lifesitenews--2020-07-06--Abp Viganò defends his union with Church: ‘I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church’

July 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – “ I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church , for the exaltation of which I daily renew the offering of my life , ” stated Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò regarding accusations that he was “ on the brink of schism ” over his comments regarding the Catholic Church in relation to the 1962-65 Vatican II council .
In a new post today that was first published by Sandro Magister in Italian and Marco Tosatti in English ( read full letter below ) , Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò responded to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which the Italian journalist accused him of demeaning Pope Benedict XVI and for being “ on the brink of schism.
” Magister had written , on June 29 , a strong rebuke of Archbishop Viganòs recent interventions , in which he strongly criticized some elements of the Second Vatican Council that are ambiguous and that have been the basis of the creation of a “ parallel church ” that has little in common with the Catholic Church 's Tradition .
In his post , Magister claimed that Archbishop Viganò blames Pope Benedict XVI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Church in that he would have it be believed that the Second Vatican Council was immune to heresies and moreover should be interpreted in perfect continuity with true perennial doctrine.
” However , the link provided by Magister leads to a June 9 post by Viganò ( here in English ) that does not claim that Pope Benedict had “ deceived ” the whole Church .
Viganò had spoken in his earlier June 9 post about the fact that “ attempts to correct the conciliar excesses – invoking the hermeneutic of continuity – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added that “ despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis , it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built , superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.
” Viganò only used the word “ deception ” when he admitted that , just as he “ honestly and serenely obeyed questionable orders sixty years ago , believing that they represented the loving voice of the Church , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deceived.
” Next to this claim about Viganò 's purportedly accusing Pope Benedict XVI , Sandro Magister also claimed in his June 29 article that this Italian prelate is “ on the brink of schism.
” Further using harsh language , Magister also spoke of “ a relentless barrage of denunciations of Church heresies over the last few decades ” that Archbishop Viganò purportedly has published in recent weeks .
In his new response to Magister , the Italian prelate wrote that he was aware that someone critical of the Council easily “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” but that nevertheless he considers it appropriate to “ raise problems that remain unresolved to date , the foremost of which is the crisis that has afflicted the Church since Vatican II.
” He furthermore rejects Magister 's claim that he himself was on the “ brink ” of schism , saying : “ I claim the right to say it without thereby making myself guilty of the delict of schism for having attacked the unity of the Church .
The unity of the Church is inseparably in Charity and in Truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only worms its way in , there can not be Charity.
” Archbishop Viganò then assured Magister that , “ unlike many bishops , such as those of the German Synodal Path , who have already gone far beyond the brink of schism ( ... ) I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church , for the exaltation of which I daily renew the offering of my life.
” He goes on to explain that he never accused Pope Benedict of having “ deceived ” the Church : “ I do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a thing about the Holy Father ; on the contrary : I said , and I reaffirm , that we were all – or almost all – deceived by those who used the Council as a “ container ” equipped with its own implicit authority and the authoritativeness of the Fathers who took part in it , while distorting its purpose .
And those who fell into this deception did so because , loving the Church and the Papacy , they could not imagine that in the heart of Vatican II a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Council to demolish the Church from within ; and that in doing so they could count on the silence and inaction of Authority , if not on its complicity.
” Archbishop Viganò has started to open up this debate about Vatican II at the beginning of June , in response to a June 1 statement by Bishop Athanasius Schneider .
The Italian prelate first published a June 9 intervention , adding a June 15 statement about some of the problematic propositions that can be found in Vatican II documents .
He then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the history and background of the turbulent Second Vatican Council and the signs that it had indeed been manipulated by a small group of modernists , on June 26 .
In a response to LifeSite 's editor-in-chief , Archbishop Viganò clarified his earlier words that he thinks this Council should better be forgotten , by saying that he considers this Council to be valid , but manipulated .
Finally , this new response to Sandro Magister is so far the last statement explaining his own position and critique .
Viganò herewith is trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being silenced as being a “ Lefebvrist , ” as he wrote to Sandro Magister .
Permit me to reply to your article “ Archbishop Viganò on the Brink of Schism , ” published at Settimo Cielo on June 29 ( here ) .
I am aware that having dared to express an opinion strongly critical of the Council is sufficient to awaken the inquisitorial spirit that in other cases is the object of execration by right-thinking people .
Nonetheless , in a respectful dispute between ecclesiastics and competent laity , it does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to raise problems that remain unresolved to date , the foremost of which is the crisis that has afflicted the Church since Vatican II and has now reached the point of devastation .
There are those who speak of the misrepresentation of the Council ; others who speak of the need to return to reading it in continuity with the Tradition ; others of the opportunity to correct any errors contained in it , or to interpret the equivocal points in a Catholic sense .
On the opposing side , there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a blueprint from which to proceed in the revolution : the changing and transformation of the Church into an entirely new and modern entity , in step with the times .
This is part of the normal dynamics of a “ dialogue ” that is all too often invoked but rarely practiced : those who thus far have expressed dissent about what I have said have never entered into the merit of the argument , limiting themselves to saddling me with epithets that have already been merited by my far more illustrious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is curious that , both in the doctrinal as well as the political arena , the progressives claim for themselves a primacy , a state of election , that apodictically places the adversary in a position of ontological inferiority , unworthy of attention or response and simplistically liquidatable as Lefebvrian on the ecclesial front or fascist on the socio-political front .
But their lack of arguments does not legitimize them to dictate the rules , nor to decide who has the right to speak , especially when reason , even prior to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , who the author is , and what the purpose is .
At first it appeared to me that the content of your article was to be considered more an understandable tribute to the Prince , who can be found in the frescoed salons of the Third Loggia or in the stylish offices of the Editor ; and yet in reading what you attribute to me I discovered an inaccuracy – let ’ s call it that – that I hope is the result of a misunderstanding .
I therefore ask you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Settimo Cielo .
You state that I have supposedly blamed Benedict XVI “ for having ‘ deceived ’ the whole Church in that he would have it be believed that the Second Vatican Council was immune to heresies and moreover should be interpreted in perfect continuity with true perennial doctrine.
” I do not think that I have ever written such a thing about the Holy Father ; on the contrary : I said , and I reaffirm , that we were all – or almost all – deceived by those who used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equipped with its own implicit authority and the authoritativeness of the Fathers who took part in it , while distorting its purpose .
And those who fell into this deception did so because , loving the Church and the Papacy , they could not imagine that in the heart of Vatican II a minority of very organized conspirators could use a Council to demolish the Church from within ; and that in doing so they could count on the silence and inaction of Authority , if not on its complicity .
These are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ myself to give a personal interpretation , but one which I think others may share .
I permit myself also to remind you , as if there was any need , that the positions of moderate critical re-reading of the Council in a traditional sense by Benedict XVI are part of a laudable recent past , while in the formidable Seventies the position of then-theologian Joseph Ratzinger was quite different .
Authoritative studies stand alongside the same admissions of the Professor of Tubingen confirming the partial repentances of the Emeritus .
Nor do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Viganò against Benedict XVI for his ‘ failed attempts to correct conciliar excesses by invoking the hermeneutic of continuity , ’ ” since this is an opinion widely shared not only in conservative circles but also and above all among progressives .
And it should be said that what the innovators succeeded in obtaining by means of deception , cunning and blackmail was the result of a vision that we have found later applied in the maximum degree in the Bergoglian “ magisterium ” of Amoris Laetitia .
The malicious intention is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impression grew steadily that nothing was now stable in the Church , that everything was open to revision .
More and more the Council appeared to be like a great Church parliament that could change everything and reshape everything according to its own desires ” ( cf .
J. Ratzinger , Milestones , translation from the German by Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis , Ignatius Press , San Francisco , 1997 , p. 132 ) .
But even more so by the words of the Dominican Edward Schillebeecks : “ We express it diplomatically [ now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will draw the implicit conclusions ” ( De Bazuin , n.16 , 1965 ) .
We have confirmed that the intentional ambiguity in the texts had the purpose of keeping opposing and irreconcilable visions together , in the name of an evaluation of utility and to the detriment of revealed Truth .
A Truth that , when it is integrally proclaimed , can not fail to be divisive , just as Our Lord is divisive : “ Do you think that I have come to bring peace on earth ?
No , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Lk 12:51 ) .
I do not find anything reprehensible in suggesting that we should forget Vatican II : its proponents knew how to confidently exercise this damnatio memoriae not just with a Council but with everything , even to the point of affirming that their council was the first of the new church , and that beginning with their council the old religion and the old Mass was finished .
You will say to me that these are the positions of extremists , and that virtue stands in the middle , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Vatican II is only the latest of an uninterrupted series of events in which the Holy Spirit speaks through the mouth of the one and only infallible Magisterium .
If so , it should be explained why the conciliar church was given a new liturgy and a new calendar , and consequently a new doctrine – nova lex orandi , nova lex credendi – distancing itself from its own past with disdain .
The mere idea of setting the Council aside causes scandal even in those , like you , who recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who persist in not wanting to recognize the causal link between Vatican II and its logical and inevitable effects .
You write : “ Attention : not the Council interpreted badly , but the Council as such and en bloc.
” I ask you then : what would be the correct interpretation of the Council ?
The one you give or the one given – while they wrote the decrees and declarations – by its very industrious architects ?
Or perhaps that of the German episcopate ?
Or that of the theologians who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we see published in the most popular Catholic periodicals in the world ?
Or that of Joseph Ratzinger ?
Or that of Bishop Schneider ?
Or that of Bergoglio ?
This would be enough to understand how much damage has been caused by the deliberate adoption of a language that was so murky that it legitimized opposing and contrary interpretations , on the basis of which the famous conciliar springtime then occurred .
This is why I do not hesitate to say that that assembly should be forgotten “ as such and en @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to say it without thereby making myself guilty of the delict of schism for having attacked the unity of the Church .
The unity of the Church is inseparably in Charity and in Truth , and where error reigns or even only worms its way in , there can not be Charity .
The fairytale of the hermeneutic – even though an authoritative one because of its Author – nevertheless remains an attempt to want to give the dignity of a Council to a true and proper ambush against the Church , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it the Popes who wanted , imposed and reproposed that Council .
So much so that those same Popes , one after the other , rise to the honors of the altar for having been “ popes of the Council.
” Allow me to quote from the article that Doctor Maria Guarini published on June 29 at Chiesa e postconcilio in reaction to your piece at Settimo Cielo , entitled : “ Archbishop Viganò is not on the brink of schism : many sins are coming to a head.
” She writes : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is born and for this reason risks continuing – without results ( thus far , except for the debate triggered by Archbishop Viganò ) – the dialogue between deaf people , because the interlocutors use different reality grids : Vatican II , changing the language , has also changed the parameters of approach to reality .
And so it happens that we talk about the same thing which , however , is given entirely different meanings .
Among other things , the principal characteristic of the present hierarchy is the use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrate them or with flawed and sophistic demonstrations .
But they do not even have need of demonstrations , because the new approach and the new language have subverted everything from the beginning .
And the unproven nature of the anomalous ‘ pastorality ’ without any defined theological principles is precisely what takes away the raw material of the dispute .
It is the advance of a shapeless , ever-changing , dissolving fluid in place of the clear , unequivocal , definitive truthful construct : the incandescent perennial firmness of dogma against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neo-magisterium ” ( here ) .
I continue to hope that the tone of your article was not dictated by the simple fact that I have dared to reopen the debate about that Council that many – too many – in the ecclesial structure , consider as an unicum in the history of the Church , almost an untouchable idol .
You may be certain that , unlike many bishops , such as those of the German Synodal Path , who have already gone far beyond the brink of schism – promoting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practices on the universal Church – I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church , for the exaltation of which I daily renew the offering of my life .
Published here with permission .
Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @ pellegrino2020

PETITION: Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues! Sign the petition here.
July 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – “I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church, for the exaltation of which I daily renew the offering of my life,” stated Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò regarding accusations that he was “on the brink of schism” over his comments regarding the Catholic Church in relation to the 1962-65 Vatican II council.
In a new post today that was first published by Sandro Magister in Italian and Marco Tosatti in English (read full letter below), Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò responded to an article by Sandro Magister, in which the Italian journalist accused him of demeaning Pope Benedict XVI and for being “on the brink of schism.”
Magister had written, on June 29, a strong rebuke of Archbishop Viganòs recent interventions, in which he strongly criticized some elements of the Second Vatican Council that are ambiguous and that have been the basis of the creation of a “parallel church” that has little in common with the Catholic Church's Tradition. In his post, Magister claimed that Archbishop Viganò blames Pope Benedict XVI for “having 'deceived' the whole Church in that he would have it be believed that the Second Vatican Council was immune to heresies and moreover should be interpreted in perfect continuity with true perennial doctrine.” However, the link provided by Magister leads to a June 9 post by Viganò (here in English) that does not claim that Pope Benedict had “deceived” the whole Church.
Viganò had spoken in his earlier June 9 post about the fact that “attempts to correct the conciliar excesses – invoking the hermeneutic of continuity – have proven unsuccessful,” and then added that “despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.”
Viganò only used the word “deception” when he admitted that, just as he “honestly and serenely obeyed questionable orders sixty years ago, believing that they represented the loving voice of the Church,” he now recognizes “that I have been deceived.”
Next to this claim about Viganò's purportedly accusing Pope Benedict XVI, Sandro Magister also claimed in his June 29 article that this Italian prelate is “on the brink of schism.” Further using harsh language, Magister also spoke of “a relentless barrage of denunciations of Church heresies over the last few decades” that Archbishop Viganò purportedly has published in recent weeks.
In his new response to Magister, the Italian prelate wrote that he was aware that someone critical of the Council easily “awakens” the “inquisitorial spirit,” but that nevertheless he considers it appropriate to “raise problems that remain unresolved to date, the foremost of which is the crisis that has afflicted the Church since Vatican II.”
He furthermore rejects Magister's claim that he himself was on the “brink” of schism, saying: “I claim the right to say it without thereby making myself guilty of the delict of schism for having attacked the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church is inseparably in Charity and in Truth, and where error reigns or even only worms its way in, there cannot be Charity.”
Archbishop Viganò then assured Magister that, “unlike many bishops, such as those of the German Synodal Path, who have already gone far beyond the brink of schism (…) I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church, for the exaltation of which I daily renew the offering of my life.”
He goes on to explain that he never accused Pope Benedict of having “deceived” the Church:
“I do not think that I have ever written such a thing about the Holy Father; on the contrary: I said, and I reaffirm, that we were all – or almost all – deceived by those who used the Council as a “container” equipped with its own implicit authority and the authoritativeness of the Fathers who took part in it, while distorting its purpose. And those who fell into this deception did so because, loving the Church and the Papacy, they could not imagine that in the heart of Vatican II a minority of very organized conspirators could use a Council to demolish the Church from within; and that in doing so they could count on the silence and inaction of Authority, if not on its complicity.”
Archbishop Viganò has started to open up this debate about Vatican II at the beginning of June, in response to a June 1 statement by Bishop Athanasius Schneider. The Italian prelate first published a June 9 intervention, adding a June 15 statement about some of the problematic propositions that can be found in Vatican II documents. He then responded to questions by Phil Lawler concerning the history and background of the turbulent Second Vatican Council and the signs that it had indeed been manipulated by a small group of modernists, on June 26.
In a response to LifeSite's editor-in-chief, Archbishop Viganò clarified his earlier words that he thinks this Council should better be forgotten, by saying that he considers this Council to be valid, but manipulated.
Finally, this new response to Sandro Magister is so far the last statement explaining his own position and critique. Viganò herewith is trying to open up a debate without immediately being silenced as being a “Lefebvrist,” as he wrote to Sandro Magister.
***
Archbishop Viganò's full response to Sandro Magister:
3 July 2020
Saint Irenaeus, Bishop and Martyr
Dear Mr. Magister,
Permit me to reply to your article “Archbishop Viganò on the Brink of Schism,” published at Settimo Cielo on June 29 (here).
I am aware that having dared to express an opinion strongly critical of the Council is sufficient to awaken the inquisitorial spirit that in other cases is the object of execration by right-thinking people. Nonetheless, in a respectful dispute between ecclesiastics and competent laity, it does not seem to me to be inappropriate to raise problems that remain unresolved to date, the foremost of which is the crisis that has afflicted the Church since Vatican II and has now reached the point of devastation.
There are those who speak of the misrepresentation of the Council; others who speak of the need to return to reading it in continuity with the Tradition; others of the opportunity to correct any errors contained in it, or to interpret the equivocal points in a Catholic sense. On the opposing side, there is no lack of those who consider Vatican II as a blueprint from which to proceed in the revolution: the changing and transformation of the Church into an entirely new and modern entity, in step with the times. This is part of the normal dynamics of a “dialogue” that is all too often invoked but rarely practiced: those who thus far have expressed dissent about what I have said have never entered into the merit of the argument, limiting themselves to saddling me with epithets that have already been merited by my far more illustrious and venerable brothers in the episcopate. It is curious that, both in the doctrinal as well as the political arena, the progressives claim for themselves a primacy, a state of election, that apodictically places the adversary in a position of ontological inferiority, unworthy of attention or response and simplistically liquidatable as Lefebvrian on the ecclesial front or fascist on the socio-political front. But their lack of arguments does not legitimize them to dictate the rules, nor to decide who has the right to speak, especially when reason, even prior to faith, has demonstrated where the deception is, who the author is, and what the purpose is.
At first it appeared to me that the content of your article was to be considered more an understandable tribute to the Prince, who can be found in the frescoed salons of the Third Loggia or in the stylish offices of the Editor; and yet in reading what you attribute to me I discovered an inaccuracy – let’s call it that – that I hope is the result of a misunderstanding. I therefore ask you to grant me space to reply at Settimo Cielo.
You state that I have supposedly blamed Benedict XVI “for having ‘deceived’ the whole Church in that he would have it be believed that the Second Vatican Council was immune to heresies and moreover should be interpreted in perfect continuity with true perennial doctrine.” I do not think that I have ever written such a thing about the Holy Father; on the contrary: I said, and I reaffirm, that we were all – or almost all – deceived by those who used the Council as a “container” equipped with its own implicit authority and the authoritativeness of the Fathers who took part in it, while distorting its purpose. And those who fell into this deception did so because, loving the Church and the Papacy, they could not imagine that in the heart of Vatican II a minority of very organized conspirators could use a Council to demolish the Church from within; and that in doing so they could count on the silence and inaction of Authority, if not on its complicity. These are historical facts, of which I permit myself to give a personal interpretation, but one which I think others may share.
I permit myself also to remind you, as if there was any need, that the positions of moderate critical re-reading of the Council in a traditional sense by Benedict XVI are part of a laudable recent past, while in the formidable Seventies the position of then-theologian Joseph Ratzinger was quite different. Authoritative studies stand alongside the same admissions of the Professor of Tubingen confirming the partial repentances of the Emeritus. Nor do I see a “reckless indictment launched by Viganò against Benedict XVI for his ‘failed attempts to correct conciliar excesses by invoking the hermeneutic of continuity,’” since this is an opinion widely shared not only in conservative circles but also and above all among progressives. And it should be said that what the innovators succeeded in obtaining by means of deception, cunning and blackmail was the result of a vision that we have found later applied in the maximum degree in the Bergoglian “magisterium” of Amoris Laetitia. The malicious intention is admitted by Ratzinger himself: “The impression grew steadily that nothing was now stable in the Church, that everything was open to revision. More and more the Council appeared to be like a great Church parliament that could change everything and reshape everything according to its own desires” (cf. J. Ratzinger, Milestones, translation from the German by Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1997, p. 132). But even more so by the words of the Dominican Edward Schillebeecks: “We express it diplomatically [now], but after the Council we will draw the implicit conclusions” (De Bazuin, n.16, 1965).
We have confirmed that the intentional ambiguity in the texts had the purpose of keeping opposing and irreconcilable visions together, in the name of an evaluation of utility and to the detriment of revealed Truth. A Truth that, when it is integrally proclaimed, cannot fail to be divisive, just as Our Lord is divisive: “Do you think that I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division” (Lk 12:51).
I do not find anything reprehensible in suggesting that we should forget Vatican II: its proponents knew how to confidently exercise this damnatio memoriae not just with a Council but with everything, even to the point of affirming that their council was the first of the new church, and that beginning with their council the old religion and the old Mass was finished. You will say to me that these are the positions of extremists, and that virtue stands in the middle, that is, among those who consider that Vatican II is only the latest of an uninterrupted series of events in which the Holy Spirit speaks through the mouth of the one and only infallible Magisterium. If so, it should be explained why the conciliar church was given a new liturgy and a new calendar, and consequently a new doctrine – nova lex orandi, nova lex credendi – distancing itself from its own past with disdain.
The mere idea of setting the Council aside causes scandal even in those, like you, who recognize the crisis of recent years, but who persist in not wanting to recognize the causal link between Vatican II and its logical and inevitable effects. You write: “Attention: not the Council interpreted badly, but the Council as such and en bloc.” I ask you then: what would be the correct interpretation of the Council? The one you give or the one given – while they wrote the decrees and declarations – by its very industrious architects? Or perhaps that of the German episcopate? Or that of the theologians who teach in the Pontifical Universities and that we see published in the most popular Catholic periodicals in the world? Or that of Joseph Ratzinger? Or that of Bishop Schneider? Or that of Bergoglio? This would be enough to understand how much damage has been caused by the deliberate adoption of a language that was so murky that it legitimized opposing and contrary interpretations, on the basis of which the famous conciliar springtime then occurred. This is why I do not hesitate to say that that assembly should be forgotten “as such and en bloc,” and I claim the right to say it without thereby making myself guilty of the delict of schism for having attacked the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church is inseparably in Charity and in Truth, and where error reigns or even only worms its way in, there cannot be Charity.
The fairytale of the hermeneutic – even though an authoritative one because of its Author – nevertheless remains an attempt to want to give the dignity of a Council to a true and proper ambush against the Church, so as not to discredit along with it the Popes who wanted, imposed and reproposed that Council. So much so that those same Popes, one after the other, rise to the honors of the altar for having been “popes of the Council.”
Allow me to quote from the article that Doctor Maria Guarini published on June 29 at Chiesa e postconcilio in reaction to your piece at Settimo Cielo, entitled: “Archbishop Viganò is not on the brink of schism: many sins are coming to a head.” She writes: “And it is precisely from here that is born and for this reason risks continuing – without results (thus far, except for the debate triggered by Archbishop Viganò) – the dialogue between deaf people, because the interlocutors use different reality grids: Vatican II, changing the language, has also changed the parameters of approach to reality. And so it happens that we talk about the same thing which, however, is given entirely different meanings. Among other things, the principal characteristic of the present hierarchy is the use of incontestable affirmations, without ever bothering to demonstrate them or with flawed and sophistic demonstrations. But they do not even have need of demonstrations, because the new approach and the new language have subverted everything from the beginning. And the unproven nature of the anomalous ‘pastorality’ without any defined theological principles is precisely what takes away the raw material of the dispute. It is the advance of a shapeless, ever-changing, dissolving fluid in place of the clear, unequivocal, definitive truthful construct: the incandescent perennial firmness of dogma against the sewage and shifting sands of the transient neo-magisterium” (here).
I continue to hope that the tone of your article was not dictated by the simple fact that I have dared to reopen the debate about that Council that many – too many – in the ecclesial structure, consider as an unicum in the history of the Church, almost an untouchable idol.
You may be certain that, unlike many bishops, such as those of the German Synodal Path, who have already gone far beyond the brink of schism – promoting and brazenly attempting to impose aberrant ideologies and practices on the universal Church – I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church, for the exaltation of which I daily renew the offering of my life.
Deus refugium nostrum et virtus, populum ad Te clamantem propitius respice; Et intercedente Gloriosa et Immaculata Virgine Dei Genitrice Maria, cum Beato Ioseph, ejus Sponso, ac Beatis Apostolis Tuis, Petro et Paulo, et omnibus Sanctis, quas pro conversione peccatorum, pro libertate et exaltatione Sanctae Matris Ecclesiae, preces effundimus, misericors et benignus exaudi. Receive, dear Sandro, my blessing and greeting, with best wishes for every good thing, in Christ Jesus.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Published here with permission. Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @pellegrino2020
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--2020-07-06--Trump orders creation of American heroes statue park as BLM rioters destroy statues, monuments

WASHINGTON , D.C. , July 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — President Donald J. Trump has signed an executive order calling for the building of a national park to honor American heroes , following weeks of the destruction and tearing down of statues and monuments in leftist riots around the country .
Trump signed the order on Friday July 3 , before highlighting it in his speech at Mount Rushmore that day .
“ I am announcing the creation of a new monument to the giants of our past .
I am signing an executive order to establish the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vast outdoor park that will feature the statues of the greatest Americans to ever live , ” Trump said at the foot of the iconic monument , which depicts George Washington , Thomas Jefferson , Theodore Roosevelt , and Abraham Lincoln .
“ From this night and from this magnificent place let us go forward united in our purpose and rededicated in our resolve .
We will raise the next generation of American patriots .
We will write the next thrilling chapter of the American adventure .
And we will teach our children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land of legends , that nothing can stop them and that no one can hold them down.
” The executive order “ on Building and Rebuilding Monuments to American Heroes ” decries the recent acts of vandalism and destruction and reflects on the significance of national monuments to the American people and the memory of their shared history .
“ These statues are silent teachers in solid form of stone and metal .
They preserve the memory of our American story and stir in us a spirit of responsibility for the chapters yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
“ To destroy a monument is to desecrate our common inheritance , ” he continues .
“ In recent weeks , in the midst of protests across America , many monuments have been vandalized or destroyed .
Some local governments have responded by taking their monuments down .
Among others , monuments to Christopher Columbus , George Washington , Thomas Jefferson , Benjamin Franklin , Francis Scott Key , Ulysses S. Grant , leaders of the abolitionist movement , the first all-volunteer African-American regiment of the Union Army in the Civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the First and Second World Wars have been vandalized , destroyed , or removed.
” Religious statues have also been increasingly being targeted in the violent protests that have swept across the country following the death of George Floyd .
In Missouri , Catholics have been attacked while defending a statue of St. Louis IX , the thirteenth century King of France .
Last week in Montana , a man used a pick-up truck to tear down a statue of the Ten Commandments .
In California , protestors pulled down and desecrated statues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both San Francisco and Los Angeles .
A group of courageous young Catholics successfully defended Serra ’ s statue outside Ventura City Hall .
Trump ’ s order specifically identifies Serra as an individual included in the phrase “ historically significant American , ” for whom statues in the National Garden may be commissioned .
“ My Administration will not abide an assault on our collective national memory , ” Trump wrote .
“ In the face of such acts of destruction , it is our responsibility as Americans to stand strong against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our great national story to future generations through newly commissioned monuments to American heroes.
” Among those individuals specifically mentioned for whom statues should be commissioned are Susan B. Anthony , the nineteenth century suffragette whose name has been adopted by the pro-life group the Susan B. Anthony List ; slavery abolitionist Harriet Tubman , who escaped from slavery before helping others do so ; Antonin Scalia , the late pro-life Supreme Court Justice ; and Billy Graham , the international Christian evangelist .
Trump ’ s order also insists that statues commissioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lifelike or realistic representation of that person , not an abstract or modernist representation.
” “ America owes its present greatness to its past sacrifices , ” the order states .
“ Because the past is always at risk of being forgotten , monuments will always be needed to honor those who came before .
”

Statues 'preserve the memory of our American story and stir in us a spirit of responsibility for the chapters yet unwritten.'
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — President Donald J. Trump has signed an executive order calling for the building of a national park to honor American heroes, following weeks of the destruction and tearing down of statues and monuments in leftist riots around the country.
Trump signed the order on Friday July 3, before highlighting it in his speech at Mount Rushmore that day.
“I am announcing the creation of a new monument to the giants of our past. I am signing an executive order to establish the National Garden of American heroes, a vast outdoor park that will feature the statues of the greatest Americans to ever live,” Trump said at the foot of the iconic monument, which depicts George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln.
“From this night and from this magnificent place let us go forward united in our purpose and rededicated in our resolve. We will raise the next generation of American patriots. We will write the next thrilling chapter of the American adventure. And we will teach our children to know that they live in a land of legends, that nothing can stop them and that no one can hold them down.”
The executive order “on Building and Rebuilding Monuments to American Heroes” decries the recent acts of vandalism and destruction and reflects on the significance of national monuments to the American people and the memory of their shared history.
“These statues are silent teachers in solid form of stone and metal. They preserve the memory of our American story and stir in us a spirit of responsibility for the chapters yet unwritten,” Trump’s order states.
“To destroy a monument is to desecrate our common inheritance,” he continues.
“In recent weeks, in the midst of protests across America, many monuments have been vandalized or destroyed. Some local governments have responded by taking their monuments down. Among others, monuments to Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Francis Scott Key, Ulysses S. Grant, leaders of the abolitionist movement, the first all-volunteer African-American regiment of the Union Army in the Civil War, and American soldiers killed in the First and Second World Wars have been vandalized, destroyed, or removed.”
Religious statues have also been increasingly being targeted in the violent protests that have swept across the country following the death of George Floyd. In Missouri, Catholics have been attacked while defending a statue of St. Louis IX, the thirteenth century King of France. Last week in Montana, a man used a pick-up truck to tear down a statue of the Ten Commandments.
In California, protestors pulled down and desecrated statues of Catholic missionary St. Junipero Serra in both San Francisco and Los Angeles. A group of courageous young Catholics successfully defended Serra’s statue outside Ventura City Hall.
Trump’s order specifically identifies Serra as an individual included in the phrase “historically significant American,” for whom statues in the National Garden may be commissioned.
“My Administration will not abide an assault on our collective national memory,” Trump wrote.
“In the face of such acts of destruction, it is our responsibility as Americans to stand strong against this violence, and to peacefully transmit our great national story to future generations through newly commissioned monuments to American heroes.”
Among those individuals specifically mentioned for whom statues should be commissioned are Susan B. Anthony, the nineteenth century suffragette whose name has been adopted by the pro-life group the Susan B. Anthony List; slavery abolitionist Harriet Tubman, who escaped from slavery before helping others do so; Antonin Scalia, the late pro-life Supreme Court Justice; and Billy Graham, the international Christian evangelist.
Trump’s order also insists that statues commissioned for the National Garden “shall be a lifelike or realistic representation of that person, not an abstract or modernist representation.”
“America owes its present greatness to its past sacrifices,” the order states.
“Because the past is always at risk of being forgotten, monuments will always be needed to honor those who came before.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-06--How pro-lifers may have received a stealth pro-life victory from US Supreme Court in June

July 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Cheer up pro-lifers : there appears to be a victory within the settling dust of the sputtering and rickety finish of the current Supreme Court term .
Pro-lifers have rightly condemned the Supreme Court ’ s decision in June Medical Services v. Russo for striking down Louisiana ’ s common-sense requirement of hospital admitting privileges for abortionists .
But there is reason for hope .
In fact , as many pro-abortion voices have already recognized , the decision in June Medical appears in many ways to be a stealth pro-life victory .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to join the four liberal Justices ’ plurality opinion despite reaching the same result .
Instead , Roberts authored his own concurrence and explicitly repudiated much of the plurality ’ s reasoning—and that of the Supreme Court in the similar case of Whole Woman ’ s Health v. Hellerstedt out of Texas four years ago .
That reasoning said a pro-life law was an “ undue burden ” and thus “ unconstitutional ” simply when its “ benefits ” did not “ outweigh ” its burdens .
In other words , even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant burdens on the so-called right to abortion , a judge could still deem it an “ undue burden ” if he or she thought the law lacked any benefits .
As the late Justice Scalia would say , that is pure hocus pocus .
Not surprisingly , the Hellerstedt “ cost-benefit ” standard wreaked havoc on pro-life legislation in the lower courts .
In effect , it was a blank check for pro-abortion judges to strike down all manner of pro-life laws—even laws once deemed clearly constitutional under the Supreme Court ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ v. Casey .
This included requirements like parental consent for minors , ultrasounds , and physician-only abortions .
These laws save lives without banning abortion , and yet the Hellerstedt cost-benefit analysis threatened to wipe them off the books .
But Roberts ’ s concurring opinion in June Medical is a game-changer .
Roberts declared that the “ cost-benefit ” undue burden analysis has no place in constitutional law .
Judges , he said , are competent only to discern whether a pro-life law actually inhibits a woman from obtaining an abortion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law ’ s policy merits ( that ’ s the legislature ’ s job ) or whether those policy merits “ outweigh ” any of its burdens ( that is a golden ticket for imposing pro-abortion judicial bias ) .
Indeed , Roberts ’ s concurrence in June Medical means the “ cost-benefit ” analysis in abortion cases is officially dead .
This is clear for at least two reasons : First , under Supreme Court precedent , when one of its decisions lacks a majority opinion , lower courts are required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ narrowest grounds ” to reach the final result .
And here , Roberts ’ s concurring opinion struck down the Louisiana law on the narrowest grounds .
Specifically , Roberts concluded that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional only because the district court found that it substantially burdened access to abortion in the same manner as the Texas law which the Supreme Court struck down in Hellerstedt .
Roberts thus relied on the principle of “ stare decisis ” ( a type of super deference to past precedent for the sake of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also invalidate the Louisiana law .
But unlike the plurality opinion , Roberts refused to conclude that the law did not advance sufficient benefits .
Thus , his analysis is narrower than the plurality ’ s and will be controlling on lower courts .
Second , as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out in his dissent , Roberts ’ s express rejection of the cost-benefit analysis aligns with the positions of the four dissenting Justices , all of whom also reject the cost-benefit analysis .
That means five Justices of the Supreme Court—a controlling majority—now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower courts will no longer be free to deploy the cost-benefit analysis against pro-life laws .
The likely pro-life benefits of this change have been immediate .
On July 2 , in Box v. Planned Parenthood of IN and KY , the Supreme Court vacated two Seventh Circuit rulings that had relied on the cost-benefit analysis to strike down reasonable pro-life regulations in Indiana ( a pre-abortion ultrasound requirement and a parental notice requirement for minors ) .
( 1 ) The move confirms that at least five Justices of the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that Indiana ’ s life-saving pro-life regulations deserve another day in court .
On reconsideration at the Seventh Circuit , the only question will be whether these laws actually impose a substantial obstacle on women in obtaining an abortion .
A number of pro-abortion voices agree June Medical was at least a partial pro-life victory .
For instance , the New York Times ’ Editorial Board despaired that Roberts ’ s opinion left the door open for courts to uphold numerous pro-life laws in the coming years—laws that likely would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 2 ) And Gretchen Borchelt of the National Women ’ s Law Center titled her reaction to the June Medical decision as “ When a ‘ win ’ is not a win.
” ( 3 ) The makings of this victory were apparent four years ago .
During the Hellerstedt oral arguments in March 2016 , Roberts repeatedly called out the attorneys for both the abortion industry and President Barack Obama for trying to the change the “ undue burden ” standard to a wholly illegitimate cost-benefit analysis .
“ [ H @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roberts asked at the time .
“ What difference does it make what the purpose behind the law is in assessing whether the burden is substantial or undue ?
.
.
.
I think whether it ’ s an obstacle or a burden would exist without regard to the strength of the state interest.
” ( 4 ) Roberts was on the losing end of that issue in Hellerstedt .
Four years later , his concurring opinion in June Medical directly tracks his questions at oral argument in Hellerstedt , thus confirming his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was the cost-benefit analysis .
Indeed , Roberts ’ s concurring opinion breathes new life into reasonable pro-life regulations that do not actually burden abortion but rather encourage women ( often successfully ) to choose life .
How all this actually plays out remains to be seen .
Roberts , it should be noted , also opined that appellate courts should give great deference to the fact-finding of district courts , which could allow a hostile district court judge too much power to control the outcome of these cases on appeal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ June Medical the specific types of laws upheld under Casey , including pre-abortion waiting periods , parental-consent requirements , recordkeeping and reporting requirements , and physician-only abortion statutes .
Under Hellerstedt , all of these laws and more had been subject to attack .
June Medical sets up a barricade against that assault .
Pro-lifers should thus take heart .
The final result in June Medical appears to be at least a partial pro-life victory .
To that extent , it opens the door for a new wave of pro-life legislation that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Calvin Freiburger , “ Supreme Court orders Indiana abortion laws be reconsidered in light of its new pro-abort ruling , ” LifeSite News , July 2 , 2020 , https : //www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-tosses-rulings-on-indiana-abortion-laws-wont-review-buffer-zones .
2 .
New York Times Ed .
Bd.
, “ John Roberts is No Pro-Choice Hero , ” June 29 , 2020 , https : //www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/opinion/supreme-court-abortion.html .
3 .
Gretchen Borcheld , SCOTUSblog Symposium , “ June Medical Services v. Russo : When a ‘ win ’ is not a win , ” June 30 , 2020 , https : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thomas More Society : As Thomas More Society Counsel , Omaha-based Michael McHale was the debut guest on Nebraska Lieutenant Governor Mike Foley ’ s podcast , “ The Nebraska Way.
” He previously served as general counsel for the Nebraska Catholic Conference and clerked for the Honorable L. Steven Grasz at the 8th Circuit United States Court of Appeals .

Many pro-lifers rightly condemned the Supreme Court’s decision in June Medical Services v. Russo, because it struck down Louisiana’s common-sense requirement of hospital admitting privileges for abortionists. But there is reason for hope.
URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade! Sign the petition here.
July 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Cheer up pro-lifers: there appears to be a victory within the settling dust of the sputtering and rickety finish of the current Supreme Court term.
Pro-lifers have rightly condemned the Supreme Court’s decision in June Medical Services v. Russo for striking down Louisiana’s common-sense requirement of hospital admitting privileges for abortionists. But there is reason for hope. In fact, as many pro-abortion voices have already recognized, the decision in June Medical appears in many ways to be a stealth pro-life victory.
That is because Chief Justice Roberts refused to join the four liberal Justices’ plurality opinion despite reaching the same result. Instead, Roberts authored his own concurrence and explicitly repudiated much of the plurality’s reasoning—and that of the Supreme Court in the similar case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt out of Texas four years ago. That reasoning said a pro-life law was an “undue burden” and thus “unconstitutional” simply when its “benefits” did not “outweigh” its burdens. In other words, even if a pro-life law did not impose any significant burdens on the so-called right to abortion, a judge could still deem it an “undue burden” if he or she thought the law lacked any benefits. As the late Justice Scalia would say, that is pure hocus pocus.
Not surprisingly, the Hellerstedt “cost-benefit” standard wreaked havoc on pro-life legislation in the lower courts. In effect, it was a blank check for pro-abortion judges to strike down all manner of pro-life laws—even laws once deemed clearly constitutional under the Supreme Court’s earlier controlling decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This included requirements like parental consent for minors, ultrasounds, and physician-only abortions. These laws save lives without banning abortion, and yet the Hellerstedt cost-benefit analysis threatened to wipe them off the books.
But Roberts’s concurring opinion in June Medical is a game-changer. Roberts declared that the “cost-benefit” undue burden analysis has no place in constitutional law. Judges, he said, are competent only to discern whether a pro-life law actually inhibits a woman from obtaining an abortion. They are not equipped to closely scrutinize the law’s policy merits (that’s the legislature’s job) or whether those policy merits “outweigh” any of its burdens (that is a golden ticket for imposing pro-abortion judicial bias).
Indeed, Roberts’s concurrence in June Medical means the “cost-benefit” analysis in abortion cases is officially dead. This is clear for at least two reasons:
First, under Supreme Court precedent, when one of its decisions lacks a majority opinion, lower courts are required to follow the concurring opinion that used the “narrowest grounds” to reach the final result. And here, Roberts’s concurring opinion struck down the Louisiana law on the narrowest grounds. Specifically, Roberts concluded that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional only because the district court found that it substantially burdened access to abortion in the same manner as the Texas law which the Supreme Court struck down in Hellerstedt. Roberts thus relied on the principle of “stare decisis” (a type of super deference to past precedent for the sake of maintaining stability in the law) to also invalidate the Louisiana law. But unlike the plurality opinion, Roberts refused to conclude that the law did not advance sufficient benefits. Thus, his analysis is narrower than the plurality’s and will be controlling on lower courts.
Second, as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out in his dissent, Roberts’s express rejection of the cost-benefit analysis aligns with the positions of the four dissenting Justices, all of whom also reject the cost-benefit analysis. That means five Justices of the Supreme Court—a controlling majority—now rebuke it. As a result, lower courts will no longer be free to deploy the cost-benefit analysis against pro-life laws.
The likely pro-life benefits of this change have been immediate. On July 2, in Box v. Planned Parenthood of IN and KY, the Supreme Court vacated two Seventh Circuit rulings that had relied on the cost-benefit analysis to strike down reasonable pro-life regulations in Indiana (a pre-abortion ultrasound requirement and a parental notice requirement for minors). (1) The move confirms that at least five Justices of the Supreme Court believe the Hellerstedt standard no longer exists, and that Indiana’s life-saving pro-life regulations deserve another day in court. On reconsideration at the Seventh Circuit, the only question will be whether these laws actually impose a substantial obstacle on women in obtaining an abortion.
A number of pro-abortion voices agree June Medical was at least a partial pro-life victory. For instance, the New York Times’ Editorial Board despaired that Roberts’s opinion left the door open for courts to uphold numerous pro-life laws in the coming years—laws that likely would have languished under the previous cost-benefit analysis. (2) And Gretchen Borchelt of the National Women’s Law Center titled her reaction to the June Medical decision as “When a ‘win’ is not a win.” (3)
The makings of this victory were apparent four years ago. During the Hellerstedt oral arguments in March 2016, Roberts repeatedly called out the attorneys for both the abortion industry and President Barack Obama for trying to the change the “undue burden” standard to a wholly illegitimate cost-benefit analysis. “[H]ow is that logical?” Roberts asked at the time. “What difference does it make what the purpose behind the law is in assessing whether the burden is substantial or undue? . . . I think whether it’s an obstacle or a burden would exist without regard to the strength of the state interest.” (4)
Roberts was on the losing end of that issue in Hellerstedt. Four years later, his concurring opinion in June Medical directly tracks his questions at oral argument in Hellerstedt, thus confirming his intent to eviscerate the pro-abortion blank check that was the cost-benefit analysis. Indeed, Roberts’s concurring opinion breathes new life into reasonable pro-life regulations that do not actually burden abortion but rather encourage women (often successfully) to choose life.
How all this actually plays out remains to be seen. Roberts, it should be noted, also opined that appellate courts should give great deference to the fact-finding of district courts, which could allow a hostile district court judge too much power to control the outcome of these cases on appeal.
But Roberts also validated point-by point in June Medical the specific types of laws upheld under Casey, including pre-abortion waiting periods, parental-consent requirements, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and physician-only abortion statutes. Under Hellerstedt, all of these laws and more had been subject to attack. June Medical sets up a barricade against that assault.
Pro-lifers should thus take heart. The final result in June Medical appears to be at least a partial pro-life victory. To that extent, it opens the door for a new wave of pro-life legislation that can and will save lives.
______
1. Calvin Freiburger, “Supreme Court orders Indiana abortion laws be reconsidered in light of its new pro-abort ruling,” LifeSite News, July 2, 2020, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-tosses-rulings-on-indiana-abortion-laws-wont-review-buffer-zones.
2. New York Times Ed. Bd., “John Roberts is No Pro-Choice Hero,” June 29, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/opinion/supreme-court-abortion.html.
3. Gretchen Borcheld, SCOTUSblog Symposium, “June Medical Services v. Russo: When a ‘win’ is not a win,” June 30, 2020, https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/symposium-june-medical-services-v-russo-when-a-win-is-not-a-win/.
4. Hellerstedt, Or. Arg. Tr., p. 19 https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2015/15-274_d18e.pdf. Id. at 34.
Michael McHale, Counsel, Thomas More Society : As Thomas More Society Counsel, Omaha-based Michael McHale was the debut guest on Nebraska Lieutenant Governor Mike Foley’s podcast, “The Nebraska Way.” He previously served as general counsel for the Nebraska Catholic Conference and clerked for the Honorable L. Steven Grasz at the 8th Circuit United States Court of Appeals.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-06--A safe, effective outpatient treatment plan for COVID-19 exists. Why aren’t more doctors using it?

July 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Professor of Epidemiology , Dr. Harvey Risch , at the Yale School of Medicine , has written that more than 1.6 million American have been infected with COVID-19 .
High-risk patients realize that the likely course of hospital treatment has a high mortality rate .
Dr. Risch stated that an outpatient treatment that prevents hospitalization is desperately needed .
Americans want to know if any outpatient treatment can protect their health and prevent hospitalization .
They are eager for any treatment that can help them to keep their jobs , businesses and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many feel highly fearful of waiting for endless months for the hope of an unproven vaccine .
However , an internist colleague has found that his immediate medication treatment of over 60 patients with COVID-19 symptoms or who tested positive was highly effective and safe .
None of his patients have needed hospitalization .
Readers may be surprised to learn that this successful treatment protocol used in outpatients was also employed in the Detroit Henry Ford Health System double blind study of 2,541 patients with COVID-19 .
It showed that hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the death rate of COVID-19 patients by 50 % .
Roughly 82 % of the patients began receiving hydroxychloroquine within 24 hours and 91 % within 48 hours , a factor Dr. Marcus Zervos identified as a potential key to the medication ’ s success .
In addition , there were no heart-related side effects from the drug .
The recent French COVID-19 study reported the clinical management of 3,737 screened patients , including 3,119 ( 83.5 % ) treated with HCQ-AZ was associated with a case fatality rate was 0.9 % .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ also associated with a decreased risk of hospitalization and no cases of a severe cardiac arrhythmias or sudden death .
This retrospective analysis suggests that early diagnosis , early isolation and early treatment of COVID-19 patients , with at least 3 days of HCQ-AZ lead to a significantly better clinical outcome .
Unfortunately , an unscientific bias against hydroxychloroquine and criticism of the use of HCQ-AZ has been based largely on reports of failures of this treatment that was reserved for patients who were hospitalized in severe crisis and often in ICU units @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or HCQ , need to be used immediately in order to be effective .
To expect a serious case of COVID-19 to benefit from a late intervention with HCQ is unreasonable .
On July 1 , 2020 the FDA update on a summary of safety issues reports similar use of HCQ to treat hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and claimed serious heart rhythm problems and other safety issues .
Such reports contribute to mistrust among physicians and the American populace .
Hopefully , the FDA will report the newer research on its immediate use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and especially in early hospital treatment .
In his recent paper , Dr. Harvey Risch , at the Yale School of Medicine , cited five studies , including two controlled clinical trials , that have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin .
He recommends these medications be made widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe to treat the pandemic .
In many states physicians are forbidden to initiate this effective treatment for their patients by mandates of the Governor of the state which only permits prescribing HCQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignore or deliberately reject the outpatient and early inpatient studies of its effectiveness in containing the pandemic .
One frustrated physician wrote of the Detroit study , “ The key is that 82 % of patients received hydroxychloroquine within 24 hours of being admitted .
In my hospital the patients usually only received it when they landed up in the ICU or their breathing worsened : therefore it obviously did not help .
But then politics in the minds of many physicians overrides their willingness to help patients as best they can .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be started right away , like Tamiflu in treating the flu or hydroxychloroquine in this case .
Meanwhile , Americans are not being let into the European Union because the CDC directors are bundling everyone , whether they have a positive viral test or positive antibody test , as COVID infected patients , artificially raising the amount of supposedly sick patients.
” Another physician reported his frustrations in being able to provide the most effective treatment to his COVID-19 patients .
He called his licensing board to ask if he could use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have symptoms of COVID-19 .
He was informed that he would be in violation of state regulations which only permitted its use in a hospital and would be risking sanctions against his medical license .
These restrictions on the scientific practice of outpatient medicine by states need to be removed as soon as possible as they have contributed to needless deaths in the past and will continue to do so .
The livelihood and health of Americans needs to be protected by permitting Americans to return to work with the protection of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of countries .
Unless this occurs immediately , as a psychiatrist who is seeing a marked increase in despair in patients , we may soon be facing a major mental health crisis of severe depression and suicide .
Also , the spike in those who test positive without a rise in mortality from a weakened virus is not a solid scientific basis to prohibit a return to full employment .
Dr. Risch , professor of epidemiology , at Yale School of Public Health and School of Medicine should be immediately consulted on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective outpatient treatment protocol as occurs with most infectious diseases .
The medical evidence is in .
COVID-19 can be contained by proper outpatient care in addition to the continued use of proper public health measures .
A disease that can be treated with a mortality rate of 0.9 % does not need to wait for a vaccine .
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons is a psychiatrist who directs the Institute for Marital Healing outside Philadelphia in Conshohocken , PA .
He has an expertise in the nature and the treatment of excessive anger .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope ( APA Books ) , which he co-authored with Robert Enright , Ph.D , U-W , Madison , received in 2019 the Benedict XVI Foundation Award for Expanded Reason in Research in association with University Francisco de Victoria in Madrid .
In 2019 he authored the best-selling Ignatius Press book , Habits for a Healthy Marriage : A Handbook for Catholic Couples .

PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus! Sign the petition here.
July 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Professor of Epidemiology, Dr. Harvey Risch, at the Yale School of Medicine, has written that more than 1.6 million American have been infected with COVID-19. High-risk patients realize that the likely course of hospital treatment has a high mortality rate. Dr. Risch stated that an outpatient treatment that prevents hospitalization is desperately needed.
Americans want to know if any outpatient treatment can protect their health and prevent hospitalization. They are eager for any treatment that can help them to keep their jobs, businesses and income to provide themselves and their families. Many feel highly fearful of waiting for endless months for the hope of an unproven vaccine. However, an internist colleague has found that his immediate medication treatment of over 60 patients with COVID-19 symptoms or who tested positive was highly effective and safe. None of his patients have needed hospitalization.
Readers may be surprised to learn that this successful treatment protocol used in outpatients was also employed in the Detroit Henry Ford Health System double blind study of 2,541 patients with COVID-19. It showed that hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin (HCQ-AZ) initiated immediately on hospitalization lowered the death rate of COVID-19 patients by 50%. Roughly 82% of the patients began receiving hydroxychloroquine within 24 hours and 91% within 48 hours, a factor Dr. Marcus Zervos identified as a potential key to the medication’s success. In addition, there were no heart-related side effects from the drug.
The recent French COVID-19 study reported the clinical management of 3,737 screened patients, including 3,119 (83.5%) treated with HCQ-AZ was associated with a case fatality rate was 0.9%. This remarkable effectiveness of outpatient treatment was also associated with a decreased risk of hospitalization and no cases of a severe cardiac arrhythmias or sudden death. This retrospective analysis suggests that early diagnosis, early isolation and early treatment of COVID-19 patients, with at least 3 days of HCQ-AZ lead to a significantly better clinical outcome.
Unfortunately, an unscientific bias against hydroxychloroquine and criticism of the use of HCQ-AZ has been based largely on reports of failures of this treatment that was reserved for patients who were hospitalized in severe crisis and often in ICU units. However, antivirals, like Tamiflu or HCQ, need to be used immediately in order to be effective. To expect a serious case of COVID-19 to benefit from a late intervention with HCQ is unreasonable.
On July 1, 2020 the FDA update on a summary of safety issues reports similar use of HCQ to treat hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and claimed serious heart rhythm problems and other safety issues. Such reports contribute to mistrust among physicians and the American populace. Hopefully, the FDA will report the newer research on its immediate use, effectiveness and safety in outpatient treatment and especially in early hospital treatment.
In his recent paper, Dr. Harvey Risch, at the Yale School of Medicine, cited five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, that have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin. He recommends these medications be made widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe to treat the pandemic.
Obstacles to Treatment
In many states physicians are forbidden to initiate this effective treatment for their patients by mandates of the Governor of the state which only permits prescribing HCQ in the hospital setting. Such protocols ignore or deliberately reject the outpatient and early inpatient studies of its effectiveness in containing the pandemic.
One frustrated physician wrote of the Detroit study, “The key is that 82% of patients received hydroxychloroquine within 24 hours of being admitted. In my hospital the patients usually only received it when they landed up in the ICU or their breathing worsened: therefore it obviously did not help. But then politics in the minds of many physicians overrides their willingness to help patients as best they can. It is obvious that any treatment has to be started right away, like Tamiflu in treating the flu or hydroxychloroquine in this case. Meanwhile, Americans are not being let into the European Union because the CDC directors are bundling everyone, whether they have a positive viral test or positive antibody test, as COVID infected patients, artificially raising the amount of supposedly sick patients.”
Another physician reported his frustrations in being able to provide the most effective treatment to his COVID-19 patients. He called his licensing board to ask if he could use HCQ-AZ in those who test positive or who have symptoms of COVID-19. He was informed that he would be in violation of state regulations which only permitted its use in a hospital and would be risking sanctions against his medical license. These restrictions on the scientific practice of outpatient medicine by states need to be removed as soon as possible as they have contributed to needless deaths in the past and will continue to do so.
The livelihood and health of Americans needs to be protected by permitting Americans to return to work with the protection of HCQ-AZ as has occurred in a number of countries. Unless this occurs immediately, as a psychiatrist who is seeing a marked increase in despair in patients, we may soon be facing a major mental health crisis of severe depression and suicide. Also, the spike in those who test positive without a rise in mortality from a weakened virus is not a solid scientific basis to prohibit a return to full employment.
Dr. Risch, professor of epidemiology, at Yale School of Public Health and School of Medicine should be immediately consulted on a national level to coordinate a safe and effective outpatient treatment protocol as occurs with most infectious diseases. The medical evidence is in. COVID-19 can be contained by proper outpatient care in addition to the continued use of proper public health measures. A disease that can be treated with a mortality rate of 0.9% does not need to wait for a vaccine.
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons is a psychiatrist who directs the Institute for Marital Healing outside Philadelphia in Conshohocken, PA. He has an expertise in the nature and the treatment of excessive anger. Forgiveness Therapy: An Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope (APA Books), which he co-authored with Robert Enright, Ph.D, U-W, Madison, received in 2019 the Benedict XVI Foundation Award for Expanded Reason in Research in association with University Francisco de Victoria in Madrid. In 2019 he authored the best-selling Ignatius Press book, Habits for a Healthy Marriage: A Handbook for Catholic Couples.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-06--Trump defends America, calls cancel culture ‘totalitarianism’ in electrifying Mt. Rushmore speech

July 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Standing at the foot of majestic Mount Rushmore on the eve of Independence Day and amid thunderous cheers and chants of “ USA !
USA !
USA !
” President Donald Trump delivered a reassuring message counteracting weeks of Anti-American protests , riots , and assaults not only on the country ’ s historic monuments , but on history itself .
President Trump identified the force driving recent eruptions of violence and desecration of cultural sites as “ far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance , ” a “ left-wing cultural revolution designed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I am here as your president to proclaim before the country and before the world , ” began Trump , “ This monument will never be desecrated , these heroes will never be defaced , their legacy will never , ever be destroyed , their achievements will never be forgotten , and Mount Rushmore will stand forever as an eternal tribute to our forefathers and to our freedom.
” “ 1776 represented the culmination of thousands of years of western civilization and the triumph not only of spirit , but of wisdom , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued .
“ And yet , as we meet here tonight , there is a growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for , struggled , they bled to secure.
” ‘ Cancel culture ’ is ‘ the very definition of totalitarianism ’ “ Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history , defame our heroes , erase our values , and indoctrinate our children , ” he declared .
“ Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our Founders , deface our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wave of violent crime in our cities , ” he continued .
“ They think the American people are weak and soft and submissive .
But no , the American people are strong and proud , and they will not allow our country , and all of its values , history , and culture , to be taken from them.
” One of their political weapons is “ Cancel Culture ” — driving people from their jobs , shaming dissenters , and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees .
This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is completely alien to our culture and our values , and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America .
This attack on our liberty , our magnificent liberty , must be stopped , and it will be stopped very quickly .
We will expose this dangerous movement , protect our nation ’ s children , end this radical assault , and preserve our beloved American way of life .
In our schools , our newsrooms , even our corporate boardrooms , there is a new far-left fascism that demands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak its language , perform its rituals , recite its mantras , and follow its commandments , then you will be censored , banished , blacklisted , persecuted , and punished .
It ’ s not going to happen to us .
Make no mistake : this left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution .
In so doing , they would destroy the very civilization that rescued billions from poverty , disease , violence , and hunger , and that lifted humanity to new heights of achievement , discovery , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are determined to tear down every statue , symbol , and memory of our national heritage .
Trump also announced he will be creating “ a new monument to the giants of our past.
” “ I am signing an executive order to establish the National Garden of American Heroes , a vast outdoor park that will feature the statues of the greatest Americans to ever live , ” he said .
‘ Our children are taught in school to hate their own country ’ The president pointed out that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the streets of cities that are run by liberal Democrats , in every case , is the predictable result of years of extreme indoctrination and bias in education , journalism , and other cultural institutions.
” “ Against every law of society and nature , our children are taught in school to hate their own country , and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes , but that [ they ] were villains , ” said Trump .
“ The radical view of American history is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed , every virtue is obscured , every motive is twisted , every fact is distorted , and every flaw is magnified until the history is purged and the record is disfigured beyond all recognition.
” “ The radical ideology attacking our country advances under the banner of social justice .
But in truth , it would demolish both justice and society , ” he continued .
“ It would transform justice into an instrument of division and vengeance , and it would turn our free and inclusive society into a place of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ They want to silence us , but we will not be silenced , ” he added .
Trump recited a litany of proclamations about the exceptional nature of the United States of America and the foundations of the nation ’ s morality , saying , “ We will state the truth in full , without apology !
” • We declare that the United States of America is the most just and exceptional nation ever to exist on Earth .
• We are proud of the fact that our country was founded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that these values have dramatically advanced the cause of peace and justice throughout the world .
• We know that the American family is the bedrock of American life .
• We recognize the solemn right and moral duty of every nation to secure its borders .
And we are building the wall .
• We remember that governments exist to protect the safety and happiness of their own people .
A nation must care for its own citizens first .
We must take care of America first .
It ’ s time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , equal justice , and equal treatment for citizens of every race , background , religion , and creed .
Every child , of every color – born and unborn – is made in the holy image of God .
• We want free and open debate , not speech codes and cancel culture .
• We support the courageous men and women of law enforcement .
We will never abolish our police or our great Second Amendment , which gives us the right to keep and bear arms .
• We believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ love their country , honor our history , and respect our great American flag .
• We stand tall , we stand proud , and we only kneel to Almighty God .
• This is who we are .
This is what we believe .
And these are the values that will guide us as we strive to build an even better and greater future .
“ My fellow Americans , it is time to speak up loudly and strongly and powerfully and defend the integrity of our country , ” said Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Declaration of Independence , and we will never surrender the spirit and the courage and the cause of July 4th , 1776.
” “ And ladies and gentlemen : the best is yet to come , ” he concluded .
The New York Times described his Mount Rushmore remarks as “ ominous ” sowing division during a national crisis .
New York Times opinion writer Charles Blow said the president was “ race-baiting.
” The Washington Post said that President Trump , “ delivered a dark speech ahead of Independence Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation ’ s racial and social divisions.
” Most stunningly , CNN ’ s Brian Stetler suggested that the speech wouldn ’ t make sense to most people .
“ You have to be fully plugged into the narrative that the right wing is selling on radio , TV , and online ” in order for it to make sense .
“ It was only for that audience.
” A video of President Trump ’ s July 3 , 2020 remarks at Mount Rushmore can be found here .
A transcript of President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House , can be found here .

In a speech that infuriated the liberal media, the president warned that there is a 'merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children' and decried the 'new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance.'
ANALYSIS
July 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Standing at the foot of majestic Mount Rushmore on the eve of Independence Day and amid thunderous cheers and chants of “USA! USA! USA!” President Donald Trump delivered a reassuring message counteracting weeks of Anti-American protests, riots, and assaults not only on the country’s historic monuments, but on history itself.
President Trump identified the force driving recent eruptions of violence and desecration of cultural sites as “far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance,” a “left-wing cultural revolution designed to overthrow the American Revolution.”
“I am here as your president to proclaim before the country and before the world,” began Trump, “This monument will never be desecrated, these heroes will never be defaced, their legacy will never, ever be destroyed, their achievements will never be forgotten, and Mount Rushmore will stand forever as an eternal tribute to our forefathers and to our freedom.”
“1776 represented the culmination of thousands of years of western civilization and the triumph not only of spirit, but of wisdom, philosophy, and reason,” he continued. “And yet, as we meet here tonight, there is a growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for, struggled, they bled to secure.”
‘Cancel culture’ is ‘the very definition of totalitarianism’
“Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children,” he declared.
“Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our Founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities,” he continued. “They think the American people are weak and soft and submissive. But no, the American people are strong and proud, and they will not allow our country, and all of its values, history, and culture, to be taken from them.”
He continued:
One of their political weapons is “Cancel Culture” — driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and our values, and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America. This attack on our liberty, our magnificent liberty, must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly. We will expose this dangerous movement, protect our nation’s children, end this radical assault, and preserve our beloved American way of life. In our schools, our newsrooms, even our corporate boardrooms, there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance. If you do not speak its language, perform its rituals, recite its mantras, and follow its commandments, then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted, and punished. It’s not going to happen to us. Make no mistake: this left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution. In so doing, they would destroy the very civilization that rescued billions from poverty, disease, violence, and hunger, and that lifted humanity to new heights of achievement, discovery, and progress. To make this possible, they are determined to tear down every statue, symbol, and memory of our national heritage.
Trump also announced he will be creating “a new monument to the giants of our past.”
“I am signing an executive order to establish the National Garden of American Heroes, a vast outdoor park that will feature the statues of the greatest Americans to ever live,” he said.
‘Our children are taught in school to hate their own country’
The president pointed out that “The violent mayhem we have seen in the streets of cities that are run by liberal Democrats, in every case, is the predictable result of years of extreme indoctrination and bias in education, journalism, and other cultural institutions.”
“Against every law of society and nature, our children are taught in school to hate their own country, and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes, but that [they] were villains,” said Trump. “The radical view of American history is a web of lies – all perspective is removed, every virtue is obscured, every motive is twisted, every fact is distorted, and every flaw is magnified until the history is purged and the record is disfigured beyond all recognition.”
“The radical ideology attacking our country advances under the banner of social justice. But in truth, it would demolish both justice and society,” he continued. “It would transform justice into an instrument of division and vengeance, and it would turn our free and inclusive society into a place of repression, domination, and exclusion.”
“They want to silence us, but we will not be silenced,” he added.
American exceptionalism
Trump recited a litany of proclamations about the exceptional nature of the United States of America and the foundations of the nation’s morality, saying, “We will state the truth in full, without apology!”
We declare that the United States of America is the most just and exceptional nation ever to exist on Earth.
We are proud of the fact that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and we understand that these values have dramatically advanced the cause of peace and justice throughout the world.
We know that the American family is the bedrock of American life.
We recognize the solemn right and moral duty of every nation to secure its borders. And we are building the wall.
We remember that governments exist to protect the safety and happiness of their own people. A nation must care for its own citizens first. We must take care of America first. It’s time.
We believe in equal opportunity, equal justice, and equal treatment for citizens of every race, background, religion, and creed. Every child, of every color – born and unborn – is made in the holy image of God.
We want free and open debate, not speech codes and cancel culture.
We embrace tolerance, not prejudice.
We support the courageous men and women of law enforcement. We will never abolish our police or our great Second Amendment, which gives us the right to keep and bear arms.
We believe that our children should be taught to love their country, honor our history, and respect our great American flag.
We stand tall, we stand proud, and we only kneel to Almighty God.
This is who we are. This is what we believe. And these are the values that will guide us as we strive to build an even better and greater future.
“My fellow Americans, it is time to speak up loudly and strongly and powerfully and defend the integrity of our country,” said Trump. “We will proclaim the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, and we will never surrender the spirit and the courage and the cause of July 4th, 1776.”
“And ladies and gentlemen: the best is yet to come,” he concluded.
Liberal media slam the president’s patriotic speech
Predictably, many “mainstream” media outlets expressed outrage over President Trump’s Independence Day speech.
The New York Times described his Mount Rushmore remarks as“ominous” sowing division during a national crisis. New York Times opinion writer Charles Blow said the president was “race-baiting.”
The Washington Post said that President Trump, “delivered a dark speech ahead of Independence Day in which he sought to exploit the nation’s racial and social divisions.”
Most stunningly, CNN’s Brian Stetler suggested that the speech wouldn’t make sense to most people. “You have to be fully plugged into the narrative that the right wing is selling on radio, TV, and online” in order for it to make sense. “It was only for that audience.”
A video of President Trump’s July 3, 2020 remarks at Mount Rushmore can be found here.
A transcript of President Trump’s speech, provided by the White House, can be found here.
Share