lifesitenews--2020-06-02--US archbishop forbids priests to say public Masses if they offer Communion on tongue

MOBILE , Alabama , June 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Archbishop Thomas J. Rodi of Mobile , Alabama , has warned his priests that they are not allowed to celebrate public Masses if they want to distribute Holy Communion on the tongue .
“ If any priest can not follow archdiocesan regulations , it will be necessary for him to refrain from the celebration of public Masses , ” Rodi wrote in a May 20 letter obtained by LifeSiteNews ( see full letter HERE ) .
“ This matter is too serious for us to take any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the safety of others.
” Public Masses in the Archdiocese of Mobile began again on May 12 .
Prior to that , Archbishop Rodi had published detailed guidelines , already indicating that “ [ a ] ny church unable to strictly fulfill these requirements may not have public Masses.
” At that time , Rodi did not explicitly prohibit the reception of the Eucharist on the tongue , nor did he prescribe reception in the hand .
He only wrote , “ Communicants are to maintain social distancing when receiving Communion from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , he revealed the following : “ Complaints have been received in my office that priests are not maintaining social distancing when distributing Communion and not sanitizing their hands after touching someone else.
” “ Social distancing must be maintained during the Mass and the only way to maintain social distancing when distributing Communion is by the communicant receiving on the hand , ” Rodi then declared .
In his guidelines , the only definition of social distancing was that “ no one is to sit within 6 feet of one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Even if both the priest and the communicant stretch out their arms as far as possible , their bodies would most likely be closer together than six feet .
Moreover , given that the priest needs to place the consecrated host into the hand of the person receiving , their hands are only fractions of an inch apart .
Urgent appeal to the bishops of the world : Feed your flock !
Sign the petition here .
When distributing Holy Communion directly on the tongue , the priest does not touch the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mouth .
This was the custom for centuries , before disobedient priests and faithful started practicing Communion in the hand and pressuring the Vatican to officially allow it after the Second Vatican Council .
Archbishop Rodi ordered his priests to tell their parishioners “ that for the time being no one is to receive Communion on the tongue.
” With this , he is directly contradicting the Thomistic Institute guidelines on the “ Phased Restoration of Public Masses ” recommended by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops .
The Thomistic Institute is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Immaculate Conception at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington , D.C .
However , the guidelines were prepared not only by theologians , but also by medical experts , including Timothy P. Flanigan of Brown University , and Aaron Kheriaty of the University of California , Irvine .
According to the Thomistic Institute , receiving Holy Communion directly on the tongue is possible “ without unreasonable risk.
” “ Opinions on this point are varied within the medical and scientific community : some believe Communion on the tongue involves an elevated and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circumstances , an unreasonable risk ; others disagree , ” the document pointed out .
“ If Communion on the tongue is provided , one could consider using hand sanitizer after each communicant who receives on the tongue.
” The guidelines specifically referred to Redemptionis Sacramentum , an instruction published by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in 2004 .
According to the document , “ each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.
” Archbishop Rodi seemed to make a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Standing before God now , our personal preferences and even our personal rights must temporarily yield to the Common Good.
” According to St. Thomas Aquinas , considered among the greatest theologians of the Church , the Eucharist is , in fact , the common good .
“ But the common spiritual good of the whole Church is contained substantially in the sacrament itself of the Eucharist , ” he wrote in his Summa Theologiae .
Rodi continued , “ It is not that we are forfeiting our rights but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neighbor are to guide our actions .
Our regulations show love of neighbor by seeking to protect all at Mass.
” In his guidelines , he had also banned the use of kneelers and communion rails for receiving the Eucharist , as well as hymnals and “ and other shared worship aids.
” Prior to Archbishop Rodi banning the distribution of Holy Communion on the tongue , Bishop Richard F. Stika of Knoxville , Tennessee had confirmed in a tweet that the priests of his diocese “ will not give Communion on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it even farther , Stika said that if people “ make [ ] a scene ” by wanting to receive Holy Communion on the tongue , “ they will be asked to leave and not permitted to return [ until ] this passes.
” In 2009 , the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments responded to a lay Catholic ’ s questions about restrictions on receiving Holy Communion on the tongue due to the swine flu .
“ This Dicastery observes that its Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum ( 25 March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 from receiving the Holy Eucharist ( cf .
n. 91 ) , ” the letter affirmed .
“ The Congregation thanks you for bringing this important matter to its attention .
Be assured that the appropriate contacts will be made .
”

'This matter is too serious for us to take any other approach than one of extreme caution for the safety of others,' the archbishop of Mobile, Ala. insisted.
MOBILE, Alabama, June 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Archbishop Thomas J. Rodi of Mobile, Alabama, has warned his priests that they are not allowed to celebrate public Masses if they want to distribute Holy Communion on the tongue.
“If any priest cannot follow archdiocesan regulations, it will be necessary for him to refrain from the celebration of public Masses,” Rodi wrote in a May 20 letter obtained by LifeSiteNews (see full letter HERE). “This matter is too serious for us to take any other approach than one of extreme caution for the safety of others.”
Public Masses in the Archdiocese of Mobile began again on May 12. Prior to that, Archbishop Rodi had published detailed guidelines, already indicating that “[a]ny church unable to strictly fulfill these requirements may not have public Masses.”
At that time, Rodi did not explicitly prohibit the reception of the Eucharist on the tongue, nor did he prescribe reception in the hand. He only wrote, “Communicants are to maintain social distancing when receiving Communion from the priest.”
In his May 20 letter, however, he revealed the following: “Complaints have been received in my office that priests are not maintaining social distancing when distributing Communion and not sanitizing their hands after touching someone else.”
“Social distancing must be maintained during the Mass and the only way to maintain social distancing when distributing Communion is by the communicant receiving on the hand,” Rodi then declared.
In his guidelines, the only definition of social distancing was that “no one is to sit within 6 feet of one another unless living in the same household.”
Even if both the priest and the communicant stretch out their arms as far as possible, their bodies would most likely be closer together than six feet. Moreover, given that the priest needs to place the consecrated host into the hand of the person receiving, their hands are only fractions of an inch apart.
Urgent appeal to the bishops of the world: Feed your flock! Sign the petition here.
When distributing Holy Communion directly on the tongue, the priest does not touch the tongue itself or any part of the mouth. This was the custom for centuries, before disobedient priests and faithful started practicing Communion in the hand and pressuring the Vatican to officially allow it after the Second Vatican Council.
Archbishop Rodi ordered his priests to tell their parishioners “that for the time being no one is to receive Communion on the tongue.”
With this, he is directly contradicting the Thomistic Institute guidelines on the “Phased Restoration of Public Masses” recommended by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The Thomistic Institute is part of the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C. However, the guidelines were prepared not only by theologians, but also by medical experts, including Timothy P. Flanigan of Brown University, and Aaron Kheriaty of the University of California, Irvine.
According to the Thomistic Institute, receiving Holy Communion directly on the tongue is possible “without unreasonable risk.”
“Opinions on this point are varied within the medical and scientific community: some believe Communion on the tongue involves an elevated and, in the light of all the circumstances, an unreasonable risk; others disagree,” the document pointed out. “If Communion on the tongue is provided, one could consider using hand sanitizer after each communicant who receives on the tongue.”
The guidelines specifically referred to Redemptionis Sacramentum, an instruction published by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in 2004. According to the document, “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.”
Archbishop Rodi seemed to make a passing reference to the instruction by claiming, “Standing before God now, our personal preferences and even our personal rights must temporarily yield to the Common Good.”
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, considered among the greatest theologians of the Church, the Eucharist is, in fact, the common good. “But the common spiritual good of the whole Church is contained substantially in the sacrament itself of the Eucharist,” he wrote in his Summa Theologiae.
Rodi continued, “It is not that we are forfeiting our rights but that we understand that love of God and neighbor are to guide our actions. Our regulations show love of neighbor by seeking to protect all at Mass.”
In his guidelines, he had also banned the use of kneelers and communion rails for receiving the Eucharist, as well as hymnals and “and other shared worship aids.”
Prior to Archbishop Rodi banning the distribution of Holy Communion on the tongue, Bishop Richard F. Stika of Knoxville, Tennessee had confirmed in a tweet that the priests of his diocese “will not give Communion on the tongue as per my instruction.”
Taking it even farther, Stika said that if people “make[] a scene” by wanting to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, “they will be asked to leave and not permitted to return [until] this passes.”
In 2009, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments responded to a lay Catholic’s questions about restrictions on receiving Holy Communion on the tongue due to the swine flu.
“This Dicastery observes that its Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (25 March 2004) clearly stipulates that ‘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 from receiving the Holy Eucharist (cf. n. 91),” the letter affirmed.
“The Congregation thanks you for bringing this important matter to its attention. Be assured that the appropriate contacts will be made.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-02--Abortion activists push to drop crucial women’s blood test so chemical abortions will be easier

PETITION : Demand Planned Parenthood return $ 80M improperly taken from coronavirus emergency fund !
Sign the petition here .
WASHINGTON , D.C. , June 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In an effort to make the abortion pill more accessible than ever before , abortionists are campaigning to abolish a standard blood test for pregnant women that could mean the difference between her future pregnancies surviving or perishing .
Abortionists would like to abolish the standard Rh factor blood test performed on pregnant women .
The Mayo Clinic explains : “ Rhesus ( Rh ) factor is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ red blood cells .
If your blood has the protein , you ’ re Rh positive .
If your blood lacks the protein , you ’ re Rh negative.
” If a pregnant woman is Rh negative , but the baby is Rh positive , the mother ’ s body “ might produce proteins called Rh antibodies after exposure to the baby ’ s red blood cells.
” While this usually does not happen during pregnancy , it is more likely to take place during delivery , as well as during an abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t a problem during the first pregnancy , ” the Mayo Clinic emphasizes .
“ The concern is with your next pregnancy.
” This would be the case with any pregnancy following an abortion .
“ If your next baby is Rh positive , these Rh antibodies can cross the placenta and damage the baby ’ s red blood cells , ” which are needed to provide the baby ’ s body with oxygen .
“ This could lead to life-threatening anemia , a condition in which red blood cells are destroyed faster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replace them , ” ultimately leading to the baby ’ s death .
The 2020 Clinical Policy Guidelines for Abortion Care , published by the National Abortion Federation , recommend , “ Below 56 days from the last menstrual period , patients and providers may forego Rh testing and anti-D immune globulin for patients who are Rh negative.
” “ To use chemical abortion to end a pregnancy of less than 56 days without an examination or determination of blood type should be considered malpractice , ” commented Catholic Medical Association ( CMA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Dr. Parker , a practicing OB/GYN in Ohio in addition to serving as CMA ’ s president , told LifeSiteNews that what is called Rh isoimmunization “ occurs when a mother ’ s blood type is different from the father ’ s .
For example , my wife is O negative and I am A positive .
All of our children are A positive.
” “ Should my wife come into contact with Rh positive blood , her immune system would react as it would to a virus or bacteria , trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parker , this process can be compared to being vaccinated .
“ Once sensitized , this immune response would attack the cells of any baby with my blood type causing severe anemia with increased risk for fetal death and miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies.
” “ To prevent this reaction from occurring , pregnant women can receive an injection of antibodies , ” known as Rh immune globulin , “ that will ‘ scavenge ’ any fetal cells before her body can mount an immune response , ” he explained .
In other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and who had an abortion without being given an injection of Rh immune globulin before the abortion , as well as shortly afterwards , would elevate the risk of her subsequent children dying naturally during pregnancy .
Lester Ruppersberger , M.D.
, an OB/GYN and former CMA president , told LifeSiteNews ivia a detailed email how any future pregnancy “ with an Rh positive baby will lead to the antibodies destroying the baby ’ s blood , leading to hemolytic disease of the newborn ( HDN ) which can lead to anemia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ The discovery of Rh immune globulin … in 1970 , ” he added emphatically , “ reduced the incidence of HDN from 14 % to less than 1 % !
” In May 2019 , Contraception , the official pro-abortion and pro-contraception journal of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals and the Society of Family Planning , argued for foregoing Rh testing prior to performing chemical abortions , which are , according to Planned Parenthood , still possible for women who are 10-11 weeks pregnant .
“ Carefully explaining that testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in pregnancy has no demonstrated benefit and carries risk , is not practiced in other countries , and adds cost and complexity to the abortion procedure , will be critical steps in changing practice , ” the authors of the short article in Contraception argued .
Waiving the need to perform an Rh factor blood test , said Ruppersberger , “ is unethical , immoral and bad medicine which goes against every standard of care recommended as good practice by every major medical organization other than the abortion organizations !
” He pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first 56 days of pregnancy is arbitrary .
Doing Rh testing , Ruppersberger continued , does not even actually “ interfere with the performance of the abortion or the pregnancy not desired , it is to protect any future pregnancies from developing HDN !
” “ I don ’ t believe the government should mandate any healthcare decision , ” he answered when asked about whether the government should require abortionists to perform Rh factor blood tests .
While the government can make recommendations , “ ‘ standards of care ’ are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people and legal entities to learn about what “ best practices ” are .
Many malpractice lawsuits “ are predicated on lack of performance according to standards of care ; if not practiced , then legal repercussions or loss of licensure can and should result.
” Michael S. Parker of the Catholic Medical Association said , “ Those who propose doing away with this [ Rh ] testing feel it is not necessary because before 56 days , there may not be enough fetal red blood cells to cause a reaction .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without exam , ultrasound or determination of Rh status.
” Chemical abortions , otherwise referred to as medication abortion , using the abortion pill , are also currently being pushed by the abortion industry .
A complaint filed May 27 by the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) called on the federal government , especially the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) to remove restrictions on access to the abortion pill .
The lawsuit echoed claims made in a letter signed by 21 state attorneys general who wrote to FDA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to request that you increase access to reproductive health care , including safe and legal abortion , during this pandemic.
” “ ( W ) e urge you to waive its Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy ( REMS ) , or use FDA enforcement discretion , to allow certified prescribers to use telehealth for Mifepristone , the medication abortion prescription drug , ” the attorneys general , including those of California and New York , continued .
Kristi Stone Hamrick , who works as chief media strategist for Students for Life of America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a Washington Examiner op-ed , “ Pushing chemical abortion pills allows a predatory industry to make a fast sale and outsource future complications to an emergency room.
” “ It ’ s no help to women to end the requirement for life-saving tests , all in the name of cutting costs and increasing ‘ access.
’ It ’ s the abortion industry whose time and money are liberated , ” she added .

'To use chemical abortion to end a pregnancy of less than 56 days without an examination or determination of blood type should be considered malpractice,' said the president of the Catholic Medical Association.
PETITION: Demand Planned Parenthood return $80M improperly taken from coronavirus emergency fund! Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In an effort to make the abortion pill more accessible than ever before, abortionists are campaigning to abolish a standard blood test for pregnant women that could mean the difference between her future pregnancies surviving or perishing.
Abortionists would like to abolish the standard Rh factor blood test performed on pregnant women. The Mayo Clinic explains: “Rhesus (Rh) factor is an inherited protein found on the surface of red blood cells. If your blood has the protein, you’re Rh positive. If your blood lacks the protein, you’re Rh negative.”
If a pregnant woman is Rh negative, but the baby is Rh positive, the mother’s body “might produce proteins called Rh antibodies after exposure to the baby’s red blood cells.” While this usually does not happen during pregnancy, it is more likely to take place during delivery, as well as during an abortion.
“The antibodies produced aren’t a problem during the first pregnancy,” the Mayo Clinic emphasizes. “The concern is with your next pregnancy.” This would be the case with any pregnancy following an abortion.
“If your next baby is Rh positive, these Rh antibodies can cross the placenta and damage the baby’s red blood cells,” which are needed to provide the baby’s body with oxygen. “This could lead to life-threatening anemia, a condition in which red blood cells are destroyed faster than the baby’s body can replace them,” ultimately leading to the baby’s death.
The 2020 Clinical Policy Guidelines for Abortion Care, published by the National Abortion Federation, recommend, “Below 56 days from the last menstrual period, patients and providers may forego Rh testing and anti-D immune globulin for patients who are Rh negative.”
“To use chemical abortion to end a pregnancy of less than 56 days without an examination or determination of blood type should be considered malpractice,” commented Catholic Medical Association (CMA) President Michael S. Parker, M.D.
Dr. Parker, a practicing OB/GYN in Ohio in addition to serving as CMA’s president, told LifeSiteNews that what is called Rh isoimmunization “occurs when a mother’s blood type is different from the father’s. For example, my wife is O negative and I am A positive. All of our children are A positive.”
“Should my wife come into contact with Rh positive blood, her immune system would react as it would to a virus or bacteria, trying to destroy those cells.”
According to Parker, this process can be compared to being vaccinated. “Once sensitized, this immune response would attack the cells of any baby with my blood type causing severe anemia with increased risk for fetal death and miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies.”
“To prevent this reaction from occurring, pregnant women can receive an injection of antibodies,” known as Rh immune globulin, “that will ‘scavenge’ any fetal cells before her body can mount an immune response,” he explained.
In other words, a woman who is Rh negative and who had an abortion without being given an injection of Rh immune globulin before the abortion, as well as shortly afterwards, would elevate the risk of her subsequent children dying naturally during pregnancy.
Lester Ruppersberger, M.D., an OB/GYN and former CMA president, told LifeSiteNews ivia a detailed email how any future pregnancy “with an Rh positive baby will lead to the antibodies destroying the baby’s blood, leading to hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN) which can lead to anemia, permanent organ damage, and possibly death.”
“The discovery of Rh immune globulin … in 1970,” he added emphatically, “reduced the incidence of HDN from 14% to less than 1%!”
In May 2019, Contraception, the official pro-abortion and pro-contraception journal of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals and the Society of Family Planning, argued for foregoing Rh testing prior to performing chemical abortions, which are, according to Planned Parenthood, still possible for women who are 10-11 weeks pregnant.
“Carefully explaining that testing and treating patients with anti-D immunoglobulin early in pregnancy has no demonstrated benefit and carries risk, is not practiced in other countries, and adds cost and complexity to the abortion procedure, will be critical steps in changing practice,” the authors of the short article in Contraception argued.
Waiving the need to perform an Rh factor blood test, said Ruppersberger, “is unethical, immoral and bad medicine which goes against every standard of care recommended as good practice by every major medical organization other than the abortion organizations!”
He pointed out that not requiring the test during the first 56 days of pregnancy is arbitrary.
Doing Rh testing, Ruppersberger continued, does not even actually “interfere with the performance of the abortion or the pregnancy not desired, it is to protect any future pregnancies from developing HDN!”
“I don’t believe the government should mandate any healthcare decision,” he answered when asked about whether the government should require abortionists to perform Rh factor blood tests.
While the government can make recommendations, “‘standards of care’ are developed by medical experts/organizations,” allowing people and legal entities to learn about what “best practices” are. Many malpractice lawsuits “are predicated on lack of performance according to standards of care; if not practiced, then legal repercussions or loss of licensure can and should result.”
Michael S. Parker of the Catholic Medical Association said, “Those who propose doing away with this [Rh] testing feel it is not necessary because before 56 days, there may not be enough fetal red blood cells to cause a reaction. They propose allowing for prescription of medical abortion without exam, ultrasound or determination of Rh status.”
Chemical abortions, otherwise referred to as medication abortion, using the abortion pill, are also currently being pushed by the abortion industry.
A complaint filed May 27 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called on the federal government, especially the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove restrictions on access to the abortion pill.
The lawsuit echoed claims made in a letter signed by 21 state attorneys general who wrote to FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn on March 30 “to request that you increase access to reproductive health care, including safe and legal abortion, during this pandemic.”
“(W)e urge you to waive its Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), or use FDA enforcement discretion, to allow certified prescribers to use telehealth for Mifepristone, the medication abortion prescription drug,” the attorneys general, including those of California and New York, continued.
Kristi Stone Hamrick, who works as chief media strategist for Students for Life of America and Students for Life Action, commented in a Washington Examiner op-ed, “Pushing chemical abortion pills allows a predatory industry to make a fast sale and outsource future complications to an emergency room.”
“It’s no help to women to end the requirement for life-saving tests, all in the name of cutting costs and increasing ‘access.’ It’s the abortion industry whose time and money are liberated,” she added.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-01--Bishop Schneider: There is no divine positive will or natural right to the diversity of religions

June 1 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – There is sufficient reason to suggest that a cause and effect relationship exists between the Second Vatican Council ’ s Declaration on Religious Freedom , Dignitatis Humanae , and the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together , signed by Pope Francis and Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb in Abu Dhabi , on February 4 , 2019 .
On his return flight to Rome from the United Arab Emirates , Pope Francis himself told journalists : “ There is one thing … I would like to say .
I openly reaffirm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view the Document does not move one millimeter away from the Second Vatican Council .
It is even cited , several times .
The Document was crafted in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.
” Dignitatis Humanae reaffirms the Church ’ s traditional doctrine , stating : “ We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church , ” and it reasserts the “ moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ ” ( n.1 ) .
Unfortunately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Council undermines this truth by setting forth a theory never before taught by the constant Magisterium of the Church , i.e.
, that man has the right founded in his own nature , “ not to be prevented from acting in religious matters according to his own conscience , whether privately or publicly , whether alone or in association with others , within due limits ” ( ut in re religiosa neque impediatur , quominus iuxta suam conscientiam agat privatim et publice , vel solus vel aliis consociatus , intra debitos limites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this statement , man would have the right , based on nature itself ( and therefore positively willed by God ) not to be prevented from choosing , practicing and spreading , also collectively , the worship of an idol , and even the worship of Satan , since there are religions that worship Satan , for instance , the “ church of Satan.
” Indeed , in some countries , the “ church of Satan ” is recognized with the same legal value as all other religions .
The only condition that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ just public order ” be observed ( n. 2 ) .
And so a religion called “ the church of Satan ” is able to worship the Father of Lies , so long as they observe “ public order ” within due limits .
Hence the freedom not to be prevented in choosing , practicing and spreading the worship of Satan , individually or collectively , would be a right that has its foundation in human nature , and is therefore positively willed by God .
The dangerous ambiguity of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is part of a single sentence , whose first part obviously corresponds to the traditional and constant doctrine of the Church .
This first part says : “ in religious matters , no one should be forced to act against his conscience ” ( ut in re religiosa neque aliquis cogatur ad agendum contra suam conscientiam , n.2 ) , i.e.
, no one should be forced against his will to believe in God and accept a religion , even the only true one religion , which is the Christian religion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one and the same sentence — in the same breath , so to speak .
The existence and exercise of free will and , consequently , the freedom from external coercion , are founded in human nature itself , and are therefore willed by God .
The faculty to choose between good and evil , truth and error , between the only one and true religion and other religions , is founded in human nature .
However , one can not conclude from the existence of the faculty to choose between good and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there follows the natural right to choose , execute and spread error , i.e .
a false religion .
Immunity from external coercion in accepting the only one true Faith is a natural right .
It is also a natural right not to be forced to carry out evil ( sin ) or error ( false religion ) .
However , it does not follow from this that God wills positively ( natural right ) , that man should not be prevented from choosing , carrying out and spreading evil ( sin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One has to keep in mind this fundamental distinction between the faculty to choose and do evil , and the right to choose and do evil .
God tolerates evil and error and false religions ; He even tolerates the worship of the so-called “ church of Satan.
” However , God ’ s tolerance or allowance ( His permissive will ) of evil and error does not constitute in man a natural right to choose , practice and spread them , i.e .
it does not constitute God ’ s positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centuries told the pagan civil authorities that , if Christians would worship a false religion , the State could forbid such a religion .
The key point in the first-century Christian apologetics was this : to prove the truth of the Christian religion and the falsehood of pagan religions .
Tertullian said that all pagan , i.e .
non-Christian religions , are “ worshipping a lie , and they commit the crime of real irreligion against the truth ” ( Apologeticum , 24 ) .
How can immunity from coercion in choosing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a right based on man ’ s nature itself and , therefore , positively willed by God ?
St. Melito of Sardis , a holy bishop and apologist from the second century , said : “ The greatest of all errors is this : when a man is ignorant of God , and in God ’ s stead worships that which is not God ” ( Eus .
h.e .
4 , 26 ) There are two distinct realities .
It is one thing to force someone against his conscience to accept a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is another to proclaim a natural right , positively willed by God , to choose , practice and spread error and false religions , as in the case , for instance , of choosing , practicing and spreading the religion of the “ church of Satan.
” For anyone who is intellectually honest , and is not seeking to square the circle , it is clear that the assertion made in Dignitatis Humanae , according to which every man has the right based on his own nature ( and therefore positively willed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a religion according to his own conscience , does not differ substantially from the statement in the Abu Dhabi Declaration , which says : “ The pluralism and the diversity of religions , color , sex , race and language are willed by God in His wisdom , through which He created human beings .
This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.
” How can this fact be explained , given that the aforementioned problematic statement in Dignitatis Humanae @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The first basic thing to consider is the fact that both Popes of the Council — John XXIII and Paul VI — and Vatican II itself , clearly stated that , unlike all previous Councils , it had neither the aim nor the intention to propose its own doctrine in a definitive and infallible way .
Thus , in his address at the solemn opening of the Council , Pope John XXIII said : “ The main purpose of this Council is not , therefore , the discussion of one or another theme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” He added that the character of the Council ’ s magisterium would be “ predominantly pastoral ” ( October 11 , 1962 ) .
For his part , Pope Paul VI said in his address at the last public session of the Council , that Vatican II “ made its program ” from “ the pastoral character ” ( 7 December 1965 ) .
Furthermore , in a note made by the Council ’ s Secretary-General , on November 16 , 1964 , one reads : “ Taking conciliar custom into consideration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present Council , the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.
” There have been statements made by other Ecumenical Councils that have become obsolete and been forgotten or have even been corrected by the later Magisterium .
Let us consider a few of the obsolete and erroneous statements made by previous Ecumenical Councils , so as not to be scandalized by the fact that a non-infallible affirmation in a conciliar Declaration ( not even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Humanae , can be corrected by the Magisterium in the future .
The IV Ecumenical Council of Constantinople ( 870 ) harshly condemned Photios , Patriarch of Constantinople , in Canon 4 , declaring that he was a “ dangerous wolf in Christ ’ s flock and that he filled the entire world with a thousand riots and agitations , and that he was never a bishop , and all the churches and altars , consecrated by him , should be re-consecrated.
” Yet the Byzantine Orthodox Church venerates this same Photios as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Patriarch of Constantinople , ” and it celebrates his liturgical feast on February 6 .
With a future union of the Byzantine Greek Orthodox Church and the Holy See , Canon 4 of the IV Council of Constantinople would most certainly be abolished .
The III Ecumenical Lateran Council ( 1179 ) stipulated in Canon 26 that neither Jews , nor Muslims , could employ Christians as workers in their homes .
It also said that Christians who dared to live in the homes of Jews and Muslims should be excommunicated .
Can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an affirmation made by an Ecumenical Council ?
The IV Lateran Council ( 1215 ) titled an entire Constitution ( Constitution 4 ) , “ On the pride of the Greeks against the Latins ” ( De superbia Graecorum contra Latinos ) .
Such an affirmation is surely offensive to our separated brethren .
The same Council titled another Constitution ( Constitution 26 ) “ The Jews must be distinguished from the Christians by their clothing.
” And Constitution 27 states that Jews should not hold public offices .
The Ecumenical Council of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13th session , excommunicates those priests who administer Holy Communion under both species .
Let us consider another example .
The Ecumenical Council of Florence ( 1439 ) stated that the matter ( materia ) of priestly ordination was the delivery of the chalice , and completely omitted any mention of the laying on of hands by the bishop .
It stated : “ The sixth is the sacrament of the Order .
The matter of this sacrament is what confers the Order .
Thus , the presbyterate is conferred with the delivery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paten with bread ” ( Bull of the union with the Armenians Exultate Deo , 22 November 1439 ) .
In 1947 , Pope Pius XII corrected this error by reasserting the perennial Catholic doctrine , which also corresponded to the liturgical practice of the universal Church , in both East and West .
He proposes a definitive teaching , using the following expressions : “ After invoking the divine light , We by Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare ” and “ In order to remove all controversy and preclude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the decisive statement : “ We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare , and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary , We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate , the Priesthood , and the Episcopacy ” ( Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis , 30 November 1947 ) .
One may rightly hope and believe that a future Pope or Ecumenical Council will correct the erroneous statement made in the Second Vatican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This error has precipitated a series of disastrous practices and doctrines , such as the interreligious prayer meeting in Assisi in 1986 , and the Abu Dhabi Document in 2019 .
Such practices and doctrines have greatly contributed to the theoretical and practical relativization of the divinely revealed truth that the religion born of faith in Jesus Christ , the Incarnate Son of God and only Savior of mankind , is the only religion positively willed by God .
In accord with the perennial Magisterium , Pope Paul VI taught that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an authentic and living relationship which the other religions do not succeed in doing , even though they have , as it were , their arms stretched out towards heaven ” ( Paul VI , Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi , 53 ) .
Any statement must be avoided that , even remotely , might weaken or obfuscate the divinely revealed truth that the religion born of faith in Jesus Christ , the Incarnate Son of God and only Savior of mankind , is the only religion positively willed by God .
Dignitatis Humanae @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural right ( positively willed by God ) not to be impeded in choosing , exercising and spreading , even publicly , any form of religion according to his conscience , and the Abu Dhabi Document ’ s assertion that God wills the diversity of religions , in the same way as He wills positively the diversity of sex ( based on man ’ s nature itself ) , will surely one day be corrected by the Papal Magisterium of the Cathedra of St. Peter — the cathedra veritatis .
Indeed , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in time ( semper ) , in space ( ubique ) and in perennial consent ( ab omnibus ) the “ the pillar and bulwark of the truth ” ( 1 Tim 3:15 ) .

'There have been statements made by other Ecumenical Councils that have become obsolete and been forgotten or have even been corrected by the later Magisterium'
PETITION: Tell politicians not to discriminate against churches when reopening society! Sign the petition here.
June 1, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – There is sufficient reason to suggest that a cause and effect relationship exists between the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, and the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together, signed by Pope Francis and Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb in Abu Dhabi, on February 4, 2019. On his return flight to Rome from the United Arab Emirates, Pope Francis himself told journalists: “There is one thing … I would like to say. I openly reaffirm this: from the Catholic point of view the Document does not move one millimeter away from the Second Vatican Council. It is even cited, several times. The Document was crafted in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.”
Dignitatis Humanae reaffirms the Church’s traditional doctrine, stating: “We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church,” and it reasserts the “moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ” (n.1). Unfortunately, just a few sentences later, the Council undermines this truth by setting forth a theory never before taught by the constant Magisterium of the Church, i.e., that man has the right founded in his own nature, “not to be prevented from acting in religious matters according to his own conscience, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits” (ut in re religiosa neque impediatur, quominus iuxta suam conscientiam agat privatim et publice, vel solus vel aliis consociatus, intra debitos limites, n. 2). According to this statement, man would have the right, based on nature itself (and therefore positively willed by God) not to be prevented from choosing, practicing and spreading, also collectively, the worship of an idol, and even the worship of Satan, since there are religions that worship Satan, for instance, the “church of Satan.” Indeed, in some countries, the “church of Satan” is recognized with the same legal value as all other religions.
The only condition that Dignitatis Humanae places on religious freedom is that “just public order” be observed (n. 2). And so a religion called “the church of Satan” is able to worship the Father of Lies, so long as they observe “public order” within due limits. Hence the freedom not to be prevented in choosing, practicing and spreading the worship of Satan, individually or collectively, would be a right that has its foundation in human nature, and is therefore positively willed by God.
The dangerous ambiguity of this statement is concealed by the fact that it is part of a single sentence, whose first part obviously corresponds to the traditional and constant doctrine of the Church. This first part says: “in religious matters, no one should be forced to act against his conscience” (ut in re religiosa neque aliquis cogatur ad agendum contra suam conscientiam, n.2), i.e., no one should be forced against his will to believe in God and accept a religion, even the only true one religion, which is the Christian religion.
Truth and error are being asserted in one and the same sentence — in the same breath, so to speak. The existence and exercise of free will and, consequently, the freedom from external coercion, are founded in human nature itself, and are therefore willed by God. The faculty to choose between good and evil, truth and error, between the only one and true religion and other religions, is founded in human nature. However, one cannot conclude from the existence of the faculty to choose between good and evil, between truth and error, that there follows the natural right to choose, execute and spread error, i.e. a false religion.
Immunity from external coercion in accepting the only one true Faith is a natural right. It is also a natural right not to be forced to carry out evil (sin) or error (false religion). However, it does not follow from this that God wills positively (natural right), that man should not be prevented from choosing, carrying out and spreading evil (sin) or error (false religion). One has to keep in mind this fundamental distinction between the faculty to choose and do evil, and the right to choose and do evil. God tolerates evil and error and false religions; He even tolerates the worship of the so-called “church of Satan.” However, God’s tolerance or allowance (His permissive will) of evil and error does not constitute in man a natural right to choose, practice and spread them, i.e. it does not constitute God’s positive will. Christian Apologists in the first centuries told the pagan civil authorities that, if Christians would worship a false religion, the State could forbid such a religion. The key point in the first-century Christian apologetics was this: to prove the truth of the Christian religion and the falsehood of pagan religions. Tertullian said that all pagan , i.e. non-Christian religions, are “worshipping a lie, and they commit the crime of real irreligion against the truth” (Apologeticum, 24). How can immunity from coercion in choosing and committing a crime against the truth be a right based on man’s nature itself and, therefore, positively willed by God? St. Melito of Sardis, a holy bishop and apologist from the second century, said: “The greatest of all errors is this: when a man is ignorant of God, and in God’s stead worships that which is not God” (Eus. h.e. 4, 26)
There are two distinct realities. It is one thing to force someone against his conscience to accept a religion and carry out religious acts. It is another to proclaim a natural right, positively willed by God, to choose, practice and spread error and false religions, as in the case, for instance, of choosing, practicing and spreading the religion of the “church of Satan.”
For anyone who is intellectually honest, and is not seeking to square the circle, it is clear that the assertion made in Dignitatis Humanae, according to which every man has the right based on his own nature (and therefore positively willed by God) to practice and spread a religion according to his own conscience, does not differ substantially from the statement in the Abu Dhabi Declaration, which says: “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.”
How can this fact be explained, given that the aforementioned problematic statement in Dignitatis Humanae was made by an Ecumenical Council? The first basic thing to consider is the fact that both Popes of the Council — John XXIII and Paul VI — and Vatican II itself, clearly stated that, unlike all previous Councils, it had neither the aim nor the intention to propose its own doctrine in a definitive and infallible way. Thus, in his address at the solemn opening of the Council, Pope John XXIII said: “The main purpose of this Council is not, therefore, the discussion of one or another theme of the fundamental doctrine of the Church.” He added that the character of the Council’s magisterium would be “predominantly pastoral” (October 11, 1962). For his part, Pope Paul VI said in his address at the last public session of the Council, that Vatican II “made its program” from “the pastoral character” (7 December 1965). Furthermore, in a note made by the Council’s Secretary-General, on November 16, 1964, one reads: “Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.”
There have been statements made by other Ecumenical Councils that have become obsolete and been forgotten or have even been corrected by the later Magisterium.
Let us consider a few of the obsolete and erroneous statements made by previous Ecumenical Councils, so as not to be scandalized by the fact that a non-infallible affirmation in a conciliar Declaration (not even a Constitution or Decree) like Dignitatis Humanae, can be corrected by the Magisterium in the future.
The IV Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (870) harshly condemned Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, in Canon 4, declaring that he was a “dangerous wolf in Christ’s flock and that he filled the entire world with a thousand riots and agitations, and that he was never a bishop, and all the churches and altars, consecrated by him, should be re-consecrated.” Yet the Byzantine Orthodox Church venerates this same Photios as “Saint Photios the Great and Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople,” and it celebrates his liturgical feast on February 6. With a future union of the Byzantine Greek Orthodox Church and the Holy See, Canon 4 of the IV Council of Constantinople would most certainly be abolished.
The III Ecumenical Lateran Council (1179) stipulated in Canon 26 that neither Jews, nor Muslims, could employ Christians as workers in their homes. It also said that Christians who dared to live in the homes of Jews and Muslims should be excommunicated. Can the Catholic Church today still maintain such an affirmation made by an Ecumenical Council?
The IV Lateran Council (1215) titled an entire Constitution (Constitution 4), “On the pride of the Greeks against the Latins” (De superbia Graecorum contra Latinos). Such an affirmation is surely offensive to our separated brethren.
The same Council titled another Constitution (Constitution 26) “The Jews must be distinguished from the Christians by their clothing.” And Constitution 27 states that Jews should not hold public offices.
The Ecumenical Council of Constance (1415), in its 13th session, excommunicates those priests who administer Holy Communion under both species.
Let us consider another example. The Ecumenical Council of Florence (1439) stated that the matter (materia) of priestly ordination was the delivery of the chalice, and completely omitted any mention of the laying on of hands by the bishop. It stated: “The sixth is the sacrament of the Order. The matter of this sacrament is what confers the Order. Thus, the presbyterate is conferred with the delivery of the chalice with wine and the paten with bread” (Bull of the union with the Armenians Exultate Deo, 22 November 1439).
In 1947, Pope Pius XII corrected this error by reasserting the perennial Catholic doctrine, which also corresponded to the liturgical practice of the universal Church, in both East and West. He proposes a definitive teaching, using the following expressions: “After invoking the divine light, We by Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare” and “In order to remove all controversy and preclude any doubts of conscience”. This is the decisive statement: “We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary, We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy” (Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, 30 November 1947).
One may rightly hope and believe that a future Pope or Ecumenical Council will correct the erroneous statement made in the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration, Dignitatis Humanae. This error has precipitated a series of disastrous practices and doctrines, such as the interreligious prayer meeting in Assisi in 1986, and the Abu Dhabi Document in 2019. Such practices and doctrines have greatly contributed to the theoretical and practical relativization of the divinely revealed truth that the religion born of faith in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God and only Savior of mankind, is the only religion positively willed by God.
In accord with the perennial Magisterium, Pope Paul VI taught that the “Christian religion effectively establishes with God an authentic and living relationship which the other religions do not succeed in doing, even though they have, as it were, their arms stretched out towards heaven” (Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi, 53).
Any statement must be avoided that, even remotely, might weaken or obfuscate the divinely revealed truth that the religion born of faith in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God and only Savior of mankind, is the only religion positively willed by God. Dignitatis Humanae’s assertion that man has a natural right (positively willed by God) not to be impeded in choosing, exercising and spreading, even publicly, any form of religion according to his conscience, and the Abu Dhabi Document’s assertion that God wills the diversity of religions, in the same way as He wills positively the diversity of sex (based on man’s nature itself), will surely one day be corrected by the Papal Magisterium of the Cathedra of St. Peter — the cathedra veritatis. Indeed, the Catholic Church is and will always remain in time (semper), in space (ubique) and in perennial consent (ab omnibus) the “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
May 31, 2020, Feast of Pentecost
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-03--Irish potato famine showed incredibly heroic, humble priests. That’s what we need today

The following article illustrates historically what the recent Rorate Caeli article entitled “ A theologian analyzes the morality of the cancellation of public Masses and the closure of churches by the State ” documented theologically : the attitude priests must have in administering the sacraments .
The author is Fr .
William J. Slattery , Ph.D , S.T.L.
, author of The Logic of Truth ( Leonardo da Vinci , 2016 ) and Heroism and Genius : How Catholic Priests Helped Build — and can help Rebuild — Western Civilization ( Ignatius Press , 2017 ) .
June 2 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most recent well-documented account of the attitudes and actions of priests during an epidemic occurred during the most devastating famine to hit Europe since the fifteenth century : the “ Great Famine ” in Ireland between 1845–1850 .
According to Amartya Sen , the Harvard historian of famines , “ [ in ] no other famine in the world [ was ] the proportion of people killed as large as in the Irish famines of the 1840s.
” [ i ] The cause was a blight that destroyed the potato crop — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation ’ s 8.5 million people — killing one million persons by starvation and related diseases of fever , diphtheria , cholera , smallpox , dysentery and influenza and forcing another million into exile .
When the famine struck , the Irish parish priests , though few in number and with minimal resources , rose to the occasion , acting according to their identity as spiritual fathers .
[ ii ] Their heroism was repeatedly recognized by their political enemies .
As a British government official seeking to alleviate the effects of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the Roman Catholic curates [ assistant parish priests ] .
.
.
are laboring like tigers for us , working day and night .
.
.
[ without them ] we could not move a stroke.
” [ iii ] Even a revolutionary movement , the Young Irelanders , although bitter about the Church ’ s refusal to side with them , stated — somewhat hyperbolically — that the priests had cared for the people of their parishes “ with a devotion unsurpassed in the annals of martyrdom ” .
[ iv @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible to alleviate the famine itself and its associated epidemic , the Catholics of Ireland wanted above all that their priests act as priests : to give them Holy Communion , hear their confessions , anoint them at their last hour , and remind them of Heaven .
As Father Bernard O ’ Reilly , who accompanied his compatriots to exile in North America on the “ coffin-ships ” remarked , they wanted “ the supreme consolation of an Irish Catholic — the last rites of his Church.
” [ v ] One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , narrated his daily existence at the peak of the famine as follows : We rise at four o ’ clock — when not obliged to attend a night call — and proceed on horseback a distance from four to seven miles to hold stations of [ the sacrament of ] confession for the convenience of the poor country people who .
.
.
flock in thousands .
.
to prepare themselves for the death they look to as inevitable .
At these stations we have to remain up to five o ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the famishing thousands .
.
.
.
The confessions are often interrupted by calls to the dying , and generally , on our way home we have to .
.
.
administer the last rites .
.
.
to one or more fever patients .
Arrived home , we have scarcely seated ourselves to a little dinner when we are interrupted by groans and sobs of several persons at the door crying out , “ I am starving ” , “ if you do not help me I must die ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
In truth the priest must either harden his heart against the cry of misery or deprive himself of his usual nourishment to keep victims from falling at his door .
After dinner — or perhaps before it is half- over — the priest is again surrounded by several persons , calling on him to come in haste — that their parents , or brothers , or wives , or children are “ just departing ” .
The priest is again obliged to mount his jaded pony and endeavor to keep pace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a guide through glen and ravine and over precipice to his infected hut .
This gives but a faint idea of the life of a priest here .
[ vi ] Alongside all of this , priests often ended up performing the gruesome role of ensuring that the corpses were buried in coffins .
People dreaded that they or their relations would be buried without a coffin , and it often fell to the priest to procure coffins , to coffin the dead , and to bury , Tobias-like , the victims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Father Troy of Skibbereen , County Cork narrated such an incident on January 10 , 1847 : The situation of the clergy in many parts of Ireland was similar to that described in this letter : Some priests , perhaps many , even gave away most of their few personal belongings : It was no surprise , therefore , that as the famine devoured the country many of the clergy became almost as poor as beggars , without decent clothes or even a pair of shoes ; indeed , some were almost starving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ In some instances where priests were confined with fever , I found in their cabins nothing available beyond stirabout .
.
.
.
There was no tea , no sugar , no provisions whatever ; in some of their huts the wind blew , the snow came in , and the rain dripped.
” [ xii ] Moving constantly amid deadly disease and corpses took its toll among these valiant men .
From 1847 to 1852 eight bishops died , some at least from famine fever .
The highly documented authoritative work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Church and the Famine ( Columba Press , 1996 ) states , “ Many priests , religious brothers and nuns certainly died as a result of the Famine ” .
Another historian stated : ‘ In 1847 at least thirty-six priests died of fever , sixteen of them during the month of May.
’ [ xiii ] Six priests died in Kerry .
Of the sixty-four priests in the diocese of Kilmore , seven died in 1846–1847 ; at least seven in County Cork by June 1847 ; five died in the diocese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ song of Famine times refers to a priest crossing the Atlantic from Galway Bay to Baltimore in the winter of 1847 or 1848 , accompanying some 200 Irish , young and old : “ Bhí sagart beannuí a labhair ó chroí linn gur thug sé saor sinn go Baltimore [ A holy priest was there to speak from the heart with us , and he brought us safe to Baltimore ] .
Of some 100,000 Irish that sailed to Canada in 1847 , about one out of five died from disease and malnutrition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada in 1847 were authentic “ coffin ships ” : thousands died either on board or upon disembarking at Grosse Île , a quarantine island in the middle of the Saint Lawrence River in Canada , where at least 5,500 died .
When the ships came ashore with their “ ghastly yellow looking specters ” , priests were waiting for them with food , medical supplies and the sacraments .
A Celtic cross on the island commemorates forty-four priests who attended the immigrants .
They paid the price there and elsewhere for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were infected with famine fever and six died ; in Montreal , seventeen Grey nuns and seven priests succumbed ; in Toronto , Bishop Michael Power ( 1804-1847 ) perished of typhus .
[ xiv ] These priests did not regard themselves as heroes .
This was all done in the line of duty ; a matter of fulfilling what they had sworn to God to do when they touched the chalice and prostrated themselves on their day of sacred ordination ; a matter of giving their people what was due to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Tradition : this had always been the attitude of priests from the lethal smallpox epidemic that swept through the Roman Empire during the years 165-180 .
It was the attitude of the thirty-eight- year- old archbishop , Charles Borromeo , when the bubonic plague struck Milan in 1576 .
He spared no expense and risked every danger in caring for the suffering — and probably paid for it by hastening his own death due to intermittent fever eight years later on November 4 , 1584 .
Mark Twain , describing him as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was describing the Irish priests during the Famine and all the other priests through the ages : During two millennia , when plague or famine struck , all priests knew the Catholic attitude — the only possible one — regarding the administration of the sacraments , as confirmed by the Council of Trent with all the nuances and subtleties of theology : the Sacrifice must be present and the sacraments must be given because both are necessary .
An attitude alive and vigorous because the Catholicism of two millennia of Tradition was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Fire ” !
“ Take now this Ring , ’ he said ; ‘ for thy labors and thy cares will be heavy , but in all it will support thee and defend thee from weariness .
For this is the Ring of Fire and herewith , maybe , thou shalt rekindle hearts to the valor of old in a world that grows chill.
’ ” [ xvi ] [ i ] Amartya Sen ( lecture at New York University , 1995 ) , quoted in Cormac Ó Gráda , Black ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Famine in History , Economy and Memory ( Princeton , N.J. : Princeton University Press , 1999 ) , p. 3 .
[ ii ] There were only 2,393 priests in parishes in Ireland in 1845 : 1,008 pastors and 1,385 assistant pastors ( “ curates ” ) ; see A. Kerr , A Nation of Beggars ?
Priests , People and Politics in Famine Ireland , 1846–1852 ( Oxford : Oxford University Press , 1995 ) , p. 48 .
According to estimates based on the first religious census taken in Ireland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholics in 1841 were nearly 81 percent of the total population while the combined Protestant total made up most of the remaining 19 percent — i n round figures , 6,500,000 Catholics out of the total population of 8,175,000 ; see “ First Report of the Commissioners of Public Instruction , Ireland ” , Parliamentary Papers 33 , no .
45 ( 1835 ) .
[ iii ] Lord Monteagle to Bessborough , October 1 , 1846 , Monteagle Papers , MS 13 , 396 , National Library of Ireland , quoted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 48 .
Italics mine .
Lord Monteagle had been Chancellor of the Exchequer in the British government from 1835 to 1839 .
[ v ] Quoted in , Donal A. Kerr , “ The Catholic Church and the Great Irish Famine ” , March 7 , 1997 lecture , online at http : //www.vincenter.org/97/kerr.html [ vii ] Limerick and Clare Examiner , May 17 , 1849 .
Quoted in the article “ Father Thomas Moloney Pleaded for His Starving Flock ” , Irish Identity , accessed January 20 , 2015 , http : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Austin Hobbs , of Clare Champion .
[ viii ] Donal A. Kerr , A Nation of Beggars ?
: Priests , People and Politics in Famine Ireland , 1846-52 , Oxford University Press , 1995 , p.38 .
[ x ] Letter of Bishop Egan of Kerry to Renehan , April 22 , 1846 , Renehan papers , MCA , quoted in Kerr , Nation of Beggars , p. 170 .
[ xi ] Account of the pastorship of Fr .
Timothy Kelly , parish priest of Cooraclare and Kilmihil during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , History of Kilmurry Ibrickane ( Old Kilfarboy , County Clare : Old Kilfarboy Society , 2002 ) .
[ xii ] Count P. E. de Strzelecki , agent for the British Association ’ s relief scheme in a letter to Clarendon , August 26 , 1848 , in Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Irish Poor Laws , May 4 , 1849 , vol .
16 , 979–80 , quoted in Kerr , Nation of Beggars , p. 171 .
[ xiii ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clergy and the Great Famine in Reportarium Novum , 1956 , ( 1 ) , p. 463 .
[ xiv ] See the documentary drama , Death or Canada : the story of the Irish Famine and its impact on Toronto in 1847 wherein the heroism of Bishop Power is portrayed .

These priests did not regard themselves as heroes. This was all done in the line of duty — a matter of fulfilling what they had sworn to God.
The following article illustrates historically what the recent Rorate Caeli article entitled “A theologian analyzes the morality of the cancellation of public Masses and the closure of churches by the State” documented theologically: the attitude priests must have in administering the sacraments. The author is Fr. William J. Slattery, Ph.D, S.T.L., author of The Logic of Truth (Leonardo da Vinci, 2016) and Heroism and Genius: How Catholic Priests Helped Build — and can help Rebuild — Western Civilization (Ignatius Press, 2017).
June 2, 2020 (Rorate Caeli) — The most recent well-documented account of the attitudes and actions of priests during an epidemic occurred during the most devastating famine to hit Europe since the fifteenth century: the “Great Famine” in Ireland between 1845–1850. According to Amartya Sen, the Harvard historian of famines, “[in] no other famine in the world [was] the proportion of people killed as large as in the Irish famines of the 1840s.”[i] The cause was a blight that destroyed the potato crop — the staple food for three million of the nation’s 8.5 million people — killing one million persons by starvation and related diseases of fever, diphtheria, cholera, smallpox, dysentery and influenza and forcing another million into exile.
When the famine struck, the Irish parish priests, though few in number and with minimal resources, rose to the occasion, acting according to their identity as spiritual fathers.[ii] Their heroism was repeatedly recognized by their political enemies. As a British government official seeking to alleviate the effects of the famine wrote at the time, “all the Roman Catholic curates [assistant parish priests] . . . are laboring like tigers for us, working day and night . . . [without them] we could not move a stroke.”[iii] Even a revolutionary movement, the Young Irelanders, although bitter about the Church’s refusal to side with them, stated — somewhat hyperbolically — that the priests had cared for the people of their parishes “with a devotion unsurpassed in the annals of martyrdom”.[iv]
Although they did as much as possible to alleviate the famine itself and its associated epidemic, the Catholics of Ireland wanted above all that their priests act as priests: to give them Holy Communion, hear their confessions, anoint them at their last hour, and remind them of Heaven. As Father Bernard O’Reilly, who accompanied his compatriots to exile in North America on the “coffin-ships” remarked, they wanted “the supreme consolation of an Irish Catholic — the last rites of his Church.”[v]
One priest, Father Hugh Quigley of Killaloe, narrated his daily existence at the peak of the famine as follows:
We rise at four o’clock — when not obliged to attend a night call — and proceed on horseback a distance from four to seven miles to hold stations of [the sacrament of] confession for the convenience of the poor country people who . . . flock in thousands . . to prepare themselves for the death they look to as inevitable. At these stations we have to remain up to five o’clock p.m. administering both consolation and instruction to the famishing thousands. . . . The confessions are often interrupted by calls to the dying, and generally, on our way home we have to . . . administer the last rites . . . to one or more fever patients. Arrived home, we have scarcely seated ourselves to a little dinner when we are interrupted by groans and sobs of several persons at the door crying out, “I am starving”, “if you do not help me I must die”, and “I wish I was dead”. In truth the priest must either harden his heart against the cry of misery or deprive himself of his usual nourishment to keep victims from falling at his door. After dinner — or perhaps before it is half- over — the priest is again surrounded by several persons, calling on him to come in haste — that their parents, or brothers, or wives, or children are “just departing”. The priest is again obliged to mount his jaded pony and endeavor to keep pace with the peasant who trots before him as a guide through glen and ravine and over precipice to his infected hut. This gives but a faint idea of the life of a priest here.[vi]
A newspaper account described another priest’s schedule:
On last Sunday and Monday week, the broken-hearted clergyman had to drag his own tottering limbs, with scarce an interval of rest, from one corpse to another. In the three subsequent days, exhausted, overcome, feeble and faint, he had still to continue his attendance on the dying; to pass continually from townland to townland; to look on corpse after corpse, to behold, renewed over and over, all the agonies and horrors.[vii]
Alongside all of this, priests often ended up performing the gruesome role of ensuring that the corpses were buried in coffins. People dreaded that they or their relations would be buried without a coffin, and it often fell to the priest to procure coffins, to coffin the dead, and to bury, Tobias-like, the victims of the pestilence.[viii] Father Troy of Skibbereen, County Cork narrated such an incident on January 10, 1847:
I went to the hut…provided with a coffin — had to creep in on my hands through an opening. The lifeless and putrid corpse was reclining against the wall…The poor wife and one of the children endeavored to get to their knees (they could not stand) to help me to coffin his remains, but I had to beg of my curate to help us.” Father Thomas Quinn in County Clare told how: “I had, together with my curate, Rev. Mr. Reid, to convey by torchlight two successive nights, the remains of two persons who were abandoned by their own immediate family and friends.”[ix]
The situation of the clergy in many parts of Ireland was similar to that described in this letter:
“The priests are absolutely exhausted having to attend so many sick calls and in many instances are obliged to walk, their horses being unable to carry them through want of sufficient feeding and the priest not getting as much as would purchase oats for his horse.”[x]
Some priests, perhaps many, even gave away most of their few personal belongings:
When the terrible scourge of the famine descended upon his [Father Timothy Kelly’s] parish from 1845 to 1847, his reaction to the prevailing distress was what one would expect of the pastor and the man sprung from the people. He was in every sense the father of his flock. He organized the provision of meals for the numbers who were starving and when every resource failed he sold all he had, even his horse, to buy food for his people.[xi]
It was no surprise, therefore, that as the famine devoured the country many of the clergy became almost as poor as beggars, without decent clothes or even a pair of shoes; indeed, some were almost starving. As a government inspector reported: “In some instances where priests were confined with fever, I found in their cabins nothing available beyond stirabout. . . . There was no tea, no sugar, no provisions whatever; in some of their huts the wind blew, the snow came in, and the rain dripped.”[xii]
Moving constantly amid deadly disease and corpses took its toll among these valiant men. From 1847 to 1852 eight bishops died, some at least from famine fever. The highly documented authoritative work, by Donal Kerr entitled The Catholic Church and the Famine (Columba Press, 1996) states, “Many priests, religious brothers and nuns certainly died as a result of the Famine”. Another historian stated: ‘In 1847 at least thirty-six priests died of fever, sixteen of them during the month of May.’[xiii] Six priests died in Kerry. Of the sixty-four priests in the diocese of Kilmore, seven died in 1846–1847; at least seven in County Cork by June 1847; five died in the diocese of Killaloe in 1847–1848.
A Gaelic song of Famine times refers to a priest crossing the Atlantic from Galway Bay to Baltimore in the winter of 1847 or 1848, accompanying some 200 Irish, young and old: “Bhí sagart beannuí a labhair ó chroí linn gur thug sé saor sinn go Baltimore [A holy priest was there to speak from the heart with us, and he brought us safe to Baltimore].
Of some 100,000 Irish that sailed to Canada in 1847, about one out of five died from disease and malnutrition. The ships bearing the Irish to Canada in 1847 were authentic “coffin ships”: thousands died either on board or upon disembarking at Grosse Île, a quarantine island in the middle of the Saint Lawrence River in Canada, where at least 5,500 died.
When the ships came ashore with their “ghastly yellow looking specters”, priests were waiting for them with food, medical supplies and the sacraments. A Celtic cross on the island commemorates forty-four priests who attended the immigrants. They paid the price there and elsewhere for their dedication: on Grosse Île twenty priests were infected with famine fever and six died; in Montreal, seventeen Grey nuns and seven priests succumbed; in Toronto, Bishop Michael Power (1804-1847) perished of typhus.[xiv]
These priests did not regard themselves as heroes. This was all done in the line of duty; a matter of fulfilling what they had sworn to God to do when they touched the chalice and prostrated themselves on their day of sacred ordination; a matter of giving their people what was due to their people by sacred right.
They knew the Tradition: this had always been the attitude of priests from the lethal smallpox epidemic that swept through the Roman Empire during the years 165-180. It was the attitude of the thirty-eight- year- old archbishop, Charles Borromeo,when the bubonic plague struck Milan in 1576. He spared no expense and risked every danger in caring for the suffering — and probably paid for it by hastening his own death due to intermittent fever eight years later on November 4, 1584. Mark Twain, describing him as he moved calmly amid the terrified people, was describing the Irish priests during the Famine and all the other priests through the ages:
He was brave where all others were cowards, full of compassion where pity had been crushed out of all other breasts by the instinct of self-preservation gone mad with terror; cheering all, praying with all, helping all with hand, brain, and purse; at a time when parents forsook their children, the friend deserted the friend, and the brother turned away from the sister while her pleadings were still wailing in his ears.[xv]
During two millennia, when plague or famine struck, all priests knew the Catholic attitude — the only possible one — regarding the administration of the sacraments, as confirmed by the Council of Trent with all the nuances and subtleties of theology: the Sacrifice must be present and the sacraments must be given because both are necessary.
An attitude alive and vigorous because the Catholicism of two millennia of Tradition was vibrant.
Tradition, the “Ring of Fire”! “Take now this Ring,’ he said; ‘for thy labors and thy cares will be heavy, but in all it will support thee and defend thee from weariness. For this is the Ring of Fire and herewith, maybe, thou shalt rekindle hearts to the valor of old in a world that grows chill.’”[xvi]
NOTES
[i] Amartya Sen (lecture at New York University, 1995), quoted in Cormac Ó Gráda, Black ‘47 and Beyond: The Great Irish Famine in History, Economy and Memory (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 3.
[ii] There were only 2,393 priests in parishes in Ireland in 1845: 1,008 pastors and 1,385 assistant pastors (“curates”); see A. Kerr, A Nation of Beggars? Priests, People and Politics in Famine Ireland, 1846–1852 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 48. According to estimates based on the first religious census taken in Ireland by the British government in 1834, Catholics in 1841 were nearly 81 percent of the total population while the combined Protestant total made up most of the remaining 19 percent — i n round figures, 6,500,000 Catholics out of the total population of 8,175,000; see “First Report of the Commissioners of Public Instruction, Ireland”, Parliamentary Papers 33, no. 45 (1835).
[iii] Lord Monteagle to Bessborough, October 1, 1846, Monteagle Papers, MS 13, 396, National Library of Ireland, quoted in Kerr, Nation of Beggars, p. 48. Italics mine. Lord Monteagle had been Chancellor of the Exchequer in the British government from 1835 to 1839.
[iv] Nation, July 24, 1847, quoted in Kerr, Nation of Beggars, p. 61. Italics mine.
[v] Quoted in, Donal A. Kerr, “The Catholic Church and the Great Irish Famine”, March 7, 1997 lecture, online at https://www.vincenter.org/97/kerr.html
[vi] Kerr, Nation of Beggars, p. 42.
[vii] Limerick and Clare Examiner, May 17, 1849. Quoted in the article “Father Thomas Moloney Pleaded for His Starving Flock”, Irish Identity, accessed January 20, 2015, https://www.irishidentity.com/stories/molony .htm, courtesy of Matthew Lynch and Austin Hobbs, of Clare Champion.
[viii] Donal A. Kerr, A Nation of Beggars?: Priests, People and Politics in Famine Ireland, 1846-52 , Oxford University Press, 1995, p.38.
[ix] Ibid., p.39.
[x] Letter of Bishop Egan of Kerry to Renehan, April 22, 1846, Renehan papers, MCA, quoted in Kerr, Nation of Beggars, p. 170.
[xi] Account of the pastorship of Fr. Timothy Kelly, parish priest of Cooraclare and Kilmihil during the Great Famine, in Peter Ryan, History of Kilmurry Ibrickane (Old Kilfarboy, County Clare: Old Kilfarboy Society, 2002).
[xii] Count P. E. de Strzelecki, agent for the British Association’s relief scheme in a letter to Clarendon, August 26, 1848, in Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Irish Poor Laws, May 4, 1849, vol. 16, 979–80, quoted in Kerr, Nation of Beggars, p. 171.
[xiii] T.P.O’Neill, ‘The Catholic Clergy and the Great Famine in Reportarium Novum, 1956, (1), p. 463.
[xiv] See the documentary drama, Death or Canada: the story of the Irish Famine and its impact on Toronto in 1847 wherein the heroism of Bishop Power is portrayed.
[xv] Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, autograph edition (Hartford, Conn., 1869), pp. 231–32.
[xvi] J. R. R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion.
Published with permission from Rorate Caeli.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-04--Google hit with $5 billion lawsuit over tracking private browsing

PETITION : Yes to reform .
No to riots & revolution Sign petition here .
SAN FRANCISCO , California , June 3 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A lawsuit filed Tuesday with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeks at least $ 5 billion from Google over tracking users ’ information even when they are browsing in private mode .
According to Reuters , which has seen the complaint , Google is accused of gathering data “ through Google Analytics , Google Ad Manager and other applications and website plug-ins , including smartphone apps , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ads.
” Those tracking activities , the article indicated , take place in all browsers used in private mode , not only within Google ’ s own Chrome browser .
Reuters continued , “ This helps Google learn about users ’ friends , hobbies , favorite foods , shopping habits , and even the ‘ most intimate and potentially embarrassing things ’ they search for online , the complaint said.
” Google “ can not continue to engage in the covert and unauthorized data collection from virtually every American with a computer or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved in numerous lawsuits over the years , many of which had to do with privacy issues .
Wikipedia has dedicated a site solely to “ Google litigation.
” Most recently , Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich , a Republican , sued Google for setting up its smartphone operating system Android “ in a way that enriched its advertising empire and deceived device owners about the protections actually afforded to their personal data , ” The Washington Post reported at the end of May .
Google and Apple , which are effectively a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems to almost the entire smartphone market worldwide , used the coronavirus pandemic to jointly develop a basis for future contact tracing apps .
“ Together , the tech giants rolled out a COVID-19 exposure notification system , essentially a unified programming interface that will allow public health departments to create their own contact tracing applications , ” ABC News reported in May .
“ The companies said that digital contact tracing is meant to augment traditional human-to-human tracing , not replace it , ” the article continued .
“ Digital contact tracing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fewer resources and since it doesn ’ t rely on human memory , can make it easier to track exposure in crowded spaces , or contact with strangers.
” In addition to violating users ’ privacy , Google and other tech companies have been condemned for their censorship of divergent statements and opinions , especially in the context of the coronavirus pandemic .
President Donald Trump , in mid-May , called out the “ Radical Left ” for its influence over various social media based in the United States .
“ The Radical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Facebook , Instagram , Twitter and Google , ” Trump tweeted May 16 .
“ The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation.
” In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic , tech giants like Twitter and YouTube , the latter being part of Google , have implemented a number of new measures they claim are needed to stop the spread of what they consider false information regarding the virus .
Twitter began to attach warning labels to “ some tweets containing disputed or misleading information ” in the context of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public conversation , our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content , ” Twitter said in a statement .
The company introduced “ new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information.
” Twitter indicated that in the future “ we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a tweet are less severe but where people may still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The warning labels will send users either to a website curated directly by Twitter and containing more information on whatever the subject of the tweet was , or to an “ external trusted source.
” In certain cases , Twitter might not even show a supposedly “ harmful and misleading ” tweet to users .
Instead , it will display a message similar to those warning of potentially “ sensitive material.
” “ Some or all of the content shared in this tweet conflicts with guidance from public health experts regarding COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Twitter users can still view the tweet , or they can choose to move along to a “ trusted source.
” YouTube , meanwhile , started using fact-check information panels for viewers in the United States , flagging , among other things , what the company deems to be “ misinformation ” regarding the coronavirus pandemic .
The company claimed the fact-check information panels are necessary in order “ for viewers to get accurate information during fast-moving events.
” On April 19 , Susan Wojcicki , the CEO of YouTube , announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Organization ( WHO ) on the coronavirus pandemic would be removed from the video streaming platform .
“ We also talk about removing information that is problematic , ” she said .
“ Of course , anything that is medically unsubstantiated .
So people saying , like , take Vitamin C , you know , take turmeric , like , those are – will cure you .
Those are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy.
” She then specified that any content going “ against World Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our policy .
And so ( removal ) is another really important part of our policy.
” On Friday , President Donald Trump defunded the World Health Organization over its pro-China bias .
Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said during an interview in mid-April that he considers protests against stay-at-home orders , which are often planned via Facebook , to be “ harmful misinformation ” that must be deleted .
While claiming that “ it ’ s important that people can debate policies , ” Zuckerberg indicated that there is a limit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook ’ s users to do this .
“ But , you know , more than normal political discourse , I think a lot of the stuff that people are saying that is false around a health emergency like this can be classified as harmful misinformation that has a risk of leading to imminent physical danger and we ’ ll just take that kind of content down , ” he said .
On the other hand , Zuckerberg claimed on May 28 that Facebook “ shouldn ’ t be the arbiter of truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He said , “ Private companies probably shouldn ’ t be , especially these platform companies , shouldn ’ t be in the position of doing that.
” Facebook had also introduced an international Oversight Board packed with leftists and people with ties to globalist George Soros , wielding massive power to judge what is acceptable speech .
The Oversight Board was created to “ help Facebook answer some of the most difficult questions around freedom of expression online : what to take down , what to leave up , and why .
@

The complaint states that Google 'cannot continue to engage in the covert and unauthorized data collection from virtually every American with a computer or phone.'
PETITION: Yes to reform. No to riots & revolution Sign petition here.
SAN FRANCISCO, California, June 3, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A lawsuit filed Tuesday with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeks at least $5 billion from Google over tracking users’ information even when they are browsing in private mode.
According to Reuters, which has seen the complaint, Google is accused of gathering data “through Google Analytics, Google Ad Manager and other applications and website plug-ins, including smartphone apps, regardless of whether users click on Google-supported ads.”
Those tracking activities, the article indicated, take place in all browsers used in private mode, not only within Google’s own Chrome browser.
Reuters continued, “This helps Google learn about users’ friends, hobbies, favorite foods, shopping habits, and even the ‘most intimate and potentially embarrassing things’ they search for online, the complaint said.”
Google “cannot continue to engage in the covert and unauthorized data collection from virtually every American with a computer or phone.”
The tech giant has been involved in numerous lawsuits over the years, many of which had to do with privacy issues. Wikipedia has dedicated a site solely to “Google litigation.”
Most recently, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, sued Google for setting up its smartphone operating system Android “in a way that enriched its advertising empire and deceived device owners about the protections actually afforded to their personal data,” The Washington Post reported at the end of May.
Google and Apple, which are effectively a duopoly providing the Android and iOS operating systems to almost the entire smartphone market worldwide, used the coronavirus pandemic to jointly develop a basis for future contact tracing apps.
“Together, the tech giants rolled out a COVID-19 exposure notification system, essentially a unified programming interface that will allow public health departments to create their own contact tracing applications,” ABC News reported in May.
“The companies said that digital contact tracing is meant to augment traditional human-to-human tracing, not replace it,” the article continued. “Digital contact tracing is faster than traditional tracing, requires fewer resources and since it doesn’t rely on human memory, can make it easier to track exposure in crowded spaces, or contact with strangers.”
In addition to violating users’ privacy, Google and other tech companies have been condemned for their censorship of divergent statements and opinions, especially in the context of the coronavirus pandemic.
President Donald Trump, in mid-May, called out the “Radical Left” for its influence over various social media based in the United States. “The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google,” Trump tweeted May 16. “The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation.”
In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, tech giants like Twitter and YouTube, the latter being part of Google, have implemented a number of new measures they claim are needed to stop the spread of what they consider false information regarding the virus.
Twitter began to attach warning labels to “some tweets containing disputed or misleading information” in the context of the coronavirus pandemic.
“In serving the public conversation, our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content,” Twitter said in a statement. The company introduced “new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information.”
Twitter indicated that in the future “we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content.”
The warning labels will send users either to a website curated directly by Twitter and containing more information on whatever the subject of the tweet was, or to an “external trusted source.”
In certain cases, Twitter might not even show a supposedly “harmful and misleading” tweet to users. Instead, it will display a message similar to those warning of potentially “sensitive material.”
“Some or all of the content shared in this tweet conflicts with guidance from public health experts regarding COVID-19,” the new warning message reads. Twitter users can still view the tweet, or they can choose to move along to a “trusted source.”
YouTube, meanwhile, started using fact-check information panels for viewers in the United States, flagging, among other things, what the company deems to be “misinformation” regarding the coronavirus pandemic. The company claimed the fact-check information panels are necessary in order “for viewers to get accurate information during fast-moving events.”
On April 19, Susan Wojcicki, the CEO of YouTube, announced that all content contradicting the Word Health Organization (WHO) on the coronavirus pandemic would be removed from the video streaming platform.
“We also talk about removing information that is problematic,” she said. “Of course, anything that is medically unsubstantiated. So people saying, like, take Vitamin C, you know, take turmeric, like, those are – will cure you. Those are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy.”
She then specified that any content going “against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy. And so (removal) is another really important part of our policy.”
On Friday, President Donald Trump defunded the World Health Organization over its pro-China bias.
Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said during an interview in mid-April that he considers protests against stay-at-home orders, which are often planned via Facebook, to be “harmful misinformation” that must be deleted.
While claiming that “it’s important that people can debate policies,” Zuckerberg indicated that there is a limit to how much freedom he will allow Facebook’s users to do this.
“But, you know, more than normal political discourse, I think a lot of the stuff that people are saying that is false around a health emergency like this can be classified as harmful misinformation that has a risk of leading to imminent physical danger and we’ll just take that kind of content down,” he said.
On the other hand, Zuckerberg claimed on May 28 that Facebook “shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.” He said, “Private companies probably shouldn’t be, especially these platform companies, shouldn’t be in the position of doing that.”
Facebook had also introduced an international Oversight Board packed with leftists and people with ties to globalist George Soros, wielding massive power to judge what is acceptable speech.
The Oversight Board was created to “help Facebook answer some of the most difficult questions around freedom of expression online: what to take down, what to leave up, and why.”
Share