• ULTRAMONTANISM / SPIRIT OF VATICAN I

The Duty of the Bishop and the Jurisdiction of the Pope

 Carlos A. Casanova, PhD October 28, 2022 0 Comments

We live at a time when Rome could credibly abuse its power and authority over the bishops of the whole world. It is now believable that a time might come in which orthodox bishops are removed without legal procedure and clearly for the wrong reasons. Moreover, precisely the orthodoxy of the bishops could become the motive of their demotion. In these cases, should the demoted bishops accept such an arbitrary decision obediently? If they did, they would be acting on the basis of an ecclesiological mistake. The authority of the bishop does not come from the Pope, but from God.[1] As Lumen Gentium teaches (n. 27):

Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power, which indeed they use only for the edification of their flock in truth and holiness, remembering that he who is greater should become as the lesser and he who is the chief become as the servant (cf. Lk 22:26–27). This power, which they personally exercise in Christ’s name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful. In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate. The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called “prelates,” heads of the people whom they govern. Their power, therefore, is not destroyed by the supreme and universal power, but on the contrary it is affirmed, strengthened and vindicated by it, since the Holy Spirit unfailingly preserves the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church.

If it is true that the Pope has a universal jurisdiction, it is also true that that jurisdiction has as its end the service to the Church’s Faith and the good of souls. For this reason, it may not and cannot be used tyrannically as if the Pope were the vicar of Satan instead of Christ.

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

In order to provide arguments for the faithful bishops, with the hope of serving the defense of Christ’s Bride in these times of the Enemy’s turbulent attacks, I have written these pages, gathering ancient witnesses and the principles proclaimed by the Magisterium of the Church. I know that it is Christ who protects His Church, but I also know that He does so as the First Cause who makes use of secondary causes. We must be His instruments, by His grace.

Catena of Ancient Texts

(1) Apostolic Canons

One of the Apostolic Canons contains the following teaching:

The bishops of every nation are bound to acknowledge the principal among them, and to count him as a head, and to do nothing extraordinary without his advice, but to do those things alone individually which relate to the diocese of each respectively and its towns. He, in turn, must not act without the advice of all.[2]

According to John Henry Newman, when even heretics concur on a certain point with the unanimous teaching of the Fathers and received usage, we can be the more certain we are dealing with a view truly apostolic.[3] The Synod of Antioch, although tainted with Arian tendencies, received this apostolic canon and adapted it in the fourth century:

The bishops in each province are bound to acknowledge the bishop ruling in the metropolitan see, and that he has the care of the whole province, because all who have business have recourse from every quarter to the metropolis. Whence it has seemed good that he should be first in honour also, and that the other bishops should do nothing extraordinary without him (according to that most ancient canon which has been in force from our fathers’ time), or such things only as relate to the diocese of each and the places under it. For each bishop has power over his own diocese to administer it according to his own conscience, and to provide for the whole territory subject to his own city, so as to ordain presbyters and deacons, and to dispose all things with consideration, but to attempt no proceedings beyond this without the metropolitan bishop; and he, in turn, must not act without the advice of the rest.[4]

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

From all this, Newman concludes that “no suffragan [bishop] could act in extra-diocesan matters without his metropolitan, nor the metropolitan without his suffragans.”[5] That was simply how the Church founded on the apostles and their successors operated.

This canon gives the appropriate context for rightly understanding various statements by St. Cyprian that seem to contradict each other. Because, on the one hand, the great African bishop acknowledges that the Church of Rome is “the ecclesia principalis [foremost church] and the point of origin of the unitas socerdotalis [priestly unity].” Cyprian states, moreover, that the heretics did not realize “that the Romans, whose faith was proclaimed and praised by the apostle, are men into whose company no perversion of faith can enter” (Epist. 59, 14). On the other hand, in the same letter and to Quasten’s bewilderment, St. Cyprian “expects her [Rome] not to interfere in his own diocese ‘since to each separate shepherd has been assigned one portion of the flock to direct and govern and render hereafter an account of his ministry to the Lord’ (Epist. 59, 14).”[6] As one can see, Cyprian acknowledges Rome’s principality over his African diocese while at the same time clarifying that such principality does not imply a jurisdiction all-embracing and unlimited.

Saint Cyprian, we know, is jealous about the authority he has received directly from God, not from the Pope. And he says so very clearly: “So long as the bond of friendship is maintained and the sacred unity of the Catholic Church is preserved, each bishop is master of his own conduct, conscious that he must one day render an account of himself to the Lord” (Epist. 55, 21). Quasten adds:

In his controversy with Pope Stephen on the rebaptism of heretics he voices as the president of the African synod of September 256 his opinion as follows: ‘No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops,[7] or by tyranny and error forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein (CSEL3-1, 436).

Obviously, this latter statement must be seen in the light of what we have stated earlier. The bishop of Rome has a power over the other bishops, but neither an all-embracing nor a tyrannical power. The exclusion of tyranny Cyprian supports with a clear Scriptural precedent:

Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disputed with him over circumcision, did not claim insolently any prerogative for himself nor make any arrogant assumptions nor say that he had the primacy and ought to be obeyed. (Epist. 71, 3).

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

That the aforementioned apostolic canon provides the key to harmonize all these texts appears with clarity in the reaction St. Cyprian had to Pope Cornelius’ inquiries about the consecration of Fortunatus, which Cyprian had performed without first consulting Rome. In his reply, the African prelate recognizes his obligation to report to the Pontiff any matter of major importance:

I did not write you of it at once, dearest brother [Cornelius], for it was not a matter of enough importance or gravity to be reported to you in great haste…[8]Since I supposed that you were aware of these facts and believed that you would certainly be guided by your memory and sense of discipline, I did not consider it necessary to notify you immediately and hurriedly of the heretics’ antics… And I did not write you of their performance because we despise all these doings and I was soon to send you the names of the bishops who govern the brethren soundly and correctly in the Catholic Church. It was the judgment of us all in this region that I should send these names to you. (Epist. 59, 9).[9]

This interpretation is confirmed when St. Cyprian acknowledges the primacy of Peter and of the bishop of Rome:

The primacy was given to Peter and in such way is taught that there is one only Church and one only Chair. That the Shepherds are many but the flock is one is taught because it is shepherded by all the apostles in perfect consensus. How could anybody who departs from the Chair of Peter on whom the Church was founded be confident about being in the Church?[10]

(2) Saint Basil’s experience

In Asia at the time of St. Basil, the Faith was in danger due to the great quantity of heresies that had made their way to the faithful, even among the bishops. At this critical juncture, the great Cappadocian Father asked Rome to help him, yet he did not receive help. He did not shrink from the defence of the Faith for that reason. In that context he complained about the Holy See.[11] In the light of these events, St. John Henry Newman states:

And in like manner, the dissatisfaction of Saints, of St. Basil, or again of our own St. Thomas [Becket], with the contemporary policy or conduct of the Holy See… is no reflection either on those Saints or on the Vicar of Christ. Nor is his infallibility in dogmatic decisions compromised by any personal and temporary error into which he may have fallen, in his estimate, whether of a heretic such as Pelagius, or of a Doctor of the Church such as Basil. Accidents of this nature are unavoidable in the state of being which we are allotted here below.[12]

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Even from these tensions that occurred in the history of the Church, God can draw lessons to enlighten and guide us. Clearly, since the Church exists for the keeping of the deposit of Faith and of the means through which we can ordinarily receive God’s grace, Basil as a bishop owes more allegiance to these means and this deposit than even to Pope St. Damasus. This is the point we are going to explain now.

The Priority of the Faith

Among the Fathers we find another doctrine that is rooted in Holy Scripture and has been reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council. It is a crucial teaching for the times we live in, especially if it is connected to the texts presented in the previous section. We start with the text of the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum (n. 10):

The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

The Magisterium, including the papal Magisterium, is not above the Word of God but serves it. The duty of the bishops, therefore, above all else, is to preserve the received divinely-revealed Faith and to protect and keep their flock in that Faith. These duties, it is evident, are in se above the duty of obedience to the Bishop of Rome.

One Father who underlined this point in a very beautiful way was St. Vincent of Lérins. Consider his argument: with the exception of the Virgin Mary who is their Queen, the angels are above any merely human authority, even if it is vicarious of Christ. Why? Because if God sends an angel to reveal something, as He did to Moses, it is as if God Himself was speaking, and that is how Moses received God’s angel. However, because public revelation ended with Jesus Christ’s ascension into Heaven, St. Vincent explains St. Paul’s doctrine thus:

‘But although (quoth he) we or an Angel from heaven evangelize unto you beside that which we have evangelized, be he Anathema.”’ What meaneth this that he saith, ‘But although we?’ why did he not rather say, ‘But although I?’ that is to say, Although Peter, although Andrew, although John, yea, finally, although the whole company of the Apostles, evangelize unto you otherwise than we have evangelized, be he accursed. A terrible censure, in that for maintaining the possession of the first faith, he spared not himself, nor any other of the Apostles! But this is a small matter: ‘Although an Angel from heaven (quoth he) evangelize unto you, beside that which I have evangelized, be he Anathema.’[13]

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Please note: the Apostle Peter is no exception to this rule; much less will his successor be. If a Pope commands to believe something different from what has been revealed, from what has been always and everywhere believed (as we shall see), he would be cursed and must be disobeyed.

Does this doctrine leave us in the condition of Protestants who are forced to use their “private judgment”? Not at all! Because a Catholic Bishop will define what must be believed based on Holy Scripture, Tradition, and the Solemn Magisterium of the Church. If a Pope teaches anything against the dogmas defined at the Council of Trent, for example, nobody is obliged to believe what he proposes and, for the good of the Pope’s soul, one should disobey and warn him that, if he obstinately perseveres in that material heresy, he is running the risk of committing formal heresy and becoming accursed.[14]

What is the apostolic rule that states what must be received as revealed?

This is the great canon of the Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, which saves us from the misery of having to find out the truth for ourselves from Scripture on our independent and private judgment.[15]

On this St. Vincent comments:

Again, within the Catholic Church itself we are greatly to consider that we hold that which hath been believed everywhere, always, and of all men: for that is truly and properly Catholic (as the very force and nature of the word doth declare) which comprehendeth all things in general after an universal manner, and that shall we do if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. Universality shall we follow thus, if we profess that one faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world acknowledgeth and confesseth. Antiquity shall we follow, if we depart not any whit from those senses which it is plain that our holy elders and fathers generally held. Consent shall we likewise follow, if in this very Antiquity itself we hold the definitions and opinions of all, or at any rate almost all, the priests and doctors together.[16]

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

This teaching was solemnly repeated in the First Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius:

that must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.[17]

In order to proceed with due responsibility, the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff for this reason may not dispense with a serious investigation of Scripture, preceding Magisterium, and the teachings of the Fathers. If, despite all these warnings from Scripture and Tradition, an ecclesiastic authority departs from the revealed deposit, that would be a means through which God would purify the elected or approved ones in the Church. This is what St. Vincent expressly teaches:

‘If a prophet shall rise up in the midst of thee,’ and straight after, ‘thou shalt not hear the words of that prophet.’ Why so? ‘Because (quoth he) your Lord God doth tempt you, whether you love Him or no’…. According to the laws of Deuteronomy most clearly to understand, that if at any time any ecclesiastical teacher strayeth from the faith, that God’s providence doth suffer that for our trial, whether we love Him or no in our whole heart, and in our whole soul.… Which being so, he is a true and genuine Catholic, that loveth the truth of God, the Church, the body of Christ; that prefers nothing before the religion of God,…but whatsoever doctrine new and never heard of…brought in of some one man…let him know that such doctrine doth not pertain to religion, but rather to temptation, especially being instructed with the sayings of the blessed Apostle St. Paul…. This is the cause why the authors of heresies are not straight rooted out by God, that the approved may be made manifest.[18]

There are those today who despise this subjection to the divine revelation that culminated in Jesus Christ. These dissenters are not actually Christian, having no idea about what Eternity is or about what Infinity is. They live immersed in what merely flows and are unable to distinguish necessary from contingent beings. They feed themselves more from Modernism and evolutionism than from a true philosophy. They despise what they do not understand. But the Church of Christ acts in a different way. Let us now see St. Leo the Great’s doctrine:

Not only in the exercise of virtue and the observance of the commandments, but also in the path of faith, strait and difficult is the way which leads to life; and it requires great pains, and involves great risks, to walk without stumbling along the one footway of sound doctrine, amid the uncertain opinions and the plausible untruths of the unskilful, and to escape all peril of mistake when the toils of error are on every side.[19]

Why is the Church so careful about orthodoxy? St. John Henry Newman offers an admirable answer:

Surely the Church exists, in an especial way, for the sake of the faith committed to her keeping. But our practical men forget there may be remedies worse than the disease; that latent heresy may be worse than a contest of “party;” and, in their treatment of the Church, they fulfil the satirist’s well-known line: “Propter vitam vivendi perdere causas” [to destroy, for the sake of life, the reasons for living].[20]

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

This of course does not mean that one cannot deepen the understanding of the deposit of revelation. Of course one can—as long as one does not alter it. St. Vincent, once more, offers us a precious teaching:

Let posterity rejoice for coming to the understanding of that by thy means, which antiquity without that understanding had in veneration. Yet for all this, in such sort deliver the same things which thou hast learned, that albeit thou teachest after a new manner, yet thou never teach new things.[21]

The Duty of the Pastors/Shepherds

If, by the inscrutable designs of Providence, God allowed that the man of lawlessness (cf. 2 Thess 2) be seated on the Chair of Peter, in the Holy Temple of God, the Catholic bishops would have to know that their authority comes from Christ, not from the Pope, and that their duty before God is to fulfill their ministry for the good of the flock entrusted to them by Him. The Successor of Peter has a universal jurisdiction, but that jurisdiction is itself subject to the apostolic canons. The keeping of the Faith and/or the usages requires that the Pope have a disciplinary authority over the other bishops. Nevertheless, the bishops have their own proper authority over their particular flocks. They may not be removed from their see without a due canonical reason related to the keeping of the Faith and/or the Church’s usages. The Church is a monarchy, not a tyranny. Salus animarum, suprema lex. A bishop may not yield his flock to a heretical sect, to an authority that teaches propositions contrary to what has been defined by the solemn Magisterium and/or to what has been unanimously taught by the Fathers as contained in Scripture. While the bishop may not judge the Pope and declare that he commits formal heresy, for he has no authority over him, he may and must judge whether the Pope is concurring in material heresy, and the bishop must prevent his flock from being devoured by demons—which is what would happen if the people abandon the revelation received from Christ.

There could be situations in which fulfilling this duty becomes difficult. Perhaps a bishop could be forced, during the time of unleashed lawlessness, to live in a private house and abandon his episcopal palace. That is how the Apostles lived and also many of the ancient bishops. That is how the bishops in China have lived, and how the priests in France lived during the abomination of the Revolution; it is how they lived in Mexico and in many other places when persecution was raging. Remember St. Augustine’s teaching:

The ministers of Christ, who are under the pressure of persecution, are then at liberty to leave our posts, when no flock is left for us to serve…. But when the people remain, and the ministers flee, and the ministration is suspended, what is that but the guilty flight of hirelings, who care not for the sheep? For then the wolf will come—not man, but the devil, who is accustomed to persuade such believers to apostasy, who are bereft of the daily ministration of the Lord’s Body; and by your, not knowledge, but ignorance of duty, the weak brother will perish, for whom Christ died.[22]

Is there not, perchance, the same problem if a diocese is left in the hands of a heretic? Even if a bishop may not judge the Pope, he can judge the situation and also the man who tries to replace him and usurp his authority. He may determine that that man is, indeed, a heretic who rejects (for example) Humanae Vitae’s doctrine, or rejects the words of Christ concerning the indissolubility of marriage, or the doctrine of the Council of Trent regarding the Eucharist or penance or justification, or does not accept that Christ is the only Mediator between God and man, and so on and so forth. A true Shepherd may not abandon his flock to robbers and adventurers. He must be prepared to suffer confiscation and live from alms.

[1] See Lumen gentium, for example, n. 22.

[2] J. H. Newman, The Church of the Fathers, John Cane, London and New York, 1900, p. 243.

[3] See Newman, The Church of the Fathers, p. 229.

[4] Newman, The Church of the Fathers, pp. 243-244.

[5] Newman, The Church of the Fathers, p. 253.

[6] All of Quasten’s citations are taken from Patrology, volume 2, pp. 373-378.

[7] He states it more strongly at a different place: “hoc erant utique et ceteri apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis” (De unit. 4).

[8] Quasten adds: “The same reason explains exactly the same behaviour when, during the vacancy following the death of Pope Fabian (550), the mere clergy of the capital city expressed their disapproval of Cyprian’s going into hiding; in this case also, he yields a report of his conduct, and, over and beyond that, adopts the Roman line of action with regard to the lapsi; in short, he feels an obligation, not only to the ordinary, but, in his absence, to the very see.”

[9] Cited by Quasten, loc. cit.

[10] De unitate Ecclesiae 4. (My translation.) “Primatus Petro datur et una ecclesia et cathedra una monstratur. Et pastores sunt omnes, sed grex unus ostenditur qui ab apostolis omnibus unanimi consensione pascatur. Qui cathedram Petri super quern fundata ecclesia est, deserit, in ecclesia se esse confidit?” Thus was the original edition, according to recent research, adds Quasten (see op. cit.). I disagree with Quasten’s interpretation when he holds that Cyprian thought that the Pope was just “first among equals” and had primacy only of honor. As I have pointed out, it seems to me that Quasten did not realize the implications of the Apostolic Canon commented on the text.

[11] Here the reader can see a text describing the situation: “In the course of three years, Basil’s tone changes about his brethren: he had cause to be dissatisfied with them, and above all with Pope Damasus, who showed little zeal for the welfare of the East. Basil’s opinion of him is expressed in various letters. For instance, a fresh envoy was needed for the Roman mission; he had thoughts of engaging his brother Gregory, bishop of Nyssa. ‘But’, he says, ‘I see no persons who can go with him, and I feel that he is altogether inexperienced in ecclesiastical matters; and that though a candid person would both value and improve his acquaintance, yet when a man is high and haughty, and sits aloft, and is, in consequence, unable to hear such as speak truth to him from the earth, what good can come for the Common weal, from his intercourse with one who is not of the temper to give in to low flattery?’ –Ep. 215. This is not complimentary to Damasus” (The Church of the Fathers, p. 83).

[12] Advertisment to the 3rd edition, p. x.

[13] Newman, The Church of the Fathers, p. 135.

[14] In the opinion of some, a bishop may not declare him accursed because there is no authority over and above the Pope that can judge him. Nevertheless, Pope Honorius was declared a heretic by an Ecumenical Council after his death.

[15] Newman, The Church of the Fathers, p. 132.

[16] Chapter 2, 3, in Newman, The Church of the Fathers, p. 134. The second italics are mine. Here, I think that we could add a beautiful and needed clarification made by Saint John Henry Newman, “The Fathers are principally to be considered as witnesses, not as authorities. They are witnesses of an existing state of things, and their treatises are, as it were, histories—teaching us, in the first instance, matters of fact, not of opinion. Whatever they themselves might be, whether deeply or poorly taught in Christian faith and love, they speak, not their own thoughts, but the received views of their respective ages.” (The Church of the Fathers, p. 136).

[17] Chapter 2 in fine. My italics.

[18] Newman, The Church of the Fathers, pp. 141-142.

[19] Serm. 25, in Newman, The Church of the Fathers, pp. 130-131.

[20] The Church of the Fathers, p. 128.

[21] Cited by Newman, The Church of the Fathers, p. 144. Emphasis added.

[22] Letter of Saint Augustine to Honoratus, cited by John Henry Newman, The Church of the Fathers, New York: John Cane, 1900, pp. 165-166

Carlos A. Casanova, PhD

Carlos Augusto Casanova Guerra was born in Caracas, Venezuela in 1966. He received a law degree from the Catholic University Andrés Bello in 1988. He went on to earn a Ph.D. in philosophy at the Universidad de Navarra. He has served as an attorney at the Procuraduría General de la República de Venezuela (attorney general) and at the Office of Juridical Consultants of the Congress of Venezuela (1989-1996). Later, he was professor and coordinator of graduate studies in philosophy at the Universidad Simón Bolívar (Caracas, 1996-2003), visiting scholar at B.U. (2002-2003), Notre Dame fellow working with Ralph McInerny (2003-2005), professor and director of the Chilean campus of the International Academy of Philosophy in the Principality of Liechtenstein (2005-2012), professor of the School of Philosophy of the PUC Chile (2005-2012), and professor of the Universidad Santo Tomás de Chile (2013-). He has published eight books and some 50 philosophical papers. He translated into Spanish in a bilingual edition St. Thomas Aquinas’s Commentaries on the Psalms and the prayers of St. Thomas Aquinas (with Rafael Tomás Caldera). He was one of the 45 scholars who signed the letter to the College of Cardinals concerning the possible heretical readings of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. He is now a member of the John Paul II Academy for Life and the Family.

[New post] JOSEPH BIDEN MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES BEFORE HE FINDS WAYS TO IMPLEMENT HIS LATEST EXECUTIVE ORDER DESIGNED TO UNLEASH “TRANSHUMANIST HELL” ON AMERICA

Inbox

ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP Unsubscribe	4:16 PM (4 hours ago)
to me

ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEPJOSEPH BIDEN MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES BEFORE HE FINDS WAYS TO IMPLEMENT HIS LATEST EXECUTIVE ORDER DESIGNED TO UNLEASH “TRANSHUMANIST HELL” ON AMERICAabyssumOct 27Biden Signs Executive Order Designed to Unleash “Transhumanist Hell” on America and the WorldBy Leo HohmannGlobal Research, October 17, 2022LeoHohmann.com 13 September 2022.Important article first published on September 19, 2022***If anyone needed proof that the powers pushing the levers behind the mindless moron who sits in the Oval Office are fully on board with the World Economic Forum/United Nations agenda of biomedical tyranny and transhumanism, look no further than the executive order that Joe Biden signed on Monday, September 12.By quietly getting Biden’s signature on this document, his handlers may have given us the most ominous sign yet that we stand on the threshold of a technocratic one-world beast system. Prepare to make your stand because it’s about to get much more intense.This document’s Orwellian title, Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy, will assure that its significance will fly right over the heads of 99 percent of the media, even the conservative media.They will read it and yawn. I plead with everyone reading this article to please not make that same mistake.Because of the arcane scientific language in which this document is written, even most of those who take the time to read and study it (I assure you Biden did not) will not fully grasp what is being ordered by the White House.That’s where we strive to help.Karen Kingston, a former Pfizer employee and current analyst for the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries, helps us decipher what’s going on in this executive order.Kingston stated in a Twitter post:“Let me read between the lines for America. Biden’s Sept. 12, 2022, executive order declares that Americans must surrender all human rights that stand in the way of transhumanism. Clinical trial safety standards and informed consent will be eradicated as they stand in the way of universally unleashing gene-editing technologies needed to merge humans with A.I. In order to achieve the societal goals of the New World Order, crimes against humanity are not only legal, but mandatory.” (emphasis added)Here is one of the most disturbing excerpts from Biden’s executive order:“We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers…including through computing tools and artificial intelligence…“Biotechnology Over Human Rights: US President Joe Biden Issues Executive Order Promoting “Biotechnology” and “Biomanufacturing” in “American Bioeconomy”Patrick Wood, an economist and author of several books on technocracy, has been following the transhumanist and global technocracy movements for four decades. He told me that Kingston is not overstating the issue.He said this E.O. is proof that the executive branch is now owned lock, stock and barrel by the biomedical/pharmaceutical industry. It will be Katy bar the door from here on out.“The transhumanists within Big Pharma have completely taken over government policy and taxpayer funds to promote their own anti-human agenda of hacking the software of life,” Wood told me. “It also clearly demonstrates who has the power, and who sets the policies in America.”The mRNA injections that have already gone into the bodies of at least 70 percent of adults in the U.S. (and a smaller percentage of its children) mark the “gateway to transhumanism.” We have been told this by Kingston as well as by the late Dr. Zev Zelenko and Dr. Robert Malone, a co-inventor of the mRNA platform.LeoHohmann.com was one of the first sites to blow the whistle on Moderna’s former chief medical officer, Tal Zaks, who told the world straight up in December 2017 that “We have hacked the software of life,” and that this mRNA gene-editing biotechnology would be incorporated into vaccines to treat and prevent all manner of illnesses. We’ve seen how well they work, with millions getting sick and tens of thousands dying after getting two or more doses of the Covid injections offered up by Moderna and Pfizer. With the FDA and CDC now totally on board, this mRNA technology is being included in scores of other vaccines, including flu shots.The September 12 executive order was no doubt put in place as back up for the continued experimentation on the human population, and I expect the vaccine industry will exploit it to the max. Soon we will see the return of vax mandates, this time more ferociously policed and enforced than before.This E.O. may also have been timed at least partly in anticipation of the new pandemic treaty that the Biden administration is hoping to get passed through the United Nations World Health Organization next year. This treaty will transfer sovereignty over matters of “health emergencies” from the national level to the WHO.Wood said the E.O.’s intended consequences is to push the frontier of genetic modification of all living things and especially humans. He believes this will ultimately spark the biggest public backlash in modern history.“Biden pledges not only funding but an all-of-government transformation to support this anti-human scheme from top to bottom,” Wood writes. “It also automatically blocks any agency or department from dissent.”Below are just a few of the highlights quoted directly from the document:The term “biotechnology” means technology that applies to or is enabled by life sciences innovation or product development.The term “biomanufacturing” means the use of biological systems to develop products, tools, and processes at commercial scale.The term “bioeconomy” means economic activity derived from the life sciences, particularly in the areas of biotechnology and biomanufacturing, and includes industries, products, services, and the workforce.The term “biological data” means the information, including associated descriptors, derived from the structure, function, or process of a biological system(s) that is measured, collected, or aggregated for analysis.The term “key R&D areas” includes fundamental R&D of emerging biotechnologies, including engineering biology; predictive engineering of complex biological systems, including the designing, building, testing, and modeling of entire living cells, cell components, or cellular systems; quantitative and theory-driven multi-disciplinary research to maximize convergence with other enabling technologies; and regulatory science, including the development of new information, criteria, tools, models, and approaches to inform and assist regulatory decision-making.  These R&D priorities should be coupled with advances in predictive modeling, data analytics, artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, high-performance and other advanced computing systems, metrology and data-driven standards, and other non-life science enabling technologies.The term “life sciences” means all sciences that study or use living organisms, viruses, or their products, including all disciplines of biology and all applications of the biological sciences (including biotechnology, genomics, proteomics, bioinformatics, and pharmaceutical and biomedical research and techniques), but excluding scientific studies associated with radioactive materials or toxic chemicals that are not of biological origin or synthetic analogues of toxins.What this means is that human beings will be data mined for their most personal possession, their DNA and genomic properties, and the government will offer no protection.It will actually be encouraged and seen as a green light for biomedical practitioners worldwide. It is the goal of the technocratic proprietors of Agenda 2030 to catalogue, map out, and monitor every living thing on earth.This was spelled out in the early 2000s by the late researcher Rosa Koire and put into book form in 2011 with “Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21.” Koire was a Democrat, but she understood that the takedown of America and indeed every nation of the formerly free world, would not be accomplished by the left or the right but by supranational globalists with an allegiance to no particular nation. In fact, these globalists detest the nation-state model that has dominated the world for thousands of years. Their goal is “global governance” and they say it out loud in their own documents.Have no fear.Do not be intimidated.Truth will not be defeated.Humanity will prevail against these anti-human eugenicist monsters because we have living souls and are created in the image of a Holy God with individual free wills.Because of that, we humans are capable of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and the one and only triune God of the Bible. Those who take the bait of the globalists and submit to the world system will in essence be handing over their humanity in exchange for empty promises of safety and security. They will become transhumans, thus foregoing, at some point, their ability to connect with God. That’s a very big step and a decision that will face every human being sooner or later as this technology ramps up. Your very soul will depend on the choice you make. Will you follow God or will you follow man?Above all, this is a spiritual battle.We must continue to expose the sinister transhumanist agenda that these globalist predators did their best to keep hidden within a scientific vernacular that they know will wow and mystify the average person. We have decoded it for you in this article from two of the best Christian experts on the topic available in the world today – Karen Kingston and Patrick Wood.*Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.Leo Hohmann is an investigative reporter on globalism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and where politics, culture and religion intersect.CommentLikeYou can also reply to this email to leave a comment.Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP.  Change your email settings at manage subscriptions.Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:   https://abyssum.org/2022/10/27/joseph-biden-must-be-removed-from-the-presidency-of-the-united-states-before-he-finds-ways-to-implement-his-latest-executive-order-designed-to-unleash-transhumanist-hell-on-america/ Powered by WordPress.com

Biden Signs Executive Order Designed to Unleash “Transhumanist Hell” on America and the World

By Leo Hohmann

Global Research, October 17, 2022

LeoHohmann.com 13 September 2022

.

Important article first published on September 19, 2022

***

If anyone needed proof that the powers pushing the levers behind the mindless moron who sits in the Oval Office are fully on board with the World Economic Forum/United Nations agenda of biomedical tyranny and transhumanism, look no further than the executive order that Joe Biden signed on Monday, September 12.

By quietly getting Biden’s signature on this document, his handlers may have given us the most ominous sign yet that we stand on the threshold of a technocratic one-world beast system. Prepare to make your stand because it’s about to get much more intense.

This document’s Orwellian title, Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy, will assure that its significance will fly right over the heads of 99 percent of the media, even the conservative media.

They will read it and yawn. I plead with everyone reading this article to please not make that same mistake.

Because of the arcane scientific language in which this document is written, even most of those who take the time to read and study it (I assure you Biden did not) will not fully grasp what is being ordered by the White House.

That’s where we strive to help.

Karen Kingston, a former Pfizer employee and current analyst for the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries, helps us decipher what’s going on in this executive order.

Kingston stated in a Twitter post:

“Let me read between the lines for America. Biden’s Sept. 12, 2022, executive order declares that Americans must surrender all human rights that stand in the way of transhumanism. Clinical trial safety standards and informed consent will be eradicated as they stand in the way of universally unleashing gene-editing technologies needed to merge humans with A.I. In order to achieve the societal goals of the New World Order, crimes against humanity are not only legal, but mandatory.” (emphasis added)

Here is one of the most disturbing excerpts from Biden’s executive order:

“We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers…including through computing tools and artificial intelligence…“

Biotechnology Over Human Rights: US President Joe Biden Issues Executive Order Promoting “Biotechnology” and “Biomanufacturing” in “American Bioeconomy”

Patrick Wood, an economist and author of several books on technocracy, has been following the transhumanist and global technocracy movements for four decades. He told me that Kingston is not overstating the issue.

He said this E.O. is proof that the executive branch is now owned lock, stock and barrel by the biomedical/pharmaceutical industry. It will be Katy bar the door from here on out.

“The transhumanists within Big Pharma have completely taken over government policy and taxpayer funds to promote their own anti-human agenda of hacking the software of life,” Wood told me. “It also clearly demonstrates who has the power, and who sets the policies in America.”

The mRNA injections that have already gone into the bodies of at least 70 percent of adults in the U.S. (and a smaller percentage of its children) mark the “gateway to transhumanism.” We have been told this by Kingston as well as by the late Dr. Zev Zelenko and Dr. Robert Malone, a co-inventor of the mRNA platform.

LeoHohmann.com was one of the first sites to blow the whistle on Moderna’s former chief medical officer, Tal Zaks, who told the world straight up in December 2017 that “We have hacked the software of life,” and that this mRNA gene-editing biotechnology would be incorporated into vaccines to treat and prevent all manner of illnesses. We’ve seen how well they work, with millions getting sick and tens of thousands dying after getting two or more doses of the Covid injections offered up by Moderna and Pfizer. With the FDA and CDC now totally on board, this mRNA technology is being included in scores of other vaccines, including flu shots.

The September 12 executive order was no doubt put in place as back up for the continued experimentation on the human population, and I expect the vaccine industry will exploit it to the max. Soon we will see the return of vax mandates, this time more ferociously policed and enforced than before.

This E.O. may also have been timed at least partly in anticipation of the new pandemic treaty that the Biden administration is hoping to get passed through the United Nations World Health Organization next year. This treaty will transfer sovereignty over matters of “health emergencies” from the national level to the WHO.

Wood said the E.O.’s intended consequences is to push the frontier of genetic modification of all living things and especially humans. He believes this will ultimately spark the biggest public backlash in modern history.

“Biden pledges not only funding but an all-of-government transformation to support this anti-human scheme from top to bottom,” Wood writes. “It also automatically blocks any agency or department from dissent.”

Below are just a few of the highlights quoted directly from the document:

• The term “biotechnology” means technology that applies to or is enabled by life sciences innovation or product development.
• The term “biomanufacturing” means the use of biological systems to develop products, tools, and processes at commercial scale.
• The term “bioeconomy” means economic activity derived from the life sciences, particularly in the areas of biotechnology and biomanufacturing, and includes industries, products, services, and the workforce.
• The term “biological data” means the information, including associated descriptors, derived from the structure, function, or process of a biological system(s) that is measured, collected, or aggregated for analysis.
• The term “key R&D areas” includes fundamental R&D of emerging biotechnologies, including engineering biology; predictive engineering of complex biological systems, including the designing, building, testing, and modeling of entire living cells, cell components, or cellular systems; quantitative and theory-driven multi-disciplinary research to maximize convergence with other enabling technologies; and regulatory science, including the development of new information, criteria, tools, models, and approaches to inform and assist regulatory decision-making.  These R&D priorities should be coupled with advances in predictive modeling, data analytics, artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, high-performance and other advanced computing systems, metrology and data-driven standards, and other non-life science enabling technologies.
• The term “life sciences” means all sciences that study or use living organisms, viruses, or their products, including all disciplines of biology and all applications of the biological sciences (including biotechnology, genomics, proteomics, bioinformatics, and pharmaceutical and biomedical research and techniques), but excluding scientific studies associated with radioactive materials or toxic chemicals that are not of biological origin or synthetic analogues of toxins.

What this means is that human beings will be data mined for their most personal possession, their DNA and genomic properties, and the government will offer no protection.

It will actually be encouraged and seen as a green light for biomedical practitioners worldwide. It is the goal of the technocratic proprietors of Agenda 2030 to catalogue, map out, and monitor every living thing on earth.

This was spelled out in the early 2000s by the late researcher Rosa Koire and put into book form in 2011 with “Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21.” Koire was a Democrat, but she understood that the takedown of America and indeed every nation of the formerly free world, would not be accomplished by the left or the right but by supranational globalists with an allegiance to no particular nation. In fact, these globalists detest the nation-state model that has dominated the world for thousands of years. Their goal is “global governance” and they say it out loud in their own documents.

Have no fear.

Do not be intimidated.

Truth will not be defeated.

Humanity will prevail against these anti-human eugenicist monsters because we have living souls and are created in the image of a Holy God with individual free wills.

Because of that, we humans are capable of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and the one and only triune God of the Bible. Those who take the bait of the globalists and submit to the world system will in essence be handing over their humanity in exchange for empty promises of safety and security. They will become transhumans, thus foregoing, at some point, their ability to connect with God. That’s a very big step and a decision that will face every human being sooner or later as this technology ramps up. Your very soul will depend on the choice you make. Will you follow God or will you follow man?

Above all, this is a spiritual battle.

We must continue to expose the sinister transhumanist agenda that these globalist predators did their best to keep hidden within a scientific vernacular that they know will wow and mystify the average person. We have decoded it for you in this article from two of the best Christian experts on the topic available in the world today – Karen Kingston and Patrick Wood.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Leo Hohmann is an investigative reporter on globalism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and where politics, culture and religion intersect.

Pro-Abortion Texas DA Lets Off Man Charged With Beating Pregnant Girlfriend, Killing Unborn Baby

 0

Johnny Charles Ebbs V, an Austin man charged for regularly beating his pregnant girlfriend and ultimately killing their unborn baby, was let off on a plea agreement after striking a deal with pro-abortion Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza.

A radical leftist and extreme abortion supporter, Travis County’s DA has been causing increasing outrage for being soft on crime. The Travis County DA’s office offered Ebbs a plea agreement which will release him from custody with very few conditions and will most likely result in all charges being dismissed.

According to the court testimony of Ebbs’ girlfriend, LaShonda Lemons, he started regularly beating her when she became pregnant and the violence escalated when she reached 32 weeks.

An arrest warrant details that during one argument Ebbs punched his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach while screaming, “F**k you and this baby! You aren’t going anywhere!”

Lemons was eventually admitted to a hospital where she was told that her placenta had detached from the womb, a condition called “placenta abruption” often caused by blunt force trauma. As a result, Lemons’ baby died.

In court, Lemons shared more details of her regular abuse at Ebbs’ hands. “You were the first person to hold me at gunpoint, the first person to strangle me,” she said addressing Ebbs.

Despite Lemons’ heartbreaking testimony, Ebbs will be let off due to his deal with the Travis County DA.

The only restrictions on Ebbs’ release were that he must forfeit his guns, something he has reportedly still not done, and wear a GPS monitor.

Lemons’ attorney shared that the Travis County DA’s actions are not surprising. “While we’re disappointed with the ultimate outcome, it was expected,” Lemons’ attorney stated.

Tragically, as grievous as these crimes are, Travis County DA Garza has a long established record of looking the other way when it comes to violent crime, especially when that violence involves innocent preborn children.

Along with several other abortion extremist DAs, Garza publicly vowed to neglect his duty to enforce life-saving Pro-Life laws. Siding with the abortion industry over Texas women and children, Garza vowed to ignore Texas law and look the other way when abortionists illegally kill babies in Texas.

Explaining his vow to allow abortionists to illegally kill babies, Garza stated, “Enforcing this law will not only fail to promote or protect public safety but will also lead to more harm. Our office will continue to fight for and protect women’s rights and use our discretion to avoid tragedy and preventable harm in our community.”

Though he claims to “protect women’s rights” and prevent harm and “avoid tragedy,” his decision to release a dangerous domestic abuser back onto the streets clearly disprove all his high-minded talk.

Garza clearly does not stand for LaShonda Lemons’ right to not be brutally beaten to the point that her unborn baby dies inside her. Garza clearly does not stand for the rights of any women who may suffer at the hands of the violent, abusive criminals he lets back onto the streets.

And yet, despite this obvious and egregious abuse of justice, the media largely ignores Garza’s hypocrisy. It would seem that any amount of corruption and abuse is allowable so long as you’re a politician who supports abortion and radical leftist policies.



In spite of the media’s overall disinterest in the case, Garza’s decision to let a dangerous domestic abuser, who murdered an unborn baby, off the hook with nearly no repercussions has understandably caused significant outrage.

Many tweeted their anger over the lack of justice. “Sounds like the DA failed again to deliver justice,” “Another criminal is walking the street as after murdering a baby,” and “Women don’t matter. Unborn babies don’t matter. So sick of these plea deals,” were just some of the responses to Garza’s decision to let Ebbs go free.

Texas Right to Life stands firmly opposed to any and all efforts to allow violent abusers and abortionists to continue killing babies and hurting women.

Texans who care about the dignity and value of ALL human Life, unborn and born, must be sure to vote out corrupt abortion politicians and elect leaders who will protect Life.

TED CRUZ GETS HECKLED DURING ‘THE VIEW’ APPEARANCE

---

 COOTER OCTOBER 25, 2022

Virtually every major mainstream media source is infested with liberal ideologues. The progressive left has corrupted nearly all the cable news networks. Probably the most obvious is ABC. The level of leftist-leaning propaganda on ABC is astounding.

One of ABC’s notorious leftist shows is “The View.” If its radical Marxist ideas didn’t fool so many Americans, it might be funny. Watching this bevy of hosts banter about anti-American rhetoric is depressing. It’s no wonder hardened liberals are so negative.

The View wallows in racist-driven conversations like racism infests every single American household. This circus show abhors the American dream. One thing is for certain, the cast members on The View do not hide their animosity towards America.

Patriotic Americans certainly find the show impossible to watch. However, someone has to keep tabs on such liberal antics. It must be an agonizing job for those entrusted with watching such anti-American garbage.

Occasionally, ABC does provide a voice for dissenting opinions. The instances are rare, and they hardly ever provide an unbiased platform for discussion. Recently, Texas Senator Ted Cruz was one of those unfortunates who made the effort to be bipartisan.

The conservative senator did everything he could to be cordial and professional. However, obviously this radical leftist show has an audience infiltrated by like minds. It seems logical that a show that spews an insatiable hatred for conservatives wouldn’t have many in the studio audience.

The View’s audience is predominately stuffed with crazed radicals. Rarely are these leftist loonies able to calmly debate anything. They scream and shout, so differing opinions cannot be heard. It’s because their personal beliefs, ideas, and philosophies are hogwash.

Well, during Senator Cruz’s attempt at bipartisan conversation with his leftist hosts, the audience disrupted the whole show. It was a sad display of boorishness. Surprisingly, co-host Whoopi Goldberg tried to subdue the hecklers.

She chastised them; insisting that “We hear what you have to say, but you gotta go! You gotta go. You gotta let us do our job.” It didn’t work. The radicals continued to heckle the Texas Senator. Eventually, the show had to cut to a commercial break. What a sad joke.

Senator Cruz did remain on the show after the break. Apparently, the uncompromising radical hecklers were removed. It was a bad look for ABC. Nevertheless, the hosts tried to do as much damage control as we’re sure they could muster.

Co-host Ana Navarro attempted a feeble apology, stating: “I’ve been very vocal and critical of you, but I’m sorry that this has happened in our house.” Maybe if these radical leftists didn’t incite hatred on a daily basis, these types of people wouldn’t be part of their live audience.

Senator Cruz did not personally address the disappointing scene on The View, but he did retweet a clip from fellow Republican Andy Biggs. Previously, Biggs stated, “Liberals preach ‘tolerance’ but are the least tolerant people in America.”

This is proof of one thing. Liberals are blatant hypocrites. Every one of the hosts on The View is a hypocrite. Their apologies to Senator Cruz were inauthentic. They apologized for this radical disruption because they had to. Funny, they really didn’t seem too surprised.

If the truth were to be revealed, they probably all had a good laugh backstage at the expense of the conservative senator. The people to blame aren’t the childish hecklers. Thousands of Americans are being brainwashed by this anti-American mainstream garbage.

Those responsible are the ones who call themselves “adults in the room.” These are the guilty parties who continue to peddle their uncompromising hypocritical hatred. The View hosts should be ashamed because they’re the ones truly to blame.

Notre Dame: Is It Still Catholic?

THOMAS SHAFFERN

In a perhaps little noticed recent scandal from the University of Notre Dame, and no, I’m not talking about the football team’s loss to Marshall, the Irish Rover revealed a professor of the Keough School of Global Affairs has offered and promoted abortion access to Notre Dame students, despite university policy and Indiana law. This includes helping students procure Plan B aborticide pills and referring students to other abortion services. Professor Tamara Kay bragged about her efforts to refer Notre Dame students to abortion resources at an event called “Post-Roe America: Making Intersectional Feminist Sense of Abortion Bans.” 

Professor Kay defends her abortion advocacy at the most prominent purportedly Catholic university in the country by arguing that she does this as a private citizen as opposed to a university representative. Though she is presumably well educated, Kay fails to understand, or perhaps conveniently ignores, the fact that advocating for such things on her office door and at university events is clearly a public action. Particularly while on campus and working with students, she is acting as a representative of the university whether or not she likes to think so. 

The word politics comes to us from the Greek “polis,” meaning the city-state. Professor Kay’s actions, which she carries out in public, are clearly political by the traditional understanding. She is indisputably acting as more than a “private citizen.”

Professor Kay also acknowledges that while her views on abortion do not align with those of the Catholic Church (one has to ask, if these views were public at the time of her hiring, why was she hired in the first place?), some of her other views align with Church teaching rather well. However, this line of defense is about as effective as saying that in some regards one has been unfaithful to one’s spouse, but in other regards one has perfectly kept their marital vows. 

Many an article can be written about how Notre Dame is no longer truly a Catholic university. This kind of stunt would get many teachers fired from a diocesan Catholic high school. Seeing as Notre Dame is the best-known Catholic university in the country, the administration should have an easy decision in summarily firing this woman. 

However, a more interesting and perhaps more productive question to ask is: How did we get to the point where the most prominent Catholic university in the United States employs, and probably will not fire, such a person? It is no secret that other universities, such as Steubenville, Ave Maria, and others have taken up the mantle as great Catholic universities in the United States. While American Catholics certainly welcome their rise, one has to ask, why was that needed at all?

The answer seems a simple one. Notre Dame cares more about being just another elite university as opposed to being an elite Catholic university. The administration at Notre Dame is far more concerned with receiving compliments from The New York Timesthan receiving compliments from Catholic families who sacrificed to send their children there. 

Some defenders of Notre Dame will cite the activity of “peer institutions,” such as Georgetown, to justify the university’s scandalous behavior in such situations. Firstly, the fact that the “peer institutions” cited sometimes include Georgetown is laughable. As if anyone should take cues from a Jesuit university on how to build a Catholic institution. Secondly, Georgetown, though considered a prestigious school by some, is nowhere near the level of prominence of Notre Dame. If anything, Georgetown should follow the lead of Notre Dame, not the other way around. 

If Notre Dame did care about being an elite Catholic university, they would reflect that in their hiring practices. Instead, as we see with Professor Kay, that is far from the case. Many people within academia will acknowledge that Notre Dame will not even hire their own Ph.D. graduates, much less graduates from so-called “lower-level schools.” Instead, they primarily look to Ivy League Ph.D.s to fill open positions. 

While there is nothing wrong with wanting to find the best potential faculty members, a Catholic university ought to seek the best Catholic professors, which may sometimes mean not hiring from the most elite schools in the country. Sure, secular groups that rate universities might rank Notre Dame lower for hiring a St. Louis University Ph.D. instead of a Yale Ph.D., but those are not the people to seek favor with. 

Notre Dame could also show a commitment to being an elite Catholic university in their selection of students. Certainly, many Catholics in recent years have known studious and well-rounded Catholic young men and women who never got into Notre Dame, and the response is usually, “if so and so didn’t get in, I don’t know who could!” The answer again seems to be that Notre Dame would rather select students of the elite variety without any consideration of the applicant’s religious background. 

If anything, diversity is more of a consideration to acceptance than faith ever is. Though this may surprise some people these days, Catholic schools are meant to serve Catholicstudents. While, again, high academic achievement is a fine consideration, it ought not trump the Catholic mission of the school. And while the world certainly knows Catholics of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, one seriously doubts whether the admissions department really considers a student’s race and faith as opposed to just their race. 

[Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons]

By Thomas Shaffern

Thomas Shaffern studied history, philosophy, and theology at the University of Scranton. He is now a high school teacher in Pennsylvania.

Asking the Wrong Questions About Homosexuality

REGIS NICOLL

Recently, I was asked why God makes homosexuals the way they are. That, after sharing concerns about people—even Christians, mind you—who prayed for deliverance to no effect. I responded by recounting a feature story (ten-columns long!) that my local newspaper ran some years ago about a clergyman who asked the same thing.

As a Southern Baptist minister, Matt Nevels knew all the biblical injunctions against homosexuality. He believed that same-sex orientation was a choice and that homosexual practice was a sin. Until, that is, his 30-year-old son, Stephen, came down with AIDS.

It turns out that Stephen had been living a gay lifestyle for some time. He told his father of sexual abuse as a teenager and of his lifelong attraction to men. He was now in a committed relationship that he had no intention of severing.

Stephen went on to tell about friends who were rejected by church and family, bullied, and condemned to live double lives. At that point Matt wondered, who would choosesuch a thing? Maybe homosexuality wasn’t a choice. But if it wasn’t, “Why would [God] make someone like this?”

It was the wrong question—not because it caused the minister to reconsider everything he believed and the historic church taught about homosexuality, but because, as will be explained later, it ensured the wrong answer. 

Seeking to reconcile God’s love with his son’s lifestyle, Nevels turned to revisionist interpretations of Scripture, arguing that the proscriptions in the book of Romans, for example, were not about same-sex practices but pedophilia and rape. It’s the wishful exegesis promoted by gay advocacy groups, like Soulforce, that claim there is nothing unnatural, abnormal, or immoral about homosexuality; it is a gift of God.

For the seasoned minister, Isaiah’s warning “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,” should have come to mind. But for a father who didn’t want to tell his dying son that he was “in sin,” those readings helped him reach the unsurprising conclusion that “there was no conflict between homosexuality and Christianity.” 

With that, the veteran churchman decided there was nothing wrong with his son. Instead, for two millennia the church had had it wrong about homosexuality. Thus, gays don’t need to change, church teaching needed to change.

ADVERTISEMENT – CONT

The problem with asking “Why does God make people gay?” is that it contains a false premise which, necessarily, leads to a false conclusion. 

Consider the following syllogism: 

Major premise: Everything God created is good.
Minor premise: God created homosexual orientation.
Conclusion: Therefore, homosexual orientation is good. 

For the conclusion to be valid, both premises must be true. But while Scripture supports the major premise, it does not support the minor one. God has not created homosexual orientation or made people gay any more than He has created cleft palates and made children deformed.

Whether it is Down syndrome, autism, club foot, or homosexual desire, it is not a “good” created by God but, rather, an abnormality resulting from the Fall: abnormalities because they are distortions of their original design that interfere with normal functioning; results of the Fall because sin, once loosed, spawned a moral virus generating a cascade of pathologies that have left mankind, and all of creation, frustrated from the good life the Creator intended.

The good news is that a homosexual bent is not, of itself, a sin. Same-sex attraction is no different from other desires that run counter to the created order: all are products of the Fall propagated by an unsettled combination of nature and nurture.  

The bad news is that the effects of the Fall are universal, such that we all have a sinful bent, whether to anger, violence, gossip, homosexuality, or “fill in the blank.” The good news is that our desires are just that and nothing more, until acted upon; and even then, they are forgivable for the repentant offender. So, the issue is not whether we have a sinful orientation, it is what we do with the orientation we have.

If I rationalize that my propensity for anger is “a gift of God” and excuse my outbursts as products of my genetic makeup, I am not living in accordance with the teachings of Jesus. The same holds for those who profess to be Christian while embracing their homosexuality as a divine blessing. 

The central message of Jesus’ ministry was the Gospel of the Kingdom. But that Gospel had a condition—a radical call to repentance. Thus, the defining marks of a Christian include a commitment to transformation followed by a growing (but not complete) capacity to overcome temptation.

That’s a kingdom apart from the gospel of Soulforce which says that the only thing we need to overcome is guilt.

A person who asks the wrong question is like a man who boards a train heading in the wrong direction. All of his onboard movements will not put him one step closer in the right direction, with each whistle-stop another leg removed from the correct destination.

But it’s worse than that. The wrong question leads to falsehoods that perpetuate further falsehoods and the compounding of negative consequences.

For if same-sex orientation is a moral good, then so are same-sex desires, practices, committed relationships, and “marriage.” If God is good and God made people gay, then homosexual attraction is not a temptation to resist but a gift to embrace, enjoy, and celebrate. In fact, it is not only natural and wholesome for homosexuals to have gay sex; it is unnatural, dangerous, and even sinful for them to have heterosexual sex.

But this is nothing new; turning the tables on God and His commands goes all the way back to Eden. 

When Adam was confronted by God about his sin, he tried to exonerate himself with scapegoating: “the woman you put here with me gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” In other words, “You can’t hold me culpable for a situation you put me in!”

That defense didn’t work for Adam, and it doesn’t work for us. For, as St. James warns, 

While experiencing temptation, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, and he himself tempts no one. Rather, temptation occurs when someone is attracted and seduced by his own desire. Then the desire conceives and gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it reaches full growth, gives birth to death.

Consequently, the right question about any temptation, desire, disposition, or “orientation” is not why God made me this way but, rather, what He expects of me. For the important thing is not why I have it or where it comes from but what I do about it: Do I accept it as an inescapable part of “who I am” that must be satisfied lest I whither away as a human being? Or do I reject it as an unnatural, abnormal, and dysfunctional pathology that must be overcome if I am to be, in the words of St. Irenaeus, “the glory of God…a man fully alive?” 

One choice leads down the death spiral of ever-increasing demands and ever-diminishing satisfactions; the other, to life abundant. 

[Photo Credit: Unsplash]

By Regis Nicoll

Regis Nicoll is a retired nuclear engineer and a fellow of the Colson Center who writes commentary on faith and culture. He is the author of Why There Is a God: And Why It Matters.

Your Eminences, Your Graces, Your Excellencies, Dear Reverend Fathers, Dear Colleagues, Dear Friends, Laudetur Jesus Christus!Please see here three reports, one on Part II of Bishop Schneider’s comments to John-Henry Westen on the heresy of the teaching that the plurality of religions is willed by God, as well as his words on a possible disobedience with regard to the suppression of the traditional form of the Roman rite. Second, a report by my colleague Kennedy Hall on Cardinal Mueller’s recent words to me in German for Kath.net about disobeying a heretical pope. Finally, I would like to highlight a statement by German laymen who are opposing their bishop’s LGBT agenda, with some strong and faithful words.With warm greetings in Christ, Maike Hicksonhttps://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/bp-schneider-its-heresy-to-suggest-god-wills-a-plurality-of-religions/ https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-muller-says-obedience-is-not-owed-to-an-obviously-heretical-bishop/ https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/incurring-the-wrath-of-god-german-catholics-demand-bishop-resign-for-launching-pro-lgbt-ministry/

Democrats are scrambling after another loss to Republicans on election lawsuits

2020 was certainly an abnormal year.

Lockdowns and a global pandemic led to a hodgepodge of last-minute changes to long-standing elections laws.

Now Democrats are scrambling after another loss to Republicans on election lawsuits.

https://decide.dev/lad/15117606981932902?pubid=ld-7664-8923&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fuspoliticaldaily.com&rid=&width=696&utm_source=uspdnl&utm_campaign=email&utm_medium=campaigner

Federal Judge rules against Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson in Michigan election suit

Michigan was one of many places that put restrictions on poll watchers in 2020 and then they tried it again ahead of the 2022 Midterms.

Brock Swartzle, a federal Judge, just ruled against the Michigan Secretary of State saying that her restrictions violate state and federal laws. 

Now she must either amend her new standards or remove them entirely.

Republicans had brought forth three cases that were consolidated into one and the judge ruled that a “straightforward legal maxim does most of the work in resolving these three consolidated cases” because “an executive branch department cannot do by instructional guidance what it must do by promulgated rule.”

In other words, this was something that should have been widely announced rather than just given out in an instruction manual. 

If it had been properly announced, then it would’ve faced the necessary objections and public comments.

Judge decides Benson’s department rule “does not have the force and effect of law”

The judge explained that Secretary Benson violated the Administrative Procedures Act, which is a federal law that was put into place in 1946. 

Swartzle says, “Under the APA, only a department’s ‘rule,’ promulgated by the department through the crucible of public notice-and-comment rulemaking, has the force and effect of law.”

He said that if it wasn’t properly enacted then it “does not have the force and effect of law unless specifically authorized by our Legislature.”

Benson’s rule put an extra burden on poll challengers and required them to get credentials from the Secretary of State’s office and put restrictions on their communications so that they would only work through liaisons.

According to the judge, the poll challengers in Michigan this year will continue to receive credentials from political parties and other organizations.

McDaniel says Benson “disregarded” election law and Michiganders deserve transparency

RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel celebrated the ruling, declaring “This ruling is a massive victory for election integrity, the rule of law, and Michigan voters.”

She slammed Secretary of State Benson saying that the politician “not only disregarded Michigan election law in issuing this guidance, she also violated the rights of political parties and poll challengers to fully ensure transparency and promote confidence that Michigan elections are run fairly and lawfully.”

McDaniel argued, “This legal win will help deliver the transparency at the ballot box that Michiganders deserve with Midterm elections in 19 days.”

Michigan Department of State says they are planning to appeal ruling

A representative for the Michigan Department of State, Jake Rollow shot back that they “will appeal this ruling to provide certainty to all voters, clerks, election workers, and election challengers on how to maintain peace and order at all voting locations that state law requires and every voter expects and deserves.”

He went on to claim that Michigan “has always provided clear and detailed instruction for interaction among all participants to ensure legal compliance, transparency, and equal treatment of all voters.”

Michigan is one of several states that face a tight and contentious election for Governor. 

Trump-backed Republican Tudor Dixon is looking to unseat pro-lockdown Democrat Gretchen Whitmer in November.

US Political Daily will keep you up-to-date on any developments to this ongoing story. 

Your Eminences, Your Graces, Your Excellencies, Dear Reverend Fathers, Dear Colleagues, Dear Friends, Laudetur Jesus Christus!Please see here three reports, one on Part II of Bishop Schneider’s comments to John-Henry Westen on the heresy of the teaching that the plurality of religions is willed by God, as well as his words on a possible disobedience with regard to the suppression of the traditional form of the Roman rite. Second, a report by my colleague Kennedy Hall on Cardinal Mueller’s recent words to me in German for Kath.net about disobeying a heretical pope. Finally, I would like to highlight a statement by German laymen who are opposing their bishop’s LGBT agenda, with some strong and faithful words.With warm greetings in Christ, Maike Hicksonhttps://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/bp-schneider-its-heresy-to-suggest-god-wills-a-plurality-of-religions/ https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-muller-says-obedience-is-not-owed-to-an-obviously-heretical-bishop/ https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/incurring-the-wrath-of-god-german-catholics-demand-bishop-resign-for-launching-pro-lgbt-ministry/