3, they discuss why evidence of fraud hasn’t been examined. She says she’s “beyond disappointed in the Department of Justice” and that President Trump had “a failure of nerve.”Please Support The Stream: Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day.

Finally, in Part 4, they discuss the heartbreak of what’s actually happening in America.

The GOP is part of the swamp, she says at one point. Neither the campaign nor the RNC were interested in challenging the results of the election. Everyone just wanted to pack it up and go home. It was the most horrible situation I’ve ever personally witnessed…in any sort of pursuit of truth or justice.

Powell encourages people to go to her website.

We did, and can save you some searching because we found this update, called “Sidney Powell Responds to the Fake News.”

The Dominion Complaint

It lays out in more detail what she was telling D’Souza in their interview. The Dominion case, she says, has no merit because it’s going after her for her legal opinion, an opinion that she claims is based on evidence that she presented to four different courts. As such, her statements are “not subject to to challenge under defamation law.”

And she says she did not say that ‘no reasonable person’ would believe her claims.

The page also includes a statement from her attorney, Howard Kleinhendler, which accuses the media of “cutting and pasting” portions of their motion to dismiss the Dominion complaint. He concludes:

In short, the legal standard of a technical legal defense crafted by the court has been improperly manipulated by the media to tell a false narrative. Ms. Powell is not backing down or retracting her previous statements concerning Dominion. Dominion’s case lacks legal merit and should be dismissed in its entirety.

Any suggestion, her attorney says, that ‘no reasonable person’ would believe Ms. Powell or her comments on the election is false.

News outlets are staying faaaaar away from Sidney Powell’s claims, so you won’t see her cropping up on most shows. (Fortunately, Rumble is one of those brave platforms that support free speech and won’t “cancel” a story about election fraud.) Perhaps the best way to stay updated on her litigation is to check periodically here.

And, of course, we’ll be on it.

Mike Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas and longtime conservative commentator on issues in culture and current events. A New York Times best-selling author, he hosts the weekly talk show Huckabee on TBN. 

Originally published on MikeHuckabee.com. Reprinted with permission.

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Parler, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

The American TFP > Catholic Perspective > Pope Francis Approves Curia Note Condemning Same-sex “Marriage” While Appointing Notorious Homosexual to Pontifical Commission

Pope Francis Approves Curia Note Condemning Same-sex “Marriage” While Appointing Notorious Homosexual to Pontifical Commission

April 7, 2021 | Luiz Sérgio Solimeo 

Pope Francis Approves Curia Note Condemning Same-sex “Marriage” While Appointing Notorious Homosexual to Pontifical Commission

With Pope Francis’s approval, on February 22, the feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a Responsum to a dubiumregarding the blessing of a same-sex union.

The dubium received at the Dicastery read: “Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?”

The Congregation’s answer was: “Negative.”¹

In its simplicity, the answer could not be more straightforward. The Church does not have the power to go against divine law by blessing a state of grave sin.

There Are No “Positive Elements” in a Sinful Relationship

The Congregation gives the reasons for that denial in an Explanatory Note. Unfortunately, parts of the explanation sow doubt and confusion. For example, the Note mentions a “presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated.”

This is wrong. A sinful relationship’s evil end vitiates any “positive elements.”

Fr. Royo Marín, O.P., writes, “Whether or not it is an action’s sole purpose, a GRAVELY evil end corrupts totally or partially an action that is good in itself.”²

10 Razones Por las Cuales el “Matrimonio” Homosexual es Dañino y tiene que Ser Desaprobado

In their turn, Lanza-Palazzini affirm that a bad end “is also capable of gutting [an action] of all value when it deviates it from the ideal to which it should be directed.”³

Therefore, one cannot speak of “positive elements” in a homosexual or adulterous relationship because the friendship and mutual help such situations might include are not being used according to their natural purpose, which is to further the practice of virtue. Instead, they stabilize the individuals involved in their habit of sin. They are vitiated, therefore, by the sinful situation in which they are inserted.

Liberal Revolt, Moderate Conservative Satisfaction

The Church’s liberal sectors erupted in revolt as soon as the Pope Francis-approved Responsum was published. Cardinals, bishops, and priests from around the world rose up against it. One example is Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, the archbishop of Vienna.⁴ He stated: “I was not happy about the declaration.” An association of 350 Austrian priests issued a statement titled, “Call to Disobedience 2.0,” saying “they will continue blessing same-sex unions.”⁵

The Church does not have the power to go against divine law by blessing a state of grave sin.

Some conservative sectors showed restraint in their satisfaction with the Responsum since Pope Francis’s gestures favoring homosexual sin over the years—for example his call for the legalization of homosexual civil unions—contradict it.

Pope Francis ‘Guts’ the Responsum

The reasons for this conservative reticence were justified barely a month after the Responsum’s publication when, with one more of his frequent symbolic gestures, Pope Francis gutted it.

Indeed, on March 24, a Holy See press release announced the appointment of a notorious homosexual, Juan Carlos Cruz, as a member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.⁶

Media around the world announced the news with big headlines. On March 25, LifeSiteNews reported, “Pope appoints open homosexual to Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.”⁷ The National Catholic Register headlined: “Pope Francis Appoints Juan Carlos Cruz to Pontifical Commission for Protecting Minors.”⁸

Learn All About the Prophecies of Our Lady of Good Success About Our Times

For its part, Infovaticana’s title insinuated that the Argentine Pope’s symbolic gesture was half expected: “[Is it] The Gesture They Were Waiting for?” The article begins by saying: “Francis appoints Juan Carlos Cruz, a recognized homosexual very critical of the Doctrine of the Faith’s document on same-sex unions, as member of a Pontifical Commission.”⁹

Other media outlets also pointed out the connection between this appointment and the CDF document.

A Homosexual Opposed to the CDF’s Responsum

Who is Juan Carlos Cruz?

Elisabetta Piqué, an Argentine journalist linked to Pope Francis, reports: “Very close to the pope, Cruz is gay and one of the victims of sexual abuse by Chilean priest Fernando Karadima, convicted in 2011. Cruz fought to obtain justice and met Francis in 2018 at the Vatican.”¹⁰

According to this journalist, Cruz harshly criticized the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Responsum on blessing same-sex “couples.” He declared to the Buenos Aires daily La Nación: “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), and especially its prefects, are completely in a world of their own, away from people and trying to defend the indefensible. We see this in the slowness with which the crimes of abuse are dealt with, their lack of humanity and knowledge of people’s suffering, so contrary to Pope Francis.”¹¹

Eternal and Natural Law: The Foundation of Morals and Law

In a 2018 BBC interview, the same Juan Carlos Cruz stated that after complaining to Pope Francis in a Vatican conversation that some churchmen considered him to be in the state of sin for being homosexual, the pope had said: “[Y]ou have to understand that God made you this way and he loves you, and the pope loves you and you have to love yourself.”¹²

Increasing Confusion in the Church

The misleading Pope Francis-approved Explanatory Note, followed by the appointment of a notorious homosexual (defender of same-sex “marriage”) to a Pontifical Commission charged with protecting children from sexual abuse, increases the confusion in the Church about a sin that “cries out to heaven for vengeance.”¹³

Science Confirms: Angels Took the House of Our Lady of Nazareth to Loreto

These remarks are not personal. They are inspired only by fidelity to Catholic doctrine and true charity, which consists of wanting our fellow men to have the good of God’s grace, which is impossible without the truth. The spiritual work of mercy to fraternally correct those who err moves us to call attention to Pope Francis’s errors. Its sole motive is love for the Church and the papacy.¹⁴

https://www.facebook.com/v9.0/plugins/page.php?adapt_container_width=true&app_id=&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df3eb15ddcc5e8de%26domain%3Dwww.tfp.org%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.tfp.org%252Ff2e4a8eccf36ccc%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&height=130&hide_cover=true&hide_cta=false&href=https%3A%2F%2Ffacebook.com%2FTradition.Family.Property.TFP%2F&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&show_facepile=false&small_header=true&width=400

Photo Credit:  © Chris – stock.adobe.com6

Footnotes

1. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex,” Vatican, Feb. 22, 2021, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20210222_responsum-dubium-unioni_en.html#.
2. Antonio Royo Marin, O.P., Teología Moral Para Seglares: Moral Fundamental y Especial, ch. 2, art. 4, q. 94, no. 6, accessed Mar. 31, 2021, https://www.mercaba.org/MORAL/ROYO/064-083_EL_ACTO_MORAL.htm. (Emphasis in the original.)
3. A. Lanza-P. Palazzini, Moral General, vol. 1, Principios de Teologia Moral (Madrid: Ediciones Rialp, S.A., 1958), 144.
4. David McLoone, “Cardinal opposes Church’s ban on blessing same-sex unions: ‘I was not happy about the declaration,’” LifeSiteNews, Mar. 25, 2021, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-opposes-churchs-ban-on-blessing-same-sex-unions-i-was-not-happy-about-the-declaration.
5. Marco Tosatti, “Austria. 350 Preti: ‘Continueremo a Benedire le Coppie Omosessuali.’” Stilum Curiae, Mar. 17, 2021, https://www.marcotosatti.com/2021/03/17/austria-350-preti-continueremo-a-benedire-le-coppie-omosessuali/.
6. “Resignations and Appointments, 24.03.2021,” Holy See Press Office, accessed Apr. 1, 2021, https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2021/03/24/210324d.html.
7. David McLoone, “Pope appoints open homosexual to Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors,” LifeSiteNews, Mar. 25, 2021, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-appoints-open-homosexual-to-pontifical-commission-for-the-protection-of-minors.
8. Courtney Mares, “Pope Francis Appoints Juan Carlos Cruz to Pontifical Commission for Protecting Minors,” National Catholic Register, Mar. 24, 2021, https://www.ncregister.com/cna/pope-francis-appoints-juan-carlos-cruz-to-pontifical-commission-for-protecting-minors.
9. Fernando Beltrán, “¿El gesto que estaban esperando?” InfoVaticana, Mar. 24, 2021, https://infovaticana.com/2021/03/24/el-gesto-que-estaban-esperando/.
10. Elisabetta Piqué, “Juan Carlos Cruz: “Si la Iglesia no avanza, los católicos seguirán huyendo,” La Nación, Mar. 15, 2021, https://www.lanacion.com.ar/el-mundo/juan-carlos-cruz-si-la-iglesia-no-avanza-los-catolicos-seguiran-huyendo-nid15032021/.
11. Ibid.
12. “Pope Francis tells gay Chilean sex abuse victim ‘God loves you,’” BBC, May 22, 2018, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-44215996.
13. Sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance: “According to Scripture, these sins are voluntary homicide (Gen. 4:10); sodomy (Gen. 19:13); oppression of widows and orphans (Exod. 22:22ff.); and depriving workers of their just wage (Deut. 24:17ff.; James 5:4).” Dom Gregorio Manise, O.S.B., s.v. “Sins That Cry Out To Heaven For Vengeance,” in Dictionary of Moral Theology (Westminster, Md.: The Newman Press, 1962), 1139.
14. See Pietro Ballerini, De Potestate Ecclesiastica Summorum Pontificum, 104–5, in Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, Can a Pope be…a Heretic? (Lisbon: Caminhos Romanos, 2018), 85.

Thursday, April 8, 2021  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  SIDNEY POWELL’S STATEMENT ON HER  MOTION TO DISMISS SMARTMATIC’S COMPLAINT  Today, I responded to Smartmatic’s allegations of defamation against me in a 25-page motion to dismiss the case. I asked the court to throw out the case for the following reasons (amongst others).  1. To start, I cannot be sued in New York, because I do not have sufficient contacts with New York. My appearances on Fox News do not give the state of New York jurisdiction over me. I do not live in New York. I do not own property in New York. I do not conduct business in New York.  2. Even if I could be sued in New York, Smartmatic’s defamation claims against me fail. The information I shared about the Smartmatic machines is backed by sworn affidavits, expert reports, and other corroborated evidence. The First Amendment protects my statements about Smartmatic—they are political speech and were made in connection with active litigation.  3. Smartmatic’s desperate attempt to suggest I was a part of a civil conspiracy to harm the company is not only false, but also, still does not allow me to be sued in New York. Smartmatic fails to even remotely allege any way that I was a part of a conspiracy. And for the record, I was not.  4. Finally, my statements at issue all concerned the 2020 presidential election. They were made in court filings and on news shows. These statements would be understood by readers and listeners as expressions of opinion by me as a legal advocate, based on reliable, corroborated, sworn testimony.  I stand by my statements about Smartmatic today. I believe every allegation I have made about Smartmatic and the vulnerability of these machines is true. This case is meritless and should be thrown out entirely.   ——— Once again, thank you for your continuing support and attention. Stay tuned for more developments! You may read the motion to dismiss in full at https://www.sidneypowell.com/motion-to-dismiss-smartmatics-complaint!! Sidney Powell SidneyPowell.com