lifesitenews--2020-06-24--‘I’ll delete it’: New undercover video shows Facebook content moderators censoring conservatives

PETITION : Investigate George Soros ' role in funding domestic terrorism !
Sign the petition here .
June 24 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A whistleblower on a company employed by Facebook to manage content on the site has released undercover video footage showing staff with an anti-conservative bias deliberately censoring pro-Trump , pro-conservative posts .
In a newly released video by Project Veritas , former Cognizant employee Zach McElroy filmed content moderators at the Facebook contractor admitting that they proactively deleted conservative and pro-Trump posts .
McElroy also revealed that Cognizant ’ s Facebook moderators were told not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Don Lemon , where he said that white men are “ the biggest terror threat in this country.
” “ This is implying that white men are terrorists and so would typically violate ( Facebook rules against “ dehumanizing ” speech ) .
As this is a newsworthy event , FB ’ s content policy team is allowing a narrow exception for this content on the platform , ” reads what appears to be a November 2018 memo given to moderators .
“ Certainly there is obviously an intention on Facebook 's part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN and hosts like Don Lemon , ” McElroy says .
At one point in the newly released video footage , a Facebook insider tells a group of Cognizant content moderators that he ’ s thinking about deleting “ every Donald Trump post I see on the timeline ” of a Facebook user .
As other moderators laugh and agree , another content moderator replies “ Oh , OK , I thought I was the only one.
” Other footage shows Cognizant employees saying they ’ ll use their final days of working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative content .
“ You don ’ t let any go , do you ?
Like , if you see a conservative post you just get rid of it , right ?
” a Project Veritas journalist asks a Cognizant content moderator .
“ Yes !
I don ’ t give no fu* !
s , I ’ ll delete it , ” she answers .
“ Even if it ’ s in policy , you ’ re deleting that , right ?
” the operative replies .
“ Yeah , I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s like one week left .
What are they gon na do ?
” she responds .
Another Cognizant content moderator said she would “ delete all Republicans ” on her last day at work .
“ If someone is wearing a MAGA hat , I am going to delete them for terrorism and just going to like go crazy , ” she says .
Other footage shows Cognizant ’ s service delivery manager , Demian Gordon , saying he wouldn ’ t hold staff accountable for taking down Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cheeto ( Trump ) out of the office , ” Gordon says .
One content moderator told a Project Veritas journalist that she had deleted posts that just included the text “ # MAGA.
” While acknowledging that “ the actions of the content moderators may not be conclusive evidence of structural bias at Facebook , ” Project Veritas CEO James O ’ Keefe says .
“ McElroy ’ s story raises serious doubts about the ‘ under oath ’ testimony of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to Congress where he claimed Facebook has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very simple you 've got a formula you 've got a workplace full of mostly liberal-leaning Democrats , leftists , essentially , ” McElroy concludes .
“ They are being put in charge of moderating the entire public discourse .
Facebook and Instagram are very large platforms .
One of the biggest and our voices are in the hands of people who are almost entirely left-leaning.
” Earlier this month , Facebook promised to “ protect political speech , even when we strongly disagree with it ” after presidential candidate Joe Biden called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ censor Donald Trump ’ s re-election campaign .
Multiple analyses have found that algorithm changes instituted at the beginning of 2018 disproportionately impacted conservative politicians and websites .
Last year , an insider revealed that Facebook “ deboosts ” traffic to several mainstream conservative sites .

‘Gotta get the Cheeto (Trump) out of the office,’ undercover video shows one staff member saying.
PETITION: Investigate George Soros' role in funding domestic terrorism! Sign the petition here.
June 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A whistleblower on a company employed by Facebook to manage content on the site has released undercover video footage showing staff with an anti-conservative bias deliberately censoring pro-Trump, pro-conservative posts.
In a newly released video by Project Veritas, former Cognizant employee Zach McElroy filmed content moderators at the Facebook contractor admitting that they proactively deleted conservative and pro-Trump posts.
McElroy also revealed that Cognizant’s Facebook moderators were told not to censor a video of CNN host Don Lemon, where he said that white men are “the biggest terror threat in this country.”
“This is implying that white men are terrorists and so would typically violate (Facebook rules against “dehumanizing” speech). As this is a newsworthy event, FB’s content policy team is allowing a narrow exception for this content on the platform,” reads what appears to be a November 2018 memo given to moderators.
“Certainly there is obviously an intention on Facebook's part to have the back of people like CNN and hosts like Don Lemon,” McElroy says.
At one point in the newly released video footage, a Facebook insider tells a group of Cognizant content moderators that he’s thinking about deleting “every Donald Trump post I see on the timeline” of a Facebook user. As other moderators laugh and agree, another content moderator replies “Oh, OK, I thought I was the only one.”
Other footage shows Cognizant employees saying they’ll use their final days of working as content moderators to purge Facebook of conservative content.
“You don’t let any go, do you? Like, if you see a conservative post you just get rid of it, right?” a Project Veritas journalist asks a Cognizant content moderator. “Yes! I don’t give no fu*!s, I’ll delete it,” she answers.
“Even if it’s in policy, you’re deleting that, right?” the operative replies.
“Yeah, I don’t give no fu*!s. It’s like one week left. What are they gonna do?” she responds.
Another Cognizant content moderator said she would “delete all Republicans” on her last day at work.
“If someone is wearing a MAGA hat, I am going to delete them for terrorism and just going to like go crazy,” she says.
Other footage shows Cognizant’s service delivery manager, Demian Gordon, saying he wouldn’t hold staff accountable for taking down Trump posts.
“Gotta get the Cheeto (Trump) out of the office,” Gordon says.
One content moderator told a Project Veritas journalist that she had deleted posts that just included the text “#MAGA.”
While acknowledging that “the actions of the content moderators may not be conclusive evidence of structural bias at Facebook,” Project Veritas CEO James O’Keefe says. “McElroy’s story raises serious doubts about the ‘under oath’ testimony of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to Congress where he claimed Facebook has no political bias.”
“It's very simple you've got a formula you've got a workplace full of mostly liberal-leaning Democrats, leftists, essentially,” McElroy concludes.
“They are being put in charge of moderating the entire public discourse. Facebook and Instagram are very large platforms. One of the biggest and our voices are in the hands of people who are almost entirely left-leaning.”
Earlier this month, Facebook promised to “protect political speech, even when we strongly disagree with it” after presidential candidate Joe Biden called for the social media giant to essentially censor Donald Trump’s re-election campaign.
Multiple analyses have found that algorithm changes instituted at the beginning of 2018 disproportionately impacted conservative politicians and websites. Last year, an insider revealed that Facebook “deboosts” traffic to several mainstream conservative sites.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-24--5 reasons why Catholics should only receive Holy Communion on the tongue

June 24 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – With orders to refuse the faithful Holy Communion on the tongue coming from governmental health authorities and even some bishops , I wanted to give you the reasons why I could never receive Holy Communion in the hand .
And , if the matter was forced , I would make the sacrifice of just making a spiritual Holy Communion .
Below are five reasons why Catholics should not receive Holy Communion on the hand .
# 1 The first point I ’ d like to make is about the reverence due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the false notion that people receive Communion on the tongue out of some false piety or holier-than-thou attitude .
While I can ’ t discount that there is some of that going on , from those I ’ ve witnessed and read about , receiving on the tongue comes from a deep reverential love of the King of Kings whom we receive in this Great Sacrament .
And I believe receiving Our Lord on the tongue while kneeling reinforces that reverence for Our Eucharistic Lord .
Some of the most powerful arguments for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in the Bible .
Remember when Moses first met the Lord God in the burning bush , as we read about in Exodus 3 ?
Moses was told not to come too near to the burning bush and to remove his sandals because he was on holy ground .
In Psalm 95 we read , “ Come let us adore and fall down : and weep before the Lord that made us.
” We see it in the New Testament too , when Peter , James , and John on Mt .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ glorified body of Jesus , which we receive in Holy Communion – and they prostrated themselves with their foreheads to the ground .
But the Biblical account that speaks to this subject most directly for me is what happened with the Ark of the Covenant .
You can read the account in both 2 Samuel 6:1-7 and 1 Chronicles 13:9-12 .
The Ark of the Covenant was designed by God and built to the Lord ’ s specifications .
It contained manna , the staff of Moses , and the tablets of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it was never allowed to be touched except by certain Levites – the priests of the time .
That reservation of touching the Ark to priests only was potently reinforced when a layman named Uzzah who was transporting the Ark at the request of King David was struck dead by God for touching it .
Now , get this , Uzzah was trying to do the right thing .
He was doing what he thought was right to save the Ark .
He and his brother were transporting the Ark in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along the journey , it was tilted and so Uzzah used his hand to steady the Ark and was struck dead by the Lord .
Scripture explains that the Lord struck him down because he was not to touch the Ark .
It is very much the same in our time when many are trying to do what they think is the right thing for the coronavirus by receiving Communion on the hand .
And yet with the Ark , it was not the right thing to do even though it is what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good intent to save the Ark from harm , just as many are receiving on the hand today with good intent to save their brothers and sisters in Christ from possible Coronavirus infection or to save the Church so she has the freedom to distribute Holy Communion at all .
Nevertheless , touching the Ark was the wrong thing to do .
The Lord ’ s decision here perplexed David , who thereafter was afraid to bring the Ark of the Lord to himself .
And yet what was the Ark of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Eucharist ?
The Ark was revered in the temple .
It was carried in ceremony and was considered holy .
And yet it was only the footstool of God .
It was His presence , veiled , and a prefiguring of His Real Presence in the Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ , whom we receive in Holy Communion .
My wife , a convert to Catholicism , asked me the other day how communion in the hand makes sense given the practices in the Church of consecrating the altar and sacred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see priests , bishops , even the Pope , covering his hands with the vestment called a Humeral veil during Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament .
This is all about the sacredness of Christ in the Eucharist .
If we allow everyone to touch the Sacred Host with their hands the practice of the Humeral veil becomes truly strange .
I ’ ll conclude this point on reverence towards Our Eucharistic Lord quoting from Dietrich von Hildebrand , a German Catholic philosopher and religious writer known and loved by the last number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the twentieth-century Doctor of the Church '' by Pope Pius XII .
Pope John Paul II greatly admired the philosophical work of von Hildebrand as well , remarking once to his widow , Alice von Hildebrand , `` Your husband is one of the great ethicists of the twentieth century . ''
Benedict XVI also has a particular admiration and regard for von Hildebrand .
He knew him when he was a young priest in Munich .
The degree of Pope Benedict 's esteem is expressed in one of his statements about von @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Catholic Church in the twentieth century is written , the name of Dietrich von Hildebrand will be most prominent among the figures of our time . ''
Here was what Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote about the subject of Communion in the hand in his book The Devastated Vineyard : # 2 The Authority of the Church It ’ s important to say that I ’ m saying this knowing full well we are in the midst of a Coronavirus pandemic .
In fact , the very first point I ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Church has already considered the matter of the allowance of Holy Communion on the tongue while facing the spread of this type of virus even in modern times .
In 2009 , in the midst of the H1N1 influenza pandemic , a lay Catholic in England in a diocese where Holy Communion on the tongue was restricted due to the pandemic wrote the Vatican about the matter .
The response from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments , dated July 24 , 2009 , was posted online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is tasked with authoritatively responding to such questions , wrote back quoting Church law on the subject , saying , “ each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue '' ( n. 92 , nor is it licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ ’ s faithful who are not impeded by law ( Church law ) from receiving the Holy Eucharist . )
The Vatican response added , “ The Congregation thanks you for bringing this important matter to its attention .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be made.
” Canonist Cathy Caridi over at the Canon Law Made Easy blog pointed out the significance of that line about appropriate contacts will be made .
Caridi says it , “ makes clear that after sending this letter , the CDW intended to contact the clergy who were illegally barring Catholics from receiving Communion on the tongue , to inform them in a formal , official way that by doing so that they were violating the law.
” Caridi concludes : “ It would be only logical to assume that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with information about current illegal practices in their own parishes/dioceses where they are forbidden to receive Communion on the tongue ; the CDW will respond in precisely the same way.
” The CDW will have to respond in the same way , not because Coronavirus isn ’ t dangerous , but because the right of the faithful around the world to receive the Eucharist in the way that is the Church ’ s established norm—on the tongue— can not be curtailed by anyone other than the Supreme Authority of the Church .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but of the Church ’ s hierarchical structure .
No bishop on earth ( still less a parish priest acting on his own ! )
has the authority to countermand a law or specific directive of the Vatican that is intended to apply to the universal Church .
Period .
# 3 The witness of Saints and Popes and Angels St Thomas Aquinas , regarded universally as the greatest Doctor of the Church , wrote in the 1200s in his Summa Theologica : “ out of reverence towards this Sacrament , nothing touches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the corporal and the chalice are consecrated , and likewise the priest ’ s hands , for touching this sacrament .
Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it , except from necessity , for instance , if it were to fall upon the ground , or else in some other case of urgency.
” ( 16 ST , III , Q .
82 , Art .
13 ) In 2008 , Pope Benedict decided to stop giving Holy Communion on the hand to the faithful and would only give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tongue and kneeling .
A Vatican webpage commemorating this decision was published in 2009 ( updated to include a photo of Pope Francis ) and can still be found on the Vatican website .
The Vatican webpage says : “ From the time of the Fathers of the Church , a tendency was born and consolidated whereby distribution of Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue .
The motivation for this practice is two-fold : a ) first , to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dropping of Eucharistic particles ; b ) second , to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
” A celebrated saying of Saint Augustine , cited by Pope Benedict XVI in n. 66 of his Encyclical Sacramentum Caritatis , ( `` Sacrament of Love '' ) , teaches : “ No one eats that flesh without first adoring it ; we should sin were we not to adore it ” ( Enarrationes in Psalmos 98 , 9 ) .
Kneeling indicates and promotes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christ .
From this perspective , the then-Cardinal Ratzinger assured that : `` Communion only reaches its true depth when it is supported and surrounded by adoration '' [ The Spirit of the Liturgy ( Ignatius Press , 2000 ) , p. 90 ] .
For this reason , Cardinal Ratzinger maintained that “ the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition , and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration , completely appropriate in light of the true , real and substantial presence of Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” [ cited in the Letter `` This Congregation '' of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments , 1 July 1 , 2002 ] .
John Paul II , in his last Encyclical , Ecclesia de Eucharistia ( `` The Church comes from the Eucharist '' ) , wrote in n. 61 : The webpage concludes : “ In continuity with the teaching of his Predecessor , starting with the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in the year 2008 , the Holy Father , Benedict XVI , began to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Lord , by placing it directly on the tongue of the faithful as they remain kneeling.
” The current head of the Vatican department that deals with the issue of Communion is Cardinal Robert Sarah .
Without a doubt , he is one of the saintliest Cardinals alive today .
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI strongly endorsed Cardinal Sarah saying publicly in an afterward to a reprint of Cardinal Sarah ’ s book The Power of Silence that , “ With Cardinal Sarah , a master of silence and of interior prayer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Benedict adds : “ Cardinal Sarah is a spiritual teacher , who speaks out of the depths of silence with the Lord , out of his interior union with Him , and thus really has something to say to each one of us.
” It is this Cardinal , this saintly African Cardinal who is in charge of the Church ’ s dicastery dealing with the sacraments , that has pleaded with priests to only give Holy Communion to the faithful kneeling and on the tongue .
In the preface to a 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Cardinal Robert Sarah , Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship , wrote : Cardinal Sarah also warned strenuously “ The most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist , by sowing errors and fostering an unsuitable way of receiving it .
Truly the war between Michael and his Angels on one side , and Lucifer on the other , continues in the hearts of the faithful.
” “ Satan ’ s target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let us now look at how faith in the real presence can influence the way we receive Communion , and vice versa .
Receiving Communion on the hand undoubtedly involves a great scattering of fragments .
On the contrary , attention to the smallest crumbs , care in purifying the sacred vessels , not touching the Host with sweaty hands , all become professions of faith in the real presence of Jesus , even in the smallest parts of the consecrated species : if Jesus is the substance of the Eucharistic Bread , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are accidents only of the bread , it is of little importance how big or small a piece of the Host is !
The substance is the same !
It is Him !
On the contrary , inattention to the fragments makes us lose sight of the dogma .
Little by little the thought may gradually prevail : “ If even the parish priest does not pay attention to the fragments , if he administers Communion in such a way that the fragments can be scattered , then it means that Jesus is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is ‘ up to a certain point ’ .
” The second track on which the attack against the Eucharist runs is the attempt to remove the sense of the sacred from the hearts of the faithful .
( ... ) While the term ‘ transubstantiation ’ points us to the reality of presence , the sense of the sacred enables us to glimpse its absolute uniqueness and holiness .
What a misfortune it would be to lose the sense of the sacred precisely in what is most sacred !
And how is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the same way as ordinary food .
( … ) The liturgy is made up of many small rituals and gestures — each of them is capable of expressing these attitudes filled with love , filial respect and adoration toward God .
That is precisely why it is appropriate to promote the beauty , fittingness and pastoral value of a practice which developed during the long life and tradition of the Church , that is , the act of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling .
The greatness and nobility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest expression of his love for his Creator , consists in kneeling before God .
Jesus himself prayed on his knees in the presence of the Father .
( … ) May this book encourage those priests and faithful who , moved also by the example of Benedict XVI — who in the last years of his pontificate wanted to distribute the Eucharist in the mouth and kneeling — wish to administer or receive the Eucharist in this latter manner , which is far more suited to the Sacrament itself .
I hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the beauty and pastoral value of this method .
In my opinion and judgment , this is an important question on which the Church today must reflect .
This is a further act of adoration and love that each of us can offer to Jesus Christ .
I am very pleased to see so many young people who choose to receive our Lord so reverently on their knees and on their tongues .
One of the other aspects of his preface was Cardinal Sarah ’ s recollection of the Fatima apparitions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fatima children prior to their seeing Our Lady Herself .
At one of the appearances of the Angel of Peace appeared to the children , the Angel brought Holy Communion to them .
The Angel prostrated himself before the Eucharistic Lord , teaching the children to do the same .
# 4 Profanation or Desecration of the Holy Eucharist As we have seen in the comments of Popes and Cardinals of the Church , one of the main concerns with Communion in the hand is the loss of fragments of the Eucharistic Christ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ main themes of the heroic Bishop Athanasius Schneider who penned a book on the subject of the reception of Holy Communion in 2012 called Dominus Est – It is the Lord !
By 1980 the practice of Communion on the hand had become widespread , as did the desecrations of the Holy Eucharist that would surely accompany it .
Pope John Paul II published the letter Dominicae Cenae on February 24 , 1980 .
In it he wrote : In a 2014 interview with the magazine of the Latin Mass Society of England @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earliest accounts of Holy Communion are of course in the Scriptures where Our Lord gave Himself as Communion to the Apostles at the Last Supper .
Some suggest that even there He might have given them Holy Communion on the tongue especially since we read in the last-supper narrative in the Gospel of John that Our Lord dipped a morsel of bread before giving it to the Apostle Judas .
However , even if Jesus gave the Apostles Holy Communion in the hand , they were all bishops , not laymen .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the early Church there was at least in some places the practice of Communion in the hand .
St. Cyril of Jerusalem who lived in the 4thcentury wrote : St. Cyril of course added the admonitions about not allowing the particles to drop as mentioned in the previous point .
Quoting again from Bishop Schneider ’ s book Dominus Est about the history of communion on the tongue : In the 1500s , Communion in the hand was first introduced by Protestant reformer Martin Bucer specifically aiming to end belief in transubstantiation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Archbishop of Canterbury , not to give communion on the tongue .
Bucer taught : “ I have no doubt that this usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition ; firstly , the false honor they wished to show to this sacrament , and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ , by virtue of the oil of consecration.
” But the practice had no place at all in the Catholic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prior to the year 1000 .
The Q & A style 1908 Catechism of St. Pius X gives only one option for reception of Holy Communion .
It reads : 47 Q .
How should we act while receiving Holy Communion ?
A .
In the act of receiving Holy Communion we should be kneeling , hold our head slightly raised , our eyes modest and fixed on the sacred Host , our mouth sufficiently open , and the tongue slightly out over the lips .
From an in-depth and heavily referenced study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn : In Memoriale Domini , Pope Paul admonished Catholics , bishops especially , that : “ In view of the state of the Church as a whole today , this manner of distributing Holy Communion [ on the tongue ] must be observed , not only because it rests on a tradition of many centuries but especially because it is a sign of reverence of the faithful towards the Eucharist .
The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great Sacrament , and it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most fruitful reception of the Lord ’ s Body.
” Davies says , however , a calamitous error of judgment then followed .
It was agreed that wherever the practice “ has already developed in any place ” a two-thirds majority of the episcopal conference could petition the Holy See for permission to legalize the abuse .
Quite clearly , the phrase “ has already developed ” meant by that date , May 28 , 1969 .
Countries where the practice had not developed by that date were obviously excluded from the concession—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ category .
When the National Conference of Catholic Bishops debated the question in 1977 , Bishop Blanchette pointed out that the procedure approved by the Vatican was that permission could be requested from the Holy See if the contrary usage prevailed .
He pointed out that the Bishops could hardly take the second step without taking the first .
Bishop Blanchette is reported in the National Catholic Register of June 12 , 1977 , recollecting , “ I said , we are now going to discuss and probably vote on whether we want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have not established that a contrary usage prevails .
I said a simple way to do that would be to ask the Ordinaries to indicate whether in their dioceses the contrary usage prevails .
The Ordinary should know , he is the shepherd of the diocese .
He has been asked to obey and his priests have been asked to obey , so if anybody knows whether the contrary usage prevails , he should .
And so I asked that the agenda be amended so that the first step—finding out whether the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it were verified then we could get on with the rest of the agenda .
But if the first step is not verified , how can we logically go on to the second step ?
That was my motion.26 25 ” Bishop Blanchette ’ s motion was supported in writing by five other bishops and sustained by the president of the conference .
According to the rules , there should have been a written vote , but supporters of the innovation objected and voted , on a show of hands , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It therefore seems quite reasonable to ask : just how legal was this vote ?
Then , of course , other extraordinary measures were taken to get the innovation adopted .
Retired bishops were prevented from voting , and , when the necessary majority had still not been achieved , bishops who had not been present were polled until the necessary total was arrived at .
So as you can see , Communion in the hand in modern times came by way of abuse , deceit , and betrayal by wolves in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I believe Catholics should not receive Holy Communion in the hand .
Should you be in a situation where you are refused Holy Communion unless you take it in the hand , I would make a spiritual Communion only and then contact the proper authority to remedy the situation .
Take that letter that was written by the Vatican on the question during the swine flu pandemic in 2009 to your priest or bishop .
Ask them to give you Holy Communion at least after Mass if they feel they can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a compromise being practiced in many dioceses today .
And if they still don ’ t permit you your right to receive Our Lord on the tongue apply to the Vatican ’ s Congregation for Divine Worship with the proof of the denial of Holy Communion on the tongue and pray God the remedy comes soon .
In the meantime , offer up the sacrifice of being deprived of the Holy Eucharist and still attend Mass offering your own pain along with Christ ’ s own Sacrifice .
The John-Henry Westen Show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s YouTube channel and right here on my LifeSite blog .
It is also available in audio format on platforms such as Spotify , Soundcloud , and ACast .
We are awaiting approval for iTunes and Google Play as well .
To subscribe to the audio version on various channels , visit the ACast webpage here .
We ’ ve created a special email list for the show so that we can notify you every week when we post a new episode .
Please sign up now by clicking here .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and you ’ ll be notified by YouTube when there is new content .
You can send me feedback , or ideas for show topics by emailing [ email protected ] .

Catholics who receive Communion on the tongue don't do so out of some false piety or holier-than-thou attitude. Receiving Christ on the tongue while kneeling reinforces reverence for Our Eucharistic Lord.
June 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – With orders to refuse the faithful Holy Communion on the tongue coming from governmental health authorities and even some bishops, I wanted to give you the reasons why I could never receive Holy Communion in the hand. And, if the matter was forced, I would make the sacrifice of just making a spiritual Holy Communion. Below are five reasons why Catholics should not receive Holy Communion on the hand.
#1 The first point I’d like to make is about the reverence due to Almighty God.
I want to dismiss the false notion that people receive Communion on the tongue out of some false piety or holier-than-thou attitude. While I can’t discount that there is some of that going on, from those I’ve witnessed and read about, receiving on the tongue comes from a deep reverential love of the King of Kings whom we receive in this Great Sacrament. And I believe receiving Our Lord on the tongue while kneeling reinforces that reverence for Our Eucharistic Lord.
Some of the most powerful arguments for the need for this type of reverence are in the Bible.
Remember when Moses first met the Lord God in the burning bush, as we read about in Exodus 3? Moses was told not to come too near to the burning bush and to remove his sandals because he was on holy ground. In Psalm 95 we read, “Come let us adore and fall down: and weep before the Lord that made us.” We see it in the New Testament too, when Peter, James, and John on Mt. Tabor at the Transfiguration, saw the glorified body of Jesus, which we receive in Holy Communion – and they prostrated themselves with their foreheads to the ground.
But the Biblical account that speaks to this subject most directly for me is what happened with the Ark of the Covenant. You can read the account in both 2 Samuel 6:1-7 and 1 Chronicles 13:9-12. The Ark of the Covenant was designed by God and built to the Lord’s specifications. It contained manna, the staff of Moses, and the tablets of the 10 commandments. It was so sacred that it was never allowed to be touched except by certain Levites – the priests of the time. That reservation of touching the Ark to priests only was potently reinforced when a layman named Uzzah who was transporting the Ark at the request of King David was struck dead by God for touching it.
Now, get this, Uzzah was trying to do the right thing. He was doing what he thought was right to save the Ark. He and his brother were transporting the Ark in a cart pulled by oxen. And, along the journey, it was tilted and so Uzzah used his hand to steady the Ark and was struck dead by the Lord. Scripture explains that the Lord struck him down because he was not to touch the Ark.
It is very much the same in our time when many are trying to do what they think is the right thing for the coronavirus by receiving Communion on the hand.
And yet with the Ark, it was not the right thing to do even though it is what seemed expedient – it was done for good intent to save the Ark from harm, just as many are receiving on the hand today with good intent to save their brothers and sisters in Christ from possible Coronavirus infection or to save the Church so she has the freedom to distribute Holy Communion at all.
Nevertheless, touching the Ark was the wrong thing to do. The Lord’s decision here perplexed David, who thereafter was afraid to bring the Ark of the Lord to himself.
And yet what was the Ark of the Covenant compared to Our Lord Himself in the Eucharist? The Ark was revered in the temple. It was carried in ceremony and was considered holy. And yet it was only the footstool of God. It was His presence, veiled, and a prefiguring of His Real Presence in the Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ, whom we receive in Holy Communion.
My wife, a convert to Catholicism, asked me the other day how communion in the hand makes sense given the practices in the Church of consecrating the altar and sacred vessels used in the Mass. We see priests, bishops, even the Pope, covering his hands with the vestment called a Humeral veil during Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. This is all about the sacredness of Christ in the Eucharist. If we allow everyone to touch the Sacred Host with their hands the practice of the Humeral veil becomes truly strange.
I’ll conclude this point on reverence towards Our Eucharistic Lord quoting from Dietrich von Hildebrand, a German Catholic philosopher and religious writer known and loved by the last number of Popes. He was reportedly called “the twentieth-century Doctor of the Church” by Pope Pius XII. Pope John Paul II greatly admired the philosophical work of von Hildebrand as well, remarking once to his widow, Alice von Hildebrand, “Your husband is one of the great ethicists of the twentieth century.” Benedict XVI also has a particular admiration and regard for von Hildebrand. He knew him when he was a young priest in Munich. The degree of Pope Benedict's esteem is expressed in one of his statements about von Hildebrand: “When the intellectual history of the Catholic Church in the twentieth century is written, the name of Dietrich von Hildebrand will be most prominent among the figures of our time.”
Here was what Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote about the subject of Communion in the hand in his book The Devastated Vineyard:
“Unfortunately, in many places Communion is distributed in the hand. To what extent is this supposed to be a renewal and a deepening of the reception of Holy Communion? Is the trembling reverence with which we receive this incomprehensible gift perhaps increased by re-receiving it in our unconsecrated hands, rather than from the consecrated hand of the priest? It is not difficult to see that the danger of parts of the consecrated Host falling to the ground is incomparably increased, and the danger of desecrating it or indeed of horrible blasphemy is very great. And what in the world is to be gained by all this? The claim that contact with the hand makes the host more real is certainly pure nonsense. For the theme here is not the reality of the matter of the Host, but rather the consciousness, which is only attainable by faith, that the Host in reality has become the Body of Christ. The reverent reception of the Body of Christ on our tongues, from the consecrated hand of the priest, is much more conducive to the strengthening of this consciousness than reception with our own unconsecrated hands.” (The Devastated Vineyard, pp. 67/8.)
#2 The Authority of the Church
It’s important to say that I’m saying this knowing full well we are in the midst of a Coronavirus pandemic. In fact, the very first point I’d like to bring to your consideration is that the Church has already considered the matter of the allowance of Holy Communion on the tongue while facing the spread of this type of virus even in modern times. In 2009, in the midst of the H1N1 influenza pandemic, a lay Catholic in England in a diocese where Holy Communion on the tongue was restricted due to the pandemic wrote the Vatican about the matter.
The response from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, dated July 24, 2009, was posted online by Rorate Caeli. The Congregation, which is tasked with authoritatively responding to such questions, wrote back quoting Church law on the subject, saying, “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue” (n. 92, nor is it licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful who are not impeded by law (Church law) from receiving the Holy Eucharist.)
The Vatican response added, “The Congregation thanks you for bringing this important matter to its attention. Be assured that the appropriate contacts will be made.”
Canonist Cathy Caridi over at the Canon Law Made Easy blog pointed out the significance of that line about appropriate contacts will be made. Caridi says it, “makes clear that after sending this letter, the CDW intended to contact the clergy who were illegally barring Catholics from receiving Communion on the tongue, to inform them in a formal, official way that by doing so that they were violating the law.”
Caridi concludes: “It would be only logical to assume that if the faithful contact the CDW now, with information about current illegal practices in their own parishes/dioceses where they are forbidden to receive Communion on the tongue; the CDW will respond in precisely the same way.”
“The CDW will have to respond in the same way, not because Coronavirus isn’t dangerous, but because the right of the faithful around the world to receive the Eucharist in the way that is the Church’s established norm—on the tongue—cannot be curtailed by anyone other than the Supreme Authority of the Church. This is an issue not of germs, but of the Church’s hierarchical structure. No bishop on earth (still less a parish priest acting on his own!) has the authority to countermand a law or specific directive of the Vatican that is intended to apply to the universal Church. Period.”
#3 The witness of Saints and Popes and Angels
St Thomas Aquinas, regarded universally as the greatest Doctor of the Church, wrote in the 1200s in his Summa Theologica: “out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.” (16 ST, III, Q. 82, Art. 13)
In 2008, Pope Benedict decided to stop giving Holy Communion on the hand to the faithful and would only give Holy Communion to the faithful on the tongue and kneeling. A Vatican webpage commemorating this decision was published in 2009 (updated to include a photo of Pope Francis) and can still be found on the Vatican website.
The Vatican webpage says: “From the time of the Fathers of the Church, a tendency was born and consolidated whereby distribution of Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid, as much as possible, the dropping of Eucharistic particles; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.”
A celebrated saying of Saint Augustine, cited by Pope Benedict XVI in n. 66 of his Encyclical Sacramentum Caritatis, (“Sacrament of Love”), teaches: “No one eats that flesh without first adoring it; we should sin were we not to adore it” (Enarrationes in Psalmos 98, 9). Kneeling indicates and promotes the adoration necessary before receiving the Eucharistic Christ.
From this perspective, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger assured that: “Communion only reaches its true depth when it is supported and surrounded by adoration” [The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 2000), p. 90]. For this reason, Cardinal Ratzinger maintained that “the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species” [cited in the Letter “This Congregation” of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 1 July 1, 2002].
John Paul II, in his last Encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia (“The Church comes from the Eucharist”), wrote in n. 61:
“By giving the Eucharist the prominence it deserves, and by being careful not to diminish any of its dimensions or demands, we show that we are truly conscious of the greatness of this gift. We are urged to do so by an uninterrupted tradition, which from the first centuries on has found the Christian community ever vigilant in guarding this ‘treasure.’ Inspired by love, the Church is anxious to hand on to future generations of Christians, without loss, her faith and teaching with regard to the mystery of the Eucharist. There can be no danger of excess in our care for this mystery, for ‘in this sacrament is recapitulated the whole mystery of our salvation.’”
The webpage concludes: “In continuity with the teaching of his Predecessor, starting with the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in the year 2008, the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, began to distribute to the faithful the Body of the Lord, by placing it directly on the tongue of the faithful as they remain kneeling.”
The current head of the Vatican department that deals with the issue of Communion is Cardinal Robert Sarah. Without a doubt, he is one of the saintliest Cardinals alive today.
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI strongly endorsed Cardinal Sarah saying publicly in an afterward to a reprint of Cardinal Sarah’s book The Power of Silence that, “With Cardinal Sarah, a master of silence and of interior prayer, the liturgy is in good hands.”
Benedict adds: “Cardinal Sarah is a spiritual teacher, who speaks out of the depths of silence with the Lord, out of his interior union with Him, and thus really has something to say to each one of us.”
It is this Cardinal, this saintly African Cardinal who is in charge of the Church’s dicastery dealing with the sacraments, that has pleaded with priests to only give Holy Communion to the faithful kneeling and on the tongue.
In the preface to a 2018 book critically analyzing Communion on the hand, Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, wrote:
Why do we insist on receiving Communion standing and on the hand? Why this attitude of lack of submission to the signs of God? May no priest dare to impose his authority in this matter by refusing or mistreating those who wish to receive Communion kneeling and on the tongue. Let us come as children and humbly receive the Body of Christ on our knees and on our tongue. The saints give us the example. They are the models to be imitated that God offers us!
Cardinal Sarah also warned strenuously “The most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, by sowing errors and fostering an unsuitable way of receiving it. Truly the war between Michael and his Angels on one side, and Lucifer on the other, continues in the hearts of the faithful.”
“Satan’s target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host,” he said.
Let us now look at how faith in the real presence can influence the way we receive Communion, and vice versa. Receiving Communion on the hand undoubtedly involves a great scattering of fragments. On the contrary, attention to the smallest crumbs, care in purifying the sacred vessels, not touching the Host with sweaty hands, all become professions of faith in the real presence of Jesus, even in the smallest parts of the consecrated species: if Jesus is the substance of the Eucharistic Bread, and if the dimensions of the fragments are accidents only of the bread, it is of little importance how big or small a piece of the Host is! The substance is the same! It is Him! On the contrary, inattention to the fragments makes us lose sight of the dogma. Little by little the thought may gradually prevail: “If even the parish priest does not pay attention to the fragments, if he administers Communion in such a way that the fragments can be scattered, then it means that Jesus is not in them, or that He is ‘up to a certain point’.” The second track on which the attack against the Eucharist runs is the attempt to remove the sense of the sacred from the hearts of the faithful. (…) While the term ‘transubstantiation’ points us to the reality of presence, the sense of the sacred enables us to glimpse its absolute uniqueness and holiness. What a misfortune it would be to lose the sense of the sacred precisely in what is most sacred! And how is it possible? By receiving special food in the same way as ordinary food. (…) The liturgy is made up of many small rituals and gestures — each of them is capable of expressing these attitudes filled with love, filial respect and adoration toward God. That is precisely why it is appropriate to promote the beauty, fittingness and pastoral value of a practice which developed during the long life and tradition of the Church, that is, the act of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling. The greatness and nobility of man, as well as the highest expression of his love for his Creator, consists in kneeling before God. Jesus himself prayed on his knees in the presence of the Father. (…) May this book encourage those priests and faithful who, moved also by the example of Benedict XVI — who in the last years of his pontificate wanted to distribute the Eucharist in the mouth and kneeling — wish to administer or receive the Eucharist in this latter manner, which is far more suited to the Sacrament itself. I hope there can be a rediscovery and promotion of the beauty and pastoral value of this method. In my opinion and judgment, this is an important question on which the Church today must reflect. This is a further act of adoration and love that each of us can offer to Jesus Christ. I am very pleased to see so many young people who choose to receive our Lord so reverently on their knees and on their tongues.
One of the other aspects of his preface was Cardinal Sarah’s recollection of the Fatima apparitions and the Angel that appeared to the three Fatima children prior to their seeing Our Lady Herself.
At one of the appearances of the Angel of Peace appeared to the children, the Angel brought Holy Communion to them. The Angel prostrated himself before the Eucharistic Lord, teaching the children to do the same.
#4 Profanation or Desecration of the Holy Eucharist
As we have seen in the comments of Popes and Cardinals of the Church, one of the main concerns with Communion in the hand is the loss of fragments of the Eucharistic Christ.
This has been one of the main themes of the heroic Bishop Athanasius Schneider who penned a book on the subject of the reception of Holy Communion in 2012 called Dominus Est – It is the Lord!
He wrote:
The Fathers of the Church demonstrate a lively concern that no one lose the smallest particle of Eucharistic Bread, as exhorted St. Cyril of Jerusalem in this very impressive manner: Be careful that you do not lose anything of the Body of the Lord. If you let fall anything, you must think of it as though you cut off one of the members of your own body. Tell me, I beg you, if someone gave you kernels of gold, would you not guard them with the greatest care and diligence, intent on not losing anything? Should you not exercise even greater care and vigilance, so that not even a crumb of the Lord’s Body could fall to the ground, for It is far more precious than gold or jewels? (Mystagogical Catecheses, 5, 2) Already Tertullian (who died in 240) gave witness to the Church’s anxiety and sorrow, should even a fragment be lost: “We suffer anxiety lest anything from the Chalice or the Bread fall to the ground” (De Corona, 3). St. Ephrem, in the fourth century, taught thus: “Jesus filled up the Bread with Himself and the Spirit and called It His living Body. That which I have now given you, says Jesus, do not consider bread, do not trample underfoot even the fragments. The smallest fragment of this Bread can sanctify millions of men and is enough to give life to all who eat It” (Sermones in Hebdomada Sancta, 4, 4).
By 1980 the practice of Communion on the hand had become widespread, as did the desecrations of the Holy Eucharist that would surely accompany it.
Pope John Paul II published the letter Dominicae Cenae on February 24, 1980. In it he wrote:
In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized.
In a 2014 interview with the magazine of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales Bishop Schneider said:
“To my knowledge and experience, the deepest wound in the actual crisis of the Church is the Eucharistic wound; the abuses of the Blessed Sacrament… “There is…the question of the objectively irreverent reception of Holy Communion. The so-called new, modern manner of receiving Holy Communion directly into the hand is very serious because it exposes Christ to an enormous banality. “There is the grievous fact of the loss of the Eucharistic fragments. No one can deny this. And the fragments of the consecrated host are crushed by feet. This is horrible! Our God, in our churches, is trampled by feet! No one can deny it. “And this is happening on a large scale. This has to be, for a person with faith and love for God, a very serious phenomenon.” “We cannot continue as if Jesus as God does not exist, as though only the bread exists. This modern practice of Communion in the hand has nothing to do with the practice in the ancient Church. The modern practice of receiving Communion in hand contributes gradually to the loss of the Catholic faith in the real presence and in the transubstantiation. “A priest and a bishop cannot say this practice is ok. Here is at stake the most holy, the most divine and concrete on Earth.”
#5 History
The earliest accounts of Holy Communion are of course in the Scriptures where Our Lord gave Himself as Communion to the Apostles at the Last Supper. Some suggest that even there He might have given them Holy Communion on the tongue especially since we read in the last-supper narrative in the Gospel of John that Our Lord dipped a morsel of bread before giving it to the Apostle Judas.
However, even if Jesus gave the Apostles Holy Communion in the hand, they were all bishops, not laymen.
However, it does seem as though in the early Church there was at least in some places the practice of Communion in the hand. St. Cyril of Jerusalem who lived in the 4thcentury wrote:
Approaching therefore, do not come forward with the palms of the hands outstretched nor with the fingers apart, but making the left [hand] a throne for the right since this hand is about to receive the King. Making the palm hollow, receive the Body of Christ, adding “Amen”. Then, carefully sanctifying the eyes by touching them with the holy Body, partake of it, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it.
St. Cyril of course added the admonitions about not allowing the particles to drop as mentioned in the previous point.
Quoting again from Bishop Schneider’s book Dominus Est about the history of communion on the tongue:
Aware of the greatness of the moment of Holy Communion, the Church in her two-millennium-long tradition has searched to find a ritual expression that can bear witness in the most perfect manner to her faith, love and respect. This is verified when, in the wake of an organic development, stemming from at least the sixth century, the Church began to adopt the method of distributing the Sacred Species of the Eucharist directly into the mouth. This is attested to in several places: in the biography of Pope Gregory the Great and an indication by the same Pope relative to Pope Agapitus (Dialogues, III); the Synod of Cordoba in 839 condemned the sect of so-called “Casiani” because of their refusal to receive Holy Communion directly into their mouths; then the Synod of Rouen in 878 confirmed the norm in force regarding the administration of the Lord’s Body on the tongue, threatening sacred ministers with suspension from their office if they distributed Holy Communion to the laity on the hand. In the Early Church, before receiving the consecrated Bread, people had to wash the palms of their hands. Moreover, the faithful bowed profoundly in receiving the Body of the Lord with the mouth directly from the right hand and not from the left. The palm of the hand served as a kind of paten or corporal, especially for women. Thus, one reads in a sermon of St. Caesarius of Arles (470-542): “All the men who desire to communicate, must wash their hands. And all the women must carry a linen cloth, on which they receive the Body of Christ” (Sermo, 227, 5). Customarily, the palm of the hand was purified or washed after the reception of the Eucharistic Bread as is up to now the norm in the Communion of clerics in the Byzantine Rite. In the ancient canons of the Chaldean Church, even the celebrating priest was forbidden to place the Eucharistic Bread into his own mouth with his fingers. Instead, he had to take the Body of the Lord in the palm of his hand; the reason for this was to signify that he was dealing here not with ordinary food but with heavenly food: “To the priest,” we read in the Canon of John Bar-Abgari, “it is directed that he receive the particle of consecrated Bread directly from the palm of his hand. He may not place It with the hand into the mouth, but must take It with his mouth, for this concerns heavenly food.”
In the 1500s, Communion in the hand was first introduced by Protestant reformer Martin Bucer specifically aiming to end belief in transubstantiation. Bucer convinced Thomas Cranmer, the heretic Archbishop of Canterbury, not to give communion on the tongue. Bucer taught: “I have no doubt that this usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition; firstly, the false honor they wished to show to this sacrament, and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration.”
But the practice had no place at all in the Catholic Church since it had been condemned universally prior to the year 1000. The Q&A style 1908 Catechism of St. Pius X gives only one option for reception of Holy Communion. It reads: 47 Q. How should we act while receiving Holy Communion? A. In the act of receiving Holy Communion we should be kneeling, hold our head slightly raised, our eyes modest and fixed on the sacred Host, our mouth sufficiently open, and the tongue slightly out over the lips.
From an in-depth and heavily referenced study of the question by Michael Davies we learn:
Communion in the hand was re-introduced into the Catholic Church as an act of rebellion soon after Vatican II. It began in Holland as an arbitrary act of defiance of legitimate authority the practice spread to Germany, Belgium, and France. The consequences of this rebellion became so serious that the Pope consulted the Bishops of the world, and, after obtaining their opinions, promulgated the Instruction Memoriale Domini, in 1969. This Instruction is included and will be referred to from time to time. The principal points contained in it are: 1. The Bishops of the world were overwhelmingly against the innovation. 2. The traditional manner of distributing Holy Communion must be retained. 3. It is a sign of reverence which does not detract from the dignity of the communicant. 4. The innovation could lead to irreverence, profanation, and the adulteration of correct doctrine.Therefore: The Apostolic See strongly urges bishops, priests, people to observe this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgment of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church.
In Memoriale Domini, Pope Paul admonished Catholics, bishops especially, that: “In view of the state of the Church as a whole today, this manner of distributing Holy Communion [on the tongue] must be observed, not only because it rests on a tradition of many centuries but especially because it is a sign of reverence of the faithful towards the Eucharist. The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great Sacrament, and it is part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s Body.”
Davies says, however, a calamitous error of judgment then followed. It was agreed that wherever the practice “has already developed in any place” a two-thirds majority of the episcopal conference could petition the Holy See for permission to legalize the abuse. Quite clearly, the phrase “has already developed” meant by that date, May 28, 1969. Countries where the practice had not developed by that date were obviously excluded from the concession—and all the English-speaking countries come into this category.
When the National Conference of Catholic Bishops debated the question in 1977, Bishop Blanchette pointed out that the procedure approved by the Vatican was that permission could be requested from the Holy See if the contrary usage prevailed. He pointed out that the Bishops could hardly take the second step without taking the first.
Bishop Blanchette is reported in the National Catholic Register of June 12, 1977, recollecting, “I said, we are now going to discuss and probably vote on whether we want to petition the Holy See, and we have not established that a contrary usage prevails. I said a simple way to do that would be to ask the Ordinaries to indicate whether in their dioceses the contrary usage prevails. The Ordinary should know, he is the shepherd of the diocese. He has been asked to obey and his priests have been asked to obey, so if anybody knows whether the contrary usage prevails, he should. And so I asked that the agenda be amended so that the first step—finding out whether the contrary usage prevails—could be verified, and if it were verified then we could get on with the rest of the agenda. But if the first step is not verified, how can we logically go on to the second step? That was my motion.26 25”
Bishop Blanchette’s motion was supported in writing by five other bishops and sustained by the president of the conference. According to the rules, there should have been a written vote, but supporters of the innovation objected and voted, on a show of hands, to rule the president out of order.
It therefore seems quite reasonable to ask: just how legal was this vote? Then, of course, other extraordinary measures were taken to get the innovation adopted. Retired bishops were prevented from voting, and, when the necessary majority had still not been achieved, bishops who had not been present were polled until the necessary total was arrived at.
So as you can see, Communion in the hand in modern times came by way of abuse, deceit, and betrayal by wolves in the hierarchy.
It is for these reasons that I believe Catholics should not receive Holy Communion in the hand. Should you be in a situation where you are refused Holy Communion unless you take it in the hand, I would make a spiritual Communion only and then contact the proper authority to remedy the situation. Take that letter that was written by the Vatican on the question during the swine flu pandemic in 2009 to your priest or bishop. Ask them to give you Holy Communion at least after Mass if they feel they can’t do it during Mass since this is a compromise being practiced in many dioceses today. And if they still don’t permit you your right to receive Our Lord on the tongue apply to the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship with the proof of the denial of Holy Communion on the tongue and pray God the remedy comes soon.
In the meantime, offer up the sacrifice of being deprived of the Holy Eucharist and still attend Mass offering your own pain along with Christ’s own Sacrifice.
The John-Henry Westen Show is available by video on the show’s YouTube channel and right here on my LifeSite blog.
It is also available in audio format on platforms such as Spotify, Soundcloud, and ACast. We are awaiting approval for iTunes and Google Play as well. To subscribe to the audio version on various channels, visit the ACast webpage here.
We’ve created a special email list for the show so that we can notify you every week when we post a new episode. Please sign up now by clicking here. You can also subscribe to the YouTube channel, and you’ll be notified by YouTube when there is new content.
You can send me feedback, or ideas for show topics by emailing [email protected].
Email Address *
First Name *
Last Name *


lifesitenews--2020-06-24--Trump’s Tulsa rally was a smashing success. Leftist media made ‘fake news’ in calling it a ‘dud’

PETITION : Investigate George Soros ' role in funding domestic terrorism !
Sign the petition here .
June 24 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – I rarely use the term “ fake news ” in my writing .
In fact , out of the nearly 2,000 op-ed pieces I have written , I can only find a couple of times I used it in the title of one of my articles .
One reason I ’ m hesitant to use the term is because it is so overused .
Everything these days is “ fake news.
” Another reason I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot is that it is often our convenient way of dismissing a story we don ’ t like .
“ That ’ s just fake news !
” we exclaim .
Yet fake news really does exist .
And once it circulates online , it becomes canonized , fixed in the popular mind of the day as if irrefutable truth .
Yet it ’ s becoming more and more difficult to separate truth from fiction when following the news .
You ’ ll read a juicy headline , promising some bombshell information , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ That ’ s it ?
” You ’ ll see the sensational title of a video only to watch the video and ask , “ Where was the shock and awe ?
” You ’ ll see a chyron ( a TV news banner ) running across the screen , but it doesn ’ t match the content you are hearing .
Worse still , you ’ ll see that the headline or title or chyron is merely an interpretation of the events , someone else ’ s spin on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opining .
Yet you think you ’ re getting the facts .
And how often do we fail even to read the full article ( or watch the whole video or TV report ) , let alone research the information for ourselves ?
I was struck by this phenomenon in recent days when reading reports about President Donald Trump ’ s rally in Tulsa this past Saturday .
( For the Trump-lovers or Trump-haters , here ’ s a spoiler alert : This is not a politically partisan article .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-truth . )
Before the rally , there were reports of as many as one million people registering for the event .
There were plans for Trump to address an overflow crowd outside the arena .
And it was fully expected that the arena itself would be packed .
None of that happened .
Instead , according to the local fire department , 6,200 turned out for the rally , leaving many empty seats in the building .
Others disputed those numbers , claiming a substantially larger crowd was present , based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of empty seats .
In any event , on Fox News alone , nearly eight million tuned in to watch , while online streaming services brought in as many as four million more .
The Hill even reported that “ President Trump 's rally in Tulsa , Okla. , generated the largest Saturday audience in Fox News Channel 's 24-year history in delivering 7.7 million viewers , according to the early Nielsen data.
” That is quite an accomplishment .
And , given the ongoing concerns about COVID-19 and the threat of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was hardly a flop .
( The White House denied reports that Trump was “ furious ” over the turnout . )
As for Trump ’ s performance during the rally , he seemed quite energized , as did his base .
( Again , I ’ m just reporting the facts here , not making a political statement .
You may have loved or hated his speech .
That ’ s not the issue . )
And how did some of the media describe the rally ?
Writing for CNN , Chris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump Tulsa rally was such a dud.
” A dud ?
Really ?
Drawing thousands of people in the midst of virus fears and protest concerns is a dud ?
Setting an all-time Saturday night viewing audience on Fox is a dud ?
Worse still was the reporting by the Daily Mail for which “ dud ” was not a sufficiently derogatory description .
Instead , one headline announced , “ Two of Donald Trump 's campaign staff who were at disastrous Tulsa rally test positive for coronavirus - but officials say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my emphasis ) .
Yes , the rally was disastrous !
( If you read the actual article , it barely mentions the rally .
When it does , the description is much less bombastic . )
Now this is a matter of fact .
It is codified and canonized .
For Politico , the rally was not merely a “ dud ” or “ disastrous.
” Instead , it was a “ debacle.
” To quote directly , “ Inside Trump 's Oklahoma debacle .
The rally was meant to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to take on Biden .
Instead , Trump was furious and his campaign is reeling.
” True to form , just four days later , on Tuesday , June 24 , the Mail reported , “ Donald Trump finally gets the packed mask-free crowd he craved at 3,000-strong students rally in Phoenix and calls coronavirus 'kung flu ' AGAIN - while cops fire pepper balls at protesters outside.
” So Trump finally gets his full house – meaning , on his second rally since the shutdown , just four days after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ finally ” ?
Certainly , Trump expected a packed house in Tulsa and didn ’ t get it .
That would certainly irk him .
And he couldn ’ t have been happy about reports of Chinese collusion in boosting the number of reservations made for the Tulsa event , whether true or not .
But , to repeat , to rally that many people in such difficult times is hardly a dud , a disaster , or a debacle .
And to draw another 12 million viewers between TV and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is even less a dud , a disaster , or a debacle .
( Bear in mind that other TV networks did not air the rally , so the viewing numbers could have been much higher still . )
But the story has been told and the reporting has been done .
The media has rendered its judgment , and opinion , to the point of fiction , has become fact .
Let the viewer/reader beware .
Does the right-wing media do this as well ?
The sword can cut both ways .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need to do our homework and form our opinions for ourselves .
We can not rely on the media to do it for us .

Trump rallying over six thousand people in such difficult times and over 12 million online is hardly a ‘dud,’ a ‘disaster,’ or a ‘debacle.’
PETITION: Investigate George Soros' role in funding domestic terrorism! Sign the petition here.
June 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – I rarely use the term “fake news” in my writing. In fact, out of the nearly 2,000 op-ed pieces I have written, I can only find a couple of times I used it in the title of one of my articles.
One reason I’m hesitant to use the term is because it is so overused. Everything these days is “fake news.”
Another reason I don’t use the term a lot is that it is often our convenient way of dismissing a story we don’t like. “That’s just fake news!” we exclaim.
Yet fake news really does exist. And once it circulates online, it becomes canonized, fixed in the popular mind of the day as if irrefutable truth.
Yet it’s becoming more and more difficult to separate truth from fiction when following the news.
You’ll read a juicy headline, promising some bombshell information, only to read the article and say, “That’s it?”
You’ll see the sensational title of a video only to watch the video and ask, “Where was the shock and awe?”
You’ll see a chyron (a TV news banner) running across the screen, but it doesn’t match the content you are hearing.
Worse still, you’ll see that the headline or title or chyron is merely an interpretation of the events, someone else’s spin on a quote. The facts are obscured by the opining. Yet you think you’re getting the facts.
And how often do we fail even to read the full article (or watch the whole video or TV report), let alone research the information for ourselves?
I was struck by this phenomenon in recent days when reading reports about President Donald Trump’s rally in Tulsa this past Saturday. (For the Trump-lovers or Trump-haters, here’s a spoiler alert: This is not a politically partisan article. This is not pro-Trump or anti-Trump. It is pro-truth.)
Before the rally, there were reports of as many as one million people registering for the event. There were plans for Trump to address an overflow crowd outside the arena. And it was fully expected that the arena itself would be packed.
None of that happened. Instead, according to the local fire department, 6,200 turned out for the rally, leaving many empty seats in the building.
Others disputed those numbers, claiming a substantially larger crowd was present, based on the capacity of the arena and the number of empty seats.
In any event, on Fox News alone, nearly eight million tuned in to watch, while online streaming services brought in as many as four million more. The Hill even reported that “President Trump's rally in Tulsa, Okla., generated the largest Saturday audience in Fox News Channel's 24-year history in delivering 7.7 million viewers, according to the early Nielsen data.” That is quite an accomplishment.
And, given the ongoing concerns about COVID-19 and the threat of protests outside the rally, the event was hardly a flop. (The White House denied reports that Trump was “furious” over the turnout.)
As for Trump’s performance during the rally, he seemed quite energized, as did his base. (Again, I’m just reporting the facts here, not making a political statement. You may have loved or hated his speech. That’s not the issue.)
And how did some of the media describe the rally?
Writing for CNN, Chris Cillizza offered “six excuses for why the Trump Tulsa rally was such a dud.”
A dud? Really? Drawing thousands of people in the midst of virus fears and protest concerns is a dud? Setting an all-time Saturday night viewing audience on Fox is a dud?
Worse still was the reporting by the Daily Mail for which “dud” was not a sufficiently derogatory description. Instead, one headline announced, “Two of Donald Trump's campaign staff who were at disastrous Tulsa rally test positive for coronavirus – but officials say they were 'wearing masks'” (my emphasis).
Yes, the rally was disastrous! (If you read the actual article, it barely mentions the rally. When it does, the description is much less bombastic.) Now this is a matter of fact. It is codified and canonized.
For Politico, the rally was not merely a “dud” or “disastrous.” Instead, it was a “debacle.”
To quote directly, “Inside Trump's Oklahoma debacle. The rally was meant to be a turning point in Trump's fortunes and efforts to take on Biden. Instead, Trump was furious and his campaign is reeling.”
True to form, just four days later, on Tuesday, June 24, the Mail reported, “Donald Trump finally gets the packed mask-free crowd he craved at 3,000-strong students rally in Phoenix and calls coronavirus 'kung flu' AGAIN – while cops fire pepper balls at protesters outside.”
So Trump finally gets his full house – meaning, on his second rally since the shutdown, just four days after the Tulsa rally. That is the meaning of “finally”?
Certainly, Trump expected a packed house in Tulsa and didn’t get it. That would certainly irk him. And he couldn’t have been happy about reports of Chinese collusion in boosting the number of reservations made for the Tulsa event, whether true or not.
But, to repeat, to rally that many people in such difficult times is hardly a dud, a disaster, or a debacle. And to draw another 12 million viewers between TV and internet, including record-setting TV numbers, is even less a dud, a disaster, or a debacle. (Bear in mind that other TV networks did not air the rally, so the viewing numbers could have been much higher still.)
But the story has been told and the reporting has been done. The media has rendered its judgment, and opinion, to the point of fiction, has become fact. Let the viewer/reader beware.
Does the right-wing media do this as well? The sword can cut both ways.
All the more, then, do we need to do our homework and form our opinions for ourselves. We cannot rely on the media to do it for us.
Follow Michael Dr. Brown is the author of more than 35 books, including Our Hands Are Stained with Blood: The Tragic Story of the “Church” and the Jewish People, which has been translated into more than twelve languages, the highly acclaimed five-volume series, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, a commentary on Jeremiah (part of the revised edition of the Expositor’s Bible Commentary), and several books on revival and the Jesus revolution. His most recent book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test?
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-24--Twitter censors Trump’s tweet on enforcing the law as a ‘threat’

PETITION : Investigate George Soros ' role in funding domestic terrorism !
Sign the petition here .
WASHINGTON , D.C. , June 24 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Twitter has hidden one of President Trump ’ s tweets , alleging that he violated the social media giant ’ s “ policy against abusive behavior , ” because he had said he intended to enforce the law .
Insurrectionists had earlier stated their intention of turning Lafayette Square , located directly in front of the White House , into an “ autonomous zone ” like the one that has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some had already moved to claim the area as “ Black House Autonomous Zone , ” spray painting that declaration on barricades they had erected and writing the initials , “ BHAZ ” in big letters on the columns in front of historic St. John ’ s Church on Lafayette Square .
The venerable church building has been the site of repeated vandalism by protesters and rioters .
“ There will never be an ‘ Autonomous Zone ’ in Washington , D.C. , as long as I ’ m your President , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If they try they will be met with serious force !
” he added .
Not long after , Twitter took the extraordinary step of hiding the tweet .
Although the tweet is still available , those who wish to view it first come face-to-face with Twitter ’ s warning : Many were outraged by the tech titan ’ s censoring of the President of the United States .
“ Let ’ s be clear about what just happened , ” said White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany .
“ Twitter labeled it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States to say that he will enforce the law .
Twitter says it is ‘ abusive ’ to prevent rioters from forcibly seizing territory to set up a lawless zone in our capital.
” In a second tweet , McEnany reminded Twitter and the American public that the Seattle Autonomous Zone has been the scene of horrific violence : “ Recall what happened in Seattle ’ s lawless CHOP zone where multiple people have been shot and one 19-year-old tragically lost his life !
” “ We must have LAW @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney Ron Coleman pointed out that all Twitter had succeeded in doing was to amplify the President ’ s remarks .
“ This is beyond the pale , ” wrote Texas congressman Dan Crenshaw .
“ The mob has infiltrated every corner of society.
” “ Stop censoring the President ’ s tweets , ” demanded Mark Dice , Media Analyst and author of “ The Liberal Media Industrial Complex.
” The Bongino Report , an online publication of political commentator Dan Bongino , issued a simple reply , suggesting an alternative to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media platform increasingly being embraced by conservatives in order to avoid censoring , shadowbanning , and other tactics big name tech companies often use to silence conservative voices .
LifeSiteNews has also launched our own pro-life , pro-family social media platform , LifeSite Connect .
Blue checkmarked @ amuse wondered if past similar statements about protecting against creeping evil and violence from historic world leaders would ’ ve been treated by Twitter ’ s censors in the same way .

'The mob has infiltrated every corner of society,' responded one congressman.
PETITION: Investigate George Soros' role in funding domestic terrorism! Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Twitter has hidden one of President Trump’s tweets, alleging that he violated the social media giant’s “policy against abusive behavior,” because he had said he intended to enforce the law.
Insurrectionists had earlier stated their intention of turning Lafayette Square, located directly in front of the White House, into an “autonomous zone” like the one that has been set up in Seattle, Washington.
Some had already moved to claim the area as “Black House Autonomous Zone,” spray painting that declaration on barricades they had erected and writing the initials, “BHAZ” in big letters on the columns in front of historic St. John’s Church on Lafayette Square. The venerable church building has been the site of repeated vandalism by protesters and rioters.
“There will never be an ‘Autonomous Zone’ in Washington, D.C., as long as I’m your President,” declared Donald Trump on Tuesday.
“If they try they will be met with serious force!” he added.
There will never be an “Autonomous Zone” in Washington, D.C., as long as I’m your President. If they try they will be met with serious force! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 23, 2020
Not long after, Twitter took the extraordinary step of hiding the tweet. Although the tweet is still available, those who wish to view it first come face-to-face with Twitter’s warning:
We’ve placed a public interest notice on this Tweet for violating our policy against abusive behavior, specifically, the presence of a threat of harm against an identifiable group.https://t.co/AcmW6O6d4t — Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) June 23, 2020
Many were outraged by the tech titan’s censoring of the President of the United States.
“Let’s be clear about what just happened,” said White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany.
“Twitter labeled it ‘abusive behavior’ for the President of the United States to say that he will enforce the law. Twitter says it is ‘abusive’ to prevent rioters from forcibly seizing territory to set up a lawless zone in our capital.”
In a second tweet, McEnany reminded Twitter and the American public that the Seattle Autonomous Zone has been the scene of horrific violence: “Recall what happened in Seattle’s lawless CHOP zone where multiple people have been shot and one 19-year-old tragically lost his life!”
“We must have LAW AND ORDER!” she emphasized.
Let's be clear about what just happened. Twitter labeled it “abusive behavior” for the President of the United States to say that he will enforce the law. Twitter says it is “abusive” to prevent rioters from forcibly seizing territory to set up a lawless zone in our capital ⬇ https://t.co/IOhNBEy9Se — Kayleigh McEnany (@PressSec) June 23, 2020
Attorney Ron Coleman pointed out that all Twitter had succeeded in doing was to amplify the President’s remarks.
Thanks for bringing this great tweet to our attention with your hypocritical election interference and support of terrorism — Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) June 23, 2020
“This is beyond the pale,” wrote Texas congressman Dan Crenshaw. “The mob has infiltrated every corner of society.”
This is beyond the pale. The mob has infiltrated every corner of society. The President’s tweet is not only appropriate, but also necessary. Every mayor who claims to protect their citizens should repeat the same. Violent anarchists cannot be encouraged. https://t.co/yarukcsLQB — Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) June 23, 2020
Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton expressed astonishment over Twitter’s action.
The President saying he will enforce the law to prevent chaos is a violation of Twitter's policy? pic.twitter.com/dInDXZ1FJO — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) June 23, 2020
“Stop censoring the President’s tweets,” demanded Mark Dice, Media Analyst and author of “The Liberal Media Industrial Complex.”
Stop censoring the President’s tweets. — Mark Dice (@MarkDice) June 23, 2020
The Bongino Report, an online publication of political commentator Dan Bongino, issued a simple reply, suggesting an alternative to Twitter, Parler.com.
Parler.com is a social media platform increasingly being embraced by conservatives in order to avoid censoring, shadowbanning, and other tactics big name tech companies often use to silence conservative voices. LifeSiteNews has also launched our own pro-life, pro-family social media platform, LifeSite Connect.
Blue checkmarked @amuse wondered if past similar statements about protecting against creeping evil and violence from historic world leaders would’ve been treated by Twitter’s censors in the same way.
This action makes me wonder how you would have reacted to Winston Churchill's tweets: pic.twitter.com/vhdAqafohM — @amuse (@amuse) June 23, 2020
Follow Doug Doug Mainwaring is a journalist for LifeSiteNews, an author, and a marriage, family and children's rights activist. He has testified before the United States Congress and state legislative bodies, originated and co-authored amicus briefs for the United States Supreme Court, and has been a guest on numerous TV and radio programs. Doug and his family live in the Washington, DC suburbs.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-24--Black pro-lifer called out BLM in 2019: It ‘is not moving us in the right direction’

June 24 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The Black Lives Matter movement has jumped back into the spotlight with the death of George Floyd and the riots sweeping across the nation ; however , the movement , and its problematic beliefs , aren ’ t anything new .
Ryan Bomberger , a pro-life speaker , author , and co-founder of the Radiance Foundation , spoke with Jonathon Van Maren about the Black Lives Matter movement , abortion and the black community , and the importance of first defending the right to life back in early 2019 .
The concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as pertinent today as they were a year ago .
Bomberger was adopted into a multi-racial family at a very young age , thanks to his mother choosing life .
When he was in 8th grade , Bomberger was introduced to the horrors of abortion for the first time and he immediately knew he was pro-life .
Despite being active in the pro-life community as a volunteer , it wasn ’ t until he met and married his wife that he realized he was being called to full-time pro-life ministry .
With his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an organization committed to educating people about the horrors of abortion .
They run billboard marketing campaigns , do multimedia educational presentations on college campuses , publish articles exposing the truth about abortion , and provide material and financial assistance to mothers and families .
Bomberger highlights the targeting of black women by the abortion industry , beginning with Planned Parenthood ’ s founder Margaret Sanger .
Sanger was very open with her ideas that African-Americans were an inferior race and needed to be sterilized .
Bomberger also cites the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ babies are aborted each year than are born .
Yet we don ’ t hear the cries of racial injustice over the loss of those black lives .
Instead of standing up to defend unborn black lives , the Black Lives Matter movement supports “ reproductive justice.
” Listen to the full interview here : With the Black Lives Matter movement , Bomberger tells listeners , “ I see a movement that is not moving us in the right direction ...
I see it as a destructive secular movement that is hostile to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is all about segregation.
” The Black Lives Matter movement creates more segregation and racial division , while supporting the worst racial injustice : the abortion industry ’ s targeting black women .
Bomberger calls on everyone , including black people , to be “ committed to opposing abortion.
” Abortion kills tens of thousands of black Americans every year .
Police killings are heartbreaking , as is any loss of life , but the Black Lives Matter movement is not the answer for real change , as Bomberger noted over a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hosted on numerous platforms , including Spotify , SoundCloud , YouTube , iTunes , and Google Play .
For a full listing of episodes , and to subscribe to various channels , visit our Acast webpage here .
To receive weekly emails when a new episode is uploaded , subscribe below :

The Black Lives Matter movement is 'hostile to Christianity' and actually supports aborting black lives.
June 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The Black Lives Matter movement has jumped back into the spotlight with the death of George Floyd and the riots sweeping across the nation; however, the movement, and its problematic beliefs, aren’t anything new.
Ryan Bomberger, a pro-life speaker, author, and co-founder of the Radiance Foundation, spoke with Jonathon Van Maren about the Black Lives Matter movement, abortion and the black community, and the importance of first defending the right to life back in early 2019.
The concerns Bomberger voices about the movement are just as pertinent today as they were a year ago.
Watch the full interview here:
Bomberger was adopted into a multi-racial family at a very young age, thanks to his mother choosing life. When he was in 8th grade, Bomberger was introduced to the horrors of abortion for the first time and he immediately knew he was pro-life.
Despite being active in the pro-life community as a volunteer, it wasn’t until he met and married his wife that he realized he was being called to full-time pro-life ministry. With his wife, he founded the Radiance Foundation, an organization committed to educating people about the horrors of abortion.
They run billboard marketing campaigns, do multimedia educational presentations on college campuses, publish articles exposing the truth about abortion, and provide material and financial assistance to mothers and families.
Bomberger highlights the targeting of black women by the abortion industry, beginning with Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger. Sanger was very open with her ideas that African-Americans were an inferior race and needed to be sterilized.
Bomberger also cites the fact that in New York City, more black babies are aborted each year than are born. Yet we don’t hear the cries of racial injustice over the loss of those black lives. Instead of standing up to defend unborn black lives, the Black Lives Matter movement supports “reproductive justice.”
Listen to the full interview here:
With the Black Lives Matter movement, Bomberger tells listeners, “I see a movement that is not moving us in the right direction…I see it as a destructive secular movement that is hostile to Christianity.”
He continues, “It is all about segregation.”
The Black Lives Matter movement creates more segregation and racial division, while supporting the worst racial injustice: the abortion industry’s targeting black women.
Bomberger calls on everyone, including black people, to be “committed to opposing abortion.”
Abortion kills tens of thousands of black Americans every year. Police killings are heartbreaking, as is any loss of life, but the Black Lives Matter movement is not the answer for real change, as Bomberger noted over a year ago.
The Van Maren Show is hosted on numerous platforms, including Spotify, SoundCloud, YouTube, iTunes, and Google Play.
For a full listing of episodes, and to subscribe to various channels, visit our Acast webpage here.
To receive weekly emails when a new episode is uploaded, subscribe below:
Email Address *
First Name *
Last Name *


lifesitenews--2020-06-24--US newspaper refuses to run pro-life ‘All Lives Matter’ ad claiming it’s ‘racist’

ROCKFORD , Illinois , June 24 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A pro-life organization has been blocked from running a pro-life “ All Lives Matter ” ad in a local newspaper .
The paper claimed the ad was “ racist.
” The Rockford Family Initiative , an Illinois based pro-life organization , attempted to place the pro-life ad in a local newspaper , the Rockford Register Star .
The ad depicts a picture of an unborn baby with the words “ All Lives Matter ” above the picture .
“ Every child in the womb is a person created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person loved by God and a little girl or boy who is our sister or brother , ” the ad states .
“ Abortion is the unjust killing of an innocent person .
All lives will not matter until every person is loved and respected no matter if they are black or white , born or preborn .
We must unite to end the killing of babies by abortion.
” Originally , the newspaper agreed to run the ad .
It later refused , however , asking that the wording be changed since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Star sales manager told the Rockford Family Initiative that “ all lives matter is seen as racist to the black community.
” “ I was informed that we do need to let the client know that all lives matter is seen as racist to the black community and ask if he would consider changing that line , ” the sales manager told the pro-life organization in an email obtained by LifeSiteNews .
By stating “ All Lives Matter ” the Rockford Family Initiative was simply attempting to use a politically savvy slogan that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both black and white , from being targeted for abortion .
“ It is with great disappointment , ” Kevin Rilott of the Rockford Family Initiative told LifeSiteNews in response to the ad being banned , “ that we learned the simple statement of love and hope ‘ All Lives Matter ’ is considered too offensive to be printed in our local newspaper.
” “ The statement ‘ All Lives Matter ’ of course covers all people including African Americans , undocumented residents , the poor , the unborn , the sick , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all races , religions , cultures , and backgrounds - in short it means every person matters , every person is loved by God , and is our sister or brother.
” “ The culture of death is in control of our society when our local paper is telling us their readers would be deeply offended if they ran an ad that is aimed at uniting our community behind the idea that ‘ All lives Matter , ’ ” Rilott continued .
“ Rockford is one of the most dangerous cities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few miles from Chicago were we see hundreds of people shot and dozens of people murdered every month but it seems the one thing we ca n't say in print is ‘ All Lives Matter.
’ ” Rilott said that America is now “ reaping what we have sown ” by allowing abortion .
“ By killing millions of unborn children , we have truly become a culture of death where all lives don ’ t matter , ” he said .
“ We respectfully ask the Register Star to allow our ads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our sisters and brothers in Rockford matters , ” he added .
LifeSiteNews reached out to the Register Star for an explanation of why it saw the pro-life ad as “ racist.
” No response was provided by press time .
Throughout the past weeks , “ Black Lives Matter ” ( BLM ) has become a rallying cry across the United States .
The official Black Lives Matter organization , however , appears to be committed to neither ending racism nor saving all black lives .
Instead , the group has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The BLM organization does not view all African American lives as invaluable as it openly supports abortion , which disproportionately targets African Americans .
One courageous African American woman recently appealed to Black Lives Matter activists to protest in front of Planned Parenthood , since it was what she called the “ Number one killer of the black population .
”

The Register Star sales manager told the Rockford Family Initiative that ‘all lives matter is seen as racist to the black community’
PETITION: Demand Planned Parenthood return $80M improperly taken from coronavirus emergency fund! Sign the petition here.
ROCKFORD, Illinois, June 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A pro-life organization has been blocked from running a pro-life “All Lives Matter” ad in a local newspaper. The paper claimed the ad was “racist.”
The Rockford Family Initiative, an Illinois based pro-life organization, attempted to place the pro-life ad in a local newspaper, the Rockford Register Star. The ad depicts a picture of an unborn baby with the words “All Lives Matter” above the picture.
“Every child in the womb is a person created in the image of God, a person loved by God and a little girl or boy who is our sister or brother,” the ad states. “Abortion is the unjust killing of an innocent person. All lives will not matter until every person is loved and respected no matter if they are black or white, born or preborn. We must unite to end the killing of babies by abortion.”
Originally, the newspaper agreed to run the ad. It later refused, however, asking that the wording be changed since it was “racist.” The Register Star sales manager told the Rockford Family Initiative that “all lives matter is seen as racist to the black community.”
“I was informed that we do need to let the client know that all lives matter is seen as racist to the black community and ask if he would consider changing that line,” the sales manager told the pro-life organization in an email obtained by LifeSiteNews.
By stating “All Lives Matter” the Rockford Family Initiative was simply attempting to use a politically savvy slogan that aimed at protecting all preborn babies, both black and white, from being targeted for abortion.
“It is with great disappointment,” Kevin Rilott of the Rockford Family Initiative told LifeSiteNews in response to the ad being banned, “that we learned the simple statement of love and hope ‘All Lives Matter’ is considered too offensive to be printed in our local newspaper.”
“The statement ‘All Lives Matter’ of course covers all people including African Americans, undocumented residents, the poor, the unborn, the sick, police officers, the lonely, people of all races, religions, cultures , and backgrounds – in short it means every person matters, every person is loved by God, and is our sister or brother.”
“The culture of death is in control of our society when our local paper is telling us their readers would be deeply offended if they ran an ad that is aimed at uniting our community behind the idea that ‘All lives Matter,’” Rilott continued.
“Rockford is one of the most dangerous cities in the country and we are just a few miles from Chicago were we see hundreds of people shot and dozens of people murdered every month but it seems the one thing we can't say in print is ‘All Lives Matter.’”
Rilott said that America is now “reaping what we have sown” by allowing abortion.
“By killing millions of unborn children, we have truly become a culture of death where all lives don’t matter,” he said.
“We respectfully ask the Register Star to allow our ads that remind our community that every one of our sisters and brothers in Rockford matters,” he added.
LifeSiteNews reached out to the Register Star for an explanation of why it saw the pro-life ad as “racist.” No response was provided by press time.
Throughout the past weeks, “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) has become a rallying cry across the United States. The official Black Lives Matter organization, however, appears to be committed to neither ending racism nor saving all black lives. Instead, the group has a not-very-hidden agenda to radically change America.
The BLM organization does not view all African American lives as invaluable as it openly supports abortion, which disproportionately targets African Americans. One courageous African American woman recently appealed to Black Lives Matter activists to protest in front of Planned Parenthood, since it was what she called the “Number one killer of the black population.”
Share