Three major medical associations want Garland’s DOJ to prosecute critics who question radical gender medicine.
The American Medical Association, the Children’s Hospital Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics sent a letter to Garland requesting that the DOJ “take swift action to investigate and prosecute” “high-profile users on social media” who have allegedly created a “campaign of disinformation” against children’s hospitals that offer “gender-affirming health care,” leading to threats and harassment, including a bomb-threat hoax at Boston Children’s Hospital.
Fox News contributor Christopher Rufo revealed that the letter poses three significant problems for the the Justice Department and the medical community.
“First, those medical associations obscured the radical nature of so-called ‘gender-affirming care.’” Rufo said. “The basic facts, which have caused justifiable public outrage, are well-established.”
According to the medical literature, American doctors have been administering puberty blockers, hormone therapies, and experimental gender surgeries on minors – including double-mastectomies for girls, which involves surgically removing the breasts, and vaginoplasties for boys, which involves surgically removing the penis and turning the tissue into an artificial vagina.
Despite what woke trans activists have insisted, the medical evidence to support these procedures for minors is thin, weak, and contested.
Medical authorities in Europe have recently come to their senses and turned against many of these practices.
Rufo pointed out the AMA, CHA, and AAP provide no evidence, or even a working definition, of “disinformation.”
The “high-profile users on social media” would undoubtedly include reporters who have published investigative reporting on radical gender medicine at children’s hospitals, often using original source materials published by the hospitals themselves.
Rather than grapple with the facts, however, the left-wing outrage mob and medical providers have dismissed them with accusations of “disinformation” – even when journalists have directly quoted their own words.
“This unsubstantiated accusation of ‘disinformation’ is even more troubling because, in addition to asking the Justice Department for investigations on these vague and undefined grounds, the woke mob is also demanding technology companies to remove critics of ‘gender-affirming care’ from social media platforms.” Rufo explained.
“The call to ‘investigate and prosecute’ journalists, activists, and citizens critical of radical gender medicine is wholly contrary to the principles of free speech.” Rufo concluded. “If the attorney general were to carry out this request, it would be a violation of the First Amendment and a blatant attempt to criminalize political opposition and intellectual debate.”
The ball is in Garland’s court.
To sane, rational observers, it would seem like there is no legal basis for prosecuting journalists for engaging in public criticism on a controversial topic.
But Garland’s Justice Department has a history of using the power of law enforcement to intimidate political opponents.
Last year, using a letter from the National School Boards Association as a pretext, he mobilized the FBI counterterrorism division against conservative parents who were protesting, at school board meetings, about Critical Race Theory in the classroom.
And just recently, Garland indicted pro-life activists, including an 87-year-old concentration camp survivor.
Will Garland follow the same playbook with the AMA?
Either way, the intention is clear: the most powerful medical and political authorities in the nation would like to make experimental gender surgeries a forbidden topic of debate.
And the AMA has a $460 million annual budget, and the Attorney General has the entire federal law enforcement apparatus at his disposal.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on MERRICK GARLAND DOES NOT NEED THIS KIND OF PROMPTING TO INTENSIFY HIS GESTAPO-LIKE PERSECUTION OF FREE SPEECH
Is Francis a Jansenist who doesn’t believe in Love and Free Will?
It appears Francis has joined Martin Luther in believing in the heresy of imputed grace justification which denies free will and love which as we will see apparently has lead him to to affirm Jansenism.
Luther’s image of imputed grace was that man was a pile of dung covered with snow.
Protestant “justification” for him was totally corrupted man being covered by grace and with no free will because of his corruption to fulfill the moral law.
The pro-Francis Bishop Robert Barron wrote Martin Luther is “a mystic of grace” and “the religious movement he launched was ‘a love affair.'”
Francis’s love affair with Luther’s justification heresy goes even farther than Barron who said “I disagree with lots of his ideas.”
Francis referring to Luther said:
“Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he did not err.” (patheos.com/blog/scotticalt, “Pope Francis is Wrong about Luther and Justification,” April 5, 2017)
Barron and Francis need to explain what part of man being a pile of dung covered with snow (grace) so corrupt that he isn’t free to fulfill the moral law is “not err” and a “love affair.”
Apparently, Francis by his Lutheran denial of free will affirmed a Protestant-like heresy called Jansenism which denied love for “love under compulsion is hardly love.” It appears that Francis “removes the very essence of love—freedom.”
The theologian Jessica M. Murdoch, a associate professor of fundamental and dogmatic theology at Villanova University, explains:
“Thus the Jansenists reduced morality to meaninglessness. There is no hope here—one inescapably acts according to a delectation that does not in any way correspond to one’s free will. Both merit and damnation are possible without true freedom.”
“By rendering the will passive, Jansenius removes the very essence of love—freedom.For love under compulsion is hardly love. In the view of Jansenius, our storm-tossed souls merely crest and fall with no possibility of self-control. The upshot: Sin is ultimately God’s fault, rather than ours, because God could place the irresistible love of virtue in our souls, yet chooses not to.”
“… But [Francis’s Amoris Laetitia Lutheran and Jansenist] moral and anthropological pessimismdo not do justice to God’s mercy. For God’s superabundant mercy extends to redemption in Christ, who takes on our very nature in the hypostatic union and truly sanctifies our nature interiorly. By sanctifying us in a startlingly intimate way, the merciful God creates love in us—makes us lovable, draws our hearts into his own, and makes us fully free and capable of living the Christian life with vigor and joy. The moral norms of the Church are grounded, therefore, in what we might call a supernatural realism. Contrary to the sentiments of our age, realism is not found in an anthropological pessimism that settles for the ‘grey’ of continually ‘missing the mark’ and denies God’s transformative love. Rather, through faith we know that God’s grace makes us capable of virtue, even at times heroic virtue, as we see in the lives of the saints, who we might say are the most real among us.”
“We are, indeed, plagued by a new sort of Jansenism, one rooted in presumption rather than despair. The ‘old’ Jansenism arose from both anthropological and theological despair—the Catholic absorption of total depravity, and the loss of hope in the possibility of salvation. Ironically, those who criticize the four cardinals—and anyone who believes that Amoris Laetitia is in need of clarification—often fall into a new form of Jansenism.This ‘new’ Jansenism is marked by a similar pessimism with respect to human nature—total depravity under a new name, whether ‘weakness’ or ‘woundedness’ or ‘greyness.’ And like what preceded it, the new Jansenism articulates a loss of hope in the power of grace to regenerate the soul. The difference is that the new Jansenism tends towards presumption. Whereas the Jansenism of old despaired that anyone could really be loved by God, be good enough to receive Holy Communion, or be saved, its newer version has so little faith in the power of God to change hearts that it presumes God does not care for something so insignificant as the human heart. No, God is too busy to care about my paltry sins. None are loved personally as they are, but rather all are loved in a great, amorphous mass of humanity that could not but be saved. One need not be in a state of grace to receive Holy Eucharist, because the state of grace is not a real possibility for most people.”
“At first blush, the new Jansenism sounds encouraging—none are guilty, all are saved! In truth, however, a pessimism that would canonize all is only a shade less pessimistic than one that would condemn all to hell. As St. Thomas notes, both despair and presumption are sins against hope.” [https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/02/the-new-jansenism]
It appears that Francis’s Amoris Laetitia as confirmed by the Argentina Letter teaches the sin against hope which is the heresy of presumption taught by Luther.
The theologian Dr. Lawrence Feingold explains the heresy:
“[T]he original doctrine of Luther presumed to be certain of salvation without the necessity of contrition.” (Course Notes for Fundamental Moral Theology, December 2009, p. 160)
Amoris Laetitia and the Argentina Letter declare that those committing adulterous sexual sin can receive Communion and hope to be saved without contrition or are “hoping to obtain forgiveness without conversion.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
“[P]resumption… [is] hoping to obtain forgiveness without conversion.” (CCC, n. 2092)
Francis apparently teaches the heresies of Luther and the Jansenists which deny free will and deny of love. Remember:
“By rendering the will passive, Jansenius removes the very essence of love—freedom.For love under compulsion is hardly love.”
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 It appears JORGE BERGOLIO has joined Martin Luther in believing in the heresy of imputed grace justification which denies free will and love which as we will see apparently has led him to to affirm Jansenism.
I have previously published two translations of Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013, which is the basis of the claims of the Vatican that the pope has abdicated. In addition, published a 7 part documentary on Youtube (here) which explains the canon law, logic, linguistics and philosophical considerations which arise in its regard.
As for my previous two translations, in my former, I attempted a better version of the Vatican translation, presuming it was correct. In my second, I showed that the Latin does not mean what the Vatican translation makes it say it to mean.
But since in my second translation, I myself criticized the papal text presuming it intended to say what the Vatican translation made it say, I owe it to Pope Benedict XVI and to history to translate it again, leaving aside all presuppositions as to what it means, and letting the Latin speak for itself.
To show the true and authentic meaning, I will intersperse the English among the Latin, and explain where and how the Latin may mean 2 different things at the same time. This is the style of the great Latinists of the ancient world, just as Juvenal, Virgin and Cicero. And since Cionci has discovered that Pope Benedict XVI in German and Italian always speaks in a way which can be read in two different senses, this may in fact be the true sense of the Latin in this document too.
But we must remember, that this text was written by Benedict XVI, according to what he was allowed to say to Peter Sewald his official biographer, and then corrected by the Secretary of State personnel. So in truth it has two authors, both of whom may not have had the same intention or mind in making it signify the same thing.
Since this translation would take a long time to explain, I will constrain my remarks here to only three phrases, the first, the renunciation and the last prayer, which frame it in such a way that only one reading is logically and grammatically consistent.
Literal Translation of Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013
The Opening Shot
Non solum propter tres canonizationes (1) ad hoc Consistorium (2) vos convocavi (3), sed etiam ut vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita communicem (4.
Not only for the sake of the three acts of canonization have I called you together for this Consistory, but also so that I may communicate a separation from you of great moment for the life of the Church.
NOTES:
(1) I have previously criticized this construction, proper tres canonizationes, because propter is not used this way in Latin. Rendering it as, “for the sake of the three acts of canonization” preserves its awkward signification. The correct Latin should be a dative of purpose such as tribus canonizationibus or better celebrandis his tres canonizationibus, that is, “to celebrate these three canonizations”, the “these” (his) being required on account of the act having just taken place. But perhaps this omission indicates that the timing of the reading of the text was not determined before the text was composed or at the time of its correction.
(2) This should be, in my judgement, in hoc Consistorio, since it is an event, not a place, and thus should not be introduced by ad, which can only be used for places and purposes. Those who think in modern languages cannot see or understand such distinctions.
(3) Here the document shows its first canonical error, since the verb should be in the first person plural, “have We called you together” (convocavimus), since the act of convening a Consistory is a juridical act of the Roman Pontiff, not of the man who is the Roman Pontiff. This error implies the possibility that this entire sentence was added to the core text of the Declaration as a clumsy sort of introduction to set the context, once the time and place of the declaration was determined and by someone either totally ignorant of the distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the man who abdicates, or someone who intentionally wanted to draw our attention to the fact that this text is not by the Roman Pontiff but by the man who is the Roman Pontiff and thus cannot be read as valid by recourse to an appeal to papal power, being above canon law.
(4) This next phrase is, in my opinion, the entire key to the whole Declaration. It is written in a very exact and subtle style which only a true Latinist can see, who is familiar with the classical forms and knows its rules. The rude or clumsy reader will render it as the Vatican translations have rendered it, but that is not what it means. For decisio, is the Bonaventuran and Augustinian word for a physical separation, a falling off, a falling away, a dying. And vobis cannot be a direct object of the main verb, communicem (inasmuch as there is no known usage of this kind in the entire history of the Latin tongue to my knowledge and to that of all the Latinists who have argued with me in vain on this score). Therefore, it must be a dative with decisio, and thus either a dative of reference, agent or a dative of possession. So it must be either “a separation from you”, “a separation for you”, or “your separation”. This reading, as a “separation from you”, is in my opinion the most sound one. It is based on the usage of Tacitus in his Germania, chapter 10, where he uses the verb decido, “to cut off” with virgam arbori “a branch from a tree”. This is a very important theological and ecclesiological concept used by Our Lord Himself, in regard to the Divine vineyard owner Who must trim the vines to make it produce fruit. The construction with communicem is in turn suggested by the Roman Historian Suetonius, in his book on Caligula, n. 56: consilium communicaverunt perfeceruntque, where consiliumis replaced by decisionem. The entire phrase is constructed to show the decisive authoritative sentence of Pope Benedict XVI in making a determination and announcing it to the world and to the Cardinals. His declaration of separation from them, obviously, is a meaning that they will never admit to, and the entire text of his Declaratio shows in what this consists and when it will begin and what the consequences of it will be. Benedict omits in this phrase, “my” with “separation”, so give emphasis that it is the separation of the whole Church from the cardinals. And he uses “moment” (momentum) not “importance” (importantia) to show that the entire weight of history will be struck and moved by his decision. By adding pro “of the life of the Church”, he is showing that his act will enliven and save the true Church from that which is grasping its deadly hands around Her. As such, this one phrase is a masterpiece of Latinity, which hides its true meaning from the ignorant, who read vobis as an error for vobiscumand decisio in the juridical modern sense commonly used, as the official Vatican translations render it.
There follows in the Declaration, the preamble which explains the Pope’s motivations for public consumption and serves to deflect analysis of the text by the power hungry cardinals. I will simply republish my translation of this from this version here.
Having scouted out my conscience again and again before God, I have arrived at certain cognition — my strengths by my worsening age are no longer apt — to administer the Munus petrinum equitably. I am well conscious that this Munus according to his spiritual essence ought to be pursued not only by doing and speaking, but no less by suffering and by praying. Yet, however, in the world of our season, subjected to hasty acts of change, and perturbed by questions of great value on behalf of the life of faith, a certain vigor of body and soul is necessary to steer the Barque of Saint Peter and the Gospel to announce, which (strength) in me in these furthest months is lessening in such a manner, that to well administer the ministry committed to me, I ought to acknowledge my incapacity.
And now for the key phrase regarding the Renunciation:
Quapropter (5) bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio (6) Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium (7) die 19 aprilis MMV commisso (8) renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae (9), sedes Sancti Petri vacet (10) et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse (11).
On which account (5), well conscious of the weight of this act I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry (6) of the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter, committed (8) to me through the hands of the Cardinals (7) on the 19th of April, 2005, to leave unused (10) from the 28th of February, at 20:00 hours, Rome time (9), the See of Saint Peter, and that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff is to be convoked by those who are competent (11).
NOTES
(5) Pope Benedict opens this key section with the significant word, “On which account”, (quapropter) which refers to all which has been said above from the first key phrase onward as his motivation.
(6) Then he declares — he does not renounce — he declares that he renounces. This utterly voids the act of any juridical value since a declaration is not a juridical act, it is merely an administrative act of informing others about an action taken or being take or to be taken. In this case the second and latter. He furthermore does NOT fulfil canon 332 §2, which requires the renunciation of the papal munus. He renounces instead the ministerium. By doing so he withdraws all possibility of the Cardinals and the Roman Curia of sharing in its exercise. And thus separates his office from them! And thus nullifies in advance all canonical acts made after his departure. He thus also separates himself ecclesiologically from the Cardinals and all the Bishops, since the petrine ministry is to confirm them in the Faith. Such a decision is an apocalpytic one. And it is explained by the last words in this section. This is the explanation of the vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesia vitae of the first phrase.
(7) The ministry received through the hands of the Cardinals is not even the Petrine Ministry, which flows naturally from the Office which is conferred by Christ directly upon the one who accepts his canonical election. In this, Benedict seems to be saying, I am giving back to you what you gave me, nothing. I am not going to be a puppet leader in your hands any longer. I want nothing more to do with you.
(8) When Benedict read his Declaratio aloud, at this point he said commissum, not commisso. This was seen as an error by all, but it actually says something profound. By saying commissum he is saying, that he committed himself to his Papal office from the day of his election. And thus implies that the Cardinals are the ones who have betrayed Christ, not he. He did his duty inasmuch as he was able.
(9) There are still those who follow the others translations and get this wrong. So I repeat it here, that it refers to time zones, not to the papal office.
(10) To leave unused the see of St. Peter. Here the Latin does not speak of a sede vacante, it uses rather the root verb, “to leave unused” (vacet). This explains his renunciation of minsterium rather than of munus. It also shows exactly what is going on in the Church for 8 years.
(11) And that a new Conclave is to be called — sometime in the future — by those who are competent. That is, not by you who are in my presence, since as I have said, I have declared that you are cut-off from me.
The Declaration finishes thus:
Dearest Brothers: from my whole heart you I thank for all your physical love and the work, by which you bore with me the weight of my ministry and I ask pardon for all my failings. Moreover, now We completely trust the Holy Church of God to the care of the Most High Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and We implore His holy Mother, Mary, to assist with Her maternal goodness, the Cardinal fathers in electing a new supreme pontiff. As far as regards myself, I would also wish to serve with my whole heart in a future by a life dedicated to prayer for Holy Mother Church.
COMMENTARY
Finally, at the end, by using the subjunctive, the Holy Father shows that he is speaking contrary to fact. Because he has not abdicated, so there is no need for him to ask what to do after Feb. 28, 2013, as Pontiff he can do as he pleases, and indeed no one has dared disturb him in that.
In conclusion, I believe the above translation which is faithful to Latin grammar is the only one fully consonant with the facts of history before and after Feb. 11, 2013, in which Benedict XVI was hated and opposed by all inside and outside of the Roman Curia and thus declared his separation rather than renounced his office, so that with the help of the Holy Spirit, the effects of being separated from the Successor of St Peter might show themselves in the Church and reveal to all the faithful both the comploters and the conspiracy against Her in act.
This translation also explains why Benedict XVI refuses to speak with nearly all the Cardinals and Bishops after Feb. 28, 2013.
Canonically, the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013 is to totally uproot the College of Cardinals as an institution which participates in the election of the Roman Pontiff, since now that they have elected an antipope and adhered to him they are excommunicate in virtue of canon 1364 and separated from the Church completely. Therefore, they lose all their offices and thus their right to elect the Pope. And this means, that the actual result of the Declaratio is to sanction as legitimate the election of his successor by the Faithful of the Church of Rome, as St. Peter determined so long ago: these are the ones who are competent to elect his successor. — This is something the Roman Pontiff could not have achieved by a direct declaration, because in the very preparation of such a document he would have been opposed or assassinated. And that explains his cleverness and subtlety in acting as he has done.
The Left used to accuse imperialist, resource-hungry Yanquis in Washington of cutting selfish deals with illiberal dictatorships in Latin America to grab their natural resources.
How odd then that Joe Biden is now begging the despicable Maduro regime in Venezuela—corrupt, murderous, and anti-American—to produce more of its oil solely to send northward to America.
Biden is quite willing to ease sanctions and condone the human rights abuses of Maduro—if his dictatorship will just open its oil spigots before the November midterm elections.
In 2020, Biden campaigned on the supposed evil nature of the Saudi Arabian monarchy. Yet after vainly entreating Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, it was inevitable that Biden would once again supplicate the Saudis to pump more oil.
Biden even pleaded with OPEC to increase its output and thus lower the world price of energy—again before the midterm elections.
Biden, remember, has a bad habit of bragging that he lowered gas prices at the pump when the natural volatility of the petroleum markets leads to a fractional decrease. But once prices spike, he is utterly silent about his role in limiting U.S. oil and gas output.
So, was it any surprise that the Saudis became the fourth non-democratic regime to refuse Biden’s entreaties? During the 2020 campaign, when gas prices were dirt cheap, and when then-candidate Biden was demagoguing about ending fossil fuel, he opportunistically libeled the Saudis a “pariah”state.
Biden also claimed that his opponent Donald Trump had cozied up to these supposedly awful Saudi royals. That accusation was especially ironic given that Trump was the first American president who had no need for Saudi oil.
His administration had managed to make the United States the largest producer of gas and oil in history— precluding any energy dependence on illiberal regimes abroad.
Trump was the first U.S. president whose interest in Gulf State monarchies was not energy-driven.
Instead, he partnered with the Arab nations to end their hostilities with Israel. The ensuing Abraham Accords saw a historic thaw between the Jewish state and moderate Arab nations—given their shared worries about the unhinged Iranian theocracy.
The Saudis are enjoying the schadenfreude of seeing their former American critic now on his knees, demanding the purportedly dirty, polluting oil produced by a supposed “pariah” state.
In response to their “No,” a desperate Team Biden is getting nasty. Almost immediately the administration raised the idea of a pre-midterm retribution of suing the OPEC cartel as a price-rigging monopoly. It even maneuvered allies in Congress to take action to punish Riyadh for not playing the American pawn.
The American public is repelled as they watch Biden’s pathetic theatrics of global oil begging to help himself in the midterms. They are ashamed that their recently energy-autonomous country is now imploring non-democratic regimes for every drop of their oil—to the extent of threatening former allies and coaxing current enemies.
More bizarre still, the public was once told that Biden and the Left wanted high energy prices.
Why else did Biden cancel the Keystone Pipeline?
Did he not fulfill his green promises to the radical environmentalist Left by shutting down oil fields in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
Did Biden not dutifully hector lending agencies, pensions funds, and money managers not to loan to, or invest in, oil and gas companies?
Did Biden not issue fewer new energy leases on federal lands than any prior president?
Was it not Biden on the eve of the Ukrainian war who jawboned the Europeans to reject the EastMed pipeline? That project was a much-needed joint effort by three of our closest allies—Greece, Israel, and Cyprus—to bring clean-burning natural gas to an energy-starved Europe.
In sum, did not Biden brag to the Left that he kept his campaign promises to strangle fossil fuels—both curbing supply and spiking prices—to hasten the “transition” to wind, solar, and batteries?
Why then is Biden humiliating Americans by playing the hard-nosed ugly American? Why is he demanding foreigners pump what we ourselves have in plentitude but will not fully produce?
The answer, of course, is raw politics.
Biden knows he wrecked the economy by deliberately surging oil prices in pursuit of the Left’s utopian green nightmare.
Or put another way—if it is a question of avoiding a historic midterm wipeout, Joe Biden will now do anything.
And that anything means all the human rights sermons about ostracizing “pariah” states like oil-rich Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela go out the window.
In winter 2021 Biden lectured us that fossil fuels were dirty obstacles to our green future.
As winter 2022-23 approaches, Biden believes he can strong-arm his enemies to send us more of such taboo energy that we won’t produce ourselves.
Good luck with all these utter absurdities.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on As winter 2022-23 approaches, Biden believes he can strong-arm his enemies to send us more of such taboo energy that we won’t produce ourselves.
Notre Dame Professor Caught Offering to Help Students Kill Their Babies in Abortions
National | Micaiah Bilger | Oct 13, 2022 | 2:42PM | Washington, DC
A professor at one of the most well-known Catholic schools in the U.S., the University of Notre Dame, recently was caught offering to help students abort their unborn babies after Indiana banned abortions.
The Irish Rover, a student newspaper, broke the news this week, reporting that Professor Tamara Kay of the Keough School of Global Affairs advertised abortions to students on her office door and on social media in defiance of Catholic teachings about the sanctity of human life.
“For me, abortion is a policy issue. And yes, my view runs afoul of Church teaching, but in other areas, my positions are perfectly aligned [with the Church],” Kay told the newspaper.
On Sept. 15, Indiana began enforcing its new pro-life law, which bans the killing of unborn babies in elective abortions with a few exceptions. Pro-life leaders estimate the law will save about 161 babies from abortion every day. However, a judge temporarily blocked the law about a week later after several Indiana abortion facilities sued.
According to the report, Kay posted a lot of pro-abortion information directed at students on social media around Sept. 15, including groups that explain how to get abortion pills through the mail or pay travel costs for abortions.
On her office door on campus, she also posted a sign that read, “This is a SAFE SPACE to get help and information on ALL Healthcare issues and access—confidentially with care and compassion,” the Rover discovered.
The sign also included a large capital “J,” a symbol that Notre Dame professors use to advertise their willingness to help students get abortions, according to the report.
“We are here (as private citizens, not representatives of ND) to help you access healthcare when you need it, and we are prepared in every way,” Kay wrote on social media. “Look for the ‘J,’ Spread the word to students!”
Here’s more from the report:
These professors, including Kay, offer help in obtaining both Plan B “morning after” pills and “Plan C” abortion pills …
In another September 16 Twitter post, Kay shared photos of “Need to be un-pregnant” stickers with QR codes that led to “PlanCPills.org,” preceded by the text, “DM me if you want some physical stickers. A lot have been ordered. Sharing information is still legal in Indiana!”
Kay defended her abortion advocacy in a statement, saying: “I am doing that as a private citizen, so that’s been cleared by the university … I talked to the dean and have also spoken to ND Media about policies.”
University officials did not respond to a request for comment from the Rover.
Later, the student newspaper noticed that Kay deleted her social media posts directed at students and added a note to her Twitter page that says, “I don’t speak for my employer (duh!).” She also took down the signs on her office door.
An automated response to her Notre Dame email account accuses “white nationalist Catholic hate groups” of targeting her because of her “academic work on reproductive health, rights and justice,” the report continues.
“But ND supports my academic freedom, so if you are interested, check out my website below. Have a wonderful day!” her email states.
After the article came out, student author W. Joseph DeReuil said university leaders have “remained silent” on the matter.
Responding Wednesday, a local pro-life leader expressed outrage that the Catholic university is ignoring the promotion of killing unborn babies by its teachers.
“Catholic universities cannot remain silent as their faculty push and promote abortion. Shame on Notre Dame Administration,” Mary Carmen Zakrajsek, the Indiana regional coordinator for Students for Life, wrote on Twitter.
The Catholic Church teaches that every human being from conception to natural death is valuable because he or she is created in the image of God, and killing an innocent human being is a grave moral evil.
The Left used to accuse imperialist, resource-hungry Yanquis in Washington of cutting selfish deals with illiberal dictatorships in Latin America to grab their natural resources.
How odd then that Joe Biden is now begging the despicable Maduro regime in Venezuela—corrupt, murderous, and anti-American—to produce more of its oil solely to send northward to America.
Biden is quite willing to ease sanctions and condone the human rights abuses of Maduro—if his dictatorship will just open its oil spigots before the November midterm elections.
In 2020, Biden campaigned on the supposed evil nature of the Saudi Arabian monarchy. Yet after vainly entreating Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, it was inevitable that Biden would once again supplicate the Saudis to pump more oil.
Biden even pleaded with OPEC to increase its output and thus lower the world price of energy—again before the midterm elections.
Biden, remember, has a bad habit of bragging that he lowered gas prices at the pump when the natural volatility of the petroleum markets leads to a fractional decrease. But once prices spike, he is utterly silent about his role in limiting U.S. oil and gas output.
So, was it any surprise that the Saudis became the fourth non-democratic regime to refuse Biden’s entreaties? During the 2020 campaign, when gas prices were dirt cheap, and when then-candidate Biden was demagoguing about ending fossil fuel, he opportunistically libeled the Saudis a “pariah”state.
Biden also claimed that his opponent Donald Trump had cozied up to these supposedly awful Saudi royals. That accusation was especially ironic given that Trump was the first American president who had no need for Saudi oil.
His administration had managed to make the United States the largest producer of gas and oil in history— precluding any energy dependence on illiberal regimes abroad.
Trump was the first U.S. president whose interest in Gulf State monarchies was not energy-driven.
Instead, he partnered with the Arab nations to end their hostilities with Israel. The ensuing Abraham Accords saw a historic thaw between the Jewish state and moderate Arab nations—given their shared worries about the unhinged Iranian theocracy.
The Saudis are enjoying the schadenfreude of seeing their former American critic now on his knees, demanding the purportedly dirty, polluting oil produced by a supposed “pariah” state.
In response to their “No,” a desperate Team Biden is getting nasty. Almost immediately the administration raised the idea of a pre-midterm retribution of suing the OPEC cartel as a price-rigging monopoly. It even maneuvered allies in Congress to take action to punish Riyadh for not playing the American pawn.
The American public is repelled as they watch Biden’s pathetic theatrics of global oil begging to help himself in the midterms. They are ashamed that their recently energy-autonomous country is now imploring non-democratic regimes for every drop of their oil—to the extent of threatening former allies and coaxing current enemies.
More bizarre still, the public was once told that Biden and the Left wanted high energy prices.
Why else did Biden cancel the Keystone Pipeline?
Did he not fulfill his green promises to the radical environmentalist Left by shutting down oil fields in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
Did Biden not dutifully hector lending agencies, pensions funds, and money managers not to loan to, or invest in, oil and gas companies?
Did Biden not issue fewer new energy leases on federal lands than any prior president?
Was it not Biden on the eve of the Ukrainian war who jawboned the Europeans to reject the EastMed pipeline? That project was a much-needed joint effort by three of our closest allies—Greece, Israel, and Cyprus—to bring clean-burning natural gas to an energy-starved Europe.
In sum, did not Biden brag to the Left that he kept his campaign promises to strangle fossil fuels—both curbing supply and spiking prices—to hasten the “transition” to wind, solar, and batteries?
Why then is Biden humiliating Americans by playing the hard-nosed ugly American? Why is he demanding foreigners pump what we ourselves have in plentitude but will not fully produce?
The answer, of course, is raw politics.
Biden knows he wrecked the economy by deliberately surging oil prices in pursuit of the Left’s utopian green nightmare.
Or put another way—if it is a question of avoiding a historic midterm wipeout, Joe Biden will now do anything.
And that anything means all the human rights sermons about ostracizing “pariah” states like oil-rich Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela go out the window.
In winter 2021 Biden lectured us that fossil fuels were dirty obstacles to our green future.
As winter 2022-23 approaches, Biden believes he can strong-arm his enemies to send us more of such taboo energy that we won’t produce ourselves.
Good luck with all these utter absurdities.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Joseph Biden, remember, has a bad habit of bragging that he lowered gas prices at the pump when the natural volatility of the petroleum markets leads to a fractional decrease. But once prices spike, he is utterly silent about his role in limiting U.S. oil and gas output.
Doubling Down On The FBI October 14, 2022 Catholic League president Bill Donohue explains why he is doubling down on his request for a probe or hearing of the FBI: I wrote today to Sen. Charles Grassley, the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asking him to convene a probe or hearing into the FBI’s duplicitous application of the FACE Act: Non-violent pro-life activists are treated as if they were domestic terrorists while violent abortion-rights activists are not being pursued at all. This is my second request. My initial letter was sent September 26. I am doubling down on my request because of a letter sent on October 12 by 40 Republican lawmakers to FBI Director Christopher Wray asking him to grant them a hearing on the FBI’s conduct regarding this issue. This effort is being led by Rep. Chip Roy and Sen. Mike Lee. I wrote to these lawmakers today urging them to pursue this matter. The average FBI agent is not the problem. But there is something sinister going on with the top brass. This injustice needs to stop before our civil liberties are further eroded. Contact the FBI’s Office of Public Affairs: public.affairs@fbi.gov
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE FBI IS GUILTY OF DUPLICITOUS APPLICATION OF THE “FACE ACT”: NON-VIOLENT PRO-LIFE ACTIVISTS ARE TREATED AS IF THEY WERE DOMESTIC TERRORISTS WHILE VIOLENT ABORTION-RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ARE NOT BEING PROSECUTED AT ALL
Kanye West the latest pro-life celebrity to speak out against Hollywood’s leftist agenda
On this week’s Faith & Reason, the panel discusses Kanye West’s tribute to Pope John Paul II and recent comments about black babies killed by abortion, the forceful remarks of Cdl. Müller and Bp. Schneider against Vatican policies on Communist China and the Latin Mass, and the widespread backlash forcing PayPal to walk back a policy fining users $2,500 for promoting “misinformation.”
Watch even more pro-life and pro-family content at LifeSiteNews, and go one-step further by ensuring your loved ones receive our broadcasting for years to come by leaving a legacy with us today. Join our 25 year celebration — 25 Years: A Legacy of Life!
Below is a post in 2006 for NewsMax which gives some perspective on where the Church is presently with Francis: “What is the National Catholic Reporter’s Real Agenda?”
Below is a post published in 2006 by NewsMax during the first sex abuse church scandal which gives some perspective on where the Church is presently with Francis:
The National Catholic Reporter (NCR) dissented from definitive Catholic teaching when it endorsed homosexual marriage. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered…[and] under no circumstances can they be approved.”
The “Catholic” lay operated national newsweekly said, “The ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts allowing same-sex civil marriage is a beneficial step along the path of human understanding and human rights.”
As a Special Commentary Columnist for NewsMax during the height of the Catholic scandal in 2002, I first became acquainted with NCR because of the lay-group Voice of the Faithful (VOTF).
In the summer of 2002, I received this e-mail from a NewsMax reader:
“Could you please direct me to a reliable assessment of the group Voice of the Faithful? A local ‘chapter’ is meeting this afternoon in Nashville, and it has been characterized by a local priest as ‘just conservative Catholics who want some changes.’”
In researching the lay reform group it emerged that NCR (considered the New York Times of Catholic liberals) was pushing VOTF as a solution for the Catholic sex-abuse scandal, even as the lay-group was being promoted as “just conservative Catholics who want some changes.”
The National Catholic Reporter is the most popular Catholic newspaper in the United States. The publication has a readership of 120,000- with 40% of its reader being religious or clergy. It is in 96 countries and a frequent winner of the Catholic Press Association’s Award for General Excellence, according to the NCR website.
The research revealed a cover-up by NRC and VOTF. Kelly Clark of The Lady In The Pew website in a review of my new book The Hidden Axis summarized what was brought to light:
“Fred Martinez delivers plenty of much needed ‘tough love’ to the Church in America today. Hidden Axis covers much ground including a neat turning of the tables on the lay group called Voice of the Faithful. VOTF was ostensibly formed in response to the sex-abuse scandal and ‘cover-up’ and is in fact actively participating in the continuing cover-up by incessantly refusing to acknowledge the link between the scandal and homosexual priests.”
VOTF’s Priest of Integrity and the Homosexual Agenda
The winner of the first VOTF Priest of Integrity Award, the Rev. Thomas Doyle on the Internations Justice Federation website, in 2003, attacked some articles including mine, which exposed the cover-up as well as the “sex-experts” that helped to create the vast majority of Catholic scandal headlines. Doyle said:
“The articles are based on writings of Dr. Judith Reisman who has apparently devoted her life to a critical study of the work and methods of Dr. Alfred Kinsey… Reisman, herself not a clinician but with a Ph.D. in communications, claims that Berlin and Money are Kinsey disciples whose primary agenda is putting sexual abusers back on the street and promoting the so-called “homosexual agenda.”
“Reisman, and those who support her contentions, claim that the [Doyle-Peterson-Mouton] ‘Manual’ was actually intended to support this nebulous “homosexual agenda” …Fortunately Dr. Riesman’s allegations and the contentions of those who build on her ideas, are taken seriously by only a few and those few are limited to the extreme ‘right’ (for lack of a better term) who seem obsessed by sex in any form, and with homosexuality in particular.” [http://www32.brinkster.com/interjustice/rcscandals3.html]
Doyle failed to mention that in 1991, the widely respected British medical journal The Lancet verified Reisman’s research when it demanded that the Kinsey Institute be investigated, writing:
“The Kinsey reports (one in 1948 on males and the companion five years later) claimed that sexual activity began much earlier in life…and displayed less horror of age differences and same-sex relationships than anyone at the time imagined. It was as if, to follow Mr. Porter again, ‘Anything goes’. In “Kinsey, Sex and Fraud,” Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two [Kinsey] reports.”
In the document “How Junk Sex Science Created a Paradigm Shift in Society, Legislation and the Judiciary,” Reisman said:
“Based on his [fraudulent scientific] data, Kinsey claimed that children enjoyed sex and the real harm of adult-child sex stemmed from ‘hysterical’ parents, teachers and professionals who reacted with anger and horror to children’s disclosures. Based on his findings, many legislatures lightened or eliminated penalties for sexual offenses…toward children as ‘victims’ in cases of incest and child molestation.”
Doyle also decided not to speak about what the Doyle-Peterson-Mouton manual said—and Bill Clinton would appreciate this—that “exposing the genitals” to unfamiliar persons “represents one of the ‘victimless crimes.’”
But the main problem is that the manual uses the standard gay activist spin that the gay movement and the media used to censor the Vatican and all conservatives who attempted to report the link between homosexuality and sexual abuse by priests in 2002.
The tactic, as used for the most part in the Executive Summary of the manual, is to say that the scandal is about pedophilia and then claim that pedophilia is not associated with homosexuality, but is a heterosexual problem or at most a heterosexual/homosexual problem.
The gay activist expert and psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, who wrote the book “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth,” which the Congressional Record of May 1996 called the “best book on homosexuality written in our times,” states this is a standard spin. He writes:
“Activists are aware of the adverse effect on the gay-rights movement that could result if people perceived any degree of routine association between homosexuality and pedophilia…They have denied this association by focusing on the (true) fact that—in absolute numbers—heterosexuals commit more child molestation than homosexuals.” “But careful studies show that pedophilia is far more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals.”
According to an article by Register Correspondent Ellen Rossini, “Although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses,” said Tim Dailey, a senior fellow for culture studies at the Family Research Council. (The National Catholic Register, September 15-21, 2002) [http://www.ncregister.com/register_News/091002sem.htm]
With the above in mind I said in my book, “If VOTF and the liberal bishops really want to end the church scandal, then they have to stop covering up the gay part of 90 percent of the scandal [The February 2004 National Review Board Report says 81 percent of the victims were males]. If VOTF and Doyle really want to end the pedophilia part of the scandal, then they have to expose the fraudulent scientific data eliminating penalties for sexual abusers and the Kinseyan ‘experts’ who are advising the bishops.”
If not, then VOTF needs to take the advice that Doyle gave in Canada in 2002:
“Any institution that enables the cover-up, protects the abusers or the authorities that hide them, doesn’t deserve to exist.”
National Catholic Reporter’s Standard Gay Activist Spin
National Catholic Reporter and Fr. Richard McBrien (the biggest name among liberal Catholic theologians supporting VOTF) can be included in the list of those who covered-up the “link between the scandal and homosexual priests.”
On April 5, 2002, NCR was using the standard gay activist spin. The spin entails saying that the scandal is about pedophilia and then claiming that pedophilia is not associated with homosexuality. McBrien in a 2002 NCR article wrote:
“Even though prominent psychiatrists and psychologists have been reminding us on television and in news interviews that there is no necessary link between homosexuality and pedophilia, the popular view to the contrary still holds sway in many parts of the church and in society at large.” [http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1141/22_38/84970282/p1/article.jhtml]
On March 12, 2004, the National Catholic Reporter, in an article by Doyle, was still covering-up the fact that the scandal was overwhelmingly a homosexual priest sex-abuse problem. Although now he and the NCR weren‘t using the gay spin that the scandal is about pedophilia and then claiming that pedophilia is not associated with homosexuality. The NCR and the Doyle spin now was:
“Others have tried to unsuccessfully minimize the issue with the hardly newsworthy revelation that only a small percentage are really true pedophiles and most victims are above the age of reason. Again, a resounding so what? Abuse is abuse, and that’s the point, not the age of the victims…The spin also tries to blame the press, the lawyers and the so-called dissenters and unorthodox.” [http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives2/2004a/031204/031204d.php]
For Doyle, VOTF and the National Catholic Reporter enforcement of orthodox morality in penal law and canon law are not the solution to sexual wrongdoing. Instead for these groups a change in the church government is the solution. Doyle in the March 12, NRC article said:
“This is all much bigger than a challenge to celibacy, injustice or the monarchical governmental system. It is all of the above. If we add the element of hope to the embattled landscape perhaps we can see it all as a moment in the age-old evolution of Catholicism from an institutional kingdom to the people of God.” [http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives2/2004a/031204/031204d.php]
New York Times and NCR’s Desired “Unusual Pope”
With this desired change in the “old order” of the “institutional kingdom” in mind, it must be remembered that the timing of the media’s “breaking” of the sex-abuse Catholic scandal story was when Pope John Paul II’s health appeared to be deteriorating during masses. In fact the media was sending correspondents to Rome with expectation of a papal conclave.
Was the media’s “breaking” of the sex-abuse Catholic scandal story, timing or coincidence?
Either way the media’s intent was to use the story to promote dissent. That is why during the height of the scandal “ CNN trots out folks like …CNN’s guest ‘expert,’ Sr. Bridget Mary Meehan, who calls for ‘structural changes’ that allow laity greater say. Meehan and others of her ilk expect that once the laity is given control of the Church, it will relax sexual morality” according to journalist Mary Jo Anderson.
On June 14, 2002 Anderson in the WorldNetDaily reported: “The Globe and others have known for over a decade about the growing gay sub-culture in the Church, but the Globe and others [notably the New York Times and most of the mass media] simply winked—they are no less guilty of a cover up than Cardinal Law. It did not seem worthy of print. Until, that is, Pope John Paul II, the disliked “reactionary” pope and others faltered during Christmas masses.”
According to Anderson the goal of the scandal reporting was “to use this crisis to create chaos so large that a new pope will have to deal with the crisis as his first order of business. If a momentum is built that insists that the old order is the problem, perhaps the cardinals can be stampeded into electing an unusual pope: a candidate approved by the New York Times and the United Nations.” [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp? ARTICLE_ID=27962 ]
The TV journalists and Times’ “unusual pope” would be a pontiff who is receptive to the gay agenda.
Ex-CBS insider Bernard Goldberg in his book “Bias” Goldberg said, “The problem is that so many TV journalists simply don’t know how to think about certain issues until the New York Times and the Washington Post tell them what to think. Those big, important newspapers set the agenda that network news people follow.”
The gay movement appears to set the agenda for the New York Time, which sets the agenda for the rest of the media. NewsMax ran an article about Accuracy in Media’s Reed Irving’s inquiry into the NY Times bias. Irving said Richard Berke, a national political correspondent for the Times, spoke at a gathering of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. Irvine says that Berke assured the homosexual group that the Times would remain very receptive to the gay agenda because “three-fourths of those who regularly attend the daily meetings that determine what will be on the front page of the Times the next morning are ‘not-so-closeted’ homosexuals.”
The Times‘ “unusual pope” also would be a pontiff who is receptive to the ordination of women. The New York Times, a few years back, gave Fr. McBrien the opportunity to attack the Pope. He said to the New York newspaper:
“There are literally millions of Catholics in the U.S. alone who see no reason why women can’t be ordained, and they’re not going to decide they’re not Catholics and stop going to church…it is the Pope and the Vatican who will be seen as being out of step.” [http://sfbayc.org/magazine/html/ctanews.htm]
The National Catholic Reporter (a long time forum for dissent against the definitive Catholic teaching against women’s ordination ) on Sept 10, 1999 in an article by Michael J. Farrell said that they must remain steadfast in their support of Fr. Richard McBrien despite “letter writers who criticize the paper for carrying the syndicated columns of the Notre Dame professor.”
“The complainers’ main complaint, it seems, is that McBrien is not sufficiently deferential to the pope,” Farrell said.
” It is no secret that this papacy has placed loyalty to the Holy Father high among its priorities. An atmosphere was created in which criticism of the pope was regarded as defiance. This attitude has flourished in right-wing circles in this country.” [http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1141/39_35/56458761/p1/article.jhtml?term=]
VOTF Supporter Fr. McBrien and a Former National Catholic Reporter Contributor
In the March 12, NRC issue there appeared an editorial supporting an ad that VOTF placed in the New York Times two days after the National Review Board released the “Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States.” In the ad, VOTF was still covering-up the homosexual link to the scandal, but NCR supported the lay organization because the “ad had the sound of a campaign getting underway.”
The Times ad according to the National Catholic Reporter petitioned signatures for the following: That Pope John Paul II “meet with an international delegation of victims/survivors of clergy sexual abuse”;That the pope hold responsible those bishops “who knowingly transferred sexually abusive clergy” and accept or call for resignations “where appropriate”;That each U.S. bishop disclose details of their oversight in transferring abusive clergy and clergy who have credible allegations against them. [http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives2/2004a/031204/031204q.php]One of the main supporters of VOTF and possibly the most posted columnist on the lay-organization’s website, Fr. McBrien made a similar plea. According to the January 29, 2004
The Observer online, an independent newspaper serving Notre Dame:
” In the Jan. 27 Observer article “Campus, Seminary Reacts to Priest Scandal, ‘Fr. Richard McBrien asserts that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ audit of its program for preventing sexual abuse by priests ‘could have been prevented if the Church has responded properly when allegations began coming to light over 25 years ago.’ According to McBrien, “some … dioceses were not as forthcoming – and still are not – as they should be.’”
However, it appears that McBrien might not be an appropriate person to call for “the pope [to] hold responsible those bishops “who knowingly transferred sexually abusive clergy” and accept or call for resignations “where appropriate.” According to The Observer:
“Given his current sanctimonious condemnation of the Church regarding clergy sexual abuse, one might assume McBrien, to use his words, “responded properly” when [ Fr. James] Burtchaell’s [homosexual] sexual misconduct was brought to his attention. To the contrary, McBrien concealed Burtchaell’s conduct; he did not discipline him or remove him from contact with students. In short, McBrien continued to put Notre Dame students at risk of a known sexual predator.” “Although McBrien had knowledge of [the former National Catholic Reporter contributor] Burtchaell’s crimes as early as 1989, Burtchaell’s sexual abuse of Notre Dame students was not made public until late 1991. When asked about Burtchaell’s serial sexual abuse of students after concealing knowledge thereof for more than two years, McBrien refused to “comment on the matter.” See National Catholic Reporter (Dec. 6, 1991).” [http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/news/2004/01/29/Viewpoint/Mcbrien.Forced.To.Deal.With.His.Past-590959.shtml and http://www.natcath.com/crisis/120691.htm]
Apparently, NCR and McBrien need to investigate themselves to see if they “responded properly” when sexual misconduct was brought to their attention.
What Structural Changes do VOTF and NCR Want to Make?
McBrien and the National Catholic Reporter in their writings and accommodating coverage of Voice of the Faithful have steadfastly supported VOTF’s stated goal for a campaign to change the Church’s structure. In 2002, James Likoudis told me what these structure changes might be: “Richard P. McBrien oozes with admiration for this group [Voice of the Faithful] seeking to restructure the Church, democratize it, gain financial control of it, and subordinate our Bishops to this new lay class of secular feudal lords and professionals,” Catholics United for the Faith’s Likoudis said.
“It’s a power grab under the guise of more ‘lay participation’ and is made up of those dissenting liberals and radicals who do not like Catholic moral teaching but do like Dignity and GLAAD [radical homosexual organizations].
“In the summer of 2003, when I asked editor of Crisis Magazine and former professor of Philosophy at Fordham University, Deal W. Hudson, what are the structural changes that Voice of the Faithful wants to make. He said:
“They’ve never defined them in any way. So the only conclusion you can come to is that the kind of structural changes they want are those represented by the people they invite to address their meetings,” Hudson said. “Which are those who want ordination of women, married priests, to end priestly celibacy and finally to end Vatican authority over the parishes in the United States.”
In 2003, the VOTF website (www.votf.org/Structural_Change/structural.html) said that the Structural Change Working Group (SCWG) “has been working to define what VOTF means by its Goal 3.”
According to the site “The group [SCWG] has also consulted with Fr. Ladislas Orsy, S.J., in an effort to ensure that its conclusions are sound, and that none of its statements could be misunderstood. Fr. Orsy has been retained as a professional outside consultant in canon law and related matters by VOTF.”
Fr. Orsy might be a questionable choice as a consultant for an organization claiming that it wants to make structural changes in the Church to end the sex-abuse scandal, at least, according to the American Cardinal Dulles and Cardinal Ratzinger of the Vatican.
The American Cardinal in a November 25, 2000 America article (www.bigbrother.net/~mugwump/Dulles/dulles_online.html) said of the priest:
“On the papal teaching office, Father Orsy renews his plea (made in several other places) that Catholics should be free to dissent from definitive teaching.”
“Father Orsy assures us that the new canons were not needed because the category of definitively proposed teaching “as it appears now in official documents had not developed yet”…How the author could have come to this thesis is inexplicable.”
A few paragraphs later the Cardinal wrote:
“I do not find it objective that Fr.Orsy constructs an opposition [contradiction] between Ad tuendam fidem and Vatican II. [He writes that] the Council intended no threats and penalties because the Fathers of the Council “trusted that truth will attract by its own beauty and strength” … In fact, a large number of the bishops of the world wish today for the “sharpening” of the penal law; this is a consequence of the cases of priests guilty of paedophilia. The protection of the rights of the accused priests has become so strong that the bishops feel powerless in cases when for the sake of the faithful they should have the power to intervene.”
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 A QUICK REVIEW OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE CHURCH AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESENT CENTURY WILL HELP ONE TO UNDERSTAND BETTER HOW WE GO TO THE PRESENT SAD STATE OF THE CHURCH
National | Steven Ertelt | Oct 12, 2022 | 8:46AM | Washington, DC
The Biden administration has been under heavy criticism as Joe Biden’s Justice Department targets peaceful pro-life Americans for protesting abortions in such as a way that they blocked access to an abortion center.
The Justice Department has charged 11 more pro-life activists with violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act for blocking the entrance of an abortion clinic in 2021. The 11 activists were charged with FACE Act violations stemming from their 2021 “blockade” of an abortion clinic in Mount Juliet, Tennessee.
New information about one of the pro-life advocates arrested recently shows she is an 87-year-old woman who is a concentration camp survivor.
A federal indictment alleges that the pro-life defendants “engaged in a conspiracy to prevent the clinic from providing” and patients from receiving abortion services and violated the FACE Act by “using physical obstruction to intimidate and interfere with the clinic’s employees and a patient.”
Yet the event was mostly pro-life people staging a peaceful sit in along with signing and praying and it was so lawful and peaceful that local police let them go after minor misdemeanor charges. But if convicted on these federal charges from the Biden administration, Vaughn faces up to 11 years in prison, three years supervised release and fines of up to $350,000.
One of the pro-life advocates the FBI considers as a danger to the public is an elderly woman, Eva Edl, who is a German survivor of a communist prisoner-of-war concentration camp during World War II. After she escaped that horror, Edl dedicated her life to fighting for human rights for everyone — including people before birth
“The first time I realized there were abortion clinics in our country was in 1988,” she said, according to a previous Live Action News report. “I said to my husband, ‘these are the death camps of America.’ I saw people sitting in front of abortion clinics in Atlanta, and I’ve been involved ever since.”
If you were in a death camp like I was as a girl, would you want those who were obligated to love you to lobby for cleaner death camps? Less bugs in our starvation diet? Please! It disgusts the Lord that we waste so much time on money that will not protect one single child, even if the legislation is upheld by the court.
[…] If we have to defy the judiciary for even the most toothless attempts to regulate abortion (mandating sanitary killing centers, for example), why not defy the judiciary to protect every child, as our leaders take an oath to do! Why settle for less than the very minimum that God settles for? According to the Bible (Numbers 35, Genesis 9), only justice abates the wrath of God for the shedding of innocent blood. I believe every jurisdiction – city, county, state, federal, international – should immediately criminalize every abortion and protect every baby, and WOE unto us if we don’t.
The wrath of God is against us, and time is short to waste effort trying to regulate the child-killing. We wind up on the wrong side of the line God’s drawn so clearly in the sand.
Another of the pro-life advocates arrested under the FACE indictments was a pro-life father, Paul Vaughn, who didn’t even participate in the rescue but whose home was raided anyway.
Now, horrific new details have come to light about the terribly way Vaughn was treated — all apparently without legal counsel present. As TownHall reports:
Vaughn shared his family’s account of the FBI raid with Townhall, providing harrowing details of his arrest just before the father was about to take his children to school. According to a statement provided to Townhall, Vaughn was handcuffed on the porch in front of his kids after FBI agents raided the Vaughn family property while carrying assault rifles and side arms. Three of Vaughn’s children were outside walking through the backyard when an FBI agent armed with an AR-15 confronted the kids and questioned them. Several kids were asleep upstairs, and one child ran to her mother frantically crying, “The FBI is here, and they are arresting Daddy.” Vaughn’s wife remarked, “They traumatized me and my children intentionally. We will never forget this.”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE FBI UNDER MERRICK GARLAND IS BECOMING INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM HITLER’S GESTAPO
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.