lifesitenews--2020-10-27--Mississippi AG petitions Supreme Court to reconsider abortion ban

October 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch has once again petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review that state ’ s ban on aborting babies after 15 weeks ’ gestation .
In March 2018 , the Mississippi State House passed the House Bill 1510 , the Gestational Age Act .
That law was temporarily blocked from enforcement by a federal judge within 24 hours of its passage , and then permanently blocked in November of that year .
The state governor at the time , Phil Bryant , pledged to fight the ruling all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals , but the lower court ’ s decision was upheld in a ruling given in December 2019 .
On June 15 of this year , Fitch filed a petition with the Supreme Court to review the Gestational Age Act , asking for clarification on the Court ’ s “ jurisprudence on abortion to allow states like ours to enact laws that further their legitimate interests in protecting maternal health , safeguarding unborn babies , and promoting respect for innocent and vulnerable life.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional , ” and whether these kinds of laws “ should be analyzed under Casey ’ s ‘ undue burden ’ standard or Hellerstedt ’ s balancing of benefits and burdens.
” The supplemental brief filed with the Supreme Court this month offers additional reasons to consider the second of these , highlighting the “ burgeoning split of authority on that question.
” The two court cases mentioned in the petition , Casey v. Planned Parenthood and Whole Women ’ s Health v. Hellerstedt , applied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pre-viability abortion laws .
While the Casey decision emphasized “ undue burdens ” placed on women seeking abortions by such laws , the Hellerstedt decision applied the weighing of benefits against the burdens of the proposed law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital .
Chief Justice John Roberts , in his concurrence with the liberal justices in this spring ’ s June Medical Services v. Russo , maintained that the “ cost-benefit ” analysis of Hellerstedt has “ no place in constitutional law.
” Since then , there has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in applying these tests to laws restricting abortion , which Fitch highlighted in both her September 2 reply brief , and October ’ s supplemental brief .
More importantly , the petition asks the Court to address the “ contradictions ” in its use of viability “ as a bright line for measuring abortion legislation ” since Roe v. Wade .
“ The viability line that Roe articulated was always , as Justice O ’ Connor recognized , on a collision course with itself for it failed to give full credence to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest in protecting potential human life exists throughout the pregnancy , ’ ” it says .
Consequently , if the Supreme Court decides to hear the petition , it will have the opportunity “ to consider and decide whether Roe ’ s viability dicta should be validated or repudiated.
” The Supreme Court was originally scheduled to consider the appeal in September but has already rescheduled it twice .
Four justices need to agree to hear the case before it will go to the country ’ s highest court .
With the confirmation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coney Barrett last night , the abortion lobby and the American left are appearing increasingly panicked that Roe v. Wade will be overturned .
How pro-lifers may have received a stealth pro-life victory from US Supreme Court in June Mississippi gov pledges to fight abortion activist lawsuits all the way to Supreme Court

After a lower court blocked the ban within hours of its passage, the governor vowed to fight the ruling all the way to the country’s highest court.
October 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch has once again petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review that state’s ban on aborting babies after 15 weeks’ gestation.
In March 2018, the Mississippi State House passed the House Bill 1510, the Gestational Age Act. That law was temporarily blocked from enforcement by a federal judge within 24 hours of its passage, and then permanently blocked in November of that year. The state governor at the time, Phil Bryant, pledged to fight the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.
The case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the lower court’s decision was upheld in a ruling given in December 2019.
On June 15 of this year, Fitch filed a petition with the Supreme Court to review the Gestational Age Act, asking for clarification on the Court’s “jurisprudence on abortion to allow states like ours to enact laws that further their legitimate interests in protecting maternal health, safeguarding unborn babies, and promoting respect for innocent and vulnerable life.”
Statement on my petition to the Supreme Court of the United States supporting Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act pic.twitter.com/5MFX6xiLR5 — Lynn Fitch (@LynnFitchAG) June 16, 2020
The original petition asks “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional,” and whether these kinds of laws “should be analyzed under Casey’s ‘undue burden’ standard or Hellerstedt’s balancing of benefits and burdens.” The supplemental brief filed with the Supreme Court this month offers additional reasons to consider the second of these, highlighting the “burgeoning split of authority on that question.”
The two court cases mentioned in the petition, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, applied different tests to determine the validity of pre-viability abortion laws. While the Casey decision emphasized “undue burdens” placed on women seeking abortions by such laws, the Hellerstedt decision applied the weighing of benefits against the burdens of the proposed law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in his concurrence with the liberal justices in this spring’s June Medical Services v. Russo, maintained that the “cost-benefit” analysis of Hellerstedt has “no place in constitutional law.” Since then, there has been a split among lower circuit courts in applying these tests to laws restricting abortion, which Fitch highlighted in both her September 2 reply brief, and October’s supplemental brief.
— Article continues below Petition — URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade Show Petition Text 61375 have signed the petition. Let's get to 70000 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition PETITION UPDATE (9/26/2020): With President Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we are closer than we have been in decades to seeing Roe vs. Wade overturned. We now encourage the Senate to confirm Barrett as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Barrett has a fantastic track recond on sanctity of life issues, has seven children, and is a devout believer. She is the perfect remedy for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's radical pro-abortionism. Please READ the full story here: 'BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court' And then, please SIGN this petition telling the High Court that it's now time to end the activist Roe vs. Wade judgment. Thank you! __________________________________________________________________ PETITION UPDATE (6/29/2020): In a decision which has imperiled more abortion-minded women, sentenced more preborn to death, and upset pro-lifers across the nation,the United States Supreme Court decided 5-4 to strike down a Louisiana law requiring basic medical precautions in the event of abortion complications, with Chief Justice John Roberts reversing his own past decision to uphold a similar Texas law. Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which held that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional for the simple fact that it was “almost word-for-word identical” to the Texas one the court already struck down in 2016. In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that he had “joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.” We call on the Supreme Court to stop supporting the culture of death and overturn Roe vs Wade, now. PETITION UPDATE (1/20/2020): Hundreds of thousands of people will gather in Washington, D.C., this coming Friday, January 24th, for the March for Life. They will be praying for an end to Roe vs Wade, as the Supreme Court will hear a crucial, abortion-related case later this year in March. United our voices can change the course of history. Sign this petition TODAY! (LEARN MORE BELOW) PETITION UPDATE (1/3/2020): In advance of the Supreme Court's hearing arguments in an important abortion case later this year in March, 207 U.S. Senators and Representatives have signed amicus briefs supporting a Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital nearby an abortion center. Some of these supporting briefs also suggest that now is the time to reconsider Roe vs Wade as sound law. Please SIGN this petition, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Roe vs Wade. _____________________________________________________________________________ More than 60 million Americans have been slaughtered in their mother's wombs as a result of Roe v. Wade. This activist, unconstitutional ruling in 1973 has left countless women emotionally and psychologically scarred. It was believed by many that Roe would be overturned in 1992 with Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Despite having eight Republican-appointed judges at the time, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold it. Since then, major gains have been made in the fight for life, and many lives have been saved. However, Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land, leaving millions of defenseless pre-born children vulnerable to murder. According to a 2016 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 35% of aborted babies are African American, despite black women only making up six percent of the U.S. population. 19% of aborted babies are Hispanic. We thus again call on the court to do everything they can to end Roe vs Wade. Now is the time for pro-lifers to join together and ensure that all of God's children have a right to life. Roe v. Wade must come to an end! FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-regulations https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/over-200-congressmen-as-us-supreme-court-to-reconsider-roe-v-wade https://www.foxnews.com/politics/congress-members-file-competing-legal-briefs-in-key-scotus-abortion-case Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
More importantly, the petition asks the Court to address the “contradictions” in its use of viability “as a bright line for measuring abortion legislation” since Roe v. Wade. “The viability line that Roe articulated was always, as Justice O’Connor recognized, on a collision course with itself for it failed to give full credence to the fact ‘that the State’s interest in protecting potential human life exists throughout the pregnancy,’” it says. Consequently, if the Supreme Court decides to hear the petition, it will have the opportunity “to consider and decide whether Roe’s viability dicta should be validated or repudiated.”
The Supreme Court was originally scheduled to consider the appeal in September but has already rescheduled it twice. Four justices need to agree to hear the case before it will go to the country’s highest court.
With the confirmation and subsequent swearing in of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last night, the abortion lobby and the American left are appearing increasingly panicked that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.
RELATED
How pro-lifers may have received a stealth pro-life victory from US Supreme Court in June
Mississippi gov pledges to fight abortion activist lawsuits all the way to Supreme Court
Judge blocks 15-week abortion ban in ruling filled with pro-abortion talking points
Judge temporarily blocks Mississippi law banning abortion at 15 weeks
Mississippi state House votes to ban abortion after 15 weeks
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-27--What happens if Biden wins but is too mentally compromised to be president?

October 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A recent poll shows that 55 % of the American public believe that former vice president Joe Biden , the Democratic candidate for president , has cognitive difficulties .
It is not without reason that both Biden and his running mate , Kamala Harris , have , in recent weeks , referred to the “ Harris administration ” and the “ Harris-Biden ticket.
” What happens when Biden falters , physically or mentally , depends on when he falters .
I divide the time periods up as before Election Day , November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he win ) and the date the Electoral College votes on December 14 ; between the latter and Inauguration Day ; and after Inauguration Day .
Two weeks after the 1972 Democratic Convention nominated George McGovern and Thomas Eagleton , it was disclosed that Eagleton , age 42 , had received electric shock treatment for clinical depression three times in the 1960s .
After McGovern consulted doctors about Eagleton ’ s ability to function as president , he asked Eagleton to withdraw , and Eagleton did so .
( What if Eagleton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A search for Eagleton ’ s replacement was undertaken , and a half-dozen prospects , including Ted Kennedy , declined to run with McGovern .
Finally , Sargent Shriver , a brother-in-law of Ted Kennedy , agreed , and the Democratic National Committee nominated him on August 8 .
( What if these events had occurred after ballots had been printed , after early voting had begun ? )
According to the Democratic Party ’ s Charter and Bylaws of August 2018 ( the latest I can find online ) , the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party between national conventions .
One of its duties between conventions is “ filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President ” ( Art .
3 , sec .
1.c. )
.
The DNC has no authority to force a nominee to withdraw or to remove the nominee involuntarily , upon any grounds .
Such things would have to happen in smoke-filled rooms .
So if Biden would not yield to any pressure to withdraw , the party would be without recourse .
If Biden were to withdraw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary to nominate a replacement ( although technologically that could be done ) .
Rather , the DNC would nominate a replacement in a session open to the public without secret ballots ( Art .
3 , sections 2 and 12 ) .
There are currently 447 members of the full Committee .
Presumably , however , the Executive Committee , of 64 individuals , would perform the task .
We might say that , despite all the protestations about the Constitution ’ s Electoral College , the DNC would act like one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 447 , or of the 64 , are Biden-supporters ?
Bernie Sanders–supporters ?
AOC ’ s supporters ?
Do Democratic voters know ?
There are no requirements for whom the DNC could select .
It would not necessarily be Harris moving up on the ticket .
It could be someone who ran in the primaries or someone , like Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York , who did not .
The DNC could select an independent or a Republican or someone from a third party .
What would happen to the actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That would be a matter of the election laws in all 50 states and the territories .
Recall the case of Missouri governor Mel Carnahan ( D ) , running for the U.S. Senate against Republican John Ashcroft in 2000 .
Carnahan died in a plane crash on October 16 , 2000 , just three weeks before Election Day .
Under Missouri law , his name could not be removed from the ballot .
The lieutenant governor , who succeeded to the governorship , made it publicly known that , should the deceased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appoint Carnahan ’ s widow to the Senate until a special election two years later .
The deceased Carnahan won , and his widow took his seat .
Each of the 50 states and territories has its own laws on deadlines by which the names of nominees must be certified and laws on how any changes after certification can occur , if they can .
What do your state ’ s laws provide ?
There could be circumstances where the Congress would , by law , postpone Election Day , at least for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day and the date the Electoral College votes What if Biden faltered between Election Day and the date the Electoral College votes ?
Article II , section 1 of the Constitution specifies that Congress sets the date upon which the Electoral College meets in the respective state capitals .
By statute , it is the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December .
This year , that is December 14 .
The laws of the 50 states would govern how electors from the individual states should cast their votes if Biden withdrew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of assuming the duties of the presidency .
This brings to mind the issue of “ faithless electors ” — that is , people who have pledged to vote , or are required by state law to vote , for the nominee who received the simple majority of the popular vote in their state .
The Constitution and federal law are silent on the subject .
A case on this issue was decided by the Supreme Court this past July : Chiafalo v. Washington .
It also brings to mind the Florida recount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election resulting in the Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore , 531 U.S. 98 ( 2000 ) , argued on December 11 and decided on December 12 .
On December 7 , the Florida Legislature had been called into a special session to consider naming electors for Bush without waiting for the results of the recount because a deadline was looming .
Under federal law , the state had to designate electors on December 12 for the election on December 18 .
If electors were not designated , there would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ College .
The Court ’ s opinion in Bush v. Gore addressed the ability of a state Legislature to appoint electors : The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college .
U.
S .
Const.
, Art .
II , § 1 .
This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker , 146 U. S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the state legislature 's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary ; it may , if it so chooses , select the electors itself , which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution .
Id.
, at 28-33 .
History has now favored the voter , and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors .
When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has prescribed is fundamental ; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter .
The State , of course , after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II , can take back the power to appoint electors .
See id.
, at 35 ( “ ‘ [ T ] here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time , for it can neither be taken away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden faltered before the Electoral College voted , and neither he nor anyone else achieved the minimum necessary votes to be elected president , the Twelfth Amendment would be triggered .
Between the date the Electoral College voted and Inauguration Day What if Biden faltered after the Electoral College had voted in favor of Biden and Inauguration Day ?
By statute , the Congress meets in joint session on January 6 , and the president of the Senate ( that is , the lame-duck vice president ) counts the votes cast by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This same statute makes provision for objections to votes and for resolution of these objections by votes in the House and the Senate .
If Biden faltered , the Congress would likely vote to refuse to accept some or all of the votes of the Electoral College , and Biden may not achieve the minimum number of votes needed to have Congress confirm his election .
The mechanism in the Twelfth Amendment for election by the newly elected House would be triggered .
The election in the new House would consist of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eligible candidates for their consideration is limited by the amendment to the top three vote-getters in the Electoral College count .
( It is possible this would not be easy to decipher or would be contested . )
Obviously , the ability of a state delegation to cast a vote , based on the simple majority of the state ’ s delegation , could be affected if some electoral contests for House seats had not yet been decided .
I should say that nothing prevents Biden from withdrawing at any time before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from resigning after the inauguration .
No reason would need to be given in either case .
If he resigned from the presidency ( after inauguration ) , the vice president would of course succeed him .
What if he faltered and refused to resign or did not have the mental competence to resign ?
This is the subject of the 25th Amendment .
The 25th Amendment provides that the vice president , together with a “ majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can remove the president for inability to discharge the duties of the office of president .
Technically , the president is not removed , but he has no powers .
The presidential powers are immediately transferred to the vice president who would then be “ acting president.
” On October 9 , a bill first introduced in 2017 ( amid claims that newly elected President Trump was deranged ) was reintroduced .
This bill would create the “ other body as Congress may by law provide.
” At her October 9 press conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this legislation was targeted not at President Trump , but at all future presidents .
If she meant to include a President Biden , the bill would have to be reintroduced in the new Congress that begins in January , because it will not pass the current Congress .
Until there is such a body , it would be the Cabinet who would vote to remove the president .
If the inability of Biden to perform his duties rose early in an administration , the inability could render the authenticity of any presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , suspect , and in any case , the vote by the vice president and Cabinet to remove the president could occur before the Senate has been able to confirm some or all Cabinet members .
A Vice President Harris could determine that there were no eligible Cabinet members to join her in her removal of President Biden .
There are numerous permutations of what could happen should there not be a clear winner in the Electoral College in December .
In some of these permutations , the speaker of the House could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But such permutations would require that neither the Electoral College nor the Senate , voting for vice president under the Twelfth Amendment ( just as the House votes for the president ) , would have successfully chosen a vice president who would , in the first instance , become acting president .
There has been speculation that there are scenarios where Speaker Pelosi would serve as acting president .
A reminder to you that Pelosi made a deal in 2018 that she would limit her speakership to two terms — that is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Pelosi Agrees to Deal Limiting Her Speakership to 4 Years , ” Roll Call , Dec. 12 , 2018 ) .
A new speaker will be elected by the new Congress in early January 2021 .
Assuming she is re-elected to her House seat in November , would she stand for re-election as speaker in January 2021 ?

October 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A recent poll shows that 55% of the American public believe that former vice president Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate for president, has cognitive difficulties. It is not without reason that both Biden and his running mate, Kamala Harris, have, in recent weeks, referred to the “Harris administration” and the “Harris-Biden ticket.” What happens when Biden falters, physically or mentally, depends on when he falters. I divide the time periods up as before Election Day, November 3; between Election Day (should he win) and the date the Electoral College votes on December 14; between the latter and Inauguration Day; and after Inauguration Day.
Before Election Day
Two weeks after the 1972 Democratic Convention nominated George McGovern and Thomas Eagleton, it was disclosed that Eagleton, age 42, had received electric shock treatment for clinical depression three times in the 1960s. After McGovern consulted doctors about Eagleton’s ability to function as president, he asked Eagleton to withdraw, and Eagleton did so. (What if Eagleton, lawfully nominated, had refused?) A search for Eagleton’s replacement was undertaken, and a half-dozen prospects, including Ted Kennedy, declined to run with McGovern. Finally, Sargent Shriver, a brother-in-law of Ted Kennedy, agreed, and the Democratic National Committee nominated him on August 8. (What if these events had occurred after ballots had been printed, after early voting had begun?)
— Article continues below Petition — Attorney General Barr: Investigate the Biden Family affair now! Show Petition Text 38585 have signed the petition. Let's get to 40000 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition Please SIGN and SHARE this petition which calls on the U.S. Attorney General, William Barr, to investigate the allegations of corruption and influence-peddling against former Vice President Joe Biden. In an interview on Fox News, just this morning, the President stated: "This is major corruption and this has to be known about before the election." If proven true, these outrageous allegations against Biden could have massive implications for national security! Americans do not want a president who will sell out his country to the highest bidder in order to enrich his family or save them from prosecution. This scandal began last week when the New York Post dropped a bombshell story alleging that then Vice President Biden pressured Ukrainian authorities to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a company with ties to the Biden Family. And, in another expose by the NY Post, also last week, the Biden Family is alleged to have improperly profited from deals made with one of the largest Chinese energy companies because of Vice President Biden's position in government. Please SIGN our petition to support President Trump calling on the Attorney General to launch an investigation with all due haste. The American public deserves to know the truth about Joe Biden and his involvement, if any, in this apparent influence-peddling scandal. Serious questions need to be answered with all urgency! Please SIGN and SHARE this petition which urges William Barr, the U.S. Attorney General, to immediately initiate an inquiry into the alleged corruption scandal involving the Biden Family. FOR MORE INFORMATION: 'China has bought and paid for Joe Biden and his entire family' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/china-has-bought-and-paid-for-joe-biden-and-his-entire-family 'Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad' - https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad 'Emails reveal how Hunter Biden tried to cash in big on behalf of family with Chinese firm' - https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/emails-reveal-how-hunter-biden-tried-to-cash-in-big-with-chinese-firm **Photo Credit: Joe Raedle / Getty Images News Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
According to the Democratic Party’s Charter and Bylaws of August 2018 (the latest I can find online), the Democratic National Committee (DNC) runs the party between national conventions. One of its duties between conventions is “filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President” (Art. 3, sec. 1.c.). The DNC has no authority to force a nominee to withdraw or to remove the nominee involuntarily, upon any grounds. Such things would have to happen in smoke-filled rooms. So if Biden would not yield to any pressure to withdraw, the party would be without recourse.
If Biden were to withdraw, there is no national Democratic Party primary to nominate a replacement (although technologically that could be done). Rather, the DNC would nominate a replacement in a session open to the public without secret ballots (Art. 3, sections 2 and 12). There are currently 447 members of the full Committee. Presumably, however, the Executive Committee, of 64 individuals, would perform the task. We might say that, despite all the protestations about the Constitution’s Electoral College, the DNC would act like one in this instance.
How many of the 447, or of the 64, are Biden-supporters? Bernie Sanders–supporters? AOC’s supporters? Do Democratic voters know?
There are no requirements for whom the DNC could select. It would not necessarily be Harris moving up on the ticket. It could be someone who ran in the primaries or someone, like Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, who did not. The DNC could select an independent or a Republican or someone from a third party.
What would happen to the actual ballots and to votes already cast? That would be a matter of the election laws in all 50 states and the territories. Recall the case of Missouri governor Mel Carnahan (D), running for the U.S. Senate against Republican John Ashcroft in 2000. Carnahan died in a plane crash on October 16, 2000, just three weeks before Election Day. Under Missouri law, his name could not be removed from the ballot. The lieutenant governor, who succeeded to the governorship, made it publicly known that, should the deceased Carnahan win the election, he would appoint Carnahan’s widow to the Senate until a special election two years later. The deceased Carnahan won, and his widow took his seat.
Each of the 50 states and territories has its own laws on deadlines by which the names of nominees must be certified and laws on how any changes after certification can occur, if they can. What do your state’s laws provide?
There could be circumstances where the Congress would, by law, postpone Election Day, at least for president and vice president.
Between Election Day and the date the Electoral College votes
What if Biden faltered between Election Day and the date the Electoral College votes? Article II, section 1 of the Constitution specifies that Congress sets the date upon which the Electoral College meets in the respective state capitals. By statute, it is the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. This year, that is December 14. The laws of the 50 states would govern how electors from the individual states should cast their votes if Biden withdrew or if some eectors deemed Biden incapable of assuming the duties of the presidency.
This brings to mind the issue of “faithless electors” — that is, people who have pledged to vote, or are required by state law to vote, for the nominee who received the simple majority of the popular vote in their state. The Constitution and federal law are silent on the subject. A case on this issue was decided by the Supreme Court this past July: Chiafalo v. Washington.
It also brings to mind the Florida recount of the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election resulting in the Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), argued on December 11 and decided on December 12. On December 7, the Florida Legislature had been called into a special session to consider naming electors for Bush without waiting for the results of the recount because a deadline was looming. Under federal law, the state had to designate electors on December 12 for the election on December 18. If electors were not designated, there would be no vote by Florida in the Electoral College. The Court’s opinion in Bush v. Gore addressed the ability of a state Legislature to appoint electors:
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’”).
If Biden faltered before the Electoral College voted, and neither he nor anyone else achieved the minimum necessary votes to be elected president, the Twelfth Amendment would be triggered.
Between the date the Electoral College voted and Inauguration Day
What if Biden faltered after the Electoral College had voted in favor of Biden and Inauguration Day? By statute, the Congress meets in joint session on January 6, and the president of the Senate (that is, the lame-duck vice president) counts the votes cast by the Electoral College (3 USC 15). This same statute makes provision for objections to votes and for resolution of these objections by votes in the House and the Senate.
If Biden faltered, the Congress would likely vote to refuse to accept some or all of the votes of the Electoral College, and Biden may not achieve the minimum number of votes needed to have Congress confirm his election. The mechanism in the Twelfth Amendment for election by the newly elected House would be triggered. The election in the new House would consist of one vote per state delegation. The eligible candidates for their consideration is limited by the amendment to the top three vote-getters in the Electoral College count. (It is possible this would not be easy to decipher or would be contested.) Obviously, the ability of a state delegation to cast a vote, based on the simple majority of the state’s delegation, could be affected if some electoral contests for House seats had not yet been decided.
After Inauguration Day
I should say that nothing prevents Biden from withdrawing at any time before the inauguration date, and nothing prevents him from resigning after the inauguration. No reason would need to be given in either case. If he resigned from the presidency (after inauguration), the vice president would of course succeed him.
What if he faltered and refused to resign or did not have the mental competence to resign? This is the subject of the 25th Amendment. The 25th Amendment provides that the vice president, together with a “majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide,” can remove the president for inability to discharge the duties of the office of president. Technically, the president is not removed, but he has no powers. The presidential powers are immediately transferred to the vice president who would then be “acting president.”
On October 9, a bill first introduced in 2017 (amid claims that newly elected President Trump was deranged) was reintroduced. This bill would create the “other body as Congress may by law provide.” At her October 9 press conference supporting the bill, Speaker Pelosi said this legislation was targeted not at President Trump, but at all future presidents. If she meant to include a President Biden, the bill would have to be reintroduced in the new Congress that begins in January, because it will not pass the current Congress.
Until there is such a body, it would be the Cabinet who would vote to remove the president. If the inability of Biden to perform his duties rose early in an administration, the inability could render the authenticity of any presidential act, including nominations to the Cabinet, suspect, and in any case, the vote by the vice president and Cabinet to remove the president could occur before the Senate has been able to confirm some or all Cabinet members. A Vice President Harris could determine that there were no eligible Cabinet members to join her in her removal of President Biden.
Addendum on Speaker Pelosi
There are numerous permutations of what could happen should there not be a clear winner in the Electoral College in December. In some of these permutations, the speaker of the House could become acting president on Inauguration Day. But such permutations would require that neither the Electoral College nor the Senate, voting for vice president under the Twelfth Amendment (just as the House votes for the president), would have successfully chosen a vice president who would, in the first instance, become acting president.
There has been speculation that there are scenarios where Speaker Pelosi would serve as acting president. A reminder to you that Pelosi made a deal in 2018 that she would limit her speakership to two terms — that is, until December, 2020 (Lindsey McPherson, “Pelosi Agrees to Deal Limiting Her Speakership to 4 Years,” Roll Call, Dec. 12, 2018). A new speaker will be elected by the new Congress in early January 2021. Assuming she is re-elected to her House seat in November, would she stand for re-election as speaker in January 2021?
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-27--Join our daily worldwide rosary HERE

Join our daily worldwide rosary HERE

October 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In response to the crisis unfolding in our world and in the Church , LifeSite is offering Catholics throughout the world a chance to be united daily in prayer , in the Our Lady of Fatima Rosary Crusade .
Catholics from all over the world—from Israel , Uganda , Italy , France , Germany , Ireland , Pakistan , Singapore , the Philippines , India , Indonesia , Australia , New Zealand , Thailand , the United Kingdom , the U.S. , Canada , Brazil , and other countries—are gathering daily to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anthony Pillari , J.C.L.
, an American priest currently studying in Italy .
Our goal is , by means of this daily rosary and by embracing and living out the message given by the Virgin Mary at Fatima , the triumph of Our Lady ’ s Immaculate Heart .
To help obtain that goal , Bishop Athanasius Schneider graciously composed the following prayer for this worldwide rosary crusade : O Immaculate Heart of Mary , you are the holy Mother of God and our tender Mother .
Look upon the distress in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are living because of the spread of materialism and the persecution of the Church .
In Fatima you warned against these errors , as you spoke about the errors of Russia .
You are the Mediatrix of all graces .
Implore your Divine Son to grant this special grace for the Pope : that he might consecrate Russia to your Immaculate Heart , so that Russia will be converted , a period of peace will be granted to the world , and your Immaculate Heart will triumph , through an authentic renewal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purity of the Catholic Faith , of the sacredness of Divine worship and of the holiness of the Christian life .
O Queen of the holy Rosary and our sweet Mother , turn your merciful eyes to us and graciously hear this our trusting prayer .
Amen .
+ Athanasius Schneider , Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana To learn more about the urgency of responding to Our Lady ’ s message at Fatima , and about what you can do , please read Cardinal Burke ’ s 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ https : //voiceofthefamily.com/full-text-cardinal-burkes-historic-call-for-consecration-of-russia/ ) .
As St. Padre Pio once said , “ The rosary is the weapon for these times.
” Through prayer , God can shape history , change the world , and bring about a great time of renewal and peace for the Church and for the world , through the triumph of Our Lady ’ s Immaculate Heart .
Join us today !
If you would like to follow along with the prayers said during this rosary , you can access them via this PDF .
This document also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the daily rosary on LifeSite led by Fr .
Pillari .

(LifeSiteNews) — In response to the crisis unfolding in our world and in the Church, LifeSite is happy to promote Regina Angelorum Press’s Daily Rosary, which is offering Catholics throughout the world the chance to be united daily in prayer, in the Our Lady of Fatima Rosary Crusade.
Catholics from all over the world — from Israel, Uganda, Italy, France, Germany, Ireland, Pakistan, Singapore, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and other countries — are gathering daily to pray the Rosary, led by Father Pillari, JCL, MCL, STL, an American priest currently studying in Italy.
The Daily Rosary is being offered each day at 12noon EST through Regina Angelorum Press’ YouTube Channel to which you can subscribe HERE.
The goal is, by means of this Daily Rosary and by embracing and living out the message given by the Virgin Mary at Fatima, the triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.
To help obtain that goal, Bishop Athanasius Schneider graciously composed the following prayer for this worldwide Rosary crusade:
O Immaculate Heart of Mary, you are the holy Mother of God and our tender Mother. Look upon the distress in which the Church and the whole of humanity are living because of the spread of materialism and the persecution of the Church. In Fatima you warned against these errors, as you spoke about the errors of Russia. You are the Mediatrix of all graces. Implore your Divine Son to grant this special grace for the Pope: that he might consecrate Russia to your Immaculate Heart, so that Russia will be converted, a period of peace will be granted to the world, and your Immaculate Heart will triumph, through an authentic renewal of the Church in the splendor of the purity of the Catholic Faith, of the sacredness of Divine worship and of the holiness of the Christian life. O Queen of the holy Rosary and our sweet Mother, turn your merciful eyes to us and graciously hear this our trusting prayer. Amen. + Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
To learn more about the urgency of responding to Our Lady’s message at Fatima, and about what you can do, please read Cardinal Burke’s 2017 address at the Rome Life Forum.
As St. Padre Pio once said, “The Rosary is the weapon for these times.” Through prayer, God can shape history, change the world, and bring about a great time of renewal and peace for the Church and for the world, through the triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. Join us today!
If you would like to follow along with the prayers said during this Rosary, you can access them HERE. The document also includes a brief F.A.Q. pertaining to the daily Rosary.
You can send your prayer requests to https://reginangelorumpress.com/prayer-intentions/
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-27--Why priests and laypeople must work around bishops forbidding sacraments for COVID

October 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Some time ago , a friend asked me what I think about Catholic clergy who “ went rogue ” during the COVID lockdown and continued offering clandestine Masses and so forth , even when “ forbidden ” to do so by “ legitimate authority.
” She asked me what I thought of laity who encouraged them , assisted them , and benefited from their ministrations .
Is this defensible behavior ?
Is it even , perhaps , required behavior ?
The topic continues to be relevant because the mightily exaggerated threat of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to impose a new wave of restrictions of all kinds , including on religious activities and gatherings .
We can expect the new world-managers of panic and fear to milk this crisis for all it ’ s worth , and to extend it for as long as they possibly can — particularly in populations whose native irascibility has been extracted by decades of socialist conditioning .
I was and continue to be sympathetic with every effort by clergy and laity to circumvent and ignore episcopal diktats that severely limit the sacramental life of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we are living through a situation not unlike other severe flus that have come and gone many times in the past .
My thinking on the question stems from a few basic principles .
The sacraments are not a privilege for the deserving , or a symbolic “ window dressing ” for the “ real ” Catholic life that goes on purely interiorly or domestically , as one of the new cardinals of the Church seems to think , but rather a necessity , a reality integral to the Christian spiritual life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the faithful , understood in reference to our membership in the Body of Christ .
The Eucharist is our elementary food for soul and body .
Confession is our ( blood ) bath .
Extreme unction is our lifeline , our immediate preparation for death , judgment , and eternity .
Fasting from spiritual goods of this magnitude should be a last resort , of brief duration ; therefore , limitations on them must also be a last resort and of brief duration , manifestly prompted by an undeniable emergency ( think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the streets ) .
A total lack of access at any point is indefensible .
It is one thing when a totalitarian regime hostile to the Church hauls priests away to a concentration camp in an effort to take the sacraments away from the people ; then there is little choice on anyone ’ s part .
It is quite another thing for the Church ’ s own shepherds to order priests to stop giving the sacraments to the faithful .
In doing so , they literally short-circuit their own authority , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves out .
It is the equivalent of a bishop preaching that Christ has not come in the flesh ( cf .
1 Jn .
4 ) , or denying the homoousios of the Creed : that Christ is consubstantial with the Father and thus has authority and power to impart the divine life , His divine life , to the poor and needy of the Church on Earth .
Regulations there must be ; strangulations there must never be .
The dam may regulate the flow of waters , but the waters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true of the public offering of the sacred liturgy and our participation in it .
There are currently millions of Catholics who are persuaded that their obligation to worship God on Sunday has been dispensed .
But this is not true .
God commanded that He be worshiped in a formal , public cultus , for which He instituted a weekly Sabbath among the Chosen People .
With the resurrection of Christ on the first day of the week , Sunday was sanctified as the firstfruits and the symbol of the new creation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 Pet .
3:13 ) ; therefore , Sunday , the Dies Domini , the “ little Easter , ” is a solemn day of formal , public cultus that must be offered to God .
This is how Christians fulfill the Third Commandment , from which there can be no dispensation , as noted by Cardinal Burke .
The obligation to join personally in the perfect sacrifice of Christ on Sunday remains in place for all of the baptized , and no bishop can alter that one bit , nor can virtual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is impossible , physically or morally , for an individual to attend — his car breaks down on the way to church , or he is sick or vulnerable , or the church has been locked shut and he has no choice — the obligation ceases to bind , and no sin is committed ( at least , not by the layman ! )
, but in no way is it waved aside .
It stands .
The only question is whether or not we have legitimate grounds to leave it unfulfilled .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our priests have given quite a different impression : attending Sunday Mass ends up looking more like a human custom , a mere precept of the Church , rather than the observance of a divine precept as determined by Christ and His Church in her unbroken tradition .
As mentioned , the only way one does not sin by not attending Mass on Sunday or any other holy day of obligation is if it is impossible ( see Code of Canon Law 1247–1248 ) , which is how the matter has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that strong view explains the odd absence of precedent for general , standing Sunday Mass “ dispensations ” — even in the midst of much worse famines , wars , plagues , and disasters than anything we have experienced in recent times .
Beyond these more precise points about sacraments and liturgy , we should look at the big picture in the Church .
We are dealing with a situation , built up over several decades , in which the bishops have lost credibility and trustworthiness .
With a few exceptions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they do not celebrate reverent liturgy ; they do not rid their dioceses of homosexuality and abuse ; they are mammon-hungry .
In all these ways , they have lost the “ moral high ground ” required for us to “ just trust them ” in their judgment calls .
As Newman argued was the case during the Arian crisis , much of the present-day hierarchy is , for all intents and purposes , in a “ suspended condition , ” a state of dysfunctionality , disengagement , and inefficacy .
In jungle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laity must shift for themselves as well as they can .
Where there is every reason to think that the salvation of souls is not respected as the highest law ( salus animarum , suprema lex ) , a Christian ’ s obligations to His Lord and Master take precedence over his obligations to members of the hierarchy , no matter how exalted .
In a May 20 letter published at LifeSiteNews , Archbishop Thomas J. Rodi of Mobile , Alabama stated : “ If any priest can not follow archdiocesan regulations [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the tongue ] , it will be necessary for him to refrain from the celebration of public Masses .
This matter is too serious for us to take any other approach than one of extreme caution for the safety of others.
” Similar attitudes are at work in dioceses across the globe .
I could somehow imagine a different and more authoritative statement issued from the chancery of the court of heaven : “ If any bishop can not follow natural law and divine law in regard to the adoration , reverence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Son of God in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar , and if , moreover , he does not fight to keep churches open , liturgical worship accessible , and sacraments available to the faithful , it will be necessary for him to refrain from the hope of reaching eternal glory .
This matter is too serious for us to take any other approach than one of extreme sacredness and total commitment for the salvation of souls.
” The same is true for all the clergy and laity .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more , not less , use of prayer , processions , penances , liturgy , and sacraments .
In a time of spurious pandemic , we must make war against exaggerated restrictions and unjust cancellations , supporting those who creatively and courageously work around them and behind them .

PETITION UPDATE (7/9/2021) -
Father James Altman was informed late last week that he has been removed as pastor of St. James the Less parish, and that his priestly faculties have been suspended indefinitely.
Please Click Here to WATCH LifeSite's exclusive interview with Fr. Altman, and Click Here to READ more about this turn of events.
As Bishop William J. Callahan’s decree explains, this means he is forbidden from celebrating “The Holy Eucharist” with any members of the faithful present, except for his elderly parents. He is also “no longer allowed to preach,” administer baptism, or assist at marriages.
Altman said that he wasn’t issued restrictions from hearing Confessions or Anointing of the Sick.
The decree also states that he is to continue to live within the Diocese of LaCrosse, where he has been instructed to meet with the Vicar for Clergy at least once a month, and has been “invited to begin” a month-long “spiritual retreat” to help him to “spiritually heal” and “address the issues that caused the issuance of this decree.”
The order states it is in effect as long as “cause” is present, but it does not specify what the cause is. Callahan said he asked Altman to resign on May 23 for being “divisive and ineffective.”
Altman first triggered backlash from his bishop when his video “You cannot be a Catholic and a Democrat. Period” went viral last year. Altman shared that in response to this, his office “got the most vile, despicable phone calls, letters” and “some terrible, really foul messages.”
Callahan criticized Altman at the time for his “manner and tone,” to which Altman countered, “what about the manner and tone of the 10,000 babies that are chopped up last Saturday?”
“What I would hope would always come through no matter what people think about my manner and tone, is that they would recognize that what’s coming through there is God’s love,” Altman told LifeSiteNews. “A love that I recognize because He’s loved me, and I didn’t deserve that.”
“If I seem angry at times, it has nothing to do with me, it has to do with the people. And I asked the question recently, how can they love? If you love, how can you not feed your children?”
In late April, Altman chided the U.S. bishops for needlessly shutting churches and denying the faithful sacraments during the COVID-19 pandemic, saying the hierarchy showed “an abundance of cowardice.”
In his interview with LifeSite, Altman alluded to the fact that some don’t like seeing him “upset.”
“I’m thinking well, if you’re denying my child food, the Bread of Life – [Bishop Fulton J. Sheen] said, if you can’t get angry about stuff like that then you can’t love either. Because greater love has greater anger towards those things that are contrary to the salvation of eternal souls, which is the only thing that matters in the end,” said Altman.
"I don’t care what they do to me, honestly, in the end… what troubles me is the interference with the feeding of God’s children, which is through word and through the sacrament. Both of which were denied to people over the past 15 months."
Please continue to SIGN and SHARE this petition, and to continue to contact the Diocese of LaCrosse's Chancery Office, to politely voice your opposition to the removal of Fr. Altman from his parish. The Chancery's phone number is: 608-788-7700.
_______________________________________________________________________
PETITION UPDATE (5/24/2021) -
Father James Altman, the Wisconsin priest whose video message last fall "You can’t be a Catholic and a Democrat" went viral and who has fearlessly admonished the U.S. bishops for shutting churches and denying the faithful Sacraments during the COVID-19 crisis, announced on Pentecost Sunday that his bishop has asked him to resign for being "divisive and ineffective."
Please CLICK HERE to READ LifeSiteNews' latest article related to Fr. Altman's ongoing persecution, just to continue shepherding his flock.
Bishop William P. Callahan began threatening the outspoken priest with "canonical penalties" in September, even as public support for the priest surged among rank-and-file Catholics around the country and the world.
And now, a group called 'Faithful America' is proudly boasting responsibility for taking down Fr. Altman, but Faithful America are not even a Catholic organization!
Thankfully, Fr. Altman says he is working with a canon lawyer to resolve this matter.
WATCH Fr. Altman's Sunday sermon in which he announces the bishop's decision to ask for his resignation.
"In response my canon lawyer asked for clarification – asked for the justification and a chance to review what was in my file that suggested I was so divisive and ineffective,” explained Altman. “And I say all this only because, I'm no expert on canon law, but understand only that while we are contesting bishop's request — and we are — he could in theory appoint a parish administrator whilst I remain a pastor without duties until the appeal goes through Rome, which could take up to a year or more."
Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, offered his support for Altman via Twitter.
Please continue to SIGN and SHARE this petition with your like-minded family and friends.
And, after signing and sharing, please take a minute to contact the LaCrosse Diocese to politely voice your support for Fr. Altman, and against leftist pressure groups like 'Faithful America.' Please ask Bishop Callahan to prayerfully reconsider his decision and allow Fr. Altman to remain as pastor of St. James the Less parish.
The phone number for the diocese office is: 608.788.7700
Thank you!
PETITION UPDATE (9/15/2020) -
Just this past weekend a prayer vigil was held outside the Cathedral in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, on behalf of Fr. James Altman, the priest facing Church penalties for saying that you cannot be a Catholic and a Democrat in 2020.
Hundreds of faithful Catholics turn out to pray for Fr. Altman. Though Fr. Altman did use strong language to warn his flock against spiritual perils, what he said about the Democratic Party's platform is true!
Motivated by a deep sense of justice, supporters gathered at the Cathedral to pray for the priest, and for Bishop Callahan to stand by his priest rather than punish him.
"Fr. Altman is a rare breed. He’s a modern-day St. John the Baptist," declared one woman who attended the prayer vigil. "He’s really changed my life and so many others he’s had that impact on. We need more priests who are true shepherds."
Fr. Richard Heilman, who is the founder of the U.S. Grace Force and who was also present to help lead people in prayer during the vigil, had this to say about Fr. Altman: "Bottom line: he loves, loves, loves his flock. And so, like a good shepherd, if he sees the wolves invading, he sounds the warning alarm."
Please consider SIGNING this petition if you have not already signed. And, please SHARE this petition and video with your family, friends and colleagues. Thank you!
If after signing and sharing you wish to make an even greater impact, we encourage you to contact the Diocese of LaCrosse's Chancery Offices to politely let them know that you support Fr. Altman and want to see him continue in his essential ministry.
Diocese of LaCrosse's Chancery Office phone number: 608-788-7700.
___________________________________________________________________________________
ORIGINAL PETITION TEXT:
Father James Altman, pastor of St. James the Less parish in the Wisconsin Diocese of LaCrosse, has been threatened with canonical punishment by his Bishop, Most Rev. William Patrick Callahan.
Fr. Altman's alleged "offense"?
Stating what every faithful Catholic knows to be true in 2020: "You cannot be a Catholic and a Democrat."
Please SIGN this petition which will go to Bishop Callahan and ask him to stop any canonical proceedings against Fr. Altman.
In a strongly-worded YouTube video, designed to shepherd the faithful out of harm's way (supporting the Democratic Party's evil platform), Fr. Altman states the following:
"Here's a memo to clueless, baptized Catholics out there: You cannot be Catholic and be a Democrat. Period. Their party platform absolutely is against everything the Catholic Church teaches. So, just quit pretending that you're Catholic and vote Democrat. Repent of your support of that party and its platform, or face the fires of Hell..."
Strong stuff to be sure, but Fr. Altman was taking his cue from Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (whom he quotes) – the Church has a "duty and obligation" to speak up when politicians act in an immoral way.
In other words, a pastor must give strong warnings, at times, to guide souls away from grave danger, even when the dangers come from politicians or a political party.
When your house is burning down...or, more appropriately, when someone is attempting to burn your house down, it's time to dispense with the niceties of politically correct language.
And, as Fr. Altman suggests, the Democratic Party's evil platform which promotes the desecration of God's plan for humanity is, in effect, trying to burn down our house (i.e., the Church).
Not only do the Democrats openly advocate for abortion (i.e., killing innocent human beings), but they also promote the destruction of the natural family and the desecration of human nature in support of the homosexual and transgender agendas.
Remember the following:
The Obama-Biden Administration attempted to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to participate in the provision of abortion-inducing drugs and contraception and threatened schools with the loss of federal funding if they wouldn’t let boys in girls’ bathrooms and vice versa.
Democratic Senators Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono grilled a judge, who is a Knight of Columbus, on his membership in the Knights, absurdly suggesting that membership in the Catholic mens' fraternal organization should disqualify someone from sitting on the bench.
And, in 2017, the DNC Chairman said that pro-lifers were not welcome in the party.
No faithful Catholic should even think about voting for such a platform. And, the bishops should be on the frontlines, speaking this truth to power.
Thankfully, the Bishop of Tyler, Texas, Most Rev. Joseph Strickland, has come out in support of Fr. Altman's statement, tweeting:
"As the Bishop of Tyler I endorse Fr. Altman’s statement in this video. My shame is that it has taken me so long. Thank you Fr Altman for your COURAGE. If you love Jesus & His Church & this nation...please HEED THIS MESSAGE.”
With this petition, we now ask that Fr. Altman's own bishop, Most. Rev. Callahan, likewise support his priest and stop any canonical proceedings against him.
Devoid of united leadership from the Hierarchy, individual priests must do their best to inform the laity of the mortal dangers on full view in the Democrats' platform.
And, threatening to silence priests for strongly speaking the truth only plays into the hand of those who actually hate what the Church stands for...and who will, if elected, most likely seek to injure, or even eradicate, the Church.
The bishops should know that the legacy of the Democratic Party being the party of the small man and of the Catholic immigrant is now over.
The Democratic Party of today is the party of radical individualism, not the common good. And, rabid support for abortion and the homosexual agenda are practically obligatory.
As such, the Democratic Party is not a friend of the Church and any priest or bishop who thinks otherwise is being deceived, or allowing himself to be deceived or bullied.
This is not just an abstraction! This is a serious threat to Christianity and their party's platform needs to be met with strong opposition.
Thank you for SIGNING this petition to the bishop of LaCrosse, Wisconsin, Bishop Callahan, asking him to support Fr. Altman rather than bringing any canonical proceedings against him.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
'Bishop threatens ‘canonical penalties’ for priest whose viral video warned Catholics can’t be Democrats': https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-threatens-canonical-penalties-for-fr-altman
YouTube Video - 'Fr. James Altman: You cannot be Catholic & a Democrat. Period.': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-7eoTN2vNM
Statement regarding Fr. James Altman from Bishop Callahan: https://diolc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Statement-Father-James-Altman-090920.pdf
'Bishop Strickland echoes priest: ‘You cannot be Catholic and be a Democrat’': https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-strickland-echoes-priest-you-cannot-be-catholic-and-be-a-democrat
**Photo Credit: Screen capture from Fr. James Altman's YouTube video on Alpha News MN


lifesitenews--2020-10-27--What if Russia legalizing abortion in 1920 started Satan’s 100 years of freedom?

Russia ( the Soviet Union ) became the first country in the world to legalize abortion .
What if this opened a gigantic satanic portal , and the ticking clock of Satan ’ s 100-year unbinding started when Russia was the first to legalize abortion in 1920 ?
Literally , the biggest satanic portal opening one could imagine .
Maybe this points to the “ errors of Russia ” ?
Maybe , because Russia opened the portal , this is why Russia was singled out for Consecration ?
I wrote about the potential significance of the 100 years since Fatima @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years of Satan.
” At that time , I counted myself among those who speculated that 100 years stretched from 1917 to 2017 .
Yet , since 2017 , it has been challenging to explain the alarming acceleration of evil .
I ’ ve speculated that it is Satan having a temper-tantrum , as he is doing all he can to regain his “ greater strength , ” and that could still be true .
The Latin phrase , motus in fine velocior , is commonly used to indicate the faster passing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historical period .
I ’ ve heard it said that it means , “ Things accelerate toward the end.
” We are living through an historical hour which is not necessarily the end of times , but certainly could be marked as the end of an era .
Don ’ t we all know that abortion is the worst genocide in human history , now with 1.7 billion babies slaughtered world-wide since 1973 ?
And , this horror unto God all began just three years after Fatima , as Russia was the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1920 .
Don ’ t we all know that this battle has always been about abortion ?
The sacrament of the Left .
That would make the October we are living in right now , the 100th anniversary of the opening of that portal .
Could this explain the awful evil we have witnessed in recent years , especially in this demonic 2020 ?
This thought came to me as I watched Amy Comey Barrett being sworn in .
The nail in the coffin to the culture of death ... on our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was opened 100 years ago this month in October of 1920 .

PETITION UPDATE (3/15/21) -
Reports suggest that the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference (USCCB) is preparing a vote on what to do about pro-abortion Joe Biden (and, presumably, other abortion-promoting politicians) who continues to present himself (themselves) for Holy Communion.
Public excommunication would be a suitable response for Biden's obstinate, public and grave sin of scandalously promoting abortion.
Please continue to SIGN and SHARE this important petition.
__________________________________________________________________
PETITION UPDATE (2/4/20)
Since Joe Biden was sworn-in on the 20th of January, he has wasted no time in signing Executive Orders to destroy the protections which former President Trump offered to the unborn and to the innocence and modesty of children of the United States.
In one executive order, Biden rescinded the Mexico City Policy prohibiting the federal government from spending taxpayer monies on abortion and the promotion of abortion.
And, in another executive order, Biden seeks to force girls' athletic programs, restrooms, and locker rooms to accept gender-confused males.
Since the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was shamefully silent throughout the presidential campaign on the pre-eminent issues of abortion and gender ideology, and what Biden vowed he would do as president, it is cold comfort that their pro-life office is now speaking up about this Administration's wilful disregard for human life and for God's design of human nature (i.e., two biological sexes).
Stated plainly, Joe Biden is as bad as he said he would be, and the bishop, acting in unison (as the USCCB) have an obligation to the Lord (first) and to the faithful (second) to refuse Holy Communion to this grave public sinner.
With all due respect to these bishops, they diminish the Holy Eucharist and their high office, as well as cause grave scandal to the faithful, by dialoguing with a man who is promoting mass murder of the unborn against the constant teaching of the Church.
A man who continues to use the church as a backdrop for statements about how "Catholic/religious" he is, but, at the same time, is now doing everything in his power to protect the murder of the innocent, needs to publicly repent before dialogue can begin.
The bishops should not dialogue with or congratulate someone who has publicly betrayed the Church's teaching and who is leading others astray.
It's an embarrassment and a scandal for the bishops to continue to allow him to receive Holy Communion.
Please SIGN and SHARE this petition today!
________________________________________________________________________________________________
PETITION UPDATE (12/10/20)
Prior to the election on November 3, the U.S. bishops did not address Joe Biden’s anti-Catholic position regarding faith and morals as a unified body.
The USCCB, the organization to which every U.S. bishop belongs and which is staffed and led by bishops, remained disgracefully silent in the run-up to the election.
What were the bishops afraid of, losing their charitable tax status with the IRS, or being deprived of fat checks from the HHS (immigration programs) and USAID (foreign aid programs)?
Or, were they just too cowardly to clearly declare Christ's law to be above man's law and risk the ire of a Joe Biden as president?
Either way, the bishops’ lack of clarity in this regard is a terrible scandal in itself and probably greatly contributed to the possible election of a pro-abortion, anti-Catholic Catholic to the presidency.
Given the fact that exit polling shows Catholics split their vote 50-50 for Trump and Biden, even a slight deviation in the heavily-Catholic swing-states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania could have produced different results.
The bishops could have spoken out against Biden’s pro-abortion stance collectively, but, again, they were overwhelmingly and shamefully silent.
Because of this, they will be at least partly responsible for the policies advanced by a Biden administration, in the event that Biden is sworn into office.
However, the bishops can, even now, mitigate the damage done by their inaction by taking the following steps: 1) Speak with one voice, as the USCCB, and plainly condemn Biden's pro-abortion stance; 2) Publicly advise Biden not to present himself for Holy Communion because of his scandalous position on abortion and homosexual "marriage;" and, 3) Tell Biden to publicly repent of publicly promoting the wilfull murder of the preborn, sins against nature, and diminishing the natural family.
Thankfully, some individual bishops have spoken out forcefully on Biden's scandalous behavior, and his standing in the Church.
On November 9, Archbishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas tweeted: “A dark cloud has descended on this nation when the USCCB and Planned Parenthood speak in unison in support of a Biden-Harris administration that supports the slaughter of innocents by abortion for all 9 months of pregnancy.”
Additionally, Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver, Colorado and Archbishop Charles Chaput have both declared publicly that Joe Biden “should not receive Holy Communion."
But, to add insult to injury, Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington, D.C. has said that he will give Holy Communion to Biden because “it’s a matter of the responsibility that I have as the archbishop to be engaged and to be in dialogue with him, even in those areas where we obviously have some differences.”
And, Bishop W. Francis Malooly of Wilmington, Delaware and Bishop McElroy of San Diego also congratulated Biden in statements, but they have not indicated whether or not they would administer Holy Communion to him.
With all due respect to these bishops, they diminish the Holy Eucharist and their high office, as well as cause grave scandal to the faithful, by dialoguing with a man who is promoting mass murder of the unborn against the constant teaching of the Church.
A man who uses the church as a backdrop to make sickening political advertisements about how "Catholic/religious" he is, but, at the same time, says that he will do everything in his power to protect the murder of the innocent, needs to publicly repent before dialogue can begin.
The bishops should not dialogue with or congratulate someone who has publicly betrayed the Church's teaching and who is leading others astray.
It's an embarrassment and a scandal for the bishops to continue to allow him to receive Holy Communion.
Please SIGN and SHARE this petition today!
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-bishops-concerned-about-pro-abortion-biden-previously-hailed-him-as-second-catholic-president
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abp-aquila-backs-call-for-pro-abortion-catholic-joe-biden-to-be-denied-holy-communion?utm_source=top_news&utm_campaign=standard
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-philly-archbishop-biden-not-in-full-communion-with-the-catholic-church
https://www.thesoutherncross.org/news/bishop-mcelroy-offers-prayers-and-congratulations-to-president-elect-biden/
https://www.ncronline.org/news/politics/us-catholics-weigh-mixed-reaction-biden-win
____________________________________________________________________________
PETITION UPDATE (9/29/20)
Cardinal Raymond Burke has stated that Democratic candidate Joe Biden should not receive Holy Communion because of his support for abortion.
In an interview for Thomas McKenna's Catholic Action for Faith and Family podcast, Cardinal Burke states the following (starting around 5:00):
First of all, I would tell him [Biden] not to approach to receive Holy Communion, out of charity toward him, because that would be a sacrilege and endanger the salvation of his own soul.
But, also, he should not approach to receive Holy Communion because he gives scandal to everyone, because if someone says, 'I'm a devout Catholic," and, at the same time is promoting abortion, it gives the impression to others that it's acceptable for a Catholic to be in favor of abortion.
Of course, it's absolutely not acceptable, and never has been, and never will be.
We give thanks for Cardinal Burke's frankness and clarity. And, we call on every U.S. Catholic bishop to follow Cardinal Burke's lead and call out Joe Biden for his bloody-minded hypocrisy on the issue of abortion.
To reiterate: You cannot be a Catholic and support abortion.
Thank you for continuing to sign this urgent petition.
___________________________________________________________________________
PETITION UPDATE (8/17/20)
The Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden, keeps claiming to be Catholic but has said he will do everything in his power to support abortion.
And, with his pick of California Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate, Biden has just cemented abortion into the Democrats' 2020 presidential ticket.
Indeed, Harris is vehemently pro-abortion.
During her time as attorney general of California, Harris played a key role in defending Planned Parenthood over its sale of aborted baby parts (which violated multiple federal laws, according to undercover video of abortion industry personnel).
And, last year, Harris unveiled a plan to essentially force pro-life states to seek permission from the federal government before pro-life laws can take effect.
Additionally, Harris has dangerous views on religious liberty and freedom of speech.
Harris displayed anti-Catholic bigotry in the confirmation hearings of Judge Brian Buescher. Harris cited his membership in the “all-male society” the Knights of Columbus and its stances against abortion and same-sex “marriage” as grounds for rejecting Buescher for a federal district court in Nebraska.
And, David Daleiden, head of the pro-life investigative group Center for Medical Progress, wrote that from his firsthand experience, he considers Harris the “greatest threat to First Amendment civil rights our country has ever seen.”
Joe Biden has seriously erred by taking on Kamala Harris as his running mate, further distancing himself from the truths of the Catholic Faith, especially that every life is sacred from conception till natural death.
Please CLICK HERE to read an article which details one U.S. bishop's warning about the Biden-Harris ticket.
And, please continue to SIGN and SHARE this petition.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Of course, these two things are incompatible: you cannot be Catholic and pro-abortion.
And, a "Catholic" politician's responsibility in this regard is absolute: On pain of serious sin, he or she can never promote abortion because abortion is the wilful murder of innocent preborn human beings, and also because doing so causes grave scandal to the Church and the faithful.
Please SIGN this urgent petition asking the bishops of the United States to refuse to give Holy Communion to Joe Biden until he publicly repents from his scandalous promotion of abortion.
Biden recently promised to “codify Roe v. Wade” as president, adding, "my Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate a woman’s protected, constitutional right to choose."
And, since starting his latest run for the presidency, Biden also flip-flopped against the Hyde Amendment, saying that he would allow federal funds to be spent on abortion - a position he claimed to be against for more than 40 years.
In short, Joe Biden will do everything in his power to enable and defend the wilful murder of innocent preborn human beings.
So, this should not be a hard decision for our U.S. bishops. In fact, in another circumstance, it was already done by an Illinois bishop.
Indeed, Bishop Paprocki, of Springfield, Illinois, invoked Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law to withdraw Holy Communion from two Illinois state politicians who had worked to enact radical new abortion legislation in 2019.
Canon 915 states: "Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."
Of course, no-one, least of all the bishops, wants anyone to be deprived of Holy Communion.
A politician who publicly and obstinately advocates for the murder of innocent preborn babies puts himself out-of-communion with the Church and her teaching.
Pro-abortion politicians should not think that they can advocate for the murder of the unborn and receive the Body of Christ at the same time. This would be to defile the Eucharist while giving scandal to the faithful.
Depriving politicians of Holy Communion is not just meant to prevent scandal; it is also designed to bring a grave public sinner to repentance. In this way, such an action is meant to be for the good of their souls, too.
Thank you for SIGNING this urgent petition which calls on the U.S. Catholic bishops to refuse to admit Joe Biden to Holy Communion until he publicly repents from his scandalous promotion of abortion.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Joe Biden: I support abortion ‘under any circumstance’ - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/joe-biden-i-support-abortion-under-any-circumstance
Catholic priest denies Joe Biden Holy Communion for pro-abortion stance - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-priest-denies-joe-biden-holy-communion-for-pro-abortion-stance
Cardinal McCarrick and the Concealing of Rome’s Position on Denying Communion - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-mccarrick-and-the-concealing-of-romes-position-on-denying-communio
**Photo Credit: Joshua Roberts / Getty Images


lifesitenews--2020-10-27--Franklin Graham, evangelicals condemn Pope Francis’ support for gay civil unions

October 27 , 2020 ( ) — Pope Francis ’ pronouncement seemingly supporting the has not only caused confusion and recoil among many Catholics .
It also invited criticism from Protestant leaders who see him departing from Bible truths .
“ The news has reported that Pope Francis said in a new documentary that ‘ homosexuals have a right to be part of the family ’ and is calling for civil union laws for same-sex couples , ” noted Evangelist Franklin Graham , son of the late Rev .
Billy Graham .
“ I find these comments from the Pope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God.
” “ For Pope Francis to attempt to normalize homosexuality is to say that Holy Scriptures are false , that our sins really don ’ t matter , and that we can continue living in them , ” said Graham in a post .
“ If that were true , then Jesus Christ ’ s death , burial , and resurrection wouldn ’ t have been needed .
The cross would have been for nothing .
No one has the right or the authority to trivialize Christ ’ s sacrifice on our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear that He loves us and does want us to be part of His family , but He also tells us how that can happen .
The Bible says , “ Repent therefore and be converted , that your sins may be blotted out , so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord ” ( Acts 3:19 ) .
I want everyone to know the truth and to find the peace that comes only from fully surrendering our lives to Him and His commands .
The consequence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear in the Word of God — eternal death .
Unless we repent and receive His offer of forgiveness , surrendering our lives to Him , we will spend eternity as part of a different family when we leave this earth — the family of the condemned .
In light of the pontiff ’ s surprising endorsement of same-sex civil unions , Southern Baptist leaders felt compelled to to the authority of the Bible ’ s teaching about sexuality and marriage .
“ No matter what a pope , pastor or elected official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ define sexuality or the family , ” said Southern Baptist Convention ( SBC ) President J. D. Greear , who is also pastor of The Summit Church in the Raleigh-Durham , North Carolina , area .
“ The Creator does , and on this His word could not be more clear.
” “ Our authority does not come from a man or a group of men and women , but from the Bible alone , ” said Ronnie Floyd , president and CEO of the SBC Executive Committee .
“ When the Bible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teaches marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime.
” “ Other faiths may choose other authorities to determine their beliefs on marriage , family , sexuality and other matters of life .
However , as Baptists we believe the Bible has God for its author , salvation for its end and truth , without any mixture of error , for its matter , ” continued Floyd .
“ Therefore , all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy , ” said Floyd .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about marriage , family , sexuality or anything else because the Bible is God ’ s perfect treasure of divine instruction.
” “ Every wing of the church — Catholic , Protestant , Orthodox — has for 2,000 years affirmed Jesus ’ view of marriage — that marriage is , from the beginning , a union between a man and a woman in covenant fidelity to one another , ” asserted Russell Moore , president of the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission .
“ We ought to treat everyone justly and with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagree , but no church has the authority to put asunder what Christ has joined together in the Word He has given to us , ” said Moore .
At the Vatican ’ s November 2014 ecumenical colloquium on the Complementarity of Man and Woman , Moore , outshining many of the Catholic speakers , including Pope Francis , who had addressed the gathering of 300 leaders from various faith traditions around the world .
“ People are looking for a cosmic mystery , for a love that is stronger than death , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not articulate it and perhaps would be horrified to know it , but they are looking for God.
” Moore explained what is at stake if Christianity supports anything other than the complementarity of man and woman .
“ What is disrupted when we move beyond the creation design of marriage and family is not only human flourishing , although it is that , but also the picture of the very mystery that defines the existence of the universe itself — the Gospel of Jesus Christ , ” warned Moore , presciently , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who had invited him to speak at the Vatican event .
“ We will not capitulate on these issues , because we can not , ” declared Moore .
In a new documentary first shown last Wednesday , Pope Francis was as saying , “ Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family .
They ’ re children of God and have a right to a family .
Nobody should be thrown out , or be made miserable because of it.
” He also said , “ What we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law .
That way they are legally covered .
I stood up for that.
” The Catholic News Agency has since that “ several sentences spoken by the pope in the documentary were spliced together , out of context , from [ a ] 2019 interview , and journalists have since then asked questions about the precise nature of the pope ’ s remarks on civil unions.
” The Pope himself , or the Vatican ’ s press office , has yet to clarify the remarks .

‘I find these comments from the Pope unthinkable in light of the Word of God,’ said Franklin Graham.
October 27, 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Pope Francis’ pronouncement seemingly supporting the legalization of homosexual civil unions has not only caused confusion and recoil among many Catholics. It also invited criticism from Protestant leaders who see him departing from Bible truths.
“The news has reported that Pope Francis said in a new documentary that ‘homosexuals have a right to be part of the family’ and is calling for civil union laws for same-sex couples,” noted Evangelist Franklin Graham, son of the late Rev. Billy Graham. “I find these comments from the Pope unthinkable in light of the Word of God.”
“For Pope Francis to attempt to normalize homosexuality is to say that Holy Scriptures are false, that our sins really don’t matter, and that we can continue living in them,” said Graham in a Facebook post. “If that were true, then Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection wouldn’t have been needed. The cross would have been for nothing. No one has the right or the authority to trivialize Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf.”
Graham continued:
Yes, God makes it clear that He loves us and does want us to be part of His family, but He also tells us how that can happen. The Bible says, “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3:19). I want everyone to know the truth and to find the peace that comes only from fully surrendering our lives to Him and His commands. The consequence of an unrepentant, unbelieving heart is also clear in the Word of God — eternal death. Unless we repent and receive His offer of forgiveness, surrendering our lives to Him, we will spend eternity as part of a different family when we leave this earth — the family of the condemned.
In light of the pontiff’s surprising endorsement of same-sex civil unions, Southern Baptist leaders felt compelled to restate their commitment to the authority of the Bible’s teaching about sexuality and marriage.
“No matter what a pope, pastor or elected official says, we do not get to define sexuality or the family,” said Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) President J. D. Greear, who is also pastor of The Summit Church in the Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, area. “The Creator does, and on this His word could not be more clear.”
“Our authority does not come from a man or a group of men and women, but from the Bible alone,” said Ronnie Floyd, president and CEO of the SBC Executive Committee. “When the Bible speaks, God speaks. The Bible teaches marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime.”
“Other faiths may choose other authorities to determine their beliefs on marriage, family, sexuality and other matters of life. However, as Baptists we believe the Bible has God for its author, salvation for its end and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter,” continued Floyd.
“Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy,” said Floyd. “We need not add anything to the Bible about marriage, family, sexuality or anything else because the Bible is God’s perfect treasure of divine instruction.”
“Every wing of the church — Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox — has for 2,000 years affirmed Jesus’ view of marriage — that marriage is, from the beginning, a union between a man and a woman in covenant fidelity to one another,” asserted Russell Moore, president of the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.
“We ought to treat everyone justly and with compassion, including those with whom we disagree, but no church has the authority to put asunder what Christ has joined together in the Word He has given to us,” said Moore.
At the Vatican’s November 2014 ecumenical colloquium on the Complementarity of Man and Woman, Moore spoke eloquently and compellingly , outshining many of the Catholic speakers, including Pope Francis, who had addressed the gathering of 300 leaders from various faith traditions around the world.
— 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
“People are looking for a cosmic mystery, for a love that is stronger than death,” said Moore. “They cannot articulate it and perhaps would be horrified to know it, but they are looking for God.”
Moore explained what is at stake if Christianity supports anything other than the complementarity of man and woman.
“What is disrupted when we move beyond the creation design of marriage and family is not only human flourishing, although it is that, but also the picture of the very mystery that defines the existence of the universe itself — the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” warned Moore, presciently, against the future remarks of the Pope, who had invited him to speak at the Vatican event.
“We will not capitulate on these issues, because we cannot,” declared Moore.
In a new documentary first shown last Wednesday, Pope Francis was quoted as saying, “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.”
He also said, “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.”
The Catholic News Agency has since reported that “several sentences spoken by the pope in the documentary were spliced together, out of context, from [a] 2019 interview, and journalists have since then asked questions about the precise nature of the pope’s remarks on civil unions.”
The Pope himself, or the Vatican’s press office, has yet to clarify the remarks.
Share