lifesitenews--2020-12-11--New biography describes great influence of Joseph Ratzinger in the revolutionary upheaval of Vatican

New biography describes great influence of Joseph Ratzinger in the revolutionary upheaval of Vatican II

December 11 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A new authoritative biography of Pope Benedict XVI written by Peter Seewald describes in detail the important role then-Professor Joseph Ratzinger played before and during the Second Vatican Council .
His influence helped to bring about a revolutionary change of the Council 's direction , tone , and topics .
For example , he was able to change the presentation of the Church 's own concept of the sources of Revelation , he helped suppress a separate Council text on Our Lady , he opposed an “ anti-Modernist spirit , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using the vernacular languages during Holy Mass .
As Seewald himself stated in a recent interview : Ratzinger helped the “ advance of Modernism in the Church , ” and he “ was always a progressive theologian.
” The German journalist Peter Seewald , who as an adult had returned to his Catholic faith , has published several books together with Joseph Ratzinger and repeatedly interviewed Pope Emeritus Benedict for his new biography , entitled Benedict XVI : A Life .
The biography has been already published in German in its entirety , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two volumes , with the first volume being published on December 15 , by Bloomsbury .
Speaking in May of this year to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung about his new biography , Seewald described the role of Ratzinger before and during the Council , and afterwards , as well .
“ It is definitively so that his impulses contributed at the time to the advance of Modernism in the Catholic Church , ” Seewald explained , adding that Ratzinger himself “ was also one of the first who warned against the abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussed the claim that Ratzinger had made a “ conservative turn ” after the Council .
He explained that “ part of the narrative ” was “ Ratzinger 's reversal , ” the talk about “ the former progressivist 's treason who became a reactionary.
” But , objected Seewald , “ such a reversal has never taken place.
” “ Ratzinger was always a progressivist theologian , ” the journalist continued , “ only the notion progressivist was [ then ] being understood differently than today : as a modernization of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As this new biography shows , Ratzinger 's views in the 1950s were so progressive that his own post-doctoral thesis was originally even rejected by the head of the University of Munich , Professor Michael Schmaus who “ made it clear , ” writes Seewald , “ that he considers this young theologian to be a Modernist.
” Some contemporary professors accused him of an emotional theology and of a “ dangerous Modernism which leads to a subjectivization of the notion of Revelation.
” Seewald describes how Ratzinger , as professor of theology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other religions ; for example , when teaching a class on Hinduism in the 1950s , Ratzinger claimed that “ also in Hinduism , one sees the action of God 's spirit , ” according to Seewald who adds that these thoughts “ anticipated in essential points statements of Nostra Aetate , the Council 's Declacation on the world religions.
” Ratzinger was also in favor of the use of the vernacular language at Mass and for an increased participation of the faithful ; he once criticized that bishops were “ condemned to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mass of the Council , regretting that the “ active participation of those present was not requested.
” This theme was also discussed at the Council .
Ratzinger also had , prior to the Council , a high regard for the dialogue with the Jews and looked up to them as “ Fathers ” of Christians .
In 1958 , Ratzinger wrote a controversial article .
“ For the Christian of today , ” Ratzinger wrote in 1958 in his Das Hochland article , “ it has become unthinkable that Christianity , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be the only path of salvation.
” “ With it , ” he continued , “ the absoluteness of the Church , yes and of all her demands , has become obsolete from within.
” How could we still tell Mohammedans today , Ratzinger explained , that they “ will definitely go to hell , since they do not belong to the only saving Church ” ?
Continued the professor : “ Our humanity simply hinders us to hold on to such ideas .
We can not believe that our neighbor who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benevolent man will go to hell because he is not a practicing Catholic.
” Ratzinger and the Council itself With these leanings , Ratzinger was prepared to play an important role at the upheaval that took place at the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965 .
Here are some key elements of his crucial role : • He wrote , in November of 1961 , a speech that was delivered in Genoa , Italy by Cardinal Josef Frings ( Cologne ) on the theology of the Council which was highly cherished by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the papal opening speech of the Council in October of 1962 .
Ratzinger then said that , “ as a ‘ Council for Renewal ’ , the Council ’ s task must be less to formulate doctrines.
” He also proposed to enter into a “ dialogue ” with a secular world , presenting Christianity as an alternative .
“ Perhaps the Church should drop many old forms , which are not longer suitable [ … ] be willing to strip off the faith ’ s timebound clothing , ” Ratzinger then wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Cardinal Frings in 1961 , Ratzinger sharply criticized the prepared documents of the Council that had been written by different commissions .
He regretted the “ antiquated ” language of some of the texts , and he thought some of these so-called schematas were better to be “ dropped altogether.
” He regretted that these texts were written “ in a very conservative spirit.
” The schema on Revelation was so bad in his eyes – and its traditional understanding of the subject not acceptable – that he wanted to rename the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indeed renamed into Verbum Dei ) .
• One day before the official opening of the Council , Ratzinger gave a key speech to influential Council Fathers , criticizing the preparatory document on Revelation .
He was a member of a small group with Father Karl Rahner who wrote up not only an alternative draft for that schema , but also for other documents .
Seewald calls Ratzinger therefore “ the Spindoctor.
” • Ratzinger was clearly opposed to the old scholastic theology .
Seewald quotes him as follows : “ ‘ [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scholastic theology , as it had been set , is no longer a means fit to bring the faith into the language of the time . '
The faith must ‘ get out of this armour , adopt a new language , and be more open to the present situation .
So there must also be greater freedom in the Church.
’ ” Moreover , the 34-year-old professor was very concerned at the time not to alienate other Christians with the Council , that is to say , he kept before his eyes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separated brethren.
” • Very importantly , Ratzinger was opposed to the idea of having a separate schema dedicated to Our Lady , and indeed , that schema was then rejected .
In mid-1962 , he had written to Cardinal Frings the following comment , which we quote here at length : “ I believe this Marian schema should be abandoned , for the sake of the Council ’ s goal .
If the Council as a whole is supposed to be a suave incitamentum to the separated brethren and ad quaerendum unitatem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of pastoral care [ … ] No new wealth will be given to the Catholics which they did not already have .
But a new obstacle will be set up for outsiders ( especially the Orthodox ) .
By the adoption of such a schema the Council would endanger its whole effect .
I would advise total renunciation of this doktrinelles caput ( the Romans must simply make that sacrifice ) and instead just put a simple prayer for unity to God ’ s mother at the end of the Ecclesiology schema @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ] undogmatized terms such as mediatrix etc.
” • The group of German theologians who regularly met at the German seminary Santa Maria dell'Anima was at the heart of a development that led to bitter quarrels at the Council , up to an “ October crisis , ” a “ November crisis ” and the famous “ Black Thursday , ” when the whole Council stood on the brink .
And at the center of it all stood Ratzinger , and this from the beginning .
As Hubert Luthe , one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say : “ The Germans strongly influenced the Council .
There was one towering figure in particular : Ratzinger.
” • Several of his French collaborators of the Nouvelle Théologie , as Seewald points out , had been under the suspicion of heresy before the Council .
Among them were Yves-Marie-Joseph Congar , Henri de Lubac , as well as the German Karl Rahner .
In order to avoid suspicion , Congar – one of the periti at the Council – counseled that their meetings should not inspire the impression that they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even says that Ratzinger was “ playing with fire ” when he , on the day before the Council , set the tone against the prepared schematas , even hoping to be able to rewrite some of them .
He proposed to rewrite a schema , the one on Revelation , that had already been approved by the Pope himself .
Ratzinger had regretted that this schema on Revelation is “ wholly determined by the anti-Modernist spirit , which had developed around the turn of the century , ” adding that it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be sure to have a cold , even shocking effect.
” • Frings and Ratzinger , together with some colleagues , were already considering at the eve of the Council how to change to rules for the election of the Council commissions , so as to be able to influence the redaction of the documents .
• “ Seven Days That Changed the Catholic Church For Ever , ” is the title of the Seewald chapter that describes how the progressivist group ( the French , German , Belgian , and Dutch bishops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prominently among them – took over the leadership at the Council .
Cardinal Archille Liénart , was to violate the council rules by grabbing the microphone on the first working day of the Council , October 13 , and requesting a time for debate in order to get to know the potential members of the commissions before electing them , as had been planned .
Frings did the same right afterwards , asking for more time for discussion before the election of the commission members .
They succeeded : the election of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time to prepare a list of candidates that they then efficiently promoted among the Council Fathers , thereby getting key positions in the commissions occupied by their collaborators .
Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens called this act a “ happy coup ” and a “ daring violation of the rules.
” Out of 109 candidates of their list , 79 were then elected by the Council , covering 49 % of all the seats available .
• An important piece of information is that Frings was able to gain many supporters from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to Seewald , since he , as the founder of the German bishops ' relief agencies Misereor and Adveniat , had their “ trust , ” surely also due to his generous donations .
Seewald also points out that the German bishops were the largest net contributors to the Vatican at the time .
• In the following month , on November 14 , the progressivist group successfully also intervened against the already prepared schemata .
They wanted to rewrite them .
On that day , Cardinal Frings delivered a speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the prepared schema on Revelation did not have “ the voice of a mother , ” but , rather , the “ voice of a schoolmaster.
” Rather , Frings/Ratzinger argued , it would be important to implement the “ pastoral style ” as wished by Pope John XXIII .
The only source of Revelation , Frings stated in the Council hall , was “ the word of God , ” ( not , as it was traditionally stated , Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition ) .
In light of this strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wing at the Council , the Pope then suddenly decided , on November 21 , to withdraw the prepared schema on Revelation himself , thereby giving more influence to this group of churchmen .
And he did this , even though he had already approved of the schema .
Establishing a new commission for a new draft of this schema , the Pope decided that not only Cardinal Augustin Bea , but also Frings and Liénart were to be in it .
This decision was crucial : the schematas were open to change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Pope Benedict XVI told Seewald : “ I am surprised how boldly I spoke out then , but it is true that because a proposed text was rejected , there was a real change , and a completely new start to the discussion became possible.
” He was also to write that the “ bishops were not anymore the same as they had been before the Council opened , ” adding that “ instead of the old negative ‘ anti ’ , a new positive hope emerged to abandon the defensive and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christian way .
The spark had been lit.
” • Giuseppe Ruggieri , professor of fundamental theology in Bologna , later commented that this week from 14 to 21 November 1962 , which was devoted to the debate on the schema De fontibus revelationis , “ was the moment when a decisive change took place for the future of the Council and therefore for the Catholic Church itself : from the Pacelli Church , which was essentially hostile to modernity [ … ] to the Church which is a friend to all humanity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modern society , its culture and history.
” Ratzinger , too , saw that this week showed a rejection of “ the continuation of the anti-Modernist spirituality ” and an approval of “ a new way of positive thinking and speaking.
” And he was crucial in this change of the Council 's attitude .
That is why he then also was accused of being a “ Modernist ” and of having written a “ typically Freemasonic text ” with his alternative draft of the schema on Revelation .
• Be it as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this moment of the Council is : “ Frings and his advisor [ Ratzinger ] had turned the Council around .
The minority of those wanting reform had become a majority.
” As it seems , a well-organized minority was able to implement its views .
• Throughout the Council sessions , Ratzinger worked closely with Frings for whom he wrote 11 speeches .
In one of these speeches , Ratzinger wrote that “ we have to be ready to learn ” from the “ ecumenical movement , ” which he saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” His arguments influenced many Council documents , among them Verbum Dei , Nostrae Aetate , and the decree on religious liberty .
• In 1963 , the Frings/Ratzinger team launched another initiative at the Council .
On 8 November of that year , Frings delivered a speech written by Ratzinger , in which he criticized the Holy Office “ whose procedures still often do not accord with our time , and cause damage to the Church and scandal for man.
” It was time for tolerance .
Frings rebuked the Holy Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficient a hearing to the accused one and that did not confront the accused one with the arguments .
Frings also claimed that the accused one is not even given the chance to correct his own writings .
He received much applause in the hall , yet Seewald also states that “ no one had ever dared before to criticize Cardinal Ottaviani ’ s machinery so fiercely.
” That same evening , the Pope asked Frings to make recommendations for a reform of the Holy Office .
• The “ November crisis ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pope 's attitude – it was then already Paull VI , after John XXIII had died in June of 1963 – after too radical reform plans had come to light .
Ratzinger was disappointed , yet saw that much change had been done with the help of the many “ modi ” submitted to the Council texts .
It was in this time period that Pope Paul VI also decided , after all , to give after all some prominence to Our Lady .
Against a vote from the Council , he announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to declare her the Mater Ecclesiae , the Mother of the Church , three days later .
( According to one eye witness , Father Robert I. Bradley , S.J.
, there was an “ audible hiss ” at St. Peter 's when the Pope made this announcement . )
Here another painful note : It was again Frings , together with Cardinal Döpfner , who tried to intervene , at least attempting to modify Our Lady 's title , but it was to no avail .
After Paul VI declared Mary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is said to have called out : “ The Madonna won !
” • Ratzinger felt a little more re-assured when , during the fourth and last session of the Council in 1965 , Paul VI announced that there would be an episcopal council that was to accompany the work of the Pope .
He stated that this piece of news helped to “ revive the optimism that was almost lost.
” And , in continuation with the work of the previous sessions , religious liberty was then approved , Nostrae Aetate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of which was heavily influenced by Ratzinger , whose very concept of Revelation had been adapted .
Gaudium et Spes encouraged dialogue with society , working for peace .
That is to say : many aspects of the reform were implemented , only some more alarming ones were halted .
On 8 December 1965 , there took place the last ceremony of the Council in the Vatican .
One of the observers of the Council , Fr .
Ralph M. Wiltgen , was to note that nobody had been “ as influential ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And , as we now know better , with Frings , it was Ratzinger who had been a great influence .
Seewald calls him the “ youthful spiritus rector of the greatest and most important Church assembly of all times.
” That there were some bishops very concerned about these promoters of change can be seen in the reaction of the Brazilian Bishop Giocondo Grotti .
He defended the special role of Our Lady and asked : “ Does ecumenism mean confessing the truth or hiding it ?
Should the Council declare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separated brethren ?
” And he concluded : “ Keep the schemata separate !
Let us openly confess our faith !
Let us be the teachers we are in the Church by clearly teaching and not hiding what is true.
” As Seewald puts it , however , in the end “ Frings 's speech on the Mother of God , which Ratzinger had written , was so convincing that even those bishops who at first had pleaded for a separate schema on Mary changed their minds.
” In a poignant sense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Marriage Feast of Cana .
Some were embarrassed about her presence and thus they tried to hide her .
Another example of the reaction of the conservative wing at the Council was the head of the Holy Office , Cardinal Ottaviani .
He is quoted by Seewald as saying : “ I pray to God that I may die before the end of the Council .
That way , I at least can die a Catholic.
” Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was highly alarmed and described the new tendencies at the Council as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inventing “ new paradigms , ” a stressing of “ pastoral care ” and of “ ecumenism , ” warning that there existed attempts at “ eliminating Tradition , Ecclesia , etc.
” on the part of those “ who wish to do adapt everything to the Protestants , the Orthodox , etc.
” “ Divine Tradition is being destroyed , ” Siri concluded .
Bishop Geraldo de Proença Sigaud of Brazil was also indignant .
He spoke about the “ enemy of the Church ” who has “ toppled ” the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ City of God.
” By concentrating on “ human reason , on sensuality , on greed and on pride , ” the enemy wishes to establish society and mankind “ without God , without the Church , without Christ , without Revelation.
” In order to achieve this goal , the prelate continued , “ it is necessary to topple the Church in her foundations , to destroy her , and to push her back.
” This enemy wishes to establish the “ City of Man , ” and “ his name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the 3,000 letters written by bishops ahead of the Council , concerning their own intentions for this ecclesial event , did not show “ either a desire for a radical change , much less for a revolution.
” That desire for a revolution was left to a small group of highly intelligent and well-connected clergymen – among them Joseph Ratzinger .
Did Ratzinger regret his role after the Council ?
The question is whether Joseph Ratzinger later changed his views and whether he later regretted his role before and during the Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ratzinger a “ turn from a progressivist to a conservative theologian ” inasmuch as he had “ early on found his theological position and followed it consequently.
” In light of this important role that Ratzinger played , the commentary from Seewald might also be of interest : “ An irony of fate : Ratzinger contributed to a great extent to formulating the Council statements and thus shaping the modern face of the Church .
He would fight for 50 years to defend and implement the ‘ true Council ’ – though for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Council.
” For some progressivists , such as Hans Küng , Ratzinger did not go far enough .
Seewald also asked Ratzinger in a 2017 interview book , Last Testament , whether he has “ qualms of conscience ” about his involvement at the Council , and Benedict then admitted that “ one does indeed ask oneself whether one did it the right way .
Especially when the whole thing went off the rails , this was certainly a question that one raised.
” But while asking himself that question , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying that “ I always had the consciousness that what we had factually said and implemented was right and that it also needed to happen.
” “ In itself , we acted correctly – even if we certainly did not correctly assess the political effects and the factual consequences , ” Benedict XVI then added .
“ One was thinking too much in a theological way and one did not consider what consequences the things would have.
” That is to say , Benedict does not regret any of his theological statements and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having overseen the possible political effects of these changes .
He still believes that the Council was needed when he stated that “ there was a moment in the Church where one simply expected something new , a renewal , a renewal coming out of the whole – not only coming from Rome – unto a new encounter for the Universal Church.
” In this regard , ” Benedict concluded , “ the hour was simply there.
” This article is a condensed version of a longer study published by Rorate Caeli .

December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A new authoritative biography of Pope Benedict XVI written by Peter Seewald describes in detail the important role then-Professor Joseph Ratzinger played before and during the Second Vatican Council. His influence helped to bring about a revolutionary change of the Council's direction, tone, and topics. For example, he was able to change the presentation of the Church's own concept of the sources of Revelation, he helped suppress a separate Council text on Our Lady, he opposed an “anti-Modernist spirit,” and he was in favor of more widely using the vernacular languages during Holy Mass. As Seewald himself stated in a recent interview: Ratzinger helped the “advance of Modernism in the Church,” and he “was always a progressive theologian.”
The German journalist Peter Seewald, who as an adult had returned to his Catholic faith, has published several books together with Joseph Ratzinger and repeatedly interviewed Pope Emeritus Benedict for his new biography, entitled Benedict XVI: A Life. The biography has been already published in German in its entirety, it will be published in English in two volumes, with the first volume being published on December 15, by Bloomsbury.
Ratzinger the progressivist
Speaking in May of this year to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung about his new biography, Seewald described the role of Ratzinger before and during the Council, and afterwards, as well. “It is definitively so that his impulses contributed at the time to the advance of Modernism in the Catholic Church,” Seewald explained, adding that Ratzinger himself “was also one of the first who warned against the abuse of the Council.”
Seewald then also discussed the claim that Ratzinger had made a “conservative turn” after the Council. He explained that “part of the narrative” was “Ratzinger's reversal,” the talk about “the former progressivist's treason who became a reactionary.” But, objected Seewald, “such a reversal has never taken place.” “Ratzinger was always a progressivist theologian,” the journalist continued, “only the notion progressivist was [then] being understood differently than today: as a modernization of the house, not as its destruction.”
As this new biography shows, Ratzinger's views in the 1950s were so progressive that his own post-doctoral thesis was originally even rejected by the head of the University of Munich, Professor Michael Schmaus who “made it clear,” writes Seewald, “that he considers this young theologian to be a Modernist.” Some contemporary professors accused him of an emotional theology and of a “dangerous Modernism which leads to a subjectivization of the notion of Revelation.”
Seewald describes how Ratzinger, as professor of theology, showed already then an openness toward other religions; for example, when teaching a class on Hinduism in the 1950s, Ratzinger claimed that “also in Hinduism, one sees the action of God's spirit,” according to Seewald who adds that these thoughts “anticipated in essential points statements of Nostra Aetate, the Council's Declacation on the world religions.”
Ratzinger was also in favor of the use of the vernacular language at Mass and for an increased participation of the faithful; he once criticized that bishops were “condemned to be silent observers” at the opening Mass of the Council, regretting that the “active participation of those present was not requested.” This theme was also discussed at the Council. Ratzinger also had, prior to the Council, a high regard for the dialogue with the Jews and looked up to them as “Fathers” of Christians.
In 1958, Ratzinger wrote a controversial article. “For the Christian of today,” Ratzinger wrote in 1958 in his Das Hochland article, “it has become unthinkable that Christianity, or more specifically the Catholic Church, is to be the only path of salvation.”
“With it,” he continued, “the absoluteness of the Church, yes and of all her demands, has become obsolete from within.” How could we still tell Mohammedans today, Ratzinger explained, that they “will definitely go to hell, since they do not belong to the only saving Church”? Continued the professor: “Our humanity simply hinders us to hold on to such ideas. We cannot believe that our neighbor who is a great, charitable, and benevolent man will go to hell because he is not a practicing Catholic.”
Ratzinger and the Council itself
With these leanings, Ratzinger was prepared to play an important role at the upheaval that took place at the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. Here are some key elements of his crucial role:
He wrote, in November of 1961, a speech that was delivered in Genoa, Italy by Cardinal Josef Frings (Cologne) on the theology of the Council which was highly cherished by Pope John XXIII and even incorporated in the papal opening speech of the Council in October of 1962. Ratzinger then said that, “as a ‘Council for Renewal’, the Council’s task must be less to formulate doctrines.” He also proposed to enter into a “dialogue” with a secular world, presenting Christianity as an alternative. “Perhaps the Church should drop many old forms, which are not longer suitable […] be willing to strip off the faith’s timebound clothing,” Ratzinger then wrote.
After being appointed the advisor of Cardinal Frings in 1961, Ratzinger sharply criticized the prepared documents of the Council that had been written by different commissions. He regretted the “antiquated” language of some of the texts, and he thought some of these so-called schematas were better to be “dropped altogether.” He regretted that these texts were written “in a very conservative spirit.” The schema on Revelation was so bad in his eyes – and its traditional understanding of the subject not acceptable – that he wanted to rename the schema and rewrite it (it was indeed renamed into Verbum Dei).
One day before the official opening of the Council, Ratzinger gave a key speech to influential Council Fathers, criticizing the preparatory document on Revelation. He was a member of a small group with Father Karl Rahner who wrote up not only an alternative draft for that schema, but also for other documents. Seewald calls Ratzinger therefore “the Spindoctor.”
Ratzinger was clearly opposed to the old scholastic theology. Seewald quotes him as follows: “‘[I was] of the opinion that scholastic theology, as it had been set, is no longer a means fit to bring the faith into the language of the time.' The faith must ‘get out of this armour, adopt a new language, and be more open to the present situation. So there must also be greater freedom in the Church.’” Moreover, the 34-year-old professor was very concerned at the time not to alienate other Christians with the Council, that is to say, he kept before his eyes “the feelings and thoughts of the separated brethren.”
Very importantly, Ratzinger was opposed to the idea of having a separate schema dedicated to Our Lady, and indeed, that schema was then rejected. In mid-1962, he had written to Cardinal Frings the following comment, which we quote here at length: “I believe this Marian schema should be abandoned, for the sake of the Council’s goal. If the Council as a whole is supposed to be a suave incitamentum to the separated brethren and ad quaerendum unitatem, then it must take a certain amount of pastoral care […] No new wealth will be given to the Catholics which they did not already have. But a new obstacle will be set up for outsiders (especially the Orthodox). By the adoption of such a schema the Council would endanger its whole effect. I would advise total renunciation of this doktrinelles caput (the Romans must simply make that sacrifice) and instead just put a simple prayer for unity to God’s mother at the end of the Ecclesiology schema. This should be without [resorting to] undogmatized terms such as mediatrix etc.”
The group of German theologians who regularly met at the German seminary Santa Maria dell'Anima was at the heart of a development that led to bitter quarrels at the Council, up to an “October crisis,” a “November crisis” and the famous “Black Thursday,” when the whole Council stood on the brink. And at the center of it all stood Ratzinger, and this from the beginning. As Hubert Luthe, one of these collaborators of Ratzinger, was to say: “The Germans strongly influenced the Council. There was one towering figure in particular: Ratzinger.”
Several of his French collaborators of the Nouvelle Théologie, as Seewald points out, had been under the suspicion of heresy before the Council. Among them were Yves-Marie-Joseph Congar, Henri de Lubac, as well as the German Karl Rahner. In order to avoid suspicion, Congar – one of the periti at the Council – counseled that their meetings should not inspire the impression that they were “hatching a plot.”
Seewald even says that Ratzinger was “playing with fire” when he, on the day before the Council, set the tone against the prepared schematas, even hoping to be able to rewrite some of them. He proposed to rewrite a schema, the one on Revelation, that had already been approved by the Pope himself. Ratzinger had regretted that this schema on Revelation is “wholly determined by the anti-Modernist spirit, which had developed around the turn of the century,” adding that it was this “anti-spirit of negation which would be sure to have a cold, even shocking effect.”
Frings and Ratzinger, together with some colleagues, were already considering at the eve of the Council how to change to rules for the election of the Council commissions, so as to be able to influence the redaction of the documents.
“Seven Days That Changed the Catholic Church For Ever,” is the title of the Seewald chapter that describes how the progressivist group (the French, German, Belgian, and Dutch bishops and their advisors) – and Ratzinger prominently among them – took over the leadership at the Council. Cardinal Archille Liénart, was to violate the council rules by grabbing the microphone on the first working day of the Council, October 13, and requesting a time for debate in order to get to know the potential members of the commissions before electing them, as had been planned. Frings did the same right afterwards, asking for more time for discussion before the election of the commission members. They succeeded: the election of the commission members was delayed and they had the time to prepare a list of candidates that they then efficiently promoted among the Council Fathers, thereby getting key positions in the commissions occupied by their collaborators. Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens called this act a “happy coup” and a “daring violation of the rules.” Out of 109 candidates of their list, 79 were then elected by the Council, covering 49% of all the seats available.
An important piece of information is that Frings was able to gain many supporters from the mission countries of South America and elsewhere, according to Seewald, since he, as the founder of the German bishops' relief agencies Misereor and Adveniat, had their “trust,” surely also due to his generous donations. Seewald also points out that the German bishops were the largest net contributors to the Vatican at the time.
In the following month, on November 14, the progressivist group successfully also intervened against the already prepared schemata. They wanted to rewrite them. On that day, Cardinal Frings delivered a speech written by then-Professor Ratzinger; he claimed that the prepared schema on Revelation did not have “the voice of a mother,” but, rather, the “voice of a schoolmaster.” Rather, Frings/Ratzinger argued, it would be important to implement the “pastoral style” as wished by Pope John XXIII. The only source of Revelation, Frings stated in the Council hall, was “the word of God,” (not, as it was traditionally stated, Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition). In light of this strong resistance on the part of the progressivist wing at the Council, the Pope then suddenly decided, on November 21, to withdraw the prepared schema on Revelation himself, thereby giving more influence to this group of churchmen. And he did this, even though he had already approved of the schema. Establishing a new commission for a new draft of this schema, the Pope decided that not only Cardinal Augustin Bea, but also Frings and Liénart were to be in it. This decision was crucial: the schematas were open to change.
Looking back at these moments, Pope Benedict XVI told Seewald: “I am surprised how boldly I spoke out then, but it is true that because a proposed text was rejected, there was a real change, and a completely new start to the discussion became possible.” He was also to write that the “bishops were not anymore the same as they had been before the Council opened,” adding that “instead of the old negative ‘anti’, a new positive hope emerged to abandon the defensive and to think and act in a positively Christian way. The spark had been lit.”
Giuseppe Ruggieri, professor of fundamental theology in Bologna, later commented that this week from 14 to 21 November 1962, which was devoted to the debate on the schema De fontibus revelationis, “was the moment when a decisive change took place for the future of the Council and therefore for the Catholic Church itself: from the Pacelli Church, which was essentially hostile to modernity […] to the Church which is a friend to all humanity, even when they are children of modern society, its culture and history.” Ratzinger, too, saw that this week showed a rejection of “the continuation of the anti-Modernist spirituality” and an approval of “a new way of positive thinking and speaking.” And he was crucial in this change of the Council's attitude. That is why he then also was accused of being a “Modernist” and of having written a “typically Freemasonic text” with his alternative draft of the schema on Revelation.
Be it as it may, Seewald's own commentary on this moment of the Council is: “Frings and his advisor [Ratzinger] had turned the Council around. The minority of those wanting reform had become a majority.” As it seems, a well-organized minority was able to implement its views.
Throughout the Council sessions, Ratzinger worked closely with Frings for whom he wrote 11 speeches. In one of these speeches, Ratzinger wrote that “we have to be ready to learn” from the “ecumenical movement,” which he saw to be “from the Holy Ghost.” His arguments influenced many Council documents, among them Verbum Dei, Nostrae Aetate, and the decree on religious liberty.
In 1963, the Frings/Ratzinger team launched another initiative at the Council. On 8 November of that year, Frings delivered a speech written by Ratzinger, in which he criticized the Holy Office “whose procedures still often do not accord with our time, and cause damage to the Church and scandal for man.” It was time for tolerance. Frings rebuked the Holy Office for its procedures that did not give sufficient a hearing to the accused one and that did not confront the accused one with the arguments. Frings also claimed that the accused one is not even given the chance to correct his own writings. He received much applause in the hall, yet Seewald also states that “no one had ever dared before to criticize Cardinal Ottaviani’s machinery so fiercely.” That same evening, the Pope asked Frings to make recommendations for a reform of the Holy Office.
The “November crisis” of 1964 brought some change of the Pope's attitude – it was then already Paull VI, after John XXIII had died in June of 1963 – after too radical reform plans had come to light. Ratzinger was disappointed, yet saw that much change had been done with the help of the many “modi” submitted to the Council texts. It was in this time period that Pope Paul VI also decided, after all, to give after all some prominence to Our Lady. Against a vote from the Council, he announced, on 18 November, that he was to declare her the Mater Ecclesiae, the Mother of the Church, three days later. (According to one eye witness, Father Robert I. Bradley, S.J., there was an “audible hiss” at St. Peter's when the Pope made this announcement.) Here another painful note: It was again Frings, together with Cardinal Döpfner, who tried to intervene, at least attempting to modify Our Lady's title, but it was to no avail. After Paul VI declared Mary Mother of the Church, Cardinal Ruffini is said to have called out: “The Madonna won!”
Ratzinger felt a little more re-assured when, during the fourth and last session of the Council in 1965, Paul VI announced that there would be an episcopal council that was to accompany the work of the Pope. He stated that this piece of news helped to “revive the optimism that was almost lost.” And, in continuation with the work of the previous sessions, religious liberty was then approved, Nostrae Aetate and Verbum Dei as well, the latter of which was heavily influenced by Ratzinger, whose very concept of Revelation had been adapted. Gaudium et Spes encouraged dialogue with society, working for peace. That is to say: many aspects of the reform were implemented, only some more alarming ones were halted. On 8 December 1965, there took place the last ceremony of the Council in the Vatican. One of the observers of the Council, Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, was to note that nobody had been “as influential” as Cardinal Frings, after the Pope. And, as we now know better, with Frings, it was Ratzinger who had been a great influence. Seewald calls him the “youthful spiritus rector of the greatest and most important Church assembly of all times.”
Resistance from conservative bishops
That there were some bishops very concerned about these promoters of change can be seen in the reaction of the Brazilian Bishop Giocondo Grotti. He defended the special role of Our Lady and asked: “Does ecumenism mean confessing the truth or hiding it? Should the Council declare Catholic doctrine or the doctrine of our separated brethren?”
And he concluded: “Keep the schemata separate! Let us openly confess our faith! Let us be the teachers we are in the Church by clearly teaching and not hiding what is true.” As Seewald puts it, however, in the end “Frings's speech on the Mother of God, which Ratzinger had written, was so convincing that even those bishops who at first had pleaded for a separate schema on Mary changed their minds.” In a poignant sense, Our Lady was effectively asked to leave the Marriage Feast of Cana. Some were embarrassed about her presence and thus they tried to hide her.
Another example of the reaction of the conservative wing at the Council was the head of the Holy Office, Cardinal Ottaviani. He is quoted by Seewald as saying: “I pray to God that I may die before the end of the Council. That way, I at least can die a Catholic.”
Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was highly alarmed and described the new tendencies at the Council as “hatred of theology,” as inventing “new paradigms,” a stressing of “pastoral care” and of “ecumenism,” warning that there existed attempts at “eliminating Tradition, Ecclesia, etc.” on the part of those “who wish to do adapt everything to the Protestants, the Orthodox, etc.” “Divine Tradition is being destroyed,” Siri concluded.
Bishop Geraldo de Proença Sigaud of Brazil was also indignant. He spoke about the “enemy of the Church” who has “toppled” the entire Catholic order, that is, the “City of God.” By concentrating on “human reason, on sensuality, on greed and on pride,” the enemy wishes to establish society and mankind “without God, without the Church, without Christ, without Revelation.” In order to achieve this goal, the prelate continued, “it is necessary to topple the Church in her foundations, to destroy her, and to push her back.” This enemy wishes to establish the “City of Man,” and “his name is revolution.”
Peter Seewald also shows that the 3,000 letters written by bishops ahead of the Council, concerning their own intentions for this ecclesial event, did not show “either a desire for a radical change, much less for a revolution.”
That desire for a revolution was left to a small group of highly intelligent and well-connected clergymen – among them Joseph Ratzinger.
Did Ratzinger regret his role after the Council?
The question is whether Joseph Ratzinger later changed his views and whether he later regretted his role before and during the Council. Peter Seewald does not detect in Ratzinger a “turn from a progressivist to a conservative theologian” inasmuch as he had “early on found his theological position and followed it consequently.” In light of this important role that Ratzinger played, the commentary from Seewald might also be of interest: “An irony of fate: Ratzinger contributed to a great extent to formulating the Council statements and thus shaping the modern face of the Church. He would fight for 50 years to defend and implement the ‘true Council’ – though for decades he was reproached with having betrayed the Council.” For some progressivists, such as Hans Küng, Ratzinger did not go far enough.
Seewald also asked Ratzinger in a 2017 interview book, Last Testament, whether he has “qualms of conscience” about his involvement at the Council, and Benedict then admitted that “one does indeed ask oneself whether one did it the right way. Especially when the whole thing went off the rails, this was certainly a question that one raised.” But while asking himself that question, he finally did not regret his work, saying that “I always had the consciousness that what we had factually said and implemented was right and that it also needed to happen.”
“In itself, we acted correctly – even if we certainly did not correctly assess the political effects and the factual consequences,” Benedict XVI then added. “One was thinking too much in a theological way and one did not consider what consequences the things would have.”
That is to say, Benedict does not regret any of his theological statements and orientations; he only admits of not having overseen the possible political effects of these changes. He still believes that the Council was needed when he stated that “there was a moment in the Church where one simply expected something new, a renewal, a renewal coming out of the whole – not only coming from Rome – unto a new encounter for the Universal Church.” In this regard,” Benedict concluded, “the hour was simply there.”
This article is a condensed version of a longer study published by Rorate Caeli.
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--2020-12-11--Canadian hospice launches membership drive to stop takeover by euthanasia activists

DELTA , British Columbia , December 11 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A British Columbia hospice society is launching an urgent nationwide membership drive to stave off a “ hostile takeover ” by euthanasia advocates .
The Delta Hospice Society ( DHS ) is appealing to all Canadians who oppose euthanasia — that is , the lethal injection of sick patients — to become members and help keep its 10-bed Irene Thomas Hospice a euthanasia-free zone .
Since Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016 , the hospice society has been under attack by euthanasia lobbyists and the B.C .
government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at its palliative care hospice .
The latest blow came on December 8 , when Justice David Harris of the British Columbia Appeals Court refused to grant the society a stay of a lower court order that it must accept all memberships regardless of the applicant ’ s stance on euthanasia .
That ’ s when three pro-euthanasia ex-board members went to court to stop the hospice society from holding a mail-in vote of its then 1,500 members on whether or not to become a Christian organization .
This would have allowed it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal obligation to provide euthanasia onsite .
Fitzpatrick ordered the meeting canceled , and ruled the board could not reject a membership based on the applicant ’ s support of euthanasia , even though the society ’ s constitution prohibits any practice that would hasten a patient ’ s death .
The society appealed , and on November 13 , the B.C .
Court of Appeal upheld Fitzpatrick ’ s ruling , including her decision to put the Delta Hospice Society under the court ’ s authority .
The society then asked for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prepares to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada .
Harris refused the stay on Tuesday , at which point the euthanasia lobbyists ’ lawyer , Brad Dixon , sent a letter demanding that the Delta Hospice Society hand over a register of all its members , or be held in contempt of court .
He also demanded that the list “ that is to be delivered must contain the names ( and contact particulars ) of all applicants who have made application since November 28 , 2019 without restriction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the society refused to comply , its directors could be found in “ bad faith ” and violation of the law , and be fined — or jailed .
Before the attempted takeover , the Delta Hospice Society had approximately 160 members .
By April 15 , 2020 , the society had over 1,400 members , with many new memberships bought by euthanasia activists .
The latter literally went door-to-door in the community and signing up new members in order take over the society and force it to provide beds for euthanasia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ west coast community , with local media publishing pro-euthanasia articles and comments prejudicial to the hospice .
Threatening letters were also sent to society board members , demanding that they not resist the takeover of the hospice , and euthanasia lobbyists attacked board chair Angelina Ireland on social media .
“ During this attempted hostile takeover , we have witnessed attempts to poison the community against us , suffered assaults on our 30-year reputation for good works , and been forced into a protracted and painfully expensive court battle just to preserve our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care , ” Ireland said in a November 13 press release .
However , while the courts ruled against the society , they also agreed that the society can amend its bylaws to explicitly state it is a palliative care organization , and can not allow euthanasia in its facility , Ireland told LifeSiteNews .
The bylaws can also be amended to specify criteria for membership , and exclude those individuals who do not uphold palliative care values and support euthanasia .
Delta Hospice Society is now calling on pro-life Canadians to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy a $ 10 membership , she said .
With a majority of pro-life members , the society could amend the bylaws to keep the hospice euthanasia-free , emphasized Ireland .
“ This is the only way to eliminate the menace that hangs over our heads — once and for all.
” There is no deadline to buy a membership , and Delta Hospice Society is asking pro-life Canadians to do so as soon as possible , at www.savedeltahospice.com .
The NDP government has also been pressuring the society to allow euthanasia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In February 2020 , NDP Health Minister Adrian Dix announced that he was pulling the society ’ s $ 1.5 million public funding effective February 2021 .
Dix also said the province is considering expropriating the hospice building , which was built by the society with $ 8.5 million in privately raised funds , but which sits on land leased to it by the Fraser Health Authority .
The society has consistently held that allowing euthanasia onsite was against its constitution and that euthanasia is completely opposed to palliative care , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palliative Care Association ( CHPCA ) and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians ( CSPCP ) .
Significantly , neither the Supreme Court of Canada , nor Parliament have mandated that euthanasia be made available in all places at all times .
“ We follow a 50-year medical discipline committed to caring not killing , ” said Ireland .
“ We resist the destruction of palliative care in Delta , and in British Columbia as well as the rest of Canada .
Our actions are to defend and protect palliative care , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to humanity.
” Please buy a $ 10 Delta Hospice Society membership and encourage your family and friends to do likewise .
To buy a membership , go to www.savedeltahospice.com .

The Delta Hospice Society (DHS) is appealing to all Canadians who oppose euthanasia to become members and help keep its 10-bed hospice a euthanasia-free zone.
DELTA, British Columbia, December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A British Columbia hospice society is launching an urgent nationwide membership drive to stave off a “hostile takeover” by euthanasia advocates.
The Delta Hospice Society (DHS) is appealing to all Canadians who oppose euthanasia — that is, the lethal injection of sick patients — to become members and help keep its 10-bed Irene Thomas Hospice a euthanasia-free zone.
Since Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016, the hospice society has been under attack by euthanasia lobbyists and the B.C. government for its refusal to allow euthanasia onsite at its palliative care hospice.
The latest blow came on December 8, when Justice David Harris of the British Columbia Appeals Court refused to grant the society a stay of a lower court order that it must accept all memberships regardless of the applicant’s stance on euthanasia.
B.C. Supreme Court Judge Shelley Fitzpatrick issued the original order in June 2020.
That’s when three pro-euthanasia ex-board members went to court to stop the hospice society from holding a mail-in vote of its then 1,500 members on whether or not to become a Christian organization.
This would have allowed it to claim a religious exemption from the legal obligation to provide euthanasia onsite.
Fitzpatrick ordered the meeting canceled, and ruled the board could not reject a membership based on the applicant’s support of euthanasia, even though the society’s constitution prohibits any practice that would hasten a patient’s death.
The society appealed, and on November 13, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld Fitzpatrick’s ruling, including her decision to put the Delta Hospice Society under the court’s authority.
The society then asked for a stay of the order as it prepares to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Harris refused the stay on Tuesday, at which point the euthanasia lobbyists’ lawyer, Brad Dixon, sent a letter demanding that the Delta Hospice Society hand over a register of all its members, or be held in contempt of court.
He also demanded that the list “that is to be delivered must contain the names (and contact particulars) of all applicants who have made application since November 28, 2019 without restriction or cut-off date.”
Dixon noted that if the society refused to comply, its directors could be found in “bad faith” and violation of the law, and be fined — or jailed.
Before the attempted takeover, the Delta Hospice Society had approximately 160 members. By April 15, 2020, the society had over 1,400 members, with many new memberships bought by euthanasia activists.
The latter literally went door-to-door in the community and signing up new members in order take over the society and force it to provide beds for euthanasia.
The dispute has bitterly divided the west coast community, with local media publishing pro-euthanasia articles and comments prejudicial to the hospice.
Threatening letters were also sent to society board members, demanding that they not resist the takeover of the hospice, and euthanasia lobbyists attacked board chair Angelina Ireland on social media.
“During this attempted hostile takeover, we have witnessed attempts to poison the community against us, suffered assaults on our 30-year reputation for good works, and been forced into a protracted and painfully expensive court battle just to preserve our integrity as a centre for authentic palliative care,” Ireland said in a November 13 press release.
However, while the courts ruled against the society, they also agreed that the society can amend its bylaws to explicitly state it is a palliative care organization, and cannot allow euthanasia in its facility, Ireland told LifeSiteNews.
The bylaws can also be amended to specify criteria for membership, and exclude those individuals who do not uphold palliative care values and support euthanasia.
Delta Hospice Society is now calling on pro-life Canadians to come to the hospice’s defense and buy a $10 membership, she said.
With a majority of pro-life members, the society could amend the bylaws to keep the hospice euthanasia-free, emphasized Ireland.
“This is the only way to eliminate the menace that hangs over our heads — once and for all.”
There is no deadline to buy a membership, and Delta Hospice Society is asking pro-life Canadians to do so as soon as possible, at www.savedeltahospice.com.
The NDP government has also been pressuring the society to allow euthanasia, and rebuffed all its attempts to negotiate.
In February 2020, NDP Health Minister Adrian Dix announced that he was pulling the society’s $1.5 million public funding effective February 2021.
Dix also said the province is considering expropriating the hospice building, which was built by the society with $8.5 million in privately raised funds, but which sits on land leased to it by the Fraser Health Authority.
The society has consistently held that allowing euthanasia onsite was against its constitution and that euthanasia is completely opposed to palliative care, a position backed by both the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association (CHPCA) and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP).
Significantly, neither the Supreme Court of Canada, nor Parliament have mandated that euthanasia be made available in all places at all times.
“We follow a 50-year medical discipline committed to caring not killing,” said Ireland.
“We resist the destruction of palliative care in Delta, and in British Columbia as well as the rest of Canada. Our actions are to defend and protect palliative care, which is a national treasure and gift to humanity.”
Please buy a $10 Delta Hospice Society membership and encourage your family and friends to do likewise. To buy a membership, go to www.savedeltahospice.com.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-12-11--Michigan AG appeals ruling that Christians can’t be forced to host gay ‘weddings’

December 11 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Michigan ’ s Democrat Attorney General Dana Nessel has announced her intentions to appeal a Court of Claims ruling that state discrimination law does not require companies to serve same-sex unions .
The Detroit News reports that the case concerns the Sturgis wedding venue Rouch World , which had declined to host a same-sex “ wedding ” ; and Marquette business Uprooted Electrolysis , which denied service to an “ individual transitioning from a man to a woman , ” both for religious reasons .
The Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act ( ELCRA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ religion , race , color , national origin , age , sex , height , weight , familial status , or marital status , ” The Hill notes .
While the Michigan Civil Rights Commission interpreted it to extend to sexual orientation and gender identity in 2018 , Judge Christopher Murray ruled Monday that the law did apply to gender identity but not to sexual orientation .
“ If defendants determine that a person treated someone who ‘ identifies ’ with a gender different than the gender that he or she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment on the basis of sex , and they are entitled to redress that violation through the existing ( Michigan Department of Civil Rights ) procedures , ” he wrote .
But he also determined that “ sex ” could not be taken to mean “ sexual orientation ” according to a 1990 Court of Appeals precedent .
“ I respectfully disagree with the Michigan Court of Claims on its ruling in this case as it relates to sexual orientation , ” said Nessel , invoking the U.S. Supreme Court ’ s infamous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County , which redefined “ sex discrimination ” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to add sexual orientation and gender identity , in addition to its original biological meaning .
“ We intend to submit that all Michigan residents are entitled to protection under the law – regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation — in our appeal to this decision , ” she declared .
Nessel ’ s appeal would first go to the Court of Appeals , and potentially up to the Michigan Supreme Court after that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the time the case is heard .
Michigan ’ s first “ married ” lesbian leader , the pro-abortion Nessel is no stranger to opposing the religious rights of Michiganders when they conflict with her left-wing values , from Catholic media organizations to religious adoption agencies .
Last year , her office announced it was creating a database of “ hate and bias incidents ” that did not rise to the level of crime or civil violation — i.e.
, lawful speech and other activity deemed “ hateful ” by the state @

Dana Nessel referred to this summer's Bostock v. Clayton County decision, which redefined 'sex discrimination' in the 1964 Civil Rights Act to add sexual orientation and gender identity.
December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Michigan’s Democrat Attorney General Dana Nessel has announced her intentions to appeal a Court of Claims ruling that state discrimination law does not require companies to serve same-sex unions.
The Detroit News reports that the case concerns the Sturgis wedding venue Rouch World, which had declined to host a same-sex “wedding”; and Marquette business Uprooted Electrolysis, which denied service to an “individual transitioning from a man to a woman,” both for religious reasons.
The Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) forbids discrimination on the basis of “religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status,” The Hill notes. While the Michigan Civil Rights Commission interpreted it to extend to sexual orientation and gender identity in 2018, Judge Christopher Murray ruled Monday that the law did apply to gender identity but not to sexual orientation.
“If defendants determine that a person treated someone who ‘identifies’ with a gender different than the gender that he or she was born as, then that is dissimilar treatment on the basis of sex, and they are entitled to redress that violation through the existing (Michigan Department of Civil Rights) procedures,” he wrote. But he also determined that “sex” could not be taken to mean “sexual orientation” according to a 1990 Court of Appeals precedent.
“I respectfully disagree with the Michigan Court of Claims on its ruling in this case as it relates to sexual orientation,” said Nessel, invoking the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous decision this summer in Bostock v. Clayton County, which redefined “sex discrimination” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to add sexual orientation and gender identity, in addition to its original biological meaning.
“We intend to submit that all Michigan residents are entitled to protection under the law – regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation — in our appeal to this decision,” she declared.
Nessel’s appeal would first go to the Court of Appeals, and potentially up to the Michigan Supreme Court after that, which would have a Democrat majority by the time the case is heard.
— Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Defend our right to "Choose Life"! Show Petition Text 11454 have signed the petition. Let's get to 12500 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition States are blocking pro-lifers from sharing the simple message “Choose Life” on their vehicles! Please SIGN this joint petition between LifeSite and The Children First Foundation to make "Choose Life" license plates available in every state! Tell governors and state officials to allow this pro-life freedom of speech. Advertising industry statistics show that, for the typical vehicle, a “Choose Life” plate and its simple, powerful message will be seen by other drivers 30,000 to 80,000 times a year. And, across the U.S., “Choose Life” vehicle license plates (or tags) have raised more than $28 million for pro-life pregnancy centers, maternity homes, safe havens, and adoption centers, varying with each state. The potential for expanding the “Choose Life” license plate program to new states and new members is incredible – but only if citizens are allowed to have the plates! It is appalling that seventeen U.S. states do not allow their citizens the right to put “Choose Life” license plates on their vehicles. The plates have been called pro-life “scare tactics” by Planned Parenthood and unlawful or hateful “private speech” by pro-abortion lawyers. The “Choose Life” message, however, is one of pure love that scares nobody except those who profit from death. It is unacceptable that we are blocked from our God-given and Constitutional right to spread the message of love and life for vulnerable unborn and newborn children. Your signature on this petition – no matter where you live – will help to get the “Choose Life” license plate program in states where it is not yet permitted! Please SIGN and SHARE this petition to make a real difference in persuading these state governments and Departments of Motor Vehicles to “Choose Life.” Consider, for example, our experience in New York, where Governor Andrew Cuomo is a nationally-recognized advocate of abortion and has been a relentless opponent of the pro-life movement. Cuomo has blocked the approval of “Choose Life” license plates in NY, despite widespread support for these truly positive messages of love and life. A headline in the New York Post declared, “The DMV Acts Like We Live in Pyongyang.” And, in nearby New Jersey and Connecticut, similar hurdles were faced. But we took the fight to the government officials and even to federal court. And, with the help of petitions, we were able to get “Choose Life” license plates on the road in both states. It is high time for us to convert EVERY state in America to choose life. Your signature on this petition - no matter where you live - will help make that happen by placing “Choose Life” license plates on tens of thousands more cars. For love, for life, for the babies, please SIGN and SHARE our worldwide petition to tell state officials and politicians to stop blocking approval of the “Choose Life” license plate! FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please click on this link to read many past LifeSite articles on "Choose Life" license plates: https://www.lifesitenews.com/tags/tag/choose+life+plates Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
Michigan’s first “married” lesbian leader, the pro-abortion Nessel is no stranger to opposing the religious rights of Michiganders when they conflict with her left-wing values, from Catholic media organizations to religious adoption agencies. Last year, her office announced it was creating a database of “hate and bias incidents” that did not rise to the level of crime or civil violation — i.e., lawful speech and other activity deemed “hateful” by the state.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-12-11--German counties reverse communion ban after bishop protests the decision

GÖRLITZ , Germany , December 11 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Two counties in Germany today lifted a ban on distributing Holy Communion after local Bishop Wolfgang Ipolt of Görlitz publicly protested the decision .
“ This is a clear encroachment on the right to exercise one ’ s religion freely , ” Ipolt had said .
Daniel Frank , the head of the Catholic Office in Saxony , which is the bishops ’ lobby organization in this specific part of Germany , announced the reversal of the ban earlier today , after speaking with the county authorities of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Germany ’ s Catholic News Agency ( KNA ) that if the counties did not redress the situation , then the Church would be prepared to take legal action .
The decision of the two counties to prohibit the distribution of Holy Communion came only yesterday , with the reversal going into effect roughly one day later at midnight tonight .
Ipolt said he was “ very surprised ” about the initial decision , which he characterized as an “ aggravation , ” since there was no effort made by the counties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the announcement .
The restrictions the authorities had intended to impose was in response to concerns about the spread of COVID-19 .
Ipolt defended the current practice around distributing communion in his diocese , saying he has “ issued strict hygiene regulations for it.
” The bishop added that if anyone was still truly concerned about receiving the Eucharist , then they are free not to receive , since there “ is no obligation in the Catholic Church to go to Holy Communion.
” Though this is a victory for the diocese , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of which are part of the diocese ’ s regulations .
The priest still needs to disinfect his hands before giving Communion to the faithful from a suitable distance .
There are also a mask mandates and a singing embargo in place for the faithful during religious services .
According to Church law ( canon 843§1 ) , “ Sacred ministers can not deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times , are properly disposed , and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.
” In addition , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] ny baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.
” The reference to prohibition by law is not a reference to secular laws , but rather to other , appropriate parts of ecclesial law , none of which bear on the matter in hand .
The problem of the state attempting to ban Communion for the faithful is not unique to Saxony .
Dioceses all over the world have been contending with governments telling them to reduce parish attendance and halt communion distribution since the lockdowns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parishes have been battling their own bishops in this regard , pushing back against illicit orders to restrict communion to reception in the hand alone .
Ipolt ’ s diocese has also banned communion on the tongue .
In a 2009 letter to a Catholic layman in England , responding to a restriction made by a bishop in light of the then prevalent H1N1 “ swine flu ” , the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments ( CDW ) stated that : “ This Dicastery observes that its instruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly stipulates that ‘ each of the faithful has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue ’ ( n.92 ) , nor is it licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ ’ s faithful who are not impeded by law from receiving the Holy Eucharist ( cf n.91 ) .
” The rationale behind restricting communion to reception on the hand alone for the sake of health has been found wanting .
A group of 21 physicians authored a letter in August that cuts down many of the arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communion on the tongue .
“ From the point of view of hygiene , it is absolutely incomprehensible to us why oral communion has been banned , ” the doctors wrote , adding that , in their professional opinion , they “ consider this form of distribution [ on the tongue ] safer than hand communion.
” Bishop Athanasius Schneider has weighed in on both the banning of Holy Communion and public Masses , proclaiming that such acts are “ pure human law ; however , the supreme law in the Church is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that bishops who , in line with government guidelines , have prohibited communion on the tongue have “ reacted more like civil bureaucrats than shepherds .
In focusing too exclusively on all the hygienic protective measures , they have lost a supernatural vision and have abandoned the primacy of the eternal good of souls .
”

‘This is a clear encroachment on the right to exercise one’s religion freely,’ the local bishop had said.
GÖRLITZ, Germany, December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Two counties in Germany today lifted a ban on distributing Holy Communion after local Bishop Wolfgang Ipolt of Görlitz publicly protested the decision. “This is a clear encroachment on the right to exercise one’s religion freely,” Ipolt had said.
Daniel Frank, the head of the Catholic Office in Saxony, which is the bishops’ lobby organization in this specific part of Germany, announced the reversal of the ban earlier today, after speaking with the county authorities of Görlitz and Bautzen.
Frank had previously told Germany’s Catholic News Agency (KNA) that if the counties did not redress the situation, then the Church would be prepared to take legal action.
The decision of the two counties to prohibit the distribution of Holy Communion came only yesterday, with the reversal going into effect roughly one day later at midnight tonight.
Ipolt said he was “very surprised” about the initial decision, which he characterized as an “aggravation,” since there was no effort made by the counties to speak with church officials before making the announcement.
The restrictions the authorities had intended to impose was in response to concerns about the spread of COVID-19. Ipolt defended the current practice around distributing communion in his diocese, saying he has “issued strict hygiene regulations for it.” The bishop added that if anyone was still truly concerned about receiving the Eucharist, then they are free not to receive, since there “is no obligation in the Catholic Church to go to Holy Communion.”
Though this is a victory for the diocese, other restrictions are still in place, some of which are part of the diocese’s regulations. The priest still needs to disinfect his hands before giving Communion to the faithful from a suitable distance. There are also a mask mandates and a singing embargo in place for the faithful during religious services.
According to Church law (canon 843§1), “Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.”
In addition, canon 912 states that “[a]ny baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.” The reference to prohibition by law is not a reference to secular laws, but rather to other, appropriate parts of ecclesial law, none of which bear on the matter in hand.
— Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Ask Pope Francis to clarify and rectify scandalous remarks on homosexual civil unions Show Petition Text 22787 have signed the petition. Let's get to 25000 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition Remarks attributed to Pope Francis (and, not denied by the Vatican) in support of homosexual civil unions have caused grave scandal to the faithful. Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks Pope Francis to clarify and rectify these heterodox and scandalous remarks on homosexual civil unions, and which will be delivered both to the Vatican and to the Papal Nuncio of the United States (the Pope's official representative in the U.S.). As the last guarantor of the Faith, the Pope should clarify and rectify these remarks, which go against the perennial teaching of the Church, even including the teaching of his living predecessor, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. "What we have to create is a law of civil coexistence [meaning civil union law, for homosexuals]...," Pope Francis is reported to have remarked, in what is arguably his clearest statement of public support for a practice morally prohibited by official Catholic Church teaching. In fact, the Church has been crystal clear in Her opposition to homosexual unions. Just in 2003, Pope Saint John Paul II approved a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, titled 'Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons' and written by Cardinal Ratzinger (now, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), which concludes with the following: "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself." It could not be more clear: the Church is calling people to repentance, not to be left to indulge in grave sin. Since becoming public, several senior prelates as well as other notable Catholic figures have voiced their opposition to these remarks attributed to the Pontiff. Cardinal Raymond Burke stated: "It is a source of deepest sadness and pressing pastoral concern that the private opinions reported with so much emphasis by the press and attributed to Pope Francis do not correspond to the constant teaching of the Church, as it is expressed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition." Cardinal Gerhard Müller commented: "Where there is tension between the plain and obvious Word of God and the infallible interpretation on the one hand, and private expressions of opinion even by the highest church authorities on the other, the principle always applies: in dubio pro DEO [When in doubt, be in favor of God]." And, Catholic theologian and apologist Scott Hahn, without directly quoting Pope Francis, shared on Facebook the 'Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,' published by the CDF in 1986, with the statement: "Holy Father, respectfully and humbly, I beg to differ... if that is indeed what you said. In any case, please clarify and rectify your statement, especially in view of the official teaching of our Lord through the magisterium of His Church." But, the silence from the Vatican has been deafening, with no clarification forthcoming. We must, therefore, ask the Pope for clarification in this serious matter. Please SIGN and SHARE this petition which asks Pope Francis to clarify and rectify remarks attributed to him in support of homosexual civil unions. FOR MORE INFORMATION: 'Cdl. Burke: Pope’s homosexual civil union remarks ‘contrary’ to Scripture, Tradition' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/cardinal-burke-on-popes-homosexual-civil-union-remarks-contrary-to-the-teaching-of-sacred-scripture-and-sacred-tradition 'Cardinal says Catholics ‘can and should’ disagree with Pope’s ‘opinion’ on gay civil unions' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/cdl.mueller-popes-words-on-gay-civil-unions-purely-private-expression-of-opinion-which-every-catholic-can-and-should-freely-contradict 'Archbishop Vigano, Bishops Tobin and Strickland respond to Pope’s approval of homosexual civil unions' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/archbishop-vigano-and-bishops-tobin-strickland-respond-to-popes-approval-of-homosexual-civil-unions 'Pope’s comments on gay civil unions cause shockwaves around the world' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/deepest-sadness-cardinal-burke-condemns-pope-franciss-remarks-supporting-civil-unions Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
The problem of the state attempting to ban Communion for the faithful is not unique to Saxony. Dioceses all over the world have been contending with governments telling them to reduce parish attendance and halt communion distribution since the lockdowns started back in March.
Priests and parishes have been battling their own bishops in this regard, pushing back against illicit orders to restrict communion to reception in the hand alone. Ipolt’s diocese has also banned communion on the tongue.
In a 2009 letter to a Catholic layman in England, responding to a restriction made by a bishop in light of the then prevalent H1N1 “swine flu”, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) stated that: “This Dicastery observes that its instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (25 March 2004) clearly stipulates that ‘each of the faithful has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue’ (n.92), nor is it licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful who are not impeded by law from receiving the Holy Eucharist (cf n.91).”
The rationale behind restricting communion to reception on the hand alone for the sake of health has been found wanting. A group of 21 physicians authored a letter in August that cuts down many of the arguments against the ancient and revered practice of communion on the tongue.
“From the point of view of hygiene, it is absolutely incomprehensible to us why oral communion has been banned,” the doctors wrote, adding that, in their professional opinion, they “consider this form of distribution [on the tongue] safer than hand communion.”
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has weighed in on both the banning of Holy Communion and public Masses, proclaiming that such acts are “pure human law; however, the supreme law in the Church is the salvation of souls.”
Schneider suggested that bishops who, in line with government guidelines, have prohibited communion on the tongue have “reacted more like civil bureaucrats than shepherds. In focusing too exclusively on all the hygienic protective measures, they have lost a supernatural vision and have abandoned the primacy of the eternal good of souls.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-12-11--Government agents can be sued for religious freedom damages, Supreme Court rules

WASHINGTON , D.C. , December 11 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Americans found to have been wronged by the federal government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ( RFRA ) may sue individual government officials for monetary damages , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a unanimous decision .
Tanzin v. Tanvir concerned three Muslim men , a combination of American citizens and legal residents , who were placed on the federal no-fly list in retaliation for refusing to act as government informants for the FBI , SCOTUSblog reports .
They sued , leading to the Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ names from the list , but a lower court ruled they were not entitled to damages under RFRA .
“ There is no doubt that damages claims have always been available under §1983 for clearly established violations of the First Amendment , ” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority .
“ Given that RFRA reinstated pre- [ Employment Div.
, Dept .
of Human Resources of Ore. v. ] Smith protections and rights , parties suing under RFRA must have at least the same avenues for relief against officials that they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damages remedy is not just ‘ appropriate ’ relief as viewed through the lens of suits against Government employees , ” he continued .
“ It is also the only form of relief that can remedy some RFRA violations .
For certain injuries , such as respondents ’ wasted plane tickets , effective relief consists of damages , not an injunction.
” Justice Amy Coney Barrett , who was nominated by President Donald Trump and confirmed in October , did not participate in the vote as she was not on the court when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We ’ re glad the Supreme Court unanimously emphasized that the government can ’ t expect to be let off the hook by simply changing its tune at the last second , ” Becket Law senior counsel Lori Windham said in support of the ruling .
“ This is a good decision that makes it easier to hold the government accountable when it violates Americans ’ religious liberties.
” By making federal employees potentially liable for the actions of their offices , the ruling could have a deterrent effect in a wide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as the Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor ’ s case against being forced to subsidize abortifacients , a threat Democrat Joe Biden has signaled he would revive as president .

The ruling could have a deterrent effect in a wide range of religious-freedom cases going forward, such as the Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor’s case against being forced to subsidize abortifacients
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Americans found to have been wronged by the federal government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) may sue individual government officials for monetary damages, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a unanimous decision.
Tanzin v. Tanvir concerned three Muslim men, a combination of American citizens and legal residents, who were placed on the federal no-fly list in retaliation for refusing to act as government informants for the FBI, SCOTUSblog reports. They sued, leading to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) removing their names from the list, but a lower court ruled they were not entitled to damages under RFRA.
“There is no doubt that damages claims have always been available under §1983 for clearly established violations of the First Amendment,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. “Given that RFRA reinstated pre-[Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v.] Smith protections and rights, parties suing under RFRA must have at least the same avenues for relief against officials that they would have had before Smith.”
“A damages remedy is not just ‘appropriate’ relief as viewed through the lens of suits against Government employees,” he continued. “It is also the only form of relief that can remedy some RFRA violations. For certain injuries, such as respondents’ wasted plane tickets, effective relief consists of damages, not an injunction.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was nominated by President Donald Trump and confirmed in October, did not participate in the vote as she was not on the court when it heard arguments in the case.
“We’re glad the Supreme Court unanimously emphasized that the government can’t expect to be let off the hook by simply changing its tune at the last second,” Becket Law senior counsel Lori Windham said in support of the ruling. “This is a good decision that makes it easier to hold the government accountable when it violates Americans’ religious liberties.”
By making federal employees potentially liable for the actions of their offices, the ruling could have a deterrent effect in a wide range of religious-freedom cases going forward, such as the Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor’s case against being forced to subsidize abortifacients, a threat Democrat Joe Biden has signaled he would revive as president.
— Article continues below Petition — Stand with Texas in Supreme Court voter fraud challenge Show Petition Text 1464 have signed the petition. Let's get to 2500 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition PETITION UPDATE (12/12/2020) - In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case filed by the state of Texas. PETITION UPDATE (12/11/2020) - 6 states have formally joined Texas in its Supreme Court suit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—four battleground states who ran illegal and unconstitutional elections. Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah have formally joined Texas and agree that the defendant states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify unlawfully enacting last-minute changes and ignoring both federal and state election laws, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. While Missouri and 16 other states filed an amicus brief with the Court supporting Texas, 20 other states plus the District of Columbia signed an amicus brief supporting the 4 defendant states. Please SIGN this petition and STAND with Texas, as the state seeks justice in the 2020 general election for all citizens of the United States. '6 states formally join Texas in lawsuit defending the security of the 2020 election' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/6-states-formally-join-texas-in-lawsuit-defending-the-security-of-the-2020-election ____________________________________________________________________ The state of Texas has filed suit against Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia in the Supreme Court over changes which those states made to their election rules, claiming they violated the U.S. Constitution in the process. Here is the central part of the argument: if Texas were to allow possible voter fraud to go unchecked in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia, it would be akin to committing fraud upon the people of Texas, who cast their ballots within the framework of the law. Indeed, this would apply equally to all citizens who voted within the framework of the law across the United States! Thankfully, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is stepping up to vindicate the right of all Texans - and, all Americans - to have every legal vote be counted. But, the Supreme Court has only until Thursday morning to either accept or decline hearing the case. Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition, now. The main claim that Texas makes is that Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia violated the Electoral Clause of the U.S. Constitution by changing their election rules on mail-in ballots by executive or judicial action, rather than by action from the legislature. But, America is a land of laws, and most people play by the rules. Citizens also want our state executives and judiciaries to play by the rules. Bypassing state legislatures, even during a pandemic, cannot be justifiable as it goes against our system of checks and balances, and, ultimately, as it is the legislatures who have the power, vested by the people, to make determinations about state electoral regulations. Texas also alleges that the defendant-states further violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause by applying different election rules for different parts of their respective states, meaning that election rules were not the same for every citizen of each state. Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because in disputes between states, the Supreme Court is the court of "first impression." But, the Court only has a limited window to accept or decline hearing the case. Please SIGN and SHARE this important petition today. FOR MORE INFORMATION: '‘This is the big one’, says Trump of Texas SCOTUS election challenge' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/this-is-the-big-one-says-trump-of-texas-scotus-election-challenge 'Texas asks Supreme Court to toss 4 states’ election results over illegal mail ballots' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/texas-asks-supreme-court-to-toss-4-states-election-results-over-illegal-mail-ballots Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
Share