Last Friday, Justice Elena Kagan expressed an interest in having the Court “get back to finding common ground, to ratcheting down the level of decision-making so we can reach compromises.” I can’t say that I recall her displaying such an interest when she has found herself part of a majority reaching a result she embraces—e.g., the sweeping 5-4 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) inventing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Her interest instead seems opportunistic—a ploy to entice a coalescing majority to narrow or muddle a ruling in exchange for her jumping on board.
With oral arguments in the Harvard/UNC racial-preferences cases just four days away, I wonder what Kagan’s strategy might be to minimize the potential impact of the rulings in the cases. She is a lot savvier than I am, so I don’t have a lot of confidence in my ability to speculate, but I’ll give it a go.
Let’s consider some of the options:
1. Might Kagan prefer to see the meaning of Title VI decoupled from the Equal Protection Clause so that the Court in both cases would rule only that Harvard and UNC have violated Title VI? I’ve argued that the strong version of stare decisis that ordinarily applies to statutory precedent shouldn’t apply to the Court’s egregiously wrong misreading of Title VI, so I think that there is plenty of room for the Court to revisit Title VI and to rule against Harvard and UNC based on what even Justice John Paul Stevens (in Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978)) recognized to be its “crystal clear” meaning.
From Kagan’s perspective, the upside of such a ruling is that Grutter v. Bollinger would be untouched as precedent on the Equal Protection issue and that Congress therefore might be free to amend Title VI to allow the use of racial preferences. I would be very happy to see the Court rule on the basis of Title VI’s actual meaning. I would also welcome any political battle in Congress over amending Title VI. But despite her rhetoric of “ratcheting down the level of decision-making so we can reach compromises,” I doubt that Kagan would see it as advantageous to have the Court pursue this path. I also doubt that she could bring herself to rule against racial preferences in admissions.
2. As Justice Powell explained in his Bakke opinion, when the Court heard oral argument in 1977 “the parties [had] neither briefed nor argued the applicability of Title VI,” so the Court requested supplemental briefing on the issue. Here likewise, the parties haven’t challenged Grutter’s unreasoned and cursory holding that Title VI has the same meaning as the Equal Protection Clause, and they have directed all of their argument to the Equal Protection issue. Might Kagan see an upside to pushing for supplemental briefing, even if she isn’t sure that she would want to reconsider the Title VI holding?
One possible upside from her perspective might be fostering a schism among the conservative justices and perhaps generating a ruling that (much like Bakke) doesn’t have an actual majority for any holding. But there is little reason to think that a justice who would prefer to rule against Harvard and UNC on Title VI grounds wouldn’t also join a ruling against them on Equal Protection grounds if that were necessary to form a majority holding.
Another possible upside would be simple delay. But given how early in the term these cases are being argued, there is no reason to think that supplemental briefing would push a decision past the end of the term (i.e., end of June).
3. Might Kagan try to foster a ruling that Harvard and UNC have (as SFFA argues) failed to comply with Grutter and that it is therefore unnecessary to decide whether to overrule Grutter? Again, I’m very skeptical that Kagan would be willing to rule against racial preferences in admissions, no matter how narrow the ruling. Even if she were open to that, any appeal in this approach would depend very heavily on how the majority opinion was actually written. The more that the majority tried to give Grutter’s nominal strict scrutiny some real teeth, the less inclined Kagan would be to join. And it seems unlikely that a majority of justices would settle for some sort of nominal defeat for Harvard and UNC (e.g., a directive to consider race-neutral means of achieving diversity).
4. Might Kagan, along the lines of Yale law professor Justin Driver’s proposal, urge the Court to sunset racial preferences in 2028, consistent with Justice O’Connor’s stated expectation in Grutter that racial preferences would be unnecessary in 25 years? Kagan might well accept such a compromise, but there is no reason why any conservative justice should.
5. The only remaining option I see strikes me as the most likely one. Kagan might well decide that her only choice is to try to intimidate her colleagues into not overruling Grutter and to make them pay a political cost for doing so. I doubt very much that an intimidation campaign will succeed, and, given the broad unpopularity of racial preferences in admissions, any justice who considers the political fallout of decisions has little reason for concern.
A month ago, a Seattle Times columnist falsely insinuated that Coach Joe Kennedy, who won a big First Amendment victory in June in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, had no interest in getting his coaching job back. The claim was part of a broader campaign of smears and distortions that the Left has waged against Coach Kennedy and his lawyers and against the Supreme Court majority.
Vindicating my account that Coach Kennedy has been looking forward to resuming his coaching duties, ABC News reports that the Bremerton School District and Kennedy have agreed that Kennedy will be reinstated as assistant coach of the Bremerton High School football team some time between now and mid-March 2023. (A school-district spokesman says that there remain some issues to resolve.)
2020—A divided Ninth Circuit panel rules (in Cortesluna v. Leon) that the district court wrongly determined that a police officer was entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that he used excessive force in making an arrest. The majority concludes that “existing precedent squarely governs the specific facts of this case,” but Judge Daniel P. Collins in dissent observes that the facts in that supposedly precedential case are “materially distinguishable from this case”: “There is a very significant difference between using a knee to hold down a person who is suspected of a serious violent crime who is armed with a knife (as in this case) and using a knee to hold down a noisy neighbor armed with nothing more than a sandwich (as in [the precedent cited by the majority]).”
In October 2021, the Supreme Court, citing Collins’s dissent with approval, will summarily reverse the Ninth Circuit ruling.
M. Edward Whelan III Distinguished Senior Fellow and
Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies Ethics and Public Policy Center 1730 M Street N.W., Suite 910 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-682-1200 www.EPPC.org
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE IN TRYING TO ANTICIPATE JUSTICE KAGAN’S OPINION IN THE HARVARD/UNC CASES
“Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute… This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil… But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear.
The Francis/Fr. Martin Amoris Laetitia Heresy of “Conscience is Supreme”
Francis strolls hand in hand with the anti-ganster and gay rights advocate Fr. Luigi Ciotti.
The Catholic Thing writer Anthony Esolen summed up perfectly what the Catholic Church has become under clerics like Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Fr. James Martin and Francis:
“Do you remember a time when a priest could march alongside miners and auto workers and look like one of them, not like a breathless female reporter in the locker room of a football team?”
“…And now this, about Cardinal McCarrick. The cardinal… has pointedly not said, “I have never had sexual relations with a seminarian or a priest.” It was a perversion of the male protective brotherhood, whose noblest and purest manifestation is the apostolic band.”
“Unlike those brothers the apostles, who went forth into the world to lay down their lives for Christ and the Church, these bands in our day have used the Church as a cover, and a means of procurement. They have turned the Church inward upon themselves and their essentially narcissistic and childish desires and deeds.”
“We should not then be surprised that the Church, in their hands, becomes contentedly anti-apostolic and anti-evangelistic. The leaders make common cause with ambitious women against their enemies: ordinary, healthy, self-assured, masculine men and the women who love and esteem them.”
Can anyone imagine the “soft and effeminate” Cardinal McCarrick and Fr. Martin marching “alongside miners and auto workers and look[ing] like one of them, not like a breathless female reporter in the locker room of a football team?”
Can anyone imagine John Paul II’s or Benedict’s confidants and collaborators having as suspicious a #HimToo trial as Cardinal McCarrick’s confidants and collaborators?
Can anyone imagine John Paul II or Benedict promoting homosexuality with the Amoris Laetitia Heresy of “conscience is supreme” as Francis and Martin are doing?
Francis’s words against gay marriage and Martin’s claim that “he has never challenged Church teaching on homosexuality” are empty or meaningless unless they condemn the heresy of the “conscience is supreme” also called the primacy of conscience which is promoted by Amoris Laetitia as I show in my article “Is Pope Francis a ‘Atheist.”
Dissenting gay rights advocate Matteo Gagliardi approves of the Francis’s primacy of conscience teaching:
Francis’s Amoris Laetitia promotes the primacy of conscience heresy also called the”conscience is supreme” that tells the sexually active homosexual who commits objective mortal sins of sodomy and anyone in objective mortal sin that they are not in sin if they are at “peace” with it, if the sinful behavior is “humanly impossible” to change, “if they can’t change their sinful behavior” or don’t know it is wrong as I document in the article:
Crisis magazine writer Fr. Peter Pilsner explains how Martin probably uses the”conscience is supreme” heresy, promoted by Francis’s Amoris Laetitia, to say that “he has never challenged Church teaching on homosexuality”:
“So, if Martin is explaining Catholic teaching on homosexuality in America, but at the same time refusing to acknowledge that his statements have departed from Catholic teaching, and even continuing to say things that would imply a departure from Catholic teaching, what is he doing? I see two possibilities. One is that he knows he is in a contradiction and is playing games—saying one thing to satisfy his superiors and critics, but other things to his fans. If this is the case, he is being deceitful. The other is that he is being clever, by which I mean that he feels he is avoiding contradictions by way of certain theological stratagems that we know only too well.’
“… The Freedom of Conscience Theory (or ‘Conscience is Supreme’ Theory): Conscience does not apply moral norms of natural and divine law to concrete situations. It creates the moral norms themselves. It thus stands in judgment over (i.e., is supreme over) the moral norms taught by the Church. Hence, ‘Yes, I affirm that according to the magisterium, homosexual acts are gravely sinful. (But if your conscience tells you such acts are perfectly good, you should do them without guilt, because your conscience is supreme.)’”
“Such thinking is very much alive, if not habitual, to theologians on the left. A few years ago, I interviewed a prospective teacher to work in the theology department of our school. I had reservations about this person’s orthodoxy, so I said to him point blank: ‘In our high school, we strive to present the Magisterium of the Catholic Church faithfully, and to teach it to our students as persuasively as possible. Can you see yourself as contributing to this mission?” He replied with enthusiasm, ‘Absolutely!’ But as it turned out, it wasn’t quite the case. I am not saying the person lied. But the way I understood the words ‘magisterium’ and ‘faithful’ were quite different from the way he understood them. (I have always thought it would be fun to write parody lyrics to Cole Porter’s ‘Always True to You Darling.’ They would read something like, ‘I’m always true to Church teaching in my fashion. I’m always true to Church teaching in my way.’)”
You don’t have to believe Fr. Peter Pilsner or me in order to know that the primacy of conscience teaching also called the”conscience is supreme” is heretical. Just read Pope John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor:
“Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute… This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil… But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear.“[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]
Say an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and that the primacy of conscience heresy is this year condemned by those clerics in the Church who are faithful to the God-man Jesus Christ and to His Revelation.
Pray an Our Father now in reparation for the sins of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”:
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
Pray an Our Father now for America.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of MarySHARE
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on You don’t have to believe Fr. Peter Pilsner or me in order to know that the primacy of conscience teaching also called the”conscience is supreme” is heretical. Just read Pope John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor:
European High Court Okays Anti-Catholicism October 27, 2022 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a European judicial decision that legalized blasphemy against Catholics: Christmas carols were being sung when a woman walked into Mass, ascended to the altar, naked from the waist up, with pro-abortion slogans all over her body. She then proceeded to “abort” Jesus, holding up pieces of calf liver to symbolize an aborted baby. She completed her blasphemous act by urinating on the altar in front of parishioners. This 2013 stunt occurred in France. Now the European Court of Human Rights has taken her side, saying she was unjustly found guilty by a French court for an unlawful “sexual display.” The high court said she was merely engaged in freedom of expression, and should never have been prosecuted. Indeed, it ordered the French courts to pay her more than $9,500 in damages, costs, and expenses. No one has more fully understood this kind of moral depravity better than Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. He spoke eloquently about the “dictatorship of relativism” taking place in the West, a reference to the absence of objective moral truths. What better example than this high court ruling? He also warned of the dangerous aspects of multiculturalism. It is not, as some have contended, a way of appreciating cultural diversity. No, from the get-go it has been used as a club to destroy our Judeo-Christian heritage. The European Court of Human Rights proved its hatred for our heritage when it called this vicious act a “performance.” If this same woman walked into their court, half naked, ascended to the bench, with obscene slogans on her body condemning the judges by name, and then proceeded to defecate on pictures of their mother, would these open-minded wizards call this freedom of expression? Here’s more proof of their animus against Catholicism. Four years ago it upheld the conviction of a lecturer in Austria who called Mohammad a pedophile for having a sexual relationship with a 9-year-old girl named Aisha. This court has no legitimacy. It should be disbanded. Contact Robert Spano, president of the European Court of Human Rights: Robert.Spano@echr.coe.int
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on DON’T JUST SIT THERE, CONTACT ROBERT SPANO!!!
Former candidate for Orange County commissioner describes widespread vote trafficking operation in Orlando area, authorities see enough evidence to warrant criminal probe.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ new election crimes unit has recommended state police open a full criminal investigation into a Democrat whistleblower’s detailed complaint of a long-running, widespread ballot harvesting operation in the African-American communities in politically important central Florida.
Former Orange County Commissioner candidate Cynthia Harris filed a sworn affidavit in late August with the Secretary of State’s office alleging that illegal operations to collect third-party ballots have been going on for years in the Orlando area where voting activists are paid $10 for each ballot they collect.
She described an intricate system funded by liberal leaning organizations that dispatch ballot brokers into black communities to pressure voters to turn over their ballots. The $10 fee per ballot is divvied up among the parties who help complete the harvesting.
The collection and delivery of ballots by third parties is illegal in Florida.
The newly created Office of Election Crimes and Security did a preliminary inquiry on Harris’ allegations and concluded there was sufficient evidence to warrant a full criminal probe by the state police, the Florida State Department told Just the News on Wednesday.
“The Florida Department of State, Office of Election Crimes and Security (OECS) was made aware of this issue around September 1, 2022,” the department said. “After further inquiry, OECS received additional information related to the allegation on October 17, 2022, and performed a preliminary investigation.
“Since OECS is an investigative entity and does not [have] authority to make arrests, the office forwarded the complaint to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for possible violation of section 104.0616, Florida Statutes,” it added.
The development in Florida adds an explosive new allegation to concerns nationwide that ballot trafficking is widespread in some battleground states, a claim made famous by the research of the conservative watchdog group True the Vote and a documentary released earlier this year by filmmaker Dinesh D’Sousa called “2,000 Mules.”
Arizona prosecutors have achieved several convictions in that state for ballot harvesting, most recently securing the guilty plea of a former Democrat mayor in Yuma County. True the Vote filed a complaint in Georgia alleging thousands of ballots were harvested in the 2020 election, but those allegations have not yet been corroborated as authorities negotiate with the nonprofit group for its evidence. A Wisconsin investigation unmasked a sophisticated ballot harvesting effort targeting vulnerable nursing home patients in communities like Racine, Wisc.
Harris, who narrowly lost her election for county commissioner in August, described to Just the News her years-long knowledge of ballot harvesting in the black communities in central Florida. She even recorded a ballot broker coming to her home in 2017 to collect her ballot, and obtained the script that harvester was given by her bosses to make the pitch for a voter to turn over their ballot.
“So what happens is in our community when absentee ballots are mailed, you the candidate or any political party can find out when the absentee ballots are mailed and to whom what happens is these ballot harvesters, they know which batch has gone out, they go to the door and they ask you for your absentee ballot,” Harris told the “Just the News, No Noise” television show on Wednesday night.
“Well, in communities that don’t look like me, no one does this,” she said, referring to white neighborhoods. “But in our community it’s kind of like an accepted practice that the man is coming by to pick up my absentee ballot or the lady is coming to pick up my absentee ballot.”
In her sworn affidavit, Harris identifies specific individuals who direct and act as ballot brokers and were paid to collect ballots and provides intricate details on how the system allegedly works, along with emails, receipts, video footage and other evidence.
“Ballot brokers typically work up to a year in advance,” she stated. “Ballot brokers visit individuals in their residences and assists the individual with filling out a request for a mail-in ballot. After the mail-in ballot arrives, the voter is instructed to wait for the ballot broker returns to the individuals residence. They are asked to not seal the certificate envelope.”
“In rare circumstances, if the voter has filled out the ballot and sealed the envelope certificate, the ballot broker will take the ballot and then steam open the sealed envelope,” the affidavit added. “The ballot broker will either correct any votes, if necessary, that were not voted according to their wishes or just throw them out.”
Harris described how, much as in Wisconsin, vulnerable patients in rehabilitation centers and nursing homes in Florida were targeted for ballot trafficking.
“For nursing homes … ballot brokers get the list of residents by cross referencing the address with the voter registration list,” she explained. “The ballot broker figures out the best way to make contact, usually thru friends and family that may or may not know they are even part of a scheme. They help the resident fill out the mail-in-ballot or just take the mail-in-ballot from the nursing home and deliver it to the ballot broker.”
Harris, who has worked as an election poll worker in the past, said her biggest concern in coming forward is that ballots collected by third parties have no chain of custody, making it easier to commit fraud such as destroying a ballot or altering it.
“You know, it’s just utterly ridiculous that people don’t understand that once that ballot leaves your hand and it’s not placed in the mailbox, or it’s not directly given to the supervisor of elections, you don’t know where it goes,” she said. “It’s possible that they throw them away. We’ve seen evidence of that.
“You see them steam open the ballots and then they mismark them so that if it’s not for their candidate, then that ballot is spoiled. So when people think that the numbers are low, it’s really not low, it’s just that someone has intercepted before it gets to the proper authorities.”
Harris alleged that the Orange County supervisor of elections, who has held the office for 26 years, has turned a blind eye to ballot harvesting in her community.
“[T]his has been going on for so long, you have to look at the supervisor of elections himself. He’s been there since 1996. That’s 26 years that this has been a blind eye turned on our community, the people that we entrust in the fair elections and the democratic process.
“It has been flawed for a long time because this only happens in our community. It happens all over the nation, but we are the ones that suffer from it because we’re the most disenfranchised, we don’t have the resources to fight back, and we don’t know how to fight back by telling our story.”
The office of Orange County Supervisor of Elections Bill Cowles said in a response to a request for comment regarding Harris’ claim that he “is not aware of any issues regarding ballot harvesting,” so he is “unable to comment on that at this time.”
The office added that “if there are any issues” that Harris is “concerned about, we would recommend her filing a complaint with the state for investigation.”
After voting ended in the August primary, Harris was in second place with a total of 3,158 votes on election night, which was supposed to trigger a runoff election because the candidate with the most votes didn’t receive 51% of the votes.
There was supposed to be a recount, according to Harris, but somehow she “kept losing votes instead of gaining votes,” she said. “So when they certified the votes, I was a total of 14 votes missing.
“I know how to do basic math, I don’t understand how you could go down in numbers versus going up. But the story that they told me was that the machine was fed extra ballots, and that’s why I was six votes ahead of the person that came in third place. Well, if I’m six votes ahead of the person that came in third place at the end of the night, how do you lose 14 votes within a couple of days?”
Florida has had other issues with regard to ballot harvesting over the years.
In 2005, Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer was indicted on a felony charge of paying a campaign worker to collect absentee ballots before his 2004 election, along with three others on similar charges. The charges were dropped by the prosecutor, who said that none of the persons indicted had intended to break the law.
In 2013, a ballot harvester in Hialeah received one-year probation as part of a plea deal after police said she collected at least 31 absentee ballots for the 2012 August primary election. While a felony charge was dropped, the woman pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of illegally possessing more than two ballots from other voters.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on BALLOT HARVESTING CAN ROB YOU OF YOUR VOTE, FIGHT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dear Rene, There’s a major choice many voters face in this upcoming election, but it has nothing to do with the candidates on the ballot. What am I referring to? Ballot measures—specifically state constitutional amendments. However, I’m sure you’ve experienced a certain frustration. Ballot measures, also called “propositions,” can be confusing, written in such a way that even when read carefully, it is difficult to discern their meaning and how they will practically affect you. Here’s one example: in August, a pro-life constitutional amendment in Kansas was defeated by a shocking 60 – 40 margin. This defeat at the ballot box puts existing and future pro-life laws in Kansas in danger of being overturned by courts, meaning more unborn babies are in danger. Why such a landslide defeat in Kansas, a state that has supported many pro-life laws in the past? It is likely that two problems contributed to the constitutional amendment’s rejection:Confusing and misleading narratives regarding the meaning and consequences of the amendmentUnderfunding of organizations supporting and promoting it to votersThese problems might have been overcome if more voters were adequately informed. And Kansas is just the beginning: five more states have a constitutional amendment related to abortion on the ballot this November. The stakes are high! California, Michigan, and Vermont all contain ballot propositions that would enshrine a right to abortion in their state constitutions. On the other hand, Montana has a ballot measure that enshrines protections for infants born alive after an abortion attempt. And voters in Kentucky will decide whether to approve a constitutional amendment that would protect existing pro-life laws from being ruled unconstitutional by activist judges. It is crucial to alert these voters that their ballot can hold the power to determine the direction of their state on the issue of life for decades to come. iVoterGuide is Offering a Solution What if voters could use iVoterGuide to understand key measures on their ballot, much like they already use our guide to understand candidates on their ballot? Already pressed for time, our marvelous researchers compiled key information on abortion-related constitutional amendments, while our tech team created a brand-new addition to the voter guides in these states so anyone can view the research, forward it to their friends, and head to the polls—motivated and informed. Because of your support, we were able to create this new feature at the last minute! It is the first time iVoterGuide is including ballot propositions in our coverage and lays the foundation for coverage of more ballot measures in the future, as many of you have requested! Voters will be able to use our research to understand the implications of their ballot measure (What it Means), compare Arguments FOR and AGAINST the measure, see who is funding each position in the Financial Source Documents section, and compare Endorsements from individuals and entities who are advocating either a YES or NO vote. The value of accessing all this information in one place with an easy side-by-side comparison is tremendous. Not only will existing iVoterGuide users be equipped, but they can forward our research to their friends and motivate them to head to the polls. We didn’t stop with pro-life amendments. We are also covering ballot measures affecting election integrity in several states. And, with your support, we would like to cover more in 2023 and 2024. Predictably, millions of dollars from pro-abortion organizations are being spent to influence voters and drive turnout—vastly more than pro-life organizations. For instance, the group opposing Kentucky’s pro-life proposition has raised over 3 million dollars, while the pro-life group supporting the proposition has only raised over $600,000. iVoterGuide is badly needed. Will you help us get these guides into the hands of as many voters as possible? Candidates come and go but constitutional amendments, if implemented, remain for decades. I need your support to help us solve the problem made clear in Kansas this year. With a simple presentation of the facts, we may prevent bad ballot measures from being approved by voters who haven’t been informed of the dangers, or don’t understand what the wording truly means. You can also help the success of good amendments which save lives and put entire states on the path to becoming havens for life in America! Will you help us inform voters in these last few weeks? For our Future, Debbie Debbie WuthnowPresident, iVoterGuide P.S. To see an example of this wonderful new feature, you can view the voter guide for Kentucky’s pro-life ballot measure here on our website. If we are covering a ballot measure in your state, it will be visible at the bottom of your voter guide. You will also receive an email notification from us!
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on There’s a major choice many voters face in this upcoming election, but it has nothing to do with the candidates on the ballot. What am I referring to? Ballot measures—specifically state constitutional amendments.
Yesterday, Live Action President Lila Rose joined the Dr. Phil show again in part two of a segment on abortion.
As you may have seen from the first episode that went viral, the entire segment was set up to favor the pro-abortion side. However, Lila made a compelling and compassionate case for life.
Part two of the show focuses more on questions from the audience and includes a lively debate with panelists and audience members on when human life begins.
Lila provides a strong response to the argument that the government cannot control women’s bodies, stating that when a woman is pregnant, there are two individual human lives who deserve our love and protection. Watch here: https://www.liveaction.org/dr-phil-clip
Lila also discusses the post-abortion trauma that so many women experience that counters the media narrative that abortion is good, even necessary.
At one point, Dr. Phil even praises Live Action’s “pro-active” work in supporting women and families, countering the pro-abortion claim that pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born.
Former candidate for Orange County commissioner describes widespread vote trafficking operation in Orlando area, authorities see enough evidence to warrant criminal probe.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ new election crimes unit has recommended state police open a full criminal investigation into a Democrat whistleblower’s detailed complaint of a long-running, widespread ballot harvesting operation in the African-American communities in politically important central Florida.
Former Orange County Commissioner candidate Cynthia Harris filed a sworn affidavit in late August with the Secretary of State’s office alleging that illegal operations to collect third-party ballots have been going on for years in the Orlando area where voting activists are paid $10 for each ballot they collect.
She described an intricate system funded by liberal leaning organizations that dispatch ballot brokers into black communities to pressure voters to turn over their ballots. The $10 fee per ballot is divvied up among the parties who help complete the harvesting.
The collection and delivery of ballots by third parties is illegal in Florida.
The newly created Office of Election Crimes and Security did a preliminary inquiry on Harris’ allegations and concluded there was sufficient evidence to warrant a full criminal probe by the state police, the Florida State Department told Just the News on Wednesday.
“The Florida Department of State, Office of Election Crimes and Security (OECS) was made aware of this issue around September 1, 2022,” the department said. “After further inquiry, OECS received additional information related to the allegation on October 17, 2022, and performed a preliminary investigation.
“Since OECS is an investigative entity and does not [have] authority to make arrests, the office forwarded the complaint to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for possible violation of section 104.0616, Florida Statutes,” it added.
The development in Florida adds an explosive new allegation to concerns nationwide that ballot trafficking is widespread in some battleground states, a claim made famous by the research of the conservative watchdog group True the Vote and a documentary released earlier this year by filmmaker Dinesh D’Sousa called “2,000 Mules.”
Arizona prosecutors have achieved several convictions in that state for ballot harvesting, most recently securing the guilty plea of a former Democrat mayor in Yuma County. True the Vote filed a complaint in Georgia alleging thousands of ballots were harvested in the 2020 election, but those allegations have not yet been corroborated as authorities negotiate with the nonprofit group for its evidence. A Wisconsin investigation unmasked a sophisticated ballot harvesting effort targeting vulnerable nursing home patients in communities like Racine, Wisc.
Harris, who narrowly lost her election for county commissioner in August, described to Just the News her years-long knowledge of ballot harvesting in the black communities in central Florida. She even recorded a ballot broker coming to her home in 2017 to collect her ballot, and obtained the script that harvester was given by her bosses to make the pitch for a voter to turn over their ballot.
“So what happens is in our community when absentee ballots are mailed, you the candidate or any political party can find out when the absentee ballots are mailed and to whom what happens is these ballot harvesters, they know which batch has gone out, they go to the door and they ask you for your absentee ballot,” Harris told the “Just the News, No Noise” television show on Wednesday night.
“Well, in communities that don’t look like me, no one does this,” she said, referring to white neighborhoods. “But in our community it’s kind of like an accepted practice that the man is coming by to pick up my absentee ballot or the lady is coming to pick up my absentee ballot.”
In her sworn affidavit, Harris identifies specific individuals who direct and act as ballot brokers and were paid to collect ballots and provides intricate details on how the system allegedly works, along with emails, receipts, video footage and other evidence.
“Ballot brokers typically work up to a year in advance,” she stated. “Ballot brokers visit individuals in their residences and assists the individual with filling out a request for a mail-in ballot. After the mail-in ballot arrives, the voter is instructed to wait for the ballot broker returns to the individuals residence. They are asked to not seal the certificate envelope.”
“In rare circumstances, if the voter has filled out the ballot and sealed the envelope certificate, the ballot broker will take the ballot and then steam open the sealed envelope,” the affidavit added. “The ballot broker will either correct any votes, if necessary, that were not voted according to their wishes or just throw them out.”
Harris described how, much as in Wisconsin, vulnerable patients in rehabilitation centers and nursing homes in Florida were targeted for ballot trafficking.
“For nursing homes … ballot brokers get the list of residents by cross referencing the address with the voter registration list,” she explained. “The ballot broker figures out the best way to make contact, usually thru friends and family that may or may not know they are even part of a scheme. They help the resident fill out the mail-in-ballot or just take the mail-in-ballot from the nursing home and deliver it to the ballot broker.”
Harris, who has worked as an election poll worker in the past, said her biggest concern in coming forward is that ballots collected by third parties have no chain of custody, making it easier to commit fraud such as destroying a ballot or altering it.
“You know, it’s just utterly ridiculous that people don’t understand that once that ballot leaves your hand and it’s not placed in the mailbox, or it’s not directly given to the supervisor of elections, you don’t know where it goes,” she said. “It’s possible that they throw them away. We’ve seen evidence of that.
“You see them steam open the ballots and then they mismark them so that if it’s not for their candidate, then that ballot is spoiled. So when people think that the numbers are low, it’s really not low, it’s just that someone has intercepted before it gets to the proper authorities.”
Harris alleged that the Orange County supervisor of elections, who has held the office for 26 years, has turned a blind eye to ballot harvesting in her community.
“[T]his has been going on for so long, you have to look at the supervisor of elections himself. He’s been there since 1996. That’s 26 years that this has been a blind eye turned on our community, the people that we entrust in the fair elections and the democratic process.
“It has been flawed for a long time because this only happens in our community. It happens all over the nation, but we are the ones that suffer from it because we’re the most disenfranchised, we don’t have the resources to fight back, and we don’t know how to fight back by telling our story.”
The office of Orange County Supervisor of Elections Bill Cowles said in a response to a request for comment regarding Harris’ claim that he “is not aware of any issues regarding ballot harvesting,” so he is “unable to comment on that at this time.”
The office added that “if there are any issues” that Harris is “concerned about, we would recommend her filing a complaint with the state for investigation.”
After voting ended in the August primary, Harris was in second place with a total of 3,158 votes on election night, which was supposed to trigger a runoff election because the candidate with the most votes didn’t receive 51% of the votes.
There was supposed to be a recount, according to Harris, but somehow she “kept losing votes instead of gaining votes,” she said. “So when they certified the votes, I was a total of 14 votes missing.
“I know how to do basic math, I don’t understand how you could go down in numbers versus going up. But the story that they told me was that the machine was fed extra ballots, and that’s why I was six votes ahead of the person that came in third place. Well, if I’m six votes ahead of the person that came in third place at the end of the night, how do you lose 14 votes within a couple of days?”
Florida has had other issues with regard to ballot harvesting over the years.
In 2005, Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer was indicted on a felony charge of paying a campaign worker to collect absentee ballots before his 2004 election, along with three others on similar charges. The charges were dropped by the prosecutor, who said that none of the persons indicted had intended to break the law.
In 2013, a ballot harvester in Hialeah received one-year probation as part of a plea deal after police said she collected at least 31 absentee ballots for the 2012 August primary election. While a felony charge was dropped, the woman pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of illegally possessing more than two ballots from other voters.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THIS CAN HAPPEN IN EVERY STATE, NOT JUST IN FLORIDA!!! BE ON THE ALERT IN YOUR STATE!!! IF YOU SEE SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORT IT TO HONEST MEDIA FOR PUBLIC FOCUSING THE SPOTLIGHT ON VOTING CORRUPTION
Bp. Schneider: Communion in the hand a ‘grievous evil’ that must be stopped
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, in a new interview with John-Henry Westen, discussed many important topics relating to our current crisis in the Catholic Church.
(LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Athanasius Schneider, in a new interview with John-Henry Westen, discussed many important topics relating to our current crisis in the Catholic Church. He told John-Henry Westen that he is convinced that, in spite of attempts at restricting the Traditional Latin Mass, “the Vatican will not succeed to forbid totally the Traditional Latin Mass.”
He also insisted that the Society of St. Pius X is not in schism and that therefore faithful Catholics are free to attend their chapels. And finally, the Kazakh prelate urged Catholics always to receive Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist on the tongue and not on the hands.
The bishop of German descent was very convinced that the Traditional Latin Mass will not die. Two generations now have been able to grow up in that traditional rite of the Mass and to live in it. Therefore, the Vatican “will not succeed.”
“They will cause a wide, large counter-reaction because there will be the good Catholics. They will go underground and they will not stop them,” Schneider expounded.
That is to say, Bishop Schneider predicted that many traditional Catholics – and their priests – will go underground, rather than abandoning the ancient liturgy and its sacraments.
“Their faith is so strong, and this prohibition will be probably a dead letter and it will not last long,” Schneider predicted.
Asked by John-Henry Westen about the claim that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), which exclusively uses the traditional Latin missal and the traditional sacraments, is in schism, Bishop Schneider responded with the words that the SSPX is “surely not schismatic.”
In the bishop’s eyes, it is “a very narrow, legalistic view of the reality of the Church” which would lead to such a conclusion. Such a view is “putting the letter of the Canon Law above the importance, the primary importance of the fullness of the Catholic faith and of the traditional liturgy.”
Bishop Schneider also sees a need to further clarify the term “schism,” which, together with other terms, are “subordinated” to the “greatest law of Canon Law, which is the salvation of souls.” For example, one criterion is whether or not one wishes to have “a canonical community with the Pope,” which is most prominently manifest by praying for the Pope during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist.
The Kazakh bishop, who had been one of the visitors of the Holy See during the official visitation of the SSPX six years ago under Pope Francis, insisted that the SSPX always pray for the Pope and the local bishop in their Masses, as well as chanting “in public” prayers for the Pope. Therefore, the prelate challenged those who claim that the SSPX is in schism to “visit at least their seminaries… their parishes, their families, their youth.” And they “will be moved” by the attitude by this group of Catholics.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on COMMUNION IN THE HAND IS A GRIEVOUS EVIL THAT MUST NEVER BE TOLERATED
Archbishop Chaput: ‘Biden Is Not in Communion With the Catholic Faith’
‘That’s a form of lying. Mr. Biden is not in communion with the Catholic faith. And any priest who now provides Communion to the president participates in his hypocrisy.’
ARLINGTON, Va. — Archbishop Charles Chaput said on Saturday that Joe Biden “is not in communion with the Catholic faith” and that “any priest who now provides Communion to the president participates in his hypocrisy.”
Speaking at a Eucharistic Symposium at the Diocese of Arlington on Oct. 22, the 78-year-old prelate also accused the second Catholic president in the history of the United States of “apostasy on the abortion issue.”
In his address, titled “Do this in Remembrance of Me: Memory, Culture, Sacrament,” the archbishop emeritus of Philadelphia spoke about “American Catholics and our 200-year struggle to fit into mainstream American culture.”
“We succeeded. But in the process, we’ve been digested and bleached out by the culture, rather than leavening it in a fertile way with a distinctive Catholic witness,” Archbishop Chaput said.
The archbishop continued: “Mr. Biden’s apostasy on the abortion issue is only the most repugnant example. He’s not alone. But in a sane world, his unique public leadership would make — or should make — public consequences unavoidable.”
“When you freely break communion with the Church of Jesus Christ and her teachings, you can’t pretend to be in communion when it’s convenient,” Archbishop Chaput said.
“That’s a form of lying. Mr. Biden is not in communion with the Catholic faith. And any priest who now provides Communion to the president participates in his hypocrisy.”
Last week, the president vowed again that he would codifyRoe v. Wade into law should Democrats win the midterm elections in November.
As previously reported by CNA, he made it clear he would sign the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), a radical piece of abortion legislation that would forbid any abortion restrictions before and after fetal viability.
In his address, Archbishop Chaput said many Catholics, “even many who regularly attend Sunday Mass, no longer believe in the Real Sacrifice or the Real Presence.”
“We’ve forgotten who we are as a believing people. This is both a cause and a symptom of today’s lukewarm Catholic spirit, in our nation’s culture and within the Church herself,“ he said. ”But that can change, and it needs to change, starting with each of us here.”
Obedience is not blind or unconditional but has limits. Where there is sin, mortal or otherwise, we have not merely a right, but a duty to disobey.”
Bp. Schneider: Pope has ‘full authority’ but cannot ‘weaken the integrity of the Catholic faith’
‘Authority is defined by its limits, and obedience is also defined by its limits. Awareness of these limits leads to perfection in the exercise of authority and perfection in the exercise of obedience.’
(LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Athanasius Schneider kindly gave LifeSite an analysis (see full text below) in which he discusses the nature, and limits, of obedience to the Pope. Quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas and other sources, he explains that all authority and all obedience have limits.
“Obedience,” he says, “is not blind or unconditional but has limits. Where there is sin, mortal or otherwise, we have not merely a right, but a duty to disobey.”
The Pope, being the vicar of Christ, is bound to serve Catholic truth and not to alter it. Therefore, “one has surely to obey the Pope, when he proposes infallibly the truth of Christ, [and] when he speaks ex cathedra, which is very rare. We have to obey the Pope when he orders us to obey the laws and commandments of God [and] when he makes administrative and jurisdictional decisions (appointments, indulgences, etc.).”
However, the Kazakh bishop explains, if “a Pope creates confusion and ambiguity regarding the integrity of the Catholic faith and the sacred Liturgy, then one must not obey him, and one must obey the Church of all ages and the Popes who, during two millennia, were teaching constantly and clearly all the Catholic truths in the same sense.”
In times of crisis, where Church leaders are failing to fulfill their duties as shepherds leading the flock to Christ other members of the Mystical Body of Christ are called to help out and defend the faith. States the bishop:
When those in authority in the Church (Pope, Bishops), as it is the case in our time, fail to fulfill faithfully their duty to keep and defend the integrity and the clarity of the Catholic faith and the liturgy, God calls the subordinates, often the little and simple ones in the Church, to compensate for the defects of the superiors, by means of appeals, proposals of correction, and, most powerfully, by means of vicarious sacrifices and prayers.
With much clarity and charity, Bishop Schneider thus gives all Catholics guidelines for the proper response to the erroneous teachings and gestures coming out of Rome these days, such as the appointment of pro-abortionists to the Pontifical Academy for Life and the open promotion of the LGBT agenda on the part of officials.
Cardinal Gerhard Müller, a former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, recently also made it clear that prelates who promote such erroneous teachings should not be obeyed. He stated: “You don’t have to obey an obviously heretical bishop just for reasons of formality, otherwise religious obedience would be blind obedience that contradicts not only reason but also faith. The right to resist is, of course, strictly related to the revealed truths.” This statement could of course also be applied to the Pope who himself is not above the law of God and does not have “unlimited power,” contrary to what a close collaborator of Pope Francis seems to have suggested at the recent meeting of the college of cardinals in Rome. Meanwhile, the German Cardinal has called the Synod on Synodality “the hostile takeover of the Church.“
In light of this Church crisis, disobedience could even become a duty, remembering the rule that one must obey God more than man. Bishop Schneider writes:
To the authority of a Pope or a bishop which exceeds the limits of the divine law of the integrity and the clarity of the Catholic faith, one must mount firm resistance, which may become public. This is the heroism of our time, the gravest path to sanctity today. To become saints means doing the will of God; doing the will of God means obeying His law always, in particular, when this is difficult or when this places us in conflict with men, who, though as legitimate representatives of His authority on earth (Pope, bishop), are, unfortunately, spreading errors or weakening the integrity and the clarity of the Catholic faith.
We are deeply grateful to His Excellency for his clarity of teaching and for his encouragement of those Catholics who are dismayed at the dismantling of the Catholic faith of all ages in front of our own eyes, yet who wish to do nothing that would displease Our Lord.
Please see here Bishop Schneider’s full statement:
The Correct Meaning of Obedience to the Pope
The holy Church is first and most deeply a Divine institution, and she is a mystery in its supernatural meaning. Secondly, it has also the human and visible reality, the visible members and the hierarchy (Pope, bishop, priest).
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR DAILY HEADLINES US Canada Catholic
When Mother Church is going through one of the deepest crises in her history, as she is in our time, where the crisis touches all levels of the Church’s life to a frightening extent, Divine Providence is calling us to love our Mother Church, who is humiliated and mocked not in first place by her enemies, but from within by her shepherds. We are called to help our Mother Church, each of us in his place, to help her for a true renewal through our own fidelity to the immutable integrity of the Catholic faith, through our fidelity to the constant beauty and sacredness of her liturgy, the liturgy of all ages, through our intense spiritual life in union with Christ, and through acts of love and charity.
The mystery of the Church is greater than just the Pope or the bishop. Sometimes popes and bishops did harm to the Church, but at the same time God used other instruments, often the simple faithful, simple priests, or a few bishops, to restore the holiness of faith and life within the Church.
To be faithful to the Church does not mean to obey interiorly all words and acts of a Pope or a bishop, since the Pope or a bishop are not identical to the entire Church. And if a Pope or a bishop supports a way which damages the integrity of the faith and the liturgy, then one is in no way obliged to follow him interiorly, because we have to follow the Faith and the norms of the Church of all ages, of the apostles and the saints.
The Catholic Church is the one and only Church which Christ founded, and it is the express will of God that all men should become members of His one Church, members of the Mystical Body of Christ. The Church is not the private property of a Pope; rather, he is only the vicar, the servant, of Christ. Therefore, one cannot make becoming a full Catholic dependent on the behavior of a particular Pope. One has surely to obey the Pope when he proposes infallibly the truth of Christ, when he speaks ex cathedra, which is very rare. We have to obey the Pope when he orders us to obey the laws and commandments of God, [and] when he makes administrative and jurisdictional decisions (appointments, indulgences, etc.). If, however, a Pope creates confusion and ambiguity regarding the integrity of the Catholic faith and the sacred liturgy, then one must not obey him, and one must obey the Church of all ages and the Popes who, over two millennia, were teaching constantly and clearly all the Catholic truths in the same sense. And these Catholic truths we find expressed in the Catechism. One has to obey the Catechism and the liturgy of all ages, which the saints and our forefathers followed.
Along with other reflections there is presented in the following lines a short summary of Prof. Roberto de Mattei’s masterly talk, “Obedience and Resistance in the History of the Church,” given at Rome Life Forum, 18 May 2018.
It is a false obedience when a person divinizes men who represent authority in the Church (Pope or bishop), when this person accepts orders and consents to affirmations of his superiors, which evidently harm and weaken the clarity and integrity of the Catholic faith.
Obedience has a foundation, a purpose, conditions, and limits. Only God has no limits: He is immense, infinite, eternal. Every creature is limited, and that limit defines his essence. Therefore, neither unlimited authority, nor unlimited obedience, exists on earth. Authority is defined by its limits, and obedience is also defined by its limits. Awareness of these limits leads to perfection in the exercise of authority and perfection in the exercise of obedience. The insuperable limit of authority is respect for the divine law of the integrity and the clarity of the Catholic faith, and respect for this divine law of the integrity and the clarity of the Catholic faith is also the insuperable limit of obedience.
Saint Thomas poses the question, “Are subjects bound to obey their superiors in all things?” (Summa theologica, II-IIae, q. 104, a. 5); his answer is negative. As he explains, the reasons why a subject cannot be bound to obey its superior in all things are twofold. Firstly: because of a command from a higher authority, given that the hierarchy of authorities must be respected. Secondly: if a superior commands a subject to do unlawful things, for example, when children are not bound to obey their parents in the matter of contracting a marriage, preserving virginity, or similar matters. Saint Thomas concludes: “Man is subject to God absolutely, and in all things, internal and external: he is therefore bound to obey God in all things. However, subjects are not bound to obey their superiors in all things, but in certain things only. (…) Hence one can distinguish three types of obedience: the first, being sufficient for salvation, obeys in obligatory matters only; the second, being perfect, obeys in all lawful things; the third, being disordered, obeys in unlawful matters also” (Summa theologica, II-IIae, q. 104, a. 3).
Obedience is not blind or unconditional but has limits. Where there is sin, mortal or otherwise, we have not merely a right, but a duty to disobey. This also applies in circumstances where one is commanded to do something harmful to the integrity of the Catholic faith or the sacredness of the liturgy. History has demonstrated that a bishop, an episcopal conference, a Council, [and] even a Pope pronounced errors in their non-infallible Magisterium. What, in such circumstances, should the faithful do? In his various works, Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches that, where the faith is at risk, it is lawful, even proper, to resist a papal decision publicly, as did Saint Paul to Saint Peter, the first Pope. Indeed, “Saint Paul, who was subject to Saint Peter, publicly rebuked him because of an imminent risk of scandal in a matter of faith. And Saint Augustine commented, “Even Saint Peter set an example so that those who governed, but on occasion strayed from the right path, should not refuse as improper a correction, even if originating from their subjects” (ad Galatians 2, 14)” (Summa theologica, II-II, q. 33, a. 4, ad 2).
Saint Paul’s resistance was manifested as a public correction of Saint Peter, the first Pope. Saint Thomas devotes an entire question to fraternal correction in the Summa. Fraternal correction can also be directed by subjects to their superiors, and by the laity against prelates. “Since however a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circumstances, it follows that when a subject corrects his superior, he ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect” (Summa theologica, II-II, q. 33, a. 4, ad 3). If there is a danger to the faith, subjects are bound to rebuke their prelates, including the Pope, even publicly: “Therefore, due to the risk of scandal in the faith, Paul, who was in fact subject to Peter, rebuked him publicly” (ibidem).
The person and the office of the Pope has its meaning in being only the Vicar of Christ, an instrument and not an end, and as such, this meaning must be used, if we do not want to turn the relationship between the means and the end upside down. It is important to underline this at a time where, especially among the most devoted Catholics, there is a lot of confusion in this regard. And also, obedience to the Pope or to the bishop is an instrument, not an end.
The Roman Pontiff has full and immediate authority over all the faithful, and there is no authority on earth superior to him, but he cannot, either by erroneous or by ambiguous statements, change and weaken the integrity of the Catholic faith, the divine constitution of the Church, or the constant tradition of the sacredness and the sacrificial character of the liturgy of the Holy Mass. If this happens, there is the legitimate possibility and duty of the bishops and even of the lay faithful not only to present private and public appeals and proposals of doctrinal corrections, but also to act in “disobedience” of a Papal order which changes or weakens the integrity of the faith, the Divine Constitution of the Church and the liturgy. This is a very rare, but possible, circumstance which does not violate, but confirms, the rule of devotion and obedience to the Pope who is called to confirm the faith of his brothers. Such prayers, appeals, proposals of doctrinal corrections, and a so-called “disobedience” are, on the contrary, an expression of love for the Supreme Pontiff in order to help him to convert from his dangerous behavior of neglecting his primary duty to confirm the entire Church unambiguously and vigorously in the faith.
One must recall also what the First Vatican Council taught: “The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles” (First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus, chap. 4).
For the last few centuries, a legal positivism prevails in the life of the Church, combined with a kind of papolatry. Such an attitude aims at reducing the exterior orders of the superior and the law to a mere instrument in the hands of those who hold power, forgetting the metaphysical and moral foundation of the law itself. From this legalist standpoint, which now permeates the Church, that which the authority promulgates is always just.
Traditional spiritual treatises teach us how to obey the Church and the Pope, or the bishop. However, those refer to the times of normality, when the Pope and the bishops valiantly and unambiguously defended and protected the integrity of the faith and the liturgy. We are living now, obviously, in the exceptional time of a global crisis of the faith at all levels of the Church. A Catholic faithful has to recognize the supreme authority of the Pope, and his universal governance. However, we know that, in the exercise of his authority, the Pope may commit abuses of authority to the evident detriment of the Catholic faith and the sacredness of the liturgy of the Holy Mass, as has unfortunately occurred in history. We wish to obey the Pope: all Popes, including the current Pope, but if, in the teaching of any Pope, we find an evident contradiction, our rule of judgment follows the bi-millenary tradition of the Church, i.e., the constant teaching of the Popes throughout millennia and centuries.
According to Father Enrico Zoffoli, the worst evils of the Church do not originate from the malice of the world, interference, or persecution of the laity by other religions, but above all from the human elements which make up the Mystical Body: the laity and the clergy. “It is the disharmony produced by insubordination of the laity to the work of the clergy and of the clergy to the will of Christ” (Potere e obbedienza nella Chiesa, Milano 1996, p. 67):
To the authority of a Pope or a bishop which exceeds the limits of the divine law of the integrity and the clarity of the Catholic faith, one must mount firm resistance, which may become public. This is the heroism of our time, the gravest path to sanctity today. To become saints means doing the will of God; doing the will of God means obeying His law always, in particular, when this is difficult or when this places us in conflict with men, who, though as legitimate representatives of His authority on earth (Pope, bishop), are, unfortunately, spreading errors or weakening the integrity and the clarity of the Catholic faith.
Such moments are very rare in the history of the Church, yet they have happened, as it is evident in the sight of all, in our time also.
Many, in the course of history, have manifested heroic behavior, resisting the unjust laws of the political authority. Greater still is the heroism of those who have resisted the imposition by the ecclesiastical authority of doctrines which diverge from the constant Tradition of the Faith and the Liturgy of the Church. Filial, devout, respectful resistance does not lead to departure from the Church but multiplies love for the Church, for God, for His Truth, because God is the foundation of every authority and every act of obedience.
Because of the love for the Papal ministry, the honor of the Apostolic See and the person of the Roman Pontiff some saints, e.g. Saint Bridget of Sweden and Saint Catherine of Siena, did not shy from admonishing the Popes, sometimes even in somewhat strong terms, as we can see St. Bridget reporting the following words of the Lord, addressed to Pope Gregory XI: “Start to reform the church that I purchased with my own blood in order that it may be reformed and led back spiritually to its pristine state of holiness. If you do not obey this my will, then you can be quite sure that you are going to be condemned by me before all my heavenly court with the same kind of sentence and spiritual justice with which one condemns and punishes a worldly prelate who is to be stripped of his rank. He is publicly divested of his sacred, pontifical garb, defeated, and accursed. This is what I will do to you. I shall send you away from the glory of heaven. However, Gregory, my son, I admonish you again to convert to me with humility. Heed my counsel” (Book of Revelations, 4, 142).
St. Catherine of Siena, a Doctor of the Church, addressed the following blunt admonition to Pope Gregory XI, demanding that he vigorously reform the Church or, if he should fail to do it, renounce the papacy: “Most holy and sweet father, your poor unworthy daughter Catherine in Christ sweet Jesus, commends herself to you in His Precious Blood. Divine Truth demands that you execute justice on the abundance of many iniquities committed by those who are fed and pastured in the garden of Holy Church. Since He has given you authority and you have assumed it, you should use your virtue and power; and if you are not willing to use it, it would be better for you to resign what you have assumed; more honor to God and health to your soul would it be.”
When those in authority in the Church (Pope, bishops), as it is the case in our time, fail to fulfill faithfully their duty to keep and defend the integrity and the clarity of the Catholic faith and the liturgy, God calls the subordinates, often the little and simple ones in the Church, to compensate for the defects of the superiors, by means of appeals, proposals of correction, and, most powerfully, by means of vicarious sacrifices and prayers.
During the deep crisis of the Church in the fifteenth century, where the high clergy often gave a bad example and failed grievously in their pastoral duties, Nicholas Cardinal of Cusa (1401-1464) was deeply moved by a dream in which he was shown that spiritual reality of the power of self-offering, prayer, and the vicarious sacrifice. He saw in a dream the following scene: More than a thousand nuns were praying in the little church. They were not kneeling but standing. They stood with open arms, palms facing upwards in a gesture of offering. In the hands of a thin, young, almost child-like nun, Nicholas saw the Pope. You could see how heavy this load was for her, but her face was radiating a joyful gleam. This attitude we should emulate.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on All authority and all obedience have limits.
Dear Rene, There’s a major choice many voters face in this upcoming election, but it has nothing to do with the candidates on the ballot. What am I referring to? Ballot measures—specifically state constitutional amendments. However, I’m sure you’ve experienced a certain frustration. Ballot measures, also called “propositions,” can be confusing, written in such a way that even when read carefully, it is difficult to discern their meaning and how they will practically affect you. Here’s one example: in August, a pro-life constitutional amendment in Kansas was defeated by a shocking 60 – 40 margin. This defeat at the ballot box puts existing and future pro-life laws in Kansas in danger of being overturned by courts, meaning more unborn babies are in danger. Why such a landslide defeat in Kansas, a state that has supported many pro-life laws in the past? It is likely that two problems contributed to the constitutional amendment’s rejection:Confusing and misleading narratives regarding the meaning and consequences of the amendmentUnderfunding of organizations supporting and promoting it to votersThese problems might have been overcome if more voters were adequately informed. And Kansas is just the beginning: five more states have a constitutional amendment related to abortion on the ballot this November. The stakes are high! California, Michigan, and Vermont all contain ballot propositions that would enshrine a right to abortion in their state constitutions. On the other hand, Montana has a ballot measure that enshrines protections for infants born alive after an abortion attempt. And voters in Kentucky will decide whether to approve a constitutional amendment that would protect existing pro-life laws from being ruled unconstitutional by activist judges. It is crucial to alert these voters that their ballot can hold the power to determine the direction of their state on the issue of life for decades to come. iVoterGuide is Offering a Solution What if voters could use iVoterGuide to understand key measures on their ballot, much like they already use our guide to understand candidates on their ballot? Already pressed for time, our marvelous researchers compiled key information on abortion-related constitutional amendments, while our tech team created a brand-new addition to the voter guides in these states so anyone can view the research, forward it to their friends, and head to the polls—motivated and informed. Because of 
Bishop Athanasius SchneiderMichael Hogan/LifeSiteNews
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.