Fr. Rutler’s Weekly Column January 5, 2020

Who the “Wise Men” were is a recurring question for inventive debate, but the point is that these sophisticated scholars were from “a foreign country.”    Here in Manhattan, tourists can be annoying when they stop suddenly to look at a novel sight. But they also do us the favor of noticing what we take for granted. Those Magi from a foreign land pointed out that the locals had missed the greatest event in history. They also wisely distrusted King Herod (his heir Archelaus was even worse, as Saint Joseph knew), and so they ignored him. When Herod found out that a child had come into the world who threatened his complacency, he set out to destroy him, killing many innocents in the attempt.    Christians must always be tourists in this earthly realm, pointing out the wonders that others take for granted. That can be threatening to many. True Christians disturb the settled ways of a culture. People who succumb to the insanity of sin will accuse Christians of madness. That is how we get martyrs, as happened a couple of weeks ago in Nigeria when Muslims killed eleven Christians. Such hostility was an expression of the killers’ conviction that Jesus Christ brought madness into the world.    In  a 1959 ”Twilight Zone” television episode called “Eye of the Beholder,” some exceedingly ugly people unsuccessfully perform plastic surgery on a beautiful woman, thinking that she is the one who is ugly. In our decaying culture, there are those who think that history’s Perfect Man was ugly and that those who are like him should be crucified one way or another, usually by ridicule and censorship. The media and demagogic politicians do this as a habit.    In recent days, a woman in Britain gave birth, although she was bearded after hormonal treatments that made her appear as the man she had “transitioned” to be twelve years before. Her partner is “non-binary”—which means neither male nor female, and the “sperm donor” was a man who thinks he is a woman, while the obstetrician, according to vague reports, was either a man who claims to be a woman or a woman who claims to be a man.    Thus, our rattled culture poses a dilemma: either these people are mentally ill, or Christians are. And this is not confined to the esoteric. An Ivy League institution has just mailed forms to alumni, asking them to choose the descriptive pronoun they prefer. This gives new meaning to “institution.” And this is why sane voices increasingly are banned from speaking in such places, because the function of prophets is to point out that inmates are running the asylum.    Observant souls never take for granted the sanity Christ brought into the world. Salvation means sanity. “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints” (1 Corinthians 14:33). Faithfully yours in Christ, Father George W. Rutler

Dear Bishop Rene Henry, My husband and I are happy to announce the arrival of our son, Peter Joseph! Giving birth was the most intense and empowering physical and mental experience of my life – empowering in the truest sense of the word.I am forever amazed at the capacity and privilege God has given women to be mothers, and the power of our bodies to bring a new, precious life into the world. To every single mama reading this: Wow. I am in awe of you. Before my amazement was mostly intellectual; now it is visceral. No two births are the same, just like no two women or babies are the same, and everyone’s birth story is different.I don’t know how, but God gave me the strength of mind and body to do it. His design is incredible and we are all capable of more than we know.More than ever I am convinced of how important this work is to defend preborn children in the womb – and grateful to stand alongside you. Thank you for sharing in my joy! Lila Sent from my iPhone

JANUARY 3, 2020

The Fox or the Child

PETE JERMANN

CRISIS MAGAZINE

The purpose of the modern critique of Catholic sexual morality is not to redefine sexual ethics but to un-moralize (de-moralize?) all forms of sexual expression, i.e., to give our sexual desires free rein unencumbered by guilt or responsibility. In an age where our goodness is determined by feelings of goodness about ourselves, this makes perfect sense. Yet, one would think Catholic bishops educated in the traditions and doctrines of the Church would clearly see through the false promise of such thinking. However, this is not the case.

In a recent announcement reported by the Catholic News Agency (Dec. 12, 2019), the German bishops’ conference announced a “Synodal Process” which will examine the Church’s teaching on sexual morality. The bishops’ statement indicates, “There was consensus on the question that human sexuality encompasses a dimension of lust [per Google translation—perhaps “desire” would be a better translation], reproduction and relationship.” The bishops’ statement affirms that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are “normal forms of sexual predisposition.” The synod will not only address whether the Church’s teachings banning homosexual practices are up to date, but also those regarding contraception and second marriages.

Common to the modern critique and the bishops’ statement is the error of raising the accidents of our sexuality, i.e., desire and relationship, to parity with the essence of sexuality, i.e., reproduction. But even “reproduction” clinically renders the personal impersonal. Our sexuality is not about “I” but the creation of others who can also claim their own “I.” It is about children, children with names and lives of their own, children made—with our participation—in God’s image.

Our sexuality is the only part of our biology that is not about ourselves but about another. This is not theology, but basic science. Our sexuality necessarily includes pleasure, otherwise humanity would have ceased to exist shortly after it had begun. The fact that pleasure serves the end of reproduction is basic biology. Furthermore, children require parents with stable and even loving relationships. The troubled lives of many children in our modern world should make this clear. Sexual desire promotes relationships that are ordered toward and serve the telos of our sexuality, which is not mere reproduction but successful reproduction. We are biologically designed to produce and nurture children until they can survive on their own. Based only on our desire for the pleasure and not the product, modern “sexuality” has elevated the accidents of desire and relationship above the essence of reproduction. Only in recognizing and separating the essential from the accidental can any discussion lead to truth.

It is only with the child front and center that we can see that our sexual behavior cannot be separated from morality. Morals are not theological strictures but necessary guidelines that allow us to live with one another. Morals recognize the essential relational nature of man. The essence of any moral code is good community based on good human relationships. Underpinning morality is the idea that we are meant to live together in mutually beneficial ways. Those who reject the sexual morality of the Catholic Church do not reject morality, but an application of it that stands between them and good feelings. In its place they have put a morality more stringent and less tolerant than anything the Church has ever proposed. This new morality defines sin as anything that challenges the belief one has in their own goodness. This requires that sexual acts be removed from the strictures of morality. In doing so it removes the personhood of the child as a member of the human community. It renders the child invisible.

The enemy standing between modern man and his un-moralized sexual expression is not the Catholic church but the invisible child crying to be seen. It is the child we hurt when we live our sexuality wrongly. The child is the foundation stone that gives meaning to Catholic sexual morality. However, the concept of sexual morality requires more than a child victim; it requires men and women who can know themselves as responsible for the harm done. When a fox kills a chicken, he simply does what a fox does. He does not know the chicken is worthy of existence. He does not know himself as one capable of considering the chicken’s worth. In fact, we can simply state that the fox does not even know himself. There is no self-reflective “I” that allows him to objectively consider himself and his actions. When a fox mates, he lives out an urge, not a desire for children. He cannot connect the act of copulation with the consequence of little foxes. He does not know as human beings—to whom the use of “I” is second nature—can know.

How we live our sexuality is moral because we can know our sexuality’s purpose is another life. We also know we are not the fox but a human who can see his desires, see where they lead, and choose an action based on those reflections: we can separate desire from act. The very essence of our humanity is the ability to judge our desires as worthy or unworthy. Many parents (probably all parents) have known the desire to seriously harm their children. Fortunately, most parents reasonably overwhelm their desires and do the right thing. No matter what our position on sexuality, we all understand that desire and act are necessarily separated. A man attacked and beaten on the streets is not likely to consider the attacker’s gratification—no matter how passionately it was desired—as justification for his crime.

This begs the question: what is the difference between the man beaten on the street and the child conceived without due consideration? Do the intensity and longing of sexual desires reduce us to the fox where desire and act are no longer separate? Why should acts rising from sexual desire be exempt from moral consideration in a way other desires are not? The difference, I surmise, is that the victim of our other desires can loudly object while the victims of our sexual desires cannot.

However, the violence to the man beaten pales in comparison to the violence visited upon the child. How many of us can imagine our safety violated by a suction tube that dismembers us and, literally, sucks the life from us? How many of us would choose to be born into a family where we are unloved? How many of us would have wanted to see the security and love we should have had as children torn apart by the quarrels and ultimate divorce of our parents? How many of us would have chosen to have our parents embark on “finding” themselves while losing us in the process? A random beating by a stranger is a cakewalk compared to betrayal by those who should love you. The fox kills and eats the chicken because he can. His nature bears no consideration for the chicken, and his power prevails. Have we become the fox and the child the chicken?

To be human is to be moral. Ultimately, we choose or reject our humanity, and in doing so we choose or reject the moral life. In choosing the moral life we begin to see ourselves as the humans we are meant to be. We see ourselves as part of a larger community that not only includes those present, but those past and future. Rather than inverting our sexuality into ourselves, we will see that it calls us to something more. We will understand that every act of virtue brings all in this larger community toward goodness, and every lapse of virtue pulls us all down. We will see that the pornography we watched in dark and solitary silence in the east contributed to an abortion in the distant west. We will see that contraception reduces our personhood as males and females and breaks the bonds of a one-flesh union, a union our children require unbroken. We will see that contraception requires abortion to “fix” its failures. We will see that all “sexual” acts that are not ordered and open to life perpetuate the scandal that our sexuality is about ourselves. We will see the children we have hurt both now and to come.

On the other hand, we will also see the joy of a child conceived in and born into love. We will see each other as people endowed with the ability to create others. We will love each other as people who could be parents. Our love will ensure that we only become parents when we are truly ready to be one flesh, when we can conceive a child in the self-giving love of a man and a woman, and when we can bring that child into a family already united in love. When we truly see this, we will see that to live the chaste life is to participate in the joy of every child conceived in and born into love. We will see the communion of man and God, and we will begin to understand the feast to which all are invited and where all joy is fully shared.

Catholic sexual morality is not a metric by which we are judged. It is an invitation to participate in something larger than ourselves. We are not called to do good but, rather, to become goodness itself. The invitation of Catholic sexual morality does not discriminate. It is open to all. It offers the same joy to all, whether they accept it early in the day or at the end of the day.

When the German bishops meet to re-evaluate Catholic sexual morality, I hope they will know it is an invitation to heaven they will be rewriting. I hope they will remember that we are not the fox. And I hope they will see the child.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Tagged as Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Germany, synodal journey28

By Pete Jermann

Pete Jermann is a self-employed craftsman and former homeschooling father.

Thursday, January 02, 2020

Canon Law Expert: How to Write to the Cardinals about Francis without getting Excommunicated?

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/01/canon-law-expert-how-to-write-to.html?m=1

Canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s advice on how to writing letters to the cardinals without risking “any possible canonical counter-attack on the grounds of schism, heresy or the violation of canon law, because as you can see from the cases of the Scottish Hermits and Father Minutella and Dr. Galat, the Bergoglians are very quick on the excommunication tactic”:

Regarding the suggestion to write an old fashioned letter to all the Cardinals, that is doable. But I think it would have no effect, unless we can muster a good number of names of canonists, theologians, clergy and even perhaps some bishops as signatories.

I think I can write an acceptible letter, but it would then have to be discussed among the potential signatories, becuase you wont get a good number to sign, unless they all agree. And I am not yet sure there are that many who understand Canon 332.2 or the principles of Divine and Apostolic Right in a time of necessity.

So to gather the Cardinals to do something, and not just the Cardinals, because the Bishops actually have a stronger right, since it is only necessary that one Cardinal declare the See impeded and ask the College of Bishops to intervene, we do not actually have to convince 40 to 70 Cardinals.

But it must be done in such a way as to avoid any possible canonical counter-attack on the grounds of schism, heresy or the violation of canon law, because as you can see from the cases of the Scottish Hermits and Father Minutella and Dr. Galat, the Bergoglians are very quick on the excommunication tactic to destroy reputations and prevent actions of true Catholic dialogue.

So the first step would be a general petition, such as,

I the undersigned believe that it is now opportune that the Cardinals and/or Bishops discuss the problems in the Church which are emanating from the Vatican, for there, there is a man who was elected pope, who still comports himself as a pope but does not govern the Church since he renounced the ministry, and then there is another man who was elected pope, who does not comport himself as a pope but attacks the Deposit of the Faith.

Such a statement should be acceptable to all Catholics, and avoid any canonical reprisals. From the list of who signs we assemble a list of the experts who agree on that first step and then prepare a formal letter to all the Cardinals and then to all the Bishops.

Sincerely in Saint Francis,repairer of Christ’s Church,

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/12/br-buguolo-has-been-tasked-by-bishop.html?m=1 ]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.Fred Martinez at 4:57 PMShare

Thursday, January 02, 2020

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/01/canon-law-expert-how-to-write-to.html?m=1

Canon Law Expert: How to Write to the Cardinals about Francis without getting Excommunicated?

Canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s advice on how to writing letters to the cardinals without risking “any possible canonical counter-attack on the grounds of schism, heresy or the violation of canon law, because as you can see from the cases of the Scottish Hermits and Father Minutella and Dr. Galat, the Bergoglians are very quick on the excommunication tactic”:

Regarding the suggestion to writ is only necessary that one Cardinal declare the See impeded and ask the College of Bishops to intervene, we do not actually have to convince 40 to 70 Cardinals.

But it must be done in such a way as to avoid any possible canonical counter-attack on the grounds of schism, heresy or the violation of canon law, because as you can see from the cases of the Scottish Hermits and Father Minutella and Dr. Galat, the Bergoglians are very quick on the excommunication tactic to destroy reputations and prevent actions of true Catholic dialogue.

So the first step would be a general petition, such as,

I the undersigned believe that it is now opportune that the Cardinals and/or Bishops discuss the problems in the Church which are emanating from the Vatican, for there, there is a man who was elected pope, who still comports himself as a pope but does not govern the Church since he renounced the ministry, and then there is another man who was elected pope, who does not comport himself as a pope but attacks the Deposit of the Faith.

Such a statement should be acceptable to all Catholics, and avoid any canonical reprisals. From the list of who signs we assemble a list of the experts who agree on that first step and then prepare a formal letter to all the Cardinals and then to all the Bishops.

Sincerely in Saint Francis,repairer of Christ’s Church,

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/12/br-buguolo-has-been-tasked-by-bishop.html?m=1 ]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.Fred Martinez at 4:57 PM

\

Decade in review: Marital norms erode

The transformation of our legal system as to marriage was rapid and top-down. Changes in law brought changes in culture, and they’re not all rainbows.

Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George

Opinion contributors

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/01/decade-same-sex-gay-marriage-timeline-transgender-consequences-column/2776564001/

A decade ago, President Barack Obama affirmed that marriage unites a man and woman. So did 45 states and the federal government. The only states to redefine marriage had done so through activist court rulings or, in 2009, legislative action. At the ballot box, citizens had uniformly voted against redefinition. A majority agreed with Obama.

Then, in 2012, Obama “evolved,” and the Supreme Court took cases involving marriage law. Nothing in the Constitution answered the actual question at hand: What is marriage? The court should have left the issue to the people. But in 2013, it struck down the federal definition of marriage as a male-female union in a 5-4 ruling.

The court also punted on a challenge to a state definition of marriage adopted in a 2008 constitutional referendum by which a majority of Californians — yes, Californians — overturned an activist court. Only in 2015 did the Supreme Court, breaking 5-4 again, redefine marriage for the nation, provoking four irrefutable dissents.

Same-sex marriage advocates told the public that they sought only the “freedom to marry.” Same-sex couples were already free to live as they chose, but legal recognition was about the definition of marriage for all of society. It was about affirmation — by the government and everyone else.

It’s unsurprising that once a campaign that used to cry “live and let live” prevailed, it began working to shut down Catholic adoption agencies and harass evangelical bakers and florists. This shows it was never really about “live and let live” — that was a merely tactical stance.

Family, marriage — redefined

While these were the early effects of redefinition, the more profound consequences will be to marriage itself. Law shapes culture; culture shapes beliefs; beliefs shape action. The law now effectively teaches that mothers and fathers are replaceable, that marriage is simply about consenting adult relationships, of whatever formation the parties happen to prefer. This undermines the truth that children deserve a mother and a father — one of each.

It also undercuts any reasonable justification for marital norms. After all, if marriage is about romantic connection, why require monogamy? There’s nothing magical about the number two, as defenders of “polyamory” point out. If marriage isn’t a conjugal union uniting a man and a woman as one flesh, why should it involve or imply sexual exclusivity? If it isn’t a comprehensive union inherently ordered to childbearing and rearing, why should it be pledged to permanence?

Marriage redefiners could not answer these questions when challenged to show that the elimination of sexual complementarity did not undermine other marital norms. Today, they increasingly admit that they have no stake in upholding norms of monogamy, exclusivity and permanence.

Same-sex marriage didn’t create these problems. Many in America had unwisely already gone along with the erosion of marital norms in the wake of the sexual revolution — with the rise of cohabitation, nonmarital childbearing, no-fault divorce and the hookup culture. It was no surprise that many would then question the relevance of the male-female norm. Legal redefinition is a consequence of the cultural breakdown of marriage.

Monogamy is old news

But same-sex marriage is a catalyst for further erosion. Already, we see respectable opinion-makers mainstreaming “throuples,” “ethical nonmonogamy” and “open relationships.” This was predictable; we and others predicted it.

Something we didn’t predict are the headlines about transgender and nonbinary “identities.” A decade ago, few Americans had given much thought to the “T” in “LGBT.” Today, transgender identity seems to dominate the discussion of sexuality and sexual morality.

There’s a logic here. If we can’t see the point of our sexual embodiment where it matters most — in marriage — we’ll question whether it matters at all. Hence the push to see gender as “fluid” and existing along a “spectrum” of nonbinary options.

There’s a deeper logic, too. Implicit in the push for same-sex marriage was body-self dualism — the idea that we’re actually nonphysical entities inhabiting physical bodies, or ghosts in machines. That’s why the “plumbing” in sexual acts seemed not to matter.

True one-flesh union, the foundation of conjugal marriage, was thought illusory. What mattered was emotional union and partners’ use of their bodies to induce desirable sensations and feelings. Of course, two men or two women (or throuples or even larger sexual ensembles) could do that. But the logic didn’t stay with marriage. If the body is mere plumbing, then sex matters less than identity.

This has had tragic consequences, especially for children.

Children burdened by our mistakes 

Nearly unthinkable a decade ago, certain medical professionals tell children experiencing gender dysphoria that they are trapped in the wrong body, even that their bodies are merely like Pop-Tarts foil packets, as one expert explained. 

Some doctors now prescribe puberty-blocking drugs to otherwise healthy children struggling to accept their bodies. They prescribe cross-sex hormones for young teens to transform their bodies to align with their gender identities.

As part of a government grant-supported study, doctors even performed double mastectomies on adolescent girls — including two 13-year-olds. 

Discrimination isn’t dead:Trump’s anti-transgender memo would hurt teens like me. I’m hoping my state protects me.

A national policy epidemic:My daughter thinks she’s transgender. Her public school undermined my efforts to help her.

These changes weren’t grassroots movements. They’ve come from people wielding political, economic and cultural power to advance sexual-liberationist ideology. The change has been top down — from Hollywood’s portrayal of LGBT characters to business executives boycotting states over religious-freedom laws. Having lost at the ballot box over and over — even in California — activists found new avenues: ideologically friendly courts, federal agencies, big corporations.

Having secured a judicial redefinition of marriage, they pivoted to the “T,” with the Obama administration redefining “sex” to mean “gender identity” and imposing a new policy on all schools.

And having won government support, activists turned to eliminating private dissent. Former presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke wants to yank the tax-exemption of noncompliant churches. Megadonor Tim Gill vows to spend his fortunes to “punish the wicked.” Who are “the wicked”? Those who refuse to accept the new sexual orthodoxy.

All of us, including those identifying as LGBT, are made in God’s image, are endowed with profound dignity and thus deserve respect. It’s because of this dignity and out of such respect that the institutions serving the human good — like the marriage-based family — should be supported, not undermined or redefined. That basic rights like religious freedom ought to be upheld, not infringed. That a healthy moral and physical ecology — especially for children — must be preserved.

The “progress” of the past decade has exacted steep costs.

Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and the founder and editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute. Follow him on Twitter: @RyanTand

Robert P. George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. Follow him on Twitter: @McCormickProf

COMMENTARY Share Tweet Email Print

Ted Cruz Thoroughly Debunks Buttigieg’s Lie About the Founding Fathers and Slavery

Ted Cruz Destroys Pete Buttigieg’s Awful LieVolume 0% By Randy DeSoto

https://www.westernjournal.com/ted-cruz-thoroughly-debunks-buttigiegs-lie-founding-fathers-slavery/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=CVBreaking&utm_campaign=wj-breaking&utm_content=libertyalliance
Published January 1, 2020 at 5:30pmShare on FacebookTweetEmailPrint

GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas set former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg straight regarding whether America’s founders understood the immorality of slavery and sought to address it.

Speaking to schoolchildren during a public television program in 2014, Buttigieg said, “It’s an embarrassing thing to admit, but the people who wrote the Constitution did not understand that slavery was a bad thing and did not respect civil rights.”

Advertisement – story continues below

“And yet they created a framework so that as the generations came to understand that that was important, they could write that into the Constitution,” he added.

Washington Examiner✔@dcexaminer

“The people who wrote the Constitution did not understand that slavery was a bad thing.”

– @PeteButtigieg1,24410:22 AM – Dec 30, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy3,957 people are talking about this

TRENDING: NFL Wide Receiver’s 6-Month-Old Son Dies Two Days After Christmas

Cruz responded with a series of tweets quoting among others John Adams and Benjamin Franklin regarding slavery. Both men helped draft the Declaration of Independence, while Franklin also participated in the Constitutional Convention.

“‘Slavery is an evil of Colossal magnitude & I am utterly averse to the admission of slavery into the Missouri Territories. It being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this country may be abolished by law.’ John Adams, founding father, 2nd POTUS,’” Cruz tweeted.

Advertisement – story continues below

“‘Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.’ Benjamin Franklin, founding father, abolitionist.”

Ted Cruz✔@tedcruz · Dec 30, 2019Replying to @tedcruz

2/x “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.” Benjamin Franklin, founding father, abolitionist

Ted Cruz✔@tedcruz

3/x “…Neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity.” Benjamin Franklin, founding father, abolitionist6,3046:08 PM – Dec 30, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy1,614 people are talking about this

“Neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity,” Cruz further quoted Franklin as saying.

Following the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Franklin became president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which focused on ending slavery primarily beyond the state’s borders, since the state had already voted for abolition during the Revolutionary War in 1780.

In his last official public act before his death, Franklin released a statement in 1789 condemning slavery and urging his countrymen to work for its demise within the United States.

Advertisement – story continues below

Most all the states north of the Mason-Dixon line had voted to abolish slavery by end of the Revolutionary War in 1783. By 1804, all the northern states had passed legislation ending slavery.

Buttigieg must not have even read the Constitution, because the document contains two decidedly anti-slavery provisions as part of a compromise between the Northern and the much more heavily slave-owning Southern states.

RELATED: Lib-Run NY Facing Loss of Congressional Seats as Residents Flee to Other States

The Constitution specifically authorized the federal government to ban the importation of slaves in 1808 (approximately 20 years from the date the document was ratified).

Congress did so in 1808, and President Thomas Jefferson signed the bill into law.

Advertisement – story continues below

James Madison explained in Federalist 54 that the word “person” was intentionally used in the Constitution to refer to those held in slavery to make the point they should be regarded as a “moral person, not as a mere article of property.”

A further compromise that the founders reached was counting three-fifths of the state’s slave population when calculating the overall population for determining how many representatives a state would have in Congress.

The southern states wanted to count their entire slave population for representation purposes, but the northern states did not allow it.

The impact was to lessen the number of votes slaveholding interests held the House of Representatives.

Advertisement – story continues below

Both of these constitutional provisions were a recognition that slavery was a present evil, but not something many of the founders wanted to see continue in perpetuity.

Finally, one other triumph in the fight against slavery during the founding period took place right across the street from the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

The Continental Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance, which established the laws governing the territorial land encompassing the future states of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin. The ordinance outlawed the introduction of slavery in the territory.

Three years earlier, a similar provision failed to pass in the Ordinance of 1784 by a single vote. That ordinance was the law governing all territorial lands, before passage of the Northwest Ordinance superseded it in the northern territorial lands.

Advertisement – story continues below

Jefferson, who had penned the provision making slavery illegal in the Ordinance, lamented, “Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and heaven was silent in that awful moment! But it is to be hoped it will not always be silent and that the friends to the rights of human nature will in the end prevail.”

Abraham Lincoln argued many steps taken by the founders showed they wanted to put slavery on the path to extinction.

Do you think Americans should be proud of the nation’s founders?

Yes
No

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. 

In an 1854 speech in Peoria, Illinois, Lincoln said, “The argument of ‘Necessity’ was the only argument [the founders] ever admitted in favor of slavery; and so far, and so far only as it carried them, did they ever go. They found the institution existing among us, which they could not help; and they cast blame upon the British King for having permitted its introduction.”

Advertisement – story continues below

There seems to be this widespread belief promulgated by Democrats like Buttigieg and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York that the framers somehow were pro-slavery, forgetting that its existence in the 13 original British colonies predated the Declaration of Independence by over 150 years.

To give some perspective, that’s like blaming our current generation for any wrongful actions taken by the government during the Civil War era in the 1860s.

The founders knew slavery was evil and took significant steps to delegitimize it and place it on a path they hoped would lead to its demise.

America was founded on powerful and true ideals, and that is the reason it has become the greatest and freest country on earth.

Advertisement – story continues below

Portions of this article first appeared in “We Hold These Truths” by Randall DeSoto.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.Submit a Correction
Share on FacebookTweetEmailPrint

Randy DeSotoSenior Staff WriterSummary More Info Recent Posts ContactRandy DeSoto has written more than 1,000 articles for The Western Journal since he joined the company in 2015. He is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.” @RandyDeSoto

Barnhardt

Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta.

My Prediction for ARSH 2020…

My only prediction for ARSH 2020 is that the Asian woman-beating scandal which is now being called “the BRUJAJA” (Broo-ha-ha), will go down in history as “the beginning of the end” of the Bergoglian Antipapacy.  Beating a non-white woman while literally calling her a b*tch makes Antipope Bergoglio such a toxic liability even among the Soros-Communist-SJW contingent that the boys at the Grand Lodge, Foggy Bottom/Langley and Brussels will “allow” Antipope Bergoglio to “resign”.  At this point, I suspect the ultimatum will be given to him to “salvage what is left of your reputation” or else his Puppetmasters will finish the job – because they TOTALLY have dirt on Antipope Bergoglio.  Enough to bury multiple bodies and cremation urns.

The urgency with which the Bergoglian Antipapacy must be publicly recognized, and Pope Benedict’s continuing status as the one and only living Pope grows by the day.  IF Antipope Bergoglio is made to “go away” and another false, totally invalid conclave is called (because the See is still occupied by Pope Benedict XVI and thus it is ontologically impossible for a valid conclave to be called – see Canon 359), we are going to end up with another Antipope who will be DECADES younger.  This situation MUST be fixed completely and totally, at the root of the problem – Pope Benedict’s failed partial resignation of ARSH 2013, and it has to be done NOW.  This business of sitting around like a bunch of doughy, whiney, effeminate losers mewling about how “there’s no hope” and “no one is going to do anything anyway” and “this has never happened before so there is no path forward” has to end.  Not only are there multiple paths forward, but most of them are, as is so often the case, extremely SIMPLE.  All that is required is ONE MAN to voluntarily take up his cross and be willing to lose earthly “false treasure”.  One 60 second statement to the press, recorded on a phone and uploaded to the internet, could change the course of history INSTANTLY.

Please join me, if you haven’t already, in praying and fasting the “Matthew 17:20 Initiative“:

1.  That Bergoglio be publicly acknowledged and removed as Antipope, and the entire Antipapacy be declared null.

2.  That Pope Benedict XVI Ratinger be publicly acknowledged as having been the one and only living Pope, uninterrupted, since April ARSH 2005, whether he likes it or not.

3. That Antipope Bergoglio, after being removed, repents, reverts to Catholicism, dies in a state of grace in the fullness of time, and someday achieves the Beatific Vision.

4.  That Pope Benedict Ratzinger repents of whatever he might need to repent of, dies in a state of grace in the fullness of time, and someday achieves the Beatific Vision.

Also, please remember the little Asian lady who is clearly under the mistaken belief that Bergoglio is the Vicar of Christ.  THIS is the quintessence of scandal – doing something that could cause someone to LOSE THEIR FAITH IN Jesus Christ AND HIS HOLY CHURCH.  This woman **thinks** that the Vicar of Christ on Earth ruthlessly beat her and called her a b*tch while she was, probably, pleading for Catholics being persecuted by China.  Pray that this little lady doesn’t lose her faith, and instead soon realizes that she has played a major historical role in this Antipapacy.

I shall conclude with Paragraph 14 of Pope Leo XIII’s masterful encyclical, SAPIENTIAE CHRISTIANAE:

“To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe.

In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind.

This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good.

Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful.

After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted.

Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: “Have confidence; I have overcome the world.”

Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.

SAPIENTIAE CHRISTIANAE
Pope Leo XIII
Paragraph 14

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on January 2, ARSH 2020 by Ann Barnhardt. Bruce Jenner is a man. And furthermore I consider that islam must be destroyed.

Exposing and Recognizing Bergoglian Trolls

Jan2by The Editor

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2020/01/02/exposing-and-recognizing-bergoglian-trolls/

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

A troll is a mythical creature of Nordic folklore. J. R. R. Tolkien made them famous by including them in his books, The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings.

But on Social Media, the term “troll” has another meaning: a commentator whose intent is to disrupt, attack, insult, create division, distract, divert, etc…  Some people just have problems interacting with others, because they have a mind which has fallen into the intellectual vices of perpetual suspicion, anger, envy, jealousy, etc. etc.

But since the time Barrack Obama ran for the U.S. Presidency, trolls have become a phenomenon of paid political warfare and of state sponsored psyop. (A psyop is a person involved in psychological warfare and informational warfare.) They attack or infiltrate in such a way as to control the narrative and dupe the unsuspecting. They may appear to be enemies, but some pretend to be friends.

Pro Obama trolls were called Obots.  I think you can call a pro Bergoglian troll a Bergbot.  The suffix -bot is used because these individuals are so methodical in their attacks and so frequent in their comments across many platforms of social media, that they are either paid professionals working a full time job at doing this or are using computers running on high level Artificial Intelligence systems.

In this post, then, I want to talk about Bergbots and how to recognize them.

A typical Bergbot

Here is an example of one of the most clever Bergbots around. He is fluent in Polish, but lives somewhere in the USA. I think in Minnesota. I infer from what I know of him that he is a paid employee of either the US Democrat party or of the US State Department.

He pretends to be a trad on Gloria.TV, where one long time user reported to me that he successfully infiltrated the Polish forum and attacked every point of doctrine and historical fact which showed the Aggiornamento was run by Modernists and sodomites. He used numerous names and thus was hard to recognize. He changed them often. He did this for 5 years.

After posting some articles on Gloria.TV, the From Rome blog started to receiving comments from an individual who acts in the same way.

Recently I see him on other blogs which are linked to by the From Rome blog. And so I feel that it is my responsibility to warn everyone.

An example of how a Bergbot trolls a pro Benedict blog

Here is an example of his type of trolling.

I do not think that Benedict would ever leave the Vatican because when he resigned he recommended that the Cardinals elect his successor so that he could be free of the worry of running the Church.

Let’s enumerate all the lies he has woven into that one comment.

1. Pope Benedict
2. recommended
3. that the Cardinals
4. his successor
5. running the Church

The comment appears to refer to the Declaration, Non solum propter, of Feb. 11, 2013, However, in that declaration,

1. The man who is the Pope, inasmuch as he is the man Joseph Ratzinger, and not inasmuch as he is the Pope
2. declared
3. that those who are competent to do so
4. elect a new Supreme Pontiff.
5. because he was renouncing the ministry on account of his age

Unpacking the lies of the Bergbot

There are some important things this Bergbot has done in a single comment to contradict or alter those 5 truths.

First, he has tried to make it appear that the call for a conclave had papal backing. But the man Joseph Ratzinger has no authority to call anything. Neither does a pope have authority to call a conclave to elect another pope, since that only happens when a pope drops dead, or renounces the petrine munus.

Second, Ratzinger declared, he did not recommend. “Recommend” as a word seems innocent, but “recommend” unlike “declare” implies consent.

Third, though Ratzinger made his declaration in front of the Cardinals, he said nothing about Cardinals electing anyone. To say those who are competent to elect, could refer to the Roman Church in the absence of Cardinals or to the Cardinal Electors. But Ratzinger intentionally did not specify which. Which should be an obvious sign to everyone that he had something else in mind than what we might think.

Fourth, Ratzinger never said anything about electing his successor. He said a new supreme pontiff. “Supreme pontiff” is a term used before in reference to the Pope, but the correct canonical term for the office of the pope is Roman Pontiff. Because there can be supreme pontiffs of any organization or Church, not just the Church of Rome.

Fifth, “running the Church” implies governance. But the power of governance is attached to the office which Ratzinger never renounced, not to the ministry which he did renounce. “Running the Church” is not a concept found in the declaration of Feb. 11, 2013. But by adding it the Bergbot has implied a renunciation of office, not ministry.

Bergbot’s goals

It is important, then, to see how the Bergbot is attempting to alter the perception of reality by such a short comment.

He is trying to instill a false memory, by which you believe that the Pope validly resigned the Office of Pope and willed the election of Bergoglio by the Cardinals.

The reality is that Ratzinger renounced the petrine ministry, and added the phrase to convoke a conclave without specification of time, leaving the matter, as it were, in the air, and indeterminate.

The Cardinals if they were awake and faithful and knowledgeable about what Ratzinger said in his declaration, would have done nothing. Because it is not an act which is conformity with the norm of Canon 332 §2, it is simply the statement of an old man who is tired and has not yet said in canonical proper form what he wants to do about it.

I hope this helps you to see how important it is to monitor the comments of your blog and how important it is not to let comments which appear to be doing the same things, to be published on your blogs, even if they appear to be friendly. Trolls play on bloggers and social media sites which want to receive the affirmation which comes from a commentator taking enough time to leave a comment. This is how they weaponize social media platforms to control the narrative.

In the above example, if you reply to the Bergbot, you can see that he has an easy way out: he can claim that he was poorly informed and was speaking inexactly. And then he can lash out at you for being a nit-picker and for being inhospitable to commentators, etc. etc. I am sure you can imagine more self-righteous ways he can hide what he was trying to do. Then he will change is name, IP address and email and come back to your blog and try a different trick.

The only solution with a Bergbot is to block them permanently. But first take note of their email address and I.P. and when next you run into a suspicious commentator, see if there is any similarities.

Finally, if the problem were only with Bergbots as individuals, that would be enough. But when Catholic journalists, News Outlets and Websites start taking money from George Soros or State sponsored Psyop Organizations, then they too start playing with the memory of reality in the same way. And if you won’t accept their arguments they will also lash out at you, 24/7. Perhaps you used to read such websites.

Saint Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle …

The Fred Martinez Report

Sunday, October 26, 2008

http://thefredmartinezreport.blogspot.com/2008/10/catholic-bishops-radio-ad-could-sink.html?m=1

Catholic Bishop’s Radio Ad could Sink Obama

-To hear and download bishop Gracida’s radio ad at no charge, go to http://www.randallterry.com. To organize a press conference in your area on Thursday, October 30, go to http://www.humbleplea.com for instructions.

-Simply contact your local radio station(s), buy 10 or 20 radio ads yourself, and they can download the audio file to play on their radio station. It is truly that simple. Call your radio station(s), tell them you want to buy ads, and tell them to download the mp3 file from our web site: http://www.randallterry.com. (For those with questions, call us at 904-687-9804.)

-Catholics to Demonstrate against Obama’s Pro-abortion Agenda
Theme: “No Catholic Can in Good Conscience Vote for Obama.”

At 12 Noon, Thursday, October 30, Catholics will hold a one hour demonstration, accompanied by a press conference, echoing Bishop Gracida’s words: No Catholic can in good conscience vote for Obama, because of his radical support of child-killing.

WOW! Bishop Gracida even names names. He stated and says on the radio, for all to hear, that Barack Hussein Obama is a pro-abortion candidate” and a Catholic CANNOT vote for him.

At last a real shepherd who is not afraid to name names. As far as I know, no other bishop has used Obama’s name. If only all the bishops had the same “guts,” the killing of unborn children would soon be history. 

Get involved — release the radio ad in your area.

Bishop Rene H. Gracida for Pope.

Frank Joseph M.D.
————————————————————————-

Breaking News: Bishop Rene H. Gracida releases a radio ad that could sink Obama’s campaign. This “political light saber” is in our hands. What will we do with it?

Bishop Rene H. Gracida releases radio ad against voting for Barack Obama; Catholics Plan anti-Obama Demonstrations and Press Conferences Coast to Coast on Thursday, October 30.

By Randall A. Terry

Like millions of the faithful, I have been thrilled by the sudden and forceful rise of various Bishops’ voices against the errors decimating the hearts of the Faithful in this election cycle. I am speaking of the errors stated by Doug Kmiec (and echoed by others) that go like this: “It is time to set the record straight that it violates no aspect of Catholic teaching for a Catholic Voter to endorse, support, or vote for Barack Obama…” (Doug Kmiec, Catholic Attorney and Author, Can a Catholic Support Him?, pg 36, emphasis added.)

Anyone with “an ear to hear” clearly knows that no Catholic can vote for Obama with a clear conscience – no matter what Doug Kmiec, Roman Catholics for Obama, or any other misguided Catholic may declare. As Bishop Martino declared: “This is madness, people.”

But now – perhaps in an eleventh hour answer to prayer – Bishop Rene H. Gracida has released a stunningly clear radio ad concerning Catholics voting for Barack Obama.

He boldly states:

“This is Bishop Rene H. Gracida, reminding all Catholics that they must vote in this election with an informed conscience. A Catholic cannot be said to have voted in this election with a good conscience if they have voted for a pro-abortion candidate. Barack Hussein Obama is a pro-abortion candidate.”

Bishop Gracida recorded the radio spot in English and Spanish; it can be heard at http://www.randallterry.com. 

But there is more good news – where you can be a part of defeating this madness – Bishop Gracida has offered this radio spot without charge for all who want to use it. You – an American citizen committed to protecting innocent unborn life in this election – can download the mp3 file, and pay to place this ad on your local radio station(s).

Simply contact your local radio station(s), buy 10 or 20 radio ads yourself, and they can download the audio file to play on their radio station. It is truly that simple. Call your radio station(s), tell them you want to buy ads, and tell them to download the mp3 file from our web site: http://www.randallterry.com. (For those with questions, call us at 904-687-9804.)

If this ad receives the airplay it deserves – and the unborn so desperately need – it could jolt Catholic voters back to their senses and moorings; Catholic voters who have been seduced into ethical quicksand by partisan supporters of Obama who betray the lives of innocent unborn children.

Catholics to Demonstrate against Obama’s Pro-abortion Agenda
Theme: “No Catholic Can in Good Conscience Vote for Obama.”

At 12 Noon, Thursday, October 30, Catholics will hold a one hour demonstration, accompanied by a press conference, echoing Bishop Gracida’s words: No Catholic can in good conscience vote for Obama, because of his radical support of child-killing.

Right now, cities include: 

Cincinnati, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
Indianapolis, Indiana
Denver, Colorado
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Jacksonville, FL
St. Augustine, FL
Miami, FL
Charlotte, NC
Arlington, VA
Richmond, VA
St. Louis, MO 
Kansas City, MO
Joplin, MO

Our message to the press will be simple: “As Catholic voters – who put innocent life ahead or partisan politics – we reject the Obama/Biden ticket, and urge our fellow Catholics to abandon their plans to betray their faith.”

Our beloved late Holy Father, John Paul II, clearly stated: “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.” 73, Gospel of Life”

With our federal system of government, we do not vote for laws; we vote for lawmakers who make laws in our stead. Given the history and intention of Obama to continue the legalized killing of the unborn, to vote for him is to knowingly to participate in his evil acts and intentions, and in a real way to vote for abortion itself.

We will hold these peaceful vigils, and hopefully have some good “face time” with the media. If we do our job right, we could have millions of Catholics hear the truth through the vehicle of the secular media.

We beg the prayers of our compatriots, and invite others to join us.

We have about 15 cities ready to go; we would love to have 50!

If anyone is interested in leading an event in their city, they can go to http://www.humbleplea.com and look at the plans we have laid out. We will help anyone with a heart to help the babies in this election cycle.

I know that many are discouraged, many are fearful, and many do not know what to do.

Let us invoke our Blessed Mother for a miracle, and then lift up our voices with all our hearts.

Perhaps – just perhaps – the message of bishop Gracida and the growing chorus of bishops correcting the errors of Kmiec & Co. will reach the hearts of the faithful. 

And maybe – if the laity ignites an unquenchable fire of truth through demonstrations, press conferences, and letters to the editor; emails, blogs, and a fervent plea to our pastors – maybe we will see a “Hail Mary” victory for the children in this election. Maybe Our Lady – for the sake of the Innocent – will honor the cries and sighs that have touched her Immaculate Heart.

(To hear and download bishop Gracida’s radio ad at no charge, go to http://www.randallterry.com. To organize a press conference in your area on Thursday, October 30, go to http://www.humbleplea.com for instructions.) 

_______________________________________________

To respond to this email, subscribe, or unsubscribe, please contact Dr. Frank:

drfrank@abortiontruths.net

Thank you.Fred Martinez at 10:45 AM