lifesitenews--2020-01-24--WATCH: Pro-life women jump in front of pro-abortion ‘women’s march’ with stunning message

WASHINGTON , D.C. , January 24 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Students for Life of America ( SFLA ) has produced a video showing them crashing the pro-abortion “ Women ’ s March ” last week in Washington D.C. , and at one point leading the march with pro-life signs while chanting pro-life slogans .
The group arrived at the march with banners calling for “ equal rights for all women -- born and reborn ” and chanted “ abortion hurts women.
” Kate Maloney , SFLA northeast regional coordinator who attended the event and appears in the video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crashed the Women ’ s March as “ amazing.
” “ We really stirred things up … so many times people think that Planned Parenthood or , NARAL or the abortion agenda is something that is pro-woman and I 'm here to tell you and the pro-life generation is here to tell you that it is not , ” Maloney said .
“ Women do n't need abortion to be liberated , or to be in a working world , or to be the same as men , ” Maloney added .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman to think that abortion is somehow in any way a gift to me or to help me liberate myself .
I would never want to liberate myself by decimating somebody else .
That 's not liberation , that 's a lie .
It 's a lie that 's been fed to women everywhere.
” SFLA president Kristan Hawkins said , “ The Women ’ s March claims to stand for ‘ ending violence ’ yet supports the violence of abortion and ignores the convictions of more than half of all women who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important , too.
” SFLA executive vice president Tina Whittington , who attended the event , said , “ The Women ’ s March is a dying organization with mixed messages and no clarion call .
Their radical leftist message shows just how out of touch they are with the rest of the country .
While today ’ s event showcased a mixed bag of issues , the majority of the marchers shared their support of a radical abortion agenda , with many saying that they were fine with abortion through all nine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ braved the cold to make sure that the one point of view not represented at the March would be heard – a voice speaking up for the 1,500 baby girls who are lost each day to the violence of abortion , ” Whittington added .
“ If we want equal rights for women , we can not forget the most vulnerable , those still in the womb .
”

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Students for Life of America (SFLA) has produced a video showing them crashing the pro-abortion “Women’s March” last week in Washington D.C., and at one point leading the march with pro-life signs while chanting pro-life slogans.
The group arrived at the march with banners calling for “equal rights for all women — born and preborn” and chanted “abortion hurts women.”
Kate Maloney, SFLA northeast regional coordinator who attended the event and appears in the video, described the moment when the group crashed the Women’s March as “amazing.”
“We really stirred things up … so many times people think that Planned Parenthood or, NARAL or the abortion agenda is something that is pro-woman and I'm here to tell you and the pro-life generation is here to tell you that it is not,” Maloney said.
“Women don't need abortion to be liberated, or to be in a working world, or to be the same as men,” Maloney added. “That is insulting to me as a woman to think that abortion is somehow in any way a gift to me or to help me liberate myself. I would never want to liberate myself by decimating somebody else. That's not liberation, that's a lie. It's a lie that's been fed to women everywhere.”
SFLA president Kristan Hawkins said, “The Women’s March claims to stand for ‘ending violence’ yet supports the violence of abortion and ignores the convictions of more than half of all women who believe that women in the womb are important, too.”
SFLA executive vice president Tina Whittington, who attended the event, said, “The Women’s March is a dying organization with mixed messages and no clarion call. Their radical leftist message shows just how out of touch they are with the rest of the country. While today’s event showcased a mixed bag of issues, the majority of the marchers shared their support of a radical abortion agenda, with many saying that they were fine with abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.”
“Our students braved the cold to make sure that the one point of view not represented at the March would be heard – a voice speaking up for the 1,500 baby girls who are lost each day to the violence of abortion,” Whittington added. “If we want equal rights for women, we cannot forget the most vulnerable, those still in the womb.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-25--BREAKING: One dead after car crashes into Covington Catholic March for Life bus

CAMPBELL COUNTY , Kentucky , January 25 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) ― A man is dead after driving his car into the path of a bus taking students from Covington Catholic High School home from the March for Life .
Fox News reported that the “ Gold Shield Transportation ” charter bus and a car collided on the AA Highway and California Crossroads intersection around 7 AM this morning .
Catholic News Agency ( CNA ) reported that the bus was carrying students from Covington Catholic High School and their chaperones .
A priest on the bus gave “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At least four other people were injured in the crash , and at least two were taken to hospital .
According to local news station WLWT , the front passenger side of the bus was damaged by the impact , and the children on board climbed out the windows to escape .
A witness told Fox News that he saw the car driving straight at him at about 6:30 AM this morning , on the wrong side of the road , when he got out of the way .
On his way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had crashed into the bus .
Although Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann attended the March for Life , it is not known if he was on this bus or on one of the other three buses in the convoy taking the students home .
There were a total of 200 people aboard the buses .
The Diocese of Covington has released a statement saying : `` This morning , a bus carrying students and chaperones home from the March for Life in Washington , DC was involved in an accident .
EMT personnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the scene and are handling the matter .
Please join us in praying for everyone involved in this accident . ''
Covington Catholic High School made international news after last year 's March for Life , when the mainstream media claimed a video showed a group of its students harassing an elderly Native American veteran on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial .
But additional extended video and firsthand accounts soon revealed that the man , Nathan Phillips , was the one who waded into the group waiting for its bus and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ student Nick Sandmann ’ s face .
In fact , it was a number of adults with a group called the `` Black Israelites '' who had begun the confrontation by shouting racial abuse at the students .
The Covington Catholic boys performed school cheers in an attempt to drown out the harassment , and did not respond to adults ’ insults and abuse in kind .
In the wake of these revelations , journalists and other public figures quickly deleted their snap condemnations of the students , while some either tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to unequivocally retract or apologize for their initial claims , leading to various lawsuits on behalf of the boys .
Sandmann filed defamation suits against the networks , including a $ 250 million suit against CNN for broadcasting into “ millions of homes ” the “ idea that [ Sandmann ] was part of a mob ... yelling racist slurs , ” according to attorney L. Lin Wood .
On January 7 , the suit against CNN was settled for an as-yet-undisclosed sum .

At least four other people were injured in the crash, and at least two were taken to hospital.
CAMPBELL COUNTY, Kentucky, January 25, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― A man is dead after driving his car into the path of a bus taking students from Covington Catholic High School home from the March for Life.
Fox News reported that the “Gold Shield Transportation” charter bus and a car collided on the AA Highway and California Crossroads intersection around 7 AM this morning.
Catholic News Agency (CNA) reported that the bus was carrying students from Covington Catholic High School and their chaperones. A priest on the bus gave “a final blessing” to the driver. At least four other people were injured in the crash, and at least two were taken to hospital. According to local news station WLWT, the front passenger side of the bus was damaged by the impact, and the children on board climbed out the windows to escape.
A witness told Fox News that he saw the car driving straight at him at about 6:30 AM this morning, on the wrong side of the road, when he got out of the way. On his way back, he saw that the car had crashed into the bus.
Although Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann attended the March for Life, it is not known if he was on this bus or on one of the other three buses in the convoy taking the students home. There were a total of 200 people aboard the buses.
The Diocese of Covington has released a statement saying: “This morning, a bus carrying students and chaperones home from the March for Life in Washington, DC was involved in an accident. EMT personnel and the Campbell County police have been at the scene and are handling the matter. Please join us in praying for everyone involved in this accident.”
Covington Catholic High School made international news after last year's March for Life, when the mainstream media claimed a video showed a group of its students harassing an elderly Native American veteran on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. But additional extended video and firsthand accounts soon revealed that the man, Nathan Phillips, was the one who waded into the group waiting for its bus and decided to beat a drum inches from student Nick Sandmann’s face.
In fact, it was a number of adults with a group called the “Black Israelites” who had begun the confrontation by shouting racial abuse at the students. The Covington Catholic boys performed school cheers in an attempt to drown out the harassment, and did not respond to adults’ insults and abuse in kind.
In the wake of these revelations, journalists and other public figures quickly deleted their snap condemnations of the students, while some either tried to keep the original narrative alive or refused to unequivocally retract or apologize for their initial claims, leading to various lawsuits on behalf of the boys.
Sandmann filed defamation suits against the networks, including a $250 million suit against CNN for broadcasting into “millions of homes” the “idea that [Sandmann] was part of a mob…yelling racist slurs,” according to attorney L. Lin Wood.
On January 7, the suit against CNN was settled for an as-yet-undisclosed sum.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-27--Soros announces billion-dollar university network to advance leftist values

January 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Far-left billionaire financier George Soros is launching an international network for educational institutions for the purpose of advancing his interpretation of “ democratic values ” and combatting the rise of “ nationalism , ” he announced at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland .
The new Open Society University Network ( OSUN ) will be a platform to support teaching and research , available for all existing universities to join , Forbes reported .
Soros ’ New York-based Open Society Foundation ( OSF ) will be providing $ 1 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this “ innovative educational network that the world really needs ” will be the “ most important project of my life , ” Soros said .
He added that part of its purposes will be to push back against “ would-be or actual dictators ” leading the world ’ s most influential nations , Radio Free Europe added , although he listed the United States under President Donald Trump alongside actual authoritarian states , such as Vladimir Putin ’ s Russia and Xi Jinping ’ s China .
“ When his fantasy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ) narcissism developed a pathological dimension , ” Soros claimed .
“ He has transgressed the limits imposed on the presidency by the Constitution and has been impeached for it.
” In fact , the impeachment is about the propriety of seeking an investigation into the foreign dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s family , and whether the delivery of foreign aid to Ukraine was made dependent on that investigation .
“ In Soros ’ s view , it is high time ( for ) Open Society Foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ myriad endeavours to advance an ideologically-driven political agenda , to build on his previous efforts and develop ‘ a new and innovative educational network that the world really needs , ’ ” Dr. Zoltán Kovács , Hungary ’ s Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Relations , wrote in response to the news , Breitbart reported .
“ As we ’ ve said before , the international media and advocates of globalism enjoy referring to Mr. Soros as a ‘ philanthropist ’ engaged in ‘ charitable giving , ’ ” Kovács went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to do is listen to Soros himself .
He ’ s pretty clear about his determination to push his open society agenda.
” Soros is an avowed progressive , foe of Republicans generally and Trump specifically , and a prolific financier of left-wing causes throughout the United States and around the world , including abortion , euthanasia , population control , same-sex “ marriage , ” transgenderism , and more .
His OSF spends $ 940 million annually in 100 different countries , including $ 150 million per year funding the left-wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the leading abortion company Planned Parenthood , and other liberal groups .
He invested $ 5.1 million in a super PAC dedicated to funding groups working against Trump ’ s re-election ; and is an aggressive supporter of the European Union who has spent money in hopes of influencing the elections of multiple European nations .

The billionaire's objective is to squelch world leaders he considers 'would-be or actual dictators,' including Donald Trump along with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
January 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Far-left billionaire financier George Soros is launching an international network for educational institutions for the purpose of advancing his interpretation of “democratic values” and combatting the rise of “nationalism,” he announced at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
The new Open Society University Network (OSUN) will be a platform to support teaching and research, available for all existing universities to join, Forbes reported. Soros’ New York-based Open Society Foundation (OSF) will be providing $1 billion to establish it.
The creation of this “innovative educational network that the world really needs” will be the “most important project of my life,” Soros said. He added that part of its purposes will be to push back against “would-be or actual dictators” leading the world’s most influential nations, Radio Free Europe added, although he listed the United States under President Donald Trump alongside actual authoritarian states, such as Vladimir Putin’s Russia and Xi Jinping’s China.
“When his fantasy of becoming President came true, (Trump’s) narcissism developed a pathological dimension,” Soros claimed. “He has transgressed the limits imposed on the presidency by the Constitution and has been impeached for it.” In fact, the impeachment is about the propriety of seeking an investigation into the foreign dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden’s family, and whether the delivery of foreign aid to Ukraine was made dependent on that investigation.
“In Soros’s view, it is high time (for) Open Society Foundation, the vehicle through which he funds myriad endeavours to advance an ideologically-driven political agenda, to build on his previous efforts and develop ‘a new and innovative educational network that the world really needs,’” Dr. Zoltán Kovács, Hungary’s Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Relations, wrote in response to the news, Breitbart reported.
“As we’ve said before, the international media and advocates of globalism enjoy referring to Mr. Soros as a ‘philanthropist’ engaged in ‘charitable giving,’” Kovács went on. “But all you really have to do is listen to Soros himself. He’s pretty clear about his determination to push his open society agenda.”
Soros is an avowed progressive, foe of Republicans generally and Trump specifically, and a prolific financier of left-wing causes throughout the United States and around the world, including abortion, euthanasia, population control, same-sex “marriage,” transgenderism, and more.
His OSF spends $940 million annually in 100 different countries, including $150 million per year funding the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the leading abortion company Planned Parenthood, and other liberal groups. He invested $5.1 million in a super PAC dedicated to funding groups working against Trump’s re-election; and is an aggressive supporter of the European Union who has spent money in hopes of influencing the elections of multiple European nations.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-27--Buttigieg: I’d be ‘tricking’ pro-life Democrats if I said they had place in party

January 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – South Bend , Indiana Mayor and Democrat presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg rejected an appeal this weekend for token language in the party platform representing pro-life Democrats , reiterating his support for virtually-unlimited abortions throughout the entirety of pregnancy .
During a candidate town hall hosted by Fox News , Democrats for Life executive director Kristen Day asked Buttigieg whether he wants the support of pro-life Democrats and would “ support more moderate platform language in the Democratic Party to ensure the party of diversity and inclusion really does include everybody , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'm not going to try to earn your vote by tricking you .
I am pro-choice , and I believe that a woman ought to be able to make that decision , '' Buttigieg answered .
`` But I know that the difference of opinion that you and I have is one that we have come by honestly .
And the best that I can offer ... is that , if we ca n't agree on where to draw the line , the next best thing we can do is agree on who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my view , it 's the woman who is faced with that decision in her own life , '' he added .
`` I support the position of my party that this kind of medical care needs to be available to everyone , '' he said .
`` And I support the Roe v. Wade framework that holds that early in pregnancy , there are very few restrictions and later in pregnancy , there are very few exceptions .
And again , the best I can offer is that we may disagree on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we 'll be able to partner on other issues . ''
`` I can not imagine that a decision that a woman confronts is going to ever be better medically or morally because it 's being dictated by any government official , ” he claimed .
“ And that 's just where I am on the issue . ''
`` The Democratic platform contains language that basically says that we do n't belong , we have no part in the party because it says abortion should be legal up to nine months ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she said after the event .
“ And there 's nothing that says that people that have a diversity of views on this issue should be included in the party . ''
The Democrat Party platform has grown more uncompromisingly pro-abortion over the past decade , dropping language claiming to believe abortion should be “ rare ” and making more overt its support for direct taxpayer funding of abortion .
Over the past year , the vast majority of House Democrats have gone so far as to oppose legislation .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrat Party more palatable to pro-life voters would advance the cause of life , however .
While individual lawmakers can technically vote against their party ’ s official position on any given issue , their party affiliation decides which party ’ s leaders have majority control over the House or Senate .
This influences legislation ’ s fortunes in various ways , including scheduling votes , setting procedural rules , controlling committees , and more .
“ Remember , the Speaker of the House ultimately determines the legislative agenda and if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chamber , its candidate for speaker will inevitably be pro-abortion , ” Life Training Institute president Scott Klusendorf has argued .
“ Nevertheless , these pro-life members vote for their party ’ s candidate for speaker , which all but guarantees that pro-life bills never see the light of day .
In most cases , then , they aren ’ t reforming their party ’ s pro-abortion stance ; they ’ re enabling it.
” It is on these grounds that Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has justified her own endorsements of rare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters in 2018 that the re-election of Rep. Dan Lipinski ( D-IL ) would contribute to securing “ a pro-choice gavel when we win the Congress.
” Buttigieg ’ s pro-abortion platform also includes appointing pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court and making the abortion drug RU-486 available over the counter .
As mayor of South Bend , he vetoed Women ’ s Care Center ’ s re-zoning application to build a pro-life pregnancy center near the site of a proposed abortion center , and has largely dodged questions about the discovery of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property of a deceased area abortionist .
In addition , he has misrepresented Scripture as suggesting that “ life begins with breath , ” for which his own brother-in-law Rhyan Glezman labeled him “ a “ modern-day pharisee.
” Buttigieg currently places fifth in RealClearPolitics ’ national polling average of the Democrat primary , with 7.1 percent .

'I'm not going to try to earn your vote by tricking you. I am pro-choice,' he said.
January 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – South Bend, Indiana Mayor and Democrat presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg rejected an appeal this weekend for token language in the party platform representing pro-life Democrats, reiterating his support for virtually-unlimited abortions throughout the entirety of pregnancy.
During a candidate town hall hosted by Fox News, Democrats for Life executive director Kristen Day asked Buttigieg whether he wants the support of pro-life Democrats and would “support more moderate platform language in the Democratic Party to ensure the party of diversity and inclusion really does include everybody,” the Washington Examiner reports.
“I'm not going to try to earn your vote by tricking you. I am pro-choice, and I believe that a woman ought to be able to make that decision,” Buttigieg answered.
“But I know that the difference of opinion that you and I have is one that we have come by honestly. And the best that I can offer…is that, if we can't agree on where to draw the line, the next best thing we can do is agree on who should draw the line. And in my view, it's the woman who is faced with that decision in her own life,” he added.
“I support the position of my party that this kind of medical care needs to be available to everyone,” he said. “And I support the Roe v. Wade framework that holds that early in pregnancy, there are very few restrictions and later in pregnancy, there are very few exceptions. And again, the best I can offer is that we may disagree on that very important issue, and hopefully we'll be able to partner on other issues.”
“I cannot imagine that a decision that a woman confronts is going to ever be better medically or morally because it's being dictated by any government official,” he claimed. “And that's just where I am on the issue.”
Buttigieg’s answer did not leave Day satisfied.
“The Democratic platform contains language that basically says that we don't belong, we have no part in the party because it says abortion should be legal up to nine months; the government should pay for it,” she said after the event. “And there's nothing that says that people that have a diversity of views on this issue should be included in the party.”
The Democrat Party platform has grown more uncompromisingly pro-abortion over the past decade, dropping language claiming to believe abortion should be “rare” and making more overt its support for direct taxpayer funding of abortion. Over the past year, the vast majority of House Democrats have gone so far as to oppose legislation.
It’s unlikely, however, that making the Democrat Party more palatable to pro-life voters would advance the cause of life, however. While individual lawmakers can technically vote against their party’s official position on any given issue, their party affiliation decides which party’s leaders have majority control over the House or Senate. This influences legislation’s fortunes in various ways, including scheduling votes, setting procedural rules, controlling committees, and more.
“Remember, the Speaker of the House ultimately determines the legislative agenda and if the party committed to elective abortion controls the chamber, its candidate for speaker will inevitably be pro-abortion,” Life Training Institute president Scott Klusendorf has argued. “Nevertheless, these pro-life members vote for their party’s candidate for speaker, which all but guarantees that pro-life bills never see the light of day. In most cases, then, they aren’t reforming their party’s pro-abortion stance; they’re enabling it.”
It is on these grounds that Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has justified her own endorsements of rare “pro-life Democrat” candidates, assuring supporters in 2018 that the re-election of Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) would contribute to securing “a pro-choice gavel when we win the Congress.”
Buttigieg’s pro-abortion platform also includes appointing pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court and making the abortion drug RU-486 available over the counter. As mayor of South Bend, he vetoed Women’s Care Center’s re-zoning application to build a pro-life pregnancy center near the site of a proposed abortion center, and has largely dodged questions about the discovery of thousands of babies’ corpses on the property of a deceased area abortionist. In addition, he has misrepresented Scripture as suggesting that “life begins with breath,” for which his own brother-in-law Rhyan Glezman labeled him “a “modern-day pharisee.”
Buttigieg currently places fifth in RealClearPolitics’ national polling average of the Democrat primary, with 7.1 percent.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-27--Cdl Sarah denounces ‘brutal’ attacks on Benedict over book defending priestly celibacy

ROME , January 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Cardinal Robert Sarah has condemned the “ brutality ” and the “ indecency ” of attacks made on Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI when news of their co-authored book defending priestly celibacy emerged .
Speaking to Italian newspaper Il Foglio , which published an interview with the Guinean cardinal on January 25 , Sarah said there has been “ a lot of talk about utterly ridiculous aspects secondary ” to the themes of the book .
“ Absurd controversies , vulgar lies , and horrible humiliations have followed one another against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cardinal continued .
However , it is the attacks on the former that have wounded Sarah the most .
“ What breaks my heart and hurts me deeply is the brutality , the irreverence , the lack of consideration and the indecency with which Benedict XVI has been treated , ” he said .
Cardinal Sarah and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI are the co-authors of a book on challenges to the priesthood today .
Entitled From the Depths of Our Hearts : Priesthood , Celibacy , and the Crisis of the Catholic Church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the book will appear in bookstores on January 30 , published by Cantagalli .
“ Without animosity , without attacking anyone , we have offered our reflections with clarity , rigor and fidelity to the truth on an essential question : the Catholic priesthood and celibacy , ” Sarah said .
The cardinal underscored that there is no attitude of opposition to Pope Francis in the book .
Meanwhile , he said the Pope Emeritus “ personally confirmed with me that he welcomes this book and is happy with its publication.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , except for the introduction and conclusion , which the Cantagalli publishing house has explained , ” Sarah continued .
“ Now I ask that the sterile polemics cease.
” A source has given LifeSiteNews a copy of the original manuscript of the Italian version of the book .
In it , both the Pope Emeritus and Cardinal Sarah have signed both the introduction and the conclusion .
In the expurgated form , Benedict ’ s name will be removed from these short chapters .
Meanwhile , the title pages of the file @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Benedetto XVI ” and “ Robert Sarah ” as the authors of Dal Profondo del Nostro Cuore .
The Italian translation was prepared by Davide Riserbato .
Cardinal Sarah said the message of the book is that “ if the law of celibacy is weakened , even for a single region , it will make a break , a wound in the mystery of the Church.
” He believes that a priesthood for married men can not be created “ without damaging the priesthood of Jesus Christ and of His spouse , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ministries , ” Sarah asks himself if “ we are searching for fidelity to God or if we are following fashion.
” He believes that St. John Paul II has already adequately described the role of women in the Church .
“ St .
John Paul II ( said ) in his apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem ( that ) their place is central .
It is a matter of reminding everyone of the necessity of holiness and to help humanity not to fall.
” The cardinal also said he had offered his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Pope Francis “ but also to the bishops , priests , and Christian faithful throughout the world to sustain them and encourage them in deepening their reflection without being prejudiced by the ( mainstream ) media campaign that surrounded the last Synod and offered hurried , ideological and purely human solutions.
” When excerpts of the French edition of the book were first released earlier this month , some of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI ’ s most vociferous critics attacked him on social media .
Joshua McElwee of the National Catholic Reporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priesthood the Pope Emeritus was opposing the plans of Pope Francis .
“ News : Retired Pope Benedict XVI has coauthored a book w/ Cardinal Sarah to defend practice of celibate priesthood in the Catholic Church , ” McElwee wrote on Twitter .
“ It comes as Pope Francis is considering allowing married priests in the Amazon region.
” McElwee said he found this “ incredible.
” “ As I digest this , I 'm realizing how incredible it is ( : ) A former pope speaking in public about something his successor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he wrote .
Father James Martin , SJ , of America magazine said he found the news “ hard to fathom ” and criticized Benedict for speaking out .
“ I have the greatest respect for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI , ” Martin tweeted .
“ Nonetheless , when he resigned the papacy , he said he would remain ‘ hidden from the world , ’ ” he continued .
“ ( ... ) But here , he is speaking out on an issue that was one of the main topics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is now under consideration by the Pope.
” Martin , known for his LGBT advocacy , added that people might interpret this action as a “ great theologian contributing to the conversation ” but that others might see it as “ a ‘ parallel magisterium , ’ which can lead to disunity .
”

'What breaks my heart and hurts me deeply is the brutality, the irreverence, the lack of consideration and the indecency with which Benedict XVI has been treated.'
ROME, January 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Robert Sarah has condemned the “brutality” and the “indecency” of attacks made on Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI when news of their co-authored book defending priestly celibacy emerged.
Speaking to Italian newspaper Il Foglio, which published an interview with the Guinean cardinal on January 25, Sarah said there has been “a lot of talk about utterly ridiculous aspects secondary” to the themes of the book.
“Absurd controversies, vulgar lies, and horrible humiliations have followed one another against Benedict XVI and me,” the cardinal continued.
However, it is the attacks on the former that have wounded Sarah the most.
“What breaks my heart and hurts me deeply is the brutality, the irreverence, the lack of consideration and the indecency with which Benedict XVI has been treated,” he said.
Cardinal Sarah and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI are the co-authors of a book on challenges to the priesthood today. Entitled From the Depths of Our Hearts: Priesthood, Celibacy, and the Crisis of the Catholic Church in English, the Italian version of the book will appear in bookstores on January 30, published by Cantagalli.
“Without animosity, without attacking anyone, we have offered our reflections with clarity, rigor and fidelity to the truth on an essential question: the Catholic priesthood and celibacy,” Sarah said.
The cardinal underscored that there is no attitude of opposition to Pope Francis in the book. Meanwhile, he said the Pope Emeritus “personally confirmed with me that he welcomes this book and is happy with its publication.”
“The entire text is therefore the same, except for the introduction and conclusion, which the Cantagalli publishing house has explained,” Sarah continued.
“Now I ask that the sterile polemics cease.”
A source has given LifeSiteNews a copy of the original manuscript of the Italian version of the book. In it, both the Pope Emeritus and Cardinal Sarah have signed both the introduction and the conclusion. In the expurgated form, Benedict’s name will be removed from these short chapters. Meanwhile, the title pages of the file sent to LifeSiteNews clearly display both “Benedetto XVI” and “Robert Sarah” as the authors of Dal Profondo del Nostro Cuore. The Italian translation was prepared by Davide Riserbato.
Cardinal Sarah said the message of the book is that “if the law of celibacy is weakened, even for a single region, it will make a break, a wound in the mystery of the Church.” He believes that a priesthood for married men cannot be created “without damaging the priesthood of Jesus Christ and of His spouse, the Church.”
Regarding so-called “women’s ministries,” Sarah asks himself if “we are searching for fidelity to God or if we are following fashion.” He believes that St. John Paul II has already adequately described the role of women in the Church.
“St. John Paul II (said) in his apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem (that) their place is central. It is a matter of reminding everyone of the necessity of holiness and to help humanity not to fall.”
The cardinal also said he had offered his book respectfully and in a filial way to Pope Francis “but also to the bishops, priests, and Christian faithful throughout the world to sustain them and encourage them in deepening their reflection without being prejudiced by the (mainstream) media campaign that surrounded the last Synod and offered hurried, ideological and purely human solutions.”
When excerpts of the French edition of the book were first released earlier this month, some of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s most vociferous critics attacked him on social media.
Joshua McElwee of the National Catholic Reporter suggested that by writing about the celibate priesthood the Pope Emeritus was opposing the plans of Pope Francis.
“News: Retired Pope Benedict XVI has coauthored a book w/ Cardinal Sarah to defend practice of celibate priesthood in the Catholic Church,” McElwee wrote on Twitter.
“It comes as Pope Francis is considering allowing married priests in the Amazon region.”
McElwee said he found this “incredible.”
“As I digest this, I'm realizing how incredible it is (:)A former pope speaking in public about something his successor is currently in the process of considering,” he wrote.
Father James Martin, SJ, of America magazine said he found the news “hard to fathom” and criticized Benedict for speaking out.
“I have the greatest respect for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI,” Martin tweeted.
“Nonetheless, when he resigned the papacy, he said he would remain ‘hidden from the world,’” he continued.
“(…) But here, he is speaking out on an issue that was one of the main topics for the recent Synod on the Amazon and is now under consideration by the Pope.”
Martin, known for his LGBT advocacy, added that people might interpret this action as a “great theologian contributing to the conversation” but that others might see it as “a ‘parallel magisterium,’ which can lead to disunity.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-27--Vatican cardinal objects to ‘intercommunion’ argument that Protestant Last Supper is ide

Vatican cardinal objects to ‘intercommunion’ argument that Protestant Last Supper is identical to Catholic Mass

January 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Cardinal Kurt Koch , the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity , gave an interview to Vatican News in which he in part contradicts a German ecumenical document calling for intercommunion .
While also seeing the good parts of the German document , Koch says that the document is based on an “ assumption ” which he can not share , “ namely : that the Catholic Eucharistic celebration and the Protestant Last Supper are identical.
” According to the Austrian website Kath.net , Vatican News , in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this statement by Koch a mere “ thesis , ” but it later changed its wording .
Speaking to Vatican News after Holy Mass in Manoppello , Italy , Cardinal Koch was asked about the German Ecumenical Working Group of Protestant and Catholic Theologians ( Ökumenischer Arbeitskreis evangelischer und katholischer Theologen ) which published , in September of 2019 , a paper calling for intercommunion .
The journalist requested from Koch that he comment on the statement of the Protestant theologian Professor Volker Leppin who argues that this September 2019 paper has such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he who wishes to argue against intercommunion , is in need of very strong arguments.
” While Koch praises some parts of the paper that deal with the “ history of the development , ” he objects to another part of it .
He says that the paper is based on one “ assumption , which I can not share this way , namely : that the Catholic Eucharistic celebration and the Protestant Last Supper are identical.
” He goes on to explain that this document always “ speaks of Last Supper/Eucharist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already clear .
And that I can not share.
” “ There are many open questions with regard to the understanding of the Eucharist , ” the Swiss cardinal continues , “ for example , the thought of the Sacrifice does not even occur.
” He also mentions that the “ question of the office [ ministry ] ” has not been clarified , since he sees a “ contradiction ” between that which is written in the text and the “ practice ” of the Evangelical Church itself .
“ In Germany @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ in the text which the EKD [ Evangelical Church of Germany ] issued on the occasion of the remembrance of the Reformation [ in 2017 ] , it says : the Reformation has introduced a completely new understanding of church .
The new aspect is that now every baptized person can administer the sacraments .
He is to be ordained only for the sake of external order.
” Koch sees here a difference as to what this new September 2019 theological paper states and means .
“ I believe we still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The September 2019 paper of the ecumenical working group – which is titled “ Gemeinsam am Tisch des Herrn ” ( “ Together at the Lord 's Table ” ) – claims that , in the theological debates of the last decades , the differences of opinion that stem from the 16th century have been sufficiently discussed and clarified and that there is now “ agreement ” with regard to the “ theological meaning of the Eucharist/Last Supper , ” and that , “ on that foundation , the diversity of liturgical traditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authors explain , the goal of this document is “ to recognize and support all efforts which strengthen the theological meaning and which , on this basis , share the intention to celebrate the Last Supper/Eucharist together.
” At the end , they conclude , “ there is a vote for an opening of the different confessional celebrations of the Last Supper for Christians ( male and female ) of other traditions.
” The head of the German section of the official Vatican news service Vatican News , Stefan von Kempis , praised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the document does not omit to mention the differences – such as the question of the “ mutual acceptance of the offices [ ministries ] ” – but adding that an agreement on the understanding of Baptism is already now “ stronger than the differences with regard to the question of the office , ” in the specific words of the document .
Von Kempis also stressed the argument presented in the paper that Jesus had “ promised to be present ” among those who come “ together in His name.
” For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create a unified ceremony or liturgy , but , rather , it is important in the eyes of the ecumenical theologians to accept that the “ fullness ” of what Jesus has “ instituted ” is not to be found only “ in one single form.
” Concludes von Kempis : “ This is a sentence at which a Catholic first has to gulp .
Nevertheless : an inspiring paper that leads us to further considerations !
It has the potential to lead us to a closer unity .
The Vatican will take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it might well abstain from making public comments.
” While the Vatican might not officially issue a commentary , the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity , Cardinal Koch , has now commented on this new document of last September .
But the comments by von Kempis might actually lie closer to the heart of Pope Francis who recently met with the Lutheran pastor of the Evangelical Church in Rome , Reverend Michael Jonas .
At that meeting , Pope Francis has told Jonas , according to comments made by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Protestants are very close to one another in what they do in their public worship [ Gottesdienst ] .
” Pope Francis is also said to have mentioned that he knew of a case where a Catholic priest helped out a Protestant minister when he could not himself preside over his Lutheran liturgy of the word .
Moreover , in 2015 , Pope Francis made comments to a Protestant wife of a Catholic , which appeared to “ suggest , ” in the words of National Catholic Register Rome correspondent Edward Pentin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Catholic husband could receive Holy Communion based on the fact that she is baptized and in accordance with her conscience.
” This ecumenical working group which issued the September 2019 document on intercommunion was jointly founded in 1946 by a Protestant and a Catholic bishop .
Today , the group is presided over by Catholic Bishop Georg Bätzing ( Limburg ) and the Protestant former Bishop Martin Hein .
One of the two academic leaders of this Ecumenical Working Group of Protestant and Catholic Theologians who are calling for intercommunion is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been appointed to be the head of the “ Synodal Path 's ” discussion forum on women 's access to Church ministries as organized by the German Bishops ’ Conference .
The second academic leader is the above-mentioned Protestant theologian Professor Volker Leppin .

January 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Kurt Koch, the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, gave an interview to Vatican News in which he in part contradicts a German ecumenical document calling for intercommunion.
While also seeing the good parts of the German document, Koch says that the document is based on an “assumption” which he cannot share, “namely: that the Catholic Eucharistic celebration and the Protestant Last Supper are identical.” According to the Austrian website Kath.net, Vatican News, in its report on the interview, first called this statement by Koch a mere “thesis,” but it later changed its wording.
Speaking to Vatican News after Holy Mass in Manoppello, Italy, Cardinal Koch was asked about the German Ecumenical Working Group of Protestant and Catholic Theologians (Ökumenischer Arbeitskreis evangelischer und katholischer Theologen) which published, in September of 2019, a paper calling for intercommunion. The journalist requested from Koch that he comment on the statement of the Protestant theologian Professor Volker Leppin who argues that this September 2019 paper has such broad biblical and academic foundations that “he who wishes to argue against intercommunion, is in need of very strong arguments.”
While Koch praises some parts of the paper that deal with the “history of the development,” he objects to another part of it. He says that the paper is based on one “assumption, which I cannot share this way, namely: that the Catholic Eucharistic celebration and the Protestant Last Supper are identical.” He goes on to explain that this document always “speaks of Last Supper/Eucharist,” which implies that “everything is already clear. And that I cannot share.”
“There are many open questions with regard to the understanding of the Eucharist,” the Swiss cardinal continues, “for example, the thought of the Sacrifice does not even occur.” He also mentions that the “question of the office [ministry]” has not been clarified, since he sees a “contradiction” between that which is written in the text and the “practice” of the Evangelical Church itself.
“In Germany, for example,” Koch continues, “in the text which the EKD [Evangelical Church of Germany] issued on the occasion of the remembrance of the Reformation [in 2017], it says: the Reformation has introduced a completely new understanding of church. The new aspect is that now every baptized person can administer the sacraments. He is to be ordained only for the sake of external order.” Koch sees here a difference as to what this new September 2019 theological paper states and means. “I believe we still have to discuss these open questions.”
The September 2019 paper of the ecumenical working group – which is titled “Gemeinsam am Tisch des Herrn” (“Together at the Lord's Table”) – claims that, in the theological debates of the last decades, the differences of opinion that stem from the 16th century have been sufficiently discussed and clarified and that there is now “agreement” with regard to the “theological meaning of the Eucharist/Last Supper,” and that, “on that foundation, the diversity of liturgical traditions is being valued.” Therefore, the authors explain, the goal of this document is “to recognize and support all efforts which strengthen the theological meaning and which, on this basis, share the intention to celebrate the Last Supper/Eucharist together.” At the end, they conclude, “there is a vote for an opening of the different confessional celebrations of the Last Supper for Christians (male and female) of other traditions.”
The head of the German section of the official Vatican news service Vatican News, Stefan von Kempis, praised this 57-page-long document, pointing out that the document does not omit to mention the differences – such as the question of the “mutual acceptance of the offices [ministries]” – but adding that an agreement on the understanding of Baptism is already now “stronger than the differences with regard to the question of the office,” in the specific words of the document. Von Kempis also stressed the argument presented in the paper that Jesus had “promised to be present” among those who come “together in His name.” For this, there is no need to create a unified ceremony or liturgy, but, rather, it is important in the eyes of the ecumenical theologians to accept that the “fullness” of what Jesus has “instituted” is not to be found only “in one single form.”
Concludes von Kempis: “This is a sentence at which a Catholic first has to gulp. Nevertheless: an inspiring paper that leads us to further considerations! It has the potential to lead us to a closer unity. The Vatican will take attentive note of it, even if it might well abstain from making public comments.”
While the Vatican might not officially issue a commentary, the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Koch, has now commented on this new document of last September.
But the comments by von Kempis might actually lie closer to the heart of Pope Francis who recently met with the Lutheran pastor of the Evangelical Church in Rome, Reverend Michael Jonas. At that meeting, Pope Francis has told Jonas, according to comments made by Jonas to LifeSiteNews, that “Catholics and Protestants are very close to one another in what they do in their public worship [Gottesdienst].” Pope Francis is also said to have mentioned that he knew of a case where a Catholic priest helped out a Protestant minister when he could not himself preside over his Lutheran liturgy of the word.
Moreover, in 2015, Pope Francis made comments to a Protestant wife of a Catholic, which appeared to “suggest,” in the words of National Catholic Register Rome correspondent Edward Pentin, “that a Lutheran wife of a Catholic husband could receive Holy Communion based on the fact that she is baptized and in accordance with her conscience.”
This ecumenical working group which issued the September 2019 document on intercommunion was jointly founded in 1946 by a Protestant and a Catholic bishop. Today, the group is presided over by Catholic Bishop Georg Bätzing (Limburg) and the Protestant former Bishop Martin Hein.
One of the two academic leaders of this Ecumenical Working Group of Protestant and Catholic Theologians who are calling for intercommunion is the Catholic theologian Professor Dorothea Sattler who has been appointed to be the head of the “Synodal Path's” discussion forum on women's access to Church ministries as organized by the German Bishops’ Conference. The second academic leader is the above-mentioned Protestant theologian Professor Volker Leppin.
Follow Maike Dr. Maike Hickson was born and raised in Germany. She holds a PhD from the University of Hannover, Germany, after having written in Switzerland her doctoral dissertation on the history of Swiss intellectuals before and during World War II. She now lives in the U.S. and is married to Dr. Robert Hickson, and they have been blessed with two beautiful children. She is a happy housewife who likes to write articles when time permits. Dr. Hickson published in 2014 a Festschrift, a collection of some thirty essays written by thoughtful authors in honor of her husband upon his 70th birthday, which is entitled A Catholic Witness in Our Time. Hickson has closely followed the papacy of Pope Francis and the developments in the Catholic Church in Germany, and she has been writing articles on religion and politics for U.S. and European publications and websites such as LifeSiteNews, OnePeterFive, The Wanderer, Rorate Caeli, Catholicism.org, Catholic Family News, Christian Order, Notizie Pro-Vita, Corrispondenza Romana, Katholisches.info, Der Dreizehnte, Zeit-Fragen, and Westfalen-Blatt.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-27--Elizabeth Warren vows to include ‘non-binary’ people in White House Cabinet if she wins

January 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren has pledged that if she wins the Presidential election , half of all cabinet positions will be filled by not only women , but by ‘ non-binary people.
’ With the Iowa caucuses set to take place next week , presidential candidate Warren has published a lengthy piece in Medium , detailing her campaign platform .
Titled , “ Restoring Integrity & Competence to Government After Trump , ” the missive is an attempt to solidify support in the Hawkeye State in the run-up to caucus night , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the first state in the union to select a democratic presidential candidate .
Warren declared that her administration will be committed to diversity and inclusion .
“ Starting on day one .
I will build a Cabinet and senior leadership team that reflects the full diversity of America , including having at least 50 % of Cabinet positions filled by women and non binary people.
” She further pledged to “ ensure representation of LGBTQ+ people across all levels of government , including in leadership roles.
” In November , Warren declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cis women , gender-nonconforming , and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy : ” Warren was responding at the time to an endorsement from the left-wing group Black Womxn For ( BWF ) , which bills itself as “ focused on creating intentional meeting spaces for Black Trans Women , Cis women and gender-nonconforming community leaders and activists to talk with each other about the Democratic primary and our impact on 2020 elections.
” “ There is one leader who has shown , through action , deed , and word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , racial justice , gender justice , and social and political equity is possible , ” BWF explained .
“ She is a partner with a deep understanding of how racism and gender discrimination do n't just compound income inequality but are actually central to maintaining the status quo.
” Specifically , the group said , it was won over by Warren ’ s supposed stand against “ white supremacy and misogyny , ” pledge to consult with various minority and identity groups in policymaking , commitment to an “ accountability process ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be insufficiently “ woke ” as president , and commitment to “ fundamentally changing the internal and external face of the federal government by appointing more black women , especially trans and immigrant women , black men , indigenous people , people of color and disabled people.
” Identity-politics pandering is nothing new for the pro-abortion Warren , who has long been derided for her history of falsely claiming Native American ancestry .
Since at least July she has taken part in the transgender ritual of displaying her “ preferred pronouns ” of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and said in September she was “ honored ” to fight alongside RuPaul ’ s DragCon for the LGBT agenda .
At October ’ s Democrat LGBT town hall , Warren jokingly mocked belief that marriage is specifically about uniting one man and one woman , endorsed taxpayer-funded sex change surgery for prison inmates , and told a confused little girl introduced as a “ 9-year-old transgender American ” that she considers teaching children about homosexuality and “ gender identity ” to be normal parts of public education .
Warren told a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she intends to signal her solidarity with abortion-on-demand by wearing a pink scarf on inauguration day , should she become the next President of the United States .

'Starting on day one. I will build a Cabinet and senior leadership team that reflects the full diversity of America,' she said.
January 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren has pledged that if she wins the Presidential election, half of all cabinet positions will be filled by not only women, but by ‘non-binary people.’
With the Iowa caucuses set to take place next week, presidential candidate Warren has published a lengthy piece in Medium, detailing her campaign platform.
Titled, “Restoring Integrity & Competence to Government After Trump,” the missive is an attempt to solidify support in the Hawkeye State in the run-up to caucus night, February 3, during which Iowa will be the first state in the union to select a democratic presidential candidate.
Warren declared that her administration will be committed to diversity and inclusion.
“Starting on day one. I will build a Cabinet and senior leadership team that reflects the full diversity of America, including having at least 50% of Cabinet positions filled by women and non binary people.”
She further pledged to “ensure representation of LGBTQ+ people across all levels of government, including in leadership roles.”
In November, Warren declared in a Tweet that “black trans and cis women, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy:”
Thank you, @BlackWomxnFor! Black trans and cis women, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy and I don’t take this endorsement lightly. I'm committed to fighting alongside you for the big, structural change our country needs. https://t.co/KqWsVoRYMb — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) November 7, 2019
Warren was responding at the time to an endorsement from the left-wing group Black Womxn For (BWF), which bills itself as “focused on creating intentional meeting spaces for Black Trans Women, Cis women and gender-nonconforming community leaders and activists to talk with each other about the Democratic primary and our impact on 2020 elections.”
“There is one leader who has shown, through action, deed, and word, that a future of economic prosperity, racial justice, gender justice, and social and political equity is possible,” BWF explained. “She is a partner with a deep understanding of how racism and gender discrimination don't just compound income inequality but are actually central to maintaining the status quo.”
Specifically, the group said, it was won over by Warren’s supposed stand against “white supremacy and misogyny,” pledge to consult with various minority and identity groups in policymaking, commitment to an “accountability process” when and if she is found to be insufficiently “woke” as president, and commitment to “fundamentally changing the internal and external face of the federal government by appointing more black women, especially trans and immigrant women, black men, indigenous people, people of color and disabled people.”
Identity-politics pandering is nothing new for the pro-abortion Warren, who has long been derided for her history of falsely claiming Native American ancestry. Since at least July she has taken part in the transgender ritual of displaying her “preferred pronouns” of “she/her” on her Twitter profile, and said in September she was “honored” to fight alongside RuPaul’s DragCon for the LGBT agenda.
At October’s Democrat LGBT town hall, Warren jokingly mocked belief that marriage is specifically about uniting one man and one woman, endorsed taxpayer-funded sex change surgery for prison inmates, and told a confused little girl introduced as a “9-year-old transgender American” that she considers teaching children about homosexuality and “gender identity” to be normal parts of public education.
Warren told a crowd during a campaign stop in December that she intends to signal her solidarity with abortion-on-demand by wearing a pink scarf on inauguration day, should she become the next President of the United States.
Editor’s note: With files from LifeSiteNews’ Calvin Freiburger.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-27--Parents are clueless their children use smartphones to send and receive nude photos

January 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – It ’ s not a popular view to hold , but I believe that one of the most dangerous things you can give your teenager is a smartphone .
As I noted several years ago , there are many reasons not to give your child one of these dangerous devices ( Tim Challies put in bluntly in a December article titled “ Please Don ’ t Give Them Porn for Christmas ” ) , and the news seems to produce corroborating evidence for this position by the day .
Late last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Island warned that nude selfies were now so ubiquitous among schoolchildren that “ it ’ s become part of the courtship process for kids as young as junior high , ” according to Canada ’ s state broadcaster .
In some cases , pictures are being sent by children as young as sixth grade .
These photos—generally of the sender ’ s genitals , or topless photos—have a “ 110 % chance ” of being shown to others .
Despite this fact , most teenagers simply do not seem to think through or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The sexting phenomenon has transformed teen dating .
“ They ’ re sending these pictures before they go on , say , a date with somebody , ” said Jane Wood of PEI ’ s Youth Justice Services .
“ I would say that these pictures are being sent before they hold hands .
It seems like the first thing to do.
” Some girls are pressured into sending the photos , while others now send them willingly as sexting becomes the norm .
As a result , Wood noted , “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with in junior high and are now in high school and will say , ‘ Jane , I sent pictures like in Grade 8 .
I wasn ’ t thinking and now they ’ re being passed around again in high school.
’ ” And consequences can go from bad to worse quickly .
Some of the photos are used as “ revenge porn , ” with boys blackmailing girls into unwanted behaviors by threatening to send the photos to others .
Photos could also end up online on porn sites .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of someone under the age of 18 qualify as child pornography , which is resulting in some young men ending up with criminal records and saddled with the permanent sex offender designation for sexting with underage girls .
Some young men have permanently destroyed their reputations before they are old enough to rent a car .
Last week , the CBC reported that one Maritime teen , Kiona Osowksi , is basing her Grade 12 research project on her own experiences , attempting to find out the answer to one simple question : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for nude photos ?
” Adults , Osowski said , often appear to want to avoid the issue , “ but it ’ s happening .
We ’ re constantly asked for pictures or we ’ re sent things without our consent .
This has become a societal norm and we need to start taking it apart.
” Boys , she says , feel “ entitled ” to ask for nude selfies , and girls often “ feel compelled to send them.
” Her teachers admit to being shocked by her findings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ eye-opener ” into what kids are actually doing with their phones and how they ’ ve been impacted by this “ new reality.
” Osowki ’ s project details how pornography , sexting , social media , and media representation of women leads girls to hate their own bodies and constantly compare themselves , resulting in widespread self-loathing and even eating disorders .
Osowski also found that pornography was a huge part of the problem .
“ When she brings up porn in her presentation , ” CBC reported , “ Kiona @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her peers…but she believes the way women and men are portrayed needs to be talked about… [ her teacher ] points to her own course material , which includes research that suggests 80 per cent of young men in Canada between the ages of 12 and 18 watch porn daily.
” Both Osowski and her teacher believe that the impact of this toxic material on the way boys and girls think should be conveyed to students who generally have no idea how this material actually affects them .
Parents often throw their hands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the scale of this problem , wondering what can be done to prevent these behaviors and their damaging consequences .
The answer , of course , is a simple one that nobody wants to hear : Take away the tools they are using to do these things .
Take away their smartphones .
Jonathon ’ s new podcast , The Van Maren Show , is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement .
In his latest episode , he interviews Dr. Charles Murray about why America has fallen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it .
Dr. Murray first became well known in 1984 with the publication of Losing Ground a piece which is credited with being the intellectual foundation for the Welfare Reform Act .
Murray is a New York Times bestseller , political researcher and scholar , and the F.A .
Hayek Emeritus Chair in Culture Studies at the American Enterprise Institute .
You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below :

January 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – It’s not a popular view to hold, but I believe that one of the most dangerous things you can give your teenager is a smartphone. As I noted several years ago, there are many reasons not to give your child one of these dangerous devices (Tim Challies put in bluntly in a December article titled “Please Don’t Give Them Porn for Christmas”), and the news seems to produce corroborating evidence for this position by the day.
Late last year, a police officer from Prince Edward Island warned that nude selfies were now so ubiquitous among schoolchildren that “it’s become part of the courtship process for kids as young as junior high,” according to Canada’s state broadcaster. In some cases, pictures are being sent by children as young as sixth grade. These photos—generally of the sender’s genitals, or topless photos—have a “110% chance” of being shown to others. Despite this fact, most teenagers simply do not seem to think through or understand the consequences of this behavior.
The sexting phenomenon has transformed teen dating. “They’re sending these pictures before they go on, say, a date with somebody,” said Jane Wood of PEI’s Youth Justice Services. “I would say that these pictures are being sent before they hold hands. It seems like the first thing to do.” Some girls are pressured into sending the photos, while others now send them willingly as sexting becomes the norm. As a result, Wood noted, “I’ve had kids that I worked with in junior high and are now in high school and will say, ‘Jane, I sent pictures like in Grade 8. I wasn’t thinking and now they’re being passed around again in high school.’”
And consequences can go from bad to worse quickly. Some of the photos are used as “revenge porn,” with boys blackmailing girls into unwanted behaviors by threatening to send the photos to others. Photos could also end up online on porn sites. It bears mentioning that any sexually explicit photos of someone under the age of 18 qualify as child pornography, which is resulting in some young men ending up with criminal records and saddled with the permanent sex offender designation for sexting with underage girls. Some young men have permanently destroyed their reputations before they are old enough to rent a car.
Last week, the CBC reported that one Maritime teen, Kiona Osowksi, is basing her Grade 12 research project on her own experiences, attempting to find out the answer to one simple question: “Why are girls so often asked for nude photos?” Adults, Osowski said, often appear to want to avoid the issue, “but it’s happening. We’re constantly asked for pictures or we’re sent things without our consent. This has become a societal norm and we need to start taking it apart.” Boys, she says, feel “entitled” to ask for nude selfies, and girls often “feel compelled to send them.”
Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook
Her teachers admit to being shocked by her findings, noting that her research was a real “eye-opener” into what kids are actually doing with their phones and how they’ve been impacted by this “new reality.” Osowki’s project details how pornography, sexting, social media, and media representation of women leads girls to hate their own bodies and constantly compare themselves, resulting in widespread self-loathing and even eating disorders.
Osowski also found that pornography was a huge part of the problem. “When she brings up porn in her presentation,” CBC reported, “Kiona said it always raises some eyebrows among her peers…but she believes the way women and men are portrayed needs to be talked about…[her teacher] points to her own course material, which includes research that suggests 80 per cent of young men in Canada between the ages of 12 and 18 watch porn daily.” Both Osowski and her teacher believe that the impact of this toxic material on the way boys and girls think should be conveyed to students who generally have no idea how this material actually affects them.
Parents often throw their hands in the air as they become aware of the scale of this problem, wondering what can be done to prevent these behaviors and their damaging consequences. The answer, of course, is a simple one that nobody wants to hear: Take away the tools they are using to do these things.
Take away their smartphones.
Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he interviews Dr. Charles Murray about why America has fallen apart and what we need to do about it. Dr. Murray first became well known in 1984 with the publication of Losing Ground a piece which is credited with being the intellectual foundation for the Welfare Reform Act. Murray is a New York Times bestseller, political researcher and scholar, and the F.A. Hayek Emeritus Chair in Culture Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below:
Follow Jonathon Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States. He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-27--Catholic activist asks bishop to clarify ‘deeply confusing’ language he used about femal

Catholic activist asks bishop to clarify ‘deeply confusing’ language he used about female Episcopal ‘bishop’

RICHMOND , Virginia , January 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Lepanto Institute president Michael Hichborn released an open letter to Bishop Barry Knestout of the Diocese of Richmond Thursday calling for clarity from the bishop following the recent scandal concerning the proposed “ consecration ” of a female Episcopalian “ bishop ” at a Catholic parish in the Diocese of Richmond .
The Diocese of Richmond had granted permission for St. Bede Catholic Church in Williamsburg to be used for the Protestant ceremony .
Both St. Bede pastor Monsignor Joseph Lehman and Richmond Bishop Barry Knestout defended allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Following the cancellation of the ceremony , Bishop Knestout stated : Hichborn , however , said that questions still remain following Bishop Knestout ’ s response .
“ I initially sent my letter to Bishop Knestout and the diocesan communications director asking for acknowledgement and an intent to reply but received no response , ” he said .
“ The faithful in Richmond deserve clarity , not confusion , from their shepherd.
” The now-open letter seeks clarity on the language Bishop Knestout used .
Hichborn wrote , “ In both of your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January 2020 , you referred to the event scheduled to take place at St Bede Catholic Church on 01 February 2020 as an ‘ ordination , ’ an ‘ installation , ’ and even a ‘ consecration ’ of a women who you referred to as ‘ Bishop-Elect.
’ Your use of this language is deeply confusing to Catholics because the ordination , consecration , and installation of a Bishop is a reference to the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Catholic Church.
” The letter also calls into question Bishop Knestout ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Directory for the Application of Principle and Norms on Ecumenism as a justification for allowing one of his parishes to be used for the proposed “ consecration.
” “ Considering how easily the event was moved to a new location , how does that fit with the requirements of the Directory that the community ‘ not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies ’ ?
” The full text of the open letter can be read below .
Hichborn has invited other concerned Catholics to sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you on behalf of Catholic Virginians all across the Commonwealth to express our confusion over your recent actions and words pertaining to the event which was scheduled to take place at St. Bede Catholic Church in Williamsburg on 01 February 2020 .
I am writing to you in the spirit of Canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law , which affords the Faithful the right “ to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more to the point , I am writing with the sincere hope that you can help us to understand , through the teaching ministry of your office , how what was scheduled to take place would have been permitted under Canon Law , and how it would NOT have constituted a sacrilege .
In trying to understand , I will break down our concerns into four basic topics , and I hope that you will address each one for the education and edification of the faithful of the Diocese of Richmond and beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Bishop In both of your letters dated 15 January 2020 and 17 January 2020 , you referred to the event scheduled to take place at St Bede Catholic Church on 01 February 2020 as an “ ordination , ” an “ installation , ” and even a “ consecration ” of a women who you referred to as “ Bishop-Elect.
” Your use of this language is deeply confusing to Catholics because the ordination , consecration , and installation of a Bishop is a reference to the Sacrament of Holy Orders in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leo XIII declared in his Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae “ We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been , and are , absolutely null and utterly void.
” By this declaration alone , even if what was scheduled to be attempted was done on a man rather than a woman , it still would not have been an ordination or consecration .
However , since the so-called “ ordination/consecration ” was indeed scheduled to be done upon a woman , and since we know from Sacred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paul II that the ordination of women is impossible , it can never be an ordination or a consecration .
As such , your use of the words “ ordination , ” “ consecration ” and “ bishop-elect ” are confusing and Catholics are forced to conclude only one of two possibilities .
Possibility 1 is that you used such language because you believed this to be a true ordination/consecration of a bishop .
Possibility 2 is that you do not believe this to be a true ordination/consecration of a bishop , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of polite deference .
Possibility 1 is unthinkable , which leaves possibility 2 , and if that is the case , then we ask Your Excellency to refrain from such language because it is an untruth .
Your use of such language is confusing to the Catholic Faithful and is a scandal to the Episcopalians , who are thereby led to believe that you consider such a consecration/ordination to be valid and good .
Directory for the Application of Principle and Norms on Ecumenism In your 15 January letter , defending your decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the event in question , you said , “ I appreciate that you are concerned that the sacred space of the Catholic Church be safeguarded , which it is.
” In support of this , you cited paragraph 137 of the Directory for the Application of Principle and Norms on Ecumenism .
This paragraph states : We have 2 questions here .
1 ) Considering how easily the event was moved to a new location , how does that fit with the requirements of the Directory that the community “ not have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies ” ?
2 ) How is this a legitimate application of the Directory considering the superseding norms of Canon 1210 ?
Canon 1210 says the following : The definition of “ holiness ” is vitally important here .
St. Thomas Aquinas defines “ Sanctity ” ( which is the same as holiness ) as follows : Because the “ holiness ” of a thing or place refers to its pure firmness in the law , those things which are impure or are not ratified by law are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Furthermore , those things which are in violation of the law would , by definition , be those things which are “ not consistent with the holiness of the place.
” As such , an act which simulates a sacrament with a solemnity as though it were a sacrament would be a direct violation of the holiness of the sacred space of a Catholic Church .
And because of this , it can not be said that the invalid and illicit simulation of the sacrament of Holy Orders inside a Catholic Church does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very nature of the simulated sacrament , the holiness of the Catholic Church is indeed violated .
What if this had been done by Catholics ?
Your 15 January letter said , “ the offer of hospitality to a Christian neighbor in need is an act of charity and well within the teachings of ecumenism and the norms provided by the Church for ecumenical activities.
” What is particularly confusing about this , and I do hope you will address it , is an act which would have incurred an automatic excommunication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rightly ) a condemnation from Your Excellency is not only permissible in a Catholic Church , but in the name of ecumenism , is an act of “ hospitality ” and “ charity ” if done by protestants .
I do hope you can see how this is confusing to Catholics and will explain to us how this apparent contradiction can possibly be rectified .
Please consider the following scenario : Suppose a group of dissident Catholics used the sacred of St. Bede Catholic Church for the illicit and invalid ordination and consecration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppose you showed up to announce their excommunication and to condemn the act .
The very moment you finished pronouncing the condemnation and excommunication , in the name of ecumenism , you could then declare that these “ separated brethren ” may legitimately use the sacred space of the Church , provided they remove the Holy Eucharist in repose in the Tabernacle .
In short , we do not understand how a violation of the Law of the Church can simultaneously be condemnable while its permitted commission by protestants in a Catholic Church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Please help us to understand how this can possibly be .
Where do we draw the line ?
The action which was being permitted to take place in a Catholic Church was an attempted ordination/consecration of a female “ bishop , ” which is a simulation of the Sacrament of Holy Orders .
Suppose , instead of the simulation of the Sacrament of Holy Orders , a protestant sect had requested the use of St. Bede for their simulation of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony as they perform a same-sex “ marriage.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take place ?
It ’ s an important question because it gets right to the very heart of our concern .
I do believe that you would NOT permit the same-sex “ marriage ” to take place , but I must point out that the same objections you would give for not permitting the same-sex “ marriage ” must be applied for the simulated ordination/consecration of a female “ bishop.
” Both actions would have been done by a protestant group .
Both actions would have illicitly and invalidly simulated a Catholic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very definitions of Holy Orders and Marriage , respectively .
And yet , under the auspices of “ ecumenism , ” the permission of such acts could have been granted “ for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies ” because they “ do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary.
” So , where do we draw the line ?
Why could you possibly permit one and not the other ?
If you are concerned about scandalizing the faithful , then you must consider such scandal in both instances .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teaching in the “ marriage , ” then you must equally be concerned about the violation of Catholic teaching in the “ ordination.
” If one act would violate the Sacred Space of the Church , then you must understand that the other would do so as well.In truth , there is no theological or moral difference in terms of scandal , sacrilege , and violation of Catholic teaching between the two acts .
As such , it must be concluded that both acts are equally condemnable and impermissible in a Catholic Church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that you will take our concerns to heart , prayerfully and seriously considering each point .
As the spiritual head of the Richmond Diocese , we look to you for truth and understanding as we strive to live our Faith to the fullest .
It is for this reason we offer our prayers , fasts , and other sacrifices on your behalf as we look forward to your teaching on this most grave matter .
Please know that we pray for you daily .

RICHMOND, Virginia, January 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Lepanto Institute president Michael Hichborn released an open letter to Bishop Barry Knestout of the Diocese of Richmond Thursday calling for clarity from the bishop following the recent scandal concerning the proposed “consecration” of a female Episcopalian “bishop” at a Catholic parish in the Diocese of Richmond.
The Diocese of Richmond had granted permission for St. Bede Catholic Church in Williamsburg to be used for the Protestant ceremony. Both St. Bede pastor Monsignor Joseph Lehman and Richmond Bishop Barry Knestout defended allowing the ceremony in a Catholic church. Following the cancellation of the ceremony, Bishop Knestout stated:
“It is with great sadness that I have received a letter from Bishop-Elect [sic] Susan Haynes stating that, due to the controversy of the proposed use of St. Bede Catholic Church for her consecration as the bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Virginia, she has decided to find another location for the ceremony to take place.”
Hichborn, however, said that questions still remain following Bishop Knestout’s response.
“I initially sent my letter to Bishop Knestout and the diocesan communications director asking for acknowledgement and an intent to reply but received no response,” he said. “The faithful in Richmond deserve clarity, not confusion, from their shepherd.”
The now-open letter seeks clarity on the language Bishop Knestout used.
Hichborn wrote, “In both of your letters dated 15 January 2020 and 17 January 2020, you referred to the event scheduled to take place at St Bede Catholic Church on 01 February 2020 as an ‘ordination,’ an ‘installation,’ and even a ‘consecration’ of a women who you referred to as ‘Bishop-Elect.’ Your use of this language is deeply confusing to Catholics because the ordination, consecration, and installation of a Bishop is a reference to the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Catholic Church.”
The letter also calls into question Bishop Knestout’s appeal to paragraph 137 of the Directory for the Application of Principle and Norms on Ecumenism as a justification for allowing one of his parishes to be used for the proposed “consecration.”
“Considering how easily the event was moved to a new location, how does that fit with the requirements of the Directory that the community ‘not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies’?”
The letter concludes:
“Your Excellency, our sincere hope is that you will take our concerns to heart, prayerfully and seriously considering each point. As the spiritual head of the Richmond Diocese, we look to you for truth and understanding as we strive to live our Faith to the fullest. It is for this reason we offer our prayers, fasts, and other sacrifices on your behalf as we look forward to your teaching on this most grave matter.”
The full text of the open letter can be read below. Hichborn has invited other concerned Catholics to sign the letter here.
FULL LETTER
Your Excellency,
I write to you on behalf of Catholic Virginians all across the Commonwealth to express our confusion over your recent actions and words pertaining to the event which was scheduled to take place at St. Bede Catholic Church in Williamsburg on 01 February 2020.
I am writing to you in the spirit of Canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law, which affords the Faithful the right “to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful.” But more to the point, I am writing with the sincere hope that you can help us to understand, through the teaching ministry of your office, how what was scheduled to take place would have been permitted under Canon Law, and how it would NOT have constituted a sacrilege.
In trying to understand, I will break down our concerns into four basic topics, and I hope that you will address each one for the education and edification of the faithful of the Diocese of Richmond and beyond.
Ordination, Consecration, Installation, and Bishop
In both of your letters dated 15 January 2020 and 17 January 2020, you referred to the event scheduled to take place at St Bede Catholic Church on 01 February 2020 as an “ordination,” an “installation,” and even a “consecration” of a women who you referred to as “Bishop-Elect.” Your use of this language is deeply confusing to Catholics because the ordination, consecration, and installation of a Bishop is a reference to the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. However, Pope Leo XIII declared in his Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae “We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.” By this declaration alone, even if what was scheduled to be attempted was done on a man rather than a woman, it still would not have been an ordination or consecration. However, since the so-called “ordination/consecration” was indeed scheduled to be done upon a woman, and since we know from Sacred Tradition and affirmed by Pope St. John Paul II that the ordination of women is impossible, it can never be an ordination or a consecration. As such, your use of the words “ordination,” “consecration” and “bishop-elect” are confusing and Catholics are forced to conclude only one of two possibilities. Possibility 1 is that you used such language because you believed this to be a true ordination/consecration of a bishop. Possibility 2 is that you do not believe this to be a true ordination/consecration of a bishop, but used the preferred language as a form of polite deference. Possibility 1 is unthinkable, which leaves possibility 2, and if that is the case, then we ask Your Excellency to refrain from such language because it is an untruth. Your use of such language is confusing to the Catholic Faithful and is a scandal to the Episcopalians, who are thereby led to believe that you consider such a consecration/ordination to be valid and good.
Directory for the Application of Principle and Norms on Ecumenism
In your 15 January letter, defending your decision to permit the use of St. Bede for the event in question, you said, “I appreciate that you are concerned that the sacred space of the Catholic Church be safeguarded, which it is.” In support of this, you cited paragraph 137 of the Directory for the Application of Principle and Norms on Ecumenism. This paragraph states:
if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services.
We have 2 questions here. 1) Considering how easily the event was moved to a new location, how does that fit with the requirements of the Directory that the community “not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies”? 2) How is this a legitimate application of the Directory considering the superseding norms of Canon 1210? Canon 1210 says the following:
Only those things which serve the exercise or promotion of worship, piety, or religion are permitted in a sacred place; anything not consonant with the holiness of the place is forbidden. In an individual case, however, the ordinary can permit other uses which are not contrary to the holiness of the place.
The definition of “holiness” is vitally important here. St. Thomas Aquinas defines “Sanctity” (which is the same as holiness) as follows:
The word “sanctity” seems to have two significations. On one way it denotes purity; and this signification fits in with the Greek, for hagios means “unsoiled.” On another way it denotes firmness, wherefore in olden times the term “sancta” was applied to such things as were upheld by law and were not to be violated. Hence a thing is said to be sacred [sancitum] when it is ratified by law . Again, in Latin, this word “sanctus” may be connected with purity, if it be resolved into “sanguine tinctus, since, in olden times, those who wished to be purified were sprinkled with the victim’s blood,” according to Isidore (Etym. x). In either case the signification requires sanctity to be ascribed to those things that are applied to the Divine worship; so that not only men, but also the temple, vessels and such like things are said to be sanctified through being applied to the worship of God.
Because the “holiness” of a thing or place refers to its pure firmness in the law, those things which are impure or are not ratified by law are not considered to be “holy.” Furthermore, those things which are in violation of the law would, by definition, be those things which are “not consistent with the holiness of the place.” As such, an act which simulates a sacrament with a solemnity as though it were a sacrament would be a direct violation of the holiness of the sacred space of a Catholic Church. And because of this, it cannot be said that the invalid and illicit simulation of the sacrament of Holy Orders inside a Catholic Church does not violate its sacred space. By the very nature of the simulated sacrament, the holiness of the Catholic Church is indeed violated.
What if this had been done by Catholics?
Your 15 January letter said, “the offer of hospitality to a Christian neighbor in need is an act of charity and well within the teachings of ecumenism and the norms provided by the Church for ecumenical activities.” What is particularly confusing about this, and I do hope you will address it, is an act which would have incurred an automatic excommunication for the Catholic Faithful and elicited (rightly) a condemnation from Your Excellency is not only permissible in a Catholic Church, but in the name of ecumenism, is an act of “hospitality” and “charity” if done by protestants. I do hope you can see how this is confusing to Catholics and will explain to us how this apparent contradiction can possibly be rectified. Please consider the following scenario: Suppose a group of dissident Catholics used the sacred of St. Bede Catholic Church for the illicit and invalid ordination and consecration of female priests and bishops. And suppose you showed up to announce their excommunication and to condemn the act. The very moment you finished pronouncing the condemnation and excommunication, in the name of ecumenism, you could then declare that these “separated brethren” may legitimately use the sacred space of the Church, provided they remove the Holy Eucharist in repose in the Tabernacle.
In short, we do not understand how a violation of the Law of the Church can simultaneously be condemnable while its permitted commission by protestants in a Catholic Church, is an act of charitable hospitality. Please help us to understand how this can possibly be.
Where do we draw the line?
The action which was being permitted to take place in a Catholic Church was an attempted ordination/consecration of a female “bishop,” which is a simulation of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Suppose, instead of the simulation of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, a protestant sect had requested the use of St. Bede for their simulation of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony as they perform a same-sex “marriage.” Would Your Excellency permit the act to take place? It’s an important question because it gets right to the very heart of our concern. I do believe that you would NOT permit the same-sex “marriage” to take place, but I must point out that the same objections you would give for not permitting the same-sex “marriage” must be applied for the simulated ordination/consecration of a female “bishop.” Both actions would have been done by a protestant group. Both actions would have illicitly and invalidly simulated a Catholic Sacrament. Both acts fully contradict the very definitions of Holy Orders and Marriage, respectively. And yet, under the auspices of “ecumenism,” the permission of such acts could have been granted “for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies” because they “do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary.” So, where do we draw the line? Why could you possibly permit one and not the other? If you are concerned about scandalizing the faithful, then you must consider such scandal in both instances. If you are concerned about the violation of Catholic teaching in the “marriage,” then you must equally be concerned about the violation of Catholic teaching in the “ordination.” If one act would violate the Sacred Space of the Church, then you must understand that the other would do so as well.In truth, there is no theological or moral difference in terms of scandal, sacrilege, and violation of Catholic teaching between the two acts. As such, it must be concluded that both acts are equally condemnable and impermissible in a Catholic Church.
Your Excellency, our sincere hope is that you will take our concerns to heart, prayerfully and seriously considering each point. As the spiritual head of the Richmond Diocese, we look to you for truth and understanding as we strive to live our Faith to the fullest. It is for this reason we offer our prayers, fasts, and other sacrifices on your behalf as we look forward to your teaching on this most grave matter.
Please know that we pray for you daily.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Michael Hichborn
President, Lepanto Institute
Share