lifesitenews--2020-10-16--Archbishop Viganò: We have to remain ‘steadfast’ in the faith, not found a new church

October 16 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In answering an open letter from Vivente Montesinos , a Spanish blogger , Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò sets out for all faithful Catholics a program on how to respond to the current crisis in the Church .
Our answer can not be to found a new church – which is what the Modernists are trying to do – but , rather , “ to remain steadfast , to resist strong in Faith , ” to preserve our own humility – remembering our own lack of understanding in the past – and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now helping to destroy the faith .
We must “ remain where we ought to be , like that priest dressed in sacred vestments [ during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ] .
We must not go down those steps , just as Christ did not descend from the Cross , nor to we look elsewhere for that salvation that comes only from the altar , from the immaculate Victim , from the Cross of Christ , ” Viganò tells this Spanish author , and with it , all of us .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Letter to Archbishop Viganò , had thanked him for his work and witness , for his encouragement of all those Catholics who find themselves now accused of being “ against the Pope.
” Montesinos assured Viganò of the prayers of thousands of Catholics .
He stated : “ We will never succumb to the lie of the world , spread today by Jorge Mario Bergoglio , the ecclesial hierarchy , the majority of the episcopate and the vast majority of consecrated persons , who want us to believe that we are not Catholics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ current ] Pope.
’ ” In some ways , adds the journalist , Archbishop Viganò acts today “ morally ” more like a pope that the Pope in Rome .
“ My personal belief is yes , ” the journalist wrote , “ and you will forgive me for the audacity to express this idea to you.
” With regard of the problem of obedience to a Pope that is leading Catholics today into error , the blogger continues by saying : “ The Catholic must be with the Pope… yes… but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christ.
” Responding to these words ( see full statement below ) , Archbishop Viganò makes it clear that he does not wish to be described as having the role of a Pope .
The fact that the Church in crisis , he answers , “ is not a sufficient reason to attribute to me an authority that I do not and can not have.
” But Archbishop Viganò encourages us to apply our duty to obedience only when it is in accordance with the Faith .
Thus , obedience is conditional on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For example , the archbishop states , “ the faithful who refuse to receive Communion in the hand do not disobey their ecclesiastical superior , because that order is a sacrilegious abuse.
” But even if we at times need to disobey , the prelate continues , this does not “ authorize us to create a parallel order , a utopia in which the flock gives itself its own shepherd and builds its own sheepfold ; this would signify a usurpation of the authority of God.
” Herewith , Archbishop Viganò seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be part of establishing a parallel structure in opposition to the existing hierarchy of the Church , much of which seems tainted with Modernism and error .
One of these “ self- proclaimed liberators from the Roman yoke , ” he continues , are actually the “ Modernists and their followers.
” They attempted at “ superimposing upon her [ the Church ] a spurious entity that claims her name but renounces her Faith.
” This new creation is “ a sort of monstrum , ” which occupies much of the hierarchy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deceive the Clergy and the faithful.
” It is here the problem of “ obedience to the Sacred Pastors ” lies .
But the answer can not be “ a revolution in the traditional sense ” as a response to the “ Conciliar revolution.
” The answers are “ true obedience ” and “ true humility.
” “ It is in loving fidelity to the Truth of Christ that the fanatical dogmatism of the heretics is conquered.
” In light of Modernists errors , may the faithful Catholics stay firm but humble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , stems also from the fact that “ many of us , only a few years ago , were still not yet aware of the deception perpetrated against the holy people of God.
” Many missed the deeper “ understanding of the creeping apostasy ” that was taking place in the Church .
It is here that Archbishop Viganò calls us to remain steadfast in the faith , just as every priest offers the Sacrifice of the Mass every day , independent of his own moods and independent of the amount of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full statement by Archbishop Viganò .
The text was first published by Marco Tosatti , and is reprinted here with permission .
I read , with great attention to and agreement with your sentiments , the open letter which you addressed to me , which was published at Stilum Curiae ( here ) .
I ask your pardon for my delay in responding .
Some of the questions you ask me answer themselves , but it is good to reiterate that “ we must obey God rather than men ” ( Acts 5:29 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to obey God , we must also not seek in men the hope of salvation that comes only from the Lord : “ It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man ” ( Psalm 117:8 ) .
I recognize your good faith and your ardent zeal in your desire to be guided by faithful Pastors , but hearing me called “ vicar of the Vicar ” causes me a certain embarrassment .
The fact that restating what the Church has always taught , denouncing the current drift @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not a sufficient reason to attribute to me an authority that I do not and can not have .
This does not mean that the exercise of obedience must be uncritical .
Reason first allows us to understand whether an order given by legitimate authority is coherent with the end to which it is ordered , and this applies in a particular way to questions concerning the Faith .
In other cases – such as for example the obedience owed by monks to their abbot – even planting turnips upside down can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here we are speaking of Christian perfection , of ascesis .
Each one of our actions places us before a choice and has consequences .
It allows to obtain merit before God , to exercise our free will in adhering either to good or to evil , in allowing ourselves either to be conquered by Grace or to give in to temptation .
Obedience is no exception : in choosing to obey or not we are put to the test , placed at a crossroads .
The Christian who is faced with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or facing martyrdom does not disobey the authority of the Emperor but obeys the superior authority of God .
The priest whom the judge orders to violate the seal of Confession obeys the command of God by disobeying the illegitimate order of the judge .
The faithful who refuse to receive Communion in the hand do not disobey their ecclesiastical superior , because that order is a sacrilegious abuse .
But this disobedience of ours – which is not disobedience at all , because it reaffirms obedience to a higher order which has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is constituted in authority – does not authorize us to create a parallel order , a utopia in which the flock gives itself its own shepherd and builds its own sheepfold : this would signify a usurpation of the authority of God .
On closer inspection , this is what all the heresiarchs tried to do , who pointed to the true Church as the whore of Babylon only so that they could have an alibi that would allow them to make a grotesque imitation of the Church , amputated in the Sacraments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in Doctrine , Morals , and Liturgy .
And also in the Hierarchy .
The latest in this long series of self-proclaimed liberators from the Roman yoke are the Modernists and their followers .
They have devised an even more subtle stratagem , attempting to obscure the Bride of Christ by superimposing upon her a spurious entity that claims her name but renounces her Faith .
It is not another church , but a sort of monstrum that shares almost the entire Hierarchy with the true Church and thus is able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thus , obedience to the Sacred Pastors finds itself today in conflict , often in the same person , with dutiful disobedience to the mercenaries .
The fact that these mercenaries are nominally recognized as Catholics does not prevent them from expelling true Catholics from the sacred enclosure , accusing them of schism .
This situation of bipolarism implies that those who remain faithful to the depositum fidei must pay homage to a sacred authority which , however , must be resisted by disobedience when it is exercised for purposes that conflict with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Our Lord .
As I have written many times , a revolution in the traditional sense is not and never can be the response to the Conciliar revolution .
On the contrary , it is in true obedience that is hierarchically ordered that the invincible weapon against the rebellion may be found , even when this rebellion is carried out by one ’ s Superiors .
It is in true humility that one fights against the pride of the heretic or the fornicator , on the one hand ; and the servility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the other .
It is in loving fidelity to the Truth of Christ that the fanatical dogmatism of the heretics is conquered .
It is in the practice of virtue and in the life of Grace that the root of vice and sin which we denounce in certain prelates is eradicated , evils from which we can not say that we ourselves are infallibly exempt , if only because of our connatural inclination to evil that we have inherited from Adam .
“ Whoever thinks he is standing must be careful not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
It is true : the Church is undergoing a tremendous crisis , which began before the Council and today has reached a point that appears humanly irreversible .
It is true : we have heard words and seen actions , even from the highest Throne , that arouse scandal in the faithful and are in obvious contradiction with the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs .
It is true : the majority of the faithful and clergy are molded into doctrinal and moral error , while anyone who remains firm in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Church and the Pope .
If this was not the case , there would be no crisis .
But if Providence has seen fit to test us today – to punish for decades of moral and doctrinal deviations – giving us a drunken Noah for a father ( Gen 9:20-27 ) , it is nevertheless our duty to cover his nudity with filial piety , without however denying the intoxication of the half-undressed old man .
Once he has regained sobriety , he will bless those who have laid the cloak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Whoever has the grace not to be misled in either Faith or Morals should not be proud of having a presumed state of purity , but rather must take account of the very great responsibility he has before God , the Church , and his brethren .
This is true for the simple faithful and even more for the Shepherds .
First of all , obedience to the teaching of Christ is not a merit but a duty for each one of us .
Second , our adherence to what the Divine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Holy Mother Church does not place us in a condition of human privilege , since “ to whomever much has been given , much will be asked ; to whom more has been entrusted , even more will be demanded ” ( Lk 12:48 ) .
The fear of God makes us understand how important it is that what we believe and profess with the mouth is also believed in the heart , and that what we believe with the heart is also understood by the intellect .
Dear Vincent , if as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have always been , and we have not moved : we are with Sacred Scripture , sound doctrine , the Holy Tradition , and the Magisterium of two thousand years , ” nevertheless we have the duty to implore Heaven for the conversion of those whom the world , the flesh , or the devil have seduced .
We do not know the vicissitudes of their life or the unfathomable depths of their soul .
Indeed , we recall that many of us , only a few years ago , were still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the holy people of God .
Our blindness at the time and the lack of understanding of the creeping apostasy is not very different from the situation in which many souls find themselves today , especially among the simple .
The Sacrament of Confession – to which priest and layman , children and the elderly , rich and poor have recourse – reminds us of our corrupt nature and the need to place our total trust in God , the giver of all Graces .
“ Without Me you can do nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15:8 ) .
We must likewise consider our belonging to the Mystical Body as the proof of the infinite Mercy of God , who with divine magnificence welcomed “ good and bad ” at the banquet ( Mt 22:10 ) , deigning to offer them also the wedding garment , that is , justification by means of Baptism .
Before this royal gift , our humility lies in accepting the wearing of the precious garment of Grace , which erases our miseries and makes us worthy to sit at the table of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banquet with our rags would not be humility , but presumption ; believing that that garment is owed to us would make us worthy of the outer darkness .
We see rather that we are like servants of the King , sent to the crossroads to call to the banquet “ the poor , the crippled , the blind and the lame ” ( Lk 14:21 ) .
Understandably , in addition to being aware of what is happening and analyzing the causes , it is also necessary to identify concrete action .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we do ?
” that priests and laity ask me and others , I respond with an analogy .
When the priest is at the altar , he is turned toward God and intercedes for the holy people .
There are days on which only a few of the faithful unite themselves to the Holy Sacrifice , others on which the Church is packed ; days when the commotion of the street and the noise of traffic echoes in the nave , others when sacred silence and recollection are accompanied only by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bell ; days when the celebrant ascends the altar with serenity and joy in his heart , others when his soul is oppressed by sorrow and discouragement .
But he is there : standing , always facing the Cross , always faithful to the command to renew the Sacrifice of Christ in order to implore the Divine Majesty for graces and blessings for the Church , to adore the Most Holy Trinity , to expiate the sins of men .
This must be our attitude in the face of the present crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be , like that priest dressed in sacred vestments .
We must not go down those steps , just as Christ did not descend from the Cross , nor do we look elsewhere for that salvation that comes only from the altar , from the immaculate Victim , from the Cross of Christ .
We must do that which has been done for two thousand years “ semper , ubique , et ab omnibus ” : immolate ourselves with Faith and Charity , with humility and constancy , with the fear of God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Princes of the Church will pass away , all the powers of the earth and the stage of this world will also fade , but the Mass and the Priesthood will remain until the Day of Judgment .
Peter Kwasniewski writes : “ That is why I repeat : our sanctifying work , planned for us by God in His eternal Providence , is to remain faithful to tradition and to prayer , come what may ; to bide our time , keep our sanity , hold steady , and wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and always among us , not far away in utopian pastures ” ( here ) .
May Heaven grant that , if today , turning around for the Dominus vobiscum , the priest sees only a few faithful kneeling , tomorrow he may see gathered around the altar all those whom the Grace of God will have deigned to touch .
Nothing else is asked of us , as Ministers of God and as simple faithful : to remain steadfast , to resist strong in Faith ( 1 Pt 5:9 ) , praying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking that they may shorten these times of trial which humanly speaking seem destined to last forever .
The day will come when our firmness , rooted “ in Him who gives me strength ” ( Phil 4:13 ) , will be blessed by those who today deride us and despise us .
The day will come when they will thank God for the apparent disobedience of those who , in the absence of Authority , remained faithful .
I respond to your final question by quoting Saint Paul : “ I refer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is saying : “ I belong to Paul , ” “ I instead belong to Apollos , ” “ And I to Cephas , ” “ And I to Christ !
” Is Christ then divided ?
Was perhaps Paul crucified for you , or is it in the name of Paul that you were baptized ?
” ( 1 Cor 1:12-13 ) .
We do not look to those who proclaim the Word of God , but rather we try to conform ourselves to the will of Our Lord , in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our brothers .
“ So must your light shine before men , so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven ” ( Mt 5:16 ) .
To you , dear Vincent , and to all the associates of Adoración y Liberación , I give my heartfelt Blessing .
13 October 2020 Anniversary of the final apparition at Fatima

‘We must not go down those steps, just as Christ did not descend from the Cross, nor to we look elsewhere for that salvation that comes only from the altar, from the immaculate Victim, from the Cross of Christ…’
October 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In answering an open letter from Vivente Montesinos, a Spanish blogger, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò sets out for all faithful Catholics a program on how to respond to the current crisis in the Church. Our answer cannot be to found a new church – which is what the Modernists are trying to do – but, rather, “to remain steadfast, to resist strong in Faith,” to preserve our own humility – remembering our own lack of understanding in the past – and to preserve our charity toward those who are now helping to destroy the faith.
We must “remain where we ought to be, like that priest dressed in sacred vestments [during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass]. We must not go down those steps, just as Christ did not descend from the Cross, nor to we look elsewhere for that salvation that comes only from the altar, from the immaculate Victim, from the Cross of Christ,” Viganò tells this Spanish author, and with it, all of us.
Montesinos, in his September 25 Open Letter to Archbishop Viganò, had thanked him for his work and witness, for his encouragement of all those Catholics who find themselves now accused of being “against the Pope.” Montesinos assured Viganò of the prayers of thousands of Catholics. He stated: “We will never succumb to the lie of the world, spread today by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the ecclesial hierarchy, the majority of the episcopate and the vast majority of consecrated persons, who want us to believe that we are not Catholics because ‘we do not obey the [current] Pope.’” In some ways, adds the journalist, Archbishop Viganò acts today “morally” more like a pope that the Pope in Rome.
“My personal belief is yes,” the journalist wrote, “and you will forgive me for the audacity to express this idea to you.”
With regard of the problem of obedience to a Pope that is leading Catholics today into error, the blogger continues by saying: “The Catholic must be with the Pope… yes… but as long as the Pope is with Christ.”
Responding to these words (see full statement below), Archbishop Viganò makes it clear that he does not wish to be described as having the role of a Pope. The fact that the Church in crisis, he answers, “is not a sufficient reason to attribute to me an authority that I do not and cannot have.”
But Archbishop Viganò encourages us to apply our duty to obedience only when it is in accordance with the Faith. Thus, obedience is conditional on what a Catholic is asked to do. For example, the archbishop states, “the faithful who refuse to receive Communion in the hand do not disobey their ecclesiastical superior, because that order is a sacrilegious abuse.”
But even if we at times need to disobey, the prelate continues, this does not “authorize us to create a parallel order, a utopia in which the flock gives itself its own shepherd and builds its own sheepfold; this would signify a usurpation of the authority of God.” Herewith, Archbishop Viganò seems to reject any idea or proposal to be part of establishing a parallel structure in opposition to the existing hierarchy of the Church, much of which seems tainted with Modernism and error.
One of these “self- proclaimed liberators from the Roman yoke,” he continues, are actually the “Modernists and their followers.” They attempted at “superimposing upon her [the Church] a spurious entity that claims her name but renounces her Faith.” This new creation is “a sort of monstrum,” which occupies much of the hierarchy of the Church and thus is “able to deceive the Clergy and the faithful.”
It is here the problem of “obedience to the Sacred Pastors” lies. But the answer cannot be “a revolution in the traditional sense” as a response to the “Conciliar revolution.” The answers are “true obedience” and “true humility.”
“It is in loving fidelity to the Truth of Christ that the fanatical dogmatism of the heretics is conquered.”
In light of Modernists errors, may the faithful Catholics stay firm but humble.
Our humility, according to Viganò, stems also from the fact that “many of us, only a few years ago, were still not yet aware of the deception perpetrated against the holy people of God.” Many missed the deeper “understanding of the creeping apostasy” that was taking place in the Church.
It is here that Archbishop Viganò calls us to remain steadfast in the faith, just as every priest offers the Sacrifice of the Mass every day, independent of his own moods and independent of the amount of the faithful present.
Please see here the full statement by Archbishop Viganò. The text was first published by Marco Tosatti, and is reprinted here with permission.
Dear Doctor Montesinos,
I read, with great attention to and agreement with your sentiments, the open letter which you addressed to me, which was published at Stilum Curiae (here). I ask your pardon for my delay in responding.
Some of the questions you ask me answer themselves, but it is good to reiterate that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). But precisely because we need to obey God, we must also not seek in men the hope of salvation that comes only from the Lord: “It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man” (Psalm 117:8). I recognize your good faith and your ardent zeal in your desire to be guided by faithful Pastors, but hearing me called “vicar of the Vicar” causes me a certain embarrassment. The fact that restating what the Church has always taught, denouncing the current drift, is not a sufficient motive, is not a sufficient reason to attribute to me an authority that I do not and cannot have.
This does not mean that the exercise of obedience must be uncritical. Reason first allows us to understand whether an order given by legitimate authority is coherent with the end to which it is ordered, and this applies in a particular way to questions concerning the Faith. In other cases – such as for example the obedience owed by monks to their abbot – even planting turnips upside down can be an instrument of sanctification; but here we are speaking of Christian perfection, of ascesis.
Each one of our actions places us before a choice and has consequences. It allows to obtain merit before God, to exercise our free will in adhering either to good or to evil, in allowing ourselves either to be conquered by Grace or to give in to temptation. Obedience is no exception: in choosing to obey or not we are put to the test, placed at a crossroads. The Christian who is faced with the choice of burning incense to an idol or facing martyrdom does not disobey the authority of the Emperor but obeys the superior authority of God. The priest whom the judge orders to violate the seal of Confession obeys the command of God by disobeying the illegitimate order of the judge. The faithful who refuse to receive Communion in the hand do not disobey their ecclesiastical superior, because that order is a sacrilegious abuse.
But this disobedience of ours – which is not disobedience at all, because it reaffirms obedience to a higher order which has been abusively violated by the one who is constituted in authority – does not authorize us to create a parallel order, a utopia in which the flock gives itself its own shepherd and builds its own sheepfold: this would signify a usurpation of the authority of God. On closer inspection, this is what all the heresiarchs tried to do, who pointed to the true Church as the whore of Babylon only so that they could have an alibi that would allow them to make a grotesque imitation of the Church, amputated in the Sacraments, in the Books of Sacred Scripture, in Doctrine, Morals, and Liturgy. And also in the Hierarchy.
The latest in this long series of self-proclaimed liberators from the Roman yoke are the Modernists and their followers. They have devised an even more subtle stratagem, attempting to obscure the Bride of Christ by superimposing upon her a spurious entity that claims her name but renounces her Faith. It is not another church, but a sort of monstrum that shares almost the entire Hierarchy with the true Church and thus is able to deceive the Clergy and the faithful. Thus, obedience to the Sacred Pastors finds itself today in conflict, often in the same person, with dutiful disobedience to the mercenaries. The fact that these mercenaries are nominally recognized as Catholics does not prevent them from expelling true Catholics from the sacred enclosure, accusing them of schism. This situation of bipolarism implies that those who remain faithful to the depositum fidei must pay homage to a sacred authority which, however, must be resisted by disobedience when it is exercised for purposes that conflict with the purpose for which it was instituted by Our Lord.
As I have written many times, a revolution in the traditional sense is not and never can be the response to the Conciliar revolution. On the contrary, it is in true obedience that is hierarchically ordered that the invincible weapon against the rebellion may be found, even when this rebellion is carried out by one’s Superiors. It is in true humility that one fights against the pride of the heretic or the fornicator, on the one hand; and the servility of the fainthearted or the courtier, on the other. It is in loving fidelity to the Truth of Christ that the fanatical dogmatism of the heretics is conquered. It is in the practice of virtue and in the life of Grace that the root of vice and sin which we denounce in certain prelates is eradicated, evils from which we cannot say that we ourselves are infallibly exempt, if only because of our connatural inclination to evil that we have inherited from Adam. “Whoever thinks he is standing must be careful not to fall” (1 Cor 10:12).
It is true: the Church is undergoing a tremendous crisis, which began before the Council and today has reached a point that appears humanly irreversible. It is true: we have heard words and seen actions, even from the highest Throne, that arouse scandal in the faithful and are in obvious contradiction with the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs. It is true: the majority of the faithful and clergy are molded into doctrinal and moral error, while anyone who remains firm in the Faith is accused of being an enemy of the Church and the Pope. If this was not the case, there would be no crisis. But if Providence has seen fit to test us today – to punish for decades of moral and doctrinal deviations – giving us a drunken Noah for a father (Gen 9:20-27), it is nevertheless our duty to cover his nudity with filial piety, without however denying the intoxication of the half-undressed old man. Once he has regained sobriety, he will bless those who have laid the cloak of Truth and Charity over his shame.
Whoever has the grace not to be misled in either Faith or Morals should not be proud of having a presumed state of purity, but rather must take account of the very great responsibility he has before God, the Church, and his brethren. This is true for the simple faithful and even more for the Shepherds. First of all, obedience to the teaching of Christ is not a merit but a duty for each one of us. Second, our adherence to what the Divine Master has taught us by means of Holy Mother Church does not place us in a condition of human privilege, since “to whomever much has been given, much will be asked; to whom more has been entrusted, even more will be demanded” (Lk 12:48). The fear of God makes us understand how important it is that what we believe and profess with the mouth is also believed in the heart, and that what we believe with the heart is also understood by the intellect.
Dear Vincent, if as you say, “We are where we have always been, and we have not moved: we are with Sacred Scripture, sound doctrine, the Holy Tradition, and the Magisterium of two thousand years,” nevertheless we have the duty to implore Heaven for the conversion of those whom the world, the flesh, or the devil have seduced. We do not know the vicissitudes of their life or the unfathomable depths of their soul. Indeed, we recall that many of us, only a few years ago, were still not yet aware of the deception perpetrated against the holy people of God. Our blindness at the time and the lack of understanding of the creeping apostasy is not very different from the situation in which many souls find themselves today, especially among the simple. The Sacrament of Confession – to which priest and layman, children and the elderly, rich and poor have recourse – reminds us of our corrupt nature and the need to place our total trust in God, the giver of all Graces. “Without Me you can do nothing,” Our Lord said (Jn 15:8).
We must likewise consider our belonging to the Mystical Body as the proof of the infinite Mercy of God, who with divine magnificence welcomed “good and bad” at the banquet (Mt 22:10), deigning to offer them also the wedding garment, that is, justification by means of Baptism. Before this royal gift, our humility lies in accepting the wearing of the precious garment of Grace, which erases our miseries and makes us worthy to sit at the table of the King. Expecting to participate at the banquet with our rags would not be humility, but presumption; believing that that garment is owed to us would make us worthy of the outer darkness. We see rather that we are like servants of the King, sent to the crossroads to call to the banquet “the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame” (Lk 14:21).
Understandably, in addition to being aware of what is happening and analyzing the causes, it is also necessary to identify concrete action. To the question, “What should we do?” that priests and laity ask me and others, I respond with an analogy.
When the priest is at the altar, he is turned toward God and intercedes for the holy people. There are days on which only a few of the faithful unite themselves to the Holy Sacrifice, others on which the Church is packed; days when the commotion of the street and the noise of traffic echoes in the nave, others when sacred silence and recollection are accompanied only by the song of sparrows or the tolling of a bell; days when the celebrant ascends the altar with serenity and joy in his heart, others when his soul is oppressed by sorrow and discouragement. But he is there: standing, always facing the Cross, always faithful to the command to renew the Sacrifice of Christ in order to implore the Divine Majesty for graces and blessings for the Church, to adore the Most Holy Trinity, to expiate the sins of men. This must be our attitude in the face of the present crisis: to remain where we ought to be, like that priest dressed in sacred vestments. We must not go down those steps, just as Christ did not descend from the Cross, nor do we look elsewhere for that salvation that comes only from the altar, from the immaculate Victim, from the Cross of Christ. We must do that which has been done for two thousand years “semper, ubique, et ab omnibus”: immolate ourselves with Faith and Charity, with humility and constancy, with the fear of God and zeal for souls. The Popes and the Princes of the Church will pass away, all the powers of the earth and the stage of this world will also fade, but the Mass and the Priesthood will remain until the Day of Judgment.
Peter Kwasniewski writes: “That is why I repeat: our sanctifying work, planned for us by God in His eternal Providence, is to remain faithful to tradition and to prayer, come what may; to bide our time, keep our sanity, hold steady, and wait for the Lord. He is still and always among us, not far away in utopian pastures” (here).
May Heaven grant that, if today, turning around for the Dominus vobiscum, the priest sees only a few faithful kneeling, tomorrow he may see gathered around the altar all those whom the Grace of God will have deigned to touch. Nothing else is asked of us, as Ministers of God and as simple faithful: to remain steadfast, to resist strong in Faith (1 Pt 5:9), praying to Our Lord and His Blessed Mother asking that they may shorten these times of trial which humanly speaking seem destined to last forever. The day will come when our firmness, rooted “in Him who gives me strength” (Phil 4:13), will be blessed by those who today deride us and despise us. The day will come when they will thank God for the apparent disobedience of those who, in the absence of Authority, remained faithful.
I respond to your final question by quoting Saint Paul: “I refer to the fact that each of you is saying: “I belong to Paul,” “I instead belong to Apollos,” “And I to Cephas,” “And I to Christ!” Is Christ then divided? Was perhaps Paul crucified for you, or is it in the name of Paul that you were baptized?” (1 Cor 1:12-13). We do not look to those who proclaim the Word of God, but rather we try to conform ourselves to the will of Our Lord, in order to be an example and edification for our brothers. “So must your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Mt 5:16).
To you, dear Vincent, and to all the associates of Adoración y Liberación, I give my heartfelt Blessing.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
13 October 2020
Anniversary of the final apparition at Fatima
Official translation.
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--2020-10-17--Biden, Ginsburg used term ‘sexual preference’ — only Barrett was attacked for it

WASHINGTON , D.C. , October 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett was attacked for using the term “ sexual preference ” instead of “ sexual orientation ” in the context of homosexual “ marriage.
” Meanwhile , leading Democrats , including presidential candidate Joe Biden , have used the same terminology without any criticism .
In response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( D-CA ) , Barrett had said during this week ’ s confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee , “ I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the basis of sexual preference .
Like racism , I think discrimination is abhorrent.
” A little later during the same hearing , Sen. Mazie Hirono ( D-HI ) attacked Barrett for her comments .
“ Not once but twice you used the term ‘ sexual preference ’ to describe those in the LGBTQ community , ” she said .
“ And let me make clear : ‘ sexual preference ’ is an offensive and outdated term .
It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a key part of a person ’ s identity .
That sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable was a key part of the majority ’ s opinion in Obergefell , which , by the way , Scalia did not agree with.
” “ So if it is your view that sexual orientation is merely a preference , as you noted , then the LGBTQ community should be rightly concerned whether you would uphold their constitutional right to marry , ” Hirono added .
Conservative observers were quick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has used the term “ sexual preference ” in the past , even just a few months ago .
As reported by The Daily Wire , Biden said during a virtual roundtable event in May , “ I ’ m going to need you to help this time rebuild the backbone of this country , the middle class , but this time bring everybody along regardless of color , sexual preference , their backgrounds , whether they have any … Just bring everybody along .
The Washington Free Beacon released a video compilation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two of the Democrats quoted in the video are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee , namely Sens .
Richard Blumenthal ( D-CT ) and Dick Durbin ( D-IL ) .
The video also features several Democratic members of the House of Representatives , as well as the former mayor of Philadelphia , Michael Nutter .
Pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , the progressive icon who died in September , had talked about “ sexual preference , ” as well .
Event the Washington Post — certainly not a conservative newspaper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the left — including Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , whom Barrett is hoping to replace on the high court — have also used the phrase , which was considered acceptable as recently as a decade or two ago.
” And during a townhall event just this week , Biden commented , “ The idea that an 8-year-old child or a 10-year-old child decides , ‘ you know , I decided I want to be transgender , that ’ s what I think I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make my life a lot easier ’ – There should be zero discrimination.
” It is not entirely clear from the wording whether the former vice president was saying that a child makes a decision to claim to be a member of the opposite sex , which would indicate it ’ s a preference .
His comments could also be interpreted to mean that it ’ s not a decision , as the child would not decide to make his or her life more difficult by claiming to be a member of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden “ explicitly endorsed sex changes for children as young as eight years old , ” as pointed out by Frank Cannon , president of the American Principles Project .
“ In Joe Biden ’ s view , a child too young to go see an Avengers film can decide to have his or her body permanently altered through surgery and chemical injections , ” he continued .
“ Second or third graders are too young to comprehend the basics of human sexuality , let alone make such irreversible decisions .
To mutilate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of child abuse , and Americans , by a huge margin , don ’ t believe children this young should undergo such procedures.
” In a tweet , the American Principles Project noted that most children by age eight have reached the developmental milestones of being able to tie their shoelaces and draw a diamond shape .
Barrett , meanwhile , simply said she “ certainly didn ’ t mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBT community .
”

Leading Democrats have used the term without any criticism for years, and at a town hall event this week former vice president Joe Biden said he thinks children as young as eight who have ‘decided’ to be transgender ought to be supported in their confusion.
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett was attacked for using the term “sexual preference” instead of “sexual orientation” in the context of homosexual “marriage.” Meanwhile, leading Democrats, including presidential candidate Joe Biden, have used the same terminology without any criticism.
In response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Barrett had said during this week’s confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference, and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. Like racism, I think discrimination is abhorrent.”
A little later during the same hearing, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) attacked Barrett for her comments.
“Not once but twice you used the term ‘sexual preference’ to describe those in the LGBTQ community,” she said. “And let me make clear: ‘sexual preference’ is an offensive and outdated term. It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not. Sexual orientation is a key part of a person’s identity. That sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable was a key part of the majority’s opinion in Obergefell, which, by the way, Scalia did not agree with.”
“So if it is your view that sexual orientation is merely a preference, as you noted, then the LGBTQ community should be rightly concerned whether you would uphold their constitutional right to marry,” Hirono added.
Conservative observers were quick to point out that Joe Biden himself has used the term “sexual preference” in the past, even just a few months ago.
As reported by The Daily Wire, Biden said during a virtual roundtable event in May, “I’m going to need you to help this time rebuild the backbone of this country, the middle class, but this time bring everybody along regardless of color, sexual preference, their backgrounds, whether they have any … Just bring everybody along.
The Washington Free Beacon released a video compilation of prominent Democrats using the term.
Two of the Democrats quoted in the video are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, namely Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Dick Durbin (D-IL).
The video also features several Democratic members of the House of Representatives, as well as the former mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter.
Pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the progressive icon who died in September, had talked about “sexual preference,” as well.
— Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Urge the U.S. Senate to Confirm Amy Coney Barrett Show Petition Text 24868 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 Judge Amy Coney Barrett Graeme Jennings-Pool/Getty Images PETITION UPDATE (10/26//2020) In a resounding victory for supporters of life, family and freedom, the U.S. Senate has just confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States! Justice Barrett was sworn-in by Justice Clarence Thomas and will swiftly fill the vacant seat and immediately begin participating in Supreme Court hearings. The petitions signed by many of you - there are now over 40,000 signatures - supporting Judge Amy Coney Barrett were sent to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as to the Officers of the USCCB. Thank you for signing these petitions. As you can see, your signature really does make a difference! We also know that many of you also made calls to your U.S. senators to encourage them to vote for Judge Barrett. Thank you! __________________________________________________________________ PETITION UPDATE (10/22/2020) The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee just voted to advance Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate, leaving only one hurdle to go next week. Every Republican on the committee voted for Barrett, President Donald Trump’s selection to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while every committee Democrat boycotted the vote, CNBC reports. Please READ the latest LifeSite article about the Senate Committee's vote here. As you read above, Judge Barrett has one more hurdle next Monday. Of course, it's the BIGGEST hurdle. So, if you haven't already, could we ask you to please call your U.S. senators to politely voice your support for Judge Barrett? After SIGNING this petition, please scroll down the page, where you will find the list of all U.S. senators' contact details. Let's keep working and praying so that we can see a pro-life judge sit on the Supreme Court. ____________________________________________________ PETITION UPDATE (10/15/20) The fourth day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing for the open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court is going on now. Please CLICK HERE to go to the livestream of the hearings. Please watch and read EXCLUSIVE LifeSite videos and articles about Judge Amy Coney Barrett's hearings: YouTube Videos: 'We are people of faith, the true body of Christ': Christians pray for SCOTUS confirmation hearings' '"That's your job": Judge Barrett responds to relevance of Obamacare to SCOTUS confirmation' Articles: 'Senator who badgered Barrett about Catholicism in 2017 presses her on abortion at confirmation hearing' 'Hawley, Barrett dismantle religious tests for office at Supreme Court hearing' 'Ted Cruz at Barrett hearing warns Democrats want to ‘erase’ religious liberty' ______________________________________________________________ Conservatives and Christians asked President Trump to deliver a proven constitutional originalist with a solid pro-life background, and he did. Now, let's not be outdone by Leftist organizations which will be mobilizing their forces to write, call and visit their senators' constituency offices. Please SIGN this urgent petition - to Senate Leadership - asking them to quickly confirm Barrett as the next Supreme Court justice. Then, please take a couple of minutes to CALL YOUR U.S. SENATORS using their numbers below, and politely urge them to confirm Barrett. When Amy Coney Barrett's senate confirmation hearing begins on Monday, October 12th, the mother of seven and devout Catholic is expected to face fierce opposition. Of course, the anticipated attacks have nothing to do with Barrett's legal credentials, which are uniformly top-notch. Instead, they have to do with her faith in Jesus and with her belief that life begins at conception. This is nothing short of anti-Christian bigotry which cannot be tolerated. The fact is, Amy Coney Barrett is the best candidate for the job, and she urgently needs our support. By signing the petition, we can unite to powerfully speak with one voice. But, by calling your senators, you can ensure that they know their local constituents are concerned and interested enough to telephone their offices. This is our time to get active! We must voice our support for Amy Coney Barrett at this crucial moment in our nation's history. Please SIGN this petition, and then please use the contact details below to CALL YOUR U.S. SENATORS right-away! Thank you! U.S. SENATORS' CONTACT DETAILS: SENATORS AND PHONE NUMBERS - https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact ALABAMA SENATORS Doug Jones – (202) 224-4124 Richard C. Shelby – (202) 224-5744 ALASKA SENATORS Lisa Murkowski – (202) 224-6665 Dan Sullivan – (202) 224-3004 ARIZONA SENATORS Martha McSally – (202) 224-2235 Kyrsten Sinema – (202) 224-4521 ARKANSAS SENATORS John Boozman – (202) 224-4843 Tom Cotton – (202) 224-2353 CALIFORNIA SENATORS Dianne Feinstein – (202) 224-3841 Kamala D. Harris – (202) 224-3553 COLORADO SENATORS Michael F. Bennett – (202) 224-5852 Cory Gardner – (202) 224-5941 CONNECTICUT SENATORS Richard Blumenthal – (202) 224-2823 Christopher Murphy – (202) 224-4041 DELAWARE SENATORS Thomas R. Carper – (202) 224-2441 Christopher A. Coons – (202) 224-5042 FLORIDA SENATORS Marco Rubio – (202) 224-3041 Rick Scott – (202) 224-5274 GEORGIA SENATORS Kelly Loeffler – (202) 224-3643 David Perdue – (202) 224-3521 HAWAII SENATORS Mazie K. Hirono – (202) 224-6361 Brian Schatz – (202) 224-3934 IDAHO SENATORS Mike Crapo – (202) 224-6142 James E. Risch – (202) 224-2752 ILLINOIS SENATORS Dick Durbin – (202) 224-2152 Tammy Duckworth – (202) 224-2854 INDIANA SENATORS Mike Braun – (202) 224-4814 Todd Young – (202) 224-5623 IOWA SENATORS Joni Ernst – (202) 224-3254 Chuck Grassley – (202) 224-3774 KANSAS SENATORS Jerry Moran – (202) 224-6521 Pat Roberts – (202) 224-4744 KENTUCKY SENATORS Mitch McConnell – (202) 224-2541 Rand Paul – (202) 224-4343 LOUISIANA SENATORS Bill Cassidy – (202) 224-5824 John Kennedy – (202) 224-4623 MAINE SENATORS Susan M. Collins – (202) 224-2523 Angus S. King – (202) 224-5344 MARYLAND SENATORS Benjamin L. Cardin – (202) 224-4524 Chris Van Hollen – (202) 224-4654 MASSACHUSETS SENATORS Edward J. Markey – (202) 224-2742 Elizabeth Warren – (202) 224-4543 MICHIGAN Gary C. Peters – (202) 224-6221 Debbie Stabenow – (202) 224-4822 MINNESOTA Amy Klobuchar – (202) 224-3244 Tina Smith – (202) 224-5641 MISSISSIPPI Cindy Hyde-Smith – (202) 224-5054 Roger F. Wicker – (202) 224-6253 MISSOURI Roy Blunt – (202) 224-5721 Josh Hawley – (202) 224-6154 MONTANA Steve Daines – (202) 224-2651 Jon Tester – (202) 224-2644 NEBRASKA Deb Fischer – (202) 224-6551 Ben Sasse – (202) 224-4224 NEVADA Catherine Cortez Masto – (202) 224-3542 Jacky Rosen – (202) 224-6244 NEW HAMPSHIRE Margaret Wood Hassan – (202) 224-3324 Jeanne Shaheen – (202) 224-2841 NEW JERSEY Cory A. Booker – (202) 224-3224 Robert Menendez – (202) 224-4744 NEW MEXICO Martin Heinrich – (202) 224-5521 Tom Udall – (202) 224-6621 NEW YORK Kirsten E. Gillibrand – (202) 224-4451 Charles E. Schumer – (202) 224-6542 NORTH CAROLINA Richard Burr – (202) 224-3154 Thom Tillis – (202) 224-6342 NORTH DAKOTA Kevin Cramer – (202) 224-2043 John Hoeven – (202) 224-2551 OHIO Sherrod Brown – (202) 224-2315 Rob Portman – (202) 224-3353 OKLAHOMA James M. Inhofe – (202) 224-4721 James Lankford – (202) 224-5754 OREGON Jeff Merkley – (202) 224-3753 Ron Wyden – (202) 224-5244 PENNSYLVANIA Robert P. Casey, Jr. – (202) 224-6324 Patrick J. Toomey, Jr. – (202) 224-4254 RHODE ISLAND Jack Reed – (202) 224-4642 Sheldon Whitehouse – (202) 224-2921 SOUTH CAROLINA Lindsey Graham – (202) 224-5972 Tim Scott – (202) 224-6121 SOUTH DAKOTA Mike Rounds – (202) 224-5842 John Thune – (202) 224-2321 TENNESSEE Lamar Alexander – (202) 224-4944 Marsha Blackburn – (202) 224-3344 TEXAS John Cornyn – (202) 224-2934 Ted Cruz – (202) 224-5922 UTAH Mike Lee – (202) 224-5444 Mitt Romney – (202) 224-5251 VERMONT Patrick J. Leahy – (202) 224-4242 Bernard Sanders – (202) 224-5141 VIRGINIA Tim Kaine – (202) 224-4024 Mark R. Warner – (202) 224-2023 WASHINGTON Maria Cantwell – (202) 224-3441 Patty Murray – (202) 224-2621 WEST VIRGINIA Shelley Moore Capito – (202) 224-6472 Joe Manchin III – (202) 224-3954 WISCONSIN Tammy Baldwin – (202) 224-5653 Ron Johnson – (202) 224-5323 WYOMING John Barrasso – (202) 224-6441 Michael B. Enzi – (202) 224-3424 Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
Event the Washington Post — certainly not a conservative newspaper — admitted, “Plenty of figures on the left — including Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom Barrett is hoping to replace on the high court — have also used the phrase, which was considered acceptable as recently as a decade or two ago.”
And during a townhall event just this week, Biden commented, “The idea that an 8-year-old child or a 10-year-old child decides, ‘you know, I decided I want to be transgender, that’s what I think I’d like to be, it would make my life a lot easier’ – There should be zero discrimination.”
It is not entirely clear from the wording whether the former vice president was saying that a child makes a decision to claim to be a member of the opposite sex, which would indicate it’s a preference.
His comments could also be interpreted to mean that it’s not a decision, as the child would not decide to make his or her life more difficult by claiming to be a member of the opposite sex.
In any case, Biden “explicitly endorsed sex changes for children as young as eight years old,” as pointed out by Frank Cannon, president of the American Principles Project.
“In Joe Biden’s view, a child too young to go see an Avengers film can decide to have his or her body permanently altered through surgery and chemical injections,” he continued. “Second or third graders are too young to comprehend the basics of human sexuality, let alone make such irreversible decisions. To mutilate children in such a way is a form of child abuse, and Americans, by a huge margin, don’t believe children this young should undergo such procedures.”
In a tweet, the American Principles Project noted that most children by age eight have reached the developmental milestones of being able to tie their shoelaces and draw a diamond shape.
Barrett, meanwhile, simply said she “certainly didn’t mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBT community.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-17--‘Christian teaching would be interpreted as criminal acts,’ Canadian bishops warn of therapy ban

CANADA , October 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A bill banning therapy for unwanted sexual attractions could subject “ private conversations between parents and their children on matters of human sexuality ” to “ criminal prosecution , ” the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops warned in a new letter .
Bill C-6 outlaws so-called conversion therapy , which it defines as “ a practice , treatment or service designed to change a person ’ s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender , or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.
” According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CCCB ) , the bill leaves no room for religious freedom in its language .
In an October 7 letter to the Canadian government , the CCCB emphasized that coercive or involuntary means of conversion are unethical and do not respect the dignity of the person .
However , the bishops argued that the language of the bill is filled with ambiguities which could render religious instruction and private conversations illegal and make it difficult for people seeking to reverse so-called “ sex change ” surgeries to do so .
It would prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feelings from accessing the help they desire .
The CCCB stated , “ There is the possibility that within families , private conversations between parents and their children on matters of human sexuality will be deemed public and subject to criminal prosecution – which in turn raises serious questions regarding the legitimacy of government surveillance , professional confidentiality , and infringement of privacy .
As principal educators of their children , parents have a right to raise them in accordance with their legitimate and ethical religious beliefs .
Any state intervention should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their children and make decisions for their well-being.
” “ There is a real danger that Christian and other religious and ethical teaching with respect to human sexuality would be interpreted as criminal acts , ” the Catholic bishops warned .
“ The Bill could even criminalize Catholic ministries and groups , religious leaders , or pastors who encourage individuals with same-sex attraction to live chastely and in conformity with the teachings of the Gospel , the moral principles of the Catholic Church , and the dictates of their own conscience.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affairs , the bill is also problematic because it does not specify just how it will handle public speech and religious instruction on sexuality and gender , making them vulnerable to criminalization .
There is no provision in the bill for religious beliefs , philosophies , or even scientific studies on human sexuality that might diverge from the government ’ s mandated ideology .
If interpreted literally , the bill could prevent people from receiving medical treatment from physicians , psychologists , psychiatrists , and other mental health experts because it would compel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of law .
“ For example , transgender persons who freely wish to de-transition could be unable to access the necessary professional assistance to explore this option .
Similarly , medical practitioners could be inhibited from advocating a prudent and professionally supported approach towards young children with gender dysphoria , ” the CCCB wrote .
The CCCB is not alone in its fight against the bill .
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has also issued its own open letter to the current Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada , David Lametti @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ... [ T ] he terms ‘ practice , treatment or service , ’ while often used in a medical or therapeutic context , are not defined in Bill C-6 and can be interpreted and applied various ways .
As written , these terms could include voluntarily sought out support groups for those who choose to live their lives in accordance with their religious beliefs .
”

If Bill C-6 becomes law, parents could be subject to ‘criminal prosecution’ for private conversations with their children, and people seeking to ‘de-transition,’ live chastely, or overcome sexual trauma could be prevented from doing so.
CANADA, October 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A bill banning therapy for unwanted sexual attractions could subject “private conversations between parents and their children on matters of human sexuality” to “criminal prosecution,” the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops warned in a new letter.
Bill C-6 outlaws so-called conversion therapy, which it defines as “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.”
According to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), the bill leaves no room for religious freedom in its language.
In an October 7 letter to the Canadian government, the CCCB emphasized that coercive or involuntary means of conversion are unethical and do not respect the dignity of the person. However, the bishops argued that the language of the bill is filled with ambiguities which could render religious instruction and private conversations illegal and make it difficult for people seeking to reverse so-called “sex change” surgeries to do so. It would prevent those seeking to overcome intrusive and unwanted feelings from accessing the help they desire.
The CCCB stated, “There is the possibility that within families, private conversations between parents and their children on matters of human sexuality will be deemed public and subject to criminal prosecution – which in turn raises serious questions regarding the legitimacy of government surveillance, professional confidentiality, and infringement of privacy. As principal educators of their children, parents have a right to raise them in accordance with their legitimate and ethical religious beliefs. Any state intervention should not override the primary parental right to care for their children and make decisions for their well-being.”
“There is a real danger that Christian and other religious and ethical teaching with respect to human sexuality would be interpreted as criminal acts,” the Catholic bishops warned. “The Bill could even criminalize Catholic ministries and groups, religious leaders, or pastors who encourage individuals with same-sex attraction to live chastely and in conformity with the teachings of the Gospel, the moral principles of the Catholic Church, and the dictates of their own conscience.”
Along with government intrusion into private family affairs, the bill is also problematic because it does not specify just how it will handle public speech and religious instruction on sexuality and gender, making them vulnerable to criminalization. There is no provision in the bill for religious beliefs, philosophies, or even scientific studies on human sexuality that might diverge from the government’s mandated ideology.
If interpreted literally, the bill could prevent people from receiving medical treatment from physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health experts because it would compel medical professionals to withhold therapies under penalty of law.
“For example, transgender persons who freely wish to de-transition could be unable to access the necessary professional assistance to explore this option. Similarly, medical practitioners could be inhibited from advocating a prudent and professionally supported approach towards young children with gender dysphoria,” the CCCB wrote.
The CCCB is not alone in its fight against the bill. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has also issued its own open letter to the current Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, David Lametti. The EFC letter reads, “…[T]he terms ‘practice, treatment or service,’ while often used in a medical or therapeutic context, are not defined in Bill C-6 and can be interpreted and applied various ways. As written, these terms could include voluntarily sought out support groups for those who choose to live their lives in accordance with their religious beliefs.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-17--Rock legend Stevie Nicks: Without my abortion, there would’ve been no Fleetwood Mac

October 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A two-time inductee of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has asserted that the world would have been deprived of the happiness and healing her singing career produced if she had not had an abortion four decades ago .
Legendary singer Stevie Nicks said in a recent interview with The Guardian that if she hadn ’ t aborted the child she conceived with Eagles singer Don Henley in 1979 , she 's “ pretty sure there would have been no Fleetwood Mac.
” “ There ’ s just no way that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , working as hard as we worked constantly , ” said Nicks .
“ And there were a lot of drugs , I was doing a lot of drugs … I would have had to walk away , ” said the now-72-year-old singer .
“ And I knew that the music we were going to bring to the world was going to heal so many people ’ s hearts and make people so happy.
” “ And I thought : you know what ?
That ’ s really important , ” she claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ band in the world that has two lead women singers , two lead women writers .
That was my world ’ s mission.
” “ Abortion rights , that was really my generation ’ s fight , ” said Nicks , who declared that recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was her hero .
“ If President Trump wins this election and puts the judge he wants in , she will absolutely outlaw it and push women back into back-alley abortions.
” Many were appalled by Nicks ’ revelation , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was more important than loving and caring for the child she aborted .
Nicks , who reportedly has had a total of four abortions , is not without regret .
“ To give up four [ babies ] is to give up a lot that would be here now , ” admitted Nicks in a 1992 Vox Magazine interview .
“ So that really bothers me , a lot , and really breaks my heart .
But they ’ re gone , so… ” she continued .
“ But I couldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I had all these commitments.
” “ Some women have no interest in becoming mothers , but that isn ’ t the case with Stevie Nicks , ” explained National Review ’ s Kyle Smith .
“ She did want to be a mother , very badly , ” wrote Smith .
“ Witness the gently horrifying soft-rock classic ‘ Sara , ’ the only rock song I can think of in which the singer muses about having actually killed another human being .
Neither Bob Marley nor Eric Clapton really shot the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that ’ s what infuses the song with a delirium of regret .
”

'There’s just no way that I could have had a child then, working as hard as we worked constantly...And I knew that the music we were going to bring to the world was going to heal so many people’s hearts and make people so happy.'
October 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A two-time inductee of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has asserted that the world would have been deprived of the happiness and healing her singing career produced if she had not had an abortion four decades ago.
Legendary singer Stevie Nicks said in a recent interview with The Guardian that if she hadn’t aborted the child she conceived with Eagles singer Don Henley in 1979, she's “pretty sure there would have been no Fleetwood Mac.”
“There’s just no way that I could have had a child then, working as hard as we worked constantly,” said Nicks.
“And there were a lot of drugs, I was doing a lot of drugs … I would have had to walk away,” said the now-72-year-old singer. “And I knew that the music we were going to bring to the world was going to heal so many people’s hearts and make people so happy.”
“And I thought: you know what? That’s really important,” she claimed. “There’s not another band in the world that has two lead women singers, two lead women writers. That was my world’s mission.”
“Abortion rights, that was really my generation’s fight,” said Nicks, who declared that recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was her hero. “If President Trump wins this election and puts the judge he wants in, she will absolutely outlaw it and push women back into back-alley abortions.”
Many were appalled by Nicks’ revelation, and disagreed with her assessment that her career was more important than loving and caring for the child she aborted.
Stevie Nicks says Fleetwood Mac wouldn’t have become what it did without her abortion and that her music was more important for the world. Kylie Jenner got pregnant at 19, had her baby, and still became the world’s youngest billionaire. You don’t need abortion to be successful — Alex Clark ���������� (@yoalexrapz) October 16, 2020
“Justifying murder. What da!?” tweeted talk show host Jesse Lee Peterson.
Justifying murder. What da!? Not cool. Stevie Nicks: There‘d Be No Fleetwood Mac ‘If I Had Not Had That Abortion‘ https://t.co/pqXSKeWxHA via @BreitbartNews — Jesse Lee Peterson (@JLPtalk) October 15, 2020
And that's the problem with our society — children being viewed as a burden, as something that will hinder you from achieving your goals. Children and success are NOT mutually exclusive. (See Amy Coney Barrett as the perfect example).https://t.co/n0gqVS0DMM — Alana Mastrangelo (@ARmastrangelo) October 15, 2020
Nicks, who reportedly has had a total of four abortions, is not without regret.
“To give up four [babies] is to give up a lot that would be here now,” admitted Nicks in a 1992 Vox Magazine interview.
“So that really bothers me, a lot, and really breaks my heart. But they’re gone, so…” she continued. “But I couldn’t because I was too busy. And I had all these commitments.”
“Some women have no interest in becoming mothers, but that isn’t the case with Stevie Nicks,” explained National Review’s Kyle Smith.
“She did want to be a mother, very badly,” wrote Smith. “Witness the gently horrifying soft-rock classic ‘Sara,’ the only rock song I can think of in which the singer muses about having actually killed another human being. Neither Bob Marley nor Eric Clapton really shot the sheriff, but Nicks did kill Sara, and that’s what infuses the song with a delirium of regret.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-17--Deaths by drug overdoses nearly double in Ohio county thanks to coronavirus lockdown

COLUMBUS , Ohio , October 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Many commenters warned there would be an increase in deaths due to suicide and drug use because of coronavirus lockdown measures .
One place where this prediction has dramatically come to pass is Franklin County , Ohio , which has seen a massive increase in deaths caused by drug overdoses .
“ Addiction is a disease of despair and there ’ s a lot more despair lately in terms of unemployment and the isolation , ” said Dr. Anahi Ortiz , Franklin County coroner .
The coroner told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first six months of 2020 have surpassed the previous year ’ s number of overdose deaths for the same period .
“ From May on , probably is when we started seeing ... increases in those who were dying of overdoses , ” said Ortiz .
There were about 253 overdose deaths from January to June of last year .
In contrast , there were 437 deaths in that time period this year .
May and June accounted for much of the increase .
Dr. Margaret Williams , a physician at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ The unintended consequences of social distancing during the COVID-19 outbreak may be behind these [ overdose ] increases.
” Like Ortiz , she mentions unemployment and isolation as “ triggers for addiction , ” noting that “ young adults are most affected , with death rates doubling over the last year.
” This observation is echoed by the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration , signed by over 9,000 medical professionals .
According to its authors , the “ devastating effects on short and long-term public health , ” of coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the working class for years to come .
An issue brief published by the American Medical Association chronicling the increase of drug use and overdose deaths during the coronavirus outbreak notes that “ more than 40 states have reported increases in opioid-related mortality.
” Canada has seen a similar increase in overdose deaths over the course of the pandemic .
9,000 medical professionals criticize lockdowns , argue for ‘ focused protection ’ and return to normal life

**Photo credit: Shutterstock.com
Mainstream media sources are promoting offensive suggestions by some doctors that people who refuse a vaccine for COVID-19 should be "punished" by the government and by business - effectively coercing them into taking the vaccine.
One group of doctors writing in 'USA Today' suggested that the government impose special taxes (i.e., fines) on people who refuse the vaccination and that business simply refuse to serve them. [see story below]
Another doctor writing in an online publication called 'The Conversation' shamelessly suggested that people who refuse a vaccine should be given a psychoactive drug to induce compliance. [see story below]
But, these suggestions are plain political posturing, and have nothing to do with science or with the recent trends of the disease.
And, in case they haven't noticed, we live in a democracy not a medical dictatorship!
Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks policy-makers and business people, at all levels, to pledge to respect the rights of those who, in good conscience, decide not to vaccinate themselves or their children.
People should not have to live in fear of governmental or corporate retribution for refusing a vaccine which is being rushed to market by Big Pharma and their fellow-travelers in NGOs, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
It would be intolerable and immoral for the government or business to coerce someone, and their family, to take a COVID vaccine against their will to avoid a fine, or just so they can do their weekly grocery shopping.
Medical freedom must be respected in principle and also in practice.
So, it is now time that our policy-makers listen to all voices involved in this vital conversation, and start to represent those who will not tolerate being punished for refusing a vaccine.
Simply put, legislatures must begin to act as legislatures again.
Questions must be asked. Hearings and investigations must be held. And, the legislatures of each state and country must return to the business of representing the people who voted for them, assuming their rightful place as the originator of legislation.
We can no longer accept the dictates of executive branches without question, especially now that, statistically speaking, the initial brunt of the COVID crisis has passed.
Neither can we accept the dictates of doctors who seem detached from reality and from science, and who only seem to be attached to the idea of promoting ideas which contribute to the agrandizement of power and control of political interests, and wealth of those who stand to make a lot of money from the sale of a COVID vaccine.
Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks government and business leaders to pledge to respect the rights of those who refuse a COVID vaccine, and not seek to punish them for doing so.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
'Doctors lay out plan to ‘punish’ people who refuse coronavirus vaccine: ‘There is no alternative’' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctors-lay-out-plan-to-punish-people-who-refuse-coronavirus-vaccine-there-is-no-alternative
'US professor: ‘Psychoactive pill’ should be covertly administered to ensure lockdown compliance' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-professor-ensure-lockdown-compliance-by-drugging-dissenters-with-psychoactive-pill


lifesitenews--2020-10-17--Abortion activists want Dems to dump Sen. Feinstein from Senate Judiciary Committee

WASHINGTON , D.C. , October 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Soon after the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded Judge Amy Coney Barrett ’ s Supreme Court confirmation hearing , NARAL Pro-Choice America called for the Democrats ’ ranking member , Sen. Dianne Feinstein , to be replaced because she wasn ’ t sufficiently outraged that proceedings had taken place before the upcoming presidential election .
Liberals , fearful that with Barrett on the court Roe v. Wade might be overturned , were appalled that as the week of hearings concluded , Sen. Feinstein ( D-CA ) said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set of hearings that I ’ ve participated in.
” Many liberals were no doubt disappointed that the 87-year-old California senator did not attack Barrett ’ s Catholic faith as she had previously ( although a hot mic did catch Feinstein saying of Barrett : “ She ’ s been pro-life for a long time ...
I suspect with her , it is deeply personal and comes with her religion ... ” ) .
Feinstein also didn ’ t show the same doggedness displayed during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing .
Feinstein compounded their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee Chairman , Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) , and gave him a hug .
For some liberal Washington observers and activist groups who already thought that Feinstein had not fought hard enough for the seat left empty by Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death , the hug was the final straw .
“ I don ’ t care that Feinstein and Graham are friends , ” tweeted Susan Hennessey , executive editor of the Lawfare blog , over a screenshot of the Feinstein/Graham embrace .
“ I care that Feinstein catastrophically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realizing it , and did a grave disservice to the public.
” “ Americans–whose lives hang in the balance–deserve leadership that underscores how unprecedented , shameful and wrong this process is , ” said NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue .
“ The Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee , Senator Dianne Feinstein , failed to make this clear and in fact offered an appearance of credibility to the proceedings that is wildly out of step with the American people .
As such , we believe the committee needs new leadership.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process is a sham , ” claimed Hogue , echoing a liberal talking point which has proven impotent against the GOP White House and Senate ’ s intention to quickly approve and seat Barrett on the U.S. Supreme Court .
“ Tens of millions of Americans have already voted and majorities have said unequivocally that they want to choose the next President who should fill this seat , ” said Hogue .
“ Amy Barrett and this power grab pose a grave threat to every freedom and right we hold dear and tears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ That she can say this about this ongoing travesty is another sad statement about how poorly represented we are by Dianne Feinstein , ” tweeted Jon Lovett , a former speechwriter for President Barack Obama and host of “ Pod Save America.
” “ It ’ s time for Sen. Feinstein to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee , ” said Brian Fallon , the executive director of Demand Justice , in a statement released on Twitter on Thursday .
“ If she won ’ t , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She has undercut Democrat ’ s position at every step of this process , from undermining calls for filibuster and court reform straight through to thanking Republicans for the most egregious partisan power grab in the modern history of the Supreme Court , ” said Fallon in his blistering denunciation of Feinstein ’ s role on the Judiciary Committee .
“ If Senate Democrats are going to get their act together on the courts going forward , they can not be led by someone who treats Sunrise activists with contempt and the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kid gloves , ” said Fallon .

The 87-year-old California senator did not attack Barrett’s Catholic faith as she did in 2017.
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Soon after the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing, NARAL Pro-Choice America called for the Democrats’ ranking member, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, to be replaced because she wasn’t sufficiently outraged that proceedings had taken place before the upcoming presidential election.
Liberals, fearful that with Barrett on the court Roe v. Wade might be overturned, were appalled that as the week of hearings concluded, Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) said, “This has been one of the best set of hearings that I’ve participated in.”
Many liberals were no doubt disappointed that the 87-year-old California senator did not attack Barrett’s Catholic faith as she had previously (although a hot mic did catch Feinstein saying of Barrett: “She’s been pro-life for a long time…I suspect with her, it is deeply personal and comes with her religion…”). Feinstein also didn’t show the same doggedness displayed during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing.
Feinstein compounded their agony when she then walked over to committee Chairman, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and gave him a hug.
For some liberal Washington observers and activist groups who already thought that Feinstein had not fought hard enough for the seat left empty by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, the hug was the final straw.
“I don’t care that Feinstein and Graham are friends,” tweeted Susan Hennessey, executive editor of the Lawfare blog, over a screenshot of the Feinstein/Graham embrace. “I care that Feinstein catastrophically mismanaged the hearings, was outwitted without realizing it, and did a grave disservice to the public.”
I don't care that Feinstein and Graham are friends and it's never a bad thing to remember that we are more than our partisan identity. I care that Feinstein catastrophically mismanaged the hearings, was outwitted without realizing it, and did a grave disservice to the public. https://t.co/MKGiPQH0YB — Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) October 15, 2020
“Americans–whose lives hang in the balance–deserve leadership that underscores how unprecedented, shameful and wrong this process is,” said NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue. “The Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, failed to make this clear and in fact offered an appearance of credibility to the proceedings that is wildly out of step with the American people. As such, we believe the committee needs new leadership.”
“This nomination is illegitimate and this process is a sham,” claimed Hogue, echoing a liberal talking point which has proven impotent against the GOP White House and Senate’s intention to quickly approve and seat Barrett on the U.S. Supreme Court.
— Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Urge the U.S. Senate to Confirm Amy Coney Barrett Show Petition Text 24868 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 Judge Amy Coney Barrett Graeme Jennings-Pool/Getty Images PETITION UPDATE (10/26//2020) In a resounding victory for supporters of life, family and freedom, the U.S. Senate has just confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States! Justice Barrett was sworn-in by Justice Clarence Thomas and will swiftly fill the vacant seat and immediately begin participating in Supreme Court hearings. The petitions signed by many of you - there are now over 40,000 signatures - supporting Judge Amy Coney Barrett were sent to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as to the Officers of the USCCB. Thank you for signing these petitions. As you can see, your signature really does make a difference! We also know that many of you also made calls to your U.S. senators to encourage them to vote for Judge Barrett. Thank you! __________________________________________________________________ PETITION UPDATE (10/22/2020) The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee just voted to advance Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate, leaving only one hurdle to go next week. Every Republican on the committee voted for Barrett, President Donald Trump’s selection to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while every committee Democrat boycotted the vote, CNBC reports. Please READ the latest LifeSite article about the Senate Committee's vote here. As you read above, Judge Barrett has one more hurdle next Monday. Of course, it's the BIGGEST hurdle. So, if you haven't already, could we ask you to please call your U.S. senators to politely voice your support for Judge Barrett? After SIGNING this petition, please scroll down the page, where you will find the list of all U.S. senators' contact details. Let's keep working and praying so that we can see a pro-life judge sit on the Supreme Court. ____________________________________________________ PETITION UPDATE (10/15/20) The fourth day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing for the open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court is going on now. Please CLICK HERE to go to the livestream of the hearings. Please watch and read EXCLUSIVE LifeSite videos and articles about Judge Amy Coney Barrett's hearings: YouTube Videos: 'We are people of faith, the true body of Christ': Christians pray for SCOTUS confirmation hearings' '"That's your job": Judge Barrett responds to relevance of Obamacare to SCOTUS confirmation' Articles: 'Senator who badgered Barrett about Catholicism in 2017 presses her on abortion at confirmation hearing' 'Hawley, Barrett dismantle religious tests for office at Supreme Court hearing' 'Ted Cruz at Barrett hearing warns Democrats want to ‘erase’ religious liberty' ______________________________________________________________ Conservatives and Christians asked President Trump to deliver a proven constitutional originalist with a solid pro-life background, and he did. Now, let's not be outdone by Leftist organizations which will be mobilizing their forces to write, call and visit their senators' constituency offices. Please SIGN this urgent petition - to Senate Leadership - asking them to quickly confirm Barrett as the next Supreme Court justice. Then, please take a couple of minutes to CALL YOUR U.S. SENATORS using their numbers below, and politely urge them to confirm Barrett. When Amy Coney Barrett's senate confirmation hearing begins on Monday, October 12th, the mother of seven and devout Catholic is expected to face fierce opposition. Of course, the anticipated attacks have nothing to do with Barrett's legal credentials, which are uniformly top-notch. Instead, they have to do with her faith in Jesus and with her belief that life begins at conception. This is nothing short of anti-Christian bigotry which cannot be tolerated. The fact is, Amy Coney Barrett is the best candidate for the job, and she urgently needs our support. By signing the petition, we can unite to powerfully speak with one voice. But, by calling your senators, you can ensure that they know their local constituents are concerned and interested enough to telephone their offices. This is our time to get active! We must voice our support for Amy Coney Barrett at this crucial moment in our nation's history. Please SIGN this petition, and then please use the contact details below to CALL YOUR U.S. SENATORS right-away! Thank you! U.S. SENATORS' CONTACT DETAILS: SENATORS AND PHONE NUMBERS - https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact ALABAMA SENATORS Doug Jones – (202) 224-4124 Richard C. Shelby – (202) 224-5744 ALASKA SENATORS Lisa Murkowski – (202) 224-6665 Dan Sullivan – (202) 224-3004 ARIZONA SENATORS Martha McSally – (202) 224-2235 Kyrsten Sinema – (202) 224-4521 ARKANSAS SENATORS John Boozman – (202) 224-4843 Tom Cotton – (202) 224-2353 CALIFORNIA SENATORS Dianne Feinstein – (202) 224-3841 Kamala D. Harris – (202) 224-3553 COLORADO SENATORS Michael F. Bennett – (202) 224-5852 Cory Gardner – (202) 224-5941 CONNECTICUT SENATORS Richard Blumenthal – (202) 224-2823 Christopher Murphy – (202) 224-4041 DELAWARE SENATORS Thomas R. Carper – (202) 224-2441 Christopher A. Coons – (202) 224-5042 FLORIDA SENATORS Marco Rubio – (202) 224-3041 Rick Scott – (202) 224-5274 GEORGIA SENATORS Kelly Loeffler – (202) 224-3643 David Perdue – (202) 224-3521 HAWAII SENATORS Mazie K. Hirono – (202) 224-6361 Brian Schatz – (202) 224-3934 IDAHO SENATORS Mike Crapo – (202) 224-6142 James E. Risch – (202) 224-2752 ILLINOIS SENATORS Dick Durbin – (202) 224-2152 Tammy Duckworth – (202) 224-2854 INDIANA SENATORS Mike Braun – (202) 224-4814 Todd Young – (202) 224-5623 IOWA SENATORS Joni Ernst – (202) 224-3254 Chuck Grassley – (202) 224-3774 KANSAS SENATORS Jerry Moran – (202) 224-6521 Pat Roberts – (202) 224-4744 KENTUCKY SENATORS Mitch McConnell – (202) 224-2541 Rand Paul – (202) 224-4343 LOUISIANA SENATORS Bill Cassidy – (202) 224-5824 John Kennedy – (202) 224-4623 MAINE SENATORS Susan M. Collins – (202) 224-2523 Angus S. King – (202) 224-5344 MARYLAND SENATORS Benjamin L. Cardin – (202) 224-4524 Chris Van Hollen – (202) 224-4654 MASSACHUSETS SENATORS Edward J. Markey – (202) 224-2742 Elizabeth Warren – (202) 224-4543 MICHIGAN Gary C. Peters – (202) 224-6221 Debbie Stabenow – (202) 224-4822 MINNESOTA Amy Klobuchar – (202) 224-3244 Tina Smith – (202) 224-5641 MISSISSIPPI Cindy Hyde-Smith – (202) 224-5054 Roger F. Wicker – (202) 224-6253 MISSOURI Roy Blunt – (202) 224-5721 Josh Hawley – (202) 224-6154 MONTANA Steve Daines – (202) 224-2651 Jon Tester – (202) 224-2644 NEBRASKA Deb Fischer – (202) 224-6551 Ben Sasse – (202) 224-4224 NEVADA Catherine Cortez Masto – (202) 224-3542 Jacky Rosen – (202) 224-6244 NEW HAMPSHIRE Margaret Wood Hassan – (202) 224-3324 Jeanne Shaheen – (202) 224-2841 NEW JERSEY Cory A. Booker – (202) 224-3224 Robert Menendez – (202) 224-4744 NEW MEXICO Martin Heinrich – (202) 224-5521 Tom Udall – (202) 224-6621 NEW YORK Kirsten E. Gillibrand – (202) 224-4451 Charles E. Schumer – (202) 224-6542 NORTH CAROLINA Richard Burr – (202) 224-3154 Thom Tillis – (202) 224-6342 NORTH DAKOTA Kevin Cramer – (202) 224-2043 John Hoeven – (202) 224-2551 OHIO Sherrod Brown – (202) 224-2315 Rob Portman – (202) 224-3353 OKLAHOMA James M. Inhofe – (202) 224-4721 James Lankford – (202) 224-5754 OREGON Jeff Merkley – (202) 224-3753 Ron Wyden – (202) 224-5244 PENNSYLVANIA Robert P. Casey, Jr. – (202) 224-6324 Patrick J. Toomey, Jr. – (202) 224-4254 RHODE ISLAND Jack Reed – (202) 224-4642 Sheldon Whitehouse – (202) 224-2921 SOUTH CAROLINA Lindsey Graham – (202) 224-5972 Tim Scott – (202) 224-6121 SOUTH DAKOTA Mike Rounds – (202) 224-5842 John Thune – (202) 224-2321 TENNESSEE Lamar Alexander – (202) 224-4944 Marsha Blackburn – (202) 224-3344 TEXAS John Cornyn – (202) 224-2934 Ted Cruz – (202) 224-5922 UTAH Mike Lee – (202) 224-5444 Mitt Romney – (202) 224-5251 VERMONT Patrick J. Leahy – (202) 224-4242 Bernard Sanders – (202) 224-5141 VIRGINIA Tim Kaine – (202) 224-4024 Mark R. Warner – (202) 224-2023 WASHINGTON Maria Cantwell – (202) 224-3441 Patty Murray – (202) 224-2621 WEST VIRGINIA Shelley Moore Capito – (202) 224-6472 Joe Manchin III – (202) 224-3954 WISCONSIN Tammy Baldwin – (202) 224-5653 Ron Johnson – (202) 224-5323 WYOMING John Barrasso – (202) 224-6441 Michael B. Enzi – (202) 224-3424 Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
“Tens of millions of Americans have already voted and majorities have said unequivocally that they want to choose the next President who should fill this seat,” said Hogue. “Amy Barrett and this power grab pose a grave threat to every freedom and right we hold dear and tears the very fabric of our democracy.”
This is not normal, these hearings are not legitimate. Dianne Feinstein gave credibility to the process when the majority of Americans have been clear that they want to choose the next president—and the next president should fill the vacancy. The committee needs new leadership. pic.twitter.com/Szaxb2S6Wh — NARAL (@NARAL) October 16, 2020
“That she can say this about this ongoing travesty is another sad statement about how poorly represented we are by Dianne Feinstein,” tweeted Jon Lovett, a former speechwriter for President Barack Obama and host of “Pod Save America.”
That she can say this about this ongoing travesty is another sad statement about how poorly represented we are by Dianne Feinstein. https://t.co/AuybjBoXY1 — Jon Lovett (@jonlovett) October 15, 2020
“It’s time for Sen. Feinstein to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee,” said Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice, in a statement released on Twitter on Thursday. “If she won’t, her colleagues need to intervene.”
“She has undercut Democrat’s position at every step of this process, from undermining calls for filibuster and court reform straight through to thanking Republicans for the most egregious partisan power grab in the modern history of the Supreme Court,” said Fallon in his blistering denunciation of Feinstein’s role on the Judiciary Committee.
“If Senate Democrats are going to get their act together on the courts going forward, they cannot be led by someone who treats Sunrise activists with contempt and the Republican theft of the Supreme Court seat with kid gloves,” said Fallon.
.@WeDemandJustice now formally calling for Feinstein's removal as lead Democrat on Judiciary. “If she won't, her colleagues need to intervene.” pic.twitter.com/TvS4tLtmLp — Gideon Resnick (@GideonResnick) October 15, 2020
Share