lifesitenews--2020-02-06--German prelates outraged over faithful cardinal comparing ‘synodal path’ to Hitler’s seize of power

February 5 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Dissident German prelates have expressed outrage over the Vatican ’ s former head of doctrine comparing the German bishops ’ controversial “ synodal path ” to Hitler ’ s seizure of power to become a dictator .
Progressive bishops and clergymen have strongly criticized German cardinal Gerhard Müller for the comparison .
His comments have received much media coverage in Germany .
Two days ago , LifeSiteNews published comments by Müller on last weekend 's first synodal assembly of the “ synodal path ” in Germany which is organized by the German @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lay organization and which aims at questioning the Church ’ s sacramental and moral teaching .
Since the 230 members of the synodal assembly decided to allow also those proposals of the four smaller discussion forums that contradict the Church ’ s teaching to be presented to the general assembly , the German cardinal and former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith compared this event with the Enabling Act of Adolf Hitler which legally repealed the Weimar Constitution and gave plenary powers to Hitler , thus legally establishing his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is like the situation when the Weimar Constitution was repealed by the Enabling Act .
A self-appointed assembly , which is not authorized by God nor by the people it is supposed to represent , rescinds the Constitution of the Church of Divine Right , which is based on the Word of God ( in Scripture and Tradition ) .
” A spiritual adviser of the members of the synodal path , a key organizer of the synodal path , and several bishops have now made statements , specifically rejecting Cardinal Müller ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ representative of the progressive wing of the Catholic Church in Germany that is about to overhaul the Church 's sacramental , hierarchical , and moral structure of the Catholic Faith and teaching .
First , Father Bernd Hagenkord , S.J.
, who just recently left his leading position at Vatican News in Rome in order to return to Germany and to become the spiritual advisor of the members of the German synodal path , sharply criticizes Müller ’ s words as “ poisonous.
” “ He who makes such a comparison , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either has no historical knowledge or intentionally acts in order to poison any debate.
” Müller ’ s comments , he continues , are “ inhuman.
” “ This is not a critique anymore , ” the Jesuit explains , adding that these are “ unacceptable methods.
” “ This is not the Church anymore , ” he writes .
Cardinal Müller , in Hagenkord 's view , is the “ limit ” of acceptable criticism .
“ There is much to criticize , ” writes the German priest .
“ The synodal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without .
Even if it does not suit everyone , what Bishops Woelki and Oster , for example , contribute , they are important voices which belong to it .
But the whole thing has limits .
One limit is called Gerhard Ludwig Müller.
” Thus , Hagenkord declares that Cardinal Müller is excluded from the acceptable discourse .
In his post , Hagenkord also mentions in a critical way Bishop Athanasius Schneider , whose name he refuses even to mention ( “ a completely unknown auxiliary bishop in Astana , Kazakhstan – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be found ” ) .
He explicitly says he would not even provide a link to Bishop Schneider 's words about Cardinal Marx ' “ heresies.
” Bishop Schneider 's strong critique of the German synodal path can be found here .
Returning to the critics of Cardinal Müller , a second voice is Professor Thomas Sternberg , the President of the German Committee of Lay Catholics ( ZdK ) , who , together with Cardinal Reinhard Marx , leads the synodal path .
Sternberg and Marx have been accused of steering and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way that it does not represent the German Catholics at large , but , rather the organized , politicized form of German Catholicism .
( One example is that an internet survey among 5,000 Catholics in Germany showed that hardly anyone asked for female ordination ; yet this is one of the key points on the agenda of the synodal path . )
It is exactly this way of operating that has caused many observers to think of a sort of political take-over of the Catholic Church that is taking place in Germany @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Müller described with the words : “ This political conversion of the Church is the turning away from her religious mission.
” Sternberg comments on Cardinal Müller with the words : “ There is a sort of criticism that judges itself .
This is so far away from reality that it can not be taken seriously.
” The German professor adds that Cardinal Müller opposes “ the great agreement of Catholic faithful and the great majority of the episcopal fellow brothers.
” The General Vicar of Essen , Klaus Pfeffer , called Cardinal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying he was `` stunned '' by them .
Bishop Franz Jung ( Würzburg ) adds his critical voice , saying that the comparison made by the German cardinal is “ misplaced.
” Such comparisons are not helpful , according to this bishop , adding that the synodal path is “ based on votes , ” and one has “ to stand by them.
” The problem with the bishop ’ s words , however , is that strong evidence shows that the synodal path is exactly not representative .
The small leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there will be four discussion forums dealing with “ power , ” “ women in leadership roles , ” “ sexuality , ” and “ priestly life.
” They also already picked groups of experts who wrote preparatory documents , thus channeling and steering the discussion even before the synodal path even started .
As LifeSiteNews reported , one of these preparatory documents questions the Church 's teachings on cohabitation , homosexuality , contraception , gender theory , and masturbation .
Another preparatory document proposes to discuss female ordination .
This document @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positions in the Church and also to sacramental ordination .
With regard to this topic , the document asks : “ Is there at all a possibility to gain , with human power of knowledge , certainty about the Will of God in this matter ?
” Even though Pope John Paul II had , in a definitive manner , ruled out in 1994 the priestly ordination of women , the German experts of the synodal path still question this matter .
Dorothea Schmidt – a representative of the conservative group “ Maria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 – February 1 first assembly of the synodal path in Frankfurt and then published a diary of the three-day event , describing how much the entire event was steered and managed by the synodal path leadership .
Seeing these political machinations , she called out : “ That is not Church , that is politics !
” In further comments to the German newspaper Die Tagespost , Schmidt speaks of “ manipulation.
” As in politics , Schmidt explains in her diary , “ there is a rough tone.
” During the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainly discussed procedural aspects of the synodal path that is to take place during the period of the next two years , “ the impression grew in me that everything had already been arranged , discussed and planned in advance.
” She describes the atmosphere of the synodal discussions and how the minority of “ preservers ” were treated : “ We who are committed to the spiritual renewal of the Church are kept small , our right to speak is restricted , and we have been presented with a fait accompli .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to and speaking time was extended , the preservers are asked to leave the microphone immediately .
All that was left to do was to turn off the tap , i.e .
turn off the microphone , because I did not let myself be shot down.
” Another excerpt of this diary from a Catholic woman further strengthens the impression that there are , indeed , parallels to some undemocratic events in history : “ For I also missed justice and democratic action : the 30 to 35 participants in the four synodal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minute .
About 30 members of the General Assembly were not chosen as forum participants .
Instead , 15 of the preparatory forums were automatically included in the new group .
Only five people could be elected to each forum – all others had already been pre-selected .
Is this what the much-praised participation looks like ?
Everything was supposed to start from scratch , as if the preparation had not existed .
And even the texts that were written at the end of the preparatory forums were given to us in advance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , form the basis for further considerations ?
I am afraid that is how it will be.
” According to Professor Ulrich Lehner , a German theologian and professor at Notre Dame University , it is obvious that the results of this synodal path which will take place for the next two years are already prepared .
He commented on Twitter on this first synod assembly in Frankfurt , saying : “ One could save a lot of time and energy and money if Cardinal Marx would just publish the 'outcome ' of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it 's already written and in his drawer .
China could not have organized a synod better.
” Finally , one may also ask why those promoters of the synodal path do not have a similar strong indignation when it comes to the questioning of the Church 's Permanent Magisterium on sacramental , hierarchical , and moral matters .
After all , they are all called , before God and by virtue of the Sacrament of Holy Orders , to preserve the Catholic Faith whole and entire and to pass it on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their salvation .
Much is at stake .

February 5, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Dissident German prelates have expressed outrage over the Vatican’s former head of doctrine comparing the German bishops’ controversial “synodal path” to Hitler’s seizure of power to become a dictator. Progressive bishops and clergymen have strongly criticized German cardinal Gerhard Müller for the comparison. His comments have received much media coverage in Germany.
Two days ago, LifeSiteNews published comments by Müller on last weekend's first synodal assembly of the “synodal path” in Germany which is organized by the German Bishops' Conference and a major Catholic lay organization and which aims at questioning the Church’s sacramental and moral teaching.
Since the 230 members of the synodal assembly decided to allow also those proposals of the four smaller discussion forums that contradict the Church’s teaching to be presented to the general assembly, the German cardinal and former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith compared this event with the Enabling Act of Adolf Hitler which legally repealed the Weimar Constitution and gave plenary powers to Hitler, thus legally establishing his dictatorship.
Müller said: “This is like the situation when the Weimar Constitution was repealed by the Enabling Act. A self-appointed assembly, which is not authorized by God nor by the people it is supposed to represent, rescinds the Constitution of the Church of Divine Right, which is based on the Word of God (in Scripture and Tradition).”
A spiritual adviser of the members of the synodal path, a key organizer of the synodal path, and several bishops have now made statements, specifically rejecting Cardinal Müller’s comments. All of them are representative of the progressive wing of the Catholic Church in Germany that is about to overhaul the Church's sacramental, hierarchical, and moral structure of the Catholic Faith and teaching.
First, Father Bernd Hagenkord, S.J., who just recently left his leading position at Vatican News in Rome in order to return to Germany and to become the spiritual advisor of the members of the German synodal path, sharply criticizes Müller’s words as “poisonous.”
“He who makes such a comparison,” he states on his blog, “either has no historical knowledge or intentionally acts in order to poison any debate.” Müller’s comments, he continues, are “inhuman.” “This is not a critique anymore,” the Jesuit explains, adding that these are “unacceptable methods.” “This is not the Church anymore,” he writes. Cardinal Müller, in Hagenkord's view, is the “limit” of acceptable criticism. “There is much to criticize,” writes the German priest. “The synodal path needs criticism, from within and without. Even if it does not suit everyone, what Bishops Woelki and Oster, for example, contribute, they are important voices which belong to it. But the whole thing has limits. One limit is called Gerhard Ludwig Müller.” Thus, Hagenkord declares that Cardinal Müller is excluded from the acceptable discourse.
In his post, Hagenkord also mentions in a critical way Bishop Athanasius Schneider, whose name he refuses even to mention (“a completely unknown auxiliary bishop in Astana, Kazakhstan – check it out where it is to be found”). He explicitly says he would not even provide a link to Bishop Schneider's words about Cardinal Marx' “heresies.” Bishop Schneider's strong critique of the German synodal path can be found here.
Returning to the critics of Cardinal Müller, a second voice is Professor Thomas Sternberg, the President of the German Committee of Lay Catholics (ZdK), who, together with Cardinal Reinhard Marx, leads the synodal path. Sternberg and Marx have been accused of steering and manipulating the synodal path in such a way that it does not represent the German Catholics at large, but, rather the organized, politicized form of German Catholicism. (One example is that an internet survey among 5,000 Catholics in Germany showed that hardly anyone asked for female ordination; yet this is one of the key points on the agenda of the synodal path.) It is exactly this way of operating that has caused many observers to think of a sort of political take-over of the Catholic Church that is taking place in Germany right now. This is what Cardinal Müller described with the words: “This political conversion of the Church is the turning away from her religious mission.”
Sternberg comments on Cardinal Müller with the words: “There is a sort of criticism that judges itself. This is so far away from reality that it cannot be taken seriously.” The German professor adds that Cardinal Müller opposes “the great agreement of Catholic faithful and the great majority of the episcopal fellow brothers.”
The General Vicar of Essen, Klaus Pfeffer, called Cardinal Müller's remarks “destructive,” saying he was “stunned” by them.
Bishop Franz Jung (Würzburg) adds his critical voice, saying that the comparison made by the German cardinal is “misplaced.” Such comparisons are not helpful, according to this bishop, adding that the synodal path is “based on votes,” and one has “to stand by them.”
The problem with the bishop’s words, however, is that strong evidence shows that the synodal path is exactly not representative. The small leadership cadre of the synod has determined beforehand that there will be four discussion forums dealing with “power,” “women in leadership roles,” “sexuality,” and “priestly life.” They also already picked groups of experts who wrote preparatory documents, thus channeling and steering the discussion even before the synodal path even started.
As LifeSiteNews reported, one of these preparatory documents questions the Church's teachings on cohabitation, homosexuality, contraception, gender theory, and masturbation.
Another preparatory document proposes to discuss female ordination. This document proposes to admit women to all leadership positions in the Church and also to sacramental ordination. With regard to this topic, the document asks: “Is there at all a possibility to gain, with human power of knowledge, certainty about the Will of God in this matter?” Even though Pope John Paul II had, in a definitive manner, ruled out in 1994 the priestly ordination of women, the German experts of the synodal path still question this matter.
Dorothea Schmidt – a representative of the conservative group “Maria 1.0” – participated at the January 30 – February 1 first assembly of the synodal path in Frankfurt and then published a diary of the three-day event, describing how much the entire event was steered and managed by the synodal path leadership. Seeing these political machinations, she called out: “That is not Church, that is politics!” In further comments to the German newspaper Die Tagespost, Schmidt speaks of “manipulation.”
As in politics, Schmidt explains in her diary, “there is a rough tone.” During the second day of the synodal meeting which mainly discussed procedural aspects of the synodal path that is to take place during the period of the next two years, “the impression grew in me that everything had already been arranged, discussed and planned in advance.”
She describes the atmosphere of the synodal discussions and how the minority of “preservers” were treated: “We who are committed to the spiritual renewal of the Church are kept small, our right to speak is restricted, and we have been presented with a fait accompli. While those calling for reform were listened to and speaking time was extended, the preservers are asked to leave the microphone immediately. All that was left to do was to turn off the tap, i.e. turn off the microphone, because I did not let myself be shot down.”
Another excerpt of this diary from a Catholic woman further strengthens the impression that there are, indeed, parallels to some undemocratic events in history: “For I also missed justice and democratic action: the 30 to 35 participants in the four synodal forums were not announced until the last minute. About 30 members of the General Assembly were not chosen as forum participants. Instead, 15 of the preparatory forums were automatically included in the new group. Only five people could be elected to each forum – all others had already been pre-selected. Is this what the much-praised participation looks like? Everything was supposed to start from scratch, as if the preparation had not existed. And even the texts that were written at the end of the preparatory forums were given to us in advance. Should they now, after all, form the basis for further considerations? I am afraid that is how it will be.”
According to Professor Ulrich Lehner, a German theologian and professor at Notre Dame University, it is obvious that the results of this synodal path which will take place for the next two years are already prepared. He commented on Twitter on this first synod assembly in Frankfurt, saying: “One could save a lot of time and energy and money if Cardinal Marx would just publish the 'outcome' of the #SynodalWay – after all, it's already written and in his drawer. China could not have organized a synod better.”
Finally, one may also ask why those promoters of the synodal path do not have a similar strong indignation when it comes to the questioning of the Church's Permanent Magisterium on sacramental, hierarchical, and moral matters. After all, they are all called, before God and by virtue of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, to preserve the Catholic Faith whole and entire and to pass it on to the faithful, for the sake of their salvation. Much is at stake.
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--2020-02-07--Parents outraged as pro-LGBT big banks withdraw from low-income school choice program

February 6 , 2020 ( FRC Action ) — What kind of people would kick needy kids out of good schools ?
Big Business , that 's who .
In Florida , companies like Wells Fargo and Fifth Third Bank are dropping out of a scholarship program — all because some of the private schools have religious beliefs .
Apparently , these CEOs think the LGBT agenda is more important than giving low-income kids the chance to succeed .
Unfortunately for them , most parents across the state disagree — and are n't about to let the vouchers go quietly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tallahassee , pastors had strong words for anyone — bankers or otherwise — who would sacrifice poor children on the altar of radical sexual politics .
`` I see people who claim to be fighting for social justice who do n't even blink at the thought of using low-income children ... as pawns , '' Rev .
H.K .
Matthews thundered into the crowd .
Almost 109,000 students take advantage of the program that Wells Fargo and Fifth Third would cripple over their ridiculous demands for `` inclusion . ''
Demands , Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on `` Washington Watch , '' that show where their true priorities are .
This program , Senator Rubio said , has become `` very personal to me ...
I now know dozens and dozens of families that have benefited from it . ''
The idea that the rug would be yanked out from under them , just because a school believes what the Bible says about gender and sexuality , is an absolute outrage .
`` How it works is : you 're a low income family .
It gives you the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of a school you do n't like — but to put them into a learning environment that 's going to provide them opportunities for courses and to be around an educational environment they would never have the chance to go to if they did n't make a lot of money .
And I 've seen some of these kids that used a scholarship and graduate go on to the Naval Academy , to West Point , to Harvard , to some of the best institutions in the country .
They never would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that came from going with those schools . ''
`` Now here comes Wells Fargo , this great beacon of morality , '' he says sarcastically , `` who 's been caught just a few years ago fraudulently opening up accounts , savings accounts , checking accounts on behalf of their clients so they can charge them fees and all that .
And here they come now basically saying , 'We 're no longer going to donate to the program because we do n't like the fact that some religious schools [ have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the church ... '' Of course , they call these `` anti-LGBT policies , '' when in reality , they 're just affirmations of biblical teaching on sex and marriage .
And guess what , Senator Rubio asked ?
If a student does n't want to take the scholarship and go to a school with those beliefs , they do n't have to .
The parents choose which school they go to .
So it 's not as if these beliefs are being forced down children 's throats .
And yet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chorus of Democrats in the legislature — are willing to destroy these students ' futures over it .
`` What really sets me off , '' Senator Rubio fumed , `` is [ that what they did ] is not going to hurt those schools .
Those schools are not going to abandon the Bible over a government program if they existed before this program ... [ W ] ho they 're hurting are low-income kids , because they 're not going to be able to go to these schools [ if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ...
There are kids [ who ] may lose their scholarship [ next year ] , [ who ] may be told , 'You can no longer attend the school you 're attending ... because we do n't have enough money this year for you because we lost two donors . '
So it 's just a reminder that what you often see now in corporate America is that they believe they can buy themselves into the good graces of broader society or cover [ up for their scandals ] by [ caving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radicals on the Left . ''
It 's an astonishing statement by Big Business that they 're willing to sentence thousands of children to lives of poverty to cater to the .6 percent .
That 's disgraceful , especially at a time in this country when the test scores in our public schools are declining — and the performance gap is widening .
Programs like Florida 's matter to kids where education is the only lifeline .
Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett and I talked about this extensively late last year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ money to pull their kids out of public school , these programs are a way for children to rise above their circumstances and find success .
As President Trump said Tuesday night in the State of the Union , `` No parent should be forced to send their children to a failing government school . ''
If the executives at Wells Fargo and Fifth Third really cared about inclusion , they 'd give every Florida student the opportunities their own children have .
Instead , they 're putting their sons and daughters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and locking less fortunate children out — all to score `` wokeness points '' on this phony crusade against `` hate . ''
Obviously , Big Business ( like the Left ) does n't care who they hurt , as long as it appeases the radical mob .

February 6, 2020 (FRC Action) — What kind of people would kick needy kids out of good schools? Big Business, that's who. In Florida, companies like Wells Fargo and Fifth Third Bank are dropping out of a scholarship program — all because some of the private schools have religious beliefs. Apparently, these CEOs think the LGBT agenda is more important than giving low-income kids the chance to succeed. Unfortunately for them, most parents across the state disagree — and aren't about to let the vouchers go quietly.
At a rally this week in Tallahassee, pastors had strong words for anyone — bankers or otherwise — who would sacrifice poor children on the altar of radical sexual politics. “I see people who claim to be fighting for social justice who don't even blink at the thought of using low-income children … as pawns,” Rev. H.K. Matthews thundered into the crowd. Almost 109,000 students take advantage of the program that Wells Fargo and Fifth Third would cripple over their ridiculous demands for “inclusion.” Demands, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) pointed out on “Washington Watch,” that show where their true priorities are.
This program, Senator Rubio said, has become “very personal to me… I now know dozens and dozens of families that have benefited from it.” The idea that the rug would be yanked out from under them, just because a school believes what the Bible says about gender and sexuality, is an absolute outrage. “How it works is: you're a low income family. It gives you the opportunity — not just to take them out of a school you don't like — but to put them into a learning environment that's going to provide them opportunities for courses and to be around an educational environment they would never have the chance to go to if they didn't make a lot of money. And I've seen some of these kids that used a scholarship and graduate go on to the Naval Academy, to West Point, to Harvard, to some of the best institutions in the country. They never would have been able to have those opportunities that came from going with those schools.”
“Now here comes Wells Fargo, this great beacon of morality,” he says sarcastically, “who's been caught just a few years ago fraudulently opening up accounts, savings accounts, checking accounts on behalf of their clients so they can charge them fees and all that. And here they come now basically saying, 'We're no longer going to donate to the program because we don't like the fact that some religious schools [have] policies that align with the doctrine of the church…” Of course, they call these “anti-LGBT policies,” when in reality, they're just affirmations of biblical teaching on sex and marriage.
And guess what, Senator Rubio asked? If a student doesn't want to take the scholarship and go to a school with those beliefs, they don't have to. The parents choose which school they go to. So it's not as if these beliefs are being forced down children's throats. And yet, these two banks — along with a chorus of Democrats in the legislature — are willing to destroy these students' futures over it.
“What really sets me off,” Senator Rubio fumed, “is [that what they did] is not going to hurt those schools. Those schools are not going to abandon the Bible over a government program if they existed before this program… [W]ho they're hurting are low-income kids, because they're not going to be able to go to these schools [if they don't get the funding.] …There are kids [who] may lose their scholarship [next year], [who] may be told, 'You can no longer attend the school you're attending… because we don't have enough money this year for you because we lost two donors.' So it's just a reminder that what you often see now in corporate America is that they believe they can buy themselves into the good graces of broader society or cover [up for their scandals] by [caving] to some pressure and bullying from radicals on the Left.”
It's an astonishing statement by Big Business that they're willing to sentence thousands of children to lives of poverty to cater to the .6 percent. That's disgraceful, especially at a time in this country when the test scores in our public schools are declining — and the performance gap is widening. Programs like Florida's matter to kids where education is the only lifeline. Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett and I talked about this extensively late last year. For families who don't have the money to pull their kids out of public school, these programs are a way for children to rise above their circumstances and find success.
As President Trump said Tuesday night in the State of the Union, “No parent should be forced to send their children to a failing government school.” If the executives at Wells Fargo and Fifth Third really cared about inclusion, they'd give every Florida student the opportunities their own children have. Instead, they're putting their sons and daughters in elite schools, and then turning around and locking less fortunate children out — all to score “wokeness points” on this phony crusade against “hate.” Obviously, Big Business (like the Left) doesn't care who they hurt, as long as it appeases the radical mob.
Published with permission from FRC Action.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-07--Trump’s State of the Union address: A pro-life, pro-family speech for the ages

February 6 , 2020 ( FRC Action ) — It was not the speech of a man who 'd endured months of political harassment .
It was n't the performance of a president `` shamed and cowed by impeachment . ''
It was the message of leader who 's beaten the odds — and , for three years , helped Americans do the same .
Tuesday night 's State of the Union was classic , confident , unconventional Trump — a powerful reminder , in a chamber bent on his destruction , that this administration 's successes are personal for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military wife stunned by the return of her husband to the tearful parents holding a photo of Kayla Mueller , Tuesday night 's speech was a trip through America 's stories .
We celebrated the miracle of Ellie Schneider 's survival and cried with Army widow , Kelli Hake .
We saluted an American treasure on his World War II promotion — and rose to our feet when the hope of Venezuela united in our call for freedom .
Together , they were the pages of Trump 's first term , the illustrations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ignore .
In a week where his opponents are still waiting for results , President Trump spent an hour and a half outlining his .
`` Jobs are booming , incomes are soaring , poverty is plummeting , crime is falling , confidence is surging , and our country is thriving and highly respected again .
America 's enemies are on the run , America 's fortunes are on the rise , and America 's future is blazing bright ... [ O ] ur economy is the best it has ever been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with its power being unmatched anywhere in the world — and it 's not even close .
Our borders are secure .
Our families are flourishing .
Our values are renewed .
Our pride is restored .
And for all of these reasons , I say to the people of our great country and to the members of Congress : The state of our Union is stronger than ever before . ''
For Democrats who could n't even put together a successful caucus , CNN 's Stephen Collinson argued , it was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an `` effective , relentless political communicator . ''
But more importantly , he pointed out , Trump has solidified his reputation as a `` rare politician who keeps his promises . ''
He 's taken risks , Collinson insists , that other leaders would have spurned .
And , to the horror of the Left , they 've paid off .
Despite impeachment , a hostile media , and a classless resistance movement , this president is enjoying his highest approval ratings yet .
It 's no wonder Speaker Nancy Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sitting through his most compelling case for reelection yet .
When the speaker stood and ripped up a copy of the speech in disgust , her distress , Michael Goodwin writes , was somewhat `` understandable . ''
The speech was masterful , and she knew it .
It was long , `` because he had a long list of accomplishments to cite . ''
Her only real weapon is `` her personal hatred of the commander-in-chief .
[ And ] it 's not proving to be much of a fight .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ and ] the country has noticed .
She has overplayed her hand ... and led her party into another embarrassing dead end . ''
The unfortunate reality for Pelosi , Senator Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) said later , is that she can rip up the speech , but she ca n't tear up the accomplishments .
Things like protecting life , confirming judges , defending freedom , encouraging faith , and standing for the persecuted .
`` With every action , '' the president stressed , `` my administration is restoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture of American freedom . ''
In this country , he insisted , `` We do not punish prayer .
We do not tear down crosses .
We do not ban symbols of faith .
We do not muzzle preachers and pastors .
In America , we celebrate faith .
We cherish religion .
We lift our voices in prayer , and we raise our sights to the Glory of God ! ''
A God , the president pointed out later , who creates us in His image .
Looking up at Ellie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yawning two-year-old , the president marveled that she had been born prematurely at 21 weeks and survived .
It was a seamless reminder , as Mollie Hemmingway noted , that `` children like Ellie are born at a time when it 's legal to kill them in utero . ''
Ellie , the president said , like every child , `` is a miracle of God ... That is why I 'm also calling upon members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies .
Whether we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , surely we must all agree that every human life is a sacred gift from God . ''
It was a poignant moment , one of many .
And as much as others will try to distract or detract from what we saw , the people that matter went to bed last night believing what their president said was right .
`` Our spirit is still young , the sun is still rising , God 's grace is still shining , and , my fellow Americans , the best is yet to come @ @

February 6, 2020 (FRC Action) — It was not the speech of a man who'd endured months of political harassment. It wasn't the performance of a president “shamed and cowed by impeachment.” It was the message of leader who's beaten the odds — and, for three years, helped Americans do the same. Tuesday night's State of the Union was classic, confident, unconventional Trump — a powerful reminder, in a chamber bent on his destruction, that this administration's successes are personal for every one of us.
From the military wife stunned by the return of her husband to the tearful parents holding a photo of Kayla Mueller, Tuesday night's speech was a trip through America's stories. We celebrated the miracle of Ellie Schneider's survival and cried with Army widow, Kelli Hake. We saluted an American treasure on his World War II promotion — and rose to our feet when the hope of Venezuela united in our call for freedom. Together, they were the pages of Trump's first term, the illustrations of a three-year comeback Democrats tried glumly to ignore.
In a week where his opponents are still waiting for results, President Trump spent an hour and a half outlining his. “Jobs are booming, incomes are soaring, poverty is plummeting, crime is falling, confidence is surging, and our country is thriving and highly respected again. America's enemies are on the run, America's fortunes are on the rise, and America's future is blazing bright… [O]ur economy is the best it has ever been. Our military is completely rebuilt, with its power being unmatched anywhere in the world — and it's not even close. Our borders are secure. Our families are flourishing. Our values are renewed. Our pride is restored. And for all of these reasons, I say to the people of our great country and to the members of Congress: The state of our Union is stronger than ever before.”
For Democrats who couldn't even put together a successful caucus, CNN's Stephen Collinson argued, it was a “daunting warning.” This president is an “effective, relentless political communicator.” But more importantly, he pointed out, Trump has solidified his reputation as a “rare politician who keeps his promises.” He's taken risks, Collinson insists, that other leaders would have spurned. And, to the horror of the Left, they've paid off. Despite impeachment, a hostile media, and a classless resistance movement, this president is enjoying his highest approval ratings yet. It's no wonder Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) finally lost it after sitting through his most compelling case for reelection yet.
When the speaker stood and ripped up a copy of the speech in disgust, her distress, Michael Goodwin writes, was somewhat “understandable.” The speech was masterful, and she knew it. It was long, “because he had a long list of accomplishments to cite.” Her only real weapon is “her personal hatred of the commander-in-chief. [And] it's not proving to be much of a fight. The president is on a winning streak… [and] the country has noticed. She has overplayed her hand… and led her party into another embarrassing dead end.”
The unfortunate reality for Pelosi, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said later, is that she can rip up the speech, but she can't tear up the accomplishments. Things like protecting life, confirming judges, defending freedom, encouraging faith, and standing for the persecuted. “With every action,” the president stressed, “my administration is restoring the rule of law and reasserting the culture of American freedom.” In this country, he insisted, “We do not punish prayer. We do not tear down crosses. We do not ban symbols of faith. We do not muzzle preachers and pastors. In America, we celebrate faith. We cherish religion. We lift our voices in prayer, and we raise our sights to the Glory of God!”
A God, the president pointed out later, who creates us in His image. Looking up at Ellie in the galley, a sweet, yawning two-year-old, the president marveled that she had been born prematurely at 21 weeks and survived. It was a seamless reminder, as Mollie Hemmingway noted, that “children like Ellie are born at a time when it's legal to kill them in utero.” Ellie, the president said, like every child, “is a miracle of God… That is why I'm also calling upon members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies. Whether we are Republican, Democrat, or independent, surely we must all agree that every human life is a sacred gift from God.”
It was a poignant moment, one of many. And as much as others will try to distract or detract from what we saw, the people that matter went to bed last night believing what their president said was right. “Our spirit is still young, the sun is still rising, God's grace is still shining, and, my fellow Americans, the best is yet to come.”
Published with permission from FRC Action.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-07--Abortion facility gets damning govt review, management deemed ‘inadequate’

February 6 , 2020 ( Society for the Protection of Unborn Children ) — An abortion clinic in Streatham run by BPAS has been rated as “ requires improvement ” by the Care Quality Commission , and is the first abortion facility in the country to be ranked as “ inadequate ” on one criterion ( leadership ) .
“ This is the worst rating we ’ ve seen a clinic get , ” said Alithea Williams , Campaigns and Parliamentary assistant at SPUC .
“ This clinic , which is commissioned by the NHS to kill thousands of babies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things like staff training and competency correct .
It is unacceptable that women ’ s safety is being put at risk in this way.
” When the CQC rates abortion clinics , it asks if they are they safe , effective , caring , responsive to people 's needs and well-led .
In its report , published 29 January 2020 , the CQC said that the Streatham clinic required improvement on safety , effectiveness , and responsiveness , while “ well-led ” was rated as inadequate .
Ratings were introduced in September 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report were : • Staff who had not completed immediate life support training , sepsis training , or medicine management training • Not all equipment was in good working order or had been calibrated • The service did not always manage patient safety incidents well .
Staff did not always report incidents • Patients were not offered the choice to take the second pill of a medical abortion in the clinic • Local leaders did not always have the skills and abilities to run the service Much of the report focuses on personnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not always make sure staff were competent for their roles.
” It goes on : “ We found one staff record where certain competencies for the role they were employed for had not been signed off since they started the organisation over three years ago.
” The report is particularly damning about the clinic ’ s leadership , rating it as inadequate .
It said that “ local leaders did not always have the skills and abilities to run the service ” , and “ staff did not always feel respected , supported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not always fully identified , and actions taken to reduce their impact ” .
A negative culture was also reported by staff .
The report says : “ Most staff we spoke with , told us they felt the culture was reactive rather than proactive , with a culture of blame and harassment and this had created an unsupportive and demoralising environment at the centre.
” Alithea Williams said : “ It is not surprising that a clinic that kills thousands of unborn babies a year , especially one that specialises in late-term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work.
” Miss Williams also questioned the focus on the way in which home use of abortion pills is being handled by BPAS .
The report states : “ The clinic had recently started to offer to patients the home use of misoprostol .
However , we found women were not offered the choice of returning to the clinic to take the second tablet if they wanted to.
” This is the second time in months that a BPAS clinic has been rated as inadequate .
A September report on the Merseyside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the CQC were actually contacted by the local NHS trust in March 2018 , “ who raised concerns regarding the frequency of patients coming to them from BPAS Merseyside.
” Published with permission from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children .

This is the first abortion facility in the United Kingdom to be ranked 'inadequate' by the Care Quality Commission.
February 6, 2020 (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) — An abortion clinic in Streatham run by BPAS has been rated as “requires improvement” by the Care Quality Commission, and is the first abortion facility in the country to be ranked as “inadequate” on one criterion (leadership).
“This is the worst rating we’ve seen a clinic get,” said Alithea Williams, Campaigns and Parliamentary assistant at SPUC. “This clinic, which is commissioned by the NHS to kill thousands of babies a year, cannot even get things like staff training and competency correct. It is unacceptable that women’s safety is being put at risk in this way.”
Safe and caring?
When the CQC rates abortion clinics, it asks if they are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs and well-led. In its report, published 29 January 2020, the CQC said that the Streatham clinic required improvement on safety, effectiveness, and responsiveness, while “well-led” was rated as inadequate. Ratings were introduced in September 2017.
Among the issues highlighted in the report were:
Staff who had not completed immediate life support training, sepsis training, or medicine management training
Some staff had insufficient safeguarding training
Not all equipment was in good working order or had been calibrated
The service did not always manage patient safety incidents well. Staff did not always report incidents
Patients were not offered the choice to take the second pill of a medical abortion in the clinic
Local leaders did not always have the skills and abilities to run the service
Untrained staff
Much of the report focuses on personnel, saying that “the service did not always make sure staff were competent for their roles.” It goes on: “We found one staff record where certain competencies for the role they were employed for had not been signed off since they started the organisation over three years ago.”
The report is particularly damning about the clinic’s leadership, rating it as inadequate. It said that “local leaders did not always have the skills and abilities to run the service”, and “staff did not always feel respected, supported and valued” and “risks were not always fully identified, and actions taken to reduce their impact”.
Culture of blame and harassment
A negative culture was also reported by staff. The report says: “Most staff we spoke with, told us they felt the culture was reactive rather than proactive, with a culture of blame and harassment and this had created an unsupportive and demoralising environment at the centre.”
Alithea Williams said: “It is not surprising that a clinic that kills thousands of unborn babies a year, especially one that specialises in late-term abortions, should prove a difficult place to work.”
Choice?
Miss Williams also questioned the focus on the way in which home use of abortion pills is being handled by BPAS. The report states: “The clinic had recently started to offer to patients the home use of misoprostol. However, we found women were not offered the choice of returning to the clinic to take the second tablet if they wanted to.”
This is the second time in months that a BPAS clinic has been rated as inadequate. A September report on the Merseyside clinic found a catalogue of safety abuses, and the CQC were actually contacted by the local NHS trust in March 2018, “who raised concerns regarding the frequency of patients coming to them from BPAS Merseyside.”
Published with permission from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-07--Spanish abortion association may lose public funds after court rules it falsely advertised

MADRID , Spain , February 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A court has sanctioned Spanish abortionists for deceptive advertising , putting their public funding at risk .
According to the Association of Christian Attorneys of Spain ( Abogados Cristianos ) , the Court of the Province of Oviedo has ruled that Association of Voluntary Pregnancy Interruption Clinics of Spain ( ACAI ) made deceptive claims on its website about abortion .
The court demanded ACAI post on their website the court ’ s judgement and pay for the cost of the trial .
ACAI was ordered to never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement , the Christian attorneys ’ guild declared that they “ will continue the process so that public funding is withdrawn from the clinics.
” Polonia Castellanos , president the guild , greeted the ruling , saying that “ justice has been done against an organization that , to benefit , has lied to many women encouraging them to abort as if they were free from serious consequences.
” She emphasized that “ public aid must be destined to mothers who have few resources and not to abortion employers who only seek money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ graphic on the lawyers ’ website said that ACAI stands “ convicted of lying to women about abortion.
” Among the 28 abortion centers associated with and benefiting by advertising with ACAI are : Dator Clinic , El Bosque , Belladona , Pacific , Isadora , Buenavista , Ginesur , Gynecological Callao , Retreat Polyclinic , Casanova , Ginemur , Poliplanning , Actur or Triana Clinic .
Dator Clinic of Madrid was the first abortion facility to operate legally in Spain .
The Association of Christian Attorneys had been recently defeated in other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The abortionists ’ group has announced that it will appeal the Oviedo court ’ s judgment before Spain ’ s Supreme Court , noting that the Superior Court of Justice of the province of Asturias ruled in favor of the Belladona and Buenavista abortionists in that region .
The Association of Christian Attorneys had sued the abortionists on grounds similar to those in the Oviedo case .
Christian Attorneys of Spain is circulating a petition which calls on the 17 autonomous communities and provinces of Spain to end the public subsidies for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , taxpayers funded 100 percent of abortions in Spain , to the tune of more than 34 million euros ( approximately $ 37.5 million USD ) that year .
Currently , there is only one pro-life political party in Spain ’ s congress .
The populist VOX party has condemned parties of the right and left for failing to defend life in the womb , and the right of parents to make decisions about sex education and LGBT agenda in public schools .
VOX has been condemned by Spain ’ s PODEMOS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-Christian positions .
It recently faced a crippling sanction imposed by Twitter , which forbade VOX from making new posts on its Twitter account .
This came when VOX accused the current Socialist government of promoting pedophilia by introducing LGBT curriculum in public schools .
VOX denounced the sanction and has not removed the offending post .
Its account remains suspended .
In an email to LifeSiteNews , VOX national deputy Francisco José Contreras Peláez , who is also an author and professor of law at the University of Seville , declared that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of abortion , “ the culture of death is so strong and domineering that abortion is the only surgical procedure for which no adequate information is given about risks .
VOX is the only Spanish political party that defends life from conception until natural death .
We are opposed to abortion and euthanasia : the latter of which will be the great anthropological-moral battle of this Congress .
”

The Association of Voluntary Pregnancy Interruption Clinics of Spain must post on their website the court’s judgement and pay for the cost of the trial.
MADRID, Spain, February 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A court has sanctioned Spanish abortionists for deceptive advertising, putting their public funding at risk.
According to the Association of Christian Attorneys of Spain (Abogados Cristianos), the Court of the Province of Oviedo has ruled that Association of Voluntary Pregnancy Interruption Clinics of Spain (ACAI) made deceptive claims on its website about abortion. The court demanded ACAI post on their website the court’s judgement and pay for the cost of the trial.
ACAI was ordered to never repeat the false advertising.
In a statement, the Christian attorneys’ guild declared that they “will continue the process so that public funding is withdrawn from the clinics.” Polonia Castellanos, president the guild, greeted the ruling, saying that “justice has been done against an organization that, to benefit, has lied to many women encouraging them to abort as if they were free from serious consequences.” She emphasized that “public aid must be destined to mothers who have few resources and not to abortion employers who only seek money in the suffering of others.”
A graphic on the lawyers’ website said that ACAI stands “convicted of lying to women about abortion.”
Among the 28 abortion centers associated with and benefiting by advertising with ACAI are: Dator Clinic, El Bosque, Belladona, Pacific, Isadora, Buenavista, Ginesur, Gynecological Callao, Retreat Polyclinic, Casanova, Ginemur, Poliplanning, Actur or Triana Clinic. Dator Clinic of Madrid was the first abortion facility to operate legally in Spain.
The Association of Christian Attorneys had been recently defeated in other provincial courts when it had sued ACAI. The abortionists’ group has announced that it will appeal the Oviedo court’s judgment before Spain’s Supreme Court, noting that the Superior Court of Justice of the province of Asturias ruled in favor of the Belladona and Buenavista abortionists in that region. The Association of Christian Attorneys had sued the abortionists on grounds similar to those in the Oviedo case.
Christian Attorneys of Spain is circulating a petition which calls on the 17 autonomous communities and provinces of Spain to end the public subsidies for the ACAI abortion facilities. As of 2018, taxpayers funded 100 percent of abortions in Spain, to the tune of more than 34 million euros (approximately $37.5 million USD) that year.
Currently, there is only one pro-life political party in Spain’s congress. The populist VOX party has condemned parties of the right and left for failing to defend life in the womb, and the right of parents to make decisions about sex education and LGBT agenda in public schools.
VOX has been condemned by Spain’s PODEMOS party and other leftist groupings for its pro-Christian positions. It recently faced a crippling sanction imposed by Twitter, which forbade VOX from making new posts on its Twitter account. This came when VOX accused the current Socialist government of promoting pedophilia by introducing LGBT curriculum in public schools. VOX denounced the sanction and has not removed the offending post. Its account remains suspended.
In an email to LifeSiteNews, VOX national deputy Francisco José Contreras Peláez, who is also an author and professor of law at the University of Seville, declared that even while women are also the victims of abortion, “the culture of death is so strong and domineering that abortion is the only surgical procedure for which no adequate information is given about risks. VOX is the only Spanish political party that defends life from conception until natural death. We are opposed to abortion and euthanasia: the latter of which will be the great anthropological-moral battle of this Congress.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-07--Catholic bishops’ well intentioned move may hobble pregnancy care centers

February 6 , 2020 ( CatholicCulture.org ) — When Cardinal Blase Cupich cautions against political partisanship — in remarks made after the March for Life — informed readers recognize that he is questioning the degree of Catholic commitment to the campaign against legal abortion .
Not for the first time ; back in November , the same cardinal sought to soften a statement that listed abortion as “ the preeminent priority ” of the US bishops ’ conference in the public-policy realm .
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops ( USCCB ) voted down Cardinal Cupich ’ s proposed amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ * But 69 bishops supported the amendment , prompting some concerned Catholics to question the depth of these bishops ’ commitment to the pro-life cause .
** Other observers , taking a rosier view , saw the USCCB vote as a victory for the pro-life cause .
In fact it was neither a victory nor a loss ; the vote upheld the status quo , and confirming the longstanding split within the episcopal conference between those who see abortion as one among many important political issues , and those who truly see the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But let ’ s look beyond the “ seamless garment ” debate — a debate that the USCCB rehashes every election year — and look at the more specific plan of action issued by Archbishop Joseph Naumann , the head of the bishops ’ pro-life committee .
Focusing on the needs of women who face difficult pregnancies , he called attention to the Catholic hospitals and Catholic Charities affiliates that provide services for these women .
Then , in third place , he mentioned the “ thousands of pregnancy care centers staffed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something just a bit off-balance about that account .
Catholic hospitals and charitable agencies do wonderful work — for women who have decided to continue their pregnancies .
But the pregnancy care centers ( CPCs ) are the shock troops in the battle against abortions .
They deserve top billing .
Archbishop Naumann ’ s statement was an introduction to a new USCCB program , the “ Walking with Moms in Need ” initiative .
On paper it ’ s an excellent plan , calling for each Catholic parish to become aware of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the local resources available to help them .
As Archbishop Naumann explained , “ Each parish is best able to identify the local pregnancy help resources that are currently available and to identify potential gaps that need to be addressed.
” Yes .
Absolutely .
But if there is a CPC already in place , having already studied the needs of pregnant women in the locale , and already working to supply those needs , isn ’ t the proper role of the parish to support that CPC ?
There ’ s no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s an urgent need not to duplicate efforts and compete for scarce resources .
If you read Archbishop Naumann ’ s statement carefully , you notice the distinction he draws between hospitals that are run by Catholic institutions and agencies affiliated with Catholic Charities on one hand , and CPCs — which may or may not have a formal Catholic affiliation — on the other .
Quite understandably , bishops are reluctant to assume responsibility for organizations that they do not control .
So the Catholic hospitals and Catholic agencies claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing prodigious work , vital work — our work , God ’ s work — and deserve our unstinting support .
What worries me about the “ Walking with Moms in Need ” initiative is the possibility that an organized campaign will develop , filtering down from the USCCB through the dioceses to the parishes — to set up CPCs that adhere to a set of standards approved by the hierarchy .
I do not mean to suggest that the existing CPCs are perfect ; they aren ’ t .
But I question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing models , and in the absence of some Platonic ideal of the CPC , I am inclined to “ let a thousand flowers bloom.
” It would be tragic if , responding to the USCCB initiative , earnest Catholics formed their own new CPCs , and thereby interfered with the efforts of existing institutions .
Does my concern strike you as far-fetched ?
Then let me tell you a story .
My friend Rod Murphy is a decorated and scarred veteran of the pro-life battle .
For decades he has worked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set up a CPC in Worcester , Massachusetts , which has been operating for more than 35 years , saving roughly 200 babies a year .
Rod knows what he ’ s doing , and other pro-life activists have called upon him , leaning on his experience , to help set up CPCs elsewhere in New England , and in Florida , in Maryland , in Alaska , and even in foreign countries .
So it made sense that Rod Murphy was invited to speak at a pro-life conference in Connecticut in October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rescinded .
Deacon David Reynolds , a spokesman for the Connecticut Pregnancy Care Coalition ( CPCC ) — an umbrella group of CPCs established with the support of the Connecticut bishops — eventually explained .
The CPCC is committed to a non-confrontational approach , “ to provide clients with transparent and unambiguous information and reject any deceptive advertising practices.
” Reynolds wrote to Murphy : “ It has come to our attention that some of the methods you employ may conflict with these principles.
” To be sure , Murphy ’ s model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by abortion advocates .
He favors centers located as close as possible to Planned Parenthood abortuaries .
He recommends drawing in abortion-minded women by advertising pregnancy tests , not leading with pro-life slogans , since he assumes that the women coming to his centers are leaning toward abortion ; he wants the centers to give the unborn children one last chance at life .
Some CPCs exist primarily to serve women who have decided to continue their pregnancy despite difficult circumstances .
Others , like Murphy ’ s models , are set up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to try to show them — even at the 11th hour — that there are alternatives to the procedure they have in mind .
Abortion advocates object to these tactics , claiming that they are misleading , and the CPCC , falling into that line of thinking , inveighs against “ deceptive advertising practices.
” But is it “ deceptive ” to advertise tests , to offer “ options ” for pregnant women ?
The CPCC also recommends against fielding sidewalk counselors to speak to women outside abortion clinics ; that too is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CPC that Murphy helped to set up , explaining why he would not allow the group to solicit funds in local parishes , Bishop Michael Cote said : “ I would expect any pro-life pregnancy center operating within the Diocese of Norwich , and receiving funds from the diocese or local parishes , to be a member of [ the CPCC ] .
” He voiced his hope that the new CPC would eventually fall into line with the soft-sell approach of the bishops ’ favored group , which is “ in line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the diocese.
” Do you detect , in the bishop ’ s statement , a suggestion that the more aggressive approach is at odds with Catholic teaching ?
The bishops of Connecticut , through their support for the CPCC , have chosen one approach to providing support for women in difficult pregnancies .
But is there any formal teaching of the Catholic Church that requires support for that approach — as opposed to the approach that has been used for years , with notable success , by activists like Rod Murphy ?
Bishop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local CPC , boasted about the involvement of the Connecticut bishops in setting up the CPCC .
“ We are the only state in the country to have such a legal entity , whose mission is to support the efforts of the pro-life pregnancy centers in Connecticut , ” he wrote .
But not all the pro-life pregnancy centers .
The CPCC won ’ t support the CPCs that imitate Rod Murphy ’ s successful approach .
To the CPC that had not yet won CPCC endorsement , the bishop strongly suggested toeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t help now , he said , but “ I hope such a relationship can eventually come to exist ... ” So what worries me about the USCCB initiative — which , again , looks so good at first glance — is the possibility that the bishops across the country will follow the lead of the bishops in Connecticut , and set up their own guidelines for the CPCs that seek their support .
Inevitably those guidelines will exclude some CPCs and encourage others .
And if the Connecticut experience is any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ experts ” will not listen to counsel from pro-life veterans who have built and operated CPCs , and saved thousands of lives .
If you ’ ve been watching the US bishops ’ conference long enough , you may recall that years ago , the USCC ( as it was then known ) set out to establish a television network .
A successful young Catholic network , EWTN , already existed .
But the bishops did not favor Mother Angelica ’ s approach .
So they tried to set up their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic effort .
They sank tens of millions of dollars into the effort .
And they failed , utterly .
First , because EWTN had already succeeded in reaching a huge Catholic audience .
Second , because bishops have no special expertise in television broadcasting .
In their laudable determination to help women with difficult pregnancies , the American bishops must not make the same mistake again .
There are thousands of CPCs already at work , guided by experienced lay people .
Some are explicitly Catholic , but most are ecumenical — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ecumenical alliances , especially in public affairs ?
Support them .
Encourage them .
Endorse them .
Learn from them .
Don ’ t compete with them .
Don ’ t try to make them fit a single mold .
Don ’ t thwart them .
*For the record , the Cupich amendment would not have removed the phrase “ preeminent priority ” from the USCCB statement .
But it would have — following the logic of the “ seamless garment ” approach — listed other political issues that should be considered “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ B are “ equally sacred , ” how can A be considered preeminent ?
** We don ’ t know the names of the bishops who supported the Cupich amendment .
The USCCB uses an electronic voting system , rather than taking roll-call votes — or even standing votes that would allow reporters in attendance to identify the positions of individual bishops .
( Accountability , anyone ? )

Catholic hospitals and charitable agencies do wonderful work, but the pregnancy care centers are the shock troops in the battle against abortions. The bishops should recognize this.
February 6, 2020 (CatholicCulture.org) — When Cardinal Blase Cupich cautions against political partisanship — in remarks made after the March for Life — informed readers recognize that he is questioning the degree of Catholic commitment to the campaign against legal abortion. Not for the first time; back in November, the same cardinal sought to soften a statement that listed abortion as “the preeminent priority” of the US bishops’ conference in the public-policy realm.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voted down Cardinal Cupich’s proposed amendment, leaving the USCCB statement intact.* But 69 bishops supported the amendment, prompting some concerned Catholics to question the depth of these bishops’ commitment to the pro-life cause.** Other observers, taking a rosier view, saw the USCCB vote as a victory for the pro-life cause. In fact it was neither a victory nor a loss; the vote upheld the status quo, and confirming the longstanding split within the episcopal conference between those who see abortion as one among many important political issues, and those who truly see the right to life as “preeminent.”
But let’s look beyond the “seamless garment” debate — a debate that the USCCB rehashes every election year — and look at the more specific plan of action issued by Archbishop Joseph Naumann, the head of the bishops’ pro-life committee. Focusing on the needs of women who face difficult pregnancies, he called attention to the Catholic hospitals and Catholic Charities affiliates that provide services for these women. Then, in third place, he mentioned the “thousands of pregnancy care centers staffed by many Catholic volunteers.”
There’s something just a bit off-balance about that account. Catholic hospitals and charitable agencies do wonderful work — for women who have decided to continue their pregnancies. But the pregnancy care centers (CPCs) are the shock troops in the battle against abortions. They deserve top billing.
Archbishop Naumann’s statement was an introduction to a new USCCB program, the “Walking with Moms in Need” initiative. On paper it’s an excellent plan, calling for each Catholic parish to become aware of the needs of pregnant women, and the local resources available to help them. As Archbishop Naumann explained, “Each parish is best able to identify the local pregnancy help resources that are currently available and to identify potential gaps that need to be addressed.”
Yes. Absolutely. But if there is a CPC already in place, having already studied the needs of pregnant women in the locale, and already working to supply those needs, isn’t the proper role of the parish to support that CPC? There’s no need to re-invent the wheel, and there’s an urgent need not to duplicate efforts and compete for scarce resources.
If you read Archbishop Naumann’s statement carefully, you notice the distinction he draws between hospitals that are run by Catholic institutions and agencies affiliated with Catholic Charities on one hand, and CPCs — which may or may not have a formal Catholic affiliation — on the other. Quite understandably, bishops are reluctant to assume responsibility for organizations that they do not control. So the Catholic hospitals and Catholic agencies claim top billing. But the CPCs are doing prodigious work, vital work — our work, God’s work — and deserve our unstinting support.
What worries me about the “Walking with Moms in Need” initiative is the possibility that an organized campaign will develop, filtering down from the USCCB through the dioceses to the parishes — to set up CPCs that adhere to a set of standards approved by the hierarchy. I do not mean to suggest that the existing CPCs are perfect; they aren’t. But I question whether the USCCB can improve on the existing models, and in the absence of some Platonic ideal of the CPC, I am inclined to “let a thousand flowers bloom.” It would be tragic if, responding to the USCCB initiative, earnest Catholics formed their own new CPCs, and thereby interfered with the efforts of existing institutions.
Does my concern strike you as far-fetched? Then let me tell you a story.
My friend Rod Murphy is a decorated and scarred veteran of the pro-life battle. For decades he has worked to help women with problem pregnancies. He set up a CPC in Worcester, Massachusetts, which has been operating for more than 35 years, saving roughly 200 babies a year. Rod knows what he’s doing, and other pro-life activists have called upon him, leaning on his experience, to help set up CPCs elsewhere in New England, and in Florida, in Maryland, in Alaska, and even in foreign countries.
So it made sense that Rod Murphy was invited to speak at a pro-life conference in Connecticut in October 2018. But then the invitation was rescinded. Deacon David Reynolds, a spokesman for the Connecticut Pregnancy Care Coalition (CPCC) — an umbrella group of CPCs established with the support of the Connecticut bishops — eventually explained. The CPCC is committed to a non-confrontational approach, “to provide clients with transparent and unambiguous information and reject any deceptive advertising practices.” Reynolds wrote to Murphy: “It has come to our attention that some of the methods you employ may conflict with these principles.”
To be sure, Murphy’s model can be seen as provocative — especially by abortion advocates. He favors centers located as close as possible to Planned Parenthood abortuaries. He recommends drawing in abortion-minded women by advertising pregnancy tests, not leading with pro-life slogans, since he assumes that the women coming to his centers are leaning toward abortion; he wants the centers to give the unborn children one last chance at life. Some CPCs exist primarily to serve women who have decided to continue their pregnancy despite difficult circumstances. Others, like Murphy’s models, are set up to serve “abortion-minded” women, to try to show them — even at the 11th hour — that there are alternatives to the procedure they have in mind.
Abortion advocates object to these tactics, claiming that they are misleading, and the CPCC, falling into that line of thinking, inveighs against “deceptive advertising practices.” But is it “deceptive” to advertise tests, to offer “options” for pregnant women? The CPCC also recommends against fielding sidewalk counselors to speak to women outside abortion clinics; that too is considered too confrontational.
Writing to a CPC that Murphy helped to set up, explaining why he would not allow the group to solicit funds in local parishes, Bishop Michael Cote said: “I would expect any pro-life pregnancy center operating within the Diocese of Norwich, and receiving funds from the diocese or local parishes, to be a member of [the CPCC].” He voiced his hope that the new CPC would eventually fall into line with the soft-sell approach of the bishops’ favored group, which is “in line with Catholic teaching and always welcomed by the diocese.”
Do you detect, in the bishop’s statement, a suggestion that the more aggressive approach is at odds with Catholic teaching? The bishops of Connecticut, through their support for the CPCC, have chosen one approach to providing support for women in difficult pregnancies. But is there any formal teaching of the Catholic Church that requires support for that approach — as opposed to the approach that has been used for years, with notable success, by activists like Rod Murphy?
Bishop Cote, in his letter to the local CPC, boasted about the involvement of the Connecticut bishops in setting up the CPCC. “We are the only state in the country to have such a legal entity, whose mission is to support the efforts of the pro-life pregnancy centers in Connecticut,” he wrote. But not all the pro-life pregnancy centers. The CPCC won’t support the CPCs that imitate Rod Murphy’s successful approach. To the CPC that had not yet won CPCC endorsement, the bishop strongly suggested toeing the line. The Norwich diocese wouldn’t help now, he said, but “I hope such a relationship can eventually come to exist…”
So what worries me about the USCCB initiative — which, again, looks so good at first glance — is the possibility that the bishops across the country will follow the lead of the bishops in Connecticut, and set up their own guidelines for the CPCs that seek their support. Inevitably those guidelines will exclude some CPCs and encourage others. And if the Connecticut experience is any indication, the bishops and their policy “experts” will not listen to counsel from pro-life veterans who have built and operated CPCs, and saved thousands of lives.
If you’ve been watching the US bishops’ conference long enough, you may recall that years ago, the USCC (as it was then known) set out to establish a television network. A successful young Catholic network, EWTN, already existed. But the bishops did not favor Mother Angelica’s approach. So they tried to set up their own network, in competition with an existing Catholic effort. They sank tens of millions of dollars into the effort. And they failed, utterly. First, because EWTN had already succeeded in reaching a huge Catholic audience. Second, because bishops have no special expertise in television broadcasting.
In their laudable determination to help women with difficult pregnancies, the American bishops must not make the same mistake again. There are thousands of CPCs already at work, guided by experienced lay people. Some are explicitly Catholic, but most are ecumenical — and don’t the bishops favor ecumenical alliances, especially in public affairs? Support them. Encourage them. Endorse them. Learn from them. Don’t compete with them. Don’t try to make them fit a single mold. Don’t thwart them.
*For the record, the Cupich amendment would not have removed the phrase “preeminent priority” from the USCCB statement. But it would have — following the logic of the “seamless garment” approach — listed other political issues that should be considered “equally sacred.” If issues A and B are “equally sacred,” how can A be considered preeminent?
** We don’t know the names of the bishops who supported the Cupich amendment. The USCCB uses an electronic voting system, rather than taking roll-call votes — or even standing votes that would allow reporters in attendance to identify the positions of individual bishops. (Accountability, anyone?)
Published with permission from CatholicCulture.org.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-07--Pope’s co-signed document on God willing ‘diversity of religions’ celebrated on 1st anniversary

February 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The first anniversary of Pope Francis signing the Abu Dhabi Document on Human Fraternity on February 4 , 2019 was celebrated in Abu Dhabi this week with a series of events aimed at further implementing its “ values ” the world over .
The Higher Committee for Human Fraternity was created in September and met with Catholic Cardinal Miguel Angel Ayudo Guixot in attendance as one of its nine members .
Irina Bokova , former director-general of UNESCO , was later added as a member .
Pope Francis and Grand Imam Al-Tayeb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original signatories of the Abu Dhabi Document , both sent video messages .
Incidentally , the council of Egypt ’ s sunni Al-Azhar University recently named 2020 the year of Human Fraternity , in honor of the Document , and now teaches the principles of the Fraternity Document to its students .
The overall message of the events was that media and education need to transmit the message of the declaration as a sort of ( obligatory ) charter for peace and “ mutual respect.
” This was made obvious by the launching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initiative of the Muslim Council of Elders in Abu Dhabi , on February 3 , and the participation of 150 young people from all over the world at the forum set up by the Higher Committee .
Another element put forward by the organizers was the hope to make other religions – but also non-believers – join the initiative , in close cooperation with the United Nations .
The Abu Dhabi Document was highly criticized by faithful Catholics because it says the “ diversity ” of religions was the fruit of the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imply that God directly wills error and false religions .
While Pope Francis was later to say privately to Bishop Athanasius Schneider that he was speaking of the “ permissive ” will of God , no official clarification of the text was published .
Instead , the Document is being touted to international organizations , religions and states as well as educational authorities and media without any change .
The text contains other problematic elements insofar as it presents “ tolerance ” and “ fraternity ” among men as supreme values , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God or of the possibility of conversion .
Islam prohibits conversion to Christianity and countries ruled by sharia law punish it by death .
This relativistic mindset could be found in the words of Msgr .
Yoannis Gaid , secretary to Pope Francis and a member of the Higher Committee .
Speaking to the press , he was quoted indirectly by Sister Bernadette Mary Reis of VaticanNews as saying “ that young people have an important role in achieving the goals of the Document on Human Fraternity.
” “ He also said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s will because all believers find their origin in God .
It is God who gathers all of humanity into one family .
Therefore , members of all religions are brothers and sisters , ” she reported .
At the press conference , Judge Mohamed Abdel Salam , former adviser to the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar and Secretary of the Higher Committee , “ cited a recent event involving Pope Francis as a concrete example of how the Document can be implemented : when the Pope made known his desire to welcome several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on religion , ” she wrote .
In the same vein , at the public conference of the Higher Committee , Msgr .
Gaid revealed that Pope Francis had donated the full amount of the Zayed Award for Human Fraternity he received last year – and which from now on will be attributed each year – to the Muslim Rohingya refugees from Myanmar .
He made no “ distinction of religion , ” said Msgr .
Gaid .
No mention was made of persecuted Christians in Islamic countries at this point : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but also “ blasphemers ” in Pakistan who can face trial and the death penalty if they are found guilty of that crime in sharia law .
Some damage control appears to be taking place on the part of Cardinal Miguel , who spoke with VaticanNews about the initiative .
“ We can not and we can never renounce our own identity , ” he told Sister Bernadette Reis .
On the contrary , “ among the conditions needed for promoting interreligious dialogue , is that of remaining always fully radicated in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditions.
” The goal is “ not to create this melting pot of everybody but rather a rich , mixed salad , ” he said later , adding that the “ richness ” of this “ lies in unifying our different voices into a ‘ beautiful sound of music , ’ a ‘ symphony of the world , ’ ” she reported .
The Cardinal was trying to make clear that Catholicism would not have to “ change ” in order to meet the requirements of Abu Dhabi .
The problem with that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeated declarations against proselytism , and of course , the signing of a Document in which it is said that God “ wills ” diversity and pluralism of religions .
This implied that other religions or the faithful of those religions should not change either , and that truth plays a subordinate role to mutual understanding .
During the official celebration of the first anniversary of the Document on Human Fraternity at the Manarat al Saadiyat cultural center ( literally : “ place of awakening ” ) in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Patriarch of Constantinople , also present .
This is how Sister Reis reported his remarks : “ Patriarch Bartholomew I , Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and the Eastern Orthodox Church ( … ) began saying it was a great joy for him to participate in the anniversary celebration .
In a world of rapid change when new challenges are constantly appearing , the Patriarch said that a new stance is required by the world ’ s religions .
Credibility of religious leaders , he continued , is measured by how they promote peace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dialogue aims to promote understanding between different beliefs and traditions , if necessary at the cost of blacking out uncomfortable differences , including essential truths .
For instance , there was no mention of God the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit in Pope Francis ’ message ( nor anywhere in the Document and its unfolding story ) , but only of “ God Almighty , ” which is acceptable to Muslims .
Speaking of the Most Holy Trinity would come over as what Islam decries : “ associaters ” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Msgr .
Gaid was quoted as follows : “ Regarding diversity , he reiterated the point in the Document that it is part of God ’ s plan .
The goals in the Document must be embraced by everyone on earth if the Document is to become a reality .
He ended saying that the Document is a roadmap that needs to be enshrined in laws and inserted into educational curriculums.
” No longer is believing and living out the truths taught by the “ universal ” Catholic Church presented as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heaven ) .
The Document is turning into new Commandments and a new relativistic Creed .
How ?
In schools and in the media .
The Arab Media Convention for Human Fraternity presented a model of its aim .
Judge Mohamed Abdel Salam , former adviser to the Grand Imam of Al-Azharn , was quoted as saying , “ The media is at the heart of this great humanitarian project .
The media is undoubtedly an active partner … and bears a large part of the responsibility , including the responsibility for its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and principles.
” This is a far cry from freedom of the press .
Journalists are being asked to adhere to the values of the Abu Dhabi Document and to make sure their readers share them too .
Paolo Ruffini , head of the Vatican Dicastery for Communication , was present at the convention .
He was proud to announce that VaticanNews published 350 different articles in seven languages , including Arabic , about the Document on Human Fraternity .
“ Agreements are underway for some television productions that the Dicastery intends to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to communicate the principles of the Document not only as information , but as true training for dialogue and mutual knowledge , and to have it as a guideline in our daily work , ” he said .
He added , “ Religions are not the problem .
They are part of the solution because they can remind us that it is necessary to raise the heart upwards to the Most High to learn how to build the city of man.
” Which Most High ?
The true God ?
Idols ?
Buddha @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ city of man ?
” It was the expression that St. Augustine used as opposed to the “ City of God , ” which shall prevail in the end after having been opposed by the “ City of Man.
” The presence at the meetings of Bokova , the newest member of the Higher Committee , deserves a special mention .
She was also in Abu Dhabi last year when Pope Francis and Imam Al-Tayeb signed the Document .
At the special anniversary meeting of the Higher Committee last Monday , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important indeed to look at this document as a foundational document in our time when we see the rise of extremism , of hate speech and xenophobia.
” “ Extremism , ” “ hate speech ” and xenophobia ” are the code words used to discredit the desire to protect one ’ s country from excessive immigration and disintegration in the “ One World Order , ” and to condemn those who proclaim that natural morality must be protected in the face of “ LGBT rights.
” They are the armed vocabulary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welcomed the educational goals of the Document .
“ Young people can find answers in this Document , and it is in harmony with the fourth point of the UN ’ s Sustainable Development Goals which targets education , ” she remarked .
Speaking to La Croix International , Bokova called the Document “ inclusive ; it concerns all of humanity , those who are believers and those who are not , ” insisting that education is one of its main goals .
“ It is indeed one of the priorities of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are going to integrate this document into the different education systems around the world , ” she said .
“ We will certainly propose to the United Nations that February 4 become the International Day of Tolerance .
It ’ s important to do that .
But it will be for the UN General Assembly to decide , ” she added , explaining that she hopes to be able to draw on her own experience within the UN system to push this initiative .
Her own experience is that of a former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home country .
Her father was editor in chief of the Bulgarian Communist Party ’ s paper , Robonitchesko Delo , and a member of Politburo .
Bokova herself joined the Young members of the Communist Party during her teenage years , going on to obtain her education as a diplomat at the State Institute of International Relations in Moscow when the USSR was still going strong .
When communism visibly collapsed at the beginning of the 1990s , Bokova chose to enter into politics in the Bulgarian Socialist Party , which in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bokova was minister for foreign affairs in Prime minister Zhan Videnov ’ s government – also a former communist who was an agent of the Bulgarian branch of the KGB .
Her bid for directorship at UNESCO was efficiently supported by Barack Obama , despite complaints from former prisoners of the Bulgarian Gulag .

There's a strong push to spread the flawed message throughout the world in the name of 'tolerance' and fraternity' and as a charter for 'mutual respect.'
PETITION: Catholics, call on the Vatican to affirm all salvation comes through Jesus! Sign the petition here.
February 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The first anniversary of Pope Francis signing the Abu Dhabi Document on Human Fraternity on February 4, 2019 was celebrated in Abu Dhabi this week with a series of events aimed at further implementing its “values” the world over.
The Higher Committee for Human Fraternity was created in September and met with Catholic Cardinal Miguel Angel Ayudo Guixot in attendance as one of its nine members. Irina Bokova, former director-general of UNESCO, was later added as a member.
Pope Francis and Grand Imam Al-Tayeb of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the original signatories of the Abu Dhabi Document, both sent video messages. Incidentally, the council of Egypt’s sunni Al-Azhar University recently named 2020 the year of Human Fraternity, in honor of the Document, and now teaches the principles of the Fraternity Document to its students.
The overall message of the events was that media and education need to transmit the message of the declaration as a sort of (obligatory) charter for peace and “mutual respect.”
This was made obvious by the launching of an Arab Media Convention, an initiative of the Muslim Council of Elders in Abu Dhabi, on February 3, and the participation of 150 young people from all over the world at the forum set up by the Higher Committee.
Another element put forward by the organizers was the hope to make other religions – but also non-believers – join the initiative, in close cooperation with the United Nations.
The Abu Dhabi Document was highly criticized by faithful Catholics because it says the “diversity” of religions was the fruit of the “wise will of God.” This would imply that God directly wills error and false religions. While Pope Francis was later to say privately to Bishop Athanasius Schneider that he was speaking of the “permissive” will of God, no official clarification of the text was published.
Instead, the Document is being touted to international organizations, religions and states as well as educational authorities and media without any change.
The text contains other problematic elements insofar as it presents “tolerance” and “fraternity” among men as supreme values, with no mention of the true and Triune God or of the possibility of conversion. Islam prohibits conversion to Christianity and countries ruled by sharia law punish it by death.
This relativistic mindset could be found in the words of Msgr. Yoannis Gaid, secretary to Pope Francis and a member of the Higher Committee. Speaking to the press, he was quoted indirectly by Sister Bernadette Mary Reis of VaticanNews as saying “that young people have an important role in achieving the goals of the Document on Human Fraternity.” “He also said the Document itself is rooted in God’s will because all believers find their origin in God. It is God who gathers all of humanity into one family. Therefore, members of all religions are brothers and sisters,” she reported.
At the press conference, Judge Mohamed Abdel Salam, former adviser to the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar and Secretary of the Higher Committee, “cited a recent event involving Pope Francis as a concrete example of how the Document can be implemented: when the Pope made known his desire to welcome several refugee families, he made no distinction based on religion,” she wrote.
In the same vein, at the public conference of the Higher Committee, Msgr. Gaid revealed that Pope Francis had donated the full amount of the Zayed Award for Human Fraternity he received last year – and which from now on will be attributed each year – to the Muslim Rohingya refugees from Myanmar. He made no “distinction of religion,” said Msgr. Gaid.
No mention was made of persecuted Christians in Islamic countries at this point: not only the victims of terrorist groups but also “blasphemers” in Pakistan who can face trial and the death penalty if they are found guilty of that crime in sharia law.
Some damage control appears to be taking place on the part of Cardinal Miguel, who spoke with VaticanNews about the initiative. “We cannot and we can never renounce our own identity,” he told Sister Bernadette Reis. On the contrary, “among the conditions needed for promoting interreligious dialogue, is that of remaining always fully radicated in our own identity, in our own religious traditions.”
The goal is “not to create this melting pot of everybody but rather a rich, mixed salad,” he said later, adding that the “richness” of this “lies in unifying our different voices into a ‘beautiful sound of music,’ a ‘symphony of the world,’” she reported.
The Cardinal was trying to make clear that Catholicism would not have to “change” in order to meet the requirements of Abu Dhabi. The problem with that is that it already has, with repeated declarations against proselytism, and of course, the signing of a Document in which it is said that God “wills” diversity and pluralism of religions. This implied that other religions or the faithful of those religions should not change either, and that truth plays a subordinate role to mutual understanding.
During the official celebration of the first anniversary of the Document on Human Fraternity at the Manarat al Saadiyat cultural center (literally: “place of awakening”) in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday, a similar declaration was made by the Patriarch of Constantinople, also present.
This is how Sister Reis reported his remarks: “Patriarch Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and the Eastern Orthodox Church (…) began saying it was a great joy for him to participate in the anniversary celebration. In a world of rapid change when new challenges are constantly appearing, the Patriarch said that a new stance is required by the world’s religions. Credibility of religious leaders, he continued, is measured by how they promote peace and engage in interreligious dialogue.”
Interreligious dialogue aims to promote understanding between different beliefs and traditions, if necessary at the cost of blacking out uncomfortable differences, including essential truths. For instance, there was no mention of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in Pope Francis’ message (nor anywhere in the Document and its unfolding story), but only of “God Almighty,” which is acceptable to Muslims. Speaking of the Most Holy Trinity would come over as what Islam decries: “associaters” or polytheists.
Also during the official celebration, Msgr. Gaid was quoted as follows: “Regarding diversity, he reiterated the point in the Document that it is part of God’s plan. The goals in the Document must be embraced by everyone on earth if the Document is to become a reality. He ended saying that the Document is a roadmap that needs to be enshrined in laws and inserted into educational curriculums.”
No longer is believing and living out the truths taught by the “universal” Catholic Church presented as the way to world peace (and to heaven). The Document is turning into new Commandments and a new relativistic Creed.
How? In schools and in the media.
The Arab Media Convention for Human Fraternity presented a model of its aim.
Judge Mohamed Abdel Salam, former adviser to the Grand Imam of Al-Azharn, was quoted as saying, “The media is at the heart of this great humanitarian project. The media is undoubtedly an active partner … and bears a large part of the responsibility, including the responsibility for its awareness, education and disseminating human values and principles.”
This is a far cry from freedom of the press. Journalists are being asked to adhere to the values of the Abu Dhabi Document and to make sure their readers share them too.
Paolo Ruffini, head of the Vatican Dicastery for Communication, was present at the convention. He was proud to announce that VaticanNews published 350 different articles in seven languages, including Arabic, about the Document on Human Fraternity.
“Agreements are underway for some television productions that the Dicastery intends to promote together with external partners in order to communicate the principles of the Document not only as information, but as true training for dialogue and mutual knowledge, and to have it as a guideline in our daily work,” he said.
He added, “Religions are not the problem. They are part of the solution because they can remind us that it is necessary to raise the heart upwards to the Most High to learn how to build the city of man.”
Which Most High? The true God? Idols? Buddha or Allah? And what is the “city of man?” It was the expression that St. Augustine used as opposed to the “City of God,” which shall prevail in the end after having been opposed by the “City of Man.”
The presence at the meetings of Bokova, the newest member of the Higher Committee, deserves a special mention. She was also in Abu Dhabi last year when Pope Francis and Imam Al-Tayeb signed the Document.
At the special anniversary meeting of the Higher Committee last Monday, she said, “I think it is important indeed to look at this document as a foundational document in our time when we see the rise of extremism, of hate speech and xenophobia.”
“Extremism,” “hate speech” and xenophobia” are the code words used to discredit the desire to protect one’s country from excessive immigration and disintegration in the “One World Order,” and to condemn those who proclaim that natural morality must be protected in the face of “LGBT rights.” They are the armed vocabulary of the dictatorship of relativism.
Bokova also welcomed the educational goals of the Document. “Young people can find answers in this Document, and it is in harmony with the fourth point of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals which targets education,” she remarked.
Speaking to La Croix International, Bokova called the Document “inclusive; it concerns all of humanity, those who are believers and those who are not,” insisting that education is one of its main goals.
“It is indeed one of the priorities of our committee. We were thinking about how we are going to integrate this document into the different education systems around the world,” she said.
“We will certainly propose to the United Nations that February 4 become the International Day of Tolerance. It’s important to do that. But it will be for the UN General Assembly to decide,” she added, explaining that she hopes to be able to draw on her own experience within the UN system to push this initiative.
Her own experience is that of a former communist Nomenklatura member in Bulgaria, her home country. Her father was editor in chief of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s paper, Robonitchesko Delo, and a member of Politburo.
Bokova herself joined the Young members of the Communist Party during her teenage years, going on to obtain her education as a diplomat at the State Institute of International Relations in Moscow when the USSR was still going strong.
When communism visibly collapsed at the beginning of the 1990s, Bokova chose to enter into politics in the Bulgarian Socialist Party, which in fact recycled the former Communist Party.
Bokova was minister for foreign affairs in Prime minister Zhan Videnov’s government – also a former communist who was an agent of the Bulgarian branch of the KGB. Her bid for directorship at UNESCO was efficiently supported by Barack Obama, despite complaints from former prisoners of the Bulgarian Gulag.
Follow Jeanne Jeanne Smits has worked as a journalist in France since 1987 after obtaining a Master of Arts in Law. She formerly directed the French daily Présent and was editor-in-chief of an all-internet French-speaking news site called reinformation.tv. She writes regularly for a number of Catholic journals (Monde & vie, L’Homme nouveau, Reconquête…) and runs a personal pro-life blog. In addition, she is often invited to radio and TV shows on alternative media. She is vice-president of the Christian and French defense association “AGRIF.” She is the French translator of The Dictator Pope by Henry Sire and Christus Vincit by Bishop Schneider, and recently contributed to the Bref examen critique de la communion dans la main about Communion in the hand. She is married and has three children, and lives near Paris.
Share