lifesitenews--2020-06-26--Verizon joins left-wing boycott of Facebook demanding even greater censorship

PETITION : Yes to reform .
No to riots & revolution !
Sign the petition here .
June 26 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Despite mounting evidence of the social network ’ s left-wing bias , Facebook still isn ’ t doing enough to censor “ hate and misinformation , ” according to a coalition of advertisers boycotting the platform that was just joined by telecom giant Verizon .
“ We have strict content policies in place and have zero tolerance when they are breached .
We take action , ” Verizon ’ s chief media officer John Nitti @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re pausing our advertising until Facebook can create an acceptable solution that makes us comfortable and is consistent with what we ’ ve done with YouTube and other partners.
” The move comes in response to pressure by a coalition of the groups Anti-Defamation League , NAACP , Sleeping Giants , Color of Change , Free Press , and Common Sense , who – without offering specifics – accuse Facebook of “ allow ( ing ) incitement to violence against protesters fighting for racial justice in America in the wake of George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ahmaud Arbery , Rayshard Brooks and so many others ” ; of legitimizing conservative news outlets Breitbart and the Daily Caller ; and of “ turn ( ing ) a blind eye to blatant voter suppression on their platform.
” The group calls on Facebook to create new layers of moderation and engagement for targets of “ identity-based hate , ” to take steps to ensure ad revenue does not support “ content labeled as misinformation or hate , ” and to more closely monitor “ extremism ” in private Facebook groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the companies Ben & Jerry ’ s , Patagonia , and REI to agree to pause their Facebook advertising , with Verizon being its biggest gain so far .
Facebook addressed these developments in the form of a memo from VP of global business Carolyn Everson , who explained that the company does not “ make policy changes tied to revenue pressure ” and that it sets “ policies based on principles rather than business interests.
” “ We respect any brand ’ s decision , and remain focused on the important work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting information , ” Everson continued .
“ Our conversations with marketers and civil rights organizations are about how , together , we can be a force for good.
” The campaign ’ s reference to “ incitement to violence against protesters fighting for racial justice ” is widely understood to be a reference to a social media post by President Donald Trump declaring that “ THUGS ” among the protesters , who had been filmed engaging in violent acts such as smashing storefronts and setting buildings on fire , were “ dishonoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I won ’ t let that happen .
Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way .
Any difficulty and we will assume control but , when the looting starts , the shooting starts.
” Twitter set off a firestorm last month when it placed a warning over the tweet , claiming that it “ violated the Twitter rules about glorifying violence.
” Pressure quickly mounted for Facebook to do the same , which Zuckerberg initially rejected on the grounds that the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a warning about state action , ” and that “ we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies.
” Many left-wingers within the company did not take kindly to their boss ’ stance , with a number of employees publicly declaring it “ not acceptable ” and several hundred others staging a “ virtual walkout ” in protest .
In response , Zuckerberg followed up with comments teasing that the company ’ s policy may “ evolve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ There is a real question coming out of this , which is whether we want to evolve our policy around the discussion of state use of force , ” Zuckerberg said .
“ Over the coming days , as the National Guard is now deployed , probably the largest one that I would worry about would be excessive use of police or military force .
I think there ’ s a good argument that there should be more bounds around the discussion around that.
” Facebook has a long history of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretenses .
Multiple analyses have found that algorithm changes instituted at the beginning of 2018 disproportionately impacted conservative politicians and websites .
Last year , an insider revealed that Facebook “ deboosts ” traffic to several mainstream conservative sites .
The capitulation of Verizon and other companies to campaigns like this underscores a warning issued this week by conservative author Ann Coulter , who told Breitbart that “ woke corporate America ” is currently the top threat facing Republicans and conservatives .
“ I have been predicting for years that the internet is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We can communicate with one another .
We can get information that The New York Times , MSNBC , and CNN simply will not report .
They ’ ve got to shut down the internet to conservatives , and what better time to do it than the year of Trump ’ s re-election.
” Coulter lamented that most Republicans , in her view , are either oblivious or indifferent to the danger .
“ Republicans just have it in their heads , ‘ Ooo , it ’ s capitalism .
We support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ As the election gets closer , there are going to be more and more soldiers falling … Where are Republicans on this ?
” Earlier this month , the president signed an executive order aimed at tweaking how federal agencies interpret and enforce Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act , which immunizes websites from potentially being held liable for the third-party content they host .
The order directs the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) to propose an administrative rule that would “ spell out what it means for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies ‘ in good faith , ’ ” but it remains to be seen whether Republicans will seriously attempt any more comprehensive solution should they regain Congress .

The telecom giant followed other organizations who believe the social media platform is allowing 'incitement to violence against protesters fighting for racial justice.'
PETITION: Yes to reform. No to riots & revolution! Sign the petition here.
June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Despite mounting evidence of the social network’s left-wing bias, Facebook still isn’t doing enough to censor “hate and misinformation,” according to a coalition of advertisers boycotting the platform that was just joined by telecom giant Verizon.
“We have strict content policies in place and have zero tolerance when they are breached. We take action,” Verizon’s chief media officer John Nitti said, CNBC reported. “We’re pausing our advertising until Facebook can create an acceptable solution that makes us comfortable and is consistent with what we’ve done with YouTube and other partners.”
The move comes in response to pressure by a coalition of the groups Anti-Defamation League, NAACP, Sleeping Giants, Color of Change, Free Press, and Common Sense, who – without offering specifics – accuse Facebook of “allow(ing) incitement to violence against protesters fighting for racial justice in America in the wake of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade, Ahmaud Arbery, Rayshard Brooks and so many others”; of legitimizing conservative news outlets Breitbart and the Daily Caller; and of “turn(ing) a blind eye to blatant voter suppression on their platform.”
The group calls on Facebook to create new layers of moderation and engagement for targets of “identity-based hate,” to take steps to ensure ad revenue does not support “content labeled as misinformation or hate,” and to more closely monitor “extremism” in private Facebook groups.
The campaign has so far gotten the companies Ben & Jerry’s, Patagonia, and REI to agree to pause their Facebook advertising, with Verizon being its biggest gain so far.
Facebook addressed these developments in the form of a memo from VP of global business Carolyn Everson, who explained that the company does not “make policy changes tied to revenue pressure” and that it sets “policies based on principles rather than business interests.”
“We respect any brand’s decision, and remain focused on the important work of removing hate speech and providing critical voting information,” Everson continued. “Our conversations with marketers and civil rights organizations are about how, together, we can be a force for good.”
The campaign’s reference to “incitement to violence against protesters fighting for racial justice” is widely understood to be a reference to a social media post by President Donald Trump declaring that “THUGS” among the protesters, who had been filmed engaging in violent acts such as smashing storefronts and setting buildings on fire, were “dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
Twitter set off a firestorm last month when it placed a warning over the tweet, claiming that it “violated the Twitter rules about glorifying violence.” Pressure quickly mounted for Facebook to do the same, which Zuckerberg initially rejected on the grounds that the “we read (the post) as a warning about state action,” and that “we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies.”
Many left-wingers within the company did not take kindly to their boss’ stance, with a number of employees publicly declaring it “not acceptable” and several hundred others staging a “virtual walkout” in protest. In response, Zuckerberg followed up with comments teasing that the company’s policy may “evolve” yet again to appease the backlash.
“There is a real question coming out of this, which is whether we want to evolve our policy around the discussion of state use of force,” Zuckerberg said. “Over the coming days, as the National Guard is now deployed, probably the largest one that I would worry about would be excessive use of police or military force. I think there’s a good argument that there should be more bounds around the discussion around that.”
Facebook has a long history of suppressing conservative content under vague or false pretenses. Multiple analyses have found that algorithm changes instituted at the beginning of 2018 disproportionately impacted conservative politicians and websites. Last year, an insider revealed that Facebook “deboosts” traffic to several mainstream conservative sites.
The capitulation of Verizon and other companies to campaigns like this underscores a warning issued this week by conservative author Ann Coulter, who told Breitbart that “woke corporate America” is currently the top threat facing Republicans and conservatives.
“I have been predicting for years that the internet is too free,” she said. “We can communicate with one another. We can get information that The New York Times, MSNBC, and CNN simply will not report. They’ve got to shut down the internet to conservatives, and what better time to do it than the year of Trump’s re-election.”
Coulter lamented that most Republicans, in her view, are either oblivious or indifferent to the danger. “Republicans just have it in their heads, ‘Ooo, it’s capitalism. We support corporations,’” she said. “As the election gets closer, there are going to be more and more soldiers falling … Where are Republicans on this?”
Earlier this month, the president signed an executive order aimed at tweaking how federal agencies interpret and enforce Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which immunizes websites from potentially being held liable for the third-party content they host. The order directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to propose an administrative rule that would “spell out what it means for the tech giants to carry out their takedown policies ‘in good faith,’” but it remains to be seen whether Republicans will seriously attempt any more comprehensive solution should they regain Congress.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-26--Why Catholics should receive Holy Communion on the tongue

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 .

To help keep this and other programs on the air, please donate here.
Watch Mother Miriam's Live aired on 6.26.2020. In today’s episode, Mother continues to share John-Henry Westen’s recent podcast on the 5 reasons to only receive Holy Communion on the tongue. You can find the full podcast here.
You can tune in daily at 10 am EST/7 am PST on our Facebook Page.
Subscribe to Mother Miriam Live here.


lifesitenews--2020-06-26--Facebook whistleblower reveals social network ‘interfering on a global level in elections’

PETITION : Ask Archbishop Gregory to apologize to President Trump and the Knights of Columbus !
Sign the petition here .
June 26 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Facebook aggressively discriminates against conservatives on a global scale for the purpose of influencing election outcomes , according to a whistleblower whose account was highlighted this week by the conservative investigative outlet Project Veritas .
“ I was seeing them interfering on a global level in elections .
I saw a blatant exception that just targeted conservatives or favored liberals — and you know , we 're deleting on average 300 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Ryan Hartwig , who was hired by the third-party outfit Cognizant to moderate content for Facebook .
“ If you magnify that by however many content moderators there are on a global scale , that 's a lot of stuff that 's getting taken down.
” The social media giant ’ s treatment of conservative , Republican , and pro-Trump content “ was the tipping point .
Knowing what I knew about how they were giving exceptions for the policy , I knew that it was likely that it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” continued Hartwig , who wore a hidden camera to document what he saw .
“ Just seeing such blatant bias from Facebook really bothered me.
” In two examples , Hartwig filmed Facebook moderator Israel Amparan calling President Donald Trump supporters “ f***ing crazy-a** a**holes ” whose rhetoric “ should scare you more than anything ” ; and content review team leader Steve Grimmett explaining that he categorizes Trump ’ s supporters with hate groups .
“ One of my projects before now was hate , ” Grimmett said .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking at pictures of hate organizations , Hitler , Nazis , MAGA ( Make America Great Again , Trump ’ s campaign slogan ) , you know , Proud Boys , all that stuff all day long.
” Another content moderator , Kassi Cimo , can be heard calling for Trump to be handed over to the Iranian government for execution ( in response to an $ 80 million bounty declared by an organizer of the funeral for Iranian terror commander Qasem Soleimani ) .
“ It ’ s inhumane , but if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country , why not do it ?
” she asked .
“ We should just hand him over to them .
Take the money , as a country .
That ’ s what I ’ m saying , if we hand him over , our country would be saved .
Just saying.
” By contrast , Hartwig revealed that – as a matter of policy – the moderating section to which he belonged made exceptions for clear-cut examples of hate that aligned with the company ’ s left-wing values .
For Pride Month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Browder informed the team that “ we 're making the exceptions for our policy to favor the LGBT community.
” A slideshow accompanying Browder ’ s presentation explained that manifestly hateful tweets that would normally be deleted could remain if they are “ intended to raise awareness for Pride/LGBTQ , ” offering as an example the comment , “ Straight white males are filth for not fighting more on behalf of LGBTQ.
” Hartwig ’ s revelations follow another Project Veritas scoop earlier this week , in which another whistleblower provided footage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would like to delete “ every Donald Trump post I see on the timeline ” and “ delete all Republicans ... for terrorism ” if they so much as post a photo “ wearing a MAGA hat.
” Cognizant service delivery manager Demian Gordon can also be seen saying he would not hold staff accountable for taking down Trump posts , on the grounds that they “ got ta get the Cheeto ( Trump ) out of the office.
” These reports are only the latest examples of Facebook ’ s history of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretenses .
Multiple analyses have found that algorithm changes instituted at the beginning of 2018 disproportionately impacted conservative politicians and websites .
Last year , an insider revealed that Facebook “ deboosts ” traffic to several mainstream conservative sites .
Most recently , Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg hinted that the company might change its policies to censor Trump himself , in response to left-wing uproar over the president tweeting that riots and looting could be ( though ultimately were not ) put down with lethal force .

A Project Veritas investigator found posts being deleted and one team leader who considered President Trump in the same category as hate groups.
PETITION: Ask Archbishop Gregory to apologize to President Trump and the Knights of Columbus! Sign the petition here.
June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Facebook aggressively discriminates against conservatives on a global scale for the purpose of influencing election outcomes, according to a whistleblower whose account was highlighted this week by the conservative investigative outlet Project Veritas.
“I was seeing them interfering on a global level in elections. I saw a blatant exception that just targeted conservatives or favored liberals — and you know, we're deleting on average 300 posts or actioning 300 posts a day,” said Ryan Hartwig, who was hired by the third-party outfit Cognizant to moderate content for Facebook. “If you magnify that by however many content moderators there are on a global scale, that's a lot of stuff that's getting taken down.”
The social media giant’s treatment of conservative, Republican, and pro-Trump content “was the tipping point. Knowing what I knew about how they were giving exceptions for the policy, I knew that it was likely that it was happening elsewhere on a global scale,” continued Hartwig, who wore a hidden camera to document what he saw. “Just seeing such blatant bias from Facebook really bothered me.”
In two examples, Hartwig filmed Facebook moderator Israel Amparan calling President Donald Trump supporters “f***ing crazy-a** a**holes” whose rhetoric “should scare you more than anything”; and content review team leader Steve Grimmett explaining that he categorizes Trump’s supporters with hate groups.
“One of my projects before now was hate,” Grimmett said. “I've spent quite a bit of time looking at pictures of hate organizations, Hitler, Nazis, MAGA (Make America Great Again, Trump’s campaign slogan), you know, Proud Boys, all that stuff all day long.”
Another content moderator, Kassi Cimo, can be heard calling for Trump to be handed over to the Iranian government for execution (in response to an $80 million bounty declared by an organizer of the funeral for Iranian terror commander Qasem Soleimani). “It’s inhumane, but if it’s gonna save the country, why not do it?” she asked. “We should just hand him over to them. Take the money, as a country. That’s what I’m saying, if we hand him over, our country would be saved. Just saying.”
By contrast, Hartwig revealed that – as a matter of policy – the moderating section to which he belonged made exceptions for clear-cut examples of hate that aligned with the company’s left-wing values.
For Pride Month, Facebook-Cognizant policy and training manager Shawn Browder informed the team that “we're making the exceptions for our policy to favor the LGBT community.” A slideshow accompanying Browder’s presentation explained that manifestly hateful tweets that would normally be deleted could remain if they are “intended to raise awareness for Pride/LGBTQ,” offering as an example the comment, “Straight white males are filth for not fighting more on behalf of LGBTQ.”
Hartwig’s revelations follow another Project Veritas scoop earlier this week, in which another whistleblower provided footage of more Facebook-Cognizant moderators openly discussing how they would like to delete “every Donald Trump post I see on the timeline” and “delete all Republicans…for terrorism” if they so much as post a photo “wearing a MAGA hat.” Cognizant service delivery manager Demian Gordon can also be seen saying he would not hold staff accountable for taking down Trump posts, on the grounds that they “gotta get the Cheeto (Trump) out of the office.”
These reports are only the latest examples of Facebook’s history of suppressing conservative content under vague or false pretenses. Multiple analyses have found that algorithm changes instituted at the beginning of 2018 disproportionately impacted conservative politicians and websites. Last year, an insider revealed that Facebook “deboosts” traffic to several mainstream conservative sites.
Most recently, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg hinted that the company might change its policies to censor Trump himself, in response to left-wing uproar over the president tweeting that riots and looting could be (though ultimately were not) put down with lethal force.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-26--Priest who founded Knights of Columbus to be beatified after saving unborn baby

PETITION : Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues !
Sign the petition here .
DICKSON , Tennessee , June 26 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Knights of Columbus founder Father Michael J. McGivney will be beatified after the Vatican approved the inexplicable healing of an unborn baby as a miracle attributable to him .
When Michelle and Daniel Schachle learned of Michelle ’ s pregnancy , they prepared to welcome their thirteenth child .
At an ultrasound on the last day of 2014 , Michelle learned that her baby had Down syndrome .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michelle for more tests .
On February 25 , 2015 , the doctors told the Schachles that their child suffered from a severe case of fetal hydrops , a life-threatening condition of an abnormal buildup of fluids in the tissue around the lungs , heart , or abdomen or under the skin .
Daniel asked the doctor for a percentage on the chances their son would live .
The doctor finally admitted that in her 30 years as a doctor , she had never seen anyone survive .
Michelle recalled the doctor telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chromosomal diagnosis together , it ’ s over.
” The doctor suggested inducing labor or “ letting nature take its course.
” “ I didn ’ t like either one of those decisions , ” Daniel said .
“ It made me mad .
My job as a dad is to protect my children , not to kill them.
” Continuing the pregnancy would also cause serious conditions for Michelle .
Having previously delivered a stillborn , Michelle was “ so afraid of delivering another baby stillborn.
” After hearing the diagnosis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McGivney needs a miracle .
I just prayed that if Father McGivney saves him , I 'm naming him Michael.
” As members of the Father McGivney Guild , an organization promoting canonization of the priest since 1997 , the family had a long-time devotion to Fr .
McGivney .
Daniel worked for the Knights of Columbus , founded by Fr .
McGivney , and had previously been Grand Knight of his local council .
The Schachles named their homeschool the “ Fr .
McGivney Academy.
” “ We ’ ve worn out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Daniel .
“ We knew that [ Fr .
McGivney ] looked out over our family , and we looked to him a lot and asked him to pray for us.
” ‘ There are so many coincidences , how can you look at this and not know it was Fr .
McGivney ’ The Schachles travelled to Fatima in March 2015 , praying for Fr .
McGivney ’ s intercession for their unborn baby at the shrine .
Priests offered Masses for their baby ’ s recovery from fetal hydrops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , St. Christopher , in Dickson , Tennessee .
They also sent emails asking people to pray for Fr .
McGivney ’ s intercession .
Four days after returning from their pilgrimage , Michelle went for an ultrasound .
“ I was pretty scared , ” Michelle said .
“ The ultrasound technician , she kept looking and looking , she was taking a long time.
” However , when the technician showed Michelle an ultrasound picture of the baby 's face , the swelling and fluid buildup , which had been so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone .
Dr. Mary-Anne Carroll came into the room to discuss the ultrasound with Michelle .
The two had never met .
Michelle had dealt with other doctors on her previous visits .
“ She started talking about this and that , about what we 're going to do when the baby is born , ” Michelle said .
“ I said what about the fluid in the lungs ?
She said , ‘ A lot of babies have a little fluid in the lungs .
It 's called wet lungs.
’ ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ baby were the patients she had heard about from the other doctors in the practice , consulted her colleagues who confirmed the complete disappearance of fetal hydrops .
While the family had originally planned to name their baby Benedict , when he was healed , they decided to name him Michael in honor of Fr .
McGivney .
Michelle delivered Michael McGivney Schachle by emergency c-section after only 31 weeks .
On May 15 , 2015 , Michael was born , weighing only 3 pounds 4 ounces .
He was then in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks , Michael underwent heart surgery , and , at six months of age , he suffered from a respiratory illness for which he was sent to the hospital for six weeks .
However , Michael is now a happy and active five-year-old .
There are no signs of conditions related to his prematurity or fetal hydrops .
The Schachles said that having Michael strengthened their prayer lives , and also made a “ big impression ” on his doctors .
“ There were times where [ the doctors ] were like , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to happen and [ if ] he 's going to make it or not , ’ ” Michelle said .
“ And I 'm like , ‘ I do n't think you understand , God has big plans for this child.
’ ” The family was repeatedly asked why they didn ’ t pray for Michael to be cured from Down syndrome as well as from the fetal hydrops .
They explained that they saw a baby with Down syndrome as a “ blessing ” and only wanted him to be born @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they could be certain that the miracle was caused by Fr .
McGivney ’ s intercession .
In addition to praying and asking people to pray specifically for his intercession , Michael and Fr .
McGivney share many similarities .
“ There are so many coincidences , how can you look at this and not know it was Fr .
McGivney , ” said Daniel .
Michael was born on May 15 , the date in 1882 when the first Knights of Columbus council was chartered .
Additionally , Michelle and Fr .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ McGivney was the oldest of 13 children ; Michael is the youngest of 13 .
“ A panel of physicians in Rome examined the medical record and a panel of theologians examined the spiritual record of the case before making a recommendation for the pope ’ s approval , ” said Brian Caulfield , the vice postulator of Fr .
McGivney ’ s cause .
On May 27 , 2020 , Pope Francis confirmed that Michael ’ s inexplicable healing was a miracle that arose through the intercession of Fr .
McGivney .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ beatified and called Blessed Michael J. McGivney .

An unborn baby diagnosed with a fatal prenatal condition was miraculously cured after family prayed to Fr. Michael J. McGivney.
PETITION: Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues! Sign the petition here.
DICKSON, Tennessee, June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Knights of Columbus founder Father Michael J. McGivney will be beatified after the Vatican approved the inexplicable healing of an unborn baby as a miracle attributable to him.
When Michelle and Daniel Schachle learned of Michelle’s pregnancy, they prepared to welcome their thirteenth child. At an ultrasound on the last day of 2014, Michelle learned that her baby had Down syndrome.
The doctors saw other troubling signs and referred Michelle for more tests. On February 25, 2015, the doctors told the Schachles that their child suffered from a severe case of fetal hydrops, a life-threatening condition of an abnormal buildup of fluids in the tissue around the lungs, heart, or abdomen or under the skin.
Daniel asked the doctor for a percentage on the chances their son would live. The doctor finally admitted that in her 30 years as a doctor, she had never seen anyone survive.
Michelle recalled the doctor telling her that “to have hydrops and a chromosomal diagnosis together, it’s over.” The doctor suggested inducing labor or “letting nature take its course.”
“I didn’t like either one of those decisions,” Daniel said. “It made me mad. My job as a dad is to protect my children, not to kill them.”
Continuing the pregnancy would also cause serious conditions for Michelle. Having previously delivered a stillborn, Michelle was “so afraid of delivering another baby stillborn.”
After hearing the diagnosis, Daniel told Michelle, “Father McGivney needs a miracle. I just prayed that if Father McGivney saves him, I'm naming him Michael.”
As members of the Father McGivney Guild, an organization promoting canonization of the priest since 1997, the family had a long-time devotion to Fr. McGivney. Daniel worked for the Knights of Columbus, founded by Fr. McGivney, and had previously been Grand Knight of his local council. The Schachles named their homeschool the “Fr. McGivney Academy.”
“We’ve worn out his prayer card over the years,” said Daniel. “We knew that [Fr. McGivney] looked out over our family, and we looked to him a lot and asked him to pray for us.”
‘There are so many coincidences, how can you look at this and not know it was Fr. McGivney’
The Schachles travelled to Fatima in March 2015, praying for Fr. McGivney’s intercession for their unborn baby at the shrine. Priests offered Masses for their baby’s recovery from fetal hydrops in Rome and at their home parish, St. Christopher, in Dickson, Tennessee. They also sent emails asking people to pray for Fr. McGivney’s intercession.
Four days after returning from their pilgrimage, Michelle went for an ultrasound. “I was pretty scared,” Michelle said. “The ultrasound technician, she kept looking and looking, she was taking a long time.”
However, when the technician showed Michelle an ultrasound picture of the baby's face, the swelling and fluid buildup, which had been so apparent on the last ultrasound, was gone.
Dr. Mary-Anne Carroll came into the room to discuss the ultrasound with Michelle. The two had never met. Michelle had dealt with other doctors on her previous visits.
“She started talking about this and that, about what we're going to do when the baby is born,” Michelle said. “I said what about the fluid in the lungs? She said, ‘A lot of babies have a little fluid in the lungs. It's called wet lungs.’”
“Wait a minute, I was told there’s no hope,” Michelle asked, stunned.
Carroll, realizing that Michelle and her baby were the patients she had heard about from the other doctors in the practice, consulted her colleagues who confirmed the complete disappearance of fetal hydrops.
While the family had originally planned to name their baby Benedict, when he was healed, they decided to name him Michael in honor of Fr. McGivney.
Michelle delivered Michael McGivney Schachle by emergency c-section after only 31 weeks. On May 15, 2015, Michael was born, weighing only 3 pounds 4 ounces. He was then in the hospital for 10 weeks.
At seven weeks, Michael underwent heart surgery, and, at six months of age, he suffered from a respiratory illness for which he was sent to the hospital for six weeks. However, Michael is now a happy and active five-year-old. There are no signs of conditions related to his prematurity or fetal hydrops.
The Schachles said that having Michael strengthened their prayer lives, and also made a “big impression” on his doctors.
“There were times where [the doctors] were like, ‘We don't know what's going to happen and [if] he's going to make it or not,’” Michelle said. “And I'm like, ‘I don't think you understand, God has big plans for this child.’”
The family was repeatedly asked why they didn’t pray for Michael to be cured from Down syndrome as well as from the fetal hydrops. They explained that they saw a baby with Down syndrome as a “blessing” and only wanted him to be born alive.
The family was asked how they could be certain that the miracle was caused by Fr. McGivney’s intercession. In addition to praying and asking people to pray specifically for his intercession, Michael and Fr. McGivney share many similarities.
“There are so many coincidences, how can you look at this and not know it was Fr. McGivney,” said Daniel.
Michael was born on May 15, the date in 1882 when the first Knights of Columbus council was chartered. Additionally, Michelle and Fr. McGivney share a birthday. Fr. McGivney was the oldest of 13 children; Michael is the youngest of 13.
“A panel of physicians in Rome examined the medical record and a panel of theologians examined the spiritual record of the case before making a recommendation for the pope’s approval,” said Brian Caulfield, the vice postulator of Fr. McGivney’s cause.
On May 27, 2020, Pope Francis confirmed that Michael’s inexplicable healing was a miracle that arose through the intercession of Fr. McGivney. Therefore, Fr. McGivney will be beatified and called Blessed Michael J. McGivney.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-26--Ex-GOP candidate Carly Fiorina endorses Biden, claims he ‘could lead’ on abortion

PETITION : Tell Trump Christians can ’ t accept SCOTUS ruling imposing LGBT ideology !
Sign the petition here .
June 26 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Failed 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina is the latest Republican to declare President Donald Trump so beyond the pale that she ’ s voting for former Vice President Joe Biden instead , ignoring his wholesale rejection of her own stated values on the sanctity of life .
Fiorina , the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who was also briefly the running mate for Sen. Ted Cruz ’ s ( R-Texas ) own presidential primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Edward-Isaac Dovere on Thursday that she “ can ’ t support Donald Trump ” and because “ elections are binary choices ” she will vote for Biden in November .
“ I think we have witnessed , particularly in the era of Trump — but prior to that as well — what George Washington warned us about , which is that the trouble with political parties is people will come to care only about winning , and they ’ ll forget about values and governing , ” she said .
By contrast , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Biden understands that this moment in history calls for him to be a leader , not a politician.
” Calling Biden a “ person of humility and empathy and character , ” Fiorina claimed that when the Democrat “ talks about the soul of the nation , ” he ’ s talking about “ principles like co-equal branches of government , principles like problem-solving should be a collaborative process , a bipartisan process.
” Dovere did question Fiorina on the apparent conflict between her stated pro-life positions and Biden ’ s pro-abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ extremes ” on both sides of the abortion debate are allegedly impeding progress , and called on Congress to change course by starting with a 20-week abortion ban , then called for expanding the meaning of “ pro-life ” to encompass “ criminal-justice reform ” ( which is generally code for greater leniency in punishing crimes ) and unspecified “ police reform.
” She also endorsed the left-wing claim that “ systemic racism ” leads to black Americans being “ murdered in broad daylight , ” despite evidence to the contrary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has moved toward fewer restrictions ( on abortion ) , not more , ” Fiorina responded that it was a “ great example of an opportunity to lead rather than just playing politics .
He could do that .
He could lead .
He could problem-solve .
He could find common ground on a bipartisan basis.
” In fact , there is no evidence that Biden wants to reduce abortions or find common ground with pro-lifers , and ample evidence to the contrary .
The presidential “ healthcare ” platform he unveiled last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ v. Wade in federal law ; repealing the Hyde Amendment ( which bars direct public funding of most abortions ) ; forcing states to accept Medicare funding for Planned Parenthood , reversing the Mexico City Policy ( which bars federal funds from supporting abortion overseas ) ; and directing the Justice Department to “ do everything in its power ” to block state pro-life laws as modest as parental notification requirements , ultrasound laws , and waiting periods .
During his time in the Senate , Biden generally voted in lockstep with Planned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barack Obama ’ s running mate , he spent eight years in what was arguably the most pro-abortion administration in American history , during which he assured a Chinese audience he “ fully understand ( s ) ” and was “ not second-guessing ” their government ’ s practice of forcing families into abortion and sterilization .
In the early months of his presidential campaign , Biden formally jettisoned restrictions on federal funding of abortions by disavowing his support for the Hyde Amendment after just a day of pressure from pro-abortion activists .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be “ essential health care ” that had to continue even as the COVID-19 emergency measures suspended many forms of actual health care .
None of the above has deterred Fiorina , however , who went so far as to declare that former running mate Cruz ’ s support for Trump “ disappoints me.
” She added that she hasn ’ t spoken with Cruz in “ several years.
” While Trump ’ s opponents roundly cheered Fiorina ’ s announcement , she also received broad pushback from numerous voices , including a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : As for Cruz , he simply responded , “ I very much respect Carly , but I disagree with her on this .
”

The ex-Hewlett-Packard CEO says the Democrat candidate's move toward fewer abortion restrictions is an 'example of an opportunity to lead rather than just playing politics.'
PETITION: Tell Trump Christians can’t accept SCOTUS ruling imposing LGBT ideology! Sign the petition here.
June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Failed 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina is the latest Republican to declare President Donald Trump so beyond the pale that she’s voting for former Vice President Joe Biden instead, ignoring his wholesale rejection of her own stated values on the sanctity of life.
Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who was also briefly the running mate for Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) own presidential primary run, told The Atlantic’s Edward-Isaac Dovere on Thursday that she “can’t support Donald Trump” and because “elections are binary choices” she will vote for Biden in November.
“I think we have witnessed, particularly in the era of Trump — but prior to that as well — what George Washington warned us about, which is that the trouble with political parties is people will come to care only about winning, and they’ll forget about values and governing,” she said. By contrast, “I think — I hope — that Biden understands that this moment in history calls for him to be a leader, not a politician.”
Calling Biden a “person of humility and empathy and character,” Fiorina claimed that when the Democrat “talks about the soul of the nation,” he’s talking about “principles like co-equal branches of government, principles like problem-solving should be a collaborative process, a bipartisan process.”
Dovere did question Fiorina on the apparent conflict between her stated pro-life positions and Biden’s pro-abortion platform.
She first lamented that the “extremes” on both sides of the abortion debate are allegedly impeding progress, and called on Congress to change course by starting with a 20-week abortion ban, then called for expanding the meaning of “pro-life” to encompass “criminal-justice reform” (which is generally code for greater leniency in punishing crimes) and unspecified “police reform.” She also endorsed the left-wing claim that “systemic racism” leads to black Americans being “murdered in broad daylight,” despite evidence to the contrary.
When Dovere pointed out that Biden “has moved toward fewer restrictions (on abortion), not more,” Fiorina responded that it was a “great example of an opportunity to lead rather than just playing politics. He could do that. He could lead. He could problem-solve. He could find common ground on a bipartisan basis.”
In fact, there is no evidence that Biden wants to reduce abortions or find common ground with pro-lifers, and ample evidence to the contrary.
The presidential “healthcare” platform he unveiled last year calls for “codifying” Roe v. Wade in federal law; repealing the Hyde Amendment (which bars direct public funding of most abortions); forcing states to accept Medicare funding for Planned Parenthood, reversing the Mexico City Policy (which bars federal funds from supporting abortion overseas); and directing the Justice Department to “do everything in its power” to block state pro-life laws as modest as parental notification requirements, ultrasound laws, and waiting periods.
During his time in the Senate, Biden generally voted in lockstep with Planned Parenthood and NARAL. As former President Barack Obama’s running mate, he spent eight years in what was arguably the most pro-abortion administration in American history, during which he assured a Chinese audience he “fully understand(s)” and was “not second-guessing” their government’s practice of forcing families into abortion and sterilization.
In the early months of his presidential campaign, Biden formally jettisoned restrictions on federal funding of abortions by disavowing his support for the Hyde Amendment after just a day of pressure from pro-abortion activists. Most recently, he declared abortion to be “essential health care” that had to continue even as the COVID-19 emergency measures suspended many forms of actual health care.
None of the above has deterred Fiorina, however, who went so far as to declare that former running mate Cruz’s support for Trump “disappoints me.” She added that she hasn’t spoken with Cruz in “several years.”
While Trump’s opponents roundly cheered Fiorina’s announcement, she also received broad pushback from numerous voices, including a former campaign worker and the president himself:
Failed presidential candidate (thank you President Trump!), Carly Fiorina, said she will be voting for Corrupt Joe Biden. She lost so badly to me, twice in one campaign, that she should be voting for Joe. No complaints!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 25, 2020
I regret ever working for this woman’s campaign. https://t.co/gEZ2M8M975 — Kassy Dillon (@KassyDillon) June 25, 2020
Now @CarlyFiorina. https://t.co/J9BEWNkLnj Republicans should remember all those who voted with the people tearing down statues of George Washington and General Grant. I know I will. — Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) June 25, 2020
I distinctly remember when Carly — freshly having ditched California for Virginia — called around members of the RNC to solicit interest in her running for chair. She wasn’t an RNC member even �� Carly Fiorina Says She Will Vote for Joe Biden -The Atlantic https://t.co/MDXW0vSNq0 — Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) June 25, 2020
Curious…how does a Christian support any politician that is pro-abortion? #redlineissue #3000everyday — Kurt Baxter (@kurtieb) June 25, 2020
What’s your favorite part of the Democrat platform? Abortion on demand? Open borders? Massive confiscatory tax increases? Destruction of our energy sector? Dismantling the police? Rioting in the streets, looting or setting everything on fire? — Brett Adams (@BrettAdams12) June 26, 2020
You cant say you were ever really a conservative and now say you would even think about voting for Biden. So really you are just showing everyone you have no core values at all. Glad you never won election. — HoosierCon (@hoosiercon) June 25, 2020
As for Cruz, he simply responded, “I very much respect Carly, but I disagree with her on this.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-26--Catholic prof: Abp Viganò is right in calling for reform, but Church cannot simply repudiate Vatican

Catholic prof: Abp Viganò is right in calling for reform, but Church cannot simply repudiate Vatican II

June 26 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Is Vatican II – to use an au courant analogy - a virus within the Body of Christ ?
Archbishop Vigano in his public letter of June 9th , on the memorial of the great poet , mystic and hymnographer , Saint Ephraim , arrived for many as long-delayed Jeremiad , condemning the alleged errors of the ecclesia moderna , the modern Church , even of the Second Vatican Council , or at least its interpretation , and he exhorts us to reflect , repent and reform .
We may share his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the courage to point out in no uncertain terms that something must be done about the Augean mess we ’ re in .
We should all act to help purify the Church , but with that purification beginning in each of our own souls .
Yet , caveat lector – let the reader beware : It is exactly what should be done that is the rub , and it is with this in mind that the letter of Archbishop requires a clarifying response , so that his words might be understood in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to write in the first place .
We don ’ t want to be precipitous , throwing the baby out with the bathwater , that would make any subsequent errors worse – perhaps far worse and more insidious – than the first .
Things are usually not as simple as they may appear – there are mysteries that will last until the end of time .
Now , it is not implied that the Archbishop holds any of the errors that may be mentioned here – even though he may now have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a repudiation of the entire Council , which would be tragic – only that the reader should beware that some of what the Archbishop wrote may be propaedeutic to an erroneous view of the Church ’ s teachings .
The Archbishop claims that “ it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built , superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.
” Perhaps , and there is plenty of evidence of such a ‘ fifth column ’ , but we should beware the spectre of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an attempt to delineate a ‘ pure ’ Church within the surrounding morass of an apostate one , superimposed thereon .
Donatus , a 4th-century African bishop , against whose errors Saint Augustine did mighty battle , claimed as much , that there were sins that cast one into the outer darkness , and barred one from ever repenting and seeking readmission to the Catholic fold .
Furthermore , sacramental grace would only flow through ‘ pure ’ ministers , and the apostates – adulterers , murderers and those who caved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pale , and could more or less be shunned and ignored .
The truth of which of the Church ’ s ministers is in good standing , and by extension who even belongs to the Church , is complex and opaque , yet governed by certain principles and laws .
The Church is both an earthly and heavenly reality , historical and transcendent , and we belong , more or less , in both ways : There are the three visible bonds of communion : unity in faith , in ecclesiastical governance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the spiritual bonds of communion , grace and charity .
Ultimately , belonging to the Church is the same thing as belonging to the Mystical Body of Christ , but that Church is truly ‘ catholic ’ , universal , in that it is in some sense everywhere , and all in some way either belong or are ordered to the Church .
After all , everything true and good is ‘ Catholic ’ , and , this side of eternity , no one is completely outside the Church .
Union with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a spectrum – we may belong ‘ more or less ’ , for who of us would say that we are united to Christ as much as we might be , either visibly ( could not all of us pray more , or immerse ourselves more in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church ? )
or , more to the point , spiritually ( and woe are we if say we have reached our zenith of charity and grace ) .
Yes , there is a Rubicon between being in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being in this state which , for those old enough to make moral decisions , means being in ‘ mortal sin ’ .
Although we have some access to our own interior state , we don ’ t have access to that of others – being in grace or mortal sin have objective elements , but they are ultimately subjective , determined by the deep decision each of one us makes for truth , for charity and for God , as He speaks to each of us .
And even our awareness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not infallible .
We may achieve some level of moral certainty about ourselves , but we must beware of presumption , answering with Saint Joan of Arc , who replied during her trial whether she was in a state of grace : ‘ If I am not , may it please God to put me in it ; if I am , may it please God to keep me there ’ If there is some uncertainty about ourselves , how much more does this apply to others , and two warnings from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the Apostles ask Christ to send fire from heaven upon the Samaritans ( Lk 9:34 ) , who refused to accept them .
Christ ’ s reply was to rebuke His Apostles , a reply which is consistent with Christ ’ s admonition that the wheat and the tares be allowed to grow together unto harvest time , when God will separate them ( Mt 13:24 , ff. )
.
For the division between the good and the bad is to some extent external , it is more internal , running through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the state of our souls is expressed to some extent in our actions .
At times , the authorities in the Church must act to depose and defrock , but that is not within our own authority .
The fact that Christ Himself tolerated Judas , knowing full well the darkness within him , until he hung himself on his own gibbet , so to speak , should be an object lesson .
It is with these distinctions in mind that we should interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus – outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here again is the Archbishop , quoting from the ancient Athanasian Creed , which cemented Nicene Trinitarian orthodoxy : “ Whosoever wishes to be saved , before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith ; For unless a person shall have kept this faith whole and inviolate , without doubt he shall eternally perish.
” We must beware taking an either too liberal or too restrictive interpretation of the doctrine that outside the Church there is no salvation , which is not a statistical event , but a personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually , at least ) belongs to the Church and all are in the end saved , does not jibe with the warnings of Christ and the traditional teaching of the Church on the reality of hell and the choice of some for that final ‘ self-exclusion ’ from God and the blessed .
Yet we must also not take too restrictive a view , as Father Leonard Feeney ( +1978 ) did , that one must be a baptized , Roman Catholic with all the three visible bonds of unity to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , and Father Feeney was condemned for teaching such .
This gets us into murky waters here , but we say for now that one must certainly be in a state of grace and charity to enter heaven , and that the Church and her sacraments are the only revealed , as well as the surest , way to be morally certain we are in a state of grace and charity .
It is quite a different matter to be moving towards the fullness of truth by what light and grace are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willingly reject salvific truth once we have accepted it as true .
The Archbishop makes a valid point , that there are signs that some , even at the higher level of the hierarchy , have made this tragic choice , but that ultimately is known only to God Himself .
And here is the point , which brings us back to Donatism .
In condemning this heresy , the Church taught that regardless of the sins , or even the errors , of a bishop or priest – even of the Vicar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ministers , until they are censured , deposed or even defrocked by the proper authorities in the Church .
Are we to attempt to depose bishops and priests who are deemed ‘ apostates ’ ?
Who is to make this distinction , and do the deposing ?
And we should clarify that there is no earthly authority , no canonical process , even in the Church , that can judge or remove a validly elected Pope , whose office ceases only by a voluntary resignation , or death .
Before we turn to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make of the Archbishop ’ s implicit claim that all – or almost all - of our current woes are a result of its teachings – which has more than a little of post hoc ergo propter hoc ?
Things were already unraveling well before the Council , and one could also hold that they would have been worse without it .
Of course , this too can not be proved , but there is historical evidence that a Council was needed for the Church to respond to the modern world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more imperfect than others , but all Councils ratified by the Pope become part of the Ordinary Magisterium , and we must take what is good , while clarifying and purifying what is not so .
Yes , there are omissions , but this is so for all the Church documents , none of which can say everything .
The question is whether these omissions were deliberate , and whether there was an attempt at ‘ weaponized ambiguity ’ .
Perhaps .
But many Councils had post-conciliar wrangling over terms , including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 325 : One need only skim all the battles fought over the word ‘ homoousios ’ , defining Christ ’ s relation to the Father .
Anyway , to continue to focus on motives and machinations seems to edge close , ironically enough , to the very ‘ spirit of the Council ’ , of which we are all wary .
Instead , we should focus on is the text itself , not the mind and motivations of the Council Fathers , before , during or after the Council , which ultimately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Holy Spirit , even if His work is often bent by fallible and sinful human agents .
God writes straight with crooked lines .
Pope John XXIII made it clear from the outset that the Council would not be condemnatory , but emphasize rather the positive aspect of the Church ’ s teachings .
After all , Communism and contraception – to take but two of the bete noirs of those opposed to the Council , claiming these should have been anathematized in no uncertain terms – were already condemned in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pius XI in 1937 ( Divini Redemptoris ) and 1931 ( Casti Connubii ) .
And the Church was in the midst of responding to the invention and use of the ‘ Pill ’ , which required a clarification on what contraception really is .
And even Pope Paul VI ’ s Humanae Vitae ( 1968 ) needs John Paul II ’ s Theology of the Body to fill out its own teachings .
Magisterial teaching , two millennia and counting , and must be taken as an integral whole .
We may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is admittedly unlike previous Councils , but we must admit that it does not make much sense to condemn contraceptive sex if we don ’ t make the case that the non-contraceptive , life-giving kind is far better , even more enjoyable .
And that some sort of free business economy , based on the private initiative and energy of individuals , is a more effective and efficient , and more fun , social model , than staid and stale socialism .
The Church can not always condemn what we shouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what we should do .
Anon , we could , and probably will , debate this until Christ returns again and wonders what we were doing with our time , but whatever lacunae and privations there may be in the way truths were expressed , there is no explicit heresy in the conciliar decrees , and much of the language is even highly conservative – from reaffirming priestly celibacy and chastity , religious orders reaffirming their original rules and the spirit of their founders , the requirement that the laity strive for holiness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the supreme primacy of the Pope .
I will caution that one must read at least some of the original Latin , for , whatever one thinks of the editio typica , the English translations ( which is all most have ever read , if they ’ ve read the conciliar texts at all ) are certainly lacking and tendentious in many places – even the footnotes are different .
Further , we should also recall that every document at the Council was vetted and passed by almost every bishop in the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the full authority of the Pope .
If we are to re-assess such conciliar decision a half-century on , then what else might be up for grabs ?
The entire pontificate of Pope John Paul II ?
One could write a book about this , and some have , but for now , we will focus on the three aspects from the Council with which the Archbishop takes issue : First , the teaching that the Church that Christ founded subsists in ( subsistit in ) the Catholic Church means that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Church ( see the bonds of unity and such ) are found in the One , Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church .
The Council does not teach that the Church subsists in other religions , but , rather , that elements of what it means to be the Church – signs , prefigurations and even certain realities - may be found outside of her visible boundaries .
Protestants have valid baptism and even marriage ; their other ceremonies are an adumbration of the Church ’ s liturgy ; and are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life – fasting , prayer , almsgiving – already ‘ Catholic ’ , which may impel towards unity and the fullness of truth ?
The analogy may be applied to any person ( for the Church is ultimately the ‘ Person ’ of Christ ) .
There is a bronze bust of Pope Saint John Paul II outside our college .
If I were walking with a non-believer and he were to ask me ‘ who ’ s that ?
’ , I would reply ‘ Pope John Paul ’ .
Of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Paul , but it is him , in some sense .
The same goes , more so , for his writings , the example and memories he left , his good works that ripple through time and so on .
But as far as where Pope John Paul ‘ is ’ in his fullness – where he ‘ subsists ’ - well , it would , while he was alive , be where his body is , and he now subsists in heaven , awaiting the return of that body in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Catholicism everywhere – all that is true , good and beautiful , but the Church – recall her fundamental spiritual reality – is found where the visible bonds are most present , not least in the Eucharist , with the faithful gathered around .
The Church is more there – more subsistent – than in my living room , or in the midst of a forest , even if the Church be there in some sense .
The point is that the Church is not some strictly enclosed , hermetically sealed ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here it is !
’ .
After all , we may ask , where is the Church not ?
Second , these distinctions apply to the declaration Nostra Aetate , on non-Christian religions , which the Archbishop claims is responsible for current deleterious syncretic trends in the church .
But this document , while clarifying our relationship to the Jewish people and their own salvific role , simply expresses the truth that there are truths found in other religions , many of whose members are searching for the truth not yet found , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ What therefore you worship as unknown , this I proclaim to you !
’ ( Acts 17:23 ) .
And , with Saint Paul , those truths form a common ground from upon which to commence dialogue , and evangelization .
If we pray ‘ with ’ them – that is , alongside them , in the same place - we distinguish such from praying ‘ as ’ they do , with an emphasis upon what we do hold in common .
Finally , there is the Archbishop ’ s claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pachamama could be adored in a church , we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae ” .
Many have made exaggerated claims of this admittedly controversial decree , not found in the text itself , in its discussion of some aspects of religious freedom .
This , again , is a complex topic , but the basic teaching of the document is that human beings should be free from coercion by the state in matters that are specifically religious .
After all , rights always exist in relation and within concrete circumstances , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are grounded in , God .
What we may have a ‘ right ’ to do or not do in one context , does not necessarily imply that we have the same right in another context .
The document does not teach that people have a right before God to practise a false religion .
Its very opening paragraph states that it leaves ‘ untouched ’ ( integram ) the ‘ moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ ’ .
What it does do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must come to the truth , and to the Faith , freely , without external compulsion , especially by the state .
Even here , this freedom can only be practised ‘ within due limits ’ , and there is room for the state to intervene in religious matters , as the Church has always taught , to preserve ‘ just public order ’ .
One could even apply these principles to maintain the notion of a confessional , Catholic state , which is not expressly proscribed , and which the text implies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As one who has spent much of his life striving to present the teaching of the Church clearly and precisely , part of me does wish that the conciliar texts were more ‘ scholastic ’ , like , say , those of the Council of Trent .
It is ironic , however , that the Vatican Council advocates in the strongest ( and clearest ) terms the study of Saint Thomas Aquinas , by students , secular and ecclesiastical ( one of its many teachings rarely put into effect , more in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And a scholastic reading of the Council – making clear whatever is ambiguous - would be the one most true to the perennial tradition of the Church .
And speaking of Thomas , he has a saying that pertains : quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur – ‘ everything received is received according to the mode of the receiver ’ - and there is much of our own a priori beliefs and thoughts in what we read .
Perhaps a good part of our modern world could only ‘ receive ’ the Church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mode ’ , at least initially , in accord with the dictum of Saint Paul that we – the Church – must be all things to all men .
And we should also recall the Apostle ’ s warning that there will always be those with ‘ itching ears ’ who will read what they want to read , and ignore what they want to ignore , lacking eyes to see and ears to hear , who have misused and distorted the teachings of the Church , regardless of how they might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ note : I would respectfully suggest that we customarily refer to Pope Francis by the name he has chosen , and not , or at least not consistently , by his last – and previous – name , Bergoglio .
Regardless of our thoughts on the current occupant of Peter ’ s cathedra – and we all have many - we are the Church militant , a phrase not explicitly used , but still implied by the Council , and one we should maintain .
And in the military we salute the rank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Pope , and the Pope is Francis , until God clearly decides and/or manifests otherwise .
All in all , we should be with Archbishop Vigano in his call to spiritual arms and to reform , but we must use those arms and carry out that reform in serenity , charity and truth .
At the same time , we don ’ t want to underestimate the Herculean task before us , possible only with the grace of God .
What we must not do is lash out , and in some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too far the other way , rejecting the good along with the bad .
There is no going back to a mythical , utopian , antiquarian , ‘ pristine ’ time , and what the Church is and has taught must be taken in , and assimilated with her Tradition , as it is expressed according to each age and historical epoch .
To return to the viral analogy , the Church has her own auto-immune system , if you will , along with the guidance of the Holy Spirit , through which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – one can not help but think of Pope Francis ’ statements and even his encyclicals - are eventually corrected and clarified .
Or , to use another metaphor from the Fathers , the Church is a ship , the very barque of Peter , and to sail the sea of orthodoxy we must always be plotting as well as correcting our course , a bit more to starboard or port .
We are all on a pilgrimage towards that final culmination of all things , and need to keep our wits , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grounded in the fullness , and the mystery , of the truth .
John Paul Meenan is a Professor of Theology and Natural Science , and a founding member , at Our Lady Seat of Wisdom College in Barry ’ s Bay , Ontario .
He also edits and writes at Catholic Insight .

June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Is Vatican II – to use an au courant analogy – a virus within the Body of Christ? Archbishop Vigano in his public letter of June 9th, on the memorial of the great poet, mystic and hymnographer, Saint Ephraim, arrived for many as long-delayed Jeremiad, condemning the alleged errors of the ecclesia moderna, the modern Church, even of the Second Vatican Council, or at least its interpretation, and he exhorts us to reflect, repent and reform. We may share his concerns, and be grateful that someone has the courage to point out in no uncertain terms that something must be done about the Augean mess we’re in. We should all act to help purify the Church, but with that purification beginning in each of our own souls.
Yet, caveat lector – let the reader beware: It is exactly what should be done that is the rub, and it is with this in mind that the letter of Archbishop requires a clarifying response, so that his words might be understood in light of the same truth that prompted him to write in the first place. We don’t want to be precipitous, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, that would make any subsequent errors worse – perhaps far worse and more insidious – than the first. Things are usually not as simple as they may appear – there are mysteries that will last until the end of time.
Now, it is not implied that the Archbishop holds any of the errors that may be mentioned here – even though he may now have gone so far as to call for a repudiation of the entire Council, which would be tragic – only that the reader should beware that some of what the Archbishop wrote may be propaedeutic to an erroneous view of the Church’s teachings.
The Archbishop claims that “it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.”
Perhaps, and there is plenty of evidence of such a ‘fifth column’, but we should beware the spectre of a neo-, or even a gnostic-Donatism in an attempt to delineate a ‘pure’ Church within the surrounding morass of an apostate one, superimposed thereon. Donatus, a 4th-century African bishop, against whose errors Saint Augustine did mighty battle, claimed as much, that there were sins that cast one into the outer darkness, and barred one from ever repenting and seeking readmission to the Catholic fold. Furthermore, sacramental grace would only flow through ‘pure’ ministers, and the apostates – adulterers, murderers and those who caved in the face of persecution – were beyond the pale, and could more or less be shunned and ignored.
His Grace continues:
for decades we have been led into error, in good faith, by people who, established in authority, have not known how to watch over and guard the flock of Christ: some for the sake of living quietly, some because of having too many commitments, some out of convenience, and finally some in bad faith or even malicious intent. These last ones who have betrayed the Church must be identified, taken aside, invited to amend and, if they do not repent they must be expelled from the sacred enclosure. This is how a true Shepherd acts, who has the well-being of the sheep at heart and who gives his life for them; we have had and still have far too many mercenaries, for whom the consent of the enemies of Christ is more important than fidelity to his Spouse.
The truth of which of the Church’s ministers is in good standing, and by extension who even belongs to the Church, is complex and opaque, yet governed by certain principles and laws. The Church is both an earthly and heavenly reality, historical and transcendent, and we belong, more or less, in both ways: There are the three visible bonds of communion: unity in faith, in ecclesiastical governance and in sacramental worship. Then there are the spiritual bonds of communion, grace and charity. Ultimately, belonging to the Church is the same thing as belonging to the Mystical Body of Christ, but that Church is truly ‘catholic’, universal, in that it is in some sense everywhere, and all in some way either belong or are ordered to the Church. After all, everything true and good is ‘Catholic’, and, this side of eternity, no one is completely outside the Church.
Union with the Church is, in one sense, a spectrum – we may belong ‘more or less’, for who of us would say that we are united to Christ as much as we might be, either visibly (could not all of us pray more, or immerse ourselves more in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church?) or, more to the point, spiritually (and woe are we if say we have reached our zenith of charity and grace).
Yes, there is a Rubicon between being in the state of grace, and not being in this state which, for those old enough to make moral decisions, means being in ‘mortal sin’. Although we have some access to our own interior state, we don’t have access to that of others – being in grace or mortal sin have objective elements, but they are ultimately subjective, determined by the deep decision each of one us makes for truth, for charity and for God, as He speaks to each of us. And even our awareness of our own spiritual condition before God is not infallible. We may achieve some level of moral certainty about ourselves, but we must beware of presumption, answering with Saint Joan of Arc, who replied during her trial whether she was in a state of grace: ‘If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there’
If there is some uncertainty about ourselves, how much more does this apply to others, and two warnings from the Gospel come to mind. One, where the Apostles ask Christ to send fire from heaven upon the Samaritans (Lk 9:34), who refused to accept them. Christ’s reply was to rebuke His Apostles, a reply which is consistent with Christ’s admonition that the wheat and the tares be allowed to grow together unto harvest time, when God will separate them (Mt 13:24, ff.). For the division between the good and the bad is to some extent external, it is more internal, running through each of our own hearts – even if the state of our souls is expressed to some extent in our actions. At times, the authorities in the Church must act to depose and defrock, but that is not within our own authority. The fact that Christ Himself tolerated Judas, knowing full well the darkness within him, until he hung himself on his own gibbet, so to speak, should be an object lesson.
It is with these distinctions in mind that we should interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus – outside the Church there is no salvation. Here again is the Archbishop, quoting from the ancient Athanasian Creed, which cemented Nicene Trinitarian orthodoxy: “Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith; For unless a person shall have kept this faith whole and inviolate, without doubt he shall eternally perish.”
We must beware taking an either too liberal or too restrictive interpretation of the doctrine that outside the Church there is no salvation, which is not a statistical event, but a personal one. Universalism, that everyone (eventually, at least) belongs to the Church and all are in the end saved, does not jibe with the warnings of Christ and the traditional teaching of the Church on the reality of hell and the choice of some for that final ‘self-exclusion’ from God and the blessed. Yet we must also not take too restrictive a view, as Father Leonard Feeney (+1978) did, that one must be a baptized, Roman Catholic with all the three visible bonds of unity to be saved. The Church has never taught this, and Father Feeney was condemned for teaching such. This gets us into murky waters here, but we say for now that one must certainly be in a state of grace and charity to enter heaven, and that the Church and her sacraments are the only revealed, as well as the surest, way to be morally certain we are in a state of grace and charity. It is quite a different matter to be moving towards the fullness of truth by what light and grace are given one, and to knowingly and willingly reject salvific truth once we have accepted it as true.
The Archbishop makes a valid point, that there are signs that some, even at the higher level of the hierarchy, have made this tragic choice, but that ultimately is known only to God Himself. And here is the point, which brings us back to Donatism. In condemning this heresy, the Church taught that regardless of the sins, or even the errors, of a bishop or priest – even of the Vicar of Christ – they are still sacramental ministers, until they are censured, deposed or even defrocked by the proper authorities in the Church. Are we to attempt to depose bishops and priests who are deemed ‘apostates’? Who is to make this distinction, and do the deposing?
And we should clarify that there is no earthly authority, no canonical process, even in the Church, that can judge or remove a validly elected Pope, whose office ceases only by a voluntary resignation, or death.
Before we turn to the Council itself, what are we to make of the Archbishop’s implicit claim that all – or almost all – of our current woes are a result of its teachings – which has more than a little of post hoc ergo propter hoc? Things were already unraveling well before the Council, and one could also hold that they would have been worse without it. Of course, this too cannot be proved, but there is historical evidence that a Council was needed for the Church to respond to the modern world.
No Council is perfect, and some more imperfect than others, but all Councils ratified by the Pope become part of the Ordinary Magisterium, and we must take what is good, while clarifying and purifying what is not so.
Yes, there are omissions, but this is so for all the Church documents, none of which can say everything. The question is whether these omissions were deliberate, and whether there was an attempt at ‘weaponized ambiguity’. Perhaps. But many Councils had post-conciliar wrangling over terms, including the very first, at Nicaea, in 325: One need only skim all the battles fought over the word ‘homoousios’, defining Christ’s relation to the Father. Anyway, to continue to focus on motives and machinations seems to edge close, ironically enough, to the very ‘spirit of the Council’, of which we are all wary. Instead, we should focus on is the text itself, not the mind and motivations of the Council Fathers, before, during or after the Council, which ultimately, in some way, is the work of the Holy Spirit, even if His work is often bent by fallible and sinful human agents. God writes straight with crooked lines.
Pope John XXIII made it clear from the outset that the Council would not be condemnatory, but emphasize rather the positive aspect of the Church’s teachings. After all, Communism and contraception – to take but two of the bete noirs of those opposed to the Council, claiming these should have been anathematized in no uncertain terms – were already condemned in no uncertain terms, respectively, by Pius XI in 1937 (Divini Redemptoris) and 1931 (Casti Connubii). And the Church was in the midst of responding to the invention and use of the ‘Pill’, which required a clarification on what contraception really is. And even Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae (1968) needs John Paul II’s Theology of the Body to fill out its own teachings. Magisterial teaching, two millennia and counting, and must be taken as an integral whole.
We may debate the modus John XXIII set, which is admittedly unlike previous Councils, but we must admit that it does not make much sense to condemn contraceptive sex if we don’t make the case that the non-contraceptive, life-giving kind is far better, even more enjoyable. And that some sort of free business economy, based on the private initiative and energy of individuals, is a more effective and efficient, and more fun, social model, than staid and stale socialism. The Church cannot always condemn what we shouldn’t do – she must also teach what we should do.
Anon, we could, and probably will, debate this until Christ returns again and wonders what we were doing with our time, but whatever lacunae and privations there may be in the way truths were expressed, there is no explicit heresy in the conciliar decrees, and much of the language is even highly conservative – from reaffirming priestly celibacy and chastity, religious orders reaffirming their original rules and the spirit of their founders, the requirement that the laity strive for holiness, devotion to Our Lady, and the supreme primacy of the Pope. I will caution that one must read at least some of the original Latin, for, whatever one thinks of the editio typica, the English translations (which is all most have ever read, if they’ve read the conciliar texts at all) are certainly lacking and tendentious in many places – even the footnotes are different. Further, we should also recall that every document at the Council was vetted and passed by almost every bishop in the world by an overwhelming margin, and promulgated with the full authority of the Pope. If we are to re-assess such conciliar decision a half-century on, then what else might be up for grabs? The entire pontificate of Pope John Paul II?
One could write a book about this, and some have, but for now, we will focus on the three aspects from the Council with which the Archbishop takes issue:
Thus “Ecclesia Christi subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica” does not specify the identity of the two, but the subsistence of one in the other and, for consistency, also in other churches: here is the opening to interconfessional celebrations, ecumenical prayers, and the inevitable end of any need for the Church in the order of salvation, in her unicity, and in her missionary nature.
First, the teaching that the Church that Christ founded subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church means that the fullness of what it means to be the Church (see the bonds of unity and such) are found in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Council does not teach that the Church subsists in other religions, but, rather, that elements of what it means to be the Church – signs, prefigurations and even certain realities – may be found outside of her visible boundaries. Protestants have valid baptism and even marriage; their other ceremonies are an adumbration of the Church’s liturgy; and are not any good works in any path of life – fasting, prayer, almsgiving – already ‘Catholic’, which may impel towards unity and the fullness of truth?
The analogy may be applied to any person (for the Church is ultimately the ‘Person’ of Christ). There is a bronze bust of Pope Saint John Paul II outside our college. If I were walking with a non-believer and he were to ask me ‘who’s that?’, I would reply ‘Pope John Paul’. Of course, it’s not really Pope John Paul, but it is him, in some sense. The same goes, more so, for his writings, the example and memories he left, his good works that ripple through time and so on. But as far as where Pope John Paul ‘is’ in his fullness – where he ‘subsists’ – well, it would, while he was alive, be where his body is, and he now subsists in heaven, awaiting the return of that body in the resurrection.
So too we find elements of Catholicism everywhere – all that is true, good and beautiful, but the Church – recall her fundamental spiritual reality – is found where the visible bonds are most present, not least in the Eucharist, with the faithful gathered around. The Church is more there – more subsistent – than in my living room, or in the midst of a forest, even if the Church be there in some sense. The point is that the Church is not some strictly enclosed, hermetically sealed ‘thing’ that one can say ‘here it is!’. After all, we may ask, where is the Church not?
Second, these distinctions apply to the declaration Nostra Aetate, on non-Christian religions, which the Archbishop claims is responsible for current deleterious syncretic trends in the church. But this document, while clarifying our relationship to the Jewish people and their own salvific role, simply expresses the truth that there are truths found in other religions, many of whose members are searching for the truth not yet found, as Saint Paul cried to the Athenians, ‘What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you!’ (Acts 17:23). And, with Saint Paul, those truths form a common ground from upon which to commence dialogue, and evangelization. If we pray ‘with’ them – that is, alongside them, in the same place – we distinguish such from praying ‘as’ they do, with an emphasis upon what we do hold in common.
Finally, there is the Archbishop’s claim that “(i)f the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae”. Many have made exaggerated claims of this admittedly controversial decree, not found in the text itself, in its discussion of some aspects of religious freedom. This, again, is a complex topic, but the basic teaching of the document is that human beings should be free from coercion by the state in matters that are specifically religious. After all, rights always exist in relation and within concrete circumstances, even if they all ultimately come from and are grounded in, God. What we may have a ‘right’ to do or not do in one context, does not necessarily imply that we have the same right in another context. The document does not teach that people have a right before God to practise a false religion. Its very opening paragraph states that it leaves ‘untouched’ (integram) the ‘moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ’. What it does do is reiterate that each one of us must come to the truth, and to the Faith, freely, without external compulsion, especially by the state. Even here, this freedom can only be practised ‘within due limits’, and there is room for the state to intervene in religious matters, as the Church has always taught, to preserve ‘just public order’. One could even apply these principles to maintain the notion of a confessional, Catholic state, which is not expressly proscribed, and which the text implies we still hold as the ideal.
As one who has spent much of his life striving to present the teaching of the Church clearly and precisely, part of me does wish that the conciliar texts were more ‘scholastic’, like, say, those of the Council of Trent. It is ironic, however, that the Vatican Council advocates in the strongest (and clearest) terms the study of Saint Thomas Aquinas, by students, secular and ecclesiastical (one of its many teachings rarely put into effect, more in the breach than in the main). And a scholastic reading of the Council – making clear whatever is ambiguous – would be the one most true to the perennial tradition of the Church.
And speaking of Thomas, he has a saying that pertains: quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur – ‘everything received is received according to the mode of the receiver’ – and there is much of our own a priori beliefs and thoughts in what we read. Perhaps a good part of our modern world could only ‘receive’ the Church’s teaching in such a ‘mode’, at least initially, in accord with the dictum of Saint Paul that we – the Church – must be all things to all men. And we should also recall the Apostle’s warning that there will always be those with ‘itching ears’ who will read what they want to read, and ignore what they want to ignore, lacking eyes to see and ears to hear, who have misused and distorted the teachings of the Church, regardless of how they might be presented.
A final, more personal note: I would respectfully suggest that we customarily refer to Pope Francis by the name he has chosen, and not, or at least not consistently, by his last – and previous – name, Bergoglio. Regardless of our thoughts on the current occupant of Peter’s cathedra – and we all have many – we are the Church militant, a phrase not explicitly used, but still implied by the Council, and one we should maintain. And in the military we salute the rank, not the man. Francis is the Pope, and the Pope is Francis, until God clearly decides and/or manifests otherwise.
All in all, we should be with Archbishop Vigano in his call to spiritual arms and to reform, but we must use those arms and carry out that reform in serenity, charity and truth. At the same time, we don’t want to underestimate the Herculean task before us, possible only with the grace of God. What we must not do is lash out, and in some sort of Hegelian antithetical counter-reaction, go too far the other way, rejecting the good along with the bad. There is no going back to a mythical, utopian, antiquarian, ‘pristine’ time, and what the Church is and has taught must be taken in, and assimilated with her Tradition, as it is expressed according to each age and historical epoch. To return to the viral analogy, the Church has her own auto-immune system, if you will, along with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through which any apparent deviations, ambiguities or omissions – one cannot help but think of Pope Francis’ statements and even his encyclicals – are eventually corrected and clarified. Or, to use another metaphor from the Fathers, the Church is a ship, the very barque of Peter, and to sail the sea of orthodoxy we must always be plotting as well as correcting our course, a bit more to starboard or port. We are all on a pilgrimage towards that final culmination of all things, and need to keep our wits, and our souls, about us, grounded in the fullness, and the mystery, of the truth.
John Paul Meenan is a Professor of Theology and Natural Science, and a founding member, at Our Lady Seat of Wisdom College in Barry’s Bay, Ontario. He also edits and writes at Catholic Insight.
Share