From the FEDGOV

 Questions Without Answers

 About Ukraine

Victor Davis Hanson

American Greatness

March 23, 2023

Ukrainians, and many Europeans and Americans, are defining an envisioned Ukrainian victory as the complete expulsion of all Russians from its 2013 borders. Or, as a Ukrainian national security chief put it, the war ends with Ukrainian tanks in Red Square.

But mysteries remain about such ambitious agendas.

What would that goal entail?

Giving Ukraine American F-16s to strike bases and depots in Mother Russia? The gifting of 1,000 M1 Abrams tanks? Using American Harpoon missiles to sink the Russian Black Sea Fleet?

A huge arsenal that would guarantee total victory rather than not losing?

Russia’s cruel strategy is to grind down Ukraine and turn its eastern regions into a Verdun-like deathscape.

So is a brave Ukraine really winning the war when it loses about 0.6 soldiers for every Russian it kills?

Russia plans to leverage its extra 100 million people, its 10-times larger economy, and its 30-times larger territory to pulverize Ukraine and tire its Western patrons—whatever the costs to Russia.

Yet why were only a few in past administrations calling for a joint Western effort to expel Putin’s forces from the borderlands and Crimea captured in 2014?

Why are Putin’s 2014 invasions now seen as urgent rectifiable crimes of aggression in 2022, but were not regarded as reparable during the prior eight years?

Is the United States economically capable or politically unified or socially stable enough to wage a huge proxy war on the frontiers of a nuclear Russia?

During the last comparable multibillion-dollar military efforts—the First Gulf War in 1990-1991 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq—the ratio of American debt to GDP was respectively 40 and 50 percent.

Today it hovers at nearly three times that figure at 129%, given some $33 trillion in accumulated debt.

Currently, the American economy is entering a stagflationary crisis. Banking, real estate, and financial sectors seem on the brink of imploding, especially after the near-record multibillion-dollar collapse of Sam Bankman-Fried’s FTX, and the meltdowns of the Silicon Valley and Signature banks.

Around 7 million illegal entries have occurred across the southern border since January 2021 alone. Millions of new impoverished foreign nationals tax social services, spike crime, and strain relations with an increasingly antagonistic Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

An emboldened Obrador now brags that 40 million of his countrymen have cumulatively crossed the border, many illegally. He urges them to vote for Democratic candidates to ensure more open borders.

Last year, over 100,000 Americans died of opiate overdoses. Most of the deaths were attributable to Mexican cartels’ brazen export of fentanyl across an open border.

Nearly a million Americans have likely died of such overdoses since 2000—more than double the number of fatalities in World War II.

Given its shell-shocked inner cities and toxic downtowns, America is beginning to resemble mid-19th-century England that sent forces all over its global empire while novelist Charles Dickens chronicled the misery and poverty at the imperial core in London.

Is the Ukrainian war also creating the most dangerous anti-American alliance since World War II?

Ø China is buying cheap Russian oil, while stealthily supplying its weapons.

Ø India, normally a rock-solid democratic ally, keeps buying both banned Russian oil and armaments.

Ø Most of the major countries in South America have not joined the sanctions.

Ø Clients like nuclear North Korea and soon to be nuclear Iran are empowered by overt help from Russia.

Ø NATO member Turkey and once-allied Saudi Arabia appear now friendlier to Iran, friendlier to China, and friendlier to Russia, than they are to America.

Ø In terms of combined oil reserves, nukes, population, area, and GDP, this new loose coalition of apparent anti-Americans seems more powerful than the United States and its squabbling friends in Europe.

Ø Why were those now calling for a veritable blank check for Ukraine formerly quiet when the United States fled in humiliation from Afghanistan?

Ø Why were they mostly silent when an appeasing Joe Biden begged Vladimir Putin at least to spare some U.S. targets on his otherwise extensive anti-American cyberwar hit list?

Ø Or why were they indifferent when Biden said he would have fewer objections if Putin’s anticipated attack on Ukraine would be “minor”?

Ø Or why were they not so eager for confrontation when Putin earlier acquired the Eastern Ukrainian borderlands and Crimea in 2014 in the first place?

Ø Or why so subdued when the United States in 2015-16 refused to sell Ukrainian offensive weapons?

Ø Why does the United States discount the serial and ascending nuclear threats from Russia, but we remain careful not to antagonize China?

Ø After all, China sent a spy balloon brazenly across the United States to surveil and spy on American strategic locations.

Ø And why is the administration so quiet about a likely leak of an engineered deadly COVID-19 virus from a Chinese virology lab that killed 1 million Americans?

These are Ukrainian war-related questions that never seem to be answered—but should be as the carnage rises and the nuclear threshold falls.

Stanford DEI dean escalates; Stanford law dean cowers; and more

Inbox

Ed Whelan ewhelan@eppc.org via gmail.mcsv.net	10:18 AM (12 minutes ago)
to me

From NRO’s Bench Memos:
Stanford DEI Dean Escalates Battle against Law-School Dean

In a remarkable op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Stanford law school DEI dean Tirien Steinbach escalates her battle with law school dean Jenny Martinez. Steinbach had already given Martinez ample cause to fire her. It’s difficult to see how Martinez could avoid doing so now.

Before we look at the particulars of Steinbach’s op-ed, let’s briefly sum up the context in which she wrote it: 

Two weeks ago, when Stanford law students disrupted Judge Kyle Duncan’s speech at a Federalist Society event, Steinbach seized the occasion to deliver six minutes of prepared remarks in which she chastised Judge Duncan. Two days later, Stanford’s president and Dean Martinez issued a joint letter of apology to Judge Duncan for the disruption of his event in violation of Stanford’s policies on free speech. In an obvious reference to Steinbach, the joint apology observed that “staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.” 

Just yesterday, Dean Martinez followed up with a long letter to Stanford students that reiterated that the disruption of the event violated Stanford’s policies. In her letter, Martinez revealed that she had placed Steinbach on leave. In explaining university policy, Martinez pointedly observed: 

[W]hen a disruption occurs and the speaker asks for an administrator to help restore order, the administrator who responds should not insert themselves into debate with their own criticism of the speaker’s views and the suggestion that the speaker reconsider whether what they plan to say is worth saying, for that imposes the kind of institutional orthodoxy and coercion that the policy on Academic Freedom precludes. For that reason, I stand by my statement in the apology letter that at the event on March 9, “staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.”

Now let’s look at Steinbach’s op-ed:

Steinbach never recognizes or acknowledges that the disruption of Judge Duncan’s event violated Stanford policy. Indeed, she never acknowledges that any disruption occurred. She instead says that there was merely a “heated exchange,” “a verbal sparring match,” in which “[s]ome protesters heckled the judge and peppered him with questions and comments” and Judge Duncan “answered in turn.” That is a gross distortion of what occurred and in direct conflict with Martinez’s apology and letter.

Steinbach never acknowledges or apologizes for her own gross misconduct. On the contrary, she defends her conduct in terms that directly conflict with Martinez’s criticism of her: She aimed “to give voice to the [protesting] students.” She “wanted Judge Duncan to understand why some students were protesting his presence on campus” so that he could ponder “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” So much for Martinez’s admonition that administrators “should not insert themselves into debate with their own criticism of the speaker’s views and the suggestion that the speaker reconsider whether what they plan to say is worth saying.”

Steinbach fundamentally disagrees with Dean Martinez (and with Stanford’s president) on the role of freedom of speech and on the relationship between free speech and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (or DEI). In her apology to Judge Duncan, Martinez stated: “Freedom of speech is a bedrock principle for the law school, the university, and a democratic society.” In her letter yesterday, Martinez explained that “the commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion means that we must protect free expression of all views.” As her question “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” indicates, Steinbach instead sees a need to “strike a balance” between values of freedom of speech and DEI that are often in conflict.

Steinbach’s op-ed is titled “Diversity and Free Speech Can Coexist at Stanford.” But Martinez and Steinbach have very different ideas of what such co-existence involves. It is difficult to see how Martinez and Steinbach can co-exist at Stanford. It’s time for Martinez to realize that Steinbach’s juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

Stanford Law Dean’s Letter Responding to Student Complaints—Part 2

Having praised the free-speech principles that Stanford law dean Jenny Martinez set forth in her long letter to students, I’m sorry to say that the third part of her letter—on “next steps”—is disappointing. In particular, her categorical refusal to refer any disrupting students for disciplinary sanction and the feeble reasons she offers in support of her refusal severely undermine the principles she professes.

Martinez sets forth three “factors” that lead her to conclude that referring disrupting students for disciplinary sanction is inappropriate. None of her three factors makes any sense, and their makeshift nature suggests that Martinez is looking for an excuse not to punish students.

First, Martinez raises the concern that punishing disrupting students “may chill constitutionally protected speech.” If Stanford’s policy threatened a chilling effect on protected speech, that would be a damning criticism of the very policy that Martinez so eloquently defended in the first two parts of her letter. But there is no reason to think that punishing those who clearly engaged in disruptive activity would chill the speech of nondisruptive protestors.

Second, Martinez contends that “the failure by administrators in the room to timely administer clear and specific warnings and instead to send conflicting signals about whether what was happening was acceptable or not … renders disciplinary sanction in these particular circumstances problematic.” (Martinez’s sentence is ungrammatical, as there was not a “failure … instead to send conflicting signals”; in lieu of “instead to send,” she means something like “and their instead sending.”) But, as Martinez acknowledges, “students had been generally informed of the policy against disruptions (including by schoolwide email the morning of the event).” How much notice do law students need? What’s more, the major disruptions occurred before DEI dean Tirien Steinbach’s weird intervention, so Steinbach’s “conflicting signals” can’t be blamed for what preceded them.

Third, Martinez argues that “focusing solely on punishing those who engaged in unprotected disruptions such as noisy shouting during the lecture would leave perversely unaddressed the students whose speech was perhaps constitutionally protected but well outside the norms of civil discourse that we hope to cultivate in a professional school.” But this perverse result follows directly from California’s Leonard Law, which requires Stanford to abide by First Amendment principles in disciplining students. There is separate action that Martinez could explore regarding those who made “vulgar personal insults” that are “perhaps constitutionally protected.” (She could, for example, identify them publicly and/or ensure that their unprofessional conduct is made known to bar- admissions commissions.) Instead, she has set up a perverse incentive for disrupting students to avoid discipline by arranging for fellow students to make vulgar personal insults.

Martinez instead is requiring all students to take part in a half-day session “on the topic of freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession.” So students who did not misbehave at all—and, indeed, the Federalist Society members who were on the receiving end of much abuse—are receiving the same punishment as the disrupting students: having to spend three or four hours of their time on a session that they may have no interest in and no need for. 

This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—March 24

1997—By a vote of 4 to 3, the Ohio supreme court rules in DeRolph v. State that Ohio’s existing system of financing its public-school system violates the state constitution’s declaration that the General Assembly “make such provisions, by taxation or otherwise, as will secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state.” The court orders the General Assembly to “create an entirely new school financing system.” (How a school system can ever be “thorough and efficient” so long as self-serving teachers unions have clout is a mystery that the court did not explore.) 

2009—Reviewing yet another Ninth Circuit grant of habeas relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Supreme Court (in Knowles v. Mirzayance) again unanimously reverses the Ninth Circuit. Perhaps it is not surprising that a court laden with so many incompetent judges is inept at determining what constitutes incompetent legal advice. __________________________________________

M. Edward Whelan III
Distinguished Senior Fellow and

Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies
Ethics and Public Policy Center
1730 M Street N.W., Suite 910
Washington, D.C. 20036
202-682-1200
www.EPPC.org

• TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

Cardinal Roche on the Vatican II Rupture

 Joseph Shaw, PhD March 24, 2023 0 Comments

Above: Bishop Athanasius Schneider offers the Holy Mass at St. Peter’s church in Steubenville, Ohio, United States. Photo by Allison Girone. 

As I recently wrote on Catholic Answers, the confusion surrounding the meaning of Traditionis custodes, and its flotilla of supplementary documents, is beginning to resemble that around Amoris Laetitia. I was talking specifically about the purpose of the document: what vision of the ecclesial landscape inspires it. Here I want to focus on the equally opaque reasoning behind it.

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Last Sunday BBC Radio 4 aired a short report on the Traditional Mass. They talked to the Catholic blogger Maria Jones (do have a look at her channel ‘One of Nine’), a priest who says the TLM, and some Traditional Mass goers they found by chance outside a church. We also heard clips from Austen Ivereigh, papal biographer, and Cardinal Arthur Roche. (Listen here, 5min to 12min.)

On the subject of why TC had been issued, Ivereigh tells us that people who attend the Traditional Mass constitute a sinister ‘movement’ opposed to Vatican II. This claim is presumably inspired by Pope Francis’ 2021 Letter to Bishops. The difficulty with it is that even the most emotional and unsophisticated supporters of the Traditional Mass that the BBC journalists could find lend absolutely no support to this idea. If the ‘movement’ Ivereigh speaks of is only found in some obscure corner of the internet, then it is hard to know why Pope Francis has caused such heartache by restricting the Traditional Mass all over the world.

Cardinal Roche, on the other hand, spoke as follows:

You know the theology of the Church has changed. Whereas before the priest represented, at a distance, all the people. They were channelled, as it were, through this person who alone was celebrating the Mass. It is not only the priest who celebrates the liturgy, but also those who are baptised with him. And that is an enormous statement to make.

This is completely unrelated to the claims made in the Letter to Bishops, and it is hard to think of such a claim being made by a Curial Cardinal before. We have often been told that the idea that ‘the theology of the Church has changed’ is the preserve of extreme progressives and extreme Lefebvrists, and that what the Council actually did was what Pope John XXIII asked it to do (Gaudent Mater Ecclesia):

What … is necessary today is that the whole of Christian doctrine, with no part of it lost, be received in our times by all with a new fervor, in serenity and peace, in that traditional and precise conceptuality and expression which is especially displayed in the acts of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I. … For the deposit of faith, the truths contained in our venerable doctrine, are one thing; the fashion in which they are expressed, but with the same meaning and the same judgement, is another thing.

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Is there any basis on the Conciliar texts which supports Cardinal Roche’s ‘new theology’? Well, the Council’s Decree on the Liturgy, Sacrosantum Concilium, tells us (n. 48):

The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God’s word and be nourished at the table of the Lord’s body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the Mediator, they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all.

This is indeed the teaching of the Church. But is it new? As has been documented, the document’s footnotes were drastically thinned out at a late stage in its preparation, and this obscures the reality that this paragraph is based on two modern pre-Conciliar magisterial texts.

The first, which coined the unfortunate phrase ‘dumb spectators’ (‘muti spectatores’),  is Pope Pius XI’s Apostolic Constitution Divini cultus sanctitatem (1928) n. 9. He was talking about Catholics who weren’t singing the chants in accordance with Pope Pius X’s recommendations in Tra la sollicitudino a quarter of a century earlier.

The other source is Pope Pius XII’s 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei:

By the waters of baptism, as by common right, Christians are made members of the Mystical Body of Christ the Priest, and by the “character” which is imprinted on their souls, they are appointed to give worship to God. Thus they participate, according to their condition, in the priesthood of Christ (88).

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Again:

In this most important subject it is necessary, in order to avoid giving rise to a dangerous error, that we define the exact meaning of the word “offer.” The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful. But it is because the priest places the divine victim upon the altar that he offers it to God the Father as an oblation for the glory of the Blessed Trinity and for the good of the whole Church. Now the faithful participate in the oblation, understood in this limited sense, after their own fashion and in a twofold manner, namely, because they not only offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest, but also, to a certain extent, in union with him. It is by reason of this participation that the offering made by the people is also included in liturgical worship (92).

The idea that the people partake, in an important sense, of the offering of the Mass, without confusing the ordained priesthood and the priesthood of all believers, is found throughout the tradition, and is embedded in the texts of the Mass itself. Those who attend the Traditional Mass will be familiar with the word “Oremus”, “Let us pray”—an oft-repeated invitation to join in spirit with the prayer of the priest—and the words of the priest, “Orate fratres ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem”: “Pray brethren that my sacrifice and yours be acceptable to God the Father.” The theology of the Traditional Mass, and those who have expounded it over the centuries, is incompatible with the view that the people are passive observers, having no part in the mystery.

The BBC editors linked Cardinal Roche’s comments with the traditional practice of “the priest with his back to the people for most of the Mass.” It is impossible to know if His Eminence made this link himself. But that issue was, notoriously, not debated at the Second Vatican Council. Permission for celebration “facing the people” was slipped out in an Instruction in 1964 (Inter Oecumenini), which in fact only spoke of the construction of new altars. If this heralded a fundamental change—or an ‘enormous statement,’ in Cardinal Roche’s words—that suggests that the soon-to-be abolished Congregation for Rites had more authority than is generally recognised.

I find myself, here, and not for the first time, defending the words of the Second Vatican Council against an interpretation which would impute to them theological novelties incompatible with the perennial teaching of the Church. It’s beyond the scope of this article to do the same thing for everything the Council said, but at least on this important issue, of the manner in which the faithful participate in the Mass, Austen Ivereigh should note that I am not the one criticising Vatican II. It is Cardinal Roche, by implication, who seems to be casting it as introducing an historical rupture into the teaching of the Church.

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

He can’t, really, have meant this, but I do wonder what he did mean. It is clear that he is casting about for a different kind of rationale for the planned suppression of the Traditional Mass from the one offered by Pope Francis in the Letter to Bishops: one not just based on the empirical claim that its supporters are bad people, which fares so badly when a journalist takes the trouble to ask some worshippers about it. He would like an argument based on the theology of the liturgy, something that would allow him to say that it is objectively bad to allow any celebrations of the Traditional Mass to continue longer than absolutely necessary.

I’d love to hear more about this, because any such argument is going to have this difficulty: that if the Traditional Mass is bad, then the Church’s entire liturgy was bad for fifteen centuries, and most probably the Eastern Rites are bad even today. It would be intriguing indeed to discover that the Dicastery for Divine Worship is saying that celebration ad orientem is theologically problematic, while the Dicastery for the Eastern Churches is at the very same time trying to impose celebration ad orientem on the Syro-Malabars.

If that turns out to be true, we have reached a new phase in the confusion sadly associated with the current papacy.

Joseph Shaw, PhD

Dr Joseph Shaw has a Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford University, where he also gained a first degree in Politics and Philosophy and a graduate Diploma in Theology. He has published on Ethics and Philosophy of Religion and has edited The Case for Liturgical Restoration: Una Voce Position Papers on the Extraordinary Form (Angelico Press). He is the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales and President of Una Voce International. He teaches Philosophy at Oxford University and lives nearby with his wife and nine children.

www.lmschairman.org

DONATE 

 SEARCH  MENU

Jill Biden: “We Need More Men” to Promote Killing Babies in Abortions

National  |  Micaiah Bilger  |   Mar 23, 2023   |   10:12AM   |  Washington, DC

Jill Biden urged men to join the fight for women’s rights Wednesday at the White House, including the non-existent “right” to abort an unborn baby.

The AP reports the first lady spoke alongside her husband and Vice President Kamala Harris during an event marking Women’s History Month, calling on men to speak up after decades of the pro-abortion movement silencing them.

“We need more men to hold each other accountable when women are being hurt or being left behind,” Jill Biden said.

Although she did not mention abortion specifically, she hinted at the overturning of Roe v. Wade when she “lamented that women find themselves relitigating ‘battles that we thought we had won a long time ago,’” according to the report.

“The fight for women’s equality should have an end,” she said.

Her husband, President Joe Biden, also spoke about creating a more supportive society for women and girls.

“We have to recommit to the work ahead to deliver a better future for our nation’s daughters,” Biden said.

But one of the ways the Biden administration claims to be trying to achieve that is by working aggressively to expand abortion — actions that will lead to more women being harmed and more unborn babies being killed.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! To help us stand against Joe Biden’s abortion agenda, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

Biden is the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history. His administration ended important safety regulations for the abortion drug mifepristone and began allowing the abortion industry to sell it to women through the mail without any direct medical contact or follow-up care. The change puts women’s and unborn babies’ lives in danger and increases the risk of coercion and abuse.

Despite massive public opposition, the Biden administration recently began forcing taxpayers to support elective abortions through the military. The president also wants to strip away the rights of organizations to refuse to comply with the Obamacare HHS mandate because they object to killing unborn babies in abortions.

If the Bidens had their way, they would like to see Congress pass radical pro-abortion legislation nicknamed the Abortion Without Limits Up to Birth Act, which would force the nation to legalize killing unborn babies for basically any reason up to birth and force taxpayers to pay for their deaths.

None of this truly supports women or men. It supports the billion-dollar abortion industry, which kills unborn babies and donates heavily to Democrats’ political campaigns.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

National  |  Micaiah Bilger  |   Mar 23, 2023   |   10:12AM   |  Washington, DC

Jill Biden urged men to join the fight for women’s rights Wednesday at the White House, including the non-existent “right” to abort an unborn baby.

The AP reports the first lady spoke alongside her husband and Vice President Kamala Harris during an event marking Women’s History Month, calling on men to speak up after decades of the pro-abortion movement silencing them.

“We need more men to hold each other accountable when women are being hurt or being left behind,” Jill Biden said.

Although she did not mention abortion specifically, she hinted at the overturning of Roe v. Wade when she “lamented that women find themselves relitigating ‘battles that we thought we had won a long time ago,’” according to the report.

“The fight for women’s equality should have an end,” she said.

Her husband, President Joe Biden, also spoke about creating a more supportive society for women and girls.

“We have to recommit to the work ahead to deliver a better future for our nation’s daughters,” Biden said.

But one of the ways the Biden administration claims to be trying to achieve that is by working aggressively to expand abortion — actions that will lead to more women being harmed and more unborn babies being killed.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! To help us stand against Joe Biden’s abortion agenda, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

Biden is the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history. His administration ended important safety regulations for the abortion drug mifepristone and began allowing the abortion industry to sell it to women through the mail without any direct medical contact or follow-up care. The change puts women’s and unborn babies’ lives in danger and increases the risk of coercion and abuse.

Despite massive public opposition, the Biden administration recently began forcing taxpayers to support elective abortions through the military. The president also wants to strip away the rights of organizations to refuse to comply with the Obamacare HHS mandate because they object to killing unborn babies in abortions.

If the Bidens had their way, they would like to see Congress pass radical pro-abortion legislation nicknamed the Abortion Without Li

Jill Biden: “We Need More Men” to Promote Killing Babies in Abortions

National  |  Micaiah Bilger  |   Mar 23, 2023   |   10:12AM   |  Washington, DC

Jill Biden urged men to join the fight for women’s rights Wednesday at the White House, including the non-existent “right” to abort an unborn baby.

The AP reports the first lady spoke alongside her husband and Vice President Kamala Harris during an event marking Women’s History Month, calling on men to speak up after decades of the pro-abortion movement silencing them.

“We need more men to hold each other accountable when women are being hurt or being left behind,” Jill Biden said.

Although she did not mention abortion specifically, she hinted at the overturning of Roe v. Wade when she “lamented that women find themselves relitigating ‘battles that we thought we had won a long time ago,’” according to the report.

“The fight for women’s equality should have an end,” she said.

Her husband, President Joe Biden, also spoke about creating a more supportive society for women and girls.

“We have to recommit to the work ahead to deliver a better future for our nation’s daughters,” Biden said.

But one of the ways the Biden administration claims to be trying to achieve that is by working aggressively to expand abortion — actions that will lead to more women being harmed and more unborn babies being killed.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! To help us stand against Joe Biden’s abortion agenda, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

Biden is the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history. His administration ended important safety regulations for the abortion drug mifepristone and began allowing the abortion industry to sell it to women through the mail without any direct medical contact or follow-up care. The change puts women’s and unborn babies’ lives in danger and increases the risk of coercion and abuse.

Despite massive public opposition, the Biden administration recently began forcing taxpayers to support elective abortions through the military. The president also wants to strip away the rights of organizations to refuse to comply with the Obamacare HHS mandate because they object to killing unborn babies in abortions.

If the Bidens had their way, they would like to see Congress pass radical pro-abortion legislation nicknamed the Abortion Without Li

Sandra Merritt Heads to Supreme Court to Overturn $16 Million Judgement for Exposing Planned Parenthood

National  |  Liberty Counsel  |   Mar 21, 2023   |   4:16PM   |  Washington, DC

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Liberty Counsel’s request for a hearing with the entire appeals court in the multimillion-dollar civil lawsuit against Sandra Merritt.

Liberty Counsel previously filed a request for an en banc (full court) review and presented argument that the appeals court should reverse the lower court’s ruling, order a new trial and strike the punitive damages award.

Merritt and David Daleiden, founder of Center for Medical Progress, released videos in 2015 exposing Planned Parenthood’s illegal trade in aborted baby body parts, after a 30-month undercover operation. The videos showed Planned Parenthood executives haggling over prices of aborted baby body parts and discussing how they change abortion procedures to obtain more intact organs.

In 2019, the case was heard by San Francisco’s U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick III, who is the founder of the Good Samaritan Family Resource Center that houses the Planned Parenthood of Northern California facility in its complex. In 2017, the defense requested that Orrick recuse himself from the case and he refused. Judge Orrick severely restricted the evidence, and at the end, gave instructions to the jury on how they should rule on critical issues.

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

The jury decided in favor of the abortion giant on each count, including RICO, and awarded more than $2 million in damages. The court subsequently awarded Planned Parenthood nearly $14 million in attorney’s fees and costs, for a total judgment of over $16 million.

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The Supreme Court is our next destination to undo the injustice of this case. The High Court will have the final say. Every journalist and person who values free speech and a free press should be concerned with the implications of this case. We will fight for the free speech rights of all people.”

    Letter #76, 2023 Thursday, March 23: Roche    The Novus Ordo represents a “change in the theology of the Church”: Cardinal Roche    British Cardinal Arthur Roche, 73 (link) the Pope’s head of the Dicastery for Divine Worship since 2021, spoke briefly in a BBC report on Sunday, March 19 (link) on the issue of the Vatican’s limiting of the Traditional Latin Mass (abbreviated as the “TLM”) in 2021.     The BBC report also included the opinions of several British Catholics who attend and appreciate the old rite of the Mass.    Roche’s abbreviated remarks featured most prominently his claim that, in regard to the liturgy, in regard to what happens at Mass, “the theology of the Church has changed.”     This was striking, and is material for reflection.    Roche explained his viewpoint this way:     “You know, the theology of the Church has changed. Whereas before, the priest represented, at a distance, all the people — they were channeled, as it were, through this person who alone was celebrating the Mass. It is not only the priest who celebrates the liturgy, but also those who are baptized with him. And that is an enormous statement to make.”    He is right: it is an “enormous statement to make.”    Enormous, because it seems to say what very few up to now have been willing to say explicitly: that there has not been “continuity” in Catholic teaching on this matter from prior to the Council, through the Council, and after the Council, up until today, but a kind of “rupture,” a “change” in teaching.    However, it seems that it was the chief burden of Pope Benedict XVI‘s theological endeavor to express, define and defend the belief that what the Church believes about the liturgy, about the Mass, was not a rupture with the past, was not changed by the Council, but was in continuity, presenting traditional teaching at and after the Council in a way which enabled the inner, unchanging, meaning, the perennial meaning, the meaning handed down “from the beginning,” from apostolic times, of the Church’s teaching on the Mass, and the priesthood, to be presented effectively in this period of history, our present time.    Not change, but continuity.    Because it would create a theological problem to say “the teaching has changed.”    The striking thing about what Roche is saying is precisely this, that it seems to contradict the central teaching of Pope Benedict: that the new Mass is not simply a “more accessible” Mass for ordinary people in the pews (because, for example, the words are in the vernacular rather than an ancient language, Latin, that few people know) but that it actually represents a “change” in the theology of the Mass.    Is this actually what the assembled bishops at the Second Vatican Council said, or intended?     Is there any place where the Council Fathers say “we are going to have a new theology of the Mass”? (Evidently, considering what the Church had taught up to that time on the matter was in some way deficient, or incomplete.)    Is it not rather the case that Pope John XXIII and the Council Fathers said, “we would like to keep the same theology of the Mass as always, but allow the ordinary faithful to understand it better”?    And is it not the case that some of the changes made — in order to make the Mass “more accessible” — like (for example) the shift of the position of the priest, from facing the altar to facing the people, had the opposite effect from the one intended?    That is, in the old Mass, do not the people sense clearly that they indeed, along with the priest and, as it were, led by him, are, yes, participating in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice?    And is it not, rather, in the Novus Ordo, with the priest facing the people, that the assembled laity feel as if they are a passive audience at the rather unpredictable “show” that the priest presents, not according to time-honored rubrics handed down for centuries, but according to the events of the day and the whims of the particular priest?    In any case, is it not the case that Catholic theology holds that the priest is ordained to offer the very bodily sacrifice of Christ Himself, in a way that the people may participate in, but cannot accomplish without the presence of the ordained priest?    To suggest that the primary action of the ordained priest is not different from that participatory action of the people at Mass would seem not in keeping with traditional Catholic teaching on this matter; that is, it would seem to represent a change in theology… risking being a development not in keeping with perennial Catholic teaching.    Listen to the BBC report here: (link).    You must skip the first 5 minutes, and start precisely at 5:12 into the program, to hear the newsman ask Cardinal Roche about the Latin Mass, which the newsman says, quite dramatically, has become “an unexpected battleground in a Catholic culture war over the future direction of the Church.”    At 5:47, someone (evidently a priest) sings a few words from the old Latin liturgy, “vere dignum et iustum est, aequum et salutare…” (“truly worthy and just it is, fitting and helpful for salvation,” link) and then the correspondent says that, while Pope Benedict provided space for the traditional Latin Mass, Pope Francis has “changed the rules” and required bishops to seek permission from Rome before any celebration of the old Latin Mass. A Catholic speaks of the beauty of the silences in the old Mass.    The correspondent then explains how many vibrant traditional communities are being repressed.    And a priest from England who favors the celebration of the old Mass asks Pope Francis and Cardinal Roche to reverse their restrictions on the old Mass.    Catholic journalist Austen Ivereigh then defends the decision of Pope Francis, saying there are valid reasons for it.    Precisely at the 10:19 mark in this report, the correspondent introduces Cardinal Arthur Roche.    So simply begin to listen to this report by clicking in to the 10:19 mark…    Roche begins to speak at the 10:36 mark. He finishes right at the 11 minute mark. In those 24 seconds, he says the words also quoted above:    “You know, the theology of the Church has changed. Whereas before, the priest represented, at a distance, all the people — they were channeled, as it were, through this person who alone was celebrating the Mass. It is not only the priest who celebrates the liturgy, but also those who are baptized with him. And that is an enormous statement to make.”    That is the extent of his remarks. The report ends after another Catholic layman speak, at the 11:54 mark.    So, if you wish to hear the whole BBC report on the old Mass, listen from 5:12 to 11:54. If you wish to simply listen the Cardinal Roche’s words, listen from 10:36 to 11:00.    As Lifesitenews reported (link), Liturgical scholar Matthew Hazell highlighted Roche’s comments, noting that contrary to the cardinal’s claim, the teaching of the Church had not changed.    He pointed to the teaching of Pope Pius XII in his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei, in which the pontiff outlined the Catholic teaching on the congregation uniting themselves to the priest in the sacrifice of the Mass.    ”Now it is clear that the faithful offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest from the fact that the minister at the altar, in offering a sacrifice in the name of all His members, represents Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. Hence the whole Church can rightly be said to offer up the victim through Christ…. The fact, however, that the faithful participate in the eucharistic sacrifice does not mean that they also are endowed with priestly power. It is very necessary that you make this quite clear to your flocks… Now the faithful participate in the oblation, understood in this limited sense, after their own fashion and in a twofold manner, namely, because they not only offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest, but also, to a certain extent, in union with him. It is by reason of this participation that the offering made by the people is also included in liturgical worship…” (Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 1947)    The Lifesitenews report also contains further discussion of these matters.    —RM         

The Altar of Wokeism

By: Judd Garrett

Objectivity is the Objective

March 20, 2023

In a recent episode of HBO’s series, The Last of Us, the viewer is presented with an ethical question, would you sacrifice a child to save the world? In the show, a fourteen-year-old girl named, Ellie, has developed an immunity to a virus that has been infecting the brains of people and turning them into flesh-eating zombies. A doctor wants to use Ellie’s immunity to create a vaccine against the deadly virus to save humanity, but extracting her brain to create the cure would kill Ellie. So, what would you do? Would you kill the young girl to save humanity, or protect the girl and allow humanity to perish? There are several ways of thinking about this question. Is it justified to kill one to save many? Should you never commit a wrong under any circumstance regardless of the good it may produce? Should children ever be sacrificed to save others? Some primitive cultures in human history have sacrificed the innocent to the gods for certain worldly gains. 

We saw this play itself out in real time a few years ago when children were sacrificed on the altar of Covid. Child sacrifice has become commonplace in our society. Some people are actively using children to satisfy their narcissistic desire “to save the world”. Now they are sacrificing children on the altar of wokeness. Over 800,000 babies are aborted each year in America and that practice has been glorified by the left. It is seen as liberating to women to be able to kill their babies. So, we must allow the sacrifice of babies to achieve equality for women. The Lancet magazine published an article a few years ago entitled, Abortion is a Moral Good, and they quoted scripture out of context trying to gain a moral grounding for the practice of murdering babies. Oscar-winning actress, Jane Fonda, recently went so far as to advocate for women to murder the pro-life activists who are trying to save the lives of their children from the abortionist abattoir. 

Children are being sacrificed throughout modern Western culture, to promote the moral good of inclusiveness for all lifestyles. The woke are sexualizing young children to that end. They hold drag queen story hours for 5 and 6-year-old kids and put pornographic books in elementary school libraries. Some people are promoting surgeries for minors to have their sexual organs removed without the consent of their parents. And the people advocating for all of this are not some fringe group that is immediately dismissed by mainstream America. They have become mainstream. It is the people fighting to protect children who have become the fringe of our culture, who are painted as villains. Today in Western culture, the immoral want to pass off their immorality as moral under the false principle of tolerance. 

The moral dilemma of sacrificing one to save humanity assumes that humanity is worth saving. But is humanity even worth saving? I’m not talking about individual people whom we know and love, but the totality of humanity. And this is not a question from the perspective of the green activists who see humans as a scourge to the earth because we abuse the environment, so they want to eliminate humanity to save the environment that no human then will ever experience again because they were eliminated to save it. 

Humanity is a scourge to the world because of our abuses of one another. Look around the world and see how human beings treat one another. 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases; 3.1 million of those deaths are of children, yet millions of people live in wasteful opulence while millions starve to death. There are over 20 million people worldwide living in slavery, and not only is nothing done about it, but very few also speak of it. China has imprisoned millions of Uyghurs in concentration camps, and every day the Western World purchases and uses the products that China produces through slave and forced labor. And anyone who criticizes China becomes the villain.

Hundreds of thousands of people are killed every year in wars around the world. Currently, there are 57 ongoing wars between countries, and 26 of these armed conflicts have been going on for 25 to 100 years. Over 400,000 people are murdered each year throughout the world. Over 300,000 women are raped every year.

There are 11.8 million deaths worldwide attributed to substance abuse each year. Over one hundred thousand Americans die of overdoses every year from drugs produced by the Chinese government and imported into this country with the help of the Mexican government and the consent of the United States government. This means that some people and governments purposely producing and profiting from drugs that they know will kill hundreds of thousands of people, and they do it anyway. And most people in America and around the world, do not care.  

In 2020, there were 10,172 terrorist attacks worldwide, and 29,389 people were killed by terrorism. Every day, 13 Christians around the world are killed because of their faith, 12 churches or Christian buildings are attacked, and 12 Christians are unjustly arrested or imprisoned each day. 

I could go on and on with example after example. So, the question is not would you sacrifice a child to save humanity, but why would we save humanity when humans continue inflicting so much pain and suffering on the rest of humanity? Wouldn’t the humane thing to do be to allow humanity to go extinct, putting us out of our misery? Wouldn’t that alleviate the most suffering? 

Are humans basically good or bad? There are good people in the world, no question about it, but how hard are the good fighting the evil in the world? How hard are they fighting what the devil is imparting on the world? In many aspects, we have partnered with the devil, and we have become complicit in his work. We have sacrificed our morals and standards far too often in exchange for a false semblance of peace and comfort. The devil is achieving victories in our culture and our society every day, and these are not hard-fought victories. We are merely ceding the ground to him uncontested. Somehow, he has been able to convince much of humanity that doing his will is the virtuous and morally correct thing to do. That is what woke is – the devil pawning off his immorality to us as virtue. 

Christians believe that God sacrificed his only begotten son to bring eternal salvation to a fallen world. Even with all that is wrong with humanity, we don’t need to sacrifice an innocent to save humanity. We can save humanity, and at the same time, make humanity worth saving by changing the way we treat one another. Not only do we need to be kinder, more caring, more generous, and more self-sacrificing to one another, but we also need to be more moral and more principled, more willing to stand up for what is right against what the devil and his minions are trying to inflict on the world.

In the end, humanity is worth saving, but we need to focus on the entirety of humanity, not just the physical bodies, but also the soul of humanity. What would be the point of saving the human race from extinction if the soul of humanity is corrupted? What would be the point of saving a soul only for it to become the minion of the devil? So, wokeism is the brain-infecting virus that turns human beings into the people devouring zombies of the left. And the antidote to this rising wokeism can only be found when we stand up for our morals, our principles, and our standards. We must save the soul of humanity as well as the body.

Donald Trump Moves to End Georgia Election Probe

By

 Madeleine Jackson 

– 

 March 20, 2023 

0

Former President Donald Trump is moving to put an end to the ongoing Georgia election probe.

On Monday, Trump’s legal team made a filing seeking to bar the use of any evidence presented to a grand jury reviewing the matter, according to The Hill.

THE MONDAY FILING SEEKS TO BLOCK USE OF A REPORT FROM A GRAND JURY ON THE MATTER, BAR FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY FANI WILLIS’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE, AND ATTACKS A SERIES OF INTERVIEWS GIVEN BY JURY FOREWOMAN EMILY KOHRS.

In a 50-page filing in a Fulton County court, Trump’s attorneys blasted the investigation as “confusing, flawed, and, at times, blatantly unconstitutional.”

“GIVEN THE SCRUTINY AND THE GRAVITY OF THE INVESTIGATION AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED — NAMELY THE MOVANT DONALD J. TRUMP, THIS PROCESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED CORRECTLY, FAIRLY, AND WITH DEFERENCE TO THE LAW AND THE HIGHEST ETHICAL STANDARDS,” ATTORNEYS JENNIFER LITTLE, DREW FINDLING, AND MARISSA GOLDBERG WROTE IN THE FILING.

Last month, Great America News Desk reported that the Georgia grand jury recommended indictments against multiple individuals. So far, no indictments have come from the probe but forewoman Kohrs seemed to indicate Trump, and others could expect to be charged.

“It is not a short list,” the forewoman Kohrs said in an interview.

This story is breaking. Click refresh for the latest updates.

• TAGS
• DONALD TRUMP
• GEORGIA INVESTIGATION

Previous articleHouse Speaker Responds to News of Potential Trump Indictment

Madeleine Jackson

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

What did a Disciple of the Apostle St. John who Jesus made the son of His Mother Mary on the cross say about Jesus, Mary and Joseph vs. Satan?

March 19, 2023

What did a disciple of the Apostle St. John who Jesus made the son of His Mother Mary on the cross say about the Holy Family vs. Satan?

 The disciple of St. John named St. Ignatius (30-107) wrote:

“[U]nknown to thee [Satan]; the virginity of Mary; the wonderful birth; Who it was that became incarnate… the removal into Egypt and return from that country to the same region… the name [Joseph] of the father given to Him who did not beget.”
(The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians, Chap. VIII. – Continuation: Ignorance of Satan, American Reprint of Edinburgh Edition)

God the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, choose to defeat Satan by blinding him in ignorance of Jesus’ Incarnation, Mary’s Virginity and Joseph’s Name as well as by the saint’s protection of the Holy Family.

One of the best book on St. Joseph is titled “Joseph, Shadow of the Father” by Fr. Andrew Doze.

I think that the general thesis of Doze’s book is correct:

Which is that devotion to Our Lady, as being the best way to Jesus, can’t be separated from devotion to St. Joseph.

Fr. Doze who was a chaplain at Lourdes wrote it is through St. Joseph that we “experience” Jesus through Mary:

“St. John of the Cross [wrote]… ‘God grants her [Mary] the favor of attaining to being deiform and united in the Most Holy Trinity, wherein she becomes God by participation, how is it a thing incredible that she should perform her work of understanding, knowledge and love in the Trinity, together with It, like the Trinity Itself, by a mode of participation, which God effects in the soul Itself?'”9

“It pleased God that Joseph should be the first to have experienced these wonders in Mary. As for us, it is in Joseph and Mary that we are called to experience them.”
(Saint Joseph: Shadow of the Father, Pages 83-84 and Footnote 9: The Complete Works of St. John of the Cross, Spiritual Canticle, 38, vol. 2, p. 160)

Next, here is St. Francis de Sales’s hard to find St. Joseph prayer:

Render Possible for us the most Impossible Things

“Glorious St. Joseph, spouse of Mary, grant us thy paternal protection, we beseech thee by the Heart of Jesus Christ. O thou whose power extends to all our necessities and can render possible for us the impossible things, open thy fatherly eyes to the needs of thy children.”

“In the trouble and distress which afflicts us, we confidently have recourse to thee. Deign to take under your charitable charge this important and difficult matter, cause of our worries. Makes its happy outcome be for God’s glory and for the good of His devoted servants. Amen.”

If you are troubled in any way remember to go to the humble Joseph because he and Mary are the Royal Road of King David to Jesus who can’t resist their requests because he loves them so much and because of the Commandment to honor your parents.

Lastly, the great scholar Fr. Doze said go to St. Joseph who listened to the Voice of  God through the angels of God.

In this confusing times of the Francis Crisis go to Joseph and he will help you even if you are confused and don’t understand at the moment what to do:

“Normally, one understands and then does; in the case of Joseph, one does and then understands.”

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html 

 –  LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”

–  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”

– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes: 

– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html

– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1

– A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1

What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”:
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1] 

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.

Pray an Our Father now for America.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.SHARE