lifesitenews--2020-02-28--US mom begs Trump to help free her children kidnapped by Norway’s child protective services

PETITION : Demand Norway Gov ’ t return US children to their parents !
Sign the petition here .
February 28 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Natalya Shutakova is calling on U.S. officials , including President Trump , to help free her American-born children from the clutches of the Norwegian Child Protective Services , also known as the Barnevernet .
The Barnevernet is one of the worse violators in the world of family rights .
“ I would really ask U.S. officials to look into this situation .
I would warn everyone who thinks of traveling to Scandinavian countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trapped .
And it 's a trap .
It 's nearly impossible to get out of this.
” Shutakova is a Ukrainian-born naturalized American citizen who grew up in Atlanta .
In September of 2018 , she was living with her husband and three children in southern Norway while he was on a temporary work contract .
In May of the following year , the Barnevernet knocked on the couple ’ s door and removed her kids from their beds to take them to foster care .
Shutakova and her husband were alleged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The charges stem from a situation that arose after the pair ’ s 11-year-old daughter was misusing her iPhone .
They took the phone away as punishment .
As a result , she went to school the next day upset .
The school called Natalya because her daughter didn ’ t have a lunch .
Natalya knew she packed a lunch in her daughter ’ s backpack , so she went to the school .
The daughter realized she ’ d been caught in a lie , and told her teacher she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trouble when she got home , a claim which she later recanted in a video ( watch below ) .
But the damage had been done .
The school called the Barnevernet and the police showed up at Natalya ’ s home that night .
Since that incident , Natalya ’ s family has been “ terrorized ” by the Barnevernet .
“ We 're not allowed to see the children until June 19th , ” she told Jonathon van Maren on his podcast this week .
“ The investigation lasted for about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two and a half months that case was closed .
They closed it due to no evidence of abuse.
” But that didn ’ t result in Natalya getting her kids back .
“ In the last nine months , they have transferred the children at least four times to different families , different cities .
They have split all the siblings apart in different cities.
” “ I 've been a mom for 11 years , so I have some experience , I guess , and I never had any issues in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Norway , they label you as a bad parent .
You do n't fit their standards .
You 're not good enough .
They could n't prove the violence .
Now they 're trying to say that your parental skills are n't good enough ” More than 24,000 people have signed a CitizenGo petition calling on the Norwegian government to release Natalya ’ s children to her .
Natalya has pleaded in vain with lawmakers and the U.S. Embassy in Norway to intervene on multiple occasions .
“ What they do is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embassy and the embassy responds that ‘ we 're closely monitoring the situation.
’ The embassy has promised that ‘ we will come to the next court in April.
’ I have written letters to Trump.
” “ My best hope would be American officials getting involved directly , ” she continued .
“ The U.S. government needs to step up…I do n't have any trust in Norwegian courts .
They are always siding with Child Protective Services.
” Natalya warns other Americans to not visit northern Europe .
“ I regret that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you do n't want to come to a socialist country with your children…it ’ s dangerous here in Norway.
” U.S. Embassy in Norway Morgedalsvegen 36 , 0378 Oslo , Norway +47 21 30 85 40 ( From Norway ) +1 703-520-2568 ( From the U.S. ) 7:00am-3:00pm M-F [ email protected ] [ email protected ] The Van Maren Show is hosted on numerous platforms , including Spotify , SoundCloud , YouTube , iTunes , and Google Play .
For a full listing of episodes , and to subscribe to various channels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To receive weekly emails when a new episode is uploaded , subscribe below :

PETITION: Demand Norway Gov’t return US children to their parents! Sign the petition here.
February 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Natalya Shutakova is calling on U.S. officials, including President Trump, to help free her American-born children from the clutches of the Norwegian Child Protective Services, also known as the Barnevernet. The Barnevernet is one of the worse violators in the world of family rights.
“I would really ask U.S. officials to look into this situation. I would warn everyone who thinks of traveling to Scandinavian countries, you don't want to get trapped. And it's a trap. It's nearly impossible to get out of this.”
Shutakova is a Ukrainian-born naturalized American citizen who grew up in Atlanta. In September of 2018, she was living with her husband and three children in southern Norway while he was on a temporary work contract. In May of the following year, the Barnevernet knocked on the couple’s door and removed her kids from their beds to take them to foster care. Shutakova and her husband were alleged to have been guilty of child mistreatment.
The charges stem from a situation that arose after the pair’s 11-year-old daughter was misusing her iPhone. They took the phone away as punishment. As a result, she went to school the next day upset. The school called Natalya because her daughter didn’t have a lunch. Natalya knew she packed a lunch in her daughter’s backpack, so she went to the school. The daughter realized she’d been caught in a lie, and told her teacher she was going to get in even more trouble when she got home, a claim which she later recanted in a video (watch below).
But the damage had been done. The school called the Barnevernet and the police showed up at Natalya’s home that night.
Since that incident, Natalya’s family has been “terrorized” by the Barnevernet.
“We're not allowed to see the children until June 19th,” she told Jonathon van Maren on his podcast this week. “The investigation lasted for about two and a half months. After two and a half months that case was closed. They closed it due to no evidence of abuse.”
But that didn’t result in Natalya getting her kids back.
“In the last nine months, they have transferred the children at least four times to different families, different cities. They have split all the siblings apart in different cities.”
“I've been a mom for 11 years, so I have some experience, I guess, and I never had any issues in the States….But as soon as you come to Norway, they label you as a bad parent. You don't fit their standards. You're not good enough. They couldn't prove the violence. Now they're trying to say that your parental skills aren't good enough”
More than 24,000 people have signed a CitizenGo petition calling on the Norwegian government to release Natalya’s children to her.
Natalya has pleaded in vain with lawmakers and the U.S. Embassy in Norway to intervene on multiple occasions.
“What they do is they usually send a letter to the embassy and the embassy responds that ‘we're closely monitoring the situation.’ The embassy has promised that ‘we will come to the next court in April.’ I have written letters to Trump.”
“My best hope would be American officials getting involved directly,” she continued. “The U.S. government needs to step up…I don't have any trust in Norwegian courts. They are always siding with Child Protective Services.”
Natalya warns other Americans to not visit northern Europe. “I regret that I ever came here…being a Christian, you don't want to come to a socialist country with your children…it’s dangerous here in Norway.”
Contact information:
The White House
1-202-456-1414 (Switchboard)
1-202-456-1111 (Comments)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
U.S. Embassy in Norway
Morgedalsvegen 36, 0378 Oslo, Norway
+47 21 30 85 40 (From Norway)
+1 703-520-2568 (From the U.S.) 7:00am-3:00pm M-F
[email protected]
[email protected]
Ambassador Kenneth J. Braithwaite
U.S. Embassy Oslo
PO Box 4075 AMB
0244 Oslo
Twitter: @usembassyoslo
Facebook page
The Van Maren Show is hosted on numerous platforms, including Spotify, SoundCloud, YouTube, iTunes, and Google Play.
For a full listing of episodes, and to subscribe to various channels, visit our Acast webpage here.
To receive weekly emails when a new episode is uploaded, subscribe below:


lifesitenews--2020-02-28--Canadian politician introduces bill to ban aborting babies because they’re girls

OTTAWA , February 28 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A Canadian Conservative politician tabled a private member ’ s bill Wednesday to make it a crime for a medical practitioner to knowingly kill an unborn child solely because of the baby ’ s sex .
Saskatchewan Member of Parliament ( MP ) Cathay Wagantall is asking all MPs support Bill C-233 , the Sex-Selective Abortion Act , to make the point that “ sex-selective abortion is not permissible in a society that advocates for the equality of the sexes , ” according to her press release .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree with having access to abortions , ” said the MP for Yorkton-Melville when introducing the bill .
“ It is also true that 84 per cent of Canadians stand against sex-selection abortions.
” A Dart & Maru/Blue poll found last month that a majority of Canadians are opposed to late-term and sex-selective abortion and would support making these practices illegal .
When it comes to sex-selective abortion the poll found that a “ vast majority ( 84 % ) oppose legalizing abortion if the family does not want the baby to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Association Journal reported in January 2012 that Canada has become “ a haven for parents who would terminate female fetuses in favour of having sons ” because of its advanced prenatal testing and easy access to abortion .
An editorial in the same issue called for testing facilities to withhold the sex of unborn children and said sex-selective abortion was most common among immigrants from India and Southeast Asia .
However , the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons rejected the idea .
In 2016 , the Canadian Medical Association Journal published a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested Indian-born women in the province are choosing to abort their daughters , as abortion is legal and covered by Ontario health insurance .
Titled “ Sex ratios at birth after induced abortion , ” the study concluded that the “ high male : female ratios observed among infants born to women who immigrated from India are associated with induced abortions , especially in the second trimester of pregnancy.
” Conservative politicians attempted to deal with sex-selection abortion , sometimes referred to as “ gendercide , ” eight years ago , when British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 408 to condemn the practice .
That led to a short-lived revolt of backbench pro-life MPs against Prime Minister Stephen Harper , after his party colluded with the opposition to have the motion declared non-voteable .
It was the beginning of Harper ’ s crackdown on his MPs introducing private member bills and motions to restrict abortion and even on speaking on the issue , LifeSiteNews reported then .
Opposition leader Andrew Scheer , whose resignation announcement in December has triggered the current leadership race that ends June 27 , followed the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re-open the abortion debate .
“ I ’ ve also made the commitment that as leader of this party it is my responsibility to ensure that we do not re-open this debate , that we focus on issues that unite our party and unite Canadians , ” he said while campaigning for the October 2019 federal election that resulted in Justin Trudeau ’ s current Liberal minority government .
“ And that ’ s exactly what I ’ ll do and that ’ s why I ’ ll vote against measures that attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s led to questions about what Scheer will make of Wagantall ’ s bill , according to the Canadian Press , which noted that private member ’ s bills are difficult to pass but “ at minimum can be debated and a vote can take place on whether they get sent along the legislative path ” -- something that could happen under Scheer ’ s successor .
Sheer ’ s spokesman Simon Jefferies told Canadian Press that the Conservative leader “ has always discouraged members of his caucus from introducing items that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be allowed to vote their conscience on Wagantall ’ s bill , Jefferies said , but he would not say how Scheer would vote .
“ Like the overwhelming majority of Canadians , Mr. Scheer finds the practice of getting an abortion specifically to avoid having a baby girl abhorrent , ” Jefferies told the Canadian Press .
This is the second private member ’ s bill for Wagantall , first elected in 2015 .
Her Cassie and Molly ’ s Law , introduced in 2016 , did not pass .
It would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injure or kill an unborn child during a criminal assault on a pregnant woman .
She is urging all MPs to get behind Bill C-233 .
“ Our silence condones and possibly perpetuates the practice of sex selection , ” Wagantall said .
“ Canada must act now to condemn this practice and to make it apparent to all that Canada values women and equality .
If there is even one female pre-born child who is terminated because of her sex , we need to act.
” “ We applaud MP Wagantall for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope will force a debate on this issue in the House of Commons and across the country , ” said Campaign Life national president Jeff Gunnarson .
“ We look forward to seeing all the pro-abortion politicians who are outspoken about equality rights and discrimination based on sex , fumbling their way out of this one .
Will they defend so-called ‘ abortion rights ’ at the cost of equality for all , or are they willing to acknowledge that sex-selective abortions , like all abortions , discriminates and kills a preborn child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We already know that Justin Trudeau is an abortion extremist , and that the Liberals are the party of death which believes in abortion without limits , ” added Jack Fonseca , Campaign Life ’ s director of political operations .
“ Bill C-233 will heap more shame on the heads of pro-abortion , Liberal MPs and pro-aborts in other parties , as we behold the spectacle of fake feminist MPs defending with their votes the most misogynistic practice on the planet : female gendercide abortions which target baby girls just because they @ @ @ @ @

OTTAWA, February 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A Canadian Conservative politician tabled a private member’s bill Wednesday to make it a crime for a medical practitioner to knowingly kill an unborn child solely because of the baby’s sex.
Saskatchewan Member of Parliament (MP) Cathay Wagantall is asking all MPs support Bill C-233, the Sex-Selective Abortion Act, to make the point that “sex-selective abortion is not permissible in a society that advocates for the equality of the sexes,” according to her press release.
“It is true that the majority of Canadians agree with having access to abortions,” said the MP for Yorkton-Melville when introducing the bill. “It is also true that 84 per cent of Canadians stand against sex-selection abortions.”
A Dart & Maru/Blue poll found last month that a majority of Canadians are opposed to late-term and sex-selective abortion and would support making these practices illegal. When it comes to sex-selective abortion the poll found that a “vast majority (84%) oppose legalizing abortion if the family does not want the baby to be a certain sex.”
The Canadian Medical Association Journal reported in January 2012 that Canada has become “a haven for parents who would terminate female fetuses in favour of having sons” because of its advanced prenatal testing and easy access to abortion.
An editorial in the same issue called for testing facilities to withhold the sex of unborn children and said sex-selective abortion was most common among immigrants from India and Southeast Asia. However, the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons rejected the idea.
In 2016, the Canadian Medical Association Journal published a further study based on Ontario data that suggested Indian-born women in the province are choosing to abort their daughters, as abortion is legal and covered by Ontario health insurance.
Titled “Sex ratios at birth after induced abortion,” the study concluded that the “high male:female ratios observed among infants born to women who immigrated from India are associated with induced abortions, especially in the second trimester of pregnancy.”
Conservative politicians attempted to deal with sex-selection abortion, sometimes referred to as “gendercide,” eight years ago, when British Columbia Tory MP Mark Warawa introduced Motion 408 to condemn the practice.
That led to a short-lived revolt of backbench pro-life MPs against Prime Minister Stephen Harper, after his party colluded with the opposition to have the motion declared non-voteable.
It was the beginning of Harper’s crackdown on his MPs introducing private member bills and motions to restrict abortion and even on speaking on the issue, LifeSiteNews reported then.
Opposition leader Andrew Scheer, whose resignation announcement in December has triggered the current leadership race that ends June 27, followed the same tact, vowing he wouldn’t re-open the abortion debate.
“I’ve also made the commitment that as leader of this party it is my responsibility to ensure that we do not re-open this debate, that we focus on issues that unite our party and unite Canadians,” he said while campaigning for the October 2019 federal election that resulted in Justin Trudeau’s current Liberal minority government.
“And that’s exactly what I’ll do and that’s why I’ll vote against measures that attempt to re-open this debate.”
That’s led to questions about what Scheer will make of Wagantall’s bill, according to the Canadian Press, which noted that private member’s bills are difficult to pass but “at minimum can be debated and a vote can take place on whether they get sent along the legislative path” — something that could happen under Scheer’s successor.
Sheer’s spokesman Simon Jefferies told Canadian Press that the Conservative leader “has always discouraged members of his caucus from introducing items that will open this debate.”
Tory MPs would be allowed to vote their conscience on Wagantall’s bill, Jefferies said, but he would not say how Scheer would vote.
“Like the overwhelming majority of Canadians, Mr. Scheer finds the practice of getting an abortion specifically to avoid having a baby girl abhorrent,” Jefferies told the Canadian Press.
This is the second private member’s bill for Wagantall, first elected in 2015. Her Cassie and Molly’s Law, introduced in 2016, did not pass. It would have made it a separate offense to injure or kill an unborn child during a criminal assault on a pregnant woman.
She is urging all MPs to get behind Bill C-233.
“Our silence condones and possibly perpetuates the practice of sex selection,” Wagantall said.
“Canada must act now to condemn this practice and to make it apparent to all that Canada values women and equality. If there is even one female pre-born child who is terminated because of her sex, we need to act.”
Campaign Life Coalition, Canada’s national pro-life, pro-family political lobbying group, praised the legislation.
“We applaud MP Wagantall for bringing forward this legislation, which we hope will force a debate on this issue in the House of Commons and across the country,” said Campaign Life national president Jeff Gunnarson.
“We look forward to seeing all the pro-abortion politicians who are outspoken about equality rights and discrimination based on sex, fumbling their way out of this one. Will they defend so-called ‘abortion rights’ at the cost of equality for all, or are they willing to acknowledge that sex-selective abortions, like all abortions, discriminates and kills a preborn child?” he pointed out.
“We already know that Justin Trudeau is an abortion extremist, and that the Liberals are the party of death which believes in abortion without limits,” added Jack Fonseca, Campaign Life’s director of political operations.
“Bill C-233 will heap more shame on the heads of pro-abortion, Liberal MPs and pro-aborts in other parties, as we behold the spectacle of fake feminist MPs defending with their votes the most misogynistic practice on the planet: female gendercide abortions which target baby girls just because they’re girls.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-28--PBS reboots ‘Clifford the Big Red Dog’ with character having two lesbian ‘moms’

February 28 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – After a seventeen-year production hiatus , PBS has rebooted its enduring favorite , Clifford the Big Red Dog , but with one jarring change : The series now features a child with two lesbian “ moms.
” In the episode where the lesbian characters are introduced , “ The Big Red Tomato/Dogbot , ” the women are not identified as overtly lesbian , but in subsequent installments , the two are both called “ Mom ” by Samantha , the new friend of Emily Elizabeth , who remains the central character in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ red dog , Clifford .
One Million Moms ( 1MM ) director , Monica Cole , sent out a call to action to the organization ’ s followers headlined , “ PBS KIDS is Taking Advantage of Parental Trust , ” which slammed PBS for allowing a continuing infiltration of LGBT characters , personalities , and themes .
In the widely circulated missive , Cole pointed out to her readers that this is part of a trend toward LGBT indoctrination at the formerly child-and-family-safe network : Apparently featuring a same-sex wedding between two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arthur was n't enough for those who are pro-LGBTQ at PBS KIDS .
That happened nine months ago .
And if a same-sex wedding and a same-sex relationship in children ’ s programming weren ’ t enough , PBS recently announced that Sesame Street will feature a drag queen activist wearing a gender-bender tuxedo gown in one of its episodes this year .
Sesame Street posted on its Facebook page : “ Billy Porter bringing those fierce vibes to Sesame Street .
# Season51 ” The post also included a fire emoji which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cool , awesome , exciting , or “ on fire.
” It can also convey that someone is sexy or hot .
Discussion of such controversial topics and lifestyle choices should be left up to parents .
PBS KIDS should not introduce the LGBTQ lifestyle to young children .
PBS KIDS should stick to entertaining and providing family friendly programming , instead of pushing an agenda .
Clifford the Big Red Dog is based on Scholastic Books ’ best selling series by Norman Bridwell , which debuted in 1963 .
The animated PBS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on from 2002 to 2003 and was broadcast in 110 countries .
One of Cole ’ s complaints was that there was no disclaimer at the beginning of the episode alerting parents that a lesbian relationship was about to be introduced to the show ’ s very young viewers .
Last year , the PBS series , Arthur , began its twenty-second season with the surprise “ marriage ” of Arthur the aardvark ’ s teacher Mr. Ratburn to another man .
In the episode , Arthur and his classmates were intrigued to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and begin to investigate who his bride might be .
When the children arrive at the ceremony , they discover that Mr. Ratburn doesn ’ t have a bride .
Instead , he walks down the aisle of the wedding tent on the arm of a male aardvark named Patrick .
Last month , Sesame Street announced an upcoming guest appearance by actor and LGBT activist Billy Porter , best known as Pray Tell in the FX ’ s LGBT ballroom drama Pose and for wearing extravagant dresses .
Porter will appear during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s show , according to Sesame Street ’ s official Facebook page .
In June 2017 , nowadays referred to as “ Pride Month , ” Sesame Street tweeted an image of the show ’ s biggest celebrity character , Elmo , next to his multi-colored Muppet friends – a clear tribute to the `` Gay Pride '' rainbow flag .
The Tweet declared , “ Sesame Street is proud to support families of all shapes , sizes , and colors.
” Later that year , its song “ Anyone Can Play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children ’ s toys and costumes , including the lyrics “ some boys like to play dolls ” while the male character Grover is seen in a purple dress .
“ Many families have already discovered that PBS KIDS , largely supported by federal funds , is anything but family friendly , ” said Cole at the conclusion of her letter .
“ However , 1MM is warning anyone who continues to watch the channel .
”

February 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – After a seventeen-year production hiatus, PBS has rebooted its enduring favorite, Clifford the Big Red Dog, but with one jarring change: The series now features a child with two lesbian “moms.”
In the episode where the lesbian characters are introduced, “The Big Red Tomato/Dogbot,” the women are not identified as overtly lesbian, but in subsequent installments, the two are both called “Mom” by Samantha, the new friend of Emily Elizabeth, who remains the central character in the show along with her loveable gigantic red dog, Clifford.
One Million Moms (1MM) director, Monica Cole, sent out a call to action to the organization’s followers headlined, “PBS KIDS is Taking Advantage of Parental Trust,” which slammed PBS for allowing a continuing infiltration of LGBT characters, personalities, and themes.
In the widely circulated missive, Cole pointed out to her readers that this is part of a trend toward LGBT indoctrination at the formerly child-and-family-safe network:
Apparently featuring a same-sex wedding between two males on the children's animated series Arthur wasn't enough for those who are pro-LGBTQ at PBS KIDS. That happened nine months ago. … And if a same-sex wedding and a same-sex relationship in children’s programming weren’t enough, PBS recently announced that Sesame Street will feature a drag queen activist wearing a gender-bender tuxedo gown in one of its episodes this year. Sesame Street posted on its Facebook page: “Billy Porter bringing those fierce vibes to Sesame Street. #Season51” The post also included a fire emoji which is used to signify that something is cool, awesome, exciting, or “on fire.” It can also convey that someone is sexy or hot. Discussion of such controversial topics and lifestyle choices should be left up to parents. PBS KIDS should not introduce the LGBTQ lifestyle to young children. PBS KIDS should stick to entertaining and providing family friendly programming, instead of pushing an agenda. Clifford the Big Red Dog is based on Scholastic Books’ best selling series by Norman Bridwell, which debuted in 1963. The animated PBS program based on the series originally aired on from 2002 to 2003 and was broadcast in 110 countries.
One of Cole’s complaints was that there was no disclaimer at the beginning of the episode alerting parents that a lesbian relationship was about to be introduced to the show’s very young viewers.
Last year, the PBS series, Arthur, began its twenty-second season with the surprise “marriage” of Arthur the aardvark’s teacher Mr. Ratburn to another man.
In the episode, Arthur and his classmates were intrigued to discover that their teacher is getting married and begin to investigate who his bride might be. When the children arrive at the ceremony, they discover that Mr. Ratburn doesn’t have a bride. Instead, he walks down the aisle of the wedding tent on the arm of a male aardvark named Patrick.
Last month, Sesame Street announced an upcoming guest appearance by actor and LGBT activist Billy Porter, best known as Pray Tell in the FX’s LGBT ballroom drama Pose and for wearing extravagant dresses.
Porter will appear during the 51st season of the beloved children’s show, according to Sesame Street’s official Facebook page.
In June 2017, nowadays referred to as “Pride Month,” Sesame Street tweeted an image of the show’s biggest celebrity character, Elmo, next to his multi-colored Muppet friends – a clear tribute to the “Gay Pride” rainbow flag.
The Tweet declared, “Sesame Street is proud to support families of all shapes, sizes, and colors.”
Sesame Street is proud to support families of all shapes, sizes, and colors. ❤ pic.twitter.com/H3uzD5XwUu — Sesame Street (@sesamestreet) June 23, 2017
Later that year, its song “Anyone Can Play” purported to smash gender norms for children’s toys and costumes, including the lyrics “some boys like to play dolls” while the male character Grover is seen in a purple dress.
“Many families have already discovered that PBS KIDS, largely supported by federal funds, is anything but family friendly,” said Cole at the conclusion of her letter. “However, 1MM is warning anyone who continues to watch the channel.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-28--Gov’t kidnapping part 2: A mom’s worst nightmare, losing her children to the government

PETITION : Demand Norway Gov ’ t return US children to their parents !
Sign the petition here .
February 28 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — When Natalya ’ s husband got a job in Norway and the family decided to move from Georgia to Norway , they never could have imagined that their children would be kidnapped by the Norwegian government .
Despite being investigated and cleared of charges on multiple occasions , Natalya and her husband haven ’ t seen their kids in months .
Today , we ’ re taking a personal look at how Norway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apart families .
In this episode of The Van Maren Show , the second part of our series on Norway , Natalya Shutakova joins Jonathon to speak about the nightmare she and her husband are experiencing having their three children removed .
One day , her daughter lied about not having lunch at school .
When the school called Natalya , she asked the school to look in her daughter ’ s bag , where they found her lunch .
The daughter admitted she had lied .
The following Monday , Natalya ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accused her parents of violence .
She later admitted she lied , and a police investigation showed there was no violence toward any of the children .
Natalya shares the horrific story of the police pounding their door after the kids were already in bed .
The police and child welfare services took the children and put Natalya and her husband in jail for 24 hours .
The kids were put into a foster home that very night .
The police investigated Natalya and her husband for two months and determined there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cleared , the court decided to keep their kids .
The kids were split apart and moved to entirely different cities .
They have been moved to four different families in four different cities in nine months .
Initially , Natalya and her husband were allowed to see their kids for two-hour supervised visits , but since December , they have been denied any contact with their kids .
Natalya couldn ’ t even call her son on his birthday .
The police have opened and shut multiple cases against Natalya and her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents.
” Despite being cleared every time , the court refused to return the children to their family and continues to keep Natalya and her husband from having any contact with the kids .
Natalya shares that she feels that child welfare services is telling her , “ Forget about your past .
They don ’ t belong to you anymore.
” “ If you really cherish the family values , don ’ t go to [ a ] socialist country .
I ’ ve managed to raise three beautiful , healthy children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed anybody ’ s help .
I had it all under control .
And when you come here , they think , well , you need our help .
You need to ask us for help .
If you don ’ t , then our government is going to take over your kids .
We know better how to treat your kids .
We know better how to raise them and to erase all the Christian values that I put into my children ’ s little brains since birth.
” No one is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a family whose kids were taken from them while they were on vacation in Sweden .
Natalya and her husband are continuing to fight for their children , who were all born and raised in America .
Natalya hopes that American officials will start to get involved and save her children .
Through TikTok , her daughter has also called on all the presidents around the world to intervene so she and her siblings can go back home .
The Norwegian court has pushed off the date for the next hearing for Natalya @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 .
They only hope they don ’ t continue to come up with excuses and reasons not to restore their family .
Please sign this urgent petition calling on the U.S. government to intercede for Natalya ’ s family and the other American children who have been taken by the Norwegian government .
We need to end this nightmare and reunite parents with their children .
The Van Maren Show is hosted on numerous platforms , including Spotify , SoundCloud , YouTube , iTunes , and Google Play .
For a full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to various channels , visit our Acast webpage here .
To receive weekly emails when a new episode is uploaded , subscribe below :

An American mother shares her living nightmare after her three children were taken from her by Norwegian child welfare services.
PETITION: Demand Norway Gov’t return US children to their parents! Sign the petition here.
February 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — When Natalya’s husband got a job in Norway and the family decided to move from Georgia to Norway, they never could have imagined that their children would be kidnapped by the Norwegian government. Despite being investigated and cleared of charges on multiple occasions, Natalya and her husband haven’t seen their kids in months.
Today, we’re taking a personal look at how Norway’s child welfare services are tearing apart families. In this episode of The Van Maren Show, the second part of our series on Norway, Natalya Shutakova joins Jonathon to speak about the nightmare she and her husband are experiencing having their three children removed.
One day, her daughter lied about not having lunch at school. When the school called Natalya, she asked the school to look in her daughter’s bag, where they found her lunch. The daughter admitted she had lied.
The following Monday, Natalya’s daughter was upset and sad and accused her parents of violence. She later admitted she lied, and a police investigation showed there was no violence toward any of the children.
Watch the full interview:
Natalya shares the horrific story of the police pounding their door after the kids were already in bed. The police and child welfare services took the children and put Natalya and her husband in jail for 24 hours. The kids were put into a foster home that very night.
The police investigated Natalya and her husband for two months and determined there was no evidence of abuse. Despite being cleared, the court decided to keep their kids. The kids were split apart and moved to entirely different cities. They have been moved to four different families in four different cities in nine months.
Initially, Natalya and her husband were allowed to see their kids for two-hour supervised visits, but since December, they have been denied any contact with their kids. Natalya couldn’t even call her son on his birthday.
The police have opened and shut multiple cases against Natalya and her husband accusing them of being “bad parents.” Despite being cleared every time, the court refused to return the children to their family and continues to keep Natalya and her husband from having any contact with the kids.
Natalya shares that she feels that child welfare services is telling her, “Forget about your past. They don’t belong to you anymore.”
“If you really cherish the family values, don’t go to [a] socialist country. I’ve managed to raise three beautiful, healthy children on my own, and I never needed anybody’s help. I had it all under control. And when you come here, they think, well, you need our help. You need to ask us for help. If you don’t, then our government is going to take over your kids. We know better how to treat your kids. We know better how to raise them and to erase all the Christian values that I put into my children’s little brains since birth.”
No one is immune. Natalya recounts the story of a family whose kids were taken from them while they were on vacation in Sweden.
Listen to the full interview:
Natalya and her husband are continuing to fight for their children, who were all born and raised in America. Natalya hopes that American officials will start to get involved and save her children. Through TikTok, her daughter has also called on all the presidents around the world to intervene so she and her siblings can go back home.
The Norwegian court has pushed off the date for the next hearing for Natalya and her husband from January until April 20. They only hope they don’t continue to come up with excuses and reasons not to restore their family.
Please sign this urgent petition calling on the U.S. government to intercede for Natalya’s family and the other American children who have been taken by the Norwegian government. We need to end this nightmare and reunite parents with their children.
The Van Maren Show is hosted on numerous platforms, including Spotify, SoundCloud, YouTube, iTunes, and Google Play.
For a full listing of episodes, and to subscribe to various channels, visit our Acast webpage here.
To receive weekly emails when a new episode is uploaded, subscribe below:
Email Address *
First Name *
Last Name *


lifesitenews--2020-02-28--Bishop Schneider: The Rite of Holy Communion in times of a pandemic

Editor ’ s note : The following article was first published at Rorate Caeli , and is reprinted with Bishop Schneider ’ s permission .
February 28 , 2020 ( Rorate Caeli ) – Nobody can force us to receive the Body of Christ in a way that constitutes a risk of the loss of the fragments , and a decrease in reverence , as is the way of receiving Communion in the hand .
Although it is true that one could receive Communion on a small white and clean handkerchief ( purificator , small corporal ) directly in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practicable and even refused by some priests .
In these cases , it is better to make a Spiritual Communion , which fills the soul with special graces .
In times of persecution , many Catholics were unable to receive Holy Communion in a sacramental way for long periods of time , but they made a Spiritual Communion with much spiritual benefit .
Communion in the hand is no more hygienic than Communion in the mouth .
Indeed , it can be dangerous for contagion .
From a hygienic point of view , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bacteria .
Many pathogens are transmitted through the hands .
Whether by shaking other people 's hands or frequently touching objects , such as door handles or handrails and grab bars in public transport , germs can quickly pass from hand to hand ; and with these unhygienic hands and fingers people then touch often their nose and mouth .
Also , germs can sometimes survive on the surface of the touched objects for days .
According to a 2006 study , published in the journal `` BMC Infectious Diseases '' , influenza @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inanimate surfaces , such as e.g .
door handles or handrails and handles in transport and public buildings for a few days .
Many people who come to church and then receive Holy Communion in their hands have first touched door handles or handrails and grab bars in public transport or other buildings .
Thus , viruses are imprinted on the palm and fingers of their hands .
And then during Holy Mass with these hands and fingers they are sometimes touching their nose or mouth .
With these hands and fingers they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus also on the host , thus transporting the viruses through the host into their mouth .
Communion in the mouth is certainly less dangerous and more hygienic compared to Communion in the hand .
In fact , the palm and the fingers of the hand , without intense washing , undeniably contain an accumulation of viruses .
The ban on Communion in the mouth is unfounded compared to the great health risks of Communion in the hand in the time of a pandemic .
Such a ban constitutes an abuse of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some Church authorities are using the situation of an epidemic as a pretext .
It seems also that some of them have a kind of cynical joy to spread more and more the process of trivialization and de-sacralization of the Most Holy and Divine Body of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrament , exposing the Body of the Lord himself to the real dangers of irreverence ( loss of fragments ) and sacrileges ( theft of consecrated hosts ) .
Then there is also the fact that during the Church 's 2,000-year history there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the reception of Holy Communion .
In the Byzantine Church the priest gives Communion to the faithful even with a spoon , the same spoon for everyone .
And then , the priest or deacon drinks the wine and water with which he purified the spoon , which was sometimes even touched with the tongue of a faithful during the reception of Holy Communion .
Many faithful of the Eastern churches are scandalized , when they see the lack of faith of bishops and priests of the Latin Rite , as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mouth , a ban made ultimately for lack of faith in the sacred and Divine character of the Body and Blood of the Eucharistic Christ .
If the Church in our day does not endeavor again with the utmost zeal to increase the faith , reverence and security measures for the Body of Christ , all security measures for humans will be in vain .
If the Church in our day will not convert and turn to Christ , giving primacy to Jesus , and namely to Eucharistic Jesus , God will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says : “ Unless the Lord build the house , they labour in vain that build it .
Unless the Lord keep the city , he watches in vain that keeps it ” ( Psalm 126:1-2 ) .
The following prayer for making a Spiritual Communion is recommended : At Thy feet , O my Jesus , I prostrate myself , and I offer Thee the repentance of my contrite heart , which is humbled in its nothingness and in Thy holy presence .
I adore Thee in the Sacrament of Thy love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to receive Thee into the poor dwelling that my heart offers Thee .
While waiting for the happiness of sacramental Communion , I wish to possess Thee in spirit .
Come to me , O my Jesus , since I , for my part , am coming to Thee !
The love embrace my whole being in life and in death .
I believe in Thee , I hope in Thee , I love Thee .
Amen + Athanasius Schneider , Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of St. Mary in Astana

PRAYER PLEDGE: VP Pence is right. We need prayer to fight coronavirus, not political antics! Sign the petition here.
Editor’s note: The following article was first published at Rorate Caeli, and is reprinted with Bishop Schneider’s permission.
February 28, 2020 (Rorate Caeli) – Nobody can force us to receive the Body of Christ in a way that constitutes a risk of the loss of the fragments, and a decrease in reverence, as is the way of receiving Communion in the hand. Although it is true that one could receive Communion on a small white and clean handkerchief (purificator, small corporal) directly in the mouth, this way is not always practicable and even refused by some priests.
In these cases, it is better to make a Spiritual Communion, which fills the soul with special graces. In times of persecution, many Catholics were unable to receive Holy Communion in a sacramental way for long periods of time, but they made a Spiritual Communion with much spiritual benefit.
Communion in the hand is no more hygienic than Communion in the mouth. Indeed, it can be dangerous for contagion. From a hygienic point of view, the hand carries a huge amount of bacteria. Many pathogens are transmitted through the hands. Whether by shaking other people's hands or frequently touching objects, such as door handles or handrails and grab bars in public transport, germs can quickly pass from hand to hand; and with these unhygienic hands and fingers people then touch often their nose and mouth. Also, germs can sometimes survive on the surface of the touched objects for days. According to a 2006 study, published in the journal “BMC Infectious Diseases”, influenza viruses and similar viruses can persist on inanimate surfaces, such as e.g. door handles or handrails and handles in transport and public buildings for a few days.
Many people who come to church and then receive Holy Communion in their hands have first touched door handles or handrails and grab bars in public transport or other buildings. Thus, viruses are imprinted on the palm and fingers of their hands. And then during Holy Mass with these hands and fingers they are sometimes touching their nose or mouth. With these hands and fingers they touch the consecrated host, thus impressing the virus also on the host, thus transporting the viruses through the host into their mouth.
Communion in the mouth is certainly less dangerous and more hygienic compared to Communion in the hand. In fact, the palm and the fingers of the hand, without intense washing, undeniably contain an accumulation of viruses.
The ban on Communion in the mouth is unfounded compared to the great health risks of Communion in the hand in the time of a pandemic. Such a ban constitutes an abuse of authority. Furthermore it seems, that some Church authorities are using the situation of an epidemic as a pretext. It seems also that some of them have a kind of cynical joy to spread more and more the process of trivialization and de-sacralization of the Most Holy and Divine Body of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrament, exposing the Body of the Lord himself to the real dangers of irreverence (loss of fragments) and sacrileges (theft of consecrated hosts).
Then there is also the fact that during the Church's 2,000-year history there were no proven cases of contagion due to the reception of Holy Communion. In the Byzantine Church the priest gives Communion to the faithful even with a spoon, the same spoon for everyone. And then, the priest or deacon drinks the wine and water with which he purified the spoon, which was sometimes even touched with the tongue of a faithful during the reception of Holy Communion. Many faithful of the Eastern churches are scandalized, when they see the lack of faith of bishops and priests of the Latin Rite, as they introduce the ban on receiving Communion in the mouth, a ban made ultimately for lack of faith in the sacred and Divine character of the Body and Blood of the Eucharistic Christ.
If the Church in our day does not endeavor again with the utmost zeal to increase the faith, reverence and security measures for the Body of Christ, all security measures for humans will be in vain. If the Church in our day will not convert and turn to Christ, giving primacy to Jesus, and namely to Eucharistic Jesus, God will show the truth of His Word which says: “Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it. Unless the Lord keep the city, he watches in vain that keeps it” (Psalm 126:1-2).
The following prayer for making a Spiritual Communion is recommended:
At Thy feet, O my Jesus, I prostrate myself, and I offer Thee the repentance of my contrite heart, which is humbled in its nothingness and in Thy holy presence. I adore Thee in the Sacrament of Thy love, the ineffable Eucharist. I desire to receive Thee into the poor dwelling that my heart offers Thee. While waiting for the happiness of sacramental Communion, I wish to possess Thee in spirit. Come to me, O my Jesus, since I, for my part, am coming to Thee! The love embrace my whole being in life and in death. I believe in Thee, I hope in Thee, I love Thee. Amen
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of St. Mary in Astana
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-28--Bishop Schneider releases essay ‘on the question of the true Pope’

Editor ’ s note : LifeSite is here publishing an important text issued today by Bishop Athanasius Schneider commenting on some key questions that have been vexing many faithful Catholics in the midst of the current crisis in the Church under Pope Francis .
On the question of the true pope in the light of the opinion of the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy and the speculations about the resignation of Benedict XVI The hypothesis of the possibility of a heretical pope derives from the Decree of Gratian ( dist .
XL , cap .
6 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to the opinion expressed in this decree , the pope can not be judged by any human authority , except if he has fallen into heresy ( a nemine est iudicandus , nisi deprehendatur a fide devius ) .
Basing themselves on this spurious decree erroneously attributed to St. Boniface ( +754 ) and accepted by Gratian , the Medieval theologians and theologians of the subsequent centuries maintained as possible the hypothesis - but not the certitude - of a heretical pope .
The eventual condemnation of a pope in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council of bishops corresponds to the thesis of mitigated Conciliarism .
The heretical thesis of Conciliarism holds that a Council is superior to the pope .
Even if — according to the opinion of the automatic loss of the papacy for heresy — the judgment of the loss of the papal office is pronounced by the heretical pope upon himself , and he automatically falls from office without any judgment by the Church , such an opinion contains a contradiction and reveals a hint of crypto-conciliarism .
For according to this opinion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of bishops would have to issue an official declaration about the fact of the automatic loss of the papal office .
According to another opinion , the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy would be tantamount to a renunciation of the papal office .
However , one has to bear in mind the inevitable possibility of disagreement among members of the College of Cardinals or the episcopacy regarding whether or not a pope is guilty of heresy .
Hence , there will always be doubts regarding the automatic loss of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not fall into formal heresy in the sense that he would pronounce a heresy ex cathedra .
But according to renowned traditional theologians he can favor heresy or fall into heresy as a private doctor or also as pope , but only in his non-defining and non-definitive Magisterium , which is not infallible .
St. Robert Bellarmine ’ s opinion is that “ a pope who is a manifest heretic , ceases in himself to be Pope and head , just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whereby , he can be judged and punished by the Church ” ( De Romano Pontifice , II , 30 ) .
The opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine and other similar opinions on the loss of the papal office for heresy are based on the spurious decree of Gratian in the Corpus Iuris Canonici .
Such an opinion has never been approved explicitly by the Magisterium or supported by an explicit teaching about its doctrinal validity by the Roman Pontiffs during a considerable period of time .
In fact , this matter has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Magisterium and does not constitute a definitive doctrine pertaining to the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium .
This opinion is supported only by theologians , and not even by all the Fathers of the Church from antiquity .
This opinion was not taught unanimously and universally by the bishops and the popes in their constant Magisterium .
Neither Gratian nor St. Robert Bellarmine , nor St. Alphonsus , nor other renowned theologians asserted with their opinions a doctrine of the Magisterium of the Church .
Even some interventions of individual Fathers of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support the opinion of the automatic loss of the papacy for heresy , remain their personal opinion , but not a formal teaching of the First Vatican Council .
And even if some few popes seemed to support such an opinion ( as e.g .
Innocent III or Paul IV ) , this does not constitute a proof for the constant teaching of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium .
One also can not cite Pope Gregory XVI to support the opinion of the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Triumph of the Holy See and the Church Against the Attacks of the Innovators before he became pope , hence not in his papal Magisterium .
The automatic loss of the papal office by a heretical pope touches not only on the practical or juridical aspects of the life of the Church , but also on the Church ’ s doctrine — in this case , on ecclesiology .
In such a delicate matter , one can not follow an opinion , even if it has been supported by renowned theologians ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alphonsus ) for a considerable period of time .
Instead , one must wait for an explicit and formal decision by the Magisterium of the Church — a decision which the Magisterium has not yet issued .
On the contrary , the Magisterium of the Church , since Popes Pius X and Benedict XV , has seemed to reject such an opinion , as the formulation of the spurious decree of Gratian was eliminated in the Code of Canon Law 1917 .
The canons that address the automatic loss of an ecclesiastical office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canon Law ( canon 188 §4 ) and in the 1983 Code of Canon Law ( canon 194 §2 ) are not applicable to the pope , because the Church deliberately eliminated from the Code of Canon Law the following formulation taken from the previous Corpus Iuris Canonici : “ unless the pope is caught deviating from the faith ( nisi deprehendatur a fide devius ) .
” By this act , the Church manifested her understanding , the mens ecclesiae , regarding this crucial issue .
Even if one does not agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least doubtful .
In doubtful matters , however , one can not proceed to concrete acts with fundamental implications for the life of the Church , such as , e.g.
, not to name an allegedly heretical or an allegedly invalidly elected pope in the Canon of the Mas or preparing for a new papal election .
Even if one supports the opinion of the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy , in the case of Pope Francis , the College of Cardinals or of a representative group of bishops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ automatic loss of papal office , specifying the concrete heretical pronouncements and the date when they happened .
According to the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine , a single bishop , priest , or lay faithful can not state the fact of the loss of papal office for heresy .
Consequently , even if a single bishop or priest is convinced that Pope Francis has committed the crime of heresy , he has no authority to eliminate his name from the Canon of the Mass .
Even if one subscribed to the opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case of Pope Francis doubt still remains , and there is still no statement by the College of Cardinals or a group of bishops , affirming the automatic loss of the papal office and informing the entire Church about this fact .
Faithful Catholics can morally ( but not canonically ) distance themselves from erroneous or evil teachings and acts of a pope .
This has occurred several times in the course of the Church ’ s history .
However , given the principle that one ought to give the benefit of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s superior ( in dubio pro superiore semper sit præsumendum ) , Catholics should also consider the correct teachings of the pope as part of the Magisterium of the Church , his correct decisions as part of the Church ’ s legislation , and his appointments of bishops and cardinals as valid .
For even if one subscribes to the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine , the necessary declaration of the automatic loss of the papal office has still not be issued .
A moral and intellectual “ distancing ” of oneself from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resisting his errors .
However , this should always be done with due respect for the papal office and the person of the Pope .
St. Bridged of Sweden and St. Catherine of Siena , both of whom admonished the popes of their times , are fine examples of such respect .
St. Robert Bellarmine wrote : “ Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body , so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all , tries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will ” ( De Romano Pontifice , II , 29 ) .
Warning people about the danger of a pope ’ s wrong teachings and actions does not require convincing people that he is not the true pope .
This is required by the nature of the Catholic Church as a visible society , in contrast to the Protestant understanding and to the theory of conciliarism or semi-conciliarism , where the convictions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inside the Church are considered as having an effect upon the fact of who is the true and valid shepherd in the Church .
The Church is strong enough and possesses sufficient means to protect the faithful from the spiritual damage of a heretical pope .
In the first place , there is the sensus fidelium , the supernatural sense of the faith ( sensus fidei ) .
It is the gift of the Holy Spirit , by which the members of the Church possess the true sense of the faith .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instinct that makes the faithful sentire cum Ecclesia ( think with the mind of the Church ) and discern what is in conformity with the Catholic and Apostolic faith handed on by all bishops and popes , through the Universal Ordinary Magisterium .
One should also remember the wise words that Cardinal Consalvi spoke to a furious Emperor Napoleon , when the latter threatened to destroy the Church : “ What we , i.e .
the clergy , tried to do and we did not succeed , you for sure , will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say : “ Even a heretical pope can not destroy the Church.
” The Pope and the Church are indeed not totally identical .
The Pope is the visible head of the Militant Church on earth , but at the same time he is also a member of the Mystical Body of Christ .
The sentire cum Ecclesia requires from a true son or daughter of the Church that he or she also praise the pope when he does right things , while asking him to do still more and praying that God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a valiant herald and defender of the Catholic Faith .
The former Pope Benedict XVI is no longer the pope .
It suffices to re-read the core of Pope Benedict XVI ’ s declaration of renunciation to realize what it meant .
The following affirmations of the former Pope Benedict XVI eliminate any reasonable doubts about the validity of his abdication , and his recognition of Pope Francis as the only true pope : “ Among you , in the College of Cardinals , there is also the future pope to whom today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( Farewell address to the Cardinals , 28 February 2013 ) .
“ I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty , but with profound interior serenity ” ( Last General Audience , February 27 , 2013 ) .
“ There is not the slightest doubt about the validity of my renunciation of the Petrine ministry .
The only condition of validity is the full freedom of the decision .
Speculation about the invalidity of renunciation is simply absurd ” ( Letter from February 18 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published in La Stampa , February 27 , 2014 ) .
During a conversation with a journalist from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera , the former Pope Benedict XVI said : “ The Pope is one , he is Francis.
” These words of Benedict XVI were reported in the written edition of Corriere della Sera , June 28 , 2019 and anticipated in the Italian version of Vatican News on June 27 , 2019 .
The Church is a visible society .
Therefore , what was essential for the fulfillment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his possible internal thought but what he externally declared , for the Church does not judge about internal intentions ( de internis non iudicat Ecclesia ) .
Pope Benedict XVI ’ s ambiguous acts , like wearing a white cassock , keeping his name , imparting the apostolic blessing , etc.
, do not affect the unequivocal meaning of his act of renunciation .
Many of his demonstrable and unequivocal words and actions after his resignation also confirm that he considers Pope Francis , and not himself , to be the pope .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pope , either because of his heresies or because of an invalid election ( for reasons of alleged violations of the Conclave norms or for the reason that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope because of his invalid renunciation ) are desperate and subjectively taken actions aimed at remedying the current unprecedented crisis of the papacy .
They are purely human and betray a spiritual myopia .
All such endeavors are ultimately a dead end , a cul-de-sac .
Such solutions reveal an implicit Pelagian approach to resolving a problem with human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which can not be resolved by human efforts , but which requires a divine intervention .
One need only examine similar cases of the deposition of a pope or declaration of the invalidity of his election in Church history to see that they provoked rivaling and combatting claimants to the papal office .
Such situations caused more confusion for the Church than did tolerating a heretical or doubtfully elected pope with the supernatural vision of the Church and trust in Divine Providence .
The Church is ultimately not a human but a divine-human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Christ .
Attempts to resolve the current crisis of the papacy which favor the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine with its concrete solution , or take refuge in the unproven theory of Benedict XVI still being the only true pope , are doomed to fail from the start .
The Church is in the hands of God , even in this most dark time .
We must not be lax in proclaiming Catholic truth and warning and admonishing when papal words and actions clearly harm the faith .
But what all true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do now is launch a serious world-wide crusade of prayer and penance to implore a divine intervention .
Let us trust in the Lord ’ s words : “ Will not God give justice to his elect , who cry to him day and night ?
Will he delay long over them ?
” ( Luke 18:7 ) .
+ Athanasius Schneider , Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Mary in Astana

Editor’s note: LifeSite is here publishing an important text issued today by Bishop Athanasius Schneider commenting on some key questions that have been vexing many faithful Catholics in the midst of the current crisis in the Church under Pope Francis.
On the question of the true pope
in the light of the opinion of the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy
and the speculations about the resignation of Benedict XVI
The hypothesis of the possibility of a heretical pope derives from the Decree of Gratian (dist. XL, cap. 6, col. 146) from the 12th century. According to the opinion expressed in this decree, the pope cannot be judged by any human authority, except if he has fallen into heresy (a nemine est iudicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide devius). Basing themselves on this spurious decree erroneously attributed to St. Boniface (+754) and accepted by Gratian, the Medieval theologians and theologians of the subsequent centuries maintained as possible the hypothesis – but not the certitude – of a heretical pope. The eventual condemnation of a pope in the case of heresy by a so-called imperfect Council of bishops corresponds to the thesis of mitigated Conciliarism. The heretical thesis of Conciliarism holds that a Council is superior to the pope.
Even if — according to the opinion of the automatic loss of the papacy for heresy — the judgment of the loss of the papal office is pronounced by the heretical pope upon himself, and he automatically falls from office without any judgment by the Church, such an opinion contains a contradiction and reveals a hint of crypto-conciliarism. For according to this opinion, the College of Cardinals or a group of bishops would have to issue an official declaration about the fact of the automatic loss of the papal office. According to another opinion, the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy would be tantamount to a renunciation of the papal office. However, one has to bear in mind the inevitable possibility of disagreement among members of the College of Cardinals or the episcopacy regarding whether or not a pope is guilty of heresy. Hence, there will always be doubts regarding the automatic loss of the papal office.
The pope as pope cannot fall into formal heresy in the sense that he would pronounce a heresy ex cathedra. But according to renowned traditional theologians he can favor heresy or fall into heresy as a private doctor or also as pope, but only in his non-defining and non-definitive Magisterium, which is not infallible.
St. Robert Bellarmine’s opinion is that “a pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30). The opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine and other similar opinions on the loss of the papal office for heresy are based on the spurious decree of Gratian in the Corpus Iuris Canonici. Such an opinion has never been approved explicitly by the Magisterium or supported by an explicit teaching about its doctrinal validity by the Roman Pontiffs during a considerable period of time. In fact, this matter has not been decided by the Church’s Magisterium and does not constitute a definitive doctrine pertaining to the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. This opinion is supported only by theologians, and not even by all the Fathers of the Church from antiquity. This opinion was not taught unanimously and universally by the bishops and the popes in their constant Magisterium. Neither Gratian nor St. Robert Bellarmine, nor St. Alphonsus, nor other renowned theologians asserted with their opinions a doctrine of the Magisterium of the Church. Even some interventions of individual Fathers of the First Vatican Council, which seem to support the opinion of the automatic loss of the papacy for heresy, remain their personal opinion, but not a formal teaching of the First Vatican Council. And even if some few popes seemed to support such an opinion (as e.g. Innocent III or Paul IV), this does not constitute a proof for the constant teaching of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. One also cannot cite Pope Gregory XVI to support the opinion of the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy. For he supported this thesis in his book The Triumph of the Holy See and the Church Against the Attacks of the Innovators before he became pope, hence not in his papal Magisterium.
The automatic loss of the papal office by a heretical pope touches not only on the practical or juridical aspects of the life of the Church, but also on the Church’s doctrine — in this case, on ecclesiology. In such a delicate matter, one cannot follow an opinion, even if it has been supported by renowned theologians (such as St. Robert Bellarmine or St. Alphonsus) for a considerable period of time. Instead, one must wait for an explicit and formal decision by the Magisterium of the Church — a decision which the Magisterium has not yet issued.
On the contrary, the Magisterium of the Church, since Popes Pius X and Benedict XV, has seemed to reject such an opinion, as the formulation of the spurious decree of Gratian was eliminated in the Code of Canon Law 1917. The canons that address the automatic loss of an ecclesiastical office for heresy in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (canon 188 §4) and in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (canon 194 §2) are not applicable to the pope, because the Church deliberately eliminated from the Code of Canon Law the following formulation taken from the previous Corpus Iuris Canonici: “unless the pope is caught deviating from the faith (nisi deprehendatur a fide devius).” By this act, the Church manifested her understanding, the mens ecclesiae, regarding this crucial issue. Even if one does not agree with this conclusion, the matter remains at least doubtful. In doubtful matters, however, one cannot proceed to concrete acts with fundamental implications for the life of the Church, such as, e.g., not to name an allegedly heretical or an allegedly invalidly elected pope in the Canon of the Mass or preparing for a new papal election.
Even if one supports the opinion of the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy, in the case of Pope Francis, the College of Cardinals or of a representative group of bishops has not issued a declaration regarding the automatic loss of papal office, specifying the concrete heretical pronouncements and the date when they happened.
According to the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, a single bishop, priest, or lay faithful cannot state the fact of the loss of papal office for heresy. Consequently, even if a single bishop or priest is convinced that Pope Francis has committed the crime of heresy, he has no authority to eliminate his name from the Canon of the Mass.
Even if one subscribed to the opinion of St Robert Bellarmine, in the case of Pope Francis doubt still remains, and there is still no statement by the College of Cardinals or a group of bishops, affirming the automatic loss of the papal office and informing the entire Church about this fact.
Faithful Catholics can morally (but not canonically) distance themselves from erroneous or evil teachings and acts of a pope. This has occurred several times in the course of the Church’s history. However, given the principle that one ought to give the benefit of the doubt regarding the position of one’s superior (in dubio pro superiore semper sit præsumendum), Catholics should also consider the correct teachings of the pope as part of the Magisterium of the Church, his correct decisions as part of the Church’s legislation, and his appointments of bishops and cardinals as valid. For even if one subscribes to the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, the necessary declaration of the automatic loss of the papal office has still not be issued.
A moral and intellectual “distancing” of oneself from erroneous teachings of a pope also includes resisting his errors. However, this should always be done with due respect for the papal office and the person of the Pope. St. Bridged of Sweden and St. Catherine of Siena, both of whom admonished the popes of their times, are fine examples of such respect. St. Robert Bellarmine wrote: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 29).
Warning people about the danger of a pope’s wrong teachings and actions does not require convincing people that he is not the true pope. This is required by the nature of the Catholic Church as a visible society, in contrast to the Protestant understanding and to the theory of conciliarism or semi-conciliarism, where the convictions of an individual or of a particular group inside the Church are considered as having an effect upon the fact of who is the true and valid shepherd in the Church.
The Church is strong enough and possesses sufficient means to protect the faithful from the spiritual damage of a heretical pope. In the first place, there is the sensus fidelium, the supernatural sense of the faith (sensus fidei). It is the gift of the Holy Spirit, by which the members of the Church possess the true sense of the faith. This is a kind of spiritual and supernatural instinct that makes the faithful sentire cum Ecclesia (think with the mind of the Church) and discern what is in conformity with the Catholic and Apostolic faith handed on by all bishops and popes, through the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
One should also remember the wise words that Cardinal Consalvi spoke to a furious Emperor Napoleon, when the latter threatened to destroy the Church: “What we, i.e. the clergy, tried to do and we did not succeed, you for sure, will not succeed.” Paraphrasing these words one could say: “Even a heretical pope cannot destroy the Church.” The Pope and the Church are indeed not totally identical. The Pope is the visible head of the Militant Church on earth, but at the same time he is also a member of the Mystical Body of Christ.
The sentire cum Ecclesia requires from a true son or daughter of the Church that he or she also praise the pope when he does right things, while asking him to do still more and praying that God enlightens him so that he may become a valiant herald and defender of the Catholic Faith.
The former Pope Benedict XVI is no longer the pope. It suffices to re-read the core of Pope Benedict XVI’s declaration of renunciation to realize what it meant. The following affirmations of the former Pope Benedict XVI eliminate any reasonable doubts about the validity of his abdication, and his recognition of Pope Francis as the only true pope: “Among you, in the College of Cardinals, there is also the future pope to whom today I promise my unconditional reverence and obedience” (Farewell address to the Cardinals, 28 February 2013). “I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty, but with profound interior serenity” (Last General Audience, February 27, 2013). “There is not the slightest doubt about the validity of my renunciation of the Petrine ministry. The only condition of validity is the full freedom of the decision. Speculation about the invalidity of renunciation is simply absurd” (Letter from February 18, 2014, to Andrea Tornielli, published in La Stampa, February 27, 2014). During a conversation with a journalist from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, the former Pope Benedict XVI said: “The Pope is one, he is Francis.” These words of Benedict XVI were reported in the written edition of Corriere della Sera, June 28, 2019 and anticipated in the Italian version of Vatican News on June 27, 2019.
The Church is a visible society. Therefore, what was essential for the fulfillment of Benedict XVI’s resignation was not his possible internal thought but what he externally declared, for the Church does not judge about internal intentions (de internis non iudicat Ecclesia). Pope Benedict XVI’s ambiguous acts, like wearing a white cassock, keeping his name, imparting the apostolic blessing, etc., do not affect the unequivocal meaning of his act of renunciation. Many of his demonstrable and unequivocal words and actions after his resignation also confirm that he considers Pope Francis, and not himself, to be the pope.
Declaring Pope Francis to be an invalid pope, either because of his heresies or because of an invalid election (for reasons of alleged violations of the Conclave norms or for the reason that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope because of his invalid renunciation) are desperate and subjectively taken actions aimed at remedying the current unprecedented crisis of the papacy. They are purely human and betray a spiritual myopia. All such endeavors are ultimately a dead end, a cul-de-sac. Such solutions reveal an implicit Pelagian approach to resolving a problem with human means; a problem, indeed, which cannot be resolved by human efforts, but which requires a divine intervention.
One need only examine similar cases of the deposition of a pope or declaration of the invalidity of his election in Church history to see that they provoked rivaling and combatting claimants to the papal office.
Such situations caused more confusion for the Church than did tolerating a heretical or doubtfully elected pope with the supernatural vision of the Church and trust in Divine Providence.
The Church is ultimately not a human but a divine-human reality. She is the Mystical Body of Christ. Attempts to resolve the current crisis of the papacy which favor the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine with its concrete solution, or take refuge in the unproven theory of Benedict XVI still being the only true pope, are doomed to fail from the start. The Church is in the hands of God, even in this most dark time.
We must not be lax in proclaiming Catholic truth and warning and admonishing when papal words and actions clearly harm the faith. But what all true sons and daughters of the Church ought to do now is launch a serious world-wide crusade of prayer and penance to implore a divine intervention. Let us trust in the Lord’s words: “Will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them?” (Luke 18:7).
February 28, 2020
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Mary in Astana
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-28--Red Rose Rescue to host its first national conference in April

February 28 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Red Rose Rescue , a budding pro-life campaign inspired by Canadian activist Mary Wagner , is holding its first national conference this April in Bridgeton , Missouri .
The Red Rose Rescues are something of a revival of successful tactics used during the early days of the pro-life movement , before the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances Act ( FACE ) imposed harsh penalties on pro-lifers who save babies by physically blocking “ access ” to abortion facilities .
Red Rose Rescuers enter abortion facilities , offer the women inside roses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are threatened with arrest .
There have been 16 Red Rose Rescues in the U.S. since 2017 .
All but one have resulted in the arrest of the peaceful pro-life activists .
Charges have been dropped a number of times , notably in federal court ; others have ended in trespassing convictions .
The state of Michigan has treated rescuers the most harshly , jailing pro-lifers and even charging four with felony obstruction of officers .
Michigan ’ s attorney general is a lesbian in a same-sex “ marriage.
” Rescuers have ranged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On March 24 and April 3 , rescuers will again be on trial for their baby-saving efforts , this time in Morristown and Trenton , New Jersey .
The judges in these cases have permitted a necessity defense , under which the pro-lifers admit that they did in fact break the law but argue it was necessary for them to do so to stop greater harm from happening .
In both cases , the defense lawyers will seek to present expert testimony to show that abortion harms women .
No Red Rose Rescuers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They describe their campaign as “ the Gospel of Life lived in words and deeds of merciful love.
” Red Rose Rescuers stay in the place of execution in solidarity with their abandoned brothers and sisters performing a non-violent act of defense through their continued presence inside the killing centers remaining with them for as long as they can .
The Rescuers stay with the abandoned unborn , as the manifestation of our love for them recognizing that unborn children , as members of the human family , have a right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave the unwanted , but must be “ taken away.
” Organizer Dr. Monica Migliorino Miller , author of Abandoned : The Untold Story of the Abortion Wars and head of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society , told LifeSiteNews that she hopes this conference “ will be a real opportunity for people to learn about Red Rose Rescues , to understand the spiritual principles of defending the unborn by entering the clinics and talking to the mothers.
” “ We want to help pro-lifers see that the Red Rose Rescues are a real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for execution , the defenseless unborn , ” she said .
“ We hope to inspire pro-lifers go that extra step and offer this act of defense to the unborn about to be aborted , in loving their mothers , an act of defense to which each unborn child is entitled.
” Following her conviction in Canada last year for trespassing and interference with the operation of an abortion business , Mary Wagner said : “ This conviction is nothing I am ashamed of .
On the contrary , I am pleased that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence to conclude that I interfered with the business of destroying helpless unborn children , who remain unprotected and abandoned by the courts.
” Renowned moral theologian Professor Janet Smith , the “ godfather ” of the pro-life movement Joseph Schiedler , and Red Rose Rescuer Father Fidelis Moscinski , CFR are some of the luminaries slated to speak at the conference .
The conference , of which LifeSiteNews is a sponsor , will be held the evening of Friday , April 24 through Saturday , April at 25 Embassy Suites Hotel St. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 75 includes access to informative workshops , talks by exciting speakers , hors d'oeuvres Friday night , and breakfast and a boxed lunch Saturday .
Room reservations will need to be made separately by calling the hotel and asking for reservations under “ Citizens for a Pro-Life Society.
” “ It 's time for the pro-life movement to revisit the feasibility of the rescue movement and this conference is a great way–indeed the best way , right now , to do just that , ” said Miller .

'It's time for the pro-life movement to revisit the feasibility of the rescue movement.'
February 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Red Rose Rescue, a budding pro-life campaign inspired by Canadian activist Mary Wagner, is holding its first national conference this April in Bridgeton, Missouri.
The Red Rose Rescues are something of a revival of successful tactics used during the early days of the pro-life movement, before the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) imposed harsh penalties on pro-lifers who save babies by physically blocking “access” to abortion facilities.
Red Rose Rescuers enter abortion facilities, offer the women inside roses, and refuse to leave even if they are threatened with arrest. There have been 16 Red Rose Rescues in the U.S. since 2017. All but one have resulted in the arrest of the peaceful pro-life activists. Charges have been dropped a number of times, notably in federal court; others have ended in trespassing convictions. The state of Michigan has treated rescuers the most harshly, jailing pro-lifers and even charging four with felony obstruction of officers. Michigan’s attorney general is a lesbian in a same-sex “marriage.”
Rescuers have ranged in age from 21 to 65.
On March 24 and April 3, rescuers will again be on trial for their baby-saving efforts, this time in Morristown and Trenton, New Jersey. The judges in these cases have permitted a necessity defense, under which the pro-lifers admit that they did in fact break the law but argue it was necessary for them to do so to stop greater harm from happening. In both cases, the defense lawyers will seek to present expert testimony to show that abortion harms women.
No Red Rose Rescuers have been charged under FACE, however.
They describe their campaign as “the Gospel of Life lived in words and deeds of merciful love.”
Red Rose Rescuers stay in the place of execution in solidarity with their abandoned brothers and sisters performing a non-violent act of defense through their continued presence inside the killing centers remaining with them for as long as they can. The Rescuers stay with the abandoned unborn, as the manifestation of our love for them recognizing that unborn children, as members of the human family, have a right to be defended. The rescuers will not leave the unwanted, but must be “taken away.”
Organizer Dr. Monica Migliorino Miller, author of Abandoned: The Untold Story of the Abortion Wars and head of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, told LifeSiteNews that she hopes this conference “will be a real opportunity for people to learn about Red Rose Rescues, to understand the spiritual principles of defending the unborn by entering the clinics and talking to the mothers.”
“We want to help pro-lifers see that the Red Rose Rescues are a real practical act of charity for those scheduled for execution, the defenseless unborn,” she said. “We hope to inspire pro-lifers go that extra step and offer this act of defense to the unborn about to be aborted, in loving their mothers, an act of defense to which each unborn child is entitled.”
Following her conviction in Canada last year for trespassing and interference with the operation of an abortion business, Mary Wagner said: “This conviction is nothing I am ashamed of. On the contrary, I am pleased that the court has found there is enough evidence to conclude that I interfered with the business of destroying helpless unborn children, who remain unprotected and abandoned by the courts.”
Renowned moral theologian Professor Janet Smith, the “godfather” of the pro-life movement Joseph Schiedler, and Red Rose Rescuer Father Fidelis Moscinski, CFR are some of the luminaries slated to speak at the conference.
The conference, of which LifeSiteNews is a sponsor, will be held the evening of Friday, April 24 through Saturday, April at 25 Embassy Suites Hotel St. Louis Airport.
The registration fee of $75 includes access to informative workshops, talks by exciting speakers, hors d'oeuvres Friday night, and breakfast and a boxed lunch Saturday. Room reservations will need to be made separately by calling the hotel and asking for reservations under “Citizens for a Pro-Life Society.”
“It's time for the pro-life movement to revisit the feasibility of the rescue movement and this conference is a great way–indeed the best way, right now, to do just that,” said Miller.
Register by clicking HERE.
Share