lifesitenews--2020-05-01--Canadian legal org to launch lawsuit against sweeping govt power expansion law

CALGARY , Alberta , May 1 , 2020 ( Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms ) — The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms ( jccf.ca ) today confirmed it has filed a legal challenge to Bill 10 ’ s amendments to the Public Health Act .
Bill 10 was rushed through the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in under 48 hours , from March 31 to April 2 , 2020 .
Prior to Bill 10 , the Public Health Act already gave extraordinary powers to Cabinet , the Minister of Health , and the Chief Medical Officer in the event of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included taking citizen ’ s real or personal property without consent , authorizing entry into a person ’ s residence without a warrant , requiring mass immunization of the public , and requiring mass public testing .
Under these existing provisions , a minister could suspend — for up to 60 days — the operation of any existing law .
Adding to these existing powers , Bill 10 now allows a single Minister to unilaterally make new laws and create new offences for the populace without consultation with the Legislative Assembly .
Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violating the Public Health Act to the eye-watering sum of $ 500,000 .
The Public Health Act now extends the power of Ministers to make new law for a period of up to 270 days , or even longer .
The Alberta Government has claimed that it needs extra “ flexibility ” to respond to the coronavirus .
To date , however , provinces across Canada are managing the state ’ s response to the coronavirus without attempting to suspend democratic and constitutional checks and balances regarding law making .
The Legislature continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not responded to the question of why it thinks that the Health Minister is wiser than the entire Legislature for the purposes of making new laws .
Further , the Public Health Act ’ s emergency transfer of power from the Legislative Assembly to the provincial cabinet date back to a time when it would have been near-impossible for MLAs to meet in person .
In view of today ’ s technology , there is no reason why the Legislature can not meet virtually as necessary and required .
Justice Centre President John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ betrayal of the electorate and of the rule of law.
” He notes that Bill 10 allows “ a single politician to behave as though he or she has the power of a legislative majority to make laws for millions .
This is an affront to democracy and constitutionalism.
” With many courts currently closed or highly restricted to criminal law and some family law matters , the usual checks and balances are not in place to protect citizens from government abuse .
The United Conservative Party used its majority to pass Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Emergency Powers ) Amendment Act , 2020 on April 2 , 2020 .
Passed with only 21 out of 87 elected MLAs present and voting on the final reading , Bill 10 provides sweeping , extraordinary , and nearly unlimited powers to any government minister at the stroke of a pen .
“ In a public health emergency , if a cabinet minister creates a new law under this amended Act , democratically elected MLAs will have no opportunity to challenge the legislation , request amendments , and take a stand against government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ views of their constituents .
A legal challenge is necessary to bring judicial oversight to bear over the actions of the government , ” concludes Carpay .
Published with permission from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms .

Bill 10 was rushed through the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in under 48 hours. It allows a single minister to unilaterally make new laws and create new offenses.
CALGARY, Alberta, May 1, 2020 (Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms) — The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca) today confirmed it has filed a legal challenge to Bill 10’s amendments to the Public Health Act. Bill 10 was rushed through the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in under 48 hours, from March 31 to April 2, 2020.
Prior to Bill 10, the Public Health Act already gave extraordinary powers to Cabinet, the Minister of Health, and the Chief Medical Officer in the event of a public health emergency. These existing powers included taking citizen’s real or personal property without consent, authorizing entry into a person’s residence without a warrant, requiring mass immunization of the public, and requiring mass public testing. Under these existing provisions, a minister could suspend — for up to 60 days — the operation of any existing law.
Adding to these existing powers, Bill 10 now allows a single Minister to unilaterally make new laws and create new offences for the populace without consultation with the Legislative Assembly. Bill 10 also raises maximum individual penalties for violating the Public Health Act to the eye-watering sum of $500,000. The Public Health Act now extends the power of Ministers to make new law for a period of up to 270 days, or even longer.
The Alberta Government has claimed that it needs extra “flexibility” to respond to the coronavirus. To date, however, provinces across Canada are managing the state’s response to the coronavirus without attempting to suspend democratic and constitutional checks and balances regarding law making. The Legislature continues to be available. The government has not responded to the question of why it thinks that the Health Minister is wiser than the entire Legislature for the purposes of making new laws.
Further, the Public Health Act’s emergency transfer of power from the Legislative Assembly to the provincial cabinet date back to a time when it would have been near-impossible for MLAs to meet in person. In view of today’s technology, there is no reason why the Legislature cannot meet virtually as necessary and required.
Justice Centre President John Carpay characterizes Bill 10 as ”a betrayal of the electorate and of the rule of law.” He notes that Bill 10 allows “a single politician to behave as though he or she has the power of a legislative majority to make laws for millions. This is an affront to democracy and constitutionalism.”
With many courts currently closed or highly restricted to criminal law and some family law matters, the usual checks and balances are not in place to protect citizens from government abuse.
The United Conservative Party used its majority to pass Bill 10, the Alberta Public Health (Emergency Powers) Amendment Act, 2020 on April 2, 2020. Passed with only 21 out of 87 elected MLAs present and voting on the final reading, Bill 10 provides sweeping, extraordinary, and nearly unlimited powers to any government minister at the stroke of a pen.
“In a public health emergency, if a cabinet minister creates a new law under this amended Act, democratically elected MLAs will have no opportunity to challenge the legislation, request amendments, and take a stand against government overreach in an effort to represent the views of their constituents. A legal challenge is necessary to bring judicial oversight to bear over the actions of the government,” concludes Carpay.
Published with permission from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-01--Insider says NYC cops told to prioritize ‘social distancing’ violations over 911 calls

PETITION : Support pro-lifers threatened and arrested for praying outside of abortion facilities Sign the petition here .
NEW YORK , May 1 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Police in New York City are reportedly being told to prioritize calls telling on people violating measures to combat COVID-19 over actual emergency calls .
Unnamed sources within the New York Police Department ( NYPD ) told the New York Post that “ commanding officers are telling rank-and-file cops to prioritize 311 social-distancing calls over 911 emergency calls.
” New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio posted a short video on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to report any violations of social distancing requirements imposed by the government .
“ Now look , thank you everyone who ’ s done it the right way , but we still know there ’ s some people who need to get the message .
And that means sometimes making sure the enforcement is there to educate people and make clear we ’ ve got to have social distancing , ” de Blasio said .
He then pointed out that it is “ easier than ever ” for the people of New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ When you see a crowd , when you see a line that ’ s not distanced , when you see a supermarket that ’ s too crowded — anything — you can report it right away so we can get help there to fix the problem , ” the mayor said .
“ All you ’ ve got to do is take the photo and put the location with it , and , bang , send a photo like this and we will make sure that enforcement comes right away , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photo to 311-692 and action will ensue.
” There is also an app .
According to the New York Post , an NYPD source commented that now , “ 311 is more [ of a ] priority than someone getting robbed at gunpoint .
The NYPD is making it mandatory to answer 311 within 45 minutes , otherwise [ the commanding officer ] is gon na have to explain himself.
” “ People getting jumped , robbed , assaulted… .
doesn ’ t matter… .
my captain asks about why a 311 job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] not being closed out yet , ” the same source added .
City Hall spokeswoman Olivia Lapeyrolerie discredited the source ’ s claims as “ false and dangerous.
” She considered it “ a slight to the hardworking men and women of the NYPD to imply that they would not respond to a 911 emergency with anything but the utmost urgency.
” When Mayor de Blasio first asked people living in the Big Apple to report their neighbors , the 311 system was flooded with prank messages , causing it to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extended middle fingers , the mayor dropping the Staten Island groundhog and news coverage of him going to the gym have all been texted to a special tip line that de Blasio announced Saturday , according to screenshots posted on Twitter , ” wrote the New York Post .
On the west coast of the United States , Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti had also called on his people to be “ snitches ” amid the coronavirus pandemic .
“ If any non-essential businesses continue to operate in violation of the stay at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to act to enforce the safer at home order and ensure their compliance , ” Garcetti said during a press briefing at the end of March .
“ We need to make sure that everybody continues to let us know where those folks are .
If you ’ ve observed recurring violations of the ‘ safer at home ’ order , please continue to let us know , ” he continued .
Garcetti then asked , “ You know the old expression about snitches ?
” “ Well in this case , snitches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answering his own question .
“ We want to thank you for turning folks in and making sure we are all safe.
” Mayor de Blasio , meanwhile , has come under fire not only for his call to report on other people ’ s behavior amid the coronavirus pandemic , but also for threatening churches with having to close down permanently if the faithful come together for any worship services .
“ I want to say to all those who are preparing the potential of religious services this weekend — if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to your church and attempt to hold services after having been told so often not to , our enforcement agents will have no choice but to shut down those services , ” de Blasio announced during a press conference streamed online in March .
In case of disobedience , law enforcement “ will take additional action up to the point of fines and potentially closing the building permanently , ” he added .
In response to a large gathering for a Jewish funeral ceremony , de Blasio said , “ My message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities , is this simple : the time for warnings has passed .
I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups .
This is about stopping this disease and saving lives .
Period .
”

According to the New York Post, an NYPD source commented that now, '311 is more [of a] priority than someone getting robbed at gunpoint.'
PETITION: Support pro-lifers threatened and arrested for praying outside of abortion facilities Sign the petition here.
NEW YORK, May 1, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Police in New York City are reportedly being told to prioritize calls telling on people violating measures to combat COVID-19 over actual emergency calls. Unnamed sources within the New York Police Department (NYPD) told the New York Post that “commanding officers are telling rank-and-file cops to prioritize 311 social-distancing calls over 911 emergency calls.”
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio posted a short video on Twitter on April 18, explaining how to report any violations of social distancing requirements imposed by the government.
“Now look, thank you everyone who’s done it the right way, but we still know there’s some people who need to get the message. And that means sometimes making sure the enforcement is there to educate people and make clear we’ve got to have social distancing,” de Blasio said.
He then pointed out that it is “easier than ever” for the people of New York to report their neighbors to the authorities. “When you see a crowd, when you see a line that’s not distanced, when you see a supermarket that’s too crowded — anything — you can report it right away so we can get help there to fix the problem,” the mayor said.
“All you’ve got to do is take the photo and put the location with it, and, bang, send a photo like this and we will make sure that enforcement comes right away,” he continued. “Text the photo to 311-692 and action will ensue.” There is also an app.
How do you report places that aren’t enforcing social distancing? It’s simple: just snap a photo and text it to 311-692. #AskMyMayor pic.twitter.com/WQdCcVf1Rl — Mayor Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) April 18, 2020
According to the New York Post, an NYPD source commented that now, “311 is more [of a] priority than someone getting robbed at gunpoint. The NYPD is making it mandatory to answer 311 within 45 minutes, otherwise [the commanding officer] is gonna have to explain himself.”
“People getting jumped, robbed, assaulted…. doesn’t matter…. my captain asks about why a 311 job is almost reaching 45 minutes [and] not being closed out yet,” the same source added.
City Hall spokeswoman Olivia Lapeyrolerie discredited the source’s claims as “false and dangerous.” She considered it “a slight to the hardworking men and women of the NYPD to imply that they would not respond to a 911 emergency with anything but the utmost urgency.”
When Mayor de Blasio first asked people living in the Big Apple to report their neighbors, the 311 system was flooded with prank messages, causing it to be temporarily shut down.
“Photos of extended middle fingers, the mayor dropping the Staten Island groundhog and news coverage of him going to the gym have all been texted to a special tip line that de Blasio announced Saturday, according to screenshots posted on Twitter,” wrote the New York Post.
On the west coast of the United States, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti had also called on his people to be “snitches” amid the coronavirus pandemic.
“If any non-essential businesses continue to operate in violation of the stay at home order, we’re going to act to enforce the safer at home order and ensure their compliance,” Garcetti said during a press briefing at the end of March.
“We need to make sure that everybody continues to let us know where those folks are. If you’ve observed recurring violations of the ‘safer at home’ order, please continue to let us know,” he continued.
Garcetti then asked, “You know the old expression about snitches?”
“Well in this case, snitches get rewards,” he said, answering his own question. “We want to thank you for turning folks in and making sure we are all safe.”
Mayor de Blasio, meanwhile, has come under fire not only for his call to report on other people’s behavior amid the coronavirus pandemic, but also for threatening churches with having to close down permanently if the faithful come together for any worship services.
“I want to say to all those who are preparing the potential of religious services this weekend — if you go to your synagogue, if you go to your church and attempt to hold services after having been told so often not to, our enforcement agents will have no choice but to shut down those services,” de Blasio announced during a press conference streamed online in March.
In case of disobedience, law enforcement “will take additional action up to the point of fines and potentially closing the building permanently,” he added.
In response to a large gathering for a Jewish funeral ceremony, de Blasio said, “My message to the Jewish community, and all communities, is this simple: the time for warnings has passed. I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups. This is about stopping this disease and saving lives. Period.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-01--Former Vatican doctrine head corrects modern, wrong understanding of ‘synodality’

PETITION : Join faithful German Catholics in resisting bishops ’ plan to ‘ Protestantize ’ Church Sign the petition here .
May 1 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — As the concept of “ synodality ” has risen to prominence within the Church in recent years , especially through several high-profile synods of bishops in Rome under Pope Francis , Cardinal Gerhard Müller pointed out that to speak “ of a ‘ division of powers ’ in the Church is populism and theological ignorance.
” In a lengthy article , originally written for German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost and translated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below ) , the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith admitted that it “ may well be justified to speak of a synodal principle in the cooperation of bishops , priests and laity in diocesan and supra-diocesan bodies.
” At the same time , he said , there is a problem in relation to that synodal principle .
“ [ I ] ts original defect , which consists of the political misunderstanding that the Church revolved around power that now has to be limited and shared ‘ democratically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Müller emphasized .
“ In reality , the spiritual authority of the bishops and the mission of the laity is at the service of revealed truth and the eternal salvation of all those for whom Jesus Christ sacrificed His life on the cross , ” he added .
The German cardinal clarified the meaning of the term “ synodality.
” As he explained , it is used in two different ways — namely , as synodality among bishops in leading the Church on the one hand and as synodality among all members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Müller questioned whether these two meanings “ can be derived from the same principle.
” “ Membership of the college of bishops gives rise to a shared responsibility among all bishops for ensuring that the whole Church remains true to the teachings of the apostles , for unity of faith , unity in the sacraments and the visible communion of all faithful and bishops with and under the Pope , ” according to Müller .
In distinction to that type of synodality , “ the shared responsibility of all religious and laity is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ministry of the Pope and the bishops , but from their participation in the priesthood of Christ and thus in the prophetic mission and diaconal task of the Church in martyria ( witness ) , leiturgia ( worship ) and diakonia ( service ) .
” Given the Church ’ s understanding of herself and her constitution , she can “ by no means take over the ‘ synodal constitution ’ of the Calvinist and ... the Lutheran communities.
” Cardinal Müller noted that under the pontificate of Pope Francis , “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gridlock ’ ” had taken a wrong turn .
“ Instead of intellectually and spiritually facing the great theological and anthropological challenges of the dechristianisation process , many are peddling the new edition of the 1970s agenda — for example , abolition of priestly celibacy , access of women to the priesthood , interfaith communion with persisting separation in faith , recognition of sexual union outside marriage — and wanting to modernise the Church.
” In his article , Müller also referred to the synodal path in Germany , which is bringing together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lay people , as part of a forum not recognized by canon law , in order to discuss and perhaps change the Church ’ s teaching on four hot-button issues , including sexual morality .
“ It can hardly be assumed that a body like the Synodal Path in Germany could claim the Holy Spirit for itself in order to suspend , correct and reinterpret the authority of Holy Scripture , the Apostolic Tradition and the infallible decisions of the Magisterium , ” the cardinal stressed .
“ Nor is it an entity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ academically-recognised authority that can ‘ further develop ’ dogmas or divine law.
” Why the college of bishops is not an exclusive club , and why the laity share a responsibility in matters of faith Apostolicity and synodality are two ecclesiological principles of separate origin and meaning .
While the connection to the apostles is fundamental for the Catholic Church , and appears as one of the characteristics of the Church in the Creed , the principle of synodality is a more recent development .
Only the most recent edition of the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the key term “ synodal principle.
” With the Second Vatican Council , the newly constituted Roman synod of bishops ( cann .
342-348 ) and the diocesan synods more frequently held in some countries ( cann .
460-468 ) , “ the synodality of the Church came more into focus , which is in principle intended to accommodate the full participation of all members of the Church ” ( Leo Karrer ) .
Whether the participation of the bishops in the general leadership of the Church , and the cooperation of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the diocese can be derived from the same principle , remains questionable .
The institutions of the Roman synod of bishops , the particular synods and regional bishops ’ conferences are , in different ways , founded upon the egality of episcopal ordination .
Membership of the college of bishops gives rise to a shared responsibility among all bishops for ensuring that the whole Church remains true to the teachings of the apostles , for unity of faith , unity in the sacraments and the visible communion of all faithful and bishops with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority in matters of doctrine , morals and the divine constitution of the Church is vested in the Ecumenical Council .
However , as a matter of principle , the Council never exists or acts without its head , the Pope , who is the representative of Christ and successor of Peter .
On the other hand , the shared responsibility of all religious and laity is not derived from participation in the apostolic ministry of the Pope and the bishops , but from their participation in the priesthood of Christ and thus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Church in martyria ( witness ) , leiturgia ( worship ) and diakonia ( service ) .
The reason for this lies in the sacramental entry into the Body of Christ through baptism and confirmation .
The natural gifts and the supernatural charisms serve to build up the Church in the spirit of the Father and the Son .
They are not a concept competing with the sacramental constitution of the Church .
That is why the Church ’ s constitution is not a changing conglomerate of heterogeneous ( montanistically conceived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ prophets and charismatics ” who refer to their experiences of revival on the one hand , and of adaptation to present political dynamics and sociological structures on the other .
In Christ , the Church is the sacrament for the salvation of the world and not a community of ideas .
The Church does not adopt as her organisational structure the corresponding system of rule of the present day .
For instance , it neither adopts a feudalistic system of government in times of feudalism , nor does it adopt a system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or constitutional principality .
Nor does it present itself as a direct or constitutional democracy post-French Revolution .
This is because the invisible , spiritual community and the visible , sacramentally constituted Church are “ not to be considered as two realities , but rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element ... by no weak analogy ” to the mystery of the incarnate Word ( Lumen gentium 8 ) .
Owing to its different ecclesiological approach , the Catholic Church can by no means take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Calvinist and – after the end of princely sovereignty in 1918 – the Lutheran communities .
For the Church , being the chosen people of God , is the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit .
The Church is in no way a merely human religious community which actualises the ideals of its divine founder as far as possible within its formal structures .
The new forms of synod in the Catholic Church are neither borrowed from the “ Holy Synod ” as in the supreme governing body @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are they the result of a kind of rediscovery of a “ buried ” early Church tradition .
They are in fact an actualisation of episcopal collegiality , or rather , the lay apostolate according to the circumstances of the present , which both essentially result from the sacramental nature of the Church .
In God ’ s plan for universal salvation , the Church herself , as the sign and instrument of man ’ s most intimate communion with God , is the object of faith which emanates from listening to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as one of her core characteristics , apostolic , because all her members “ devote themselves to the teachings of the apostles ” ( Acts 2:42 ) and because all are obliged and thus entitled , by God – Father , Son , and Holy Spirit – to share in the mission of the Church .
Notably , the bishops succeed the apostles , not because they are like these first witnesses of revelation and thereby co-founders of the Church , but rather they exercise in apostolic succession the authority of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Church of God in the power and spirit of the exalted Christ , the Head of the Church .
The Catholic understanding of the apostolic ministry is therefore not to be understood sociologically in terms of its functions for the congregation , but christologically and sacramentally as the representation of the Head of the Church .
“ In the bishops , therefore , for whom priests are assistants , Our Lord Jesus Christ , the Supreme High Priest , is present in the midst of those who believe ” ( Lumen gentium @ @ @ @ @ @ @ St. Irenaeus presented this principle of apostolicity as the fundamental principle of the Catholic Church in his epochal work “ Against Heresies ” ( circa 180 A.D. ) .
While the Gnostics of the time ( and in another form until today ) refer to their self-referential speculations and exclusive knowledge of the divine from alleged secret teachings of the apostles , St. Irenaeus establishes the epistemological principles of a sound , catholic theology ( Against Heresies , Book III , Chapter 3.2 ) .
Christ is the only mediator The Christian faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the anthropogenic interpretations and ever-changing reflections of an absolute in human intelligence , which is necessary to contemplate but always escapes our comprehension .
In the Holy Spirit , we acknowledge God ’ s Truth in His Son , Jesus Christ .
He alone is the mediator between the One God and us : the man Jesus Christ ( 1 Timothy 2:5 ) .
And by this , we mean the actual man Jesus , not a mythical creature or an ostensive idea .
Through the Holy Spirit , the Church remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God in the Incarnate Word , if the bishops , as successors of the apostles , faithfully and fully preserve the Word of God in Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition .
The bishops ’ shared responsibility was first realised on a larger scale in the form of assembly ( syn-hodos ) when a meeting was held in Antioch ( 268 A.D. ) to reject the heresy of Bishop Paul of Samosata .
He contested the divinity of Christ and “ declared him an ordinary man by nature ” ( Eusebius of Caesarea , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chapters 27-30 ) .
Since the faith of the Catholic Church is one and the same , a synodal letter was sent to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria to assure them catholically ( universally ) of this truth .
The later particular synods or ecumenical councils all follow this concrete principle of the common responsibility of all bishops in unity with the successor of Peter in Rome .
They undertake to ensure the unity of the Church in the handed-down faith of the apostles .
The bishops acted on this principle long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was developed .
First of all , however , the formal authority of the bishops must not become independent of the substantive authority of revelation in Scripture and Tradition .
And secondly , the college of bishops is not an exclusive club .
The bishops are , in the name of Christ , the shepherds and teachers of the Church only if they themselves have received the Church ’ s teaching and are faithful to it .
There is a constitutive link between the witness of the apostles and that of all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The shepherds must themselves receive the teachings of the Church The laity have a constructive and , in certain circumstances , critical co-responsibility in matters of faith .
Once , historically , this co-responsibility saved the true faith in an extreme way when a majority of erring bishops cowardly and confusedly gave in to the onslaught of Arianism and the coercive power of the state ( cf .
John Henry Newman , On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine ) .
The outbreak of the “ Reformation , ” which ended in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was partly due to the carelessness and deplorable incompetence of the Roman Curia and the German bishops , who shared a high degree of responsibility for the delayed reform of the Church ’ s head and members .
Even Pope Adrian VI himself blamed the Roman Curia and the German bishops at the Imperial Diet of Nuremberg ( 1522/23 ) .
Admittedly , the Church can not subsequently ratify an infallible decision of the Pope and the ecumenical council in matters of faith and morals , because it comes about in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can launch an appeal against God .
But the sense of faith of the people of God , which is formed by listening to the Word of God and being faithful to the teachings of the Church , leads , by consultation , up to the highest decisions of the teaching authority ( cf .
Lumen gentium 25 ; John Henry Newman , On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine ) .
This sense of faith is therefore not based on the claim to power of a democratic majority , as in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revealed faith , that is , infallibility in faith ( infallibilitas in credendo ) , must precede an assent on the definitions of the Magisterium ( infallibilitas in docendo ) , both logically and chronologically .
No one can invoke the sensus fidei fidelium in his opposition to a revealed and defined doctrine , because the binding declaration of revelation has been entrusted only to the living Magisterium of the Church , whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ ( Dei verbum 10 ) .
Synods and Councils have never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adapt her doctrine of faith and morals to the spirit of the times and to prevailing world views and lifestyles .
There is a unanimity here with faithful Christians of the Protestant denomination , who reacted to the “ German Christians , ” a popular movement that saw no conflict between Christianity and the ideals of Hitler ’ s national socialism .
The third thesis of the “ Theological Declaration of Barmen ” ( 1934 ) refers to the “ German Christians ” with their false doctrine of the “ realities of life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Word of God : “ We reject the false doctrine , as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.
” The interpretation of the Second Vatican Council spread by the so-called “ Bologna School ” was the agenda for a refoundation of the Catholic Church according to the ideas of the Enlightenment and religious criticism : in other words , a transformation of the Church of God into a civil religion without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing other than a disguised apostasy , because the bishops and the Pope “ are only successors of the apostles and vicars of Christ , who do not have the right to found another Church , to transmit a different faith and to administer sacraments other than those instituted by Christ ” ( Thomas Aquinas , Summa Theologiae III , q .
64 , a .
2 ad 3 ) .
From where would the architects of their own Church receive the authority to indoctrinate , to mainstream and , in the event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s faithful , remove them from the ministries given to them by Christ and pillory them in the anti-Church media ?
It can hardly be assumed that a body like the Synodal Path in Germany could claim the Holy Spirit for itself in order to suspend , correct and reinterpret the authority of Holy Scripture , the Apostolic Tradition and the infallible decisions of the Magisterium .
Nor is it an entity authorised by the Church , nor an academically-recognised authority that can “ further develop ” dogmas or divine law .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly stated the limits of Church authority , namely that even the Pope and all the faithful are bound to Scripture , Tradition and the existing Magisterium , and that by no means can anyone , under the pretext of a “ new hermeneutic , ” substantively reinterpret or undermine the creed and teaching of the Church ( in a letter against Bismarck 1875 , cf .
Denzinger-Hünermann 3116 ) .
It may well be justified to speak of a synodal principle in the cooperation of bishops , priests and laity in diocesan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original defect , which consists of the political misunderstanding that the Church revolved around power that now has to be limited and shared “ democratically , ” must not be exaggerated .
To speak of a “ division of powers in the Church ” is nothing other than populism and theological ignorance .
In reality , the spiritual authority of the bishops and the mission of the laity is at the service of revealed truth and the eternal salvation of all those for whom Jesus Christ sacrificed His life on the cross .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lurk behind the demand for “ more ” synodality .
The First Vatican Council had centralised the Church authority in Rome , and now with the Second Vatican Council , a “ decentralisation of power , ” a “ revaluation of the laity ” and more “ independence of the local churches ” had to take place .
In this way , the episcopate had to be democratised , so that the bishop is the president of the diocesan assembly rather than the shepherd and teacher of the local church appointed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Francis , a new stage of Church history had begun .
It was a matter of finally clearing the “ reform gridlock ” for which the Pope ’ s two predecessors , and to this day the Roman Curia , were responsible .
Instead of intellectually and spiritually facing the great theological and anthropological challenges of the dechristianisation process , many are peddling the new edition of the 1970s agenda – for example , abolition of priestly celibacy , access of women to the priesthood , interfaith communion with persisting separation in faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – and wanting to modernise the Church .
For whom should the extinguished torch shine , which is courageously carried forward into the future ?
The synodal principle should actually be bearing fruit for the common work of the new evangelisation in Germany .
In this way , we Germans would at least be contributing something to the universal Church , which is not waiting for the export of an unprecedented decline in Christian life , as has happened in central Europe .
The apostolic authority of the bishops and the apostolate of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Church , arise from the same mission of the whole Church for the salvation of the world .
It is therefore important that they also cooperate and coordinate their activities in evangelisation and good works for the temporal good of the state and society ( cf .
Apostolicam actuositatem 18 and 23 ) .
Authority and apostolate have the same mission At its various levels , synodality is a principle derived from the apostolic nature of the Church .
Not to fight for power but to discern the spirits : this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in these times .
“ We have received not the spirit of the world , but the Spirit that comes from God , that we may know what has been given to us by God ” ( 1 Corinthians 2:12 ) .
The Church remains catholic and apostolic only if , in fidelity to the one treasure of the Word of God handed down to the Church ( in Scripture and Tradition ) , “ the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaking of the bread and in prayers , so that holding to , practising and professing the heritage of the faith , it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort ” ( Dei verbum 10 ) .
As justified as it is to speak of a synodal principle in the interaction of bishops , priests and laity , we should not gloss over its original defect .
This consists of the political misunderstanding that in the Church , the main issue revolves around power that now has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak of a “ division of powers ” in the Church is populism and theological ignorance .
In reality , both the spiritual authority of the bishops and the mission of the laity are at the service of the revealed truth .
Cardinal Gerhard Müller ’ s article was originally written for Die Tagespost .
It has been translated by Cecilia Fitzpatrick and is published here with permission .

The modern understanding's 'original defect, which consists of the political misunderstanding that the Church revolved around power that now has to be limited and shared 'democratically,' must not be exaggerated,' Cdl. Gerhard Müller insisted.
PETITION: Join faithful German Catholics in resisting bishops’ plan to ‘Protestantize’ Church Sign the petition here.
May 1, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — As the concept of “synodality” has risen to prominence within the Church in recent years, especially through several high-profile synods of bishops in Rome under Pope Francis, Cardinal Gerhard Müller pointed out that to speak “of a ‘division of powers’ in the Church is populism and theological ignorance.”
In a lengthy article, originally written for German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost and translated into English exclusively for LifeSiteNews (see below), the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith admitted that it “may well be justified to speak of a synodal principle in the cooperation of bishops, priests and laity in diocesan and supra-diocesan bodies.”
At the same time, he said, there is a problem in relation to that synodal principle.
“[I]ts original defect, which consists of the political misunderstanding that the Church revolved around power that now has to be limited and shared ‘democratically,’ must not be exaggerated,” Müller emphasized.
“In reality, the spiritual authority of the bishops and the mission of the laity is at the service of revealed truth and the eternal salvation of all those for whom Jesus Christ sacrificed His life on the cross,” he added.
The German cardinal clarified the meaning of the term “synodality.” As he explained, it is used in two different ways — namely, as synodality among bishops in leading the Church on the one hand and as synodality among all members of the Church on the other. Müller questioned whether these two meanings “can be derived from the same principle.”
“Membership of the college of bishops gives rise to a shared responsibility among all bishops for ensuring that the whole Church remains true to the teachings of the apostles, for unity of faith, unity in the sacraments and the visible communion of all faithful and bishops with and under the Pope,” according to Müller.
In distinction to that type of synodality, “the shared responsibility of all religious and laity is not derived from participation in the apostolic ministry of the Pope and the bishops, but from their participation in the priesthood of Christ and thus in the prophetic mission and diaconal task of the Church in martyria (witness), leiturgia (worship) and diakonia (service).”
Given the Church’s understanding of herself and her constitution, she can “by no means take over the ‘synodal constitution’ of the Calvinist and … the Lutheran communities.”
Cardinal Müller noted that under the pontificate of Pope Francis, “a matter of finally clearing the ‘reform gridlock’” had taken a wrong turn.
“Instead of intellectually and spiritually facing the great theological and anthropological challenges of the dechristianisation process, many are peddling the new edition of the 1970s agenda — for example, abolition of priestly celibacy, access of women to the priesthood, interfaith communion with persisting separation in faith, recognition of sexual union outside marriage — and wanting to modernise the Church.”
In his article, Müller also referred to the synodal path in Germany, which is bringing together bishops, priests, religious, and lay people, as part of a forum not recognized by canon law, in order to discuss and perhaps change the Church’s teaching on four hot-button issues, including sexual morality.
“It can hardly be assumed that a body like the Synodal Path in Germany could claim the Holy Spirit for itself in order to suspend, correct and reinterpret the authority of Holy Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the infallible decisions of the Magisterium,” the cardinal stressed. “Nor is it an entity authorised by the Church, nor an academically-recognised authority that can ‘further develop’ dogmas or divine law.”
Full text of Cardinal Müller’s article below:
Why the college of bishops is not an exclusive club, and why the laity share a responsibility in matters of faith
By Cardinal Gerhard Müller
Translated by Cecilia Fitzpatrick
Power and synodality
Apostolicity and synodality are two ecclesiological principles of separate origin and meaning. While the connection to the apostles is fundamental for the Catholic Church, and appears as one of the characteristics of the Church in the Creed, the principle of synodality is a more recent development. Only the most recent edition of the “Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche” contains the key term “synodal principle.” With the Second Vatican Council, the newly constituted Roman synod of bishops (cann. 342-348) and the diocesan synods more frequently held in some countries (cann. 460-468), “the synodality of the Church came more into focus, which is in principle intended to accommodate the full participation of all members of the Church” (Leo Karrer).
Whether the participation of the bishops in the general leadership of the Church, and the cooperation of all priests and laypeople with the bishop in the diocese can be derived from the same principle, remains questionable. The institutions of the Roman synod of bishops, the particular synods and regional bishops’ conferences are, in different ways, founded upon the egality of episcopal ordination. Membership of the college of bishops gives rise to a shared responsibility among all bishops for ensuring that the whole Church remains true to the teachings of the apostles, for unity of faith, unity in the sacraments and the visible communion of all faithful and bishops with and under the Pope. The supreme authority in matters of doctrine, morals and the divine constitution of the Church is vested in the Ecumenical Council. However, as a matter of principle, the Council never exists or acts without its head, the Pope, who is the representative of Christ and successor of Peter.
On the other hand, the shared responsibility of all religious and laity is not derived from participation in the apostolic ministry of the Pope and the bishops, but from their participation in the priesthood of Christ and thus in the prophetic mission and diaconal task of the Church in martyria (witness), leiturgia (worship) and diakonia (service). The reason for this lies in the sacramental entry into the Body of Christ through baptism and confirmation. The natural gifts and the supernatural charisms serve to build up the Church in the spirit of the Father and the Son. They are not a concept competing with the sacramental constitution of the Church. That is why the Church’s constitution is not a changing conglomerate of heterogeneous (montanistically conceived) supranatural inputs of the spirit from “prophets and charismatics” who refer to their experiences of revival on the one hand, and of adaptation to present political dynamics and sociological structures on the other. In Christ, the Church is the sacrament for the salvation of the world and not a community of ideas.
The Church does not adopt as her organisational structure the corresponding system of rule of the present day. For instance, it neither adopts a feudalistic system of government in times of feudalism, nor does it adopt a system of absolute rule in times of absolute or constitutional principality. Nor does it present itself as a direct or constitutional democracy post-French Revolution. This is because the invisible, spiritual community and the visible, sacramentally constituted Church are “not to be considered as two realities, but rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element…by no weak analogy” to the mystery of the incarnate Word (Lumen gentium 8).
Owing to its different ecclesiological approach, the Catholic Church can by no means take over the “synodal constitution” of the Calvinist and – after the end of princely sovereignty in 1918 – the Lutheran communities. For the Church, being the chosen people of God, is the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. The Church is in no way a merely human religious community which actualises the ideals of its divine founder as far as possible within its formal structures. The new forms of synod in the Catholic Church are neither borrowed from the “Holy Synod” as in the supreme governing body of an autocephalous orthodox church, nor are they the result of a kind of rediscovery of a “buried” early Church tradition. They are in fact an actualisation of episcopal collegiality, or rather, the lay apostolate according to the circumstances of the present, which both essentially result from the sacramental nature of the Church.
In God’s plan for universal salvation, the Church herself, as the sign and instrument of man’s most intimate communion with God, is the object of faith which emanates from listening to the Word of God. The Church is, as one of her core characteristics, apostolic, because all her members “devote themselves to the teachings of the apostles” (Acts 2:42) and because all are obliged and thus entitled, by God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – to share in the mission of the Church. Notably, the bishops succeed the apostles, not because they are like these first witnesses of revelation and thereby co-founders of the Church, but rather they exercise in apostolic succession the authority of the apostles to teach, sanctify and guide the Church of God in the power and spirit of the exalted Christ, the Head of the Church.
The Catholic understanding of the apostolic ministry is therefore not to be understood sociologically in terms of its functions for the congregation, but christologically and sacramentally as the representation of the Head of the Church. “In the bishops, therefore, for whom priests are assistants, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Supreme High Priest, is present in the midst of those who believe” (Lumen gentium 21; Sacrosanctum concilium 41). St. Irenaeus presented this principle of apostolicity as the fundamental principle of the Catholic Church in his epochal work “Against Heresies” (circa 180 A.D.). While the Gnostics of the time (and in another form until today) refer to their self-referential speculations and exclusive knowledge of the divine from alleged secret teachings of the apostles, St. Irenaeus establishes the epistemological principles of a sound, catholic theology (Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3.2).
Christ is the only mediator
The Christian faith neither confesses nor places its full hope in the anthropogenic interpretations and ever-changing reflections of an absolute in human intelligence, which is necessary to contemplate but always escapes our comprehension. In the Holy Spirit, we acknowledge God’s Truth in His Son, Jesus Christ. He alone is the mediator between the One God and us: the man Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). And by this, we mean the actual man Jesus, not a mythical creature or an ostensive idea.
Through the Holy Spirit, the Church remains in the historically concrete universal truth of God in the Incarnate Word, if the bishops, as successors of the apostles, faithfully and fully preserve the Word of God in Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. The bishops’ shared responsibility was first realised on a larger scale in the form of assembly (syn-hodos) when a meeting was held in Antioch (268 A.D.) to reject the heresy of Bishop Paul of Samosata. He contested the divinity of Christ and “declared him an ordinary man by nature” (Eusebius of Caesarea, The Church History, Book VII, Chapters 27-30). Since the faith of the Catholic Church is one and the same, a synodal letter was sent to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria to assure them catholically (universally) of this truth.
The later particular synods or ecumenical councils all follow this concrete principle of the common responsibility of all bishops in unity with the successor of Peter in Rome. They undertake to ensure the unity of the Church in the handed-down faith of the apostles. The bishops acted on this principle long before a systematic theology of the councils was developed. First of all, however, the formal authority of the bishops must not become independent of the substantive authority of revelation in Scripture and Tradition. And secondly, the college of bishops is not an exclusive club. The bishops are, in the name of Christ, the shepherds and teachers of the Church only if they themselves have received the Church’s teaching and are faithful to it. There is a constitutive link between the witness of the apostles and that of all the faithful, priests and laity alike.
The shepherds must themselves receive the teachings of the Church
The laity have a constructive and, in certain circumstances, critical co-responsibility in matters of faith. Once, historically, this co-responsibility saved the true faith in an extreme way when a majority of erring bishops cowardly and confusedly gave in to the onslaught of Arianism and the coercive power of the state (cf. John Henry Newman, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine). The outbreak of the “Reformation,” which ended in the catastrophic division of the occidental Church, was partly due to the carelessness and deplorable incompetence of the Roman Curia and the German bishops, who shared a high degree of responsibility for the delayed reform of the Church’s head and members. Even Pope Adrian VI himself blamed the Roman Curia and the German bishops at the Imperial Diet of Nuremberg (1522/23).
Admittedly, the Church cannot subsequently ratify an infallible decision of the Pope and the ecumenical council in matters of faith and morals, because it comes about in the authority of the Holy Spirit and nobody can launch an appeal against God. But the sense of faith of the people of God, which is formed by listening to the Word of God and being faithful to the teachings of the Church, leads, by consultation, up to the highest decisions of the teaching authority (cf. Lumen gentium 25; John Henry Newman, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine).
This sense of faith is therefore not based on the claim to power of a democratic majority, as in a nation. A consensus based on revealed faith, that is, infallibility in faith (infallibilitas in credendo), must precede an assent on the definitions of the Magisterium (infallibilitas in docendo), both logically and chronologically. No one can invoke the sensus fidei fidelium in his opposition to a revealed and defined doctrine, because the binding declaration of revelation has been entrusted only to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ (Dei verbum 10).
Synods and Councils have never presumed to reestablish the Church or to adapt her doctrine of faith and morals to the spirit of the times and to prevailing world views and lifestyles. There is a unanimity here with faithful Christians of the Protestant denomination, who reacted to the “German Christians,” a popular movement that saw no conflict between Christianity and the ideals of Hitler’s national socialism. The third thesis of the “Theological Declaration of Barmen” (1934) refers to the “German Christians” with their false doctrine of the “realities of life as second source of revelation” besides the Word of God: “We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.”
The “Bologna School”: apostasy disguised
The interpretation of the Second Vatican Council spread by the so-called “Bologna School” was the agenda for a refoundation of the Catholic Church according to the ideas of the Enlightenment and religious criticism: in other words, a transformation of the Church of God into a civil religion without the divinity of Christ. This is nothing other than a disguised apostasy, because the bishops and the Pope “are only successors of the apostles and vicars of Christ, who do not have the right to found another Church, to transmit a different faith and to administer sacraments other than those instituted by Christ” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 64, a. 2 ad 3). From where would the architects of their own Church receive the authority to indoctrinate, to mainstream and, in the event of disobedience, to excommunicate Christ’s faithful, remove them from the ministries given to them by Christ and pillory them in the anti-Church media?
It can hardly be assumed that a body like the Synodal Path in Germany could claim the Holy Spirit for itself in order to suspend, correct and reinterpret the authority of Holy Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the infallible decisions of the Magisterium. Nor is it an entity authorised by the Church, nor an academically-recognised authority that can “further develop” dogmas or divine law. In better times, the German bishops still clearly stated the limits of Church authority, namely that even the Pope and all the faithful are bound to Scripture, Tradition and the existing Magisterium, and that by no means can anyone, under the pretext of a “new hermeneutic,” substantively reinterpret or undermine the creed and teaching of the Church (in a letter against Bismarck 1875, cf. Denzinger-Hünermann 3116).
It may well be justified to speak of a synodal principle in the cooperation of bishops, priests and laity in diocesan and supra-diocesan bodies. However, its original defect, which consists of the political misunderstanding that the Church revolved around power that now has to be limited and shared “democratically,” must not be exaggerated. To speak of a “division of powers in the Church” is nothing other than populism and theological ignorance. In reality, the spiritual authority of the bishops and the mission of the laity is at the service of revealed truth and the eternal salvation of all those for whom Jesus Christ sacrificed His life on the cross.
An anti-Roman sentiment has often been found to lurk behind the demand for “more” synodality. The First Vatican Council had centralised the Church authority in Rome, and now with the Second Vatican Council, a “decentralisation of power,” a “revaluation of the laity” and more “independence of the local churches” had to take place. In this way, the episcopate had to be democratised, so that the bishop is the president of the diocesan assembly rather than the shepherd and teacher of the local church appointed by Christ.
With the pontificate of Pope Francis, a new stage of Church history had begun. It was a matter of finally clearing the “reform gridlock” for which the Pope’s two predecessors, and to this day the Roman Curia, were responsible. Instead of intellectually and spiritually facing the great theological and anthropological challenges of the dechristianisation process, many are peddling the new edition of the 1970s agenda – for example, abolition of priestly celibacy, access of women to the priesthood, interfaith communion with persisting separation in faith, recognition of sexual union outside marriage – and wanting to modernise the Church. For whom should the extinguished torch shine, which is courageously carried forward into the future?
The synodal principle should actually be bearing fruit for the common work of the new evangelisation in Germany. In this way, we Germans would at least be contributing something to the universal Church, which is not waiting for the export of an unprecedented decline in Christian life, as has happened in central Europe. The apostolic authority of the bishops and the apostolate of the laity, which is constitutive for the Church, arise from the same mission of the whole Church for the salvation of the world. It is therefore important that they also cooperate and coordinate their activities in evangelisation and good works for the temporal good of the state and society (cf. Apostolicam actuositatem 18 and 23).
Authority and apostolate have the same mission
At its various levels, synodality is a principle derived from the apostolic nature of the Church. Not to fight for power but to discern the spirits: this is the way of the Church of Christ in these times. “We have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that comes from God, that we may know what has been given to us by God” (1 Corinthians 2:12). The Church remains catholic and apostolic only if, in fidelity to the one treasure of the Word of God handed down to the Church (in Scripture and Tradition), “the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers, so that holding to, practising and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort” (Dei verbum 10).
Summary
As justified as it is to speak of a synodal principle in the interaction of bishops, priests and laity, we should not gloss over its original defect. This consists of the political misunderstanding that in the Church, the main issue revolves around power that now has to be limited “democratically.” To speak of a “division of powers” in the Church is populism and theological ignorance. In reality, both the spiritual authority of the bishops and the mission of the laity are at the service of the revealed truth.
Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s article was originally written for Die Tagespost. It has been translated by Cecilia Fitzpatrick and is published here with permission.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-01--Education magazine publishes letter criticizing LGBT tyranny, teachers have meltdown

May 1 , 2020 ( Everyday for Life Canada ) — In the December 2019 edition of the Ontario teachers ' magazine Professionally Speaking , a letter to the editor by Nancy George caused much controversy .
In fact , Godwin Ifedi the chair of the editorial board apologized to teachers for publishing the letter if the contents had hurt their feelings .
Here 's the letter : When classroom activities are in conflict with beliefs This is in response to the article about showing inclusiveness to the LGBTQ community in the June issue of Professionally Speaking .
We know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inclusion .
But we need to dig deeper and realize that this might not always be in line with teachers ’ and students ' religious convictions .
How do we show inclusion and freedom to these teachers and students ?
Are they given enough freedom for their beliefs ?
Being an occasional teacher , I have stepped into class-rooms and been required to follow up on projects already in progress where students were engaged in assignments like making posters in support of LGBTQ students and families .
I often think to myself , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kids and teachers whose religious beliefs do not support these lessons ?
Do the parents and guardians of these students grant permission for them to do such assignments ?
And are all the teachers given freedom of choice when it comes to administering such assignments ?
How can teachers go against their conscience and assign work that ’ s not in tune with their core belief ?
I do agree with this line in the article : “ It ’ s incumbent upon educators to demonstrate care , trust , respect and integrity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we demonstrate integrity when we do something which is against what we believe ?
Nancy George , OCT , is an occasional teacher who teaches junior/intermediate math in the York Region District School Board .
George is doing what every good teacher should do : ask questions and try to find answers .
But since a number of other teachers complained about publishing the letter in question , Ifedi felt the need to write , `` In our December issue , we published a letter to the editor that hurt and distressed many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this caused . ''
What 's in the letter that could cause such pain and distress ?
If schools intend to create true inclusive environments then they must work at making schools places where people can respectfully disagree .
If the only positions that teachers , administration and students may hold are the ones that fully support those who identify as lgbtq , then we end up excluding others in the name of a fake `` inclusion . ''
Political correctness trumps all .
Nancy George is to be encouraged and admired , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to free speech .
It 's disturbing to think that some of her colleagues and the editors would actually consider censorship to silence her view and many who are afraid to speak up .
George rightly states : `` ... how can we demonstrate integrity when we do something which is against what we believe ? ''
It seems that teachers are prepared to go in that direction and blindly follow a government ideology .
Discrimination and injustice against anyone that dares question `` gender identity '' becomes acceptable and promoted in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must all students accept that idea that boys can be girls and girls can be boys ?
Because the government says so .
Because the College of Teachers say so .
Because the activists say so .
This is the dangerous road to compelled speech and an end to liberty .
Professionally Speaking has the responsibility to allow its members , in a democratic society , to freely express what they think and believe .
Teachers do n't pay the high fees to maintain the College of Teachers only in turn to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already from the Justin Trudeau Liberals and the tax funded MSM .
The alternative to free speech is too scary to contemplate .
We end with something Voltaire 's biographer Evelyn Beatrice wrote about Voltaire 's thinking that is very appropriate here , “ I disapprove of what you say , but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
” There is no other way to protect democracy but to allow reasoned and civil dissent .
Published with permission from Everyday for Life Canada .

May 1, 2020 (Everyday for Life Canada) — In the December 2019 edition of the Ontario teachers' magazine Professionally Speaking, a letter to the editor by Nancy George caused much controversy. In fact, Godwin Ifedi the chair of the editorial board apologized to teachers for publishing the letter if the contents had hurt their feelings. Here's the letter:
When classroom activities are in conflict with beliefs This is in response to the article about showing inclusiveness to the LGBTQ community in the June issue of Professionally Speaking. We know that our boards place much importance on inclusion. But we need to dig deeper and realize that this might not always be in line with teachers’ and students' religious convictions. How do we show inclusion and freedom to these teachers and students? Are they given enough freedom for their beliefs? Being an occasional teacher, I have stepped into class-rooms and been required to follow up on projects already in progress where students were engaged in assignments like making posters in support of LGBTQ students and families. I often think to myself, do these assignments take into consideration the kids and teachers whose religious beliefs do not support these lessons? Do the parents and guardians of these students grant permission for them to do such assignments? And are all the teachers given freedom of choice when it comes to administering such assignments? How can teachers go against their conscience and assign work that’s not in tune with their core belief? I do agree with this line in the article: “It’s incumbent upon educators to demonstrate care, trust, respect and integrity in the workplace.” But how can we demonstrate integrity when we do something which is against what we believe? Nancy George, OCT, is an occasional teacher who teaches junior/intermediate math in the York Region District School Board.
George is doing what every good teacher should do: ask questions and try to find answers. But since a number of other teachers complained about publishing the letter in question, Ifedi felt the need to write, “In our December issue, we published a letter to the editor that hurt and distressed many members. We deeply regret the pain this caused.” What's in the letter that could cause such pain and distress? If schools intend to create true inclusive environments then they must work at making schools places where people can respectfully disagree. If the only positions that teachers, administration and students may hold are the ones that fully support those who identify as lgbtq, then we end up excluding others in the name of a fake “inclusion.” Political correctness trumps all. Nancy George is to be encouraged and admired, not professionally scolded for exercising her right to free speech. It's disturbing to think that some of her colleagues and the editors would actually consider censorship to silence her view and many who are afraid to speak up.
George rightly states: “… how can we demonstrate integrity when we do something which is against what we believe?” It seems that teachers are prepared to go in that direction and blindly follow a government ideology. Discrimination and injustice against anyone that dares question “gender identity” becomes acceptable and promoted in the name of “inclusion.” Why must all students accept that idea that boys can be girls and girls can be boys? Because the government says so. Because the College of Teachers say so. Because the activists say so. This is the dangerous road to compelled speech and an end to liberty. Professionally Speaking has the responsibility to allow its members, in a democratic society, to freely express what they think and believe. Teachers don't pay the high fees to maintain the College of Teachers only in turn to be censored. We have enough of that already from the Justin Trudeau Liberals and the tax funded MSM. The alternative to free speech is too scary to contemplate.
We end with something Voltaire's biographer Evelyn Beatrice wrote about Voltaire's thinking that is very appropriate here, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” There is no other way to protect democracy but to allow reasoned and civil dissent.
Published with permission from Everyday for Life Canada.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-01--Notorious Nazi doctor Josef Mengele became an abortionist in Argentina after WWII

May 1 , 2020 ( Live Action News ) — The name Josef Mengele is immediately recognizable to many .
A German Nazi doctor , he helped the Third Reich to murder millions of people , but he is particularly notable for his actions while at Auschwitz .
One of 30 physicians working at the death camp , Mengele reportedly earned himself the nickname “ Angel of Death ” for his cold and cruel demeanor while selecting prisoners to die .
He often spent extra time on the selection platform , even when he was off-duty , to help to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially experiments using twins — and it is for this reason that he has become most notorious .
Mengele had a fascination with twins , as well as with the eyes .
His horrifying experiments on his victims , often while alive , sometimes even included amputating prisoners ’ limbs , infecting them with diseases and poisons , and injecting chemicals into their eyes .
He would also seek out pregnant prisoners for experimentation , who would afterwards be killed along with their preborn children .
What is perhaps less well known is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ camps were liberated , and Nazi Germany fell .
Initially , Mengele was captured by Allied troops .
They weren ’ t aware , however , that he was on a list of wanted war criminals , so he was able to escape , making his way to Argentina .
But Mengele didn ’ t fall into a quiet life of remorse and penance ; his son , Rolf , said his father never expressed any contrition or guilt for his actions during the Holocaust , and Mengele quickly resumed killing .
Only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an abortionist .
The government of Argentina released records which proved that the government , at the time , actively helped Nazi war criminals to escape justice .
Those records also showed that Mengele was committing abortions illegally in Argentina .
Mengele did not have a license to practice medicine in Argentina , but still reportedly gained “ a reputation as a specialist in abortions , ” even though they were illegal at the time .
He killed at least one woman , and was briefly detained by a judge — but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s friends arrived in the courtroom carrying a “ package presumably filled with a large amount of money.
” In 1979 , Mengele finally died after suffering a stroke while swimming .
He drowned , and his body was buried under the name “ Wolfgang Gerhard.
” It was later exhumed and confirmed to be his in 1985 .
Research has found that Nazis frequently forced women into sterilizations and abortions , often against their will .
While so-called Aryan women were not permitted to have abortions , non-Aryan women were pressured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That someone like Mengele — who enthusiastically toed the Nazi party line , and dehumanized people on a regular basis — would go on to become an abortionist is not surprising .
After all , to commit abortions , one needs to do the same thing that happened during the Holocaust : deny the humanity of innocent people so as to more easily bring about their deaths .

Mengele did not have a license to practice medicine in Argentina, but he still reportedly gained 'a reputation as a specialist in abortions.'
May 1, 2020 (Live Action News) — The name Josef Mengele is immediately recognizable to many. A German Nazi doctor, he helped the Third Reich to murder millions of people, but he is particularly notable for his actions while at Auschwitz. One of 30 physicians working at the death camp, Mengele reportedly earned himself the nickname “Angel of Death” for his cold and cruel demeanor while selecting prisoners to die. He often spent extra time on the selection platform, even when he was off-duty, to help to choose people for his perverse experiments — especially experiments using twins — and it is for this reason that he has become most notorious.
Mengele had a fascination with twins, as well as with the eyes. His horrifying experiments on his victims, often while alive, sometimes even included amputating prisoners’ limbs, infecting them with diseases and poisons, and injecting chemicals into their eyes. He would also seek out pregnant prisoners for experimentation, who would afterwards be killed along with their preborn children.
What is perhaps less well known is what happened to Mengele after the death camps were liberated, and Nazi Germany fell. Initially, Mengele was captured by Allied troops. They weren’t aware, however, that he was on a list of wanted war criminals, so he was able to escape, making his way to Argentina. But Mengele didn’t fall into a quiet life of remorse and penance; his son, Rolf, said his father never expressed any contrition or guilt for his actions during the Holocaust, and Mengele quickly resumed killing.
Only this time, he chose to work as an abortionist.
The government of Argentina released records which proved that the government, at the time, actively helped Nazi war criminals to escape justice. Those records also showed that Mengele was committing abortions illegally in Argentina.
Mengele did not have a license to practice medicine in Argentina, but still reportedly gained “a reputation as a specialist in abortions,” even though they were illegal at the time. He killed at least one woman, and was briefly detained by a judge — but he was released after one of Mengele’s friends arrived in the courtroom carrying a “package presumably filled with a large amount of money.”
In 1979, Mengele finally died after suffering a stroke while swimming. He drowned, and his body was buried under the name “Wolfgang Gerhard.” It was later exhumed and confirmed to be his in 1985.
Research has found that Nazis frequently forced women into sterilizations and abortions, often against their will. While so-called Aryan women were not permitted to have abortions, non-Aryan women were pressured or forced into contraception and abortions. That someone like Mengele — who enthusiastically toed the Nazi party line, and dehumanized people on a regular basis — would go on to become an abortionist is not surprising.
After all, to commit abortions, one needs to do the same thing that happened during the Holocaust: deny the humanity of innocent people so as to more easily bring about their deaths.
Published with permission from Live Action News.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-01--Coronavirus leaves us with many guesses but no concrete answers

May 1 , 2020 ( Rorate Caeli ) — An aura of mystery continues to surround the Coronavirus , or Covid-19 , the infectious disease which has spread all over the world in a few short months , assuming the nature of a proper and authentic pandemic .
There are many hypotheses and few certainties about the nature of this virus .
The hypotheses regard the origins of the disease .
Did the virus have its origins in nature , as most of the virologists sustain , or was it produced in a laboratory , as others maintain ?
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for therapeutic purposes or for bacterial warfare ?
And was it made in a Chinese or Western laboratory ?
And was the seepage from this laboratory accidental or deliberate ?
It is evident that the hypothesis of deliberate seepage would foster the idea of a possible secret forces “ conspiracy ” , given that there have been many throughout history .
If , on the other hand , the virus had its origins in nature , or had seeped out of a laboratory by accident , we would have to think that these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the event .
One of the most likely hypotheses seems to be that presented by Steve Mosher , whereby the virus , made in China , had escaped by accident from a laboratory in Wuhan ( LifeSiteNews , 22 April 2020 ) .
We are talking just about a hypothesis , but the responsibilities of Communist China which Mosher brings to light are crystal-clear .
The Chinese Communist Party has in fact been silent about the diffusion of the virus and has manipulated the numbers of infections and deaths .
With good reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a refugee in the U.S. , after being imprisoned in China for his denunciations of forced abortions and sterilizations in Shandong ) asserted that “ The Chinese Communist Party is the greatest and the most dangerous virus in the world ” ( AsiaNews , 27 April 2020 ) .
Even a very cautious observer like Paolo Mieli* , in the Corriere della Sera of April 27 , reveals how the Chinese authorities as time goes on are nonchalantly “ adapting ” the numbers of the infected in their country .
Mieli writes : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a country , taken seriously by the World Health Organization whereby the General Director has praised its “ rigor ” , can play around with the numbers in this way ?
As time passes , moreover , the number increases of those , who , regarding the origins of the virus , are confirming the idea that something suspicious happened in the laboratories.
” And regarding the actual nature of Covid-19 , we have mere hypotheses , nothing definitive .
Not only how to treat the virus is unclear , but also whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infection acquire immunity , and how long this immunity might last .
The immunologists say that we are faced with an “ anomalous ” virus which behaves differently from those of the same family ( Corriere della Sera , 25 April ) ; all are announcing that there will be a second wave of the pandemic in the autumn but nobody is able to predict its nature .
Not being sure , the tendency of governments is to prolong the lockdown measures .
There are those asserting that there is disproportion between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distancing ” measures taken by the entire world .
But to this objection , one could reply that if the number of victims is low , it is precisely thanks to the lockdown measures taken by the various governments .
According to a study by Deutsche Bank , cited by AGI on April 26 , the Covid-19 pandemic is at the historical bottom of the list for mortality rates .
However , the research claims that without the containment measures which made the mortality rate low at 0.002 % , the mortality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recording 17.6 million victims over the entire planet .
The same can be said for the contagion rates .
This hypothesis would appear confirmed by the fact that in Germany , after relaxing the lockdown , the contagion rate has rapidly risen again from 0.7 to 1 % , the Robert Koch Institut for infectious diseases revealed ( La Repubblica April 28 ) .
There are those convinced that the lockdown is a project by the ‘ great powers ’ for them to exercise social control of humanity .
Among these is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the extreme-left .
Since February 26 he has been asking on his blog if “ social distancing ” will be the new principle of social organization .
“ What is most urgent , inasmuch as it is not just a purely theoretical hypothesis , if it ’ s true , as in many sectors they are beginning to say , that the present health emergency can be considered as the laboratory wherein they are preparing the new political frameworks awaiting humanity.
” ( Quodlibet , 6 April 2020 ) .
But what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to contain the epidemic ?
Among those opposing the Europeans models of handling the health emergency are Israel and above all Taiwan , where , despite their proximity to China , the number of victims and contagion are very low .
Nonetheless , if the danger we are running is that of “ digital dictatorship ” , the Taiwan method , based on the system of contact tracing , appears even more dangerous than the European lockdown .
Taiwan keeps strict surveillance on its citizenship through the use of new technologies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals .
The same is happening in Israel , where the tracking system has been applied in a strict manner , leading to an intervention from the Supreme Court .
For others , the real problem is not the social control , but the economic catastrophe .
What indeed will be the economic and social consequences of the pandemic ?
A general impoverishment of the West , in order to favor the social control of the “ great powers ” , or a collapse of the economic-financial system upon which the West is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nevertheless , the social manipulation would escape the same “ powers ” who planned it .
If it remains on the level of hypothesis .
This is what the Slovenian sociologist Slavoj Žižek sustains in his e-book Virus .
Catastrophe and Solidarity : that we are entrapped in a threefold crisis : health ( the epidemic ) economic ( an extremely severe blow independent of the epidemic ’ s outcome ) and psychological ( relative to the mental health of individuals ) .
The aspect of psychological war , also in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira Institute , in a document of April 27 , entitled A maior operação de engenharia social e de baldeação ideológica da História .
The existence of a great planetary maneuver , leaves us , however , questioning its basic hypotheses .
Do we find ourselves faced with a plan orchestrated by the secret forces ?
The fact that they had preordained a strategy in view of a health catastrophe , already predictable for many years , as is an economic catastrophe today , doesn ’ t mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ triggered off the process , nor that they are able to control fully the outcome .
In view of these hypotheses , which are useful to discuss , some certainties remain .
The first is that the world ’ s scenario has objectively changed after the Coronavirus .
For better or for worse ?
Here we are once again in the sphere of predictive hypotheses .
Žižek affirms that for the Communist Revolution , of which he is an adherent , “ anything is possible , in whichever direction , for better or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Revolution but also for the Counter-Revolution opposing it .
Certainly there are ample and complex revolutionary maneuvers to exploit the situation , and this is another certainty .
But affirming these maneuvers successful , is a hypothesis .
There is on the other hand another certainty : the fact that faced with the pandemic , the men of the Church have been conspicuously absent , or even accomplices in these anti-Christian strategies .
What should the Church be doing , and what should Catholics be doing , in view of a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We need to remember that all the evils of humanity have their origin in sin and that public sin is graver than individual sin ; that God punishes social sins with the plagues of diseases , wars , famine and natural disasters .
If the world does not repent , and most of all if the men of the Church continue to be silent , the chastisements which in the beginning are inflicted in a mild manner , are doomed to become increasingly worse , till you get to the annihilation of entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Fatima message , which ends however , with the consoling certainty of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary .
This article is translated by Rorate contributor Francesca Romana .
It is published here with permission from Rorate Caeli .

May 1, 2020 (Rorate Caeli) — An aura of mystery continues to surround the Coronavirus, or Covid-19, the infectious disease which has spread all over the world in a few short months, assuming the nature of a proper and authentic pandemic. There are many hypotheses and few certainties about the nature of this virus.
The hypotheses regard the origins of the disease. Did the virus have its origins in nature, as most of the virologists sustain, or was it produced in a laboratory, as others maintain? And in the latter case was it fabricated for therapeutic purposes or for bacterial warfare? And was it made in a Chinese or Western laboratory? And was the seepage from this laboratory accidental or deliberate? It is evident that the hypothesis of deliberate seepage would foster the idea of a possible secret forces “conspiracy”, given that there have been many throughout history.
If, on the other hand, the virus had its origins in nature, or had seeped out of a laboratory by accident, we would have to think that these same forces were taken off guard by the event. One of the most likely hypotheses seems to be that presented by Steve Mosher, whereby the virus, made in China, had escaped by accident from a laboratory in Wuhan (LifeSiteNews, 22 April 2020). We are talking just about a hypothesis, but the responsibilities of Communist China which Mosher brings to light are crystal-clear.
The Chinese Communist Party has in fact been silent about the diffusion of the virus and has manipulated the numbers of infections and deaths. With good reason Chen Guangcheng (the blind activist, a refugee in the U.S., after being imprisoned in China for his denunciations of forced abortions and sterilizations in Shandong) asserted that “The Chinese Communist Party is the greatest and the most dangerous virus in the world” (AsiaNews, 27 April 2020).
Even a very cautious observer like Paolo Mieli*, in the Corriere della Sera of April 27, reveals how the Chinese authorities as time goes on are nonchalantly “adapting” the numbers of the infected in their country. Mieli writes: “How is it possible that in a country, taken seriously by the World Health Organization whereby the General Director has praised its “rigor”, can play around with the numbers in this way? As time passes, moreover, the number increases of those, who, regarding the origins of the virus, are confirming the idea that something suspicious happened in the laboratories.”
And regarding the actual nature of Covid-19, we have mere hypotheses, nothing definitive. Not only how to treat the virus is unclear, but also whether all the people who recover from the infection acquire immunity, and how long this immunity might last. The immunologists say that we are faced with an “anomalous” virus which behaves differently from those of the same family (Corriere della Sera, 25 April); all are announcing that there will be a second wave of the pandemic in the autumn but nobody is able to predict its nature. Not being sure, the tendency of governments is to prolong the lockdown measures. There are those asserting that there is disproportion between the number of Coronavirus victims and the “social distancing” measures taken by the entire world.
But to this objection, one could reply that if the number of victims is low, it is precisely thanks to the lockdown measures taken by the various governments. According to a study by Deutsche Bank, cited by AGI on April 26, the Covid-19 pandemic is at the historical bottom of the list for mortality rates. However, the research claims that without the containment measures which made the mortality rate low at 0.002%, the mortality rate would have been 0.23%, recording 17.6 million victims over the entire planet. The same can be said for the contagion rates. This hypothesis would appear confirmed by the fact that in Germany, after relaxing the lockdown, the contagion rate has rapidly risen again from 0.7 to 1%, the Robert Koch Institut for infectious diseases revealed (La Repubblica April 28).
There are those convinced that the lockdown is a project by the ‘great powers’ for them to exercise social control of humanity. Among these is the post-modern philosopher Giorgio Agamben, admired greatly by the extreme-left. Since February 26 he has been asking on his blog if “social distancing” will be the new principle of social organization. “What is most urgent, inasmuch as it is not just a purely theoretical hypothesis, if it’s true, as in many sectors they are beginning to say, that the present health emergency can be considered as the laboratory wherein they are preparing the new political frameworks awaiting humanity.” (Quodlibet, 6 April 2020).
But what might be the alternative to “quarantine” to contain the epidemic? Among those opposing the Europeans models of handling the health emergency are Israel and above all Taiwan, where, despite their proximity to China, the number of victims and contagion are very low. Nonetheless, if the danger we are running is that of “digital dictatorship”, the Taiwan method, based on the system of contact tracing, appears even more dangerous than the European lockdown. Taiwan keeps strict surveillance on its citizenship through the use of new technologies, with no consideration for the privacy of individuals. The same is happening in Israel, where the tracking system has been applied in a strict manner, leading to an intervention from the Supreme Court.
For others, the real problem is not the social control, but the economic catastrophe. What indeed will be the economic and social consequences of the pandemic? A general impoverishment of the West, in order to favor the social control of the “great powers”, or a collapse of the economic-financial system upon which the West is held together? In the latter case, nevertheless, the social manipulation would escape the same “powers” who planned it. If it remains on the level of hypothesis. This is what the Slovenian sociologist Slavoj Žižek sustains in his e-book Virus. Catastrophe and Solidarity: that we are entrapped in a threefold crisis: health (the epidemic) economic (an extremely severe blow independent of the epidemic’s outcome) and psychological (relative to the mental health of individuals).
The aspect of psychological war, also in its preternatural dimensions, was made very clear by the Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira Institute, in a document of April 27, entitled A maior operação de engenharia social e de baldeação ideológica da História. The existence of a great planetary maneuver, leaves us, however, questioning its basic hypotheses. Do we find ourselves faced with a plan orchestrated by the secret forces? The fact that they had preordained a strategy in view of a health catastrophe, already predictable for many years, as is an economic catastrophe today, doesn’t mean that that it was these forces that triggered off the process, nor that they are able to control fully the outcome.
In view of these hypotheses, which are useful to discuss, some certainties remain. The first is that the world’s scenario has objectively changed after the Coronavirus. For better or for worse? Here we are once again in the sphere of predictive hypotheses. Žižek affirms that for the Communist Revolution, of which he is an adherent, “anything is possible, in whichever direction, for better or for worse.” This is true for the Revolution but also for the Counter-Revolution opposing it. Certainly there are ample and complex revolutionary maneuvers to exploit the situation, and this is another certainty. But affirming these maneuvers successful, is a hypothesis. There is on the other hand another certainty: the fact that faced with the pandemic, the men of the Church have been conspicuously absent, or even accomplices in these anti-Christian strategies.
What should the Church be doing, and what should Catholics be doing, in view of a pandemic like the one presently assailing us? We need to remember that all the evils of humanity have their origin in sin and that public sin is graver than individual sin; that God punishes social sins with the plagues of diseases, wars, famine and natural disasters. If the world does not repent, and most of all if the men of the Church continue to be silent, the chastisements which in the beginning are inflicted in a mild manner, are doomed to become increasingly worse, till you get to the annihilation of entire nations. This is the essence of the Fatima message, which ends however, with the consoling certainty of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
*PaoloMieli – historian, journalist, writer
This article is translated by Rorate contributor Francesca Romana. It is published here with permission from Rorate Caeli.
Share