lifesitenews--2020-09-16--Pro-LGBT US cardinal: Catholics in ‘good conscience’ can vote for radical pro-abortion Biden

BOSTON , Massachusetts , September 16 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Cardinal Joseph Tobin , who supports homosexuality , stated that Catholics in “ good conscience ” could vote for pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden .
Tobin ’ s de facto endorsement , where he mentioned Biden by name , contradicts the country ’ s top pro-life priests who have warned that “ no Catholic can vote for Joe Biden ” because of his radical abortion advocasy .
The Archbishop of Newark , New Jersey went even further , stating that he has a “ more difficult time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” not mentioning President Trump by name .
The Cardinal made the comments during a webinar on “ The Church and Catholic Voters in the 2020 Election.
” The event was hosted yesterday by Boston College ’ s Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life .
Cardinal Tobin gained notoriety in 2018 for tweeting , “ Nighty-night baby .
I love you.
” He later deleted the Tweet and claimed it was “ meant as a private communication with one of my sisters.
” Beyond that , Tobin lacks credibility among numerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Among other things , he backed homosexual activists , such as Fr .
James Martin , and personally welcomed an “ LGBT Pilgrimage ” to his cathedral .
His position is that the Church is “ moving on the question of same-sex couples.
” Contradicting Cardinal Tobin , several members of the hierarchy have come out in recent weeks and months , indicating that Catholics can not vote for pro-abortion candidates like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris , as well as the Democratic Party as a whole because of its pro-abortion platform .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , endorsed a video by Fr .
James Altman in which he argued no Catholic could vote for the Democrat Party in the upcoming election .
“ As the Bishop of Tyler I endorse Fr .
Altman ’ s statement in this video , ” the bishop wrote on Twitter .
“ My shame is that it has taken me so long .
Thank you Fr Altman for your COURAGE .
If you love Jesus & His Church & this nation ... pleases ( sic ) HEED THIS MESSAGE.
” Bishop Rick Stika @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ How can a person say they are a faithful Catholic and yet support those who support the ultimate child abuse and human rights violation of those yet born ?
Slavery was legal at one time and yet now we look at it with horror .
A child yet born is not the property of another.
” “ A child not yet born is a total human person that must be protected , ” he affirmed .
“ This nation will continue to decline if abortion continues .
Those who love life will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight .
The cause is just as it is the promotion of the dignity of the human person.
” Fr .
Frank Pavone , head of Priests for Life , said Biden ’ s “ failure to protect the unborn puts him not only in conflict with the Catholic faith but with the Christian Gospel , the Founding principles of America , the very meaning of public service , and basic human decency .
You can ’ t kill babies , and you can ’ t authorize anyone else to do so.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on EWTN and a member of Red Rose Rescue , explained , “ Many people respond to my comments with , ‘ what about Trump ?
’ This is not about Trump .
Trump isn ’ t even Catholic .
This is a Catholic issue .
A Catholic can ’ t vote for Biden whether they feel in good conscience they can or can ’ t vote for Trump.
” Pro-life groups have condemned Joe Biden and his running mate , Senator Kamala Harris , as the “ most pro-abortion presidential ticket in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2006 , there are some “ principles which are not negotiable ” in the political arena .
Among other things , the Holy Father mentioned the “ protection of life in all its stages , from the first moment of conception until natural death.
” According to Pope Benedict , this was not even a Catholic position , but one derived from natural law , “ inscribed in human nature itself and therefore … common to all humanity.
” Both Biden and Harris have made clear that , instead of protecting life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women to procure abortions , both within the United States and abroad .
Biden dedicated one section of his Agenda for Women to “ Reproductive Health , ” which is generally a reference to abortion .
The former vice president under President Barack Obama said he “ will work to codify Roe v. Wade , and his Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate Roe v. Wade.
” Roe v. Wade is the 1973 Supreme Court ruling essentially legalizing abortion across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman ’ s right to privacy .
Many states passed legislation trying to limit the widespread killing of unborn babies .
Some legislation includes so-called heartbeat bills , which prohibit abortions as soon as the unborn baby ’ s heartbeat can be detected after roughly six weeks of pregnancy .
Joe Biden said he wanted to repeal the so-called Hyde Amendment by reissuing “ guidance specifying that states can not refuse Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood and other providers and reverse the Trump Administration ’ s rule preventing these organizations from obtaining Title @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 345,000 abortions annually , according to its most recent report .
Additionally , the organization handed out more than 593,000 emergency contraception kits , commonly known as the morning-after pill , which can also cause abortions in many cases .
Biden ’ s plan would , accordingly , enable women to abort their babies using taxpayer money .
The Democratic presidential candidate , in his Agenda for Women , also vowed to rescind the Mexico City Policy requiring foreign non-governmental organizations ( NGOs ) not to “ perform or actively promote abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a condition for receiving federal money .
First introduced under Republican President Ronald Reagan , it was rescinded by Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama , while Republican Presidents George H.W .
Bush , George W. Bush , and Donald Trump kept it in place or reinstated it .
Most recently , the Trump administration began moving to further strengthen the Mexico City Policy by extending the existing ban to contracts with entities that provide foreign aid .
Shortly after taking office in 2017 , the President not only reinstated the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional step of expanding it .
The policy , officially known as Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance , currently applies to foreign aid disbursed through grants and cooperative agreements , but the new rule proposed by the State Department would also exclude entities that receive foreign aid via contracts , regardless of whether those entities technically fund their abortion-related practices via separate sources .
Readers may contact the archdiocese of Newark here .

Cardinal Tobin’s de facto endorsement of Biden contradicts the country’s top pro-life priests who have warned that 'no Catholic can vote for Joe Biden'
PETITION: Urge Catholic bishops to refuse Holy Communion to pro-abortion Biden! Sign the petition here.
BOSTON, Massachusetts, September 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Joseph Tobin, who supports homosexuality, stated that Catholics in “good conscience” could vote for pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. Tobin’s de facto endorsement, where he mentioned Biden by name, contradicts the country’s top pro-life priests who have warned that “no Catholic can vote for Joe Biden” because of his radical abortion advocasy.
The Archbishop of Newark, New Jersey went even further, stating that he has a “more difficult time” with the “other option,” not mentioning President Trump by name.
The Cardinal made the comments during a webinar on “The Church and Catholic Voters in the 2020 Election.” The event was hosted yesterday by Boston College’s Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life.
Cardinal Tobin gained notoriety in 2018 for tweeting, “Nighty-night baby. I love you.” He later deleted the Tweet and claimed it was “meant as a private communication with one of my sisters.” Beyond that, Tobin lacks credibility among numerous faithful Catholics in the United States. Among other things, he backed homosexual activists, such as Fr. James Martin, and personally welcomed an “LGBT Pilgrimage” to his cathedral. His position is that the Church is “moving on the question of same-sex couples.”
Contradicting Cardinal Tobin, several members of the hierarchy have come out in recent weeks and months, indicating that Catholics cannot vote for pro-abortion candidates like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, as well as the Democratic Party as a whole because of its pro-abortion platform.
Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, endorsed a video by Fr. James Altman in which he argued no Catholic could vote for the Democrat Party in the upcoming election.
“As the Bishop of Tyler I endorse Fr. Altman’s statement in this video,” the bishop wrote on Twitter. “My shame is that it has taken me so long. Thank you Fr Altman for your COURAGE. If you love Jesus & His Church & this nation…pleases (sic) HEED THIS MESSAGE.”
Bishop Rick Stika of Knoxville, Tennessee, tweeted, “How can a person say they are a faithful Catholic and yet support those who support the ultimate child abuse and human rights violation of those yet born? Slavery was legal at one time and yet now we look at it with horror. A child yet born is not the property of another.”
“A child not yet born is a total human person that must be protected,” he affirmed. “This nation will continue to decline if abortion continues. Those who love life will never go away and will continue to fight. The cause is just as it is the promotion of the dignity of the human person.”
Fr. Frank Pavone, head of Priests for Life, said Biden’s “failure to protect the unborn puts him not only in conflict with the Catholic faith but with the Christian Gospel, the Founding principles of America, the very meaning of public service, and basic human decency. You can’t kill babies, and you can’t authorize anyone else to do so.”
Fr. Stephen Imbarrato, a regular on EWTN and a member of Red Rose Rescue, explained, “Many people respond to my comments with, ‘what about Trump?’ This is not about Trump. Trump isn’t even Catholic. This is a Catholic issue. A Catholic can’t vote for Biden whether they feel in good conscience they can or can’t vote for Trump.”
Pro-life groups have condemned Joe Biden and his running mate, Senator Kamala Harris, as the “most pro-abortion presidential ticket in American history.”
As Pope Benedict explained in 2006, there are some “principles which are not negotiable” in the political arena. Among other things, the Holy Father mentioned the “protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death.”
According to Pope Benedict, this was not even a Catholic position, but one derived from natural law, “inscribed in human nature itself and therefore … common to all humanity.”
Both Biden and Harris have made clear that, instead of protecting life, they would make it easier for women to procure abortions, both within the United States and abroad.
Biden dedicated one section of his Agenda for Women to “Reproductive Health,” which is generally a reference to abortion. The former vice president under President Barack Obama said he “will work to codify Roe v. Wade, and his Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate Roe v. Wade.”
Roe v. Wade is the 1973 Supreme Court ruling essentially legalizing abortion across the country under the guise of a woman’s right to privacy. Many states passed legislation trying to limit the widespread killing of unborn babies. Some legislation includes so-called heartbeat bills, which prohibit abortions as soon as the unborn baby’s heartbeat can be detected after roughly six weeks of pregnancy.
Joe Biden said he wanted to repeal the so-called Hyde Amendment by reissuing “guidance specifying that states cannot refuse Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood and other providers and reverse the Trump Administration’s rule preventing these organizations from obtaining Title X funds.”
Planned Parenthood provides more than 345,000 abortions annually, according to its most recent report. Additionally, the organization handed out more than 593,000 emergency contraception kits, commonly known as the morning-after pill, which can also cause abortions in many cases.
Biden’s plan would, accordingly, enable women to abort their babies using taxpayer money.
The Democratic presidential candidate, in his Agenda for Women, also vowed to rescind the Mexico City Policy requiring foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) not to “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” as a condition for receiving federal money.
First introduced under Republican President Ronald Reagan, it was rescinded by Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, while Republican Presidents George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump kept it in place or reinstated it.
President Trump, unlike Biden’s proposals, took numerous steps to protect life.
Most recently, the Trump administration began moving to further strengthen the Mexico City Policy by extending the existing ban to contracts with entities that provide foreign aid. Shortly after taking office in 2017, the President not only reinstated the Mexico City Policy, but took the additional step of expanding it.
The policy, officially known as Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance, currently applies to foreign aid disbursed through grants and cooperative agreements, but the new rule proposed by the State Department would also exclude entities that receive foreign aid via contracts, regardless of whether those entities technically fund their abortion-related practices via separate sources.
Readers may contact the archdiocese of Newark here.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-09-16--Trudeau Liberals quietly draft plan to regulate information on internet in Canada

OTTAWA , September 16 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Justin Trudeau ’ s Liberal government has drafted documents related to regulating the internet in Canada , a move critics say could have alarming implications for the country ’ s online free and independent press .
And , at least for now , the government is keeping the plans away from public scrutiny .
Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault ’ s department told Blacklock ’ s Reporter on Monday that citizens interested in reading what the Reporter called a “ confidential discussion paper detailing the regulations ” must first spend money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To Information request .
“ The department has prepared a discussion paper to advance policy development , ” said Daniel Savoie , a spokesman for the Department of Heritage .
“ The Canadian Heritage discussion paper in question is an internal government document .
It has not been shared publicly , including to any advocacy groups , ” he added .
MP Derek Sloan , who recently lost his bid to become leader of the Conservative Party of Canada , tweeted his reaction to the government ’ s plan .
“ Canada ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to regulate information on the internet .
Appropriately , his document is secret .
This has no place in a Canada any of us would recognize , ” he stated .
Lawyer Jay Cameron , litigation manager for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms , told LifeSiteNews that whatever the intention of the government might be regarding regulating the internet , at the end of the day , free speech will suffer .
“ When the Federal Liberals announce with great fanfare that they are going to tackle ‘ online hate , ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intend to censor legal speech they and their supporters disagree with .
When you start asking questions what you quickly realize is that what the Federal Liberals mean by ‘ online hate speech ’ is really ‘ speech online that they do n't like ’ and is disagreeable to their supporters because it departs from progressive orthodoxy , ” Cameron said .
“ Canada already has a Criminal Code prohibition against hate speech , but it has rigorous defences built into it and prosecution requires consent from the Attorney General .
The Heritage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go after is legal and can not be prosecuted under section 319 of the Criminal Code .
So he wants to create a new tool to prevent speech that is otherwise legal , ” he added .
Cameron said that in Canada , section 2 ( b ) of the Charter protects the right of citizens to have their own thoughts and beliefs and to express them .
“ This includes ‘ thoughts , beliefs and opinions ’ the Heritage Minister does not like , ” he said .
“ In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution in the first place is to protect them from authoritarian politicians like Stephen Guilbeault , ” Cameron added .
Guilbeault alarmed free speech advocates in February when he stated that the Trudeau government was considering forcing online news websites along with social media platforms to obtain a government license to operate in Canada .
He later walked back the comments after widespread backlash , stating that the Liberal government has “ no intention to impose licensing requirements on news organizations , ” nor will it “ regulate news content.
” A controversial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communications future : Time to act , ” all the same recommended a media registry for news outlets in Canada .
That report , released in January , said Canadians “ should have access to trusted , accurate , and reliable sources of news reflecting national , regional , and local perspectives from diverse sources and across all platforms.
” Martin Shields , a Conservative member of Parliament for Bow River , Alberta , told the Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage during a February meeting that parts of the report are opposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broadcast telecommunications report there are words in there : fair , reasonable , trusted , accurate , reliable ( ... ) those words scare the hell out of me .
They ’ re subjective , and they ’ re in that report in a number of places , ” said Shields , “ Those kind of subjective words don ’ t fit in the law .
They ’ re not there.
” The Media Research Center ( MRC ) , a media watchdog in the United States , told LifeSiteNews at that time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see a government report calling for news websites and social media to obtain a government license to operate .
“ Canada was one of the Allies that defeated fascism .
Canadian soldiers fought for freedom and now the Canadian government seems eager to take that away , ” said Media Research Center ( MRC ) culture vice president Dan Gainor .
“ Watching an ally , a neighbor and a friend talk about regulating the free press shows where the far left wants to take , not just Canada , but any nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lisa D.S .
Bildy , a lawyer for the Canada-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms , told LifeSiteNews earlier this year that “ any time a government gets involved in the regulation of the press , even if it 's billed as protecting citizens from harm , there should be cause for concern.
” “ A free and independent press is a cornerstone of democracy and liberty , ” she said .
Justin Trudeau - Office of the Prime Minister 80 Wellington Street Ottawa , ON K1A 0A2 Fax : 613-941-6900 [ email @ @ @ @ @

Conservative politician Derek Sloan said that such plans have ‘no place in a Canada any of us would recognize.’
PETITION: No to radical mandatory mask mandates! Sign the petition here.
OTTAWA, September 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has drafted documents related to regulating the internet in Canada, a move critics say could have alarming implications for the country’s online free and independent press. And, at least for now, the government is keeping the plans away from public scrutiny.
Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault’s department told Blacklock’s Reporter on Monday that citizens interested in reading what the Reporter called a “confidential discussion paper detailing the regulations” must first spend money to obtain the file via an Access To Information request.
“The department has prepared a discussion paper to advance policy development,” said Daniel Savoie, a spokesman for the Department of Heritage.
“The Canadian Heritage discussion paper in question is an internal government document. It has not been shared publicly, including to any advocacy groups,” he added.
MP Derek Sloan, who recently lost his bid to become leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, tweeted his reaction to the government’s plan.
“Canada’s Heritage Minister has drafted a plan to regulate information on the internet. Appropriately, his document is secret. This has no place in a Canada any of us would recognize,” he stated.
Canada’s Heritage Minister has drafted a plan to regulate information on the internet. Appropriately, his document is secret. This has no place in a Canada any of us would recognize.#cdnpolihttps://t.co/M8Rmb8l4ni — Derek Sloan (@DerekSloanCPC) September 15, 2020
Lawyer Jay Cameron, litigation manager for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, told LifeSiteNews that whatever the intention of the government might be regarding regulating the internet, at the end of the day, free speech will suffer.
“When the Federal Liberals announce with great fanfare that they are going to tackle ‘online hate,’ what they really mean is that they intend to censor legal speech they and their supporters disagree with. When you start asking questions what you quickly realize is that what the Federal Liberals mean by ‘online hate speech’ is really ‘speech online that they don't like’ and is disagreeable to their supporters because it departs from progressive orthodoxy,” Cameron said.
“Canada already has a Criminal Code prohibition against hate speech, but it has rigorous defences built into it and prosecution requires consent from the Attorney General. The Heritage Minister knows that the speech he wants to go after is legal and cannot be prosecuted under section 319 of the Criminal Code. So he wants to create a new tool to prevent speech that is otherwise legal,” he added.
Cameron said that in Canada, section 2(b) of the Charter protects the right of citizens to have their own thoughts and beliefs and to express them. “This includes ‘thoughts, beliefs and opinions’ the Heritage Minister does not like,” he said.
“In other words, the reason Canadians have a Constitution in the first place is to protect them from authoritarian politicians like Stephen Guilbeault,” Cameron added.
Guilbeault alarmed free speech advocates in February when he stated that the Trudeau government was considering forcing online news websites along with social media platforms to obtain a government license to operate in Canada. He later walked back the comments after widespread backlash, stating that the Liberal government has “no intention to impose licensing requirements on news organizations,” nor will it “regulate news content.”
A controversial Liberal government report titled “Canada's communications future: Time to act,” all the same recommended a media registry for news outlets in Canada.
That report, released in January, said Canadians “should have access to trusted, accurate, and reliable sources of news reflecting national, regional, and local perspectives from diverse sources and across all platforms.”
Martin Shields, a Conservative member of Parliament for Bow River, Alberta, told the Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage during a February meeting that parts of the report are opposed to current Canadian law.
“From the broadcast telecommunications report there are words in there: fair, reasonable, trusted, accurate, reliable (…) those words scare the hell out of me. They’re subjective, and they’re in that report in a number of places,” said Shields, “Those kind of subjective words don’t fit in the law. They’re not there.”
The Media Research Center (MRC), a media watchdog in the United States, told LifeSiteNews at that time that it was “terrifying” to see a government report calling for news websites and social media to obtain a government license to operate.
“Canada was one of the Allies that defeated fascism. Canadian soldiers fought for freedom and now the Canadian government seems eager to take that away,” said Media Research Center (MRC) culture vice president Dan Gainor.
“Watching an ally, a neighbor and a friend talk about regulating the free press shows where the far left wants to take, not just Canada, but any nation they control,” he added.
Lisa D.S. Bildy, a lawyer for the Canada-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, told LifeSiteNews earlier this year that “any time a government gets involved in the regulation of the press, even if it's billed as protecting citizens from harm, there should be cause for concern.”
“A free and independent press is a cornerstone of democracy and liberty,” she said.
Contact information:
The Honourable Steven Guilbeault – Minister of Canadian Heritage
15 Eddy Street, 12th Floor
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0M5
Telephone: 819-997-7788
Email: [email protected]
MP Michelle Rempel Garner
Conservative shadow minister for industry and economic development
Suite 115, 70 Country Hills Landing NW
Calgary, AB T3K 2L2
Telephone: 403-216-7777
Email: [email protected]
Justin Trudeau – Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900
[email protected]
https://pm.gc.ca/en/connect/contact
Share


lifesitenews--2020-09-16--Arkansas abortionist suspended, replaced by accused sexual predator

LITTLE ROCK , Arkansas , September 16 , 2020 ( Operation Rescue ) — An Arkansas abortionist , Thomas H. Tvedten , 74 , has had his medical license suspended on an emergency basis after the Arkansas State Medical Board ( ASMB ) determined that his acts of “ gross negligence and ignorant malpractice ” on a minor girl posed a danger to the public .
In Tvedten ’ s emergency suspension document , the ASMB references his failure to properly evaluate and diagnose a minor girl , “ TS ” , when he “ certified the child for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order , dated August 13 , 2020 , will be in force until a disciplinary hearing can be held .
That hearing is scheduled for October 1 , 2020 , at 10:30 a.m. at the Medical Board offices in Little Rock .
“ It is very difficult to persuade a medical board to suspend an abortionist ’ s license on an emergency basis .
The offense has to be considered egregious with the belief that further harm will come if the person is allowed to continue practicing medicine , ” said Operation Rescue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a personal level , as a father , the fact Tvedten was helping a little girl get marijuana raises disturbing questions about why he wanted that child drugged.
” It is unknown if the minor was also one of Tvedten ’ s abortion patients .
More information about the case is expected to become public after the October 1 hearing .
Tvedten , who is the owner of the Little Rock Family Planning abortion facility in Little Rock , Arkansas , has previously run afoul of the Medical Board in another drug-related violation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical license was suspended for three months after he admitted “ supplying patients with Demerol injections to be injected at the discretion of the patient.
” In 1987 , Tvedten pleaded guilty to Criminal Mischief , a second-degree misdemeanor for unspecified criminal acts .
Tvedten is also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who has published videos and operates a blog where he opines that the buildings that collapsed in New York during the September 11 , 2001 , attacks were brought down by controlled demolition .
Operation Rescue has documented 67 known medical emergencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Planning that have required women to be transported by ambulance to local hospitals for serious abortion-related injuries .
Tvedten is also a plaintiff in a Federal lawsuit that is challenging the constitutionality of an Arkansas law that requires abortionists to be board-certified or eligible for board certification as Obstetrician/Gynecologists .
According to a motion recently fled in that suit , Little Rock Family Planning has two abortionists , Tvedten and Thomas Horton , that provide 94 % of all abortions at that facility .
Neither meet the Ob/Gyn requirement .
Another abortionist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once every other month at the Little Rock facility , but is unable to fill in for Tvedten due to scheduling issues .
The abortion facility instead has hired nationally-known abortionist Willie Parker to act as Medical Director and fulfill the ObGyn requirement on a temporary basis in order to keep the facility from closing .
As previously reported by Operation Rescue , Parker was once idolized by the left , but fell out of favor after a woman came forward and posted a blog about an unwanted sexual encounter with Parker and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predatory sexual behavior .
After the allegations surfaced , several pro-abortion organizations distanced or cut ties with Parker , including the National Abortion Federation , Physicians for Reproductive Health , and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice .
Newman considers the abortion facility too dangerous to operate .
He concluded , “ Given the number of medical emergencies at Little Rock Family Planning , the inability to consistently meet regulations , and the seriousness of accusations involving sex abuse and drugs against its abortionists , it would be safer for the public to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

The emergency suspension order will be in force until a disciplinary hearing can be held.
LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas, September 16, 2020 (Operation Rescue) — An Arkansas abortionist, Thomas H. Tvedten, 74, has had his medical license suspended on an emergency basis after the Arkansas State Medical Board (ASMB) determined that his acts of “gross negligence and ignorant malpractice” on a minor girl posed a danger to the public.
In Tvedten’s emergency suspension document, the ASMB references his failure to properly evaluate and diagnose a minor girl, “TS”, when he “certified the child for a medical marijuana card.”
The emergency suspension order, dated August 13, 2020, will be in force until a disciplinary hearing can be held. That hearing is scheduled for October 1, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. at the Medical Board offices in Little Rock.
“It is very difficult to persuade a medical board to suspend an abortionist’s license on an emergency basis. The offense has to be considered egregious with the belief that further harm will come if the person is allowed to continue practicing medicine,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “But on a personal level, as a father, the fact Tvedten was helping a little girl get marijuana raises disturbing questions about why he wanted that child drugged.”
It is unknown if the minor was also one of Tvedten’s abortion patients. More information about the case is expected to become public after the October 1 hearing.
Tvedten, who is the owner of the Little Rock Family Planning abortion facility in Little Rock, Arkansas, has previously run afoul of the Medical Board in another drug-related violation. In 1983, Tvedten’s medical license was suspended for three months after he admitted “supplying patients with Demerol injections to be injected at the discretion of the patient.”
In 1987, Tvedten pleaded guilty to Criminal Mischief, a second-degree misdemeanor for unspecified criminal acts.
Tvedten is also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who has published videos and operates a blog where he opines that the buildings that collapsed in New York during the September 11, 2001, attacks were brought down by controlled demolition.
Operation Rescue has documented 67 known medical emergencies at Tvedten’s Little Rock Family Planning that have required women to be transported by ambulance to local hospitals for serious abortion-related injuries.
New Temporary Medical Director
Tvedten is also a plaintiff in a Federal lawsuit that is challenging the constitutionality of an Arkansas law that requires abortionists to be board-certified or eligible for board certification as Obstetrician/Gynecologists.
According to a motion recently fled in that suit, Little Rock Family Planning has two abortionists, Tvedten and Thomas Horton, that provide 94% of all abortions at that facility. Neither meet the Ob/Gyn requirement. Another abortionist, Fred Hopkins of California, conducts abortions once every other month at the Little Rock facility, but is unable to fill in for Tvedten due to scheduling issues.
The abortion facility instead has hired nationally-known abortionist Willie Parker to act as Medical Director and fulfill the ObGyn requirement on a temporary basis in order to keep the facility from closing.
As previously reported by Operation Rescue, Parker was once idolized by the left, but fell out of favor after a woman came forward and posted a blog about an unwanted sexual encounter with Parker and warnings about what she believed was his predatory sexual behavior.
After the allegations surfaced, several pro-abortion organizations distanced or cut ties with Parker, including the National Abortion Federation, Physicians for Reproductive Health, and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
Newman considers the abortion facility too dangerous to operate. He concluded, “Given the number of medical emergencies at Little Rock Family Planning, the inability to consistently meet regulations, and the seriousness of accusations involving sex abuse and drugs against its abortionists, it would be safer for the public to just shut that abortion business down.”
Visit Tvedten’s profile page at AbortionDocs.org.
Visit Parker’s profile page at AbortionDocs.org.
Published with permission from Operation Rescue.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-09-16--No, a COVID-19 vaccine is not necessary to return life to normal

PETITION : No to government and corporate penalties for refusing COVID-19 vaccine !
Sign the petition here .
September 16 , 2020 ( The Catholic Thing ) — If you ’ ve heard it once , you ’ ve heard it a million times : life just can ’ t get back to normal until a vaccine is ready for stopping COVID-19 .
Owing to fear , aggressively cultivated panic , and blind trust in what we are disingenuously told is “ science , ” this view has taken on such momentum that challenging it seems unthinkable — possibly even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand , we hear that American ingenuity and freedoms ( which of course should be appreciated ) have already enabled us to be on the verge of producing said vaccine in record time .
On the other hand , several Catholic voices have focused on questions about a vaccine that , at some point in its development , might make use of cell lines derived from aborted fetuses .
That objection is important , as is our responsibility to be vigilant about demanding untainted alternatives ( though such vaccines may , in certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooperation is sufficiently remote ) .
There ’ s a broader issue , however , that needs much more attention than it has received .
I am talking about the entire premise that a vaccine is necessary for people to resume their lives — which , from a public health standpoint , is absurd .
There is even talk that it may become mandatory — that resuming basic activities such as work , school , travel , commerce , etc .
will be contingent upon getting the vaccine .
That would be an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sincere , well-grounded public-health measure .
A couple of pertinent considerations should be sufficient to raise serious questions about the vaccine-as-the-only-solution mentality we find ourselves immersed in today .
The overall survival rate for those exposed to the coronavirus is likely somewhere north of 99.6 percent .
COVID-19 mortality has largely run its course in a great many places ( as viruses tend to do ) .
And no vaccine has ever been successfully developed for any virus in the corona family .
Should this lead us to conclude that normalcy should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine that we ’ ve gotten out to basically the entire world , ” as Bill Gates insists ?
I support the proper medical use of vaccines , of course .
Who doesn ’ t ?
But Gates ’ statement is ludicrous on its face — and unavoidably prompts the question of what could motivate it .
His misanthropic population control mania is no secret , nor is the suspicion that he is keen on using vaccines — among other technologies — to reach that end .
His wife , Melinda Gates ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the pages of Foreign Affairs to fret about the impact COVID-19 will have on contraceptive supply chains .
This while the masses have been enduring crippling , surreal lockdowns , and massive unemployment , which make dark suspicions about not-so-hidden agendas hard to dismiss .
The actual number of people who have died as a result of COVID-19 has been difficult to ascertain , in part because the authorities and a compliant media have deliberately conflated possible COVID-19 cases with deaths resulting from underlying conditions .
After months of incessantly dire media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually only 6 percent of the deaths attributed to COVID-19 — less than 10,000 people — did not coincide with underlying , lethal conditions .
Close to half of the COVID-19 deaths in the United States have occurred in nursing homes — an indictment of authorities that carelessly exposed this vulnerable group to known carriers .
How safe and effective will The Coming Vaccine be for the elderly , compromised population that COVID-19 mainly kills ?
And for the masses under a full-court press to submit to the shot ?
It may actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately ( as adverse events from ongoing trials attest ) then subsequently , upon eventual exposure to the pathogen .
That manufacturers aren ’ t held legally liable for whatever happens under these “ emergency ” circumstances does not inspire confidence .
And efforts to study how best to coax people into getting vaccinated — Yale is testing which kind of sales pitch ( e.g.
, guilt and other forms of emotional manipulation ) would be most persuasive — doesn ’ t exactly inspire confidence either .
Injecting healthy people with a vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some harm is not part of the traditional ethical playbook .
And it is , purely and simply , untrue to think it is an urgent necessity upon which everything else must revolve .
It ’ s the demand for “ safety ” run amok .
Oh , and did I mention that The Coming Vaccine will probably employ genetic engineering techniques for the first time ever ?
The mRNA methodology used by at least one leading vaccine candidate has never been previously tested , much less clinically proven .
Crossing that bridge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scarcely even considered — and surely seems to contradict the supposed “ safety first ” ethos that has otherwise dominated COVID-19 decision-making .
Insisting upon this approach is all the more maddening when safe and effective treatments — which also happen to be very inexpensive — have emerged , only to be maligned and withheld from those who could stand to benefit .
Hydroxychloroquine ( particularly as an early outpatient treatment in combination with zinc and/or antibiotics ) has been more than adequately demonstrated to be quite useful in real-time , actual practice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that used it — and when they did — versus those that didn ’ t ) .
But this is somehow resoundingly unwelcome news .
Forbidding its use makes no sense , especially since all the drastic impositions foisted upon the public were supposedly about “ saving lives.
” We ’ ve been told repeatedly that “ we ’ re all in this together , ” so we have a hard time seeing that both individual well-being and the common good have been in the crosshairs for months , with no end in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the ticket out of this manufactured mess .
We haven ’ t asked the obvious cui bono question ( who benefits from these unprecedented , unreasonable , inhumane restrictions ? )
, which has a fairly obvious answer : those with certain financial , political , and ideological agendas .
We ’ ve been manipulated , conditioned — and pitifully compliant .
And that , not the lack of a vaccine , is the urgent problem .
Published with permission from The Catholic Thing .

Injecting healthy people with a vaccine that is not needed and may cause some harm is not part of the traditional ethical playbook.
PETITION: No to government and corporate penalties for refusing COVID-19 vaccine! Sign the petition here.
September 16, 2020 (The Catholic Thing) — If you’ve heard it once, you’ve heard it a million times: life just can’t get back to normal until a vaccine is ready for stopping COVID-19. Owing to fear, aggressively cultivated panic, and blind trust in what we are disingenuously told is “science,” this view has taken on such momentum that challenging it seems unthinkable — possibly even a punishable offense.
On the one hand, we hear that American ingenuity and freedoms (which of course should be appreciated) have already enabled us to be on the verge of producing said vaccine in record time. On the other hand, several Catholic voices have focused on questions about a vaccine that, at some point in its development, might make use of cell lines derived from aborted fetuses.
That objection is important, as is our responsibility to be vigilant about demanding untainted alternatives (though such vaccines may, in certain circumstances, licitly be used since material cooperation is sufficiently remote). There’s a broader issue, however, that needs much more attention than it has received.
I am talking about the entire premise that a vaccine is necessary for people to resume their lives — which, from a public health standpoint, is absurd. There is even talk that it may become mandatory — that resuming basic activities such as work, school, travel, commerce, etc. will be contingent upon getting the vaccine. That would be an extreme, overtly totalitarian maneuver, not a sincere, well-grounded public-health measure.
A couple of pertinent considerations should be sufficient to raise serious questions about the vaccine-as-the-only-solution mentality we find ourselves immersed in today.
The overall survival rate for those exposed to the coronavirus is likely somewhere north of 99.6 percent. COVID-19 mortality has largely run its course in a great many places (as viruses tend to do). And no vaccine has ever been successfully developed for any virus in the corona family.
Should this lead us to conclude that normalcy should not return “until we have a vaccine that we’ve gotten out to basically the entire world,” as Bill Gates insists?
I support the proper medical use of vaccines, of course. Who doesn’t? But Gates’ statement is ludicrous on its face — and unavoidably prompts the question of what could motivate it. His misanthropic population control mania is no secret, nor is the suspicion that he is keen on using vaccines — among other technologies — to reach that end.
His wife, Melinda Gates (nominally a Catholic), has taken to the pages of Foreign Affairs to fret about the impact COVID-19 will have on contraceptive supply chains. This while the masses have been enduring crippling, surreal lockdowns, and massive unemployment, which make dark suspicions about not-so-hidden agendas hard to dismiss.
The actual number of people who have died as a result of COVID-19 has been difficult to ascertain, in part because the authorities and a compliant media have deliberately conflated possible COVID-19 cases with deaths resulting from underlying conditions. After months of incessantly dire media accounts, the CDC just reported that actually only 6 percent of the deaths attributed to COVID-19 — less than 10,000 people — did not coincide with underlying, lethal conditions.
Close to half of the COVID-19 deaths in the United States have occurred in nursing homes — an indictment of authorities that carelessly exposed this vulnerable group to known carriers. How safe and effective will The Coming Vaccine be for the elderly, compromised population that COVID-19 mainly kills? And for the masses under a full-court press to submit to the shot?
It may actually trigger a harmful response, if not immediately (as adverse events from ongoing trials attest) then subsequently, upon eventual exposure to the pathogen.
That manufacturers aren’t held legally liable for whatever happens under these “emergency” circumstances does not inspire confidence. And efforts to study how best to coax people into getting vaccinated — Yale is testing which kind of sales pitch (e.g., guilt and other forms of emotional manipulation) would be most persuasive — doesn’t exactly inspire confidence either.
Injecting healthy people with a vaccine that is not needed and may cause some harm is not part of the traditional ethical playbook. And it is, purely and simply, untrue to think it is an urgent necessity upon which everything else must revolve. It’s the demand for “safety” run amok.
Oh, and did I mention that The Coming Vaccine will probably employ genetic engineering techniques for the first time ever? The mRNA methodology used by at least one leading vaccine candidate has never been previously tested, much less clinically proven. Crossing that bridge could have profound ripple effects we have scarcely even considered — and surely seems to contradict the supposed “safety first” ethos that has otherwise dominated COVID-19 decision-making.
Insisting upon this approach is all the more maddening when safe and effective treatments — which also happen to be very inexpensive — have emerged, only to be maligned and withheld from those who could stand to benefit. Hydroxychloroquine (particularly as an early outpatient treatment in combination with zinc and/or antibiotics) has been more than adequately demonstrated to be quite useful in real-time, actual practice (by comparing the results of countries that used it — and when they did — versus those that didn’t). But this is somehow resoundingly unwelcome news.
Forbidding its use makes no sense, especially since all the drastic impositions foisted upon the public were supposedly about “saving lives.”
We’ve been told repeatedly that “we’re all in this together,” so we have a hard time seeing that both individual well-being and the common good have been in the crosshairs for months, with no end in sight. We suppose a vaccine really is the ticket out of this manufactured mess.
We haven’t asked the obvious cui bono question (who benefits from these unprecedented, unreasonable, inhumane restrictions?), which has a fairly obvious answer: those with certain financial, political, and ideological agendas.
We’ve been manipulated, conditioned — and pitifully compliant. And that, not the lack of a vaccine, is the urgent problem.
Published with permission from The Catholic Thing.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-09-16--As censorship continues to worsen in 2020, LifeSite calls on readers to boldly defend truth

September 16 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Let ’ s face it : our world is in fearful chaos .
The elite-controlled mainstream media are using their platforms to confuse , discourage and divide us .
With the continued attacks on life , family , freedom and faith truth can now ONLY be found via alternative news sources .
This is where you come in .
You have the power to sustain an unapologetically traditional news source that shines a light into darkness and expose truth .
One that gives you , and tens of millions around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be ignored or distorted and that derail the lies the mainstream media wants you to believe .
However , this news mission is completely dependent on the generosity of its readers .
Our Fall fundraising campaign begins today .
We must raise a minimum of $ 300,000 by October 2nd .
That 's what is needed to fuel this powerful , pro-life and pro-family alternative to all the other media who are merely pumping out what their globalist financial masters direct them to produce .
Follow this link to make a secure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 250 , $ 100 , $ 50 , or even a monthly gift of $ 25 to help spread truth to millions : https : //www.lifesitenews.com/donate Not only have we been fighting unprecedented censorship of our news reporting , our readers are telling us that their personal social media posts are also being censored - and this is only going to get worse as the year continues .
The tech giants have publicly promised that they are going to do this !
From the very beginning of the coronavirus pandemic , mainstream media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Google and Twitter have been doing everything in their power to censor anyone and anything that contradicts their liberal agenda narrative .
We are constantly looking for and developing new ways to get around the censorship and blocking of our reports .
We have an incredibly talented team that is very creative in responding to these challenges .
Today , you have an opportunity to help us .
As you know , it takes a sustained effort to change culture ; it must be done all year long – 24 hours a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A gift of $ 500 , $ 250 , $ 100 , $ 50 , or even a monthly gift of $ 25 or more will defeat lies and save lives .
Follow this link right now to make a secure donation today : https : //www.lifesitenews.com/donate A gift of financial support from you will help make reporting on major breaking news stories like these possible in the future : • Christian churches in California who are not backing down despite government orders to prevent them from gathering to worship God ; • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed from his parish for speaking out against Black Lives Matter ; • Interviewing key players in the pro-life and pro-family movements about the censorship they ’ ve faced , and how censorship of conservatives must end .
As you can see , the need is great and the stakes are high .
Without a doubt , by the end of 2020 those who hold traditional values on life , family , faith and freedom will receive even more pushback when they speak out .
Our bedrock Judeo-Christian values are being eroded left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our society is being pushed into rapid decline .
Your donation will help change the narrative and take back these values for the good of our society .
We will not back down and I hope that you will step out onto the frontlines of the battle and stand with us today in this epic crusade to defend what is left of Christian civilization .
Perhaps you will consider raising your hand a little higher in your commitment to life-affirming journalism by joining our exclusive sustain life team with a monthly gift @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today .
Do you believe in this work enough to join this team ?
If you say YES today to a monthly pledge , your recurring gift will be matched by a generous donor ’ s support , not only today , but every month through the end of the year .
Doubling the amount of truth you share and the lives you will save .
We are a warriors for truth team .
I hope you will stand with us on the Frontlines with a one-time or monthly gift today .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our joint efforts .

Big Tech is not relenting in its crackdown on truth. Your support is urgently needed!
September 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Let’s face it: our world is in fearful chaos. The elite-controlled mainstream media are using their platforms to confuse, discourage and divide us. With the continued attacks on life, family, freedom and faith truth can now ONLY be found via alternative news sources.
This is where you come in.
You have the power to sustain an unapologetically traditional news source that shines a light into darkness and expose truth. One that gives you, and tens of millions around the world, access to stories that would otherwise be ignored or distorted and that derail the lies the mainstream media wants you to believe.
However, this news mission is completely dependent on the generosity of its readers.
Our Fall fundraising campaign begins today. We must raise a minimum of $300,000 by October 2nd. That's what is needed to fuel this powerful, pro-life and pro-family alternative to all the other media who are merely pumping out what their globalist financial masters direct them to produce.
Follow this link to make a secure, one-time donation of $500, $250, $100, $50, or even a monthly gift of $25 to help spread truth to millions: https://www.lifesitenews.com/donate
Not only have we been fighting unprecedented censorship of our news reporting, our readers are telling us that their personal social media posts are also being censored – and this is only going to get worse as the year continues.
The tech giants have publicly promised that they are going to do this!
From the very beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, mainstream media and giant, monopolistic corporations like Facebook, Google and Twitter have been doing everything in their power to censor anyone and anything that contradicts their liberal agenda narrative.
We are constantly looking for and developing new ways to get around the censorship and blocking of our reports. We have an incredibly talented team that is very creative in responding to these challenges.
Today, you have an opportunity to help us. As you know, it takes a sustained effort to change culture; it must be done all year long – 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
A gift of $500, $250, $100, $50, or even a monthly gift of $25 or more will defeat lies and save lives. Follow this link right now to make a secure donation today: https://www.lifesitenews.com/donate
A gift of financial support from you will help make reporting on major breaking news stories like these possible in the future:
Christian churches in California who are not backing down despite government orders to prevent them from gathering to worship God;
Rallying behind a priest who was unlawfully removed from his parish for speaking out against Black Lives Matter;
Interviewing key players in the pro-life and pro-family movements about the censorship they’ve faced, and how censorship of conservatives must end.
As you can see, the need is great and the stakes are high. Without a doubt, by the end of 2020 those who hold traditional values on life, family, faith and freedom will receive even more pushback when they speak out. Our bedrock Judeo-Christian values are being eroded left and right, and the moral fiber of our society is being pushed into rapid decline.
Your donation will help change the narrative and take back these values for the good of our society.
We will not back down and I hope that you will step out onto the frontlines of the battle and stand with us today in this epic crusade to defend what is left of Christian civilization.
Perhaps you will consider raising your hand a little higher in your commitment to life-affirming journalism by joining our exclusive sustain life team with a monthly gift of $25 a month or more today.
Do you believe in this work enough to join this team?
If you say YES today to a monthly pledge, your recurring gift will be matched by a generous donor’s support, not only today, but every month through the end of the year. Doubling the amount of truth you share and the lives you will save.
Follow this link to start a monthly gift today: give.lifesitenews.com/sustainlife
We are a warriors for truth team. I hope you will stand with us on the Frontlines with a one-time or monthly gift today.
Our society as we know it depends on our joint efforts.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-09-16--One by one, bishops slowly insisting Catholics go back to Mass. How many will listen?

September 16 , 2020 ( CatholicCulture.org ) — Starting this coming Sunday , it will be a serious sin for a Catholic in the Milwaukee archdiocese to miss Sunday Mass without a serious reason .
Last week it was OK.
It ’ s still OK in most other American dioceses and archdioceses .
Can we expect ordinary Catholics to understand this situation ?
Can we expect them to come back to Sunday Mass , after a six-month hiatus ?
Having used their authority to stop lay Catholics from attending Mass , can bishops now invoke their authority to bring them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the bottle ?
Milwaukee ’ s Archbishop Jerome Listecki has ended the blanket dispensation from the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday , and warned the faithful of his archdiocese : “ Those who deliberately fail to attend Sunday Mass commit a grave sin.
” “ Fear of getting sick , in and of itself , does not excuse someone from the obligation , ” the archbishop continued .
But wait : wasn ’ t a fear of illness the reason why Archbishop Listecki , and so many other prelates , issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ archbishop obviously anticipates that question , and his statement continues : So each lay Catholic must decide for himself whether he has real reason to fear that going to Mass could endanger his health , and if it would not , the regular Sunday obligation applies .
Fair enough .
But the Sunday obligation only applies in Milwaukee ( and in the few other dioceses whose bishops have ended the dispensation ) .
So what happens if a lay Catholic who resides in Milwaukee finds himself in , say , nearby Chicago on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Sunday obligation because he is under Archbishop Listecki ’ s authority ?
Or dispensed because he is in another ecclesiastical jurisdiction where the blanket dispensation is still in place ?
It is difficult to understand why something that is gravely sinful in one place is not sinful at all just a few miles away .
For that matter , if it will be gravely sinful to skip Mass next Sunday , why was it acceptable to skip Mass last Sunday ?
At first glance Archbishop Listecki ’ s decision — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of grave sin — appears to be based on nothing more than his own personal authority ; there is no reference to the Decalogue , to the solemn commandment to keep holy the Lord ’ s Day , to the notion that worship is an obligation in justice .
To an informed Catholic ( and bear in mind that not all Catholics are informed ) , the basic facts are clear : • The Church , through her hierarchy , has been granted authority by Jesus Christ to impose and lift obligations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven ” —if we were at Mass that Sunday ? )
• The Church formally teaches that Mass attendance on Sunday is necessary to fulfill the Third Commandment .
• However the Church also teaches that the faithful may be excused from this obligation “ for a serious reason ( for example , illness , the care of infants ) , or dispensed by their own pastor.
” A bishop , as pastor for his diocese , thus has authority to issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illness constitutes a “ serious reason ” for failure to attend Sunday Mass ?
The individual must answer that question for himself .
His answer will depend on his particular circumstances : his age , his overall health , the possible risks of exposure to new disease .
The pastor can not come take his temperature and his medical history .
The individual must trust his own judgment .
Urgent appeal to the bishops of the world : Feed your flock !
Sign the petition here .
Back in March , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of them — did make that judgment .
They decided that all Catholics had a “ serious reason ” for not attending Sunday Mass .
That the bishops had the authority to make that judgment , and issue the blanket dispensations , is beyond question .
Whether they were prudent in doing so is another matter .
When the Covid epidemic first broke upon us , we were virtually all frightened .
That fear was not irrational ; the disease was spreading at an objectively frightening rate .
The media fanned the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no doubt by the media hype — so did our bishops .
Within weeks all the churches were closed , and for most of us attending Sunday Mass was no longer an obligation ; in fact it was an impossibility .
Bishops are not epidemiologists ; they did not know — any more than the rest of us did — how fast the virus would spread and how deadly it would prove .
As time passed , more information became available , and we could put the Covid epidemic in perspective , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risks we were running , and the risks we were prepared to run .
But if we concluded that Sunday Mass would be safe — that we no longer had a “ serious reason ” to absent ourselves — that option still was not open to us , because the bishops had closed our churches .
Looking back , Archbishop Listecki explains in his recent statement why the churches were closed : In other words , our bishops and pastors were methodically deciding when , and under what conditions , they thought the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bishops have no special expertise on questions of public safety — and since their decisions on this matter were unquestionably based on calculations of public safety — many Catholics are likely to question their judgments .
Archbishop Listecki acknowledges that a rational fear of exposure to Covid , based on pre-existing conditions , “ would be sufficient to excuse from the obligation.
” Just a few weeks ago the archbishop effectively ruled that everyone had a rational basis for fears .
Now he says that , at least for most people , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t that simple .
Many Catholics in Milwaukee no doubt are afraid — having been told for months that they should be afraid — and the archbishop can ’ t flip a switch to turn off their fears .
So while I applaud Archbishop Listecki for ending the dispensation , and for reminding the faithful about their Sunday obligation , I doubt that the faithful of the Milwaukee archdiocese will flock back to their parish churches this coming Sunday .
Bishops can issue authoritative orders , but they can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prelate seems to be saying that it ’ s gravely sinful to skip Sunday Mass because the archbishop says so — when just last week it wasn ’ t sinful at all because the archbishop said so — he is stretching his authority to the breaking point .
Back in March , a number of bishops undermined their own authority still further because they never did tell the faithful that they were dispensed from their Sunday Mass obligation ; they simply said that there would be no Mass celebrated for the public .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ case were dispensed , since one is never obligated to do the impossible .
But when regular Sunday Mass resumes in those dioceses , it will be very , very difficult for the bishops to insist on the Sunday obligation .
It isn ’ t easy to credit a bishop ’ s authority to tell you that you must attend Sunday Mass , when he was so ready blithely to announce that you couldn ’ t .
I wonder whether some bold prelate will simplify matters for all of us , with a @ @ @ @ @

Having used their authority to stop lay Catholics from attending Mass, can bishops now invoke their authority to bring them back? Will this genie go back in the bottle?
September 16, 2020 (CatholicCulture.org) — Starting this coming Sunday, it will be a serious sin for a Catholic in the Milwaukee archdiocese to miss Sunday Mass without a serious reason. Last week it was OK. It’s still OK in most other American dioceses and archdioceses.
Can we expect ordinary Catholics to understand this situation? Can we expect them to come back to Sunday Mass, after a six-month hiatus? Having used their authority to stop lay Catholics from attending Mass, can bishops now invoke their authority to bring them back? Will this genie go back in the bottle?
Milwaukee’s Archbishop Jerome Listecki has ended the blanket dispensation from the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday, and warned the faithful of his archdiocese: “Those who deliberately fail to attend Sunday Mass commit a grave sin.”
“Fear of getting sick, in and of itself, does not excuse someone from the obligation,” the archbishop continued. But wait: wasn’t a fear of illness the reason why Archbishop Listecki, and so many other prelates, issued a dispensation from that obligation? The archbishop obviously anticipates that question, and his statement continues:
However, if the fear is generated because of at-risk factors, such as pre-existing conditions, age or compromised immune systems, then the fear would be sufficient to excuse from the obligation.
So each lay Catholic must decide for himself whether he has real reason to fear that going to Mass could endanger his health, and if it would not, the regular Sunday obligation applies. Fair enough.
But the Sunday obligation only applies in Milwaukee (and in the few other dioceses whose bishops have ended the dispensation). So what happens if a lay Catholic who resides in Milwaukee finds himself in, say, nearby Chicago on a Sunday morning? Is he bound by the Sunday obligation because he is under Archbishop Listecki’s authority? Or dispensed because he is in another ecclesiastical jurisdiction where the blanket dispensation is still in place? It is difficult to understand why something that is gravely sinful in one place is not sinful at all just a few miles away.
For that matter, if it will be gravely sinful to skip Mass next Sunday, why was it acceptable to skip Mass last Sunday? At first glance Archbishop Listecki’s decision — and consequently, his warning about the possibility of grave sin — appears to be based on nothing more than his own personal authority; there is no reference to the Decalogue, to the solemn commandment to keep holy the Lord’s Day, to the notion that worship is an obligation in justice.
To an informed Catholic (and bear in mind that not all Catholics are informed), the basic facts are clear:
The Church, through her hierarchy, has been granted authority by Jesus Christ to impose and lift obligations. (Didn’t we just hear that “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven”—if we were at Mass that Sunday?)
The Church formally teaches that Mass attendance on Sunday is necessary to fulfill the Third Commandment.
However the Church also teaches that the faithful may be excused from this obligation “for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants), or dispensed by their own pastor.” A bishop, as pastor for his diocese, thus has authority to issue a blanket dispensation.
What sort of illness constitutes a “serious reason” for failure to attend Sunday Mass? The individual must answer that question for himself. His answer will depend on his particular circumstances: his age, his overall health, the possible risks of exposure to new disease. The pastor cannot come take his temperature and his medical history. The individual must trust his own judgment.
Urgent appeal to the bishops of the world: Feed your flock! Sign the petition here.
Back in March, however, the Catholic bishops of the US — all of them — did make that judgment. They decided that all Catholics had a “serious reason” for not attending Sunday Mass. That the bishops had the authority to make that judgment, and issue the blanket dispensations, is beyond question. Whether they were prudent in doing so is another matter.
When the Covid epidemic first broke upon us, we were virtually all frightened. That fear was not irrational; the disease was spreading at an objectively frightening rate. The media fanned the flames of fear, and — influenced no doubt by the media hype — so did our bishops. Within weeks all the churches were closed, and for most of us attending Sunday Mass was no longer an obligation; in fact it was an impossibility.
Bishops are not epidemiologists; they did not know — any more than the rest of us did — how fast the virus would spread and how deadly it would prove. As time passed, more information became available, and we could put the Covid epidemic in perspective, we all reached our own conclusions about the risks we were running, and the risks we were prepared to run. But if we concluded that Sunday Mass would be safe — that we no longer had a “serious reason” to absent ourselves — that option still was not open to us, because the bishops had closed our churches.
Looking back, Archbishop Listecki explains in his recent statement why the churches were closed:
As responsible parish communities, we needed to assess the transmission of the COVID-19 virus, permit our parishes the time to establish plans for sanitizing worship spaces, secure needed resources, evaluate the appropriate numbers for social distancing and solicit the voluntary personnel necessary to accomplish the tasks of preparing our worship spaces.
In other words, our bishops and pastors were methodically deciding when, and under what conditions, they thought the churches would be safe. But since bishops have no special expertise on questions of public safety — and since their decisions on this matter were unquestionably based on calculations of public safety — many Catholics are likely to question their judgments. Archbishop Listecki acknowledges that a rational fear of exposure to Covid, based on pre-existing conditions, “would be sufficient to excuse from the obligation.” Just a few weeks ago the archbishop effectively ruled that everyone had a rational basis for fears. Now he says that, at least for most people, that rational basis is gone. But it isn’t that simple. Many Catholics in Milwaukee no doubt are afraid — having been told for months that they should be afraid — and the archbishop can’t flip a switch to turn off their fears.
So while I applaud Archbishop Listecki for ending the dispensation, and for reminding the faithful about their Sunday obligation, I doubt that the faithful of the Milwaukee archdiocese will flock back to their parish churches this coming Sunday. Bishops can issue authoritative orders, but they can’t flip emotional switches. And when a prelate seems to be saying that it’s gravely sinful to skip Sunday Mass because the archbishop says so — when just last week it wasn’t sinful at all because the archbishop said so — he is stretching his authority to the breaking point.
Back in March, a number of bishops undermined their own authority still further because they never did tell the faithful that they were dispensed from their Sunday Mass obligation; they simply said that there would be no Mass celebrated for the public. Now of course the people in that case were dispensed, since one is never obligated to do the impossible. But when regular Sunday Mass resumes in those dioceses, it will be very, very difficult for the bishops to insist on the Sunday obligation. It isn’t easy to credit a bishop’s authority to tell you that you must attend Sunday Mass, when he was so ready blithely to announce that you couldn’t.
I wonder whether some bold prelate will simplify matters for all of us, with a statement something like this:
Look, maybe I shouldn’t have issued a general dispensation. The usual rules applied then, and they still apply now. If you are sick, or have good reason to think you might become sick, then you’re excused from your obligation. That bar is naturally going to be lower during this epidemic, as it would be during any health emergency. But there still is, and always will be, a Sunday obligation.
Published with permission from CatholicCulture.org.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-09-16--City in court for unequal treatment of pro-life group requesting colored lights on bridge

PETITION : Tell politicians not to discriminate against churches when reopening society !
Sign the petition here .
EDMONTON , Alberta , September 16 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms will be in court on Thursday , September 17 , on behalf of the Alberta March for Life Association ( AMLA ) to compel the City of Edmonton to turn over a list of causes and events that the High Level Bridge has been lit up for .
The virtual hearing will take place at 2:00PM and is required for the Applicants to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to obtain further evidence from the City .
In October 2020 , the Justice Centre filed an application for judicial review on behalf of AMLA against the City of Edmonton , after the City abruptly cancelled a scheduled lighting of the High Level Bridge for the 2019 March for Life .
Operated by the City of Edmonton , the High Level Bridge is outfitted with 60,000 programmable lights , lit every day in the morning and evening .
Through the “ Light the Bridge ” program , the City invites members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bridge be lit in specific colours to reflect their event , cause or campaign .
On March 6 , 2019 , Jerry Pasternak , Vice Chair of AMLA submitted an application to the City for the Bridge to be lit up on May 9 , 2019 in the colours of pink , blue , and white , the colors of the March for Life .
AMLA ’ s bridge lighting application was approved by the City on March 7 , 2019 .
However , on April 5 , the City cancelled the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bridge for this event can not be approved due to the polarizing nature of the subject matter.
” Judicial review is the only way a government decision can be legally challenged in Alberta .
Typically , only the government is allowed to provide evidence .
The party bringing the action requires special permission to enter evidence .
In this case , the Justice Centre is requesting the court order the City to provide a list of past Bridge lightings , to demonstrate the Applicants ’ claim the City acted in a biased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the March for Life .
Although requested by the Applicants , the City has refused to produce such a list .
The Justice Centre is also asking the court to permit affidavit evidence as part of the judicial review .
The Bridge is regularly lit in association with various political causes , some of which result in “ polarization ” among Edmonton residents .
The Justice Centre has filed an affidavit containing evidence the City has lit the Bridge in association with Anthropogenic Climate Change events and campaigns , despite extensive evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Climate Change .
A second affidavit has been filed containing evidence of the many times the City permitted the Bridge to be lit for “ political ” events and commemorations , in breach of the City ’ s own policy regarding the lighting of the Bridge .
Under the Charter , the City can not discriminate against the content of free expression in spaces it has opened up to the public for expressive purposes , such as the High Level Bridge .
In deciding to cancel the lighting of the Bridge for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the organization expresses pro-life views , the City failed to explain how such expression is “ polarizing ” , or whether it is more “ polarizing ” than other causes , or how the City determines which organizations or issues are sufficiently “ polarizing ” to justify being denied the right to use a public space that is available to a long list of other causes .
“ The City must not biasedly promote favoured ideological causes while excluding other causes by arbitrarily labelling them as “ polarizing , ” states Justice Centre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are seeking to ensure the court has a full record of evidence in making a decision whether the City acted unlawfully in cancelling the lighting of the Bridge for the March for Life , including evidence of the City lighting the Bridge in violation of its own guidelines , ” concludes Kitchen .

Through the 'Light the Bridge' program, the City invites community groups — except, apparently, pro-life ones — to request the bridge be lit in specific colors to reflect their causes.
PETITION: Tell politicians not to discriminate against churches when reopening society! Sign the petition here.
EDMONTON, Alberta, September 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms will be in court on Thursday, September 17, on behalf of the Alberta March for Life Association (AMLA) to compel the City of Edmonton to turn over a list of causes and events that the High Level Bridge has been lit up for. The virtual hearing will take place at 2:00PM and is required for the Applicants to be permitted to provide the court with evidence and to obtain further evidence from the City.
In October 2020, the Justice Centre filed an application for judicial review on behalf of AMLA against the City of Edmonton, after the City abruptly cancelled a scheduled lighting of the High Level Bridge for the 2019 March for Life.
Operated by the City of Edmonton, the High Level Bridge is outfitted with 60,000 programmable lights, lit every day in the morning and evening. Through the “Light the Bridge” program, the City invites members of the public and community groups to request the Bridge be lit in specific colours to reflect their event, cause or campaign.
On March 6, 2019, Jerry Pasternak, Vice Chair of AMLA submitted an application to the City for the Bridge to be lit up on May 9, 2019 in the colours of pink, blue, and white, the colors of the March for Life. AMLA’s bridge lighting application was approved by the City on March 7, 2019. However, on April 5, the City cancelled the scheduled lighting, claiming that “lighting the bridge for this event cannot be approved due to the polarizing nature of the subject matter.”
Judicial review is the only way a government decision can be legally challenged in Alberta. Typically, only the government is allowed to provide evidence. The party bringing the action requires special permission to enter evidence. In this case, the Justice Centre is requesting the court order the City to provide a list of past Bridge lightings, to demonstrate the Applicants’ claim the City acted in a biased manner when it cancelled the scheduled lighting for the March for Life. Although requested by the Applicants, the City has refused to produce such a list.
The Justice Centre is also asking the court to permit affidavit evidence as part of the judicial review. The Bridge is regularly lit in association with various political causes, some of which result in “polarization” among Edmonton residents. The Justice Centre has filed an affidavit containing evidence the City has lit the Bridge in association with Anthropogenic Climate Change events and campaigns, despite extensive evidence of the intensely “polarizing” nature of Climate Change.
A second affidavit has been filed containing evidence of the many times the City permitted the Bridge to be lit for “political” events and commemorations, in breach of the City’s own policy regarding the lighting of the Bridge.
Under the Charter, the City cannot discriminate against the content of free expression in spaces it has opened up to the public for expressive purposes, such as the High Level Bridge. In deciding to cancel the lighting of the Bridge for the March for Life, exclusively because the organization expresses pro-life views, the City failed to explain how such expression is “polarizing”, or whether it is more “polarizing” than other causes, or how the City determines which organizations or issues are sufficiently “polarizing” to justify being denied the right to use a public space that is available to a long list of other causes.
“The City must not biasedly promote favoured ideological causes while excluding other causes by arbitrarily labelling them as “polarizing,” states Justice Centre lawyer James Kitchen.
“The Applicants are seeking to ensure the court has a full record of evidence in making a decision whether the City acted unlawfully in cancelling the lighting of the Bridge for the March for Life, including evidence of the City lighting the Bridge in violation of its own guidelines,” concludes Kitchen.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-09-16--Formerly world-class Westminster Cathedral Choir now declining under new management

PETITION : Restore Catholic Mass for our Sailors !
Sign the petition here .
September 16 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — The saga of Westminster Cathedral Choir School claimed a fresh victim last week with the resignation of another senior employee , the music administrator , Madeleine Smith .
Like the director of music , Martin Baker , she was unhappy about the sidelining of the choir at England ’ s premier Catholic Cathedral .
Baker resigned late last year and was absent from Christmas services .
There was no official explanation , and he has not been replaced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cathedral Choir is served by men and boys , in the ancient Catholic tradition .
The boys attend a school set up specially for them by Cardinal Vaughan , the founder of the cathedral , in 1902 .
He wanted to have something in his new cathedral equivalent to the great choirs of the Anglican cathedrals , which commonly have their own schools — boarding schools — so the boys can be recruited from a wide area and are available to sing on Sundays .
Vaughan ’ s vision was realized , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , or was until recently , at least as good as the best Anglican cathedral choirs , such as those of Westminster Abbey and St Paul ’ s , and in the context of the global meltdown of Catholic sacred music since the 1960s , it was regarded as the best Catholic cathedral choir in the world .
Westminster Cathedral was the only Catholic Cathedral in the world to have a sung Mass every single day — again , until recently .
Just as Cardinal Vaughan and other Catholic leaders over millennia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible , and have in them the most moving devotional art , so too they wanted the best sacred music .
The greatest achievements of the human spirit should be offered to God , and our acts of worship should be clothed in the best we can offer Him .
Art and above all music have the power to touch the heart , to get through to us when words fail , to express our awe , our joy , and our sorrow , and as Pope John Paul II expressed it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Spirit of God ” ( Ecclesia in Europa [ 2003 ] 60 ) .
I know this kind of argument confuses some people .
If the best we can do is not all that great , it will be acceptable to God — because , yes , He looks at the heart .
If the best we can do is reserved for mindless secular entertainment or commercial ends , God will be less impressed .
What does it say about us as a society that the best efforts of artists are devoted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What does it say about us as individuals if our home entertainment systems are more expensive than the altar furnishings in our churches ?
So what has happened in Westminster Cathedral ?
As reported in The Times , the key change has been a new head teacher of the Choir School , of which the choristers now represent only 10 % , who has abolished full-time boarding for choir members .
Allowing them to go home on Saturdays may seem uncontroversial , but in fact they are obliged to go home , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept pupils from outside London , and Saturday rehearsals for Sunday services are impossible .
As has been pointed out by many distinguished Catholic and non-Catholic musicians , the quality of the singing can not be maintained under this regime .
Why would the authorities , bequeathed Vaughan ’ s astonishing legacy , not wish to make the most of it to raise worshipers ’ hearts to God in prayer , and to draw non-believers into the Church ?
Knowing the debate as it has played out on these issues over decades , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factors in play .
One is the desire of the school ’ s new leadership to make it a commercially and academically successful school .
The emphasis is on getting the pupils , who leave at the age of 13 , into elite “ public ” ( i.e.
, independent ) schools such as Eton , where many of the U.K. ’ s Prime Ministers have been educated , including the present one .
The other is that , in the context of this temptation , Church authorities have no strong interest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sing to a world-class standard .
Normally , they would find the idea of competing with posh private schools a bit embarrassing , but they evidently find the idea of an elite choir even more so .
The choir ’ s unique ability to sing the most complex and sublime pieces of the Catholic patrimony of Sacred Music in the way they were intended to be sung — by boys and men , rather than using adult professional female singers — pushes the cathedral down a particular liturgical pathway that is not particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service to the value of the choir but in some ways would be happier with a third-rate choir singing the kind of third-rate modern music that makes many Catholic worshipers flee for the hills .
( I ’ ve written about the love of the mediocre here . )
We can only hope some sanity returns before the damage to Westminster Cathedral Choir becomes irreversible .

Why would the authorities, bequeathed with this astonishing legacy, not wish to make the most of it to raise worshipers’ hearts to God in prayer?
PETITION: Restore Catholic Mass for our Sailors! Sign the petition here.
September 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The saga of Westminster Cathedral Choir School claimed a fresh victim last week with the resignation of another senior employee, the music administrator, Madeleine Smith. Like the director of music, Martin Baker, she was unhappy about the sidelining of the choir at England’s premier Catholic Cathedral. Baker resigned late last year and was absent from Christmas services. There was no official explanation, and he has not been replaced. What is going on?
Westminster Cathedral Choir is served by men and boys, in the ancient Catholic tradition. The boys attend a school set up specially for them by Cardinal Vaughan, the founder of the cathedral, in 1902. He wanted to have something in his new cathedral equivalent to the great choirs of the Anglican cathedrals, which commonly have their own schools — boarding schools — so the boys can be recruited from a wide area and are available to sing on Sundays. Vaughan’s vision was realized, and Westminster Cathedral Choir is famous. It is, or was until recently, at least as good as the best Anglican cathedral choirs, such as those of Westminster Abbey and St Paul’s, and in the context of the global meltdown of Catholic sacred music since the 1960s, it was regarded as the best Catholic cathedral choir in the world. Westminster Cathedral was the only Catholic Cathedral in the world to have a sung Mass every single day — again, until recently.
Just as Cardinal Vaughan and other Catholic leaders over millennia wanted to build the most beautiful churches possible, and have in them the most moving devotional art, so too they wanted the best sacred music. The greatest achievements of the human spirit should be offered to God, and our acts of worship should be clothed in the best we can offer Him. Art and above all music have the power to touch the heart, to get through to us when words fail, to express our awe, our joy, and our sorrow, and as Pope John Paul II expressed it, they can be “an echo of the Spirit of God” (Ecclesia in Europa [2003] 60).
I know this kind of argument confuses some people. If the best we can do is not all that great, it will be acceptable to God — because, yes, He looks at the heart. If the best we can do is reserved for mindless secular entertainment or commercial ends, God will be less impressed. What does it say about us as a society that the best efforts of artists are devoted to making violent and immodest films? What does it say about us as individuals if our home entertainment systems are more expensive than the altar furnishings in our churches?
So what has happened in Westminster Cathedral? As reported in The Times, the key change has been a new head teacher of the Choir School, of which the choristers now represent only 10%, who has abolished full-time boarding for choir members. Allowing them to go home on Saturdays may seem uncontroversial, but in fact they are obliged to go home, so the school is no longer able to accept pupils from outside London, and Saturday rehearsals for Sunday services are impossible. As has been pointed out by many distinguished Catholic and non-Catholic musicians, the quality of the singing cannot be maintained under this regime.
Why would the authorities, bequeathed Vaughan’s astonishing legacy, not wish to make the most of it to raise worshipers’ hearts to God in prayer, and to draw non-believers into the Church? Knowing the debate as it has played out on these issues over decades, it is clear that there are two factors in play.
One is the desire of the school’s new leadership to make it a commercially and academically successful school. The emphasis is on getting the pupils, who leave at the age of 13, into elite “public” (i.e., independent) schools such as Eton, where many of the U.K.’s Prime Ministers have been educated, including the present one.
The other is that, in the context of this temptation, Church authorities have no strong interest in maintaining the choir’s ability to sing to a world-class standard. Normally, they would find the idea of competing with posh private schools a bit embarrassing, but they evidently find the idea of an elite choir even more so. The choir’s unique ability to sing the most complex and sublime pieces of the Catholic patrimony of Sacred Music in the way they were intended to be sung — by boys and men, rather than using adult professional female singers — pushes the cathedral down a particular liturgical pathway that is not particularly congenial to them. They pay lip service to the value of the choir but in some ways would be happier with a third-rate choir singing the kind of third-rate modern music that makes many Catholic worshipers flee for the hills. (I’ve written about the love of the mediocre here.)
We can only hope some sanity returns before the damage to Westminster Cathedral Choir becomes irreversible.
Follow Joseph Dr Joseph Shaw has a Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford University, where he also gained a first degree in Politics and Philosophy and a graduate Diploma in Theology. He has published on Ethics and Philosophy of Religion and is the editor of The Case for Liturgical Restoration: Una Voce Position Papers on the Extraordinary Form (Angelico Press). He is the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales and Secretary of Una Voce International. He teaches Philosophy in Oxford University and lives nearby with his wife and nine children.
Share