lifesitenews--2020-01-15--Vatican insider: ‘Furious’ Francis demanded Benedict retract name from priestly celibacy book

ROME , January 15 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A Vatican-based journalist has alleged that Pope Francis was “ furious ” over Pope Benedict ’ s contribution to a book co-authored with Cardinal Robert Sarah defending priestly celibacy , demanding that Benedict retract his name from the work .
Antonio Socci , an Italian Catholic journalist best known for his coverage of Church news , has reported on social media that Pope Francis was infuriated by the texts in Des Profondeurs de nos coeurs ( From the Depths of Our Hearts ) supporting priestly celibacy .
“ The day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world broke out in the Vatican because Bergoglio was furious , ” Socci wrote this Tuesday .
“ In fact , that very authoritative pronouncement of Benedict XVI prevents him from taking a pickaxe to ecclesiastical celibacy as he had planned to do in the next post-synodal exhortation , ” he continued .
“ Thus , [ Pope Francis ] personally called Archbishop Gänswein , the secretary of Benedict XVI as well as the prefect of Bergoglio ’ s pontifical household , and ― furious ― ordered him to remove the name of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book … ” Socci said that “ reliable sources within the Vatican ” had given him the “ behind the scenes ” story leading up to the Pope Emeritus ’ decision to distance himself from the book he co-authored with Cardinal Sarah .
The prolific author of such works as The Secret of Benedict XVI : Is He Still the Pope ?
stated that Pope Francis wanted his predecessor to renounce his authorship entirely ― which would have been a falsehood .
“ For this reason the first filtered news spoke of sources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that Benedict had neither co-authored a book with Sarah nor approved the cover , that is , his signature on the book , ” he continued .
“ This , however , was not true , and Benedict XVI could not bring himself to bear false witness implying that Cardinal Sarah had involved him without his consent .
Nor had Pope Benedict the least intention of retracting what he had written in defence of celibacy in that volume.
” Socci noted that at the outbreak of the scandal Cardinal Sarah had published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrated that the book was the work of them both and that the book had Benedict ’ s consent .
The Pope Emeritus ’ instructions to publishers to downplay his authorship in future editions of the work , however , was allegedly to protect Archbishop Gänswein .
“ ... .Benedict also found it necessary to shelter his secretary from South American ‘ vendettas ’ , given that he had received a peremptory order from Bergoglio , ” Socci wrote .
“ Thus this compromise solution was adopted : on the cover of future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be Cardinal Sarah ‘ with the contribution of Benedict XVI , ” he continued .
“ The text in the book , in any case , will remain the same.
” Socci said that this “ messy compromise ” means that Pope Francis ’ s “ court ” are able to tell the media that the Pope Emeritus has retracted his signature from the book , “ even though this is not true ” and his name still appears on the agreed-upon parts of the work .
“ A most ugly story of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a gagging of Benedict XVI , ” he remarked .
“ However , there remains the underlying question : if Bergoglio , in his exhortation bashes celibacy , with the ordination of ‘ viri probati ’ , which is in fact in direct conflict with the doctrine of the Church recently reaffirmed by Pope Benedict XVI , ” Socci stated .
“ Thus he assumes responsibility for a most serious breach with heavy consequences.
” The American publisher of the English translation of the work , Ignatius Press , has affirmed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s founder and editor-in-chief , a former student of Joseph Ratzinger , told LifeSiteNews on Monday that claims Benedict had not co-authored the book were “ fake news.
” “ I just got a call from Cardinal Sarah .
He confirms that Pope Benedict is co-author with him , ” said Fr .
Joseph Fessio .
Ignatius press confirmed Tuesday that it will continue to list the two prelates as co-authors .
According to an official letter written to the bishops of the world , but leaked to LifeSiteNews , Pope Francis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Amazon Synod by early February .
One of the most controversial topics of the synod , the possibility of ordaining married aboriginal men in the Amazon to the priesthood , is expected to be addressed in this post-synodal exhortation .

Vaticanist Antonio Socci said that Pope Francis ordered Benedict's secretary to remove the name of Benedict XVI from the cover of the book.
PETITION: Support Cardinal Sarah's Defense of Priestly Celibacy” Sign the petition here.
January 17, 2020 update: Die Tagespost reported today that Pope Emeritus Benedict's private secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, denies Socci’s statements. Gänswein told the German Catholic newspaper that it was a “fictitious” and a “lie” that Pope Francis ordered a complete denial of Benedict XVI’s co-authorship of From the Depths of Our Hearts. The German secretary, who is also the head of Pope Francis’ Papal Household, stated that Pope Francis had said “nothing” to him about the book when he met with him last week. Gänswein denied also that Benedict had agreed to a compromise solution to protect him from “South American vendettas.” He maintains that the Pope Emeritus did not see the French version of the work until Monday afternoon.
ROME, January 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A Vatican-based journalist has alleged that Pope Francis was “furious” over Pope Benedict’s contribution to a book co-authored with Cardinal Robert Sarah defending priestly celibacy, demanding that Benedict retract his name from the work.
Antonio Socci, an Italian Catholic journalist best known for his coverage of Church news, has reported on social media that Pope Francis was infuriated by the texts in Des Profondeurs de nos coeurs (From the Depths of Our Hearts) supporting priestly celibacy.
“The day before yesterday … the end of the world broke out in the Vatican because Bergoglio was furious,” Socci wrote this Tuesday.
“In fact, that very authoritative pronouncement of Benedict XVI prevents him from taking a pickaxe to ecclesiastical celibacy as he had planned to do in the next post-synodal exhortation,” he continued.
“Thus, [Pope Francis] personally called Archbishop Gänswein, the secretary of Benedict XVI as well as the prefect of Bergoglio’s pontifical household, and ― furious ― ordered him to remove the name of Benedict XVI from the cover of the book …”
Socci said that “reliable sources within the Vatican” had given him the “behind the scenes” story leading up to the Pope Emeritus’ decision to distance himself from the book he co-authored with Cardinal Sarah. The prolific author of such works as The Secret of Benedict XVI: Is He Still the Pope? stated that Pope Francis wanted his predecessor to renounce his authorship entirely ― which would have been a falsehood.
“Bergoglio demanded a full and total retraction,” Socci wrote.
“For this reason the first filtered news spoke of sources ‘close to Benedict XVI’ who said that Benedict had neither co-authored a book with Sarah nor approved the cover, that is, his signature on the book,” he continued.
“This, however, was not true, and Benedict XVI could not bring himself to bear false witness implying that Cardinal Sarah had involved him without his consent. Nor had Pope Benedict the least intention of retracting what he had written in defence of celibacy in that volume.”
Socci noted that at the outbreak of the scandal Cardinal Sarah had published his correspondence with the Pope Emeritus that demonstrated that the book was the work of them both and that the book had Benedict’s consent. The Pope Emeritus’ instructions to publishers to downplay his authorship in future editions of the work, however, was allegedly to protect Archbishop Gänswein.
“….Benedict also found it necessary to shelter his secretary from South American ‘vendettas’, given that he had received a peremptory order from Bergoglio,” Socci wrote.
“Thus this compromise solution was adopted: on the cover of future editions of the book the author will be Cardinal Sarah ‘with the contribution of Benedict XVI,” he continued.
“The text in the book, in any case, will remain the same.”
Socci said that this “messy compromise” means that Pope Francis’s “court” are able to tell the media that the Pope Emeritus has retracted his signature from the book, “even though this is not true” and his name still appears on the agreed-upon parts of the work.
“A most ugly story of clerical power that in the end points to a gagging of Benedict XVI,” he remarked.
“However, there remains the underlying question: if Bergoglio, in his exhortation bashes celibacy, with the ordination of ‘viri probati’, which is in fact in direct conflict with the doctrine of the Church recently reaffirmed by Pope Benedict XVI,” Socci stated.
“Thus he assumes responsibility for a most serious breach with heavy consequences.”
The American publisher of the English translation of the work, Ignatius Press, has affirmed the co-authorship of the work. The company’s founder and editor-in-chief, a former student of Joseph Ratzinger, told LifeSiteNews on Monday that claims Benedict had not co-authored the book were “fake news.”
“I just got a call from Cardinal Sarah. He confirms that Pope Benedict is co-author with him,” said Fr. Joseph Fessio.
Ignatius press confirmed Tuesday that it will continue to list the two prelates as co-authors.
According to an official letter written to the bishops of the world, but leaked to LifeSiteNews, Pope Francis wants to publish a final document on the Amazon Synod by early February. One of the most controversial topics of the synod, the possibility of ordaining married aboriginal men in the Amazon to the priesthood, is expected to be addressed in this post-synodal exhortation.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-15--Catholic monks reveal how they prepare for death in a monastery

January 15 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The news is regularly peppered these days with stories about the spread of euthanasia throughout Western societies .
A practice once considered abhorrent — indeed , simply a form of murder in cold blood , of those who are most vulnerable and most deserving of our loving attention and affection — is being promoted as the best way to “ take someone out of their misery , ” much as a lame horse or a frail pet is “ put down ” by the vet .
It seems to me that what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s typically arrogant attempt to control the mystery of death by a kind of “ preemptive strike ” : instead of suffering death as a purifying passage to eternal life , we try to commodify it as the ultimate form of analgesic .
Beneath the pseudo-scientific justifications and the epidemic of false compassion , we find still operative the primitive fear of death that no technology can overcome .
Death is the reality that throws the rest of life into sharp relief as having been meaningful or meaningless .
St. Paul even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those “ who , through the fear of death , were all their lifetime subject to servitude ” ( Heb 2:15 ) .
Slaves who feel oppressed and hopeless are driven to desparate acts .
The same Lord Jesus Christ , the Son of God in command of the entire created world , experienced the fear of death according to His true human nature .
Death is an evil from which every creature naturally flees , and man , with his power of reasoning and his ability to cognize time , can apprehend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No wonder the modern post-Christian world works overtime to hide from death and to hide it away as much as possible .
Without God , death can have no meaning ; without Christ , death can have no benefit ; without the Holy Spirit , death can not be faced with love and hope .
It becomes the great absurdity rather than the gateway from mortal to immortal life .
Late in 2019 , Ignatius Press published a new book , both sobering and strangely elevating : Nicolas Diat ’ s A Time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Eternal Life .
Diat is the French journalist well know for producing three book-length interviews with Cardinal Sarah : God or Nothing ; The Power of Silence ; The Day is Now Far Spent .
For this book , Diat ’ s own work , Cardinal Sarah provides a Foreword .
To write this unusual book , Diat allowed himself ample time to visit eight monasteries in France , with the goal of talking to monks about their views on death , how they prepare for it , how it affects them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life .
It is remarkable if for no other reason than that one comes to realize how this question of death in fact enters , openly or subtly , into every other question humans face , and that it is in a sense THE question to which religion , and more particularly , religious life , is the answer .
From that point of view , the book becomes an indirect apologia for the truth of Christianity .
Here I can only pick and share with you a few choice fruits .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abbey observes : Dom David says our medical technology has developed to such an extent that it prolongs our agony and leaves us in tatters .
We can end up viewing ourselves and one another in a depersonalized manner , as if we are machines with functional or non-functional parts , instead of seeing the image of God that is infinitely more precious than bodily life itself and any technology we can muster .
Readers may be surprised to learn ( although it stands to reason ) that monasteries struggle with the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of life care , pain medications , when to bring someone home from the hospital to die in his own bed .
Diat structures the book in such a way that it seems to become more serene about death as it goes on .
At En-Calcat , a seriously ill monk recounts : “ I realize at what point life is not important .
At the same time , it takes on all of its importance .
I am clearly aware of the end of all things .
But it is necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( 43 ) .
At Solesmes , the infirmarian talks about how he has learned to slow down and be attentive to detail so that he avoids rushing away from the care of the sick : Br .
Theophane of Sept-Fons Abbey confides to Diat : “ I am never so aware of the presence of God as at the moment of the death of my brothers .
There is a break , a before and after .
We are at the point of the most perfect intersection of God and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monk of Cîteaux Abbey , Dom Olivier , shares a word with all the resonance of a desert father : “ The hardest death is the little daily death , when we are perfectly healthy .
In life we go from one death to another ; they prepare us for the ultimate end .
Little deaths of the ego are the big deaths , and they allow for a good death ” ( 104 ) .
Most moving to me was the chapter on Fontgombault Abbey , a Benedictine monastery with fully traditional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of monks ( Clear Creek in the USA is a daughter-house ) .
Diat comments : One of the monks interviewed says : “ The stronger the supernatural life , the greater the familiarity with the afterlife , and the simpler the death ” ( ibid. )
.
The Catholic tradition has long emphasized this very point : if we wish to have a holy death , we must build up the habits in our lives that will come into play in our hour of greatest need .
Death , in that sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment of a process that long predates it and prepares for it .
Those who think it “ unfair ” that one ’ s eternal destiny should depend solely on the state of one ’ s soul at the moment of death are not thinking about it correctly : they do not see the truth that “ as a man lives , so will he die.
” Within this chapter on Fontgombault , the most moving testimony comes from Dom Pateau , who shares the following wisdom : In the chapter on Mondaye @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an old soldier of World War II , later an Augustinian canon , who hailed from the Champagne region .
He was on his deathbed in the hospital when his Father Abbot came to give him last rites .
But no dreary atmosphere marked this moment .
After last rites , the Abbot uncorked a bottle of champagne and they drank a toast .
Two days later , Father Vincent died in peace , having been brought back to the abbey ( 148–49 ) .
Diat lets fall here a sentence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A full community is composed of the living and the dead ” ( 149 ) .
That is not our modern Western way of thinking , as Chesterton realized when he felt compelled to remind us : “ Tradition is the democracy of the dead.
” In fact , for Catholics , the greater and better part of the Church consists of the souls of the righteous , who are not dead but more alive by far than we are , as regards the life that is truly life .
Their community is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together we form one body .
Surprisingly , it is the Carthusians—the most austere and inaccessible of all religious—who come across as the most humorous !
In the last chapter , we read that Carthusians make saints , but do not promote their causes .
The story is told of a Carthusian lay brother in the middle of the 17th century whose grave , after he died , became the site of ever-increasing miracles .
The prior , having got wind of it , came out to the grave , and addressed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holy obedience , I forbid you to perform miracles.
” The extraordinary phenomena ceased ( 164 ) .
A doctor says to a Carthusian : “ This is serious , you could die !
” The monk , without stopping to think , replies : “ Well , if it is only that… ” ( 168 ) .
Diat has gathered for us , with loving hands , an assortment of the rarest flowers of piety , common sense , and Christian hope ; now we can read them for our benefit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ spend half my life thinking about eternal life .
It is the constant backdrop that lines my whole existence… We must love this door that will allow us to know the Father ” ( 166 ) .
The same monk writes in a note later on to the author : “ It is not the door that I am waiting for , but what is on the other side of the door .
I am not waiting for death , but for Life .
This should go without saying , but curiously enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 169 ) .
In his Foreword , Cardinal Sarah writes : “ Monasteries are places where one learns to live and die in an atmosphere of silent prayer , the gaze always turned toward the beyond and the One who made us… ” Nicolas Diat has indeed demonstrated how much we can and must learn from the monks , who live and die for Christ , in Christ , with Christ .

January 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The news is regularly peppered these days with stories about the spread of euthanasia throughout Western societies.
A practice once considered abhorrent — indeed, simply a form of murder in cold blood, of those who are most vulnerable and most deserving of our loving attention and affection — is being promoted as the best way to “take someone out of their misery,” much as a lame horse or a frail pet is “put down” by the vet.
It seems to me that what we are seeing is the modern West’s typically arrogant attempt to control the mystery of death by a kind of “preemptive strike”: instead of suffering death as a purifying passage to eternal life, we try to commodify it as the ultimate form of analgesic.
Beneath the pseudo-scientific justifications and the epidemic of false compassion, we find still operative the primitive fear of death that no technology can overcome. Death is the reality that throws the rest of life into sharp relief as having been meaningful or meaningless. St. Paul even says that Our Lord came to deliver those “who, through the fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to servitude” (Heb 2:15). Slaves who feel oppressed and hopeless are driven to desparate acts.
The same Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God in command of the entire created world, experienced the fear of death according to His true human nature. Death is an evil from which every creature naturally flees, and man, with his power of reasoning and his ability to cognize time, can apprehend this future evil with unnerving results. No wonder the modern post-Christian world works overtime to hide from death and to hide it away as much as possible. Without God, death can have no meaning; without Christ, death can have no benefit; without the Holy Spirit, death cannot be faced with love and hope. It becomes the great absurdity rather than the gateway from mortal to immortal life.
Late in 2019, Ignatius Press published a new book, both sobering and strangely elevating: Nicolas Diat’s A Time to Die: Monks on the Threshold of Eternal Life. Diat is the French journalist well know for producing three book-length interviews with Cardinal Sarah: God or Nothing; The Power of Silence; The Day is Now Far Spent. For this book, Diat’s own work, Cardinal Sarah provides a Foreword.
To write this unusual book, Diat allowed himself ample time to visit eight monasteries in France, with the goal of talking to monks about their views on death, how they prepare for it, how it affects them when their confreres pass to the next life. It is remarkable if for no other reason than that one comes to realize how this question of death in fact enters, openly or subtly, into every other question humans face, and that it is in a sense THE question to which religion, and more particularly, religious life, is the answer. From that point of view, the book becomes an indirect apologia for the truth of Christianity.
Here I can only pick and share with you a few choice fruits. At one point, Dom David of En-Calcat Abbey observes:
He [Günther Anders] talks about the promethean shift that marks the modern world. Man has created a technological world that humiliates him and makes him feel ashamed…. Technology cannot be at fault. In contrast, in classical anthropology, man was the summit of the animal kingdom. Over the past 50 years, he has become the low point in a world dominated by technological idols. (53)
Dom David says our medical technology has developed to such an extent that it prolongs our agony and leaves us in tatters. We can end up viewing ourselves and one another in a depersonalized manner, as if we are machines with functional or non-functional parts, instead of seeing the image of God that is infinitely more precious than bodily life itself and any technology we can muster. Readers may be surprised to learn (although it stands to reason) that monasteries struggle with the same challenges laity face in the world: end of life care, pain medications, when to bring someone home from the hospital to die in his own bed.
Diat structures the book in such a way that it seems to become more serene about death as it goes on.
At En-Calcat, a seriously ill monk recounts: “I realize at what point life is not important. At the same time, it takes on all of its importance. I am clearly aware of the end of all things. But it is necessary to get up and fight for life” (43).
At Solesmes, the infirmarian talks about how he has learned to slow down and be attentive to detail so that he avoids rushing away from the care of the sick:
The risk of the commodification of the sick exists. I must pray to keep the strength of my desire to serve awake. [The sick brother] is Christ. When we come before God, we will be accountable for our charity toward the weakest. I need to know how to lose my time for the sick. In life, giving freely is essential. Christ said the man who loses his life gains it. (61)
Br. Theophane of Sept-Fons Abbey confides to Diat: “I am never so aware of the presence of God as at the moment of the death of my brothers. There is a break, a before and after. We are at the point of the most perfect intersection of God and the living” (93).
A monk of Cîteaux Abbey, Dom Olivier, shares a word with all the resonance of a desert father: “The hardest death is the little daily death, when we are perfectly healthy. In life we go from one death to another; they prepare us for the ultimate end. Little deaths of the ego are the big deaths, and they allow for a good death” (104).
Most moving to me was the chapter on Fontgombault Abbey, a Benedictine monastery with fully traditional observance and a larger than usual number of monks (Clear Creek in the USA is a daughter-house). Diat comments:
A bedridden monk often keeps his reflexes as a good religious. He looks for his rosary, he remembers prayers. Monastic formation endures. The monk dies as he has lived. He does not choose either his sickness or his suffering, but his death still resembles his life. (131)
One of the monks interviewed says: “The stronger the supernatural life, the greater the familiarity with the afterlife, and the simpler the death” (ibid.). The Catholic tradition has long emphasized this very point: if we wish to have a holy death, we must build up the habits in our lives that will come into play in our hour of greatest need. Death, in that sense, is no more than a final moment of a process that long predates it and prepares for it. Those who think it “unfair” that one’s eternal destiny should depend solely on the state of one’s soul at the moment of death are not thinking about it correctly: they do not see the truth that “as a man lives, so will he die.”
Within this chapter on Fontgombault, the most moving testimony comes from Dom Pateau, who shares the following wisdom:
The acceleration of technological life overwhelms us until the final moments. God must force us to take this time: He says, “That’s enough,” when modern man would readily answer, “I don’t have time.” We would be quite ready to miss the high point of this life. Man has become a slave. In the same way, he no longer has time for himself and for God. The lack is cruel. He does not have time to die because he does not have time to live. For his part, the monk agrees to lose all his time for God. Monastic life is happy; monastic death is, also. (135)
In the chapter on Mondaye Abbey, we hear the delightful story of an old soldier of World War II, later an Augustinian canon, who hailed from the Champagne region. He was on his deathbed in the hospital when his Father Abbot came to give him last rites. But no dreary atmosphere marked this moment. After last rites, the Abbot uncorked a bottle of champagne and they drank a toast. Two days later, Father Vincent died in peace, having been brought back to the abbey (148–49). Diat lets fall here a sentence that is worthy of much reflection: “A full community is composed of the living and the dead” (149). That is not our modern Western way of thinking, as Chesterton realized when he felt compelled to remind us: “Tradition is the democracy of the dead.” In fact, for Catholics, the greater and better part of the Church consists of the souls of the righteous, who are not dead but more alive by far than we are, as regards the life that is truly life. Their community is the exemplar and support of ours; together we form one body.
Surprisingly, it is the Carthusians—the most austere and inaccessible of all religious—who come across as the most humorous! In the last chapter, we read that Carthusians make saints, but do not promote their causes. The story is told of a Carthusian lay brother in the middle of the 17th century whose grave, after he died, became the site of ever-increasing miracles. The prior, having got wind of it, came out to the grave, and addressed the deceased: “In the name of holy obedience, I forbid you to perform miracles.” The extraordinary phenomena ceased (164).
A doctor says to a Carthusian: “This is serious, you could die!” The monk, without stopping to think, replies: “Well, if it is only that…” (168).
Diat has gathered for us, with loving hands, an assortment of the rarest flowers of piety, common sense, and Christian hope; now we can read them for our benefit. A Carthusian tells him: “I spend half my life thinking about eternal life. It is the constant backdrop that lines my whole existence… We must love this door that will allow us to know the Father” (166). The same monk writes in a note later on to the author: “It is not the door that I am waiting for, but what is on the other side of the door. I am not waiting for death, but for Life. This should go without saying, but curiously enough it is not so common” (169).
In his Foreword, Cardinal Sarah writes: “Monasteries are places where one learns to live and die in an atmosphere of silent prayer, the gaze always turned toward the beyond and the One who made us…” Nicolas Diat has indeed demonstrated how much we can and must learn from the monks, who live and die for Christ, in Christ, with Christ.
Peter Kwasniewski, Thomistic theologian, liturgical scholar, and choral composer, is a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College in California (B.A. Liberal Arts) and The Catholic University of America in Washington, DC (M.A. and Ph.D. in Philosophy). He taught at the International Theological Institute in Austria and the Franciscan University of Steubenville’s Austria Program, then helped establish Wyoming Catholic College in 2006. There he taught theology, philosophy, music, and art history and directed the choirs until leaving in 2018 to devote himself full-time to writing and lecturing. Today he contributes regularly to many websites and publications, including New Liturgical Movement, OnePeterFive, LifeSiteNews, Rorate Caeli, The Remnant, and Catholic Family News, and has published thirteen books, including four on traditional Catholicism: Resurgent in the Midst of Crisis (Angelico, 2014, also available in Czech, Polish, German, Portuguese, Spanish, and Belarusian), Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness (Angelico, 2017), Tradition and Sanity (Angelico, 2018), and Reclaiming Our Roman Catholic Birthright: The Genius and Timeliness of the Traditional Latin Mass (Angelico, 2020). His work has been translated into at least eighteen languages. Kwasniewski is a scholar of The Aquinas Institute in Green Bay, which is publishing the Opera Omnia of the Angelic Doctor, a Fellow of the Albertus Magnus Center for Scholastic Studies, and a Senior Fellow of the St. Paul Center. He has published over a thousand articles on Thomistic thought, sacramental and liturgical theology, the history and aesthetics of music, and the social doctrine of the Church. For news, information, article links, sacred music, and the home of Os Justi Press, visit his personal website, www.peterkwasniewski.com.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-15--How Pope Francis is revolutionizing the Church

Janaury 15 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — In October of 2019 I had the privilege of addressing more than two dozen young adults who participated in the Voice of the Family ’ s Rome Youth Conference .
Looking back , I can honestly say that getting to know them and spend time in prayer and go to mass with them gives me reason to hope for the future of the Church .
Today , I wanted to share with you the video of the lecture I gave to them at the headquarters of the Lepanto Foundation in Rome .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ state of affairs in the Church and show how Pope Francis has revolutionized it .
Simply put , Pope Francis has made not only formal and magisterial changes that are at odds with long-established practices and doctrinal teachings , but he has taken other , less formal steps to completely revamp the Church as well .
For example , Francis has continually promoted left-wing , radical prelates , many of whom were criticized for their dissident views during the reign of Pope Benedict and John Paul II .
He has also dismantled the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has demoted faithful clergy like Cardinal Raymond Burke and Cardinal Gerhard Müller , the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith .
During his papacy , Francis has welcomed into the Vatican population control experts from the United Nations , praised abortionists like Italy ’ s Emma Bonino , and given audiences to transgender couples and pro-LGBT priest Fr .
James Martin .
There are countless other examples as well , including derogatory remarks he made about large families , his quasi-endorsement of young couples who live together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his wholly heretical teachings on the death penalty .
But here ’ s the thing , Canon 212 says lay Catholics “ have the right and even at times the duty to manifest…their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful.
” I reminded the young people at the Rome Youth Conference that we need to speak up and admonish dissident clergy and to call on them to preach the true faith .
While it 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the end , as we already know , the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph .
Let 's keep that in mind in the months and years ahead , being sure to always speak truth with charity .
God bless .
The John-Henry Westen Show is available by video on the show ’ s YouTube channel and right here on my LifeSite blog .
It is also available in audio format on platforms such as Spotify , Soundcloud , and ACast .
We are awaiting approval for iTunes and Google Play as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version on various channels , visit the ACast webpage here .
We ’ ve created a special email list for the show so that we can notify you every week when we post a new episode .
Please sign up now by clicking here .
You can also subscribe to the YouTube channel , and you ’ ll be notified by YouTube when there is new content .
You can send me feedback , or ideas for show topics by emailing [ email protected ] .

It's easy to lose hope in these times but, as we already know, in the end the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph.
Janaury 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — In October of 2019 I had the privilege of addressing more than two dozen young adults who participated in the Voice of the Family’s Rome Youth Conference. Looking back, I can honestly say that getting to know them and spend time in prayer and go to mass with them gives me reason to hope for the future of the Church.
Today, I wanted to share with you the video of the lecture I gave to them at the headquarters of the Lepanto Foundation in Rome. In it, I explain the current state of affairs in the Church and show how Pope Francis has revolutionized it.
Simply put, Pope Francis has made not only formal and magisterial changes that are at odds with long-established practices and doctrinal teachings, but he has taken other, less formal steps to completely revamp the Church as well.
For example, Francis has continually promoted left-wing, radical prelates, many of whom were criticized for their dissident views during the reign of Pope Benedict and John Paul II. He has also dismantled the Pontifical Academy for Life.
Moreover, he has demoted faithful clergy like Cardinal Raymond Burke and Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
During his papacy, Francis has welcomed into the Vatican population control experts from the United Nations, praised abortionists like Italy’s Emma Bonino, and given audiences to transgender couples and pro-LGBT priest Fr. James Martin.
There are countless other examples as well, including derogatory remarks he made about large families, his quasi-endorsement of young couples who live together but don’t get married, and his wholly heretical teachings on the death penalty.
But here’s the thing, Canon 212 says lay Catholics “have the right and even at times the duty to manifest…their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful.”
I reminded the young people at the Rome Youth Conference that we need to speak up and admonish dissident clergy and to call on them to preach the true faith.
While it's easy to lose hope in these times in the end, as we already know, the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph. Let's keep that in mind in the months and years ahead, being sure to always speak truth with charity. God bless.
The John-Henry Westen Show is available by video on the show’s YouTube channel and right here on my LifeSite blog.
It is also available in audio format on platforms such as Spotify, Soundcloud, and ACast. We are awaiting approval for iTunes and Google Play as well. To subscribe to the audio version on various channels, visit the ACast webpage here.
We’ve created a special email list for the show so that we can notify you every week when we post a new episode. Please sign up now by clicking here. You can also subscribe to the YouTube channel, and you’ll be notified by YouTube when there is new content.
You can send me feedback, or ideas for show topics by emailing [email protected].
Follow John-Henry John-Henry is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews.com. He and his wife Dianne and their eight children live in the Ottawa Valley in Ontario, Canada. He has spoken at conferences and retreats, and appeared on radio and television throughout North America, Europe and Asia. John-Henry founded the Rome Life Forum an annual strategy meeting for pro-life leaders worldwide. He co-founded Voice of the Family and serves on the executive of the Canadian National March for Life Committee, and the annual National Pro-Life Youth Conference. He is a consultant to Canada’s largest pro-life organization Campaign Life Coalition, and serves on the executive of the Ontario branch of the organization. He has run three times for political office in the province of Ontario representing the Family Coalition Party. John-Henry earned an MA from the University of Toronto in School and Child Clinical Psychology and an Honours BA from York University in Psychology.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-14--You can achieve true happiness, here’s how

Formerly Heart to Heart with Mother Miriam , Mother Miriam Live brings you inspiration and solutions for life ’ s @ @ @ @ @ Miriam is a Catholic nun on a mission to bring hope to a world that @ @ @ @ @ let her share that hope and joy with you !
To tune into Mother Miriam @ @ @ @ @ Facebook page here every Monday to Friday at 10am .

Watch Mother Miriam's Live show from 1.14.2020. Today, Mother continues to read from The Catechism Explained, with a focus on finding happiness in knowing God.
You can tune in daily at 10 am EST/7 am PST on our Facebook Page.
Subscribe to Mother Miriam Live here.


lifesitenews--2020-01-16--Abp Viganò denounces Benedict’s secretary for ‘abusive and systematic control’ of

Abp Viganò denounces Benedict’s secretary for ‘abusive and systematic control’ of Pope Emeritus

ROME , January 16 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — In the wake of the controversy surrounding the genesis of Cardinal Robert Sarah ’ s new book with Benedict XVI on priestly celibacy , Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has released a testimony denouncing Archbishop Georg Gänswein for what he calls his “ abusive and systematic control ” of the pope emeritus .
“ It is time to reveal the abusive and systematic control exercised by Archbishop Georg Gänswein over the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI since the beginning of his pontificate , ” Archbishop Viganò writes in the one-page testimony released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ text below ) .
Archbishop Viganò ’ s testimony follows several days of fierce backlash against the pope emeritus and the cardinal , portraying them as opposed to Pope Francis and undermining his widely anticipated apostolic exhortation on the Amazon Synod .
It also comes after the Archbishop Gänswein openly contradicted Cardinal Sarah ’ s official account of the genesis of the book , claiming instead that Benedict “ did not approve a project for a co-authored book and he had not seen or authorized the cover.
” In the new testimony , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filtered information , arrogating to himself the right to judge how opportune or not it was to send it to the Holy Father.
” Archbishop Gänswein , who currently serves as personal secretary to Benedict XVI and as prefect of the papal household in the current pontificate , has worked alongside the pope emeritus for over two decades .
In 1996 , Gänswein joined the staff of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith , and in 2003 , he replaced Josef Clemens as Ratzinger ’ s secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2005 , Gänswein was appointed his principal private secretary .
In 2012 , he replaced Cardinal James Michael Harvey as prefect of the papal household .
In this post , the German prelate oversaw the majority of Pope Benedict XVI ’ s public and private events , correspondence , visitors , and apostolic journeys .
In his January 16 statement , Archbishop Viganò offers two personal experiences he had of Gänswein ’ s alleged “ control ” of Benedict , the first as a high-level official in the Vatican Secretariat of State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States .
He says what has moved him to take this step is Archbishop Gänswein ’ s “ sensational and slanderous insinuation ” against Cardinal Robert Sarah following the release of the new co-authored book , titled From the Depths of Our Hearts : Priesthood , Celibacy , and the Crisis of the Catholic Church .
In comments to the ANSA news agency on Tuesday , Archbishop Gänswein said he has “ acted on instructions from the pope emeritus and asked Cardinal Robert Sarah to contact the book ’ s publisher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s name as co-author of the book , and remove his signature from the introduction and conclusion.
” “ The pope emeritus knew that the cardinal was preparing a book and he sent him a text on the priesthood authorizing him to use it as he wished , ” Gänswein continued .
But contrary to an official statement released by Cardinal Sarah earlier on Tuesday , the German prelate claimed that Benedict “ did not approve a project for a co-authored book , and he had not seen or authorized the cover.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not raise questions about Cardinal Sarah ’ s good faith , ” he said .
Just a short time after , Cardinal Sarah openly said he stood by his official statement , affirming that it “ remains my one and only version of the course of events.
” Ignatius Press , which is publishing the book in English , has stood by the co-authorship and cover .
Here below is the official English text of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò ’ s testimony .
It is time to reveal the abusive and systematic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI since the beginning of his Pontificate .
Gänswein habitually filtered information , arrogating to himself the right to judge how opportune or not it was to send it to the Holy Father .
I can testify that , when Pope Benedict summoned me in audience on April 4 , 2011 , a few days after I had sent him my first letter ( that was later illegally published during Vatileaks ) , I said to the Pontiff : “ I will not speak to you about the situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Papal Villas , since I assume that you have already taken note of the memo on the matter , which I delivered to your secretary for you , in view of this audience.
” The Holy Father , in all simplicity and innocence , and without showing any surprise , said to me : “ No , I didn ’ t see anything.
” I also testify to another event that shows how Monsignor Gänswein controlled information for the Holy Father and conditioned his freedom of action .
On the occasion of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , having requested in writing to the then-prefect of the papal household , Archbishop James M. Harvey , to be received in audience by the Pope , and having received no response , I went to the same Prefect on Tuesday , October 23 , 2012 , asking him why I had received no response to my request for an audience .
I remember perfectly the circumstance , because Archbishop Harvey suggested that I attend the general audience the next day , so that I could at least greet the Holy Father personally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present .
Archbishop Harvey answered me with the following words : “ Gänswein said to me : ‘ Archbishop Viganò is the last person who can approach Pope Benedict !
’ ” He then added that , at the beginning of his pontificate , Benedict XVI , indicating Gänswein to him with his index finger , exclaimed : “ Gestapo !
Gestapo !
” This unscrupulous attitude was revealed from the very beginning of his pontificate , also in the determination with which Gänswein managed to distance from the pope his precious assistant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then-cardinal Ratzinger had wanted at his side for well over a decade after the death of his sister Maria Ratzinger .
Furthermore , it is known that to escape this total control exercised over his person by Gänswein , Pope Benedict often went to visit his previous special secretary , Bishop Josef Clemens , inviting Ingrid Stampa to these familial gatherings .
I am issuing this statement following what Archbishop Gänswein asserted in recent days to the ANSA news agency , contradicting what Pope Benedict himself had written in his correspondence with Cardinal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and slanderous insinuation against the most eminent Cardinal Robert Sarah , which he swiftly denied .

'Gänswein,' Viganò claims, 'habitually filtered information, arrogating to himself the right to judge how opportune or not it was to send it to the Holy Father.'
ROME, January 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — In the wake of the controversy surrounding the genesis of Cardinal Robert Sarah’s new book with Benedict XVI on priestly celibacy, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has released a testimony denouncing Archbishop Georg Gänswein for what he calls his “abusive and systematic control” of the pope emeritus.
“It is time to reveal the abusive and systematic control exercised by Archbishop Georg Gänswein over the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI since the beginning of his pontificate,” Archbishop Viganò writes in the one-page testimony released on January 16 (see official English text below).
LifeSite has reached out to Archbishop Gänswein, and will update readers if he responds.
Archbishop Viganò’s testimony follows several days of fierce backlash against the pope emeritus and the cardinal, portraying them as opposed to Pope Francis and undermining his widely anticipated apostolic exhortation on the Amazon Synod. It also comes after the Archbishop Gänswein openly contradicted Cardinal Sarah’s official account of the genesis of the book, claiming instead that Benedict “did not approve a project for a co-authored book and he had not seen or authorized the cover.”
In the new testimony, Archbishop Viganò asserts that “Gänswein habitually filtered information, arrogating to himself the right to judge how opportune or not it was to send it to the Holy Father.”
Archbishop Gänswein, who currently serves as personal secretary to Benedict XVI and as prefect of the papal household in the current pontificate, has worked alongside the pope emeritus for over two decades. In 1996, Gänswein joined the staff of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and in 2003, he replaced Josef Clemens as Ratzinger’s secretary.
When Cardinal Ratzinger was elected pope in 2005, Gänswein was appointed his principal private secretary. In 2012, he replaced Cardinal James Michael Harvey as prefect of the papal household. In this post, the German prelate oversaw the majority of Pope Benedict XVI’s public and private events, correspondence, visitors, and apostolic journeys.
In his January 16 statement, Archbishop Viganò offers two personal experiences he had of Gänswein’s alleged “control” of Benedict, the first as a high-level official in the Vatican Secretariat of State and the second as apostolic nuncio to the United States.
He says what has moved him to take this step is Archbishop Gänswein’s “sensational and slanderous insinuation” against Cardinal Robert Sarah following the release of the new co-authored book, titled From the Depths of Our Hearts: Priesthood, Celibacy, and the Crisis of the Catholic Church.
In comments to the ANSA news agency on Tuesday, Archbishop Gänswein said he has “acted on instructions from the pope emeritus and asked Cardinal Robert Sarah to contact the book’s publisher and request that they remove Benedict XVI’s name as co-author of the book, and remove his signature from the introduction and conclusion.”
“The pope emeritus knew that the cardinal was preparing a book and he sent him a text on the priesthood authorizing him to use it as he wished,” Gänswein continued. But contrary to an official statement released by Cardinal Sarah earlier on Tuesday, the German prelate claimed that Benedict “did not approve a project for a co-authored book, and he had not seen or authorized the cover.”
“It is a misunderstanding that does not raise questions about Cardinal Sarah’s good faith,” he said.
Just a short time after, Cardinal Sarah openly said he stood by his official statement, affirming that it “remains my one and only version of the course of events.”
Ignatius Press, which is publishing the book in English, has stood by the co-authorship and cover.
Here below is the official English text of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s testimony.
* * *
Testimony by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
It is time to reveal the abusive and systematic control exercised by Archbishop Georg Gänswein over the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI since the beginning of his Pontificate.
Gänswein habitually filtered information, arrogating to himself the right to judge how opportune or not it was to send it to the Holy Father.
I can testify that, when Pope Benedict summoned me in audience on April 4, 2011, a few days after I had sent him my first letter (that was later illegally published during Vatileaks), I said to the Pontiff: “I will not speak to you about the situation of corruption in the management of the Papal Villas, since I assume that you have already taken note of the memo on the matter, which I delivered to your secretary for you, in view of this audience.”
The Holy Father, in all simplicity and innocence, and without showing any surprise, said to me: “No, I didn’t see anything.”
I also testify to another event that shows how Monsignor Gänswein controlled information for the Holy Father and conditioned his freedom of action. On the occasion of the canonization of Marianne Cope and Kateri Tekakwitha, having requested in writing to the then-prefect of the papal household, Archbishop James M. Harvey, to be received in audience by the Pope, and having received no response, I went to the same Prefect on Tuesday, October 23, 2012, asking him why I had received no response to my request for an audience.
I remember perfectly the circumstance, because Archbishop Harvey suggested that I attend the general audience the next day, so that I could at least greet the Holy Father personally, with the other bishops who were present. Archbishop Harvey answered me with the following words: “Gänswein said to me: ‘Archbishop Viganò is the last person who can approach Pope Benedict!’”
He then added that, at the beginning of his pontificate, Benedict XVI, indicating Gänswein to him with his index finger, exclaimed: “Gestapo! Gestapo!”
This unscrupulous attitude was revealed from the very beginning of his pontificate, also in the determination with which Gänswein managed to distance from the pope his precious assistant and secretary, Ingrid Stampa, whom then-cardinal Ratzinger had wanted at his side for well over a decade after the death of his sister Maria Ratzinger.
Furthermore, it is known that to escape this total control exercised over his person by Gänswein, Pope Benedict often went to visit his previous special secretary, Bishop Josef Clemens, inviting Ingrid Stampa to these familial gatherings.
I am issuing this statement following what Archbishop Gänswein asserted in recent days to the ANSA news agency, contradicting what Pope Benedict himself had written in his correspondence with Cardinal Sarah. This statement is a sensational and slanderous insinuation against the most eminent Cardinal Robert Sarah, which he swiftly denied.
Translation by Diane Montagna of LifeSiteNews.
PETITION: Support Cardinal Sarah's Defense of Priestly Celibacy” Sign the petition here.
Share
Your support makes stories like this possible! LifeSiteNews is completely donor supported, allowing us to report on what truly is happening in the world, free of charge and uncensored. A donation to LifeSite will ensure millions around the world can continue to come to our site to find the truth people are so desperately searching for on life, faith, family and freedom. $ Donate Now
Related Articles


lifesitenews--2020-01-16--Trudeau govt drops ‘near death’ requirement for patients seeking euthanasia

OTTAWA , January 15 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ’ s Liberal government announced Monday it has accepted a Quebec court ruling striking down the “ near death ” requirement for euthanasia as unconstitutional .
The Liberals are now rushing to overhaul Canada ’ s euthanasia law by the court ’ s imposed deadline of March 11 , 2020 and have launched an online consultation that closes January 27 .
The federal consultation asks about advance consent , something the Quebec government is also considering , says Alex Schadenberg , executive director of the Euthanasia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals with degenerative diseases such as dementia to issue an advance directive asking to be killed by lethal injection at a future date when they are no longer able to actively consent .
“ That ’ s a serious problem because , of course , it then denies your ability to change your mind , ” Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews .
It also “ means that the person you ’ re killing doesn ’ t even have the right or the ability to confirm that they want you to inject them.
” It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer the Liberal online survey despite its “ very problematic ” questions that presume support for euthanasia , Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews .
Campaign Life Coalition , Canada ’ s largest pro-life , pro-family national political lobbying group , is likewise urging supporters to participate in the questionnaire .
“ Silence is not golden in this case .
Silence does not help us , ” Schadenberg stressed .
“ Even if the question is awkward , it ’ s better to express your opposition to something than to be silent.
” Most importantly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sections , he said .
“ At least it gives us an opportunity to say ‘ I ’ m absolutely opposed to this , ’ ” Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews .
“ It might be worth something .
And then I have hope that there ’ ll be enough of a response that the government will say , ‘ Hold on.
’ ” The Liberal online consultation also asks about the 10-day minimum wait between requesting and receiving a medically assisted death , but the question is unclear and neglects to mention that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to waive this period , Schadenberg said .
The consultation asks if the law should require both the medical practitioner and patient to agree that other reasonable treatment options have been tried without success ; that psychological or psychiatric assessments be done to determine capacity to consent ; and that in addition to the current mandatory two medical assessments , a consultation with an expert in a person ’ s medical condition be done .
Schadenberg has published released a guide to answering the current online consultation , which can be found here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the direction of the Supreme Court , which in February 2015 struck down the Criminal Code prohibition against euthanasia as unconstitutional .
Tellingly , Justice Minister David Lametti , then a backbencher and now responsible for drafting amendments to Bill C-14 , was one of only four Liberal M.P.s to vote against the original law .
Lametti opposed the bill because he thought it was too restrictive .
Bill C-14 currently allows euthanasia for individuals 18 years of age or older who are capable of giving informed consent , make a voluntary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure , and have a grievous and irremediable medical condition .
The law defines a “ grievous and irremediable medical condition ” as a “ serious and incurable illness , disease or disability ” that results in the person being in “ an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability ” and enduring “ physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to the person and can not be relieved in a manner that they consider acceptable.
” Bill C-14 also required that a person ’ s natural death be “ reasonably foreseeable , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baudouin struck down that provision September 11 , 2020 , as well as the Quebec law ’ s “ end of life ” requirement .
Baudouin gave the federal and the Quebec governments six months to amend their legislation .
The Liberals reported in the online consultation that 6,700 Canadians have been killed by euthanasia or assisted suicide since Canada legalized the practice .
They also promised a “ fuller ” review of the euthanasia law this summer , as C-14 mandated that the government look into allowing euthanasia for children , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illness alone and allowing advance consent .
The government asked the Council of Canadian Academies to study these issues , and the CCA released a report in December 2018 .
Schadenberg concedes that the Liberals may be determined to follow a particular course irrespective of what Canadians tell them but insists that the consultation is an opportunity to express their opposition to killing by taking part in the consultation .
“ I know it ’ s controversial because , will it actually accomplish anything ?
I do n't know , ” Schadenberg said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying nothing will accomplish nothing.
” The Liberal online consultation on euthanasia or Medical Assistance in Dying ( MAiD ) can be found here .
Schadenberg ’ s guide to responding can be found on his Euthanasia Prevention Coalition blog here .

Pro-life Canadians are urged to take part in govt online survey by Jan 27 as Liberals are considering 'advance consent' for euthanasia.
OTTAWA, January 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government announced Monday it has accepted a Quebec court ruling striking down the “near death” requirement for euthanasia as unconstitutional.
The Liberals are now rushing to overhaul Canada’s euthanasia law by the court’s imposed deadline of March 11, 2020 and have launched an online consultation that closes January 27.
The federal consultation asks about advance consent, something the Quebec government is also considering, says Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
Advance consent would allow individuals with degenerative diseases such as dementia to issue an advance directive asking to be killed by lethal injection at a future date when they are no longer able to actively consent.
“That’s a serious problem because, of course, it then denies your ability to change your mind,” Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.
It also “means that the person you’re killing doesn’t even have the right or the ability to confirm that they want you to inject them.”
It’s essential that Canadians who oppose euthanasia answer the Liberal online survey despite its “very problematic” questions that presume support for euthanasia, Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.
LifeSiteNews and Campaign Life Coalition, Canada’s largest pro-life, pro-family national political lobbying group, are likewise urging supporters to participate in the questionnaire.
“Silence is not golden in this case. Silence does not help us,” Schadenberg stressed. “Even if the question is awkward, it’s better to express your opposition to something than to be silent.”
Most importantly, participants can write 500-word comments after three sections, he said.
“At least it gives us an opportunity to say ‘I’m absolutely opposed to this,’” Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews. “It might be worth something. And then I have hope that there’ll be enough of a response that the government will say, ‘Hold on.’”
The Liberal online consultation also asks about the 10-day minimum wait between requesting and receiving a medically assisted death, but the question is unclear and neglects to mention that the law allows a doctor or nurse practitioner to waive this period, Schadenberg said.
The consultation asks if the law should require both the medical practitioner and patient to agree that other reasonable treatment options have been tried without success; that psychological or psychiatric assessments be done to determine capacity to consent; and that in addition to the current mandatory two medical assessments, a consultation with an expert in a person’s medical condition be done.
Schadenberg has published released a guide to answering the current online consultation, which can be found here.
Canada legalized euthanasia in June 2016 at the direction of the Supreme Court, which in February 2015 struck down the Criminal Code prohibition against euthanasia as unconstitutional.
Tellingly, Justice Minister David Lametti, then a backbencher and now responsible for drafting amendments to Bill C-14, was one of only four Liberal M.P.s to vote against the original law.
Lametti opposed the bill because he thought it was too restrictive.
Bill C-14 currently allows euthanasia for individuals 18 years of age or older who are capable of giving informed consent, make a voluntary request that does not result from external pressure, and have a grievous and irremediable medical condition.
The law defines a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” as a “serious and incurable illness, disease or disability” that results in the person being in “an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability” and enduring “physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to the person and cannot be relieved in a manner that they consider acceptable.”
Bill C-14 also required that a person’s natural death be “reasonably foreseeable,” but Quebec Superior Court judge Christine Baudouin struck down that provision September 11, 2019, as well as the Quebec law’s “end of life” requirement.
Baudouin gave the federal and the Quebec governments six months to amend their legislation.
The Liberals reported in the online consultation that 6,700 Canadians have been killed by euthanasia or assisted suicide since Canada legalized the practice.
They also promised a “fuller” review of the euthanasia law this summer, as C-14 mandated that the government look into allowing euthanasia for children, or “mature minors,” for mental illness alone and allowing advance consent.
The government asked the Council of Canadian Academies to study these issues, and the CCA released a report in December 2018.
Schadenberg concedes that the Liberals may be determined to follow a particular course irrespective of what Canadians tell them but insists that the consultation is an opportunity to express their opposition to killing by taking part in the consultation.
“I know it’s controversial because, will it actually accomplish anything? I don't know,” Schadenberg said.
“But I do know that saying nothing will accomplish nothing.”
The Liberal online consultation on euthanasia or Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) can be found here. Schadenberg’s guide to responding can be found on his Euthanasia Prevention Coalition blog here.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-16--US lesbian soccer star Rapinoe defies new Olympic rules banning politics in Tokyo Olympics

WASHINGTON , D.C. , January 15 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Openly lesbian USA soccer star Megan Rapinoe has indicated that she will defy new Olympic rules against athletes making gestures of a “ political nature ” during games and awards ceremonies .
According to the new rules set out by the International Olympic Committee ( IOC ) , athletes at the games will not be allowed to kneel or make political hand gestures while participating in sports .
In addition , the IOC is barring any display of disrespect during medal ceremonies .
Examples of breaking the rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d ] isplaying any political messaging , including signs or armbands , gestures of a political nature , like a hand gesture or kneeling , refusal to follow the Ceremonies protocol.
” Rapinoe , a captain of the U.S. National Women ’ s Soccer Team , stated on Friday on social media , “ So much being done about the protests .
So little being done about what we are protesting about .
We will not be silenced.
” The 2020 Summer Olympic Games begin on July 24 in Tokyo .
Rapinoe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she knelt during the U.S. national anthem in solidarity with pro footballer Colin Kaepernick , the San Francisco 49ers quarterback who refused to stand during the anthem to protest racial injustice .
She said at the time she planned to continue to kneel and probably never sing the anthem .
In 2017 , the U.S. Soccer Federation passed a policy requiring players to stand respectfully during the anthem ; the U.S. Women ’ s Soccer Team also adheres to this rule .
In June , Rapinoe stood silently rather than sing the anthem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Rapinoe said she would refuse to visit the White House if her team were to win the World Cup .
When the team eventually won the tournament , it accepted an invitation from Congress rather than go to the White House .
When contacted by LifeSiteNews , Dr. Jennifer Bryson , a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute , a Washington , D.C. think-tank , applauded the IOC for trying to protect sports from being used as a political platform .
The scholar said in an email response , “ Look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greece : there was an ‘ Olympic Truce ’ during the games so that all the athletes and spectators from many different cities could come .
Keeping political fighting out is what made it possible for people to come together for sport.
” Dr. Bryson said she opposes what she described as “ Rapinoe ’ s push to make the political primary , over sports , during the Olympics.
” According to Dr. Bryson , Rapinoe and like-minded social justice warriors “ should respect the Olympic Truce.
” Saying some fans are turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sport , Dr. Bryson said : “ She should not now be allowed to ruin the Olympics too.
” Dr. Bryson is the founder of LetAllPlay.org , which has called on FIFA — the international association that governs professional soccer — and other sports organizations to prohibit political expression , including the LGBT rainbow symbols , on playing fields .
She told LifeSiteNews , “ Today sports are one of the few shared civic spaces we have , where we can all come together and enjoy a game no matter our differences.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who benefit from training their bodies as part of a team , she added : “ Rapinoe is providing children a poor role model of sportsmanship .
”

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Openly lesbian USA soccer star Megan Rapinoe has indicated that she will defy new Olympic rules against athletes making gestures of a “political nature” during games and awards ceremonies.
According to the new rules set out by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), athletes at the games will not be allowed to kneel or make political hand gestures while participating in sports. In addition, the IOC is barring any display of disrespect during medal ceremonies.
Examples of breaking the rules provided by the committee include “[d]isplaying any political messaging, including signs or armbands, gestures of a political nature, like a hand gesture or kneeling, refusal to follow the Ceremonies protocol.”
Rapinoe, a captain of the U.S. National Women’s Soccer Team, stated on Friday on social media, “So much being done about the protests. So little being done about what we are protesting about. We will not be silenced.”
Megan Rapinoe responds to the IOC banning protests at the Olympics: “We will not be silenced” pic.twitter.com/69PljKC8u5 — Sports Illustrated (@SInow) January 10, 2020
The 2020 Summer Olympic Games begin on July 24 in Tokyo.
Rapinoe, 34, sparked controversy in 2016 when she knelt during the U.S. national anthem in solidarity with pro footballer Colin Kaepernick, the San Francisco 49ers quarterback who refused to stand during the anthem to protest racial injustice. She said at the time she planned to continue to kneel and probably never sing the anthem.
In 2017, the U.S. Soccer Federation passed a policy requiring players to stand respectfully during the anthem; the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team also adheres to this rule. In June, Rapinoe stood silently rather than sing the anthem after her team beat Thailand and Chile. Rapinoe said she would refuse to visit the White House if her team were to win the World Cup. When the team eventually won the tournament, it accepted an invitation from Congress rather than go to the White House.
When contacted by LifeSiteNews, Dr. Jennifer Bryson, a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute, a Washington, D.C. think-tank, applauded the IOC for trying to protect sports from being used as a political platform. The scholar said in an email response, “Look at the history of the Olympics in ancient Greece: there was an ‘Olympic Truce’ during the games so that all the athletes and spectators from many different cities could come. Keeping political fighting out is what made it possible for people to come together for sport.”
Dr. Bryson said she opposes what she described as “Rapinoe’s push to make the political primary, over sports, during the Olympics.” According to Dr. Bryson, Rapinoe and like-minded social justice warriors “should respect the Olympic Truce.” Saying some fans are turned off by the way Rapino has politicized the sport, Dr. Bryson said: “She should not now be allowed to ruin the Olympics too.”
Dr. Bryson is the founder of LetAllPlay.org, which has called on FIFA — the international association that governs professional soccer — and other sports organizations to prohibit political expression, including the LGBT rainbow symbols, on playing fields.
She told LifeSiteNews, “Today sports are one of the few shared civic spaces we have, where we can all come together and enjoy a game no matter our differences.” Saying this is important for children, who benefit from training their bodies as part of a team, she added: “Rapinoe is providing children a poor role model of sportsmanship.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-16--Pro-life expert shuts down media hype over study claiming to debunk abortion regret

January 15 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Abortion defenders and their media allies are seizing on a new study that claims that the vast majority of post-abortive women never regret their decision , but pro-lifers argue that the study is simply more spin than fact .
Over the weekend , the journal Social Science & Medicine published a study conducted by the University of California San Francisco ’ s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health ( ANSIRH ) , CNN reports .
From a survey billed as tracking almost 1,000 women over a five-year span , only 6 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a child persisting five years earlier , and most respondents attributed whatever initial negative feelings they felt to outside stigma rather than to the act itself .
“ All the claims that negative emotions will emerge over time , a myth that has persisted for decades without any evidence to substantiate these claims , it ’ s clear , it ’ s just not true , ” claimed ANSIRH researcher and study author Corinne Rocca .
“ One might think that relief was a short-term feeling that would go away after weeks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other feelings .
Relief was constant.
” Many other media outlets have promoted the study as “ debunking ” abortion regret , yet Charlotte Lozier Institute scholar Michael New argues at National Review that the research is less persuasive than advertised .
He notes that less than 38 % of the women ANSIRH contacted actually agreed to participate , suggesting that the ones who cooperated were disproportionately favorable to abortion than a truly representative sample .
“ Over time , a significant percentage of the women who originally agreed to participate either could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer follow-up surveys , ” he continues .
“ A 2017 article in JAMA Psychiatry that used Turnaway-study data indicated that only 58.4 percent of participants had responded to a survey five years after it began .
This information further skews the results , as it is likely that women who disappeared from the survey were experiencing more psychological suffering than women who responded.
” New then highlights another recent study , published in September by the Swiss journal Medicina , which found that abortions , especially those stemming from wanted pregnancies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , anxiety , and suicide .
“ The relative distress of abortion versus childbirth is more a product of the stronger unique mental health benefits of childbirth and children than of the weaker unique mental health deficits of abortion , ” that study concluded .
“ The experience of deciding upon , experiencing , and recovering from the termination of a pregnancy brings many life factors to bear for women , all of which may influence subsequent mental health.
” ANSIRH and other abortion advocates have long decried abortion regret and other negative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” but multiple studies have linked abortion to increased suicide attempts , long-term clinical depression , psychiatric illness requiring hospitalization , and substance abuse .
Additionally , groups such as Silent No More , Rachel ’ s Vineyard , After Abortion , and Abortion Recovery International compile scores of firsthand accounts of women describing the heartbreak they endured after their abortions .

The conductors of the study could get only 38 percent of those they contacted to participate.
January 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Abortion defenders and their media allies are seizing on a new study that claims that the vast majority of post-abortive women never regret their decision, but pro-lifers argue that the study is simply more spin than fact.
Over the weekend, the journal Social Science & Medicine published a study conducted by the University of California San Francisco’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), CNN reports. From a survey billed as tracking almost 1,000 women over a five-year span, only 6% of respondents reported negative emotions from aborting a child persisting five years earlier, and most respondents attributed whatever initial negative feelings they felt to outside stigma rather than to the act itself.
“All the claims that negative emotions will emerge over time, a myth that has persisted for decades without any evidence to substantiate these claims, it’s clear, it’s just not true,” claimed ANSIRH researcher and study author Corinne Rocca. “One might think that relief was a short-term feeling that would go away after weeks, but it does not fade like the other feelings. Relief was constant.”
Many other media outlets have promoted the study as “debunking” abortion regret, yet Charlotte Lozier Institute scholar Michael New argues at National Review that the research is less persuasive than advertised. He notes that less than 38% of the women ANSIRH contacted actually agreed to participate, suggesting that the ones who cooperated were disproportionately favorable to abortion than a truly representative sample.
“Over time, a significant percentage of the women who originally agreed to participate either could no longer be contacted or refused to answer follow-up surveys,” he continues. “A 2017 article in JAMA Psychiatry that used Turnaway-study data indicated that only 58.4 percent of participants had responded to a survey five years after it began. This information further skews the results, as it is likely that women who disappeared from the survey were experiencing more psychological suffering than women who responded.”
New then highlights another recent study, published in September by the Swiss journal Medicina, which found that abortions, especially those stemming from wanted pregnancies, are associated with increased risk of depression, anxiety, and suicide.
“The relative distress of abortion versus childbirth is more a product of the stronger unique mental health benefits of childbirth and children than of the weaker unique mental health deficits of abortion,” that study concluded. “The experience of deciding upon, experiencing, and recovering from the termination of a pregnancy brings many life factors to bear for women, all of which may influence subsequent mental health.”
ANSIRH and other abortion advocates have long decried abortion regret and other negative emotional or mental fallout as “myths,” but multiple studies have linked abortion to increased suicide attempts, long-term clinical depression, psychiatric illness requiring hospitalization, and substance abuse. Additionally, groups such as Silent No More, Rachel’s Vineyard, After Abortion, and Abortion Recovery International compile scores of firsthand accounts of women describing the heartbreak they endured after their abortions.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-16--US Senate bill: All hospitals receiving federal funds must post their parental rights policies

WASHINGTON , D.C. , January 15 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Senator Mike Lee ( R-Utah ) has introduced two bills to strengthen parental rights nationally .
One would require hospitals receiving federal funding to provide public notice of their policies on end-of-life care for minors — including with regard to “ do not resuscitate ” orders .
The second would require hospitals receiving federal funding to make public their policies on parental access to minors ’ medical records .
“ Parents play the most important role in caring for the health of their children , ” said Lee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have information about the policies of the health organizations to which they bring their children for care , and that they have the ability to access their medical records .
These bills would ensure that parents are afforded the right to remain informed and involved in their children ’ s care.
” The bills come at a time when “ parental rights in America are now under greater threat than at any time in recent history , ” according to Terry Schilling , executive director of the American Principles Project .
“ Nowhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ healthcare.
” In 2010 , doctors in St. Louis caring for an infant named Simon Crosier , who had Trisomy 18 , secretly placed a “ do not resuscitate ” ( DNR ) order in his medical file .
As Grace Stark explained in The Federalist : Doctors were quick to label Simon ’ s condition as “ incompatible with life , ” and unbeknownst to his parents , placed a DNR order in his medical chart .
The Crosiers watched on in horror as one day , three-month-old Simon ’ s oxygen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , doing nothing to intervene .
In the wake of his death , the Crosiers were finally able to view their son ’ s medical chart , and were shocked to find the unauthorized DNR .
They were also greatly troubled to find that only “ comfort feeds ” had been authorized by Simon ’ s medical providers , despite their hopes that he would eventually be eligible for corrective heart surgery if he grew large enough .
Simon died three days before his scheduled surgical consultation .
“ Tragic cases like this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Schilling .
“ Fortunately , some states have begun to act to protect parental rights , but the threat has become too significant and widespread for these efforts alone.
” “ Simon ’ s Law , ” preventing doctors from withholding treatment from children without parental consent , has since passed in Kansas , South Dakota , Arizona , and Montana .
The Parental Accessibility Rights for Emergency and Negligent Treatment ( PARENT ) Act — the bill to require hospitals that receive federal funding to disclose their policies on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-sponsored by Republican senators Josh Hawley of Missouri , James Lankford of Oklahoma , Kevin Cramer of North Dakota , and Mike Braun of Indiana .
Braun , Cramer , and Lankford are also co-sponsors of the Parental Right to Know Act , Lee ’ s bill requiring hospitals that receive federal funding to disclose their policies on parental access to minors ’ medical records .
The “ PARENT Act and Parental Right to Know Act represent a good first step toward a more robust defense of parental rights in federal law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Lee for his leadership , and we encourage his congressional colleagues to urgently press forward on this issue and look for more ways to codify something that has always been understood up until recently — that parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children .
”

'These bills would ensure that parents are afforded the right to remain informed and involved in their children's care,' said Sen. Mike Lee.
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) has introduced two bills to strengthen parental rights nationally. One would require hospitals receiving federal funding to provide public notice of their policies on end-of-life care for minors — including with regard to “do not resuscitate” orders. The second would require hospitals receiving federal funding to make public their policies on parental access to minors’ medical records.
“Parents play the most important role in caring for the health of their children,” said Lee. “It is critical that they have information about the policies of the health organizations to which they bring their children for care, and that they have the ability to access their medical records. These bills would ensure that parents are afforded the right to remain informed and involved in their children’s care.”
The bills come at a time when “parental rights in America are now under greater threat than at any time in recent history,” according to Terry Schilling, executive director of the American Principles Project. “Nowhere is this threat more perilous than in healthcare.”
In 2010, doctors in St. Louis caring for an infant named Simon Crosier, who had Trisomy 18, secretly placed a “do not resuscitate” (DNR) order in his medical file.
As Grace Stark explained in The Federalist:
Doctors were quick to label Simon’s condition as “incompatible with life,” and unbeknownst to his parents, placed a DNR order in his medical chart. The Crosiers watched on in horror as one day, three-month-old Simon’s oxygen saturation levels dropped and doctors stood by, doing nothing to intervene. In the wake of his death, the Crosiers were finally able to view their son’s medical chart, and were shocked to find the unauthorized DNR. They were also greatly troubled to find that only “comfort feeds” had been authorized by Simon’s medical providers, despite their hopes that he would eventually be eligible for corrective heart surgery if he grew large enough. Simon died three days before his scheduled surgical consultation.
“Tragic cases like this are just the tip of the iceberg,” said Schilling. “Fortunately, some states have begun to act to protect parental rights, but the threat has become too significant and widespread for these efforts alone.”
“Simon’s Law,” preventing doctors from withholding treatment from children without parental consent, has since passed in Kansas, South Dakota, Arizona, and Missouri.
The Parental Accessibility Rights for Emergency and Negligent Treatment (PARENT) Act — the bill to require hospitals that receive federal funding to disclose their policies on end-of-life care for minors — is currently co-sponsored by Republican senators Josh Hawley of Missouri, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, and Mike Braun of Indiana.
Braun, Cramer, and Lankford are also co-sponsors of the Parental Right to Know Act, Lee’s bill requiring hospitals that receive federal funding to disclose their policies on parental access to minors’ medical records.
The “PARENT Act and Parental Right to Know Act represent a good first step toward a more robust defense of parental rights in federal law,” said Schilling. “We commend Sen. Lee for his leadership, and we encourage his congressional colleagues to urgently press forward on this issue and look for more ways to codify something that has always been understood up until recently — that parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-16--UK police face spotlight for covering up gang’s sex abuse of thousands of underage girls

January 15 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – This week has seen the report of yet another UK “ grooming gang ” pimping and exploiting vulnerable underage girls , this time in Manchester .
( There is a long newspaper report here . )
The victims repeatedly told those charged with their care that they were being raped and given hard drugs , but social services , medics , and police showed enormous reluctance to get involved , an attitude that seemed to be endorsed by the coroner investigating the 2003 death of Victoria Agoglia , a 15-year-old victim of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to blame , he found ) .
This death did lead to a wider investigation , but it was starved of resources and then shut down .
It has become a depressingly familiar pattern .
The Rochdale , Bristol , and Oxford sex abuse gangs have gained the most attention , but there are now “ case reviews ” and public inquiry reports from an ever-lengthening list of locations .
The victims number in the thousands .
It is far from clear that the lessons of these cases have been learned : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and refusing to reopen the investigation , which they had mysteriously shut down in 2005 , as recently as 2018 .
What , one might ask , is going on ?
One can distinguish three layers in this extraordinary and repeated injustice toward some of the most vulnerable people in society .
The outermost layer is cover-up .
The people who were responsible for failing to protect the victims or to investigate the crimes were following policy , but it was not the kind of policy that would look good if exposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the policy went right up to the top , so a public discussion of it would implicate very senior and influential people .
Those campaigning for justice found , therefore , that the farther up the tree of seniority they went the less sympathy they received .
When public outrage finally precipitated the latest inquiry , senior police officers cited memory lapses and refused to testify .
The minutes of the meeting at which the investigation was shut down apparently can not be found .
It is easy to imagine how this attitude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time .
The second level is the attitude to ethnic and religious minorities .
As one police detective reported to the inquiry : “ What had a massive input was the offending target group were predominantly Asian males and we were told to try and get other ethnicities.
” The investigation kept implicating Asian men the senior officers did not want to prosecute , so it was stopped .
It is not surprising that members of the “ offending target group ” were of a particular type , because what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people with all sorts of cultural and family links .
If other cases are any guide , however , what united gang members in Manchester almost certainly was not “ Asian heritage , ” but the Muslim religion .
Some rape gangs have included non-Asian Muslims ; I have yet to see Asian Christians or Buddhists implicated .
Britain ’ s Sikhs and Hindus have made an official complaint about the term “ Asian grooming gangs ” being used in the press because its inclusion of them is completely unjust .
As a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like white girls , have even been targeted by these gangs .
The politically correct police and social work establishment are simply unable to deal with the social and religious reality of these gangs in a rational and just way .
Even this , however , is not to get to the heart of the problem .
Not all rape gangs comprise Muslim men , and most sexual exploitation of children is not carried out by organized gangs at all .
As Norman Wells of the Family and Youth Concern charity argued in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue is the idea commonly accepted by policy makers that children should be assumed to be making autonomous decisions about sex and drugs , and should be allowed to do so , however disastrous the consequences are likely to be .
What we hear again and again from the social workers in these cases -- social workers who were in many cases the primary caretakers of the victims -- was that they regarded the girls ’ liaisons as consensual .
In English law , as elsewhere when an adult has sex with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in England ) , consent is legally irrelevant .
It is rape .
The social work mindset , however , reflected in sex education materials and official guidance , and parroted by the police , is that if the rapist is reasonably young , or if the victim does not complain , the matter should be ignored .
Of all the poisonous ideas of the sexual revolution , we may be close to seeing this one destroyed by contact with reality .
I should like in a separate article to draw out some @ @ @ @ @ @ @

January 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – This week has seen the report of yet another UK “grooming gang” pimping and exploiting vulnerable underage girls, this time in Manchester. (There is a long newspaper report here.)
The men targeted care homes.
The victims repeatedly told those charged with their care that they were being raped and given hard drugs, but social services, medics, and police showed enormous reluctance to get involved, an attitude that seemed to be endorsed by the coroner investigating the 2003 death of Victoria Agoglia, a 15-year-old victim of a heroin overdose (her caregivers were not to blame, he found). This death did lead to a wider investigation, but it was starved of resources and then shut down.
It has become a depressingly familiar pattern. The Rochdale, Bristol, and Oxford sex abuse gangs have gained the most attention, but there are now “case reviews” and public inquiry reports from an ever-lengthening list of locations. The victims number in the thousands. It is far from clear that the lessons of these cases have been learned: the Greater Manchester Police were hanging tough and refusing to reopen the investigation, which they had mysteriously shut down in 2005, as recently as 2018. What, one might ask, is going on?
One can distinguish three layers in this extraordinary and repeated injustice toward some of the most vulnerable people in society. The outermost layer is cover-up.
The people who were responsible for failing to protect the victims or to investigate the crimes were following policy, but it was not the kind of policy that would look good if exposed to the sunlight of publicity. Furthermore, the policy went right up to the top, so a public discussion of it would implicate very senior and influential people. Those campaigning for justice found, therefore, that the farther up the tree of seniority they went the less sympathy they received. When public outrage finally precipitated the latest inquiry, senior police officers cited memory lapses and refused to testify. The minutes of the meeting at which the investigation was shut down apparently cannot be found. It is easy to imagine how this attitude would affect the responses to the victims at the time.
The second level is the attitude to ethnic and religious minorities. As one police detective reported to the inquiry: “What had a massive input was the offending target group were predominantly Asian males and we were told to try and get other ethnicities.” The investigation kept implicating Asian men the senior officers did not want to prosecute, so it was stopped.
It is not surprising that members of the “offending target group” were of a particular type, because what they were starting with was a network of people with all sorts of cultural and family links. If other cases are any guide, however, what united gang members in Manchester almost certainly was not “Asian heritage,” but the Muslim religion. Some rape gangs have included non-Asian Muslims; I have yet to see Asian Christians or Buddhists implicated. Britain’s Sikhs and Hindus have made an official complaint about the term “Asian grooming gangs” being used in the press because its inclusion of them is completely unjust. As a matter of fact, Sikh girls, like white girls, have even been targeted by these gangs. The politically correct police and social work establishment are simply unable to deal with the social and religious reality of these gangs in a rational and just way.
Even this, however, is not to get to the heart of the problem. Not all rape gangs comprise Muslim men, and most sexual exploitation of children is not carried out by organized gangs at all. As Norman Wells of the Family and Youth Concern charity argued in his book Unprotected, the most fundamental issue is the idea commonly accepted by policy makers that children should be assumed to be making autonomous decisions about sex and drugs, and should be allowed to do so, however disastrous the consequences are likely to be.
What we hear again and again from the social workers in these cases — social workers who were in many cases the primary caretakers of the victims — was that they regarded the girls’ liaisons as consensual. In English law, as elsewhere when an adult has sex with a person under a certain age (16 in England), consent is legally irrelevant. It is rape.
The social work mindset, however, reflected in sex education materials and official guidance, and parroted by the police, is that if the rapist is reasonably young, or if the victim does not complain, the matter should be ignored.
Of all the poisonous ideas of the sexual revolution, we may be close to seeing this one destroyed by contact with reality.
I should like in a separate article to draw out some parallels with the clerical sex-abuse issue.
Share