lifesitenews--2020-10-27--Pope Francis’s call for civil union laws requires faithful resistance

October 26 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) -- Catholics have long extended the benefit of the doubt to Pope Francis when he frequently veers off the path of orthodoxy .
With his latest statement regarding same-sex civil unions , there are no benefits in entertaining doubts .
Many Catholics sense something is terribly wrong .
“ What we have to create is a civil union law , ” says the pope in the documentary , “ Francesco , ” just released at a premiere in Rome .
“ That way , they are legally covered.
” Francis ’ s declaration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of civil unions to protect their “ right to a family ” leaves no doubt that he is breaking from the Roman Catholic Church ’ s official teaching .
A legal union centered on an intrinsically evil sexual act validates that gravely sinful act .
The acceptance of such unions and their constitutive acts brings down the whole edifice of Catholic moral and social teaching .
It is self-evident .
It does not take a doctorate in theology to understand .
Liberal media worldwide are gleefully proclaiming this rupture with the faith , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disastrous effects of the 'Francesco ' statement As usual , the Holy See is not denying or “ clarifying ” the statement in any substantial way .
Some seek to restore the benefit of the doubt .
The faithful are reminded that his off the cuff statements are only “ personal opinion ” and do not reflect official Church teaching or magisterium .
Others point out that often there are errors of contexts and translation that could give this statement other meanings .
However , others note that support for civil unions is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has expressed this position in the past .
What makes this statement different is its timing , clearer formulation and universal diffusion .
The statement and the fact that Pope Francis is unlikely to retract it and affirm his unqualified adhesion to official Church teaching on the matter makes these sugarcoating interpretations pointless .
The statement spread uncertainty at a time when clarity is most needed .
This new episode does what prior statements did : It confuses the faithful .
Two things are certain .
There can be no doubt the statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrambling in the dark to defend themselves as best they can in their discussion of Pope Francis ’ s position with others .
There can also be no doubt that the most heretical Catholic liberals will applaud this scandalous statement to support their leftist agendas .
Pro-LGBTQ+ activist Jesuit Father James Martin , for example , called it “ a big step forward.
” Meanwhile , God is offended , the crisis inside the Church accelerates , and countless souls are lost for all eternity .
The debate over the latest statement can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It should be inserted into an unbroken series of statements that embrace many aspects of Catholic morals and teaching .
These are not random affirmations .
They form a coherent whole .
What has surfaced over the years of Pope Francis ’ s pontificate is a body of consistent statements challenging Church teachings .
How can such “ personal opinions ” be reconciled with the holding of the papal office ?
Experts will study the canonical and theological implications of this delicate question , but what is clear to the world ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paradigm shift inside the Church has occurred in Pope Francis ’ s pontificate .
It is reflected throughout his official policy and governance .
These attitudes have tragic consequences for the faithful in their daily lives and sanctification .
In matters of faith and morals , the pope can not entertain “ personal ” heterodox opinions .
It endangers souls .
No pope , bishop or priest can do this .
No pastor can express approval for an intrinsically evil sexual relationship that will drag its participants to Hell unless they repent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” parallel magisterium in the form of “ unofficial ” acts , interviews , gestures and conversations that endorse doctrine and morals contrary to the Catholic faith .
This rupture with traditional Catholic magisterium is well documented in the 2018 book , Pope Francis ’ s “ Paradigm Shift ” : Continuity or Rupture in the Mission of the Church ?
An Assessment of His Pontificate ’ s First Five Years .
Author José António Ureta — a senior French TFP member — takes a critical look at the overwhelming evidence of cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditional Church teaching , including that which condemns same-sex civil unions .
This paradigm shift manifests itself in acts , statements and attitudes , in which he calls for a radical ecological and mystical agenda , unbridled immigration and opening up to Islam .
He has promoted religious indifferentism , moral and sexual relativism and neo-Marxist popular movements .
A more recent scandal of this break was the deplorable worship of the Andean idol goddess , Pachamama , at the Amazon Synod in Rome in October 2019 .
The break is clear .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Francesco ” statement on civil unions is one more in a long list of grave denials .
The painful conclusion is that Francis ’ s personal opinions do not reflect Church teaching .
To resist the Pope ’ s errors is a right and duty What is unclear to hundreds of millions of the faithful is what should aghast Catholics do in the face of this crisis that is uniquely monumental in Church history .
In his book , Mr. Ureta shows that the Church teaches that the pope is infallible only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he can err .
However , when the pope errs , Catholics must not err with him .
Once it is seen that Francis contradicts the traditional teachings of the Church Magisterium , the faithful have the right and duty to resist his errors .
This legitimate yet most respectful resistance to error in Church shepherds and even the Supreme Pontiff is defended by St. Thomas Aquinas , St. Robert Bellarmine , Suarez , Vitoria and other theological giants .
Nor is such resistance uncommon in the history of the Church .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ endanger the faith .
The author cites the model of resistance employed by Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira in 1974 in the face of the Vatican ’ s policy of détente toward communist governments .
His reverent yet firm attitude was expressed in moving words : “ In this filial act , we say to the Pastor of Pastors : Our soul is yours , our life is yours .
Order us to do whatever you wish .
Only do not order us to do nothing in the face of the assailing red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is opposed.
” Thus , in response to the pope ’ s “ Francesco ” statement on civil unions , Catholics must reject and resist it .
They should employ every means possible to oppose this grievous error .
This includes resisting all shepherds who follow Pope Francis in this error , especially those like Father Martin , who promote it .
Mr. Ureta likens the situation of faithful Catholics to that of a wife and children of a psychologically abusive husband and father .
Without abandoning the family home , mother and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ father and avoid regular contact to defend themselves against his evil ways .
In this manner , the indissoluble marriage bond is not broken , and the father is encouraged to repent .
Instead of revolting and leaving the Church , Catholics with this calm attitude of firm but reverent resistance can help save the Church .
In the words of TFP founder Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira : “ God calls us to be the sheep who resist the urge to bolt and flee when the shepherd abuses them repeatedly with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay and fight even when suffering this abuse .
God wants this so that when He decides in His Mercy to send good shepherds again to His flock , there will be a flock for them to govern .
Thus , Catholics should defend themselves and serenely resist the actions of pastors at all levels who endanger the faith .
They can react with clarity and charity , distancing themselves from the actions of these errant pastors .
They can help dispel the doubts in the souls of fellow Catholics , explaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christ every time Pope Francis makes unorthodox declarations .
John Horvat II is a scholar , researcher , educator , international speaker , and author of the book Return to Order , as well as the author of hundreds of published articles .
He lives in Spring Grove , Pennsylvania , where he is the vice president of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition , Family and Property .

The break from Church teaching has caused confusion and Catholics have a right to reject errors.
October 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Catholics have long extended the benefit of the doubt to Pope Francis when he frequently veers off the path of orthodoxy. With his latest statement regarding same-sex civil unions, there are no benefits in entertaining doubts. Many Catholics sense something is terribly wrong.
“What we have to create is a civil union law,” says the pope in the documentary, “Francesco,” just released at a premiere in Rome. “That way, they are legally covered.”
Francis’s declaration that homosexual couples need the legal protection of civil unions to protect their “right to a family” leaves no doubt that he is breaking from the Roman Catholic Church’s official teaching. A legal union centered on an intrinsically evil sexual act validates that gravely sinful act. The acceptance of such unions and their constitutive acts brings down the whole edifice of Catholic moral and social teaching. It is self-evident. It does not take a doctorate in theology to understand. Liberal media worldwide are gleefully proclaiming this rupture with the faith, making it public and notorious.
The disastrous effects of the 'Francesco' statement
As usual, the Holy See is not denying or “clarifying” the statement in any substantial way. Some seek to restore the benefit of the doubt. The faithful are reminded that his off the cuff statements are only “personal opinion” and do not reflect official Church teaching or magisterium. Others point out that often there are errors of contexts and translation that could give this statement other meanings. However, others note that support for civil unions is not new for the pope. He has expressed this position in the past. What makes this statement different is its timing, clearer formulation and universal diffusion.
The statement and the fact that Pope Francis is unlikely to retract it and affirm his unqualified adhesion to official Church teaching on the matter makes these sugarcoating interpretations pointless.
The statement spread uncertainty at a time when clarity is most needed. This new episode does what prior statements did: It confuses the faithful.
Two things are certain. There can be no doubt the statement will leave the most faithful pew-sitting Catholics scrambling in the dark to defend themselves as best they can in their discussion of Pope Francis’s position with others. There can also be no doubt that the most heretical Catholic liberals will applaud this scandalous statement to support their leftist agendas. Pro-LGBTQ+ activist Jesuit Father James Martin, for example, called it “a big step forward.”
Meanwhile, God is offended, the crisis inside the Church accelerates, and countless souls are lost for all eternity.
Not an isolated incident
The debate over the latest statement cannot be seen as an isolated fact. It should be inserted into an unbroken series of statements that embrace many aspects of Catholic morals and teaching. These are not random affirmations. They form a coherent whole.
What has surfaced over the years of Pope Francis’s pontificate is a body of consistent statements challenging Church teachings. How can such “personal opinions” be reconciled with the holding of the papal office? Experts will study the canonical and theological implications of this delicate question, but what is clear to the world’s 1.3 billion Catholics is that a paradigm shift inside the Church has occurred in Pope Francis’s pontificate. It is reflected throughout his official policy and governance. These attitudes have tragic consequences for the faithful in their daily lives and sanctification.
In matters of faith and morals, the pope cannot entertain “personal” heterodox opinions. It endangers souls. No pope, bishop or priest can do this. No pastor can express approval for an intrinsically evil sexual relationship that will drag its participants to Hell unless they repent. No pastor can pursue a “personal” parallel magisterium in the form of “unofficial” acts, interviews, gestures and conversations that endorse doctrine and morals contrary to the Catholic faith.
A paradigm shift
This rupture with traditional Catholic magisterium is well documented in the 2018 book, Pope Francis’s “Paradigm Shift”: Continuity or Rupture in the Mission of the Church? An Assessment of His Pontificate’s First Five Years. Author José António Ureta — a senior French TFP member — takes a critical look at the overwhelming evidence of cases where the pope has challenged and denied traditional Church teaching, including that which condemns same-sex civil unions.
This paradigm shift manifests itself in acts, statements and attitudes, in which he calls for a radical ecological and mystical agenda, unbridled immigration and opening up to Islam. He has promoted religious indifferentism, moral and sexual relativism and neo-Marxist popular movements. A more recent scandal of this break was the deplorable worship of the Andean idol goddess, Pachamama, at the Amazon Synod in Rome in October 2019.
The break is clear. There can be no doubt. The “Francesco” statement on civil unions is one more in a long list of grave denials. The painful conclusion is that Francis’s personal opinions do not reflect Church teaching.
To resist the Pope’s errors is a right and duty
What is unclear to hundreds of millions of the faithful is what should aghast Catholics do in the face of this crisis that is uniquely monumental in Church history.
In his book, Mr. Ureta shows that the Church teaches that the pope is infallible only under certain circumstances. Outside of them, he can err. However, when the pope errs, Catholics must not err with him. Once it is seen that Francis contradicts the traditional teachings of the Church Magisterium, the faithful have the right and duty to resist his errors. This legitimate yet most respectful resistance to error in Church shepherds and even the Supreme Pontiff is defended by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez, Vitoria and other theological giants.
Nor is such resistance uncommon in the history of the Church. Public resistance is a duty when attitudes endanger the faith. The author cites the model of resistance employed by Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira in 1974 in the face of the Vatican’s policy of détente toward communist governments. His reverent yet firm attitude was expressed in moving words: “In this filial act, we say to the Pastor of Pastors: Our soul is yours, our life is yours. Order us to do whatever you wish. Only do not order us to do nothing in the face of the assailing red wolf. To this, our conscience is opposed.”
Faithful resistance amid the blows
— Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Ask Pope Francis to clarify and rectify scandalous remarks on homosexual civil unions Show Petition Text 22787 have signed the petition. Let's get to 25000 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition Remarks attributed to Pope Francis (and, not denied by the Vatican) in support of homosexual civil unions have caused grave scandal to the faithful. Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks Pope Francis to clarify and rectify these heterodox and scandalous remarks on homosexual civil unions, and which will be delivered both to the Vatican and to the Papal Nuncio of the United States (the Pope's official representative in the U.S.). As the last guarantor of the Faith, the Pope should clarify and rectify these remarks, which go against the perennial teaching of the Church, even including the teaching of his living predecessor, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. "What we have to create is a law of civil coexistence [meaning civil union law, for homosexuals]...," Pope Francis is reported to have remarked, in what is arguably his clearest statement of public support for a practice morally prohibited by official Catholic Church teaching. In fact, the Church has been crystal clear in Her opposition to homosexual unions. Just in 2003, Pope Saint John Paul II approved a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, titled 'Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons' and written by Cardinal Ratzinger (now, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), which concludes with the following: "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself." It could not be more clear: the Church is calling people to repentance, not to be left to indulge in grave sin. Since becoming public, several senior prelates as well as other notable Catholic figures have voiced their opposition to these remarks attributed to the Pontiff. Cardinal Raymond Burke stated: "It is a source of deepest sadness and pressing pastoral concern that the private opinions reported with so much emphasis by the press and attributed to Pope Francis do not correspond to the constant teaching of the Church, as it is expressed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition." Cardinal Gerhard Müller commented: "Where there is tension between the plain and obvious Word of God and the infallible interpretation on the one hand, and private expressions of opinion even by the highest church authorities on the other, the principle always applies: in dubio pro DEO [When in doubt, be in favor of God]." And, Catholic theologian and apologist Scott Hahn, without directly quoting Pope Francis, shared on Facebook the 'Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,' published by the CDF in 1986, with the statement: "Holy Father, respectfully and humbly, I beg to differ... if that is indeed what you said. In any case, please clarify and rectify your statement, especially in view of the official teaching of our Lord through the magisterium of His Church." But, the silence from the Vatican has been deafening, with no clarification forthcoming. We must, therefore, ask the Pope for clarification in this serious matter. Please SIGN and SHARE this petition which asks Pope Francis to clarify and rectify remarks attributed to him in support of homosexual civil unions. FOR MORE INFORMATION: 'Cdl. Burke: Pope’s homosexual civil union remarks ‘contrary’ to Scripture, Tradition' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/cardinal-burke-on-popes-homosexual-civil-union-remarks-contrary-to-the-teaching-of-sacred-scripture-and-sacred-tradition 'Cardinal says Catholics ‘can and should’ disagree with Pope’s ‘opinion’ on gay civil unions' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/cdl.mueller-popes-words-on-gay-civil-unions-purely-private-expression-of-opinion-which-every-catholic-can-and-should-freely-contradict 'Archbishop Vigano, Bishops Tobin and Strickland respond to Pope’s approval of homosexual civil unions' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/archbishop-vigano-and-bishops-tobin-strickland-respond-to-popes-approval-of-homosexual-civil-unions 'Pope’s comments on gay civil unions cause shockwaves around the world' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/deepest-sadness-cardinal-burke-condemns-pope-franciss-remarks-supporting-civil-unions Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
Thus, in response to the pope’s “Francesco” statement on civil unions, Catholics must reject and resist it. They should employ every means possible to oppose this grievous error.
This includes resisting all shepherds who follow Pope Francis in this error, especially those like Father Martin, who promote it. Mr. Ureta likens the situation of faithful Catholics to that of a wife and children of a psychologically abusive husband and father. Without abandoning the family home, mother and children may legitimately isolate themselves from the father and avoid regular contact to defend themselves against his evil ways. In this manner, the indissoluble marriage bond is not broken, and the father is encouraged to repent.
Instead of revolting and leaving the Church, Catholics with this calm attitude of firm but reverent resistance can help save the Church. In the words of TFP founder Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira: “God calls us to be the sheep who resist the urge to bolt and flee when the shepherd abuses them repeatedly with his staff. Instead, we are called to stay and fight even when suffering this abuse. God wants this so that when He decides in His Mercy to send good shepherds again to His flock, there will be a flock for them to govern.
Thus, Catholics should defend themselves and serenely resist the actions of pastors at all levels who endanger the faith. They can react with clarity and charity, distancing themselves from the actions of these errant pastors. They can help dispel the doubts in the souls of fellow Catholics, explaining to them how to remain faithful to Christ every time Pope Francis makes unorthodox declarations.
John Horvat II is a scholar, researcher, educator, international speaker, and author of the book Return to Order, as well as the author of hundreds of published articles. He lives in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania, where he is the vice president of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-28--Homosexual behavior is a sin no matter who says it’s OK

To help keep this and other programs on the air , please donate here .
Watch this episode of Mother @ @ @ @ @ on 10.27.2020 .
Today , Mother Miriam speaks about the importance of Catholics not voting @ @ @ @ @ .
She also speaks about the Pope ’ s recent comments regarding same-sex civil unions @ @ @ @ @ daily at 10 am EST/7 am PST on our Facebook Page .
Never miss a @ @ @ @ @ Miriam Live email updates here .

To help keep this and other programs on the air, please donate here.
Watch this episode of Mother Miriam's Live originally aired on 10.27.2020. Today, Mother Miriam speaks about the importance of Catholics not voting for candidates that support abortion. She also speaks about the Pope’s recent comments regarding same-sex civil unions.
You can tune in daily at 10 am EST/7 am PST on our Facebook Page.
Never miss a show! Subscribe to Mother Miriam Live email updates here.


lifesitenews--2020-10-27--After outcry, Ontario govt to amend bill that would force Christian wedding officiants to adhere to

After outcry, Ontario govt to amend bill that would force Christian wedding officiants to adhere to Govt ‘Code of Practice’

ONTARIO , October 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The government of Ontario has said it will amend a proposed bill that would force wedding officiants to adhere to a “ Code of Practice ” after politicians and family groups raised concern that the bill could undermine religious freedom .
Bill 213 , Better for People , Smarter for Business Act , 2020 passed first reading on October 6 and recommends changes to a total of 29 Acts .
As it is currently written , Schedule 8 of Bill 213 proposes to amend the Marriage Act by adding wording @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current form become law - potentially force wedding officiants to adhere to a yet to be determined government “ Code of Practice.
” Last week , Independent Ontario MPP Belinda Karahalios blasted Bill 213 in an email sent to her followers , saying it is “ a direct and permanent threat to religious freedom in Ontario.
” In particular , she pointed out that she was “ alarmed ” at what she read , and asked her husband , Jim Karahalios , a lawyer who was twice disqualified for running as a candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to digest its contents .
On Friday , Ontario Minister of Government and Consumer Services Lisa Thompson tweeted out that her government will be revisiting sections of Bill 213 which refer to a “ code of practice.
” “ Our government is always looking for ways to ensure couples don ’ t have to worry when it comes to one of the most memorable days of their lives .
We will always uphold the notion of marriage , respect the authority of religious institutions , and celebrate religious freedom , ” wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a proposal on the table to address issues that occasionally arise for couples getting married , such as fly by night officiants .
A code of practice was one potential tool to use to prohibit and deter this bad behaviour ... ... .. At this time , we will look to existing legislation and methods to address it .
We will be proposing to amend the section of Bill 213 at committee to reflect this.
” Schedule 8 states that a Minister could strip a person authorized to legally perform a wedding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priest , deacon , or pastor if they do not follow the “ Code of Practice.
” “ The Minister may cancel the registration of a person registered as authorized to solemnize marriage if it appears to the Minister that , ( a ) the person has ceased to possess the qualifications entitling them to be so registered ; ( b ) the person failed to comply with any Code of Practice set out in the regulations ; or ( c ) the person should not , in the public interest , continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” reads section 33.0.3 of Schedule 8 of Bill 213 .
In a statement sent to LifeSiteNews , Belinda Karahalios said she has “ no doubt ” Thompson made her announcement over Bill 213 because of her pressuring the government , but doubts a committee will address her concerns overall .
“ Most certainly Minister Thompson made her announcement as a result of the pressure put on PC MPPs after my statement released on October 20th , ” said Karahalios in her statement to LifeSiteNews regarding Bill 213 .
“ I do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this matter at committee because they have proven time after time , that they use conservative sounding rhetoric to disguise their implementation by stealth of radical left-wing fiscal and social policies ... Bill 213 should be scrapped and returned as new legislation with the two above schedules removed.
” Belinda was kicked out of the Ontario Progressive Conservative ( PC ) under Premier Doug Ford in the summer of 2020 for voting against a COVID-19 recovery bill .
Belinda and her husband Jim recently announced that they will be creating a new provincial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an alternative to the “ corrupt ” PC party under Ford .
She also called out Thompson ’ s promise to revisit schedule 8 of Bill 213 on social media .
“ Baloney @ LisaThompsonMPP !
You make it sound like Ontario is the new Las Vegas !
If that was the purpose of the section , the bill would have said that explicitly .
The truth is @ fordnation cut a nefarious deal to hand over marriage to the state !
Very sinister !
# cdnpoli # ONpoli , ” Tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent to LifeSiteNews , Karahalios said that she was scheduled to have nine minutes to debate Bill 213 in the legislature on October 21 .
Karahalios said that instead of the government finishing the debate on the bill and taking it to a second reading vote , the deputy government house leader “ abruptly closed debate to be continued at a later unspecified date.
” “ Therefore , my opportunity to speak to the bill did not come up on that day ” said Karahalios in her statement .
LifeSiteNews contacted the office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparent backtracking of Bill 213 will address concerns raised by some over its alleged attack on religious freedoms .
Linsey Lim , Senior Communications Advisor for Minister Thompson responded to LifeSiteNews saying it was necessary to clear up “ some misinformation that was shared by former members of our party , ” without referring to Belinda Karahalios by name .
“ Let us be clear : Premier Ford , our government , our party , and our constitution will always protect the notion of marriage , religious freedoms , and the authority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are always looking to see what can be done to ensure couples do n't have to worry when it comes to the most memorable day of their lives , ” Lim told LifeSiteNews .
Schedule 8 of Bill 213 reads : “ The Marriage Act is amended by adding the following section : Compliance with Code of Practice - 20.0.1 Every person authorized to solemnize marriage shall comply with any Code of Practice set out in the regulations.
” Schedule 8 will amend section 34 of the Marriage Act giving the Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Practice for persons authorized to solemnize marriage.
” It will also add a section which says the “ Minister ” will keep “ a register of the name of every person registered as a person authorized to solemnize marriage , the date of such registration , and such other particulars as the Minister considers advisable.
” Bill 213 was introduced by the Associate Minister of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction Prabmeet Singh in early October .
Bill 213 called a “ shocking attack on religious freedom and the Church itself ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political operations director for Campaign Life Coalition ( CLC ) told LifeSiteNews that he believes the goal of Bill 213 as originally written was “ to make it easy to expunge Christian marriage officiants who conscientiously object to presiding over a homosexual ‘ marriage ’ , or otherwise , to coerce them into doing so.
” “ This is a truly shocking attack on religious freedom and the Church itself , perpetrated by the Doug Ford administration , whom I now want to refer to as Doug Fraud… .
With just a scribble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he or she will able to turn people of faith into second class citizens who are forbidden by government edict from working in a certain field.
” Schedule 3 of Bill 213 repeals section 3 of the Change of Name Act and takes away the ability for a new married woman ( after the bill comes into force ) to willingly and automatically decide to take the surname of her spouse .
Fonseca also raised concerns surrounding Schedule 3 of Bill 213 , calling it a “ radical and anti-Christian agenda.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ automatically adopt their husband ’ s family name is clearly driven by someone ’ s radical , man-hating , feminist ideology .
The root of this ideology is found in opposition to all things in society that remind us of God ’ s authority , which is deemed ‘ patriarchal by these feminists , ” Fonseca told LifeSiteNews .
“ It ’ s frightening to see Premier Ford pushing a radical feminist and anti-Christian agenda that attacks religious freedom and the right of women who want to adopt their husband ’ s family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to contact their MPP and the Premier and voice their opposition to both these sections of the bill .
Section 3 of the Change of Name Act currently allows a spouse to “ at any time while married ” elect to change his or her surname to “ that the other spouse had immediately before their marriage ” one consisting of the “ surnames that both spouses had immediately before their marriage , hyphenated or combined , ” or to resume “ the surname that the spouse had immediately before the marriage.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 213 , she said that a woman choosing to take on her husband 's surname after marriage , “ would now be forced to go through the burden of legally changing her surname by completing an application for a statutory declaration.
” Real Women of Canada calls Bill 213 - in its current form - an attack on marriage and religion Gwen Landolt of REAL Women of Canada told LifeSiteNews last week that Schedules 3 and 8 of Bill 213 as they are currently written attack women ’ s rights and one ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does it make to a woman , let her decide if she will continue carrying her father ’ s name , or her husband 's name .
The question is , what ’ s going on here , why are they trying to deny a woman the choice if she chooses to assumer her husband 's name , ” Landolt told LifeSiteNews .
“ The answer would be , it seems , it ’ s undermining a marriage , you know that this is common law , you can live together and be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words , it ’ s a decomposing of society .
Who told them to do this , and under what basis ?
” Landolt called the creation of a “ Code of Practice ” for those who perform weddings “ alarming ” and an “ interference in religion , ” adding because there is no legislative oversight as to how such a code will be created , it is the Minister alone who has the power .
Landolt also told LifeSiteNews that she questions why the Ford government is making these changes now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ What ’ s he doing , whose pressuring him ( Ford ) , ” Landolt told LifeSiteNews .
“ What ’ s the purpose of this , it ’ s really an undermining of traditional marriage .
”

Critics said Bill 213 would make it easy to “expunge Christian marriage officiants who conscientiously object to presiding over a homosexual ‘marriage’, or otherwise, to coerce them into doing so”
ONTARIO, October 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The government of Ontario has said it will amend a proposed bill that would force wedding officiants to adhere to a “Code of Practice” after politicians and family groups raised concern that the bill could undermine religious freedom.
Bill 213, Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2020 passed first reading on October 6 and recommends changes to a total of 29 Acts.
As it is currently written, Schedule 8 of Bill 213 proposes to amend the Marriage Act by adding wording which – should the bill in its current form become law – potentially force wedding officiants to adhere to a yet to be determined government “Code of Practice.”
Last week, Independent Ontario MPP Belinda Karahalios blasted Bill 213 in an email sent to her followers, saying it is “a direct and permanent threat to religious freedom in Ontario.”
In particular, she pointed out that she was “alarmed” at what she read, and asked her husband, Jim Karahalios, a lawyer who was twice disqualified for running as a candidate for the federal Conservative Party of Canada, to digest its contents.
On Friday, Ontario Minister of Government and Consumer Services Lisa Thompson tweeted out that her government will be revisiting sections of Bill 213 which refer to a “code of practice.”
“Our government is always looking for ways to ensure couples don’t have to worry when it comes to one of the most memorable days of their lives. We will always uphold the notion of marriage, respect the authority of religious institutions, and celebrate religious freedom,” wrote Thompson on Twitter Friday.
“We had a proposal on the table to address issues that occasionally arise for couples getting married, such as fly by night officiants. A code of practice was one potential tool to use to prohibit and deter this bad behaviour…….. At this time, we will look to existing legislation and methods to address it. We will be proposing to amend the section of Bill 213 at committee to reflect this.”
Schedule 8 states that a Minister could strip a person authorized to legally perform a wedding, which would include a bishop, priest, deacon, or pastor if they do not follow the “Code of Practice.”
“The Minister may cancel the registration of a person registered as authorized to solemnize marriage if it appears to the Minister that, (a) the person has ceased to possess the qualifications entitling them to be so registered; (b) the person failed to comply with any Code of Practice set out in the regulations; or (c) the person should not, in the public interest, continue to be authorized to solemnize marriage,” reads section 33.0.3 of Schedule 8 of Bill 213.
In a statement sent to LifeSiteNews, Belinda Karahalios said she has “no doubt” Thompson made her announcement over Bill 213 because of her pressuring the government, but doubts a committee will address her concerns overall.
“Most certainly Minister Thompson made her announcement as a result of the pressure put on PC MPPs after my statement released on October 20th,” said Karahalios in her statement to LifeSiteNews regarding Bill 213.
“I do not trust the Ford government to properly address this matter at committee because they have proven time after time, that they use conservative sounding rhetoric to disguise their implementation by stealth of radical left-wing fiscal and social policies…Bill 213 should be scrapped and returned as new legislation with the two above schedules removed.”
Belinda was kicked out of the Ontario Progressive Conservative (PC) under Premier Doug Ford in the summer of 2020 for voting against a COVID-19 recovery bill.
Belinda and her husband Jim recently announced that they will be creating a new provincial party, called New Blue Ontario, as an alternative to the “corrupt” PC party under Ford.
She also called out Thompson’s promise to revisit schedule 8 of Bill 213 on social media.
“Baloney @LisaThompsonMPP! You make it sound like Ontario is the new Las Vegas! If that was the purpose of the section, the bill would have said that explicitly. The truth is @fordnation cut a nefarious deal to hand over marriage to the state! Very sinister! #cdnpoli #ONpoli,” Tweeted Belinda on Friday.
In her statement sent to LifeSiteNews, Karahalios said that she was scheduled to have nine minutes to debate Bill 213 in the legislature on October 21.
Karahalios said that instead of the government finishing the debate on the bill and taking it to a second reading vote, the deputy government house leader “abruptly closed debate to be continued at a later unspecified date.”
“Therefore, my opportunity to speak to the bill did not come up on that day” said Karahalios in her statement.
LifeSiteNews contacted the office of Minister Thompson to ask if the apparent backtracking of Bill 213 will address concerns raised by some over its alleged attack on religious freedoms.
Linsey Lim, Senior Communications Advisor for Minister Thompson responded to LifeSiteNews saying it was necessary to clear up “some misinformation that was shared by former members of our party,” without referring to Belinda Karahalios by name.
“Let us be clear: Premier Ford, our government, our party, and our constitution will always protect the notion of marriage, religious freedoms, and the authority of the religious institutions that uphold them. We are always looking to see what can be done to ensure couples don't have to worry when it comes to the most memorable day of their lives,” Lim told LifeSiteNews.
Schedule 8 of Bill 213 reads: “The Marriage Act is amended by adding the following section: Compliance with Code of Practice – 20.0.1 Every person authorized to solemnize marriage shall comply with any Code of Practice set out in the regulations.”
Schedule 8 will amend section 34 of the Marriage Act giving the Minister the power to create a “Code of Practice for persons authorized to solemnize marriage.”
It will also add a section which says the “Minister” will keep “a register of the name of every person registered as a person authorized to solemnize marriage, the date of such registration, and such other particulars as the Minister considers advisable.”
Bill 213 was introduced by the Associate Minister of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction Prabmeet Singh in early October.
Bill 213 called a “shocking attack on religious freedom and the Church itself” by pro-life family group
Jack Fonseca, political operations director for Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) told LifeSiteNews that he believes the goal of Bill 213 as originally written was “to make it easy to expunge Christian marriage officiants who conscientiously object to presiding over a homosexual ‘marriage’, or otherwise, to coerce them into doing so.”
“This is a truly shocking attack on religious freedom and the Church itself, perpetrated by the Doug Ford administration, whom I now want to refer to as Doug Fraud…. With just a scribble from the Cabinet Minister’s pen, he or she will able to turn people of faith into second class citizens who are forbidden by government edict from working in a certain field.”
Schedule 3 of Bill 213 repeals section 3 of the Change of Name Act and takes away the ability for a new married woman (after the bill comes into force) to willingly and automatically decide to take the surname of her spouse.
Fonseca also raised concerns surrounding Schedule 3 of Bill 213, calling it a “radical and anti-Christian agenda.”
“Removing the ability of wives to automatically adopt their husband’s family name is clearly driven by someone’s radical, man-hating, feminist ideology. The root of this ideology is found in opposition to all things in society that remind us of God’s authority, which is deemed ‘patriarchal by these feminists,” Fonseca told LifeSiteNews.
“It’s frightening to see Premier Ford pushing a radical feminist and anti-Christian agenda that attacks religious freedom and the right of women who want to adopt their husband’s family name. I call on all Ontarians to contact their MPP and the Premier and voice their opposition to both these sections of the bill.
Section 3 of the Change of Name Act currently allows a spouse to “at any time while married” elect to change his or her surname to “that the other spouse had immediately before their marriage” one consisting of the “surnames that both spouses had immediately before their marriage, hyphenated or combined,” or to resume “the surname that the spouse had immediately before the marriage.”
In Belinda’s email blasting Bill 213, she said that a woman choosing to take on her husband's surname after marriage, “would now be forced to go through the burden of legally changing her surname by completing an application for a statutory declaration.”
Real Women of Canada calls Bill 213 – in its current form – an attack on marriage and religion
Gwen Landolt of REAL Women of Canada told LifeSiteNews last week that Schedules 3 and 8 of Bill 213 as they are currently written attack women’s rights and one’s religious freedom.
“What difference does it make to a woman, let her decide if she will continue carrying her father’s name, or her husband's name. The question is, what’s going on here, why are they trying to deny a woman the choice if she chooses to assumer her husband's name,” Landolt told LifeSiteNews.
“The answer would be, it seems, it’s undermining a marriage, you know that this is common law, you can live together and be common law, and do whatever……in other words, it’s a decomposing of society. Who told them to do this, and under what basis?”
Landolt called the creation of a “Code of Practice” for those who perform weddings “alarming” and an “interference in religion,” adding because there is no legislative oversight as to how such a code will be created, it is the Minister alone who has the power.
Landolt also told LifeSiteNews that she questions why the Ford government is making these changes now, and who is driving them.
“What’s he doing, whose pressuring him (Ford),” Landolt told LifeSiteNews.
“What’s the purpose of this, it’s really an undermining of traditional marriage.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-27--Maryland man arrested for refusing to wear mask to early voting

HARTFORD COUNTY , Maryland , October 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Daniel Swain of Fallston , Maryland was arrested Monday at a polling place after a confrontation over his refusal to wear a mask .
CBS Baltimore reported that election officials called law enforcement to Jarrettsville Volunteer Fire Company , where early voting is taking place , after Swain , 52 , and another unidentified man refused to either agree to put on masks or go to a separate area designated for maskless early voting .
( The Baltimore Sun identified the other man as Swain ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Baltimore County Department of Corrections captain , reportedly maintained that the indoor mask mandate imposed by Republican Gov .
Larry Hogan due to COVID-19 was “ unconstitutional.
” After almost a half-hour of conversation with the sheriff ’ s deputies , the other man agreed to leave , but Swain refused , leading to his arrest for trespassing .
`` It is worth noting , Mr. Swain was not banned from the location , and is still able to cast his ballot , '' the Harford County Sheriff 's Office stressed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office insisted that it does not make arrests solely on the basis of mask violations , but “ if a private property owner , store manager , or in this case , election official needed assistance in having a person vacate a premise , we would enforce a trespassing violation.
” Maryland law states that an “ election judge , while performing official duties at a polling place , may not willfully and knowingly ( ... ) interfere in any way with the casting of a vote by a person who the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at an election , ” though it remains to be seen how courts would interpret a legal challenge citing this provision in light of Hogan ’ s current emergency order .
Maryland health officials reported that there have been 141,741 COVID-19 cases in the state , with 471 current hospitalizations and 3,962 deaths since the outbreak began .
Despite mandates across the country , significant uncertainty remains as to whether masks are truly effective in stopping the spread of COVID-19 .

PETITION UPDATE (8/27/2020)
Thank you for continuing to SIGN and SHARE this petition, which asks policymakers at all levels of government to reverse mandatory mask orders within their borders.
Facebook has restored the share link for this petition, saying that the decision to block it was a 'mistake...'
Please share with your Facebook friends, but we should all take heed of this warning: when an organization or individuals have to beg, plead and cajole just to express objective truths, it may be time to start looking for other social networking platforms.
Facebook needs to treat its users with respect, no matter their political persuasion. Moreover, Facebook needs to treat objective reality and facts with more respect.
One-size-fits-all oppressive government mask mandates must stop!
Healthy adults and children should not be forced - by the state - to wear masks when the risk of infection is low and the benefit of wearing a mask is highly questionable.
________________________________________________________________________________________
PETITION UPDATE (8/25/2020)
Facebook is actively censoring this petition, saying that some people find it 'abusive.'
How anyone could find alternate facts about oppressive mask mandates 'abusive' is incredible...that is, impossible to believe.
This is exactly the kind of censorship which Big Tech is getting a bad reputation for.
The fact that Facebook calls differing opinion and objective reality "abusive" says a lot about Facebook and their agenda to silence reason and logic, not just conservatives and Christians.
But, people are more intelligent than Facebook give them credit for.
And, the more this continues, the more reasonable people will look alternate platforms to share their thoughts and connect with their friends and family. The more that happens, the less revenue Facebook will generate.
All of us have a decision to make, and the time is coming where we might have to tell our Facebook friends that we are moving to another platform.
We are encouraging people to continue SIGNING this petition and SHARING it via other platforms such as Parler and Gab, and to share the link below with your family and friends on Whatsapp, Telegram, Threema and Signal.
Thank you!
________________________________________________________________________________________
One-size-fits-all oppressive government mask mandates must stop!
Healthy adults and children should not be forced - by the state - to wear masks when the risk of infection is low and the benefit of wearing a mask is highly questionable.
Please SIGN this petition which asks policymakers at all levels of government to reverse mandatory mask mandates within their borders.
Public health policies should be based on science and logic, not on the type of political posturing and virtue-signaling which led Joe Biden to recently call for a national mask mandate.
And, public health policies certainly shouldn't lead to a situation where more people could become sick.
But, that is exactly what these mandatory mask mandates are doing.
Here are four inconvenient facts about masks:
1) Masks** are largely ineffective at stopping the transmission of viruses.
The vast majority of masks worn by the public are made from material which cannot filter-out viruses because virus particles are too small to catch or obstruct. Wearing cloth masks to stop a virus is like putting a bee in a bird cage to keep it from flying away.
Wearing a mask for long periods of time ensures that the wearer has a warm and moist receptacle around his or her mouth, on which viruses and bacteria can land and accumulate.
Thus, masks are actually likely to have little effect in stopping the spread of COVID-19 acting as a barrier, but could actually make things worse acting as a receptacle.
2) Mandates which call for masks to be worn outdoors are both absurd and oppressive.
3) There are clearly documented hazards of wearing masks for long periods of time.
4) And, since school is on everyone's mind...
Notwithstanding the above information on the ineffectiveness of most masks against viruses, we don't know if asymptomatic children can even transmit the virus.
But, it was a reported in an article in the July 21, 2020 Uk Times that: "There has been no recorded case of a teacher catching the coronavirus from a pupil anywhere in the world, according to one of the UK government's leading scientific advisers."
And, we also know that children are extremely unlikely to get seriously ill or die from COVID infections. In any case, children cannot possibly be expected to wear a mask properly in a way that would cut transmission.
There are still a lot of unknowns about COVID-19, but we have grown in our understanding of this disease since the beginning of the crisis.
The knowledge we have gained should allow government and health authorities to make more nuanced policies than the current one-size-fits-all mask mandates.
Where are the legislative hearings in county commissions, and state, provincial or federal legislatures before these drastic actions are mandated? Where are the open and transparent debates among experts that provide our representatives with the necessary information to make good policy decisions?
The real pandemic is the panic and the resulting tyranny that is being caused by dictatorial governors, corporate media and the monopolistic Big Tech.
The truth is that COVID-19 is like a bad cold for most people; this is not ebola or the plague.
Of course, the very elderly and those with serious health conditions should take precautions or be quarantined, but the rest of society should begin the long process of returning to normality.
The frenzy to force everyone to wear a mask, at all times, has gone beyond all comprehension, and goes against science and logic.
Please SIGN this petition which asks policymakers at all levels of government to reverse any mandatory mask order within the borders of their county, state, province, or country.
Thank you!
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
'Explosion in mandatory masking isn’t driven by science, but fear', PART I - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/explosion-in-mandatory-masking-isnt-driven-by-science-but-fear
'Explosion in mandatory masking isn’t driven by science, but fear', PART II - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/explosion-in-mandatory-masking-isnt-driven-by-science-but-fear-part-ii
OSHA Document on Surgical Masks and Respirators stating that surgical masks do NOT prevent airborne particles (e.g. viruses) from being inhaled - https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3219.pdf
'PETER HITCHENS: Face masks turn us into voiceless submissives - and it’s not science forcing us to wear them, it’s politics' - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8537489/PETER-HITCHENS-Face-masks-turn-voiceless-submissives.html
**Here, we are referring to the masks worn by the vast majority of the public, not to specialist masks or respirator-type masks.
***Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com


lifesitenews--2020-10-27--Priest says gay civil unions ‘are giving approval to sinful behavior’

NAPLES , Florida , October 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A Florida priest criticized as “ extremely questionable ” Pope Francis ’ recent remarks , in which the Holy Father appeared to support legal recognition of homosexual relationships .
“ The problem is we are giving approval to sinful behavior , ” explained Fr .
Michael Orsi , a Catholic priest in Naples , Florida .
“ And because homosexual relationships are sinful behavior , a homosexual relationship endangers the soul .
It is a mortal sin.
” “ When the pope encourages civil unions , that becomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congregation on Sunday , pointing out that many people have asked him about the Pope ’ s statements regarding “ civil unions for same-sex couples , their right to a family and their right to be part of a family.
” Speaking in the context of Sunday ’ s Gospel message , “ Love your neighbor as yourself , '' Orsi set the record straight : Church teaching has not changed .
“ Some people think that whenever the Pope speaks , it is an official pronouncement of the Church , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ He speaks in many registers , if you will.
” Completely separate from a Pope ’ s private opinions , there is the ordinary teaching of the Church , “ which is the Church ’ s belief based on Scripture and tradition which we have believed for two thousand plus years , ” and “ there is extraordinary magisterium when the pope speaks infallibly on an issue , ” Orsi explained .
This takes the form of a solemn , formal pronouncement in which the pope says , “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ And even when he speaks in those words what he says must be based on Scripture and tradition , '' the priest said .
“ In other words , a Pope can not make up something new because it is politically correct.
” Francis ’ recently published statement on homosexual unions “ holds no theological weight , ” Orsi said , for it is only his personal opinion .
Thus , there has been no change in Church teaching , and if anyone says otherwise , he “ doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about or is [ indulging in ] wishful thinking.
” The Church ’ s perennial teaching against homosexual relations is not something human society made up because of culture , Orsi said .
It is based in both Scripture and tradition .
In Scripture , prohibitions against homosexual practices can be found in Genesis , Leviticus , and the letters of St. Paul .
The tradition or doctrine of the Church can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which “ tells us what we must believe as Catholics , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catechism describes homosexuality as a disorder and as “ something that can not be acceptable for human beings ’ good human behavior , ” Orsi summarized , whereas section 2358 talks about the Church ’ s relationship with homosexual persons .
“ Here it says [ that ] although we have those prohibitions , that to engage in a homosexual act is a mortal sin , contrary to God ’ s law and contrary to nature , what the Church has always counseled is this : that homosexual persons be treated with dignity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not include applauding civil recognition of homosexual unions , as Pope Francis seemed to have done in the latest documentary film about him , Francesco .
Orsi stated that the Pope ’ s words were “ questionable ” and that granting civil unions to same-sex couples is a “ problem.
” Orsi acknowledged that many people don ’ t talk about sin anymore but underscored that ’ s what homosexuality is .
“ It ’ s a disordered way of acting , and therefore it ’ s against Scripture , tradition , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ So for us to say that we should allow or encourage civil unions would to be to give somewhat of an approval to a situation which will lead to mortal sin for those who are involved , and therefore it jeopardizes their immortal souls.
” Because Francis mentioned a “ right to a family , ” Orsi also addressed the now-thorny issues of what a family is and what the best interests of children are .
“ Once again , the right to a family is based on Scripture , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relationship between a man and a woman .
And we know that that is the best way to raise a child.
” Declaring that the nuclear family is no longer needed and saying that we can “ reconstruct the family any way we want ” calls into question “ our position regarding what is good for a child , what is the best situation for a child to be raised in , ” the priest suggested .
Orsi indicated that he knows these issues are sensitive , having been a priest for 45 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homosexual inclinations or homosexual family members .
He underscored that Christians must not disown anyone because they are homosexual .
But at the same time , he believes homosexual behavior should not be tolerated within the family .
“ We always act in charity , ” the priest said .
“ That means we don ’ t disown someone , but we must always encourage them to do the right thing , and to pray for them , and in a very sensitive way to point out that the behavior they are engaged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is detrimental to their immortal soul , to their salvation , ” he continued .
“ Also , those persons have an obligation to respect the Church , the Church ’ s teaching , and the customs and beliefs of their natural family .
In other words , you don ’ t want it to happen that someone is literally shoving it in your face , as they say , and making you and the rest of your family uncomfortable because of behavior that you disapprove of.
” Orsi argued that refraining from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they are endangering their souls is false charity .
We have to speak the truth because someone ’ s soul is at stake , he said .
`` If we don ’ t speak the truth , we lose them and a number of souls in the rest of society who are now being led astray , ” the priest explained .
Orsi compared the person who does not speak the truth about sin to a doctor who does not tell his patient when the latter is diagnosed with cancer .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help another human being achieve their salvation , ” he said .
The priest ended his homily with a “ famous saying ” from his seminary days — salus animarum suprema lex : “ The safety of souls is the highest law .
”

NAPLES, Florida, October 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A Florida priest criticized as “extremely questionable” Pope Francis’ recent remarks, in which the Holy Father appeared to support legal recognition of homosexual relationships.
“The problem is we are giving approval to sinful behavior,” explained Fr. Michael Orsi, a Catholic priest in Naples, Florida. “And because homosexual relationships are sinful behavior, a homosexual relationship endangers the soul. It is a mortal sin.”
“When the pope encourages civil unions, that becomes extremely questionable,” Orsi told his congregation on Sunday, pointing out that many people have asked him about the Pope’s statements regarding “civil unions for same-sex couples, their right to a family and their right to be part of a family.”
Speaking in the context of Sunday’s Gospel message, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” Orsi set the record straight: Church teaching has not changed.
“Some people think that whenever the Pope speaks, it is an official pronouncement of the Church, and that’s not true,” Orsi said. “He speaks in many registers, if you will.”
Completely separate from a Pope’s private opinions, there is the ordinary teaching of the Church, “which is the Church’ s belief based on Scripture and tradition which we have believed for two thousand plus years,” and “there is extraordinary magisterium when the pope speaks infallibly on an issue,” Orsi explained.
This takes the form of a solemn, formal pronouncement in which the pope says, “I declare, I proclaim, I define.”
“And even when he speaks in those words what he says must be based on Scripture and tradition,” the priest said. “In other words, a Pope cannot make up something new because it is politically correct.”
Francis’ recently published statement on homosexual unions “holds no theological weight,” Orsi said, for it is only his personal opinion. Thus, there has been no change in Church teaching, and if anyone says otherwise, he “doesn’t know what [he] is talking about or is [indulging in] wishful thinking.”
The Church’s perennial teaching against homosexual relations is not something human society made up because of culture, Orsi said. It is based in both Scripture and tradition. In Scripture, prohibitions against homosexual practices can be found in Genesis, Leviticus, and the letters of St. Paul. The tradition or doctrine of the Church can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which “tells us what we must believe as Catholics,” Orsi said.
Section 2357 of the Catechism describes homosexuality as a disorder and as “something that cannot be acceptable for human beings’ good human behavior,” Orsi summarized, whereas section 2358 talks about the Church’s relationship with homosexual persons.
— Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Ask Pope Francis to clarify and rectify scandalous remarks on homosexual civil unions Show Petition Text 22787 have signed the petition. Let's get to 25000 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition Remarks attributed to Pope Francis (and, not denied by the Vatican) in support of homosexual civil unions have caused grave scandal to the faithful. Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks Pope Francis to clarify and rectify these heterodox and scandalous remarks on homosexual civil unions, and which will be delivered both to the Vatican and to the Papal Nuncio of the United States (the Pope's official representative in the U.S.). As the last guarantor of the Faith, the Pope should clarify and rectify these remarks, which go against the perennial teaching of the Church, even including the teaching of his living predecessor, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. "What we have to create is a law of civil coexistence [meaning civil union law, for homosexuals]...," Pope Francis is reported to have remarked, in what is arguably his clearest statement of public support for a practice morally prohibited by official Catholic Church teaching. In fact, the Church has been crystal clear in Her opposition to homosexual unions. Just in 2003, Pope Saint John Paul II approved a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, titled 'Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons' and written by Cardinal Ratzinger (now, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), which concludes with the following: "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself." It could not be more clear: the Church is calling people to repentance, not to be left to indulge in grave sin. Since becoming public, several senior prelates as well as other notable Catholic figures have voiced their opposition to these remarks attributed to the Pontiff. Cardinal Raymond Burke stated: "It is a source of deepest sadness and pressing pastoral concern that the private opinions reported with so much emphasis by the press and attributed to Pope Francis do not correspond to the constant teaching of the Church, as it is expressed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition." Cardinal Gerhard Müller commented: "Where there is tension between the plain and obvious Word of God and the infallible interpretation on the one hand, and private expressions of opinion even by the highest church authorities on the other, the principle always applies: in dubio pro DEO [When in doubt, be in favor of God]." And, Catholic theologian and apologist Scott Hahn, without directly quoting Pope Francis, shared on Facebook the 'Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,' published by the CDF in 1986, with the statement: "Holy Father, respectfully and humbly, I beg to differ... if that is indeed what you said. In any case, please clarify and rectify your statement, especially in view of the official teaching of our Lord through the magisterium of His Church." But, the silence from the Vatican has been deafening, with no clarification forthcoming. We must, therefore, ask the Pope for clarification in this serious matter. Please SIGN and SHARE this petition which asks Pope Francis to clarify and rectify remarks attributed to him in support of homosexual civil unions. FOR MORE INFORMATION: 'Cdl. Burke: Pope’s homosexual civil union remarks ‘contrary’ to Scripture, Tradition' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/cardinal-burke-on-popes-homosexual-civil-union-remarks-contrary-to-the-teaching-of-sacred-scripture-and-sacred-tradition 'Cardinal says Catholics ‘can and should’ disagree with Pope’s ‘opinion’ on gay civil unions' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/cdl.mueller-popes-words-on-gay-civil-unions-purely-private-expression-of-opinion-which-every-catholic-can-and-should-freely-contradict 'Archbishop Vigano, Bishops Tobin and Strickland respond to Pope’s approval of homosexual civil unions' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/archbishop-vigano-and-bishops-tobin-strickland-respond-to-popes-approval-of-homosexual-civil-unions 'Pope’s comments on gay civil unions cause shockwaves around the world' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/deepest-sadness-cardinal-burke-condemns-pope-franciss-remarks-supporting-civil-unions Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
“Here it says [that] although we have those prohibitions, that to engage in a homosexual act is a mortal sin, contrary to God’s law and contrary to nature, what the Church has always counseled is this: that homosexual persons be treated with dignity and respect.”
However, this does not include applauding civil recognition of homosexual unions, as Pope Francis seemed to have done in the latest documentary film about him, Francesco. Orsi stated that the Pope’s words were “questionable” and that granting civil unions to same-sex couples is a “problem.”
Orsi acknowledged that many people don’t talk about sin anymore but underscored that’s what homosexuality is.
“It’s a disordered way of acting, and therefore it’s against Scripture, tradition, and the natural law,” he continued. “So for us to say that we should allow or encourage civil unions would to be to give somewhat of an approval to a situation which will lead to mortal sin for those who are involved, and therefore it jeopardizes their immortal souls.”
Because Francis mentioned a “right to a family,” Orsi also addressed the now-thorny issues of what a family is and what the best interests of children are.
“Once again, the right to a family is based on Scripture,” he said. “It is the relationship between a man and a woman. And we know that that is the best way to raise a child.”
Declaring that the nuclear family is no longer needed and saying that we can “reconstruct the family any way we want” calls into question “our position regarding what is good for a child, what is the best situation for a child to be raised in,” the priest suggested.
Orsi indicated that he knows these issues are sensitive, having been a priest for 45 years, especially for listeners who have homosexual inclinations or homosexual family members. He underscored that Christians must not disown anyone because they are homosexual. But at the same time, he believes homosexual behavior should not be tolerated within the family.
“We always act in charity,” the priest said.
“That means we don’t disown someone, but we must always encourage them to do the right thing, and to pray for them, and in a very sensitive way to point out that the behavior they are engaged in is sinful behavior [and] is detrimental to their immortal soul, to their salvation,” he continued.
“Also, those persons have an obligation to respect the Church, the Church’s teaching, and the customs and beliefs of their natural family. In other words, you don’t want it to happen that someone is literally shoving it in your face, as they say, and making you and the rest of your family uncomfortable because of behavior that you disapprove of.”
Orsi argued that refraining from telling people who engage in homosexual acts that they are endangering their souls is false charity. We have to speak the truth because someone’s soul is at stake, he said.
“If we don’t speak the truth, we lose them and a number of souls in the rest of society who are now being led astray,” the priest explained.
Orsi compared the person who does not speak the truth about sin to a doctor who does not tell his patient when the latter is diagnosed with cancer. “Charity is when we speak the truth to help another human being achieve their salvation,” he said.
The priest ended his homily with a “famous saying” from his seminary days — salus animarum suprema lex: “The safety of souls is the highest law.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-27--Catholic parents: Sign your kids up for this online catechism course backed by Bp. Schneider, John-H

Catholic parents: Sign your kids up for this online catechism course backed by Bp. Schneider, John-Henry Westen

Fr .
Anthony Pillari is the host of a brand new online catechism course titled 'Our Lady of the Rosary @ @ @ @ @ by Voice of the Family .
It 's totally free and has won the endorsement @ @ @ @ @ Learn more by clicking here : https : //voiceofthefamily.com/join-our-new-family-catechism-programme-become-crusaders-for-christ/

Fr. Anthony Pillari is the host of a brand new online catechism course titled 'Our Lady of the Rosary Family Catechism,' produced by Voice of the Family. It's totally free and has won the endorsement of many high-ranking clergy. Learn more by clicking here: https://voiceofthefamily.com/join-our-new-family-catechism-programme-become-crusaders-for-christ/
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-27--Leftists fume as Justice Amy Coney Barrett officially joins Supreme Court

WASHINGTON , D.C. , October 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Former Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett is now officially an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court , eliciting an expected wave of outrage from the political Left .
The Senate voted 52-48 Tuesday evening to confirm Barrett , President Donald Trump ’ s choice to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
She was sworn in hours later by Justice Clarence Thomas at a White House ceremony .
A Catholic mother of seven widely regarded as a pro-life originalist , Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Faculty for Life group , is reported to have signed a letter published by Becket Law criticizing the Obama administration ’ s contraception mandate , and signed a 2006 ad declaring “ we … oppose abortion on demand and support the right to life from fertilization to natural death.
” She has also written multiple articles critical of the stare decisis doctrine , which grants weight to past rulings ’ status as precedent , regardless of whether they were rightly decided .
Barrett ’ s confirmation was met with outrage across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and candidates who opposed her .
“ The rushed and unprecedented confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as Associate Justice to the Supreme Court , in the middle of an ongoing election , should be a stark reminder to every American that your vote matters , ” former Vice President and current Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden said in a statement .
“ If you want to protect your health care , if you want your voice to be heard in Washington , if you want to say no , this abuse of power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn out and vote.
” His running mate , Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) , said that the Senate “ denied the will of the American people by confirming a Supreme Court justice through an illegitimate process.
” In fact , support for confirming Barrett steadily rose to a majority over the past month , and Harris did not explain how doing so was “ illegitimate.
” “ Here at this late hour , at the end of this sordid chapter in the history of the Senate , the history of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sadness is for the American people , ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) declared Monday night from the Senate floor .
“ Generations yet unborn , ” the pro-abortion politician said , “ will suffer the consequences of this nomination.
” Several Democratic senators took to Twitter to voice their opinions : The abortion lobby was similarly outraged , with National Abortion Federation president Katherine Ragsdale declaring that Barrett “ holds extreme anti-choice views ” and that her confirmation was an “ infuriating ” “ sham.
” NARAL president Ilyse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on our democracy ” for which “ we will see every single Republican who has played a role in this charade at the ballot box.
” Planned Parenthood Action Fund and its acting president Alexis McGill Johnson had a similar reaction : Various news personalities , celebrities , activists , and other figures also piled on , with many settling on the narrative that Barrett somehow acted improperly by participating in the White House ceremony ( despite it being a common tradition for new justices of both parties ) : Conservatives and pro-lifers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Barrett ’ s confirmation , praising Trump for his selection and Senate Republicans for seeing her through the process .
Although it remains to be seen how some of the current Republican-appointed justices would rule on major issues such as Roe v. Wade , Barrett is widely recognized as a significant rightward shift for the Supreme Court , which conservatives hope will mitigate the damage to their causes should Trump lose to Biden next week .
At the same time , many on the Left have called for Biden to cancel out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the Supreme Court , or adding judges beyond its current nine members to create a new , left-wing majority .
In fact , far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advocated for just that in response to Barrett being sworn in last night : Biden has repeatedly refused to explicitly say whether he would answer such calls , but has said he wants to institute a “ bipartisan commission of scholars ” to brainstorm and propose unspecified “ reforms ” to the federal judiciary .

Barrett is widely recognized as a significant rightward shift for the Supreme Court, which conservatives hope will mitigate the damage to their causes should Trump lose to Biden.
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Former Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett is now officially an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, eliciting an expected wave of outrage from the political Left.
The Senate voted 52-48 Tuesday evening to confirm Barrett, President Donald Trump’s choice to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was sworn in hours later by Justice Clarence Thomas at a White House ceremony.
A Catholic mother of seven widely regarded as a pro-life originalist, Barrett was a member of Notre Dame’s Faculty for Life group, is reported to have signed a letter published by Becket Law criticizing the Obama administration’s contraception mandate, and signed a 2006 ad declaring “we … oppose abortion on demand and support the right to life from fertilization to natural death.” She has also written multiple articles critical of the stare decisis doctrine, which grants weight to past rulings’ status as precedent, regardless of whether they were rightly decided.
Barrett’s confirmation was met with outrage across the Left, starting with the Democrat lawmakers and candidates who opposed her.
“The rushed and unprecedented confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as Associate Justice to the Supreme Court, in the middle of an ongoing election, should be a stark reminder to every American that your vote matters,” former Vice President and current Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden said in a statement. “If you want to protect your health care, if you want your voice to be heard in Washington, if you want to say no, this abuse of power doesn’t represent you — then turn out and vote.”
His running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), said that the Senate “denied the will of the American people by confirming a Supreme Court justice through an illegitimate process.” In fact, support for confirming Barrett steadily rose to a majority over the past month, and Harris did not explain how doing so was “illegitimate.”
“Here at this late hour, at the end of this sordid chapter in the history of the Senate, the history of the Supreme Court, my deepest and greatest sadness is for the American people,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) declared Monday night from the Senate floor. “Generations yet unborn,” the pro-abortion politician said, “will suffer the consequences of this nomination.”
— Article continues below Petition — URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade Show Petition Text 61375 have signed the petition. Let's get to 70000 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition PETITION UPDATE (9/26/2020): With President Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we are closer than we have been in decades to seeing Roe vs. Wade overturned. We now encourage the Senate to confirm Barrett as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Barrett has a fantastic track recond on sanctity of life issues, has seven children, and is a devout believer. She is the perfect remedy for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's radical pro-abortionism. Please READ the full story here: 'BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court' And then, please SIGN this petition telling the High Court that it's now time to end the activist Roe vs. Wade judgment. Thank you! __________________________________________________________________ PETITION UPDATE (6/29/2020): In a decision which has imperiled more abortion-minded women, sentenced more preborn to death, and upset pro-lifers across the nation,the United States Supreme Court decided 5-4 to strike down a Louisiana law requiring basic medical precautions in the event of abortion complications, with Chief Justice John Roberts reversing his own past decision to uphold a similar Texas law. Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which held that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional for the simple fact that it was “almost word-for-word identical” to the Texas one the court already struck down in 2016. In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that he had “joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.” We call on the Supreme Court to stop supporting the culture of death and overturn Roe vs Wade, now. PETITION UPDATE (1/20/2020): Hundreds of thousands of people will gather in Washington, D.C., this coming Friday, January 24th, for the March for Life. They will be praying for an end to Roe vs Wade, as the Supreme Court will hear a crucial, abortion-related case later this year in March. United our voices can change the course of history. Sign this petition TODAY! (LEARN MORE BELOW) PETITION UPDATE (1/3/2020): In advance of the Supreme Court's hearing arguments in an important abortion case later this year in March, 207 U.S. Senators and Representatives have signed amicus briefs supporting a Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital nearby an abortion center. Some of these supporting briefs also suggest that now is the time to reconsider Roe vs Wade as sound law. Please SIGN this petition, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Roe vs Wade. _____________________________________________________________________________ More than 60 million Americans have been slaughtered in their mother's wombs as a result of Roe v. Wade. This activist, unconstitutional ruling in 1973 has left countless women emotionally and psychologically scarred. It was believed by many that Roe would be overturned in 1992 with Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Despite having eight Republican-appointed judges at the time, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold it. Since then, major gains have been made in the fight for life, and many lives have been saved. However, Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land, leaving millions of defenseless pre-born children vulnerable to murder. According to a 2016 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 35% of aborted babies are African American, despite black women only making up six percent of the U.S. population. 19% of aborted babies are Hispanic. We thus again call on the court to do everything they can to end Roe vs Wade. Now is the time for pro-lifers to join together and ensure that all of God's children have a right to life. Roe v. Wade must come to an end! FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-regulations https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/over-200-congressmen-as-us-supreme-court-to-reconsider-roe-v-wade https://www.foxnews.com/politics/congress-members-file-competing-legal-briefs-in-key-scotus-abortion-case Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
Several Democratic senators took to Twitter to voice their opinions:
Future generations will look to this moment in history with clarity and see what millions of Americans see right now: an illegitimate nominee rushed through an illegitimate process with dire consequences. We faced defeat today, but we will not be defeated—we will never give up. — Sen. Cory Booker (@SenBooker) October 27, 2020
I am frustrated, and frankly, very angry. It did not have to be this way. By rushing to confirm this Supreme Court nominee, Senate Republicans openly and unapologetically defied the will of the American people—all to further their extreme, conservative agenda. — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) October 27, 2020
It is a sad day for the Senate and for the Court. My Republican colleagues put the rule of ‘because we can’ over the traditions and precedents of the Senate, the principles we hold dear as an institution, and the integrity of the federal judiciary. — Sheldon Whitehouse (@SenWhitehouse) October 27, 2020
The abortion lobby was similarly outraged, with National Abortion Federation president Katherine Ragsdale declaring that Barrett “holds extreme anti-choice views” and that her confirmation was an “infuriating” “sham.” NARAL president Ilyse Hogue called it a “shameful attack on our democracy” for which “we will see every single Republican who has played a role in this charade at the ballot box.”
Planned Parenthood Action Fund and its acting president Alexis McGill Johnson had a similar reaction:
This phony confirmation process is over but this election is not. We deserve leaders who respect our wishes and who champion our health and rights. And we’re going to make absolutely sure these senators and Donald Trump know that.#WeDecide2020 — Alexis McGill Johnson (@alexismcgill) October 27, 2020
BREAKING: McConnell & Senate Republicans just confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, putting our repro rights and health care at risk — while people across the nation are left to fend for themselves with an expected COVID surge without any relief. What a disgrace. — Planned Parenthood Action – Text VOTE to 22422 (@PPact) October 27, 2020
Various news personalities, celebrities, activists, and other figures also piled on, with many settling on the narrative that Barrett somehow acted improperly by participating in the White House ceremony (despite it being a common tradition for new justices of both parties):
The first thing Justice Barrett did was to participate in a campaign event at the White House for the president, eight days before an election that he has explicitly said he expects will turn on her vote. — Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) October 27, 2020
1. I'm disappointed Justice Barrett didn't (politely!) decline a WH swearing-in.
2. I'm confident CJ Roberts isn't happy about this.
3. The Court has a pretty sure instinct for self-preservation. This could strengthen a sense they should from now on stay out of the 2020 election. pic.twitter.com/VSnLrOasSt — Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) October 27, 2020
Revolting. Disgraceful. Unconscionable.
GOP R.I.P. — Michael Moore (@MMFlint) October 27, 2020
We deserve so much better than old white men deciding everything all the time for all of us since the beginning of America. — Elizabeth Banks (@ElizabethBanks) October 27, 2020
Conservatives and pro-lifers, naturally, have been much happier about Barrett’s confirmation, praising Trump for his selection and Senate Republicans for seeing her through the process.
Although it remains to be seen how some of the current Republican-appointed justices would rule on major issues such as Roe v. Wade, Barrett is widely recognized as a significant rightward shift for the Supreme Court, which conservatives hope will mitigate the damage to their causes should Trump lose to Biden next week.
At the same time, many on the Left have called for Biden to cancel out Barrett if he wins by “packing” the Supreme Court, or adding judges beyond its current nine members to create a new, left-wing majority.
In fact, far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advocated for just that in response to Barrett being sworn in last night:
Expand the court. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 27, 2020
Biden has repeatedly refused to explicitly say whether he would answer such calls, but has said he wants to institute a “bipartisan commission of scholars” to brainstorm and propose unspecified “reforms” to the federal judiciary.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-27--UPDATES: Pro-aborts run as Polish football fans arrive to protect cathedral

Demonstrations have broken out in cities across Poland since the nation ’ s Constitutional Tribunal judged on Thursday that eugenic abortion violated the Polish constitution .
Encouraged by a pro-abortion organization called “ Strajk Kobiet ” ( “ Women ’ s Strike ” ) and led by activists Marta Lempart and Natalia Pancewicz , the protesters have been vandalizing Catholic churches and monuments sacred to patriotic Poles and interrupting Masses .
However , as the protesters take to the streets for the sixth night since the decision , they are increasingly finding the churches guarded by devoutly Catholic and/or patriotic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the annual Polish Independence Day March prevented a large crowd from defacing Saint Alexander ’ s Church in Warsaw ’ s Three Crosses Square .
Today it is being reported that the nation ’ s notorious young football ( soccer ) fans , not known for their piety , have decided to help protect the churches against the far-left radicals .
A film of pro-abortion protesters running away from Poznan ’ s Archbasilica of Saints Peter and Paul shows a group of “ Lech Poznań ” football fans taking charge of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of the 10th century , the Archbasilica is the oldest cathedral in Poland .
UPDATE : LifeSiteNews has received an unconfirmed report that the monastery of Jasna Góra , home of the miraculous image of Black Madonna of Częstochowa , is one of the places coming under attack from leftists tonight .
[ UPDATE , October 27 , 2020 , 5:42 p.m .
ET ] According to Fronda.pl , a Polish online news magazine , football fans from Szczecin , Częstochowa , Gdańsk , Chełm , Jasło , Andrychów , Ząbki , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Fans of Pogon Szczecin , a member of the highest tier Polish football division , wrote on their website , “ We will not accept the desecration of memorials , murals , or churches .
This will not help you in your fight : it can only be counter-productive , as for many Poles , including your relations , they are important symbols of life.
” According to their messages , the football fans are not objecting to the pro-abortion activists ’ protest as much as to their targeting of religious and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a filmmaker living in Warsaw , told LifeSiteNews , “ The recent ruling around Article 38 of the Polish Constitution has ignited a huge debate around abortion in Poland .
There is clearly a legitimate debate to be had , with compelling arguments on both side .
Sadly , there is no debate , and protests have been hijacked by vulgar , and aggressive extremists who are marching under the slogan ‘ F -- k off.
’ ” “ Bringing public discourse to this base level is in and of itself tragic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what is even more concerning is that some of the protesters have chosen to protest inside churches , disrupting Masses , verbally attacking Polish Catholics , as well as defacing churches , many of which are historical monuments.
” Tompson said that the attacks on the Church have escalated , with Polish Catholics , mostly young men , some coordinated by the organizers of the annual Independence Day March , choosing to stand guard in front of their churches to ensure they are not defaced or desecrated .
“ Most of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storm to pass , whilst praying the rosary quietly , or singing Marian hymns , ” he reported .
“ Though protesters have largely outnumbered those standing in front of Churches , everything is not lost .
One of my friends who stood guard outside St. Alexander ’ s Church in Warsaw walked up to a protester who was choking and offered her help , ” Tompson said .
“ She later on walked up to him , and asked to pray with him , and together they said a ‘ Hail Mary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion shows that dialogue and perhaps even some form of reconciliation is possible despite diverging views of the world.
” “ However , there is a culture war in Poland , which is escalating — these protests are proof of that , and they also prove that the younger generation is [ becoming atheist ] at a drastic speed.
” Tompson indicated that he believes Poland will become more and more polarized as a result .

Twitter just deplatformed President Trump premanently! And, other conservatives, including General Flynn and Sidney Powell, were also deplatformed.
Conservatives, Christians and freedom-loving Americans of all political persuasions must now take a decision to preserve their free speech AND their ability to peaceably assemble by dumping Twitter and Big Tech, and by finding other good alternatives to communicate with each other and share their opinions.
Please SIGN our petition-pledge to Dump Twitter and Big Tech, and take back your freedom of speech and privacy. [CLICK HERE for our "Goodbye Google" resources page to find good alternatives to Google!]
When you use Twitter or Facebook to communicate, or Google to search for something online, these companies can stifle your ability to share your thoughts and opinions and manipulate your search results, threatening your privacy, your freedom of speech, and even our democracy.
Evidence suggests that Twitter and Facebook's 'community guidelines' are selectively enforced against conservatives and Christians, while Google rigs their search algorithms to direct traffic away from conservative and Christian websites, effectively choking traffic to those sites.
Simply put, Twitter, Facebook and Google (who owns YouTube) appear to be actively suppressing access to pro-freedom, pro-family and pro-life news and opinion.
Don't contribute to this assault on democracy: Stop using Twitter, Facebook and Google as your default social media platforms and search engine! [CLICK HERE to find a good alternative to Google.]
To repeat: a few liberal and completely unaccountable computer programmers in Silicon Valley are dictating what we do and do not see in our Twitter and Facebook feeds, and in our Google searches.
We, here, at LifeSite, also recently had our Twitter account suspended by the company over "misgendering" a man who claims to be a woman.
LifeSite has also experienced a fall-off in Google search-related traffic since the company updated its search algorithms at the beginning of May.
And, since the November election, Twitter and Big Tech appear to have dramatically INCREASED their censorship of conservatives and Christians as the President Trump disputed the results of the election and when evidence of election fraud began to mount.
Now, it seems likely that they are trying to cut-off conservative leaders (like President Trump) from conservatives on the ground, and effectively exclude us from the national conversation.
But, this tactic will not work. Because Twitter, Facebook and Google are not the only game in town! There are a good number of excellent alternatives which we list in our 'Goodbye Google' Resources page.
The great irony is that, while Twitter, Facebook and Google executives talk a lot about maintaining freedom of speech and diversity, in fact, these hypocrites are ATTACKING free speech point-blank!
This kind of manipulation poses a lethal threat to our democracy, but as we see so clearly now, Twitter and Big Tech have shown no hesitation in excluding conservatives and Christians from the public square.
So, at this point, the only way to stop Twitter, Facebook and Google is to quit using their platform.
Please SIGN and SHARE this petition to pledge to stop using Twitter and Big Tech. Then, please CLICK HERE to find alternative search engines and social media platforms. Thank you!
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Ready to say "Goodbye Google"? Find alternatives for search engines, browsers, email, and more: https://lifesite.kartra.com/page/gbgresources
'BREAKING: Twitter permanently bans President Trump from platform' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-twitter-permanently-bans-president-trump-from-platform
WATCH LifeSite's exclusive series - 'Big Tech vs Free Speech' - of interviews with experts on how Big Tech censorship is killing free speech: https://www.lifesitenews.com/bigtech/
From YouTube to social media and beyond, online censorship is rampant. Read the latest articles covering this ongoing struggle: https://lifesite.kartra.com/page/censorship