lifesitenews--2020-02-11--Bishop Barron’s ‘police Catholic media’ proposal shows laypeople don’t trust

Bishop Barron’s ‘police Catholic media’ proposal shows laypeople don’t trust bishops

February 10 , 2020 ( CatholicCulture.org ) — Bishop Robert Barron kicked off a heated online debate last month with his proposal “ to introduce something like a mandatum for those who claim to teach the Catholic faith online , whereby a bishop affirms that the person is teaching within the full communion of the Church.
” The suggestion that bishops would give their stamp of approval to some Catholic bloggers — and , more important , deny it to others — is terribly wrongheaded .
Our bishops have much more important work to do .
In making his proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that the shepherds of the Church , those entrusted with supervising the teaching office , can and should point out when people on social media are harming the Body of Christ.
” But his proposed solution — which has been dubbed online a “ yellow check ” system — is mainly a reaction against the dangerous level of vitriol that is unfortunately evident in some corners of the Catholic blogosphere .
The proposal does not distinguish carefully between two different sorts of offenses : offenses against civility and offenses against doctrine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They deserve rebukes and admonitions and fraternal corrections — not just from prelates but from all good Catholics who notice the offenses .
But the particular role of a Catholic bishop is to preserve the integrity of doctrine .
If Bishop Barron had suggested that bishops denounce any online commentators who preach heresy , I would have quickly agreed .
By emphasizing the question of editorial tone , however , he introduced a much more subjective judgment .
In handing out the yellow checks , it seems , the bishop is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ established Catholic doctrine ?
” Instead he is asking : “ Do I approve of this site ’ s approach ?
” The difference is enormous .
Bishop Barron runs his own burgeoning online media empire , and presumably would not have to worry about gaining the approval of his fellow bishops .
He recently called for the formation of “ an army of young priests specially educated and equipped to evangelize the culture through these means.
” Those priests , too , could be confident of receiving yellow checks from the bishops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what of the thousands of lay Catholics who have devoted their time and energy to online work , sincerely believing that they could thereby enrich the life of the Church and further the spread of the Gospel ?
We would be at the mercy of the bishops : under pressure to apply for the yellow check , to wait patiently ( how long ? )
for a judgment , to respond to any concerns that might arise in local chanceries .
And we could be denied the yellow check — thus labeled as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to something we wrote .
Would it be relevant at this point for me to observe that some of the most vitriolic and uncharitable commentaries that I have read have been produced by writers who are published by diocesan papers , and by professors at Catholic universities ?
That is , by authors who have at least the implicit approval of their bishops ?
Bishop Barron explicitly suggested that his proposal would give the bishops a supervisory task similar to the one that Pope John Paul II entrusted to them in Ex Corde @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ensure that Church teachings were faithfully presented at Catholic colleges and universities within their dioceses .
Yet the American bishops have very clearly not carried out this task .
Many Catholic institutions of higher education — including the oldest , largest , wealthiest , and most prominent — are hotbeds of heterodoxy .
Having failed miserably to make a mandatum system work for Catholic colleges , how could bishops now be expected to make a similar system work in the much more chaotic world of the internet ?
But let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument , that some upright bishop would exercise his proper authority , and inform a blogger that he should no longer identify himself as “ Catholic.
” What could we expect ?
There is a precedent .
In 1968 , Bishop Charles Helmsing of Kansas City issued “ an official condemnation of the National Catholic Reporter ” and directed the paper ’ s editors “ in all honesty to drop the term ‘ Catholic ’ from their masthead.
” They did not .
More than 50 years later — and despite a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kansas City , where the paper is published — the Reporter continues to question and undermine formal Church teaching .
Still more remarkably , this newspaper — which is operating under episcopal condemnation — receives the support of American bishops , who grant the Reporter interviews , offer the paper for sale in the vestibules of parish churches , and advertise diocesan job openings in its pages .
Father James Martin , SJ , who tirelessly promotes the acceptance of homosexuality , regularly boasts that his book on the subject carries endorsements by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt that he would quickly win a yellow check .
I am not nearly so confident that I would pass muster .
And I am virtually certain that some more conservative Catholic news sites would be denied episcopal approval .
Indeed it is widely assumed that Bishop Barron had some of my journalistic colleagues in mind when he proposed the yellow-check system .
In short I fear that the Barron Proposal would , in practice , be a means by which American bishops would seek effectively to censor certain viewpoints , to silence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the confidence of their people , such fears could be dismissed lightly .
But here is the most important reason why the yellow-check system would be a disaster : American Catholics do not trust their bishops .
Through two decades of scandal , our shepherds have forfeited the trust of the faithful .
Today , sadly , we could not be confident that our bishops would use their authority to safeguard orthodox doctrine .
We could not be confident that they would avoid the temptation to mute criticism and censor embarrassing disclosures .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ us — in precisely those areas .
Here 's my counter-proposal : to restore confidence in the hierarchy , our bishops should seek “ yellow checks ” from the laity , to be awarded to those prelates who have ensured the faithful teaching of Catholic doctrine in their parishes , schools , and universities .

Through two decades of scandal, our shepherds have forfeited the trust of the faithful. How could we trust them to police Catholic media?
February 10, 2020 (CatholicCulture.org) — Bishop Robert Barron kicked off a heated online debate last month with his proposal “to introduce something like a mandatum for those who claim to teach the Catholic faith online, whereby a bishop affirms that the person is teaching within the full communion of the Church.” The suggestion that bishops would give their stamp of approval to some Catholic bloggers — and, more important, deny it to others — is terribly wrongheaded. Our bishops have much more important work to do.
In making his proposal Bishop Barron said: “I do think that the shepherds of the Church, those entrusted with supervising the teaching office, can and should point out when people on social media are harming the Body of Christ.” But his proposed solution — which has been dubbed online a “yellow check” system — is mainly a reaction against the dangerous level of vitriol that is unfortunately evident in some corners of the Catholic blogosphere. The proposal does not distinguish carefully between two different sorts of offenses: offenses against civility and offenses against doctrine.
Some online commentators employ a nasty tone. They deserve rebukes and admonitions and fraternal corrections — not just from prelates but from all good Catholics who notice the offenses. But the particular role of a Catholic bishop is to preserve the integrity of doctrine. If Bishop Barron had suggested that bishops denounce any online commentators who preach heresy, I would have quickly agreed. By emphasizing the question of editorial tone, however, he introduced a much more subjective judgment. In handing out the yellow checks, it seems, the bishop is not asking: “Does this site contradict established Catholic doctrine?” Instead he is asking: “Do I approve of this site’s approach?” The difference is enormous.
Bishop Barron runs his own burgeoning online media empire, and presumably would not have to worry about gaining the approval of his fellow bishops. He recently called for the formation of “an army of young priests specially educated and equipped to evangelize the culture through these means.” Those priests, too, could be confident of receiving yellow checks from the bishops who trained and commissioned them. But what of the thousands of lay Catholics who have devoted their time and energy to online work, sincerely believing that they could thereby enrich the life of the Church and further the spread of the Gospel? We would be at the mercy of the bishops: under pressure to apply for the yellow check, to wait patiently (how long?) for a judgment, to respond to any concerns that might arise in local chanceries. And we could be denied the yellow check — thus labeled as pariahs — if the bishop took exception to something we wrote.
Would it be relevant at this point for me to observe that some of the most vitriolic and uncharitable commentaries that I have read have been produced by writers who are published by diocesan papers, and by professors at Catholic universities? That is, by authors who have at least the implicit approval of their bishops?
And speaking of Catholic universities…
Bishop Barron explicitly suggested that his proposal would give the bishops a supervisory task similar to the one that Pope John Paul II entrusted to them in Ex Corde Ecclesiae, when he asked diocesan bishops to ensure that Church teachings were faithfully presented at Catholic colleges and universities within their dioceses. Yet the American bishops have very clearly not carried out this task. Many Catholic institutions of higher education — including the oldest, largest, wealthiest, and most prominent — are hotbeds of heterodoxy. Having failed miserably to make a mandatum system work for Catholic colleges, how could bishops now be expected to make a similar system work in the much more chaotic world of the internet?
But let’s imagine, for the sake of the argument, that some upright bishop would exercise his proper authority, and inform a blogger that he should no longer identify himself as “Catholic.” What could we expect? There is a precedent. In 1968, Bishop Charles Helmsing of Kansas City issued “an official condemnation of the National Catholic Reporter” and directed the paper’s editors “in all honesty to drop the term ‘Catholic’ from their masthead.” They did not. More than 50 years later — and despite a second public condemnation from another local bishop in Kansas City, where the paper is published — the Reporter continues to question and undermine formal Church teaching.
Still more remarkably, this newspaper — which is operating under episcopal condemnation — receives the support of American bishops, who grant the Reporter interviews, offer the paper for sale in the vestibules of parish churches, and advertise diocesan job openings in its pages.
Father James Martin, SJ, who tirelessly promotes the acceptance of homosexuality, regularly boasts that his book on the subject carries endorsements by two American cardinals. I have no doubt that he would quickly win a yellow check. I am not nearly so confident that I would pass muster. And I am virtually certain that some more conservative Catholic news sites would be denied episcopal approval. Indeed it is widely assumed that Bishop Barron had some of my journalistic colleagues in mind when he proposed the yellow-check system. In short I fear that the Barron Proposal would, in practice, be a means by which American bishops would seek effectively to censor certain viewpoints, to silence certain critics.
If our bishops enjoyed the confidence of their people, such fears could be dismissed lightly. But here is the most important reason why the yellow-check system would be a disaster: American Catholics do not trust their bishops. Through two decades of scandal, our shepherds have forfeited the trust of the faithful. Today, sadly, we could not be confident that our bishops would use their authority to safeguard orthodox doctrine. We could not be confident that they would avoid the temptation to mute criticism and censor embarrassing disclosures. All too plainly our bishops have failed us — in precisely those areas.
Here's my counter-proposal: to restore confidence in the hierarchy, our bishops should seek “yellow checks” from the laity, to be awarded to those prelates who have ensured the faithful teaching of Catholic doctrine in their parishes, schools, and universities.
Published with permission from CatholicCulture.org.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-11--Benedict’s secretary Gänswein mysteriously removed from papal household post

February 10 , 2020 ( CatholicCulture.org ) — The Prefect of the Pontifical Household is no longer functioning as the Prefect of the Pontifical Household .
But that doesn ’ t mean that Archbishop Gänswein has been removed from his post , the Vatican press office assures us ; it ’ s just “ an ordinary redistribution of the various commitments and duties of the prefect of the papal household.
” So now the Prefect of the Pontifical Household is functioning solely as private secretary to the retired Pope .
Since he has been acting in that role already for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to see how his responsibilities have been redistributed .
But it ’ s easy to see that he ’ s been moved out of the apostolic palace , and out of the limelight .
And it ’ s virtually impossible for a competent reporter not to see that this move occurred right after Archbishop Gänswein played an awkward central role in a messy controversy over the publication of a book — a book about which the Vatican has offered no comment whatsoever .
No public comment , that is ; no comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new , transparent Vatican regime , the regime of dialogue , the regime of accountability .

February 10, 2020 (CatholicCulture.org) — The Prefect of the Pontifical Household is no longer functioning as the Prefect of the Pontifical Household. But that doesn’t mean that Archbishop Gänswein has been removed from his post, the Vatican press office assures us; it’s just “an ordinary redistribution of the various commitments and duties of the prefect of the papal household.” So now the Prefect of the Pontifical Household is functioning solely as private secretary to the retired Pope. Since he has been acting in that role already for several years now, it’s hard to see how his responsibilities have been redistributed. But it’s easy to see that he’s been moved out of the apostolic palace, and out of the limelight. And it’s virtually impossible for a competent reporter not to see that this move occurred right after Archbishop Gänswein played an awkward central role in a messy controversy over the publication of a book — a book about which the Vatican has offered no comment whatsoever. No public comment, that is; no comment for the record.
Welcome to the new, transparent Vatican regime, the regime of dialogue, the regime of accountability.
Published with permission from CatholicCulture.org.
PETITION: Support Cardinal Sarah's and Pope Emeritus Benedict's Defense of Priestly Celibacy” Sign the petition here.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-11--Jesuit college boots Catholic student for defending Catholic teaching on homosexuality

February 10 , 2020 ( Family Life International ) — Melbourne ’ s prestigious Newman College is showing open support for LGBTI students , while actively discriminating against those who uphold the Church ’ s teaching on sexuality .
Newman College is a residential campus for Catholic University of Melbourne students and was established more than a hundred years ago .
The Jesuit-run college , which charges fees of around $ 25,000 per year , created a ‘ Diversity Committee ’ in 2019 , complete with a ‘ queer representative ’ and the new Dean has been lauded by students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a safe space for Queer students.
’ The dean ’ s efforts included holding a ‘ diversity dinner ’ during the second semester of 2019 , featuring Newman ’ s first openly-gay president and LGBTIQ+ activist , William Kabira , as a speaker .
Kabira ’ s speech , on the topics of diversity , ‘ coming out ’ and ‘ queer ’ representation at the college , was witnessed by at least two Priests , the Dean and other members of the Newman faculty .
The event was publicised on social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Additionally , Melbourne University ’ s student newspaper [ 1 ] applauded the dean for her pro-gay stance in a June 2019 article entitled , “ Further supports for queers at Newman College ” : The article includes details of a controversy in which a student who queried the college ’ s pro-queer stance was thrown out of a student Facebook group for ‘ homophobic ’ behaviour .
However , the article made no mention of the extreme discrimination perpetrated by members of the LGBTIQ+ lobby against conservative students .
By far the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newman ’ s treatment of Arts student , Riley Soares .
Riley lived at Newman College from 2017–2019 while studying at Melbourne University .
He experiences same-sex attraction , but faithfully abides by the Church ’ s teaching in this matter .
After publicly taking a traditional stance on marriage and sexuality that conflicted with the views of Newman College , Riley was denied residence at the college for the current study year , 2020 and his scholarships were not renewed .
Riley ’ s conflict with the Newman gay lobby goes back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for traditional marriage during the debate on the redefinition of marriage .
For simply upholding the Church ’ s unchanging teaching on the nature of marriage , Riley was harassed and bullied by other students , subjected to accusations of homophobia and insults such as ‘ faggot ’ and ‘ brainwashed Christian ’ on social media .
Then in September 2018 , Riley was the subject of discrimination by another student on the basis of being a Charismatic Catholic .
He made complaints to the dean and was told it would be followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The insulting behaviour continued and Riley made a further complaint in writing , complete with screenshots .
The dean instigated an informal investigation which resulted in an apology being given to Riley by the offending student orally , but no written apology .
Riley accepted this fairly inadequate apology , but the mockery continued nevertheless until the offending student left the college .
In mid-2019 , after the Farrago newspaper published its article on the ‘ Diversity Committee ’ , Riley shared a video on his personal Facebook page about James Parker — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his former gay lifestyle .
President William Kabira accused Riley of homophobia online and commented on the video saying that it was ‘ BS ’ .
Kabira then falsely accused Riley of saying ‘ gays are going to hell ’ and also falsely accused him of supporting “ gay conversion therapy ” which he misunderstood as involving electro-shock therapy .
In response , Soares created an online petition against bullying experienced at Newman by those opposed to the ‘ Diversity Committee ’ , as well as against the numerous Pride activities that were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ petition , while expressing respect for individuals choosing to identify as LGBTIQ+ and opposing discrimination against LBGTIQ+ individuals , pointed out that promoting that lifestyle was against Catholic teaching .
A member of the Newman Students Club retaliated by making their own petition and was encouraged by members of Newman ’ s General Council .
The petition contained defamatory remarks about Riley that were so extreme that the company hosting the petition , Change.org , had the petition removed .
Change later sent an email to Soares , apologising and stating that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Things came to a head in November of 2019 , when the college Provost , Sean Burke , held a meeting with Riley .
At the meeting , he expressed the college ’ s decision to discontinue Riley ’ s scholarship and residency .
The Provost noted that Riley had ‘ been hurt and that he had hurt a fair few in this community ’ and drew his attention to the conflict with the so-called ‘ Diversity Committee ’ .
Sean Burke allegedly told Riley that it was in his best interests not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he needed to become ‘ more independent.
’ When asked how he felt about his treatment at the hands of the ‘ Diversity Committee ’ and Newman faculty members , Riley Soares commented : It ’ s been frustrating that Newman would put me in this position and blatantly refuse to address the members of Newman Students Club and General Council ’ s defamatory and bullying petition against me , which one could find for many months in the first 5 results when they googled my name .
It affected me in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at this point , I haven ’ t been able to find any secure housing for the year .
Also when I ’ ve tried to apply for jobs , employers have done a google search on me and found the defamatory change.org petition against me as a concern and have denied me employment .
I feel very disappointed that a Catholic College would expel me for defending the Catholic ethos on the grounds of questioning whether it was appropriate that the College promotes the homosexual and queer lifestyle .
The College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although I am a student who struggles with same-sex attraction , I refuse to bow down to the radical LGBTIQ+ agenda .
I follow the Church ’ s teaching and the biblical stance on homosexuality and I will never compromise .
What is their message by kicking me out ?
It ’ s to set an example for other students .
Don ’ t you even dare to question whether some of the actions and views of these people pushing these things are a little extreme , otherwise you ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or gasp , even a bigot .
Don ’ t you dare be courageous and speak out , otherwise we are going to take away your reputation , your standing among your peers- even perhaps your scholarship and right to residence at our very welcoming Catholic College .
How diverse are we ?
The Human Rights Law Alliance have been assisting Riley for apprehended unlawful discrimination and are yet to decide whether they will make a legal challenge .
With the memory of Wilson Gavin so fresh in our minds , FLI prays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him the best .
For chaste , same-sex-attracted Catholics raise the ire not only of the secular world but most especially of liberal Catholics .
Those who claim that Christ ’ s teaching on sexuality is an impossible goal have yet to learn the value in carrying their cross and denying themselves in order to find true freedom .

February 10, 2020 (Family Life International) — Melbourne’s prestigious Newman College is showing open support for LGBTI students, while actively discriminating against those who uphold the Church’s teaching on sexuality. Newman College is a residential campus for Catholic University of Melbourne students and was established more than a hundred years ago. The Jesuit-run college, which charges fees of around $25,000 per year, created a ‘Diversity Committee’ in 2019, complete with a ‘queer representative’ and the new Dean has been lauded by students for promoting the college as being ‘a safe space for Queer students.’
The dean’s efforts included holding a ‘diversity dinner’ during the second semester of 2019, featuring Newman’s first openly-gay president and LGBTIQ+ activist, William Kabira, as a speaker. Kabira’s speech, on the topics of diversity, ‘coming out’ and ‘queer’ representation at the college, was witnessed by at least two Priests, the Dean and other members of the Newman faculty. The event was publicised on social media and in the college student newsletter.
Additionally, Melbourne University’s student newspaper [1] applauded the dean for her pro-gay stance in a June 2019 article entitled, “Further supports for queers at Newman College”:
The University of Melbourne’s Newman College has taken steps towards greater inclusivity of its queer students, with efforts being made to improve their wellbeing and representation. The Dean of Newman, Genevieve Leach, has been a resident counsellor at the college for over a year, and oversaw the formation of a queer group for Newman students. She was also involved in updating the college’s student conduct policy.
The article includes details of a controversy in which a student who queried the college’s pro-queer stance was thrown out of a student Facebook group for ‘homophobic’ behaviour.
However, the article made no mention of the extreme discrimination perpetrated by members of the LGBTIQ+ lobby against conservative students.
By far the most egregious example of this discrimination is Newman’s treatment of Arts student, Riley Soares. Riley lived at Newman College from 2017–2019 while studying at Melbourne University. He experiences same-sex attraction, but faithfully abides by the Church’s teaching in this matter. After publicly taking a traditional stance on marriage and sexuality that conflicted with the views of Newman College, Riley was denied residence at the college for the current study year, 2020 and his scholarships were not renewed.
Riley’s conflict with the Newman gay lobby goes back to 2017 when he took a stand for traditional marriage during the debate on the redefinition of marriage. For simply upholding the Church’s unchanging teaching on the nature of marriage, Riley was harassed and bullied by other students, subjected to accusations of homophobia and insults such as ‘faggot’ and ‘brainwashed Christian’ on social media.
Then in September 2018, Riley was the subject of discrimination by another student on the basis of being a Charismatic Catholic. He made complaints to the dean and was told it would be followed up if there was another incident. The insulting behaviour continued and Riley made a further complaint in writing, complete with screenshots. The dean instigated an informal investigation which resulted in an apology being given to Riley by the offending student orally, but no written apology. Riley accepted this fairly inadequate apology, but the mockery continued nevertheless until the offending student left the college.
In mid-2019, after the Farrago newspaper published its article on the ‘Diversity Committee’, Riley shared a video on his personal Facebook page about James Parker — a well-known Catholic activist who has rejected his former gay lifestyle. President William Kabira accused Riley of homophobia online and commented on the video saying that it was ‘ BS’. Kabira then falsely accused Riley of saying ‘gays are going to hell’ and also falsely accused him of supporting “gay conversion therapy” which he misunderstood as involving electro-shock therapy.
In response, Soares created an online petition against bullying experienced at Newman by those opposed to the ‘Diversity Committee’, as well as against the numerous Pride activities that were taking place at the college. The petition, while expressing respect for individuals choosing to identify as LGBTIQ+ and opposing discrimination against LBGTIQ+ individuals, pointed out that promoting that lifestyle was against Catholic teaching.
A member of the Newman Students Club retaliated by making their own petition and was encouraged by members of Newman’s General Council. The petition contained defamatory remarks about Riley that were so extreme that the company hosting the petition, Change.org, had the petition removed. Change later sent an email to Soares, apologising and stating that the petition had violated their community standards.
Things came to a head in November of 2019, when the college Provost, Sean Burke, held a meeting with Riley. At the meeting, he expressed the college’s decision to discontinue Riley’s scholarship and residency. The Provost noted that Riley had ‘been hurt and that he had hurt a fair few in this community’ and drew his attention to the conflict with the so-called ‘Diversity Committee’. Sean Burke allegedly told Riley that it was in his best interests not to return to the college and that he needed to become ‘more independent.’
When asked how he felt about his treatment at the hands of the ‘Diversity Committee’ and Newman faculty members, Riley Soares commented:
It’s been frustrating that Newman would put me in this position and blatantly refuse to address the members of Newman Students Club and General Council’s defamatory and bullying petition against me, which one could find for many months in the first 5 results when they googled my name. It affected me in a number of practical ways: for instance, at this point, I haven’t been able to find any secure housing for the year. Also when I’ve tried to apply for jobs, employers have done a google search on me and found the defamatory change.org petition against me as a concern and have denied me employment. I feel very disappointed that a Catholic College would expel me for defending the Catholic ethos on the grounds of questioning whether it was appropriate that the College promotes the homosexual and queer lifestyle. The College administration sees me as a threat because although I am a student who struggles with same-sex attraction, I refuse to bow down to the radical LGBTIQ+ agenda. I follow the Church’s teaching and the biblical stance on homosexuality and I will never compromise. What is their message by kicking me out? It’s to set an example for other students. Don’t you even dare to question whether some of the actions and views of these people pushing these things are a little extreme, otherwise you’re going to be labelled a homophobe or transphobe, or gasp, even a bigot. Don’t you dare be courageous and speak out, otherwise we are going to take away your reputation, your standing among your peers- even perhaps your scholarship and right to residence at our very welcoming Catholic College. How diverse are we?
The Human Rights Law Alliance have been assisting Riley for apprehended unlawful discrimination and are yet to decide whether they will make a legal challenge. With the memory of Wilson Gavin so fresh in our minds, FLI prays for Riley’s situation and wishes him the best . For chaste, same-sex-attracted Catholics raise the ire not only of the secular world but most especially of liberal Catholics. Those who claim that Christ’s teaching on sexuality is an impossible goal have yet to learn the value in carrying their cross and denying themselves in order to find true freedom.
[1] https://farragomagazine.com/2019/06/24/further-supports-for-queer-students-at-newman-college/?fbclid=IwAR3dClLcJ7r5o9SPf7riUcI5OkZmDxoAm1eXHLVVL9MoHktf7T5BNjdf58A
Published with permission from Family Life International.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-11--Priest who painted ‘Sodomite Christ’ to exhibit artwork at huge LA religious conference

February 10 , 2020 ( Joseph Sciambra ) — From February 21–23 , 2020 , during the annual Los Angeles Religious Education Congress ( LA REC ) , the artwork of gay iconographer William Hart McNichols will be displayed in the “ Arena Lobby ” at the Anaheim Convention Center .
McNichols is a self-outed former-Jesuit gay priest .
According to Kittredge Cherry , author at the LGBT spirituality website QSpirit , which often features McNichols ’ work , “ ... McNichols is a New Mexico artist and Roman Catholic priest whose gay-positive icons have caused controversy.
” Through his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Martin ( who has spoken on the LGBT issue at the LA REC from 2018–2020 ) has repeatedly praised and recommended the work of McNichols .
In a Facebook post from Martin , dated January 23 , 2018 , he announced that a then upcoming book would feature the work of McNichols who paints in a style reminiscent of Byzantine icons .
Martin wrote : Dear friends : I thought I might start recommending some new books that you might enjoy…Here ’ s a new one about someone whose work many people on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ William Hart McNichols , the great iconographer .
A new book , “ Image to Insight , ” collects many of his most beautiful icons and pairs them with reflections by the philosopher John Dadosky , along with a foreword by Mirabai Starr .
If you ’ re a fan of Father Bill ’ s amazing art I ’ ll bet you ’ ll enjoy this book , which is published by the University of New Mexico Press .
McNichols entered the Jesuits in 1968 and was ordained in 1979 .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissident group Dignity and worked with AIDS hospices in New York City .
Like a number of priests in that era , who were drawn to AIDS ministry , though their work was highly admirable , these priests were often conflicted and either “ came-out ” as gay or began to disregard Catholic teachings on homosexuality ; for example , fellow Jesuits Robert Carter and John J. McNeill .
In 1989 , McNichols contributed to Jeannine Gramick ’ s book “ Homosexuality in the Priesthood and the Religious Life ” which also contained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Boswell ; at the time , Gramick was the subject of a lengthy Vatican investigation which later demanded the discontinuation of any involvement with her ministry to the “ gay ” community ; she disregarded the directive .
In 2017 , James Martin called for the canonization of Jeannine Gramick .
Concerning Gramick ’ s book , and the entire push for gay-affirmation in the Catholic Church , in 1990 , the late Richard John Neuhaus wrote : The campaign in the church for homosexual rights , as they are called , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack on church teaching and practice and on cultural patterns that the church is thought to have blessed in the past .
Homosexuality in the Priesthood and the Religious Life ( edited by Jeannine Gramick , Crossroad ) is a useful guide to the campaign ’ s developing attitudes , arguments , and strategies .
It contains eight essays by proponents of a radically changed approach to homosexuality , and fourteen chapters of testimony by lesbians and male homosexuals in the priesthood and religious orders .
In 2002 , McNichols spoke out against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gay-priest child sex abuse scandal and homosexuals in the priesthood ; he said in an interview : Concerning “ gay ” priests in the Catholic Church .
McNichols continued : Also , in 2002 , McNichols resigned from the Jesuit Order , but remains a priest in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe .
Although his abilities as an iconographer are notable , McNichols ’ choice of subject matter remains highly problematic .
He has painted images of non-canonized individuals as Saints , including the controversial anti-war and gay-activist Berrigan brothers , murder-victim Matthew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sachsenhausen , Zen-Buddhist teacher Maura Soshin O ’ Halloran , and the Buddha himself .
But his most controversial work ( pictured above ) is probably a drawing from 1986 entitled “ AIDS Crucifixion ” which depicts Christ on the Cross wearing modern men ’ s underwear being mourned by His Mother , a young blonde-haired St. John , and Mary Magdalene in a low-cut sleeveless dress ; above the body of Jesus reads a sign : “ AIDS , homosexual , faggot , pervert , Sodomite.
” In 2010 , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author of the homoerotic novel “ Jesus in Love , ” McNichols ’ “ agent ” granted her permission to repost the picture of the “ sodomite ” Christ to her blog .
Several paintings by McNichols were featured in Kittredge ’ s 2007 book “ Art That Dares : Gay Jesus , Woman Christ and More.
” The “ queer ” Christ meme is one that has found extensive favor in gay-affirmative Catholic circles and ministries ; proponents include James Martin , the Franciscan Friars of the Holy Name Province , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paul ) at St. Paul the Apostle Church in New York City .
The LA REC annually features a number of Catholic LGBT activists who speak at the Congress ; they include gay priest Bryan Massingale , Chris Ponnet , and Arthur Fitzmaurice .
In 2017 , Bishop Robert Barron , who also speaks every year at the LA REC , told gay journalist and podcaster Dave Rubin , when he was questioned about same-sex marriage : Although Dave Rubin seemed genuinely interested in what the Church teaches , at best , Barron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the discussion .
According to Barron ’ s 2017 book , To Light a Fire on the Earth : Proclaiming the Gospel in a Secular Age , taking his cue from Pope Francis , Barron wants to deemphasize the so-called “ sexual issues.
” He said : At recent LA RECs , the issue of immigration and the environment have taken center stage , including an address in 2019 by former Archbishop of LA Cardinal Mahony on “ Volatile Immigration Issues ” and in 2017 , “ a multimedia ecological art exhibit about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pope Francis ’ encyclical on the environment , ‘ Laudato Si .
’ ”

February 10, 2020 (Joseph Sciambra) — From February 21–23, 2020, during the annual Los Angeles Religious Education Congress (LA REC), the artwork of gay iconographer William Hart McNichols will be displayed in the “Arena Lobby” at the Anaheim Convention Center. McNichols is a self-outed former-Jesuit gay priest. According to Kittredge Cherry, author at the LGBT spirituality website QSpirit, which often features McNichols’ work, “… McNichols is a New Mexico artist and Roman Catholic priest whose gay-positive icons have caused controversy.”
Through his official social media accounts, Jesuit James Martin (who has spoken on the LGBT issue at the LA REC from 2018–2020) has repeatedly praised and recommended the work of McNichols. In a Facebook post from Martin, dated January 23, 2018, he announced that a then upcoming book would feature the work of McNichols who paints in a style reminiscent of Byzantine icons. Martin wrote:
Dear friends: I thought I might start recommending some new books that you might enjoy…Here’s a new one about someone whose work many people on this page enjoy: the Rev. William Hart McNichols, the great iconographer. A new book, “Image to Insight,” collects many of his most beautiful icons and pairs them with reflections by the philosopher John Dadosky, along with a foreword by Mirabai Starr. If you’re a fan of Father Bill’s amazing art I’ll bet you’ll enjoy this book, which is published by the University of New Mexico Press.
(In a December 2, 2019 Facebook post, Martin described McNichols as “my dear friend.”)
McNichols entered the Jesuits in 1968 and was ordained in 1979. In the early 1980s, he volunteered with the dissident group Dignity and worked with AIDS hospices in New York City. Like a number of priests in that era, who were drawn to AIDS ministry, though their work was highly admirable, these priests were often conflicted and either “came-out” as gay or began to disregard Catholic teachings on homosexuality; for example, fellow Jesuits Robert Carter and John J. McNeill. In 1989, McNichols contributed to Jeannine Gramick’s book “Homosexuality in the Priesthood and the Religious Life” which also contained contributions from gay historian and gay-marriage advocate John Boswell; at the time, Gramick was the subject of a lengthy Vatican investigation which later demanded the discontinuation of any involvement with her ministry to the “gay” community; she disregarded the directive. In 2017, James Martin called for the canonization of Jeannine Gramick.
Concerning Gramick’s book, and the entire push for gay-affirmation in the Catholic Church, in 1990, the late Richard John Neuhaus wrote:
The campaign in the church for homosexual rights, as they are called, is by its own definition a frontal attack on church teaching and practice and on cultural patterns that the church is thought to have blessed in the past. Homosexuality in the Priesthood and the Religious Life (edited by Jeannine Gramick, Crossroad) is a useful guide to the campaign’s developing attitudes, arguments, and strategies. It contains eight essays by proponents of a radically changed approach to homosexuality, and fourteen chapters of testimony by lesbians and male homosexuals in the priesthood and religious orders.
In 2002, McNichols spoke out against any sort of association between the burgeoning gay-priest child sex abuse scandal and homosexuals in the priesthood; he said in an interview:
The outcast status of gay people can provide them with a natural bent toward listening. They can be reconcilers; they can understand the sufferings of both sexes. They’re natural priests.
Concerning “gay” priests in the Catholic Church. McNichols continued:
We’re all sort of like Anne Frank’s family, up in the attic, waiting for the Nazis to come. And that’s wrong…The Church of Christ should not be a fearful place.
Also, in 2002, McNichols resigned from the Jesuit Order, but remains a priest in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe.
Although his abilities as an iconographer are notable, McNichols’ choice of subject matter remains highly problematic. He has painted images of non-canonized individuals as Saints, including the controversial anti-war and gay-activist Berrigan brothers, murder-victim Matthew Shepard, an anonymous gay priest at Sachsenhausen, Zen-Buddhist teacher Maura Soshin O’ Halloran, and the Buddha himself. But his most controversial work (pictured above) is probably a drawing from 1986 entitled “AIDS Crucifixion” which depicts Christ on the Cross wearing modern men’s underwear being mourned by His Mother, a young blonde-haired St. John, and Mary Magdalene in a low-cut sleeveless dress; above the body of Jesus reads a sign: “AIDS, homosexual, faggot, pervert, Sodomite.”
In 2010, according to Cherry Kittredge, who is also the author of the homoerotic novel “Jesus in Love,” McNichols’ “agent” granted her permission to repost the picture of the “sodomite” Christ to her blog. Several paintings by McNichols were featured in Kittredge’s 2007 book “Art That Dares: Gay Jesus, Woman Christ and More.”
The “queer” Christ meme is one that has found extensive favor in gay-affirmative Catholic circles and ministries; proponents include James Martin, the Franciscan Friars of the Holy Name Province, and the LGBT ministry (Out at St. Paul) at St. Paul the Apostle Church in New York City.
The LA REC annually features a number of Catholic LGBT activists who speak at the Congress; they include gay priest Bryan Massingale, Chris Ponnet, and Arthur Fitzmaurice.
In 2017, Bishop Robert Barron, who also speaks every year at the LA REC, told gay journalist and podcaster Dave Rubin, when he was questioned about same-sex marriage:
I wouldn’t want to fully just say that’s great off you go, at the same time I wouldn’t want to get on a crusader’s tank and try to reverse that…
Although Dave Rubin seemed genuinely interested in what the Church teaches, at best, Barron was reluctant to go any further with the discussion.
According to Barron’s 2017 book, To Light a Fire on the Earth: Proclaiming the Gospel in a Secular Age, taking his cue from Pope Francis, Barron wants to deemphasize the so-called “sexual issues.” He said:
As I read Francis, it’s a Gallipoli kind of moment…Yes, we could keep pouring all of our energy into the sexual issues, but let’s change it to the environment, let’s change it to the poor, to immigration, and to the other parts of our Church.
Barron continued:
He’s [Francis] not soft on transgenderism or same-sex marriage, but he’s changed the subject. It’s Gallipoli: Look we’re getting mowed down over here. We’re not making any progress, so maybe let’s bring some men and material elsewhere in this grand struggle. That’s what I see him doing, and it strikes me as just the right move.
At recent LA RECs, the issue of immigration and the environment have taken center stage, including an address in 2019 by former Archbishop of LA Cardinal Mahony on “Volatile Immigration Issues” and in 2017, “a multimedia ecological art exhibit about caring for Mother Earth, based on Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment, ‘Laudato Si.’”
Published with permission from Joseph Sciambra.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-11--How did Hollywood get so ‘woke’?

How did Hollywood get so ‘woke’?

February 10 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Why do so many members of the Hollywood elite espouse such radical , leftist ideas ?
Why are they so pro-abortion , so pro-queer activism ?
Why are they so passionate about saving trees and caring for cows ?
How and why did Hollywood become so “ woke ” ?
After Sunday ’ s Oscars , the Daily Mail ran this lengthy headline : “ And the award for the most self-righteous Oscars acceptance speech goes to .
.
.
Joaquin Phoenix lectures about animal rights , Brad Pitt slams impeachment trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the world to unite.
’ ” What ?
“ Joaquin Phoenix launched a passionate speech about animal rights , veganism and Speciesism ” while the director of an Obama documentary quoted Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto ?
The elite , the mega-rich , and the powerful called for the uprising of the oppressed working class ?
Other tag lines in the Mail included : • Hair Love creator Matthew Cherry advocated for the Crown Act , a California law that prohibits discrimination based on hair style or texture , in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ - who is fighting terminal cancer - quoted from The Communist Manifesto • Janelle Monae opened the show by declaring herself a ‘ proud ’ , ‘ black queer artist telling stories ’ • Sigourney Weaver declared : ‘ All women are superheroes ’ when she presented an award Yes , Hollywood has been “ woke ” for many years now , fashioning itself to be the prophetic voice of conscience .
And , the truth be told , many in Hollywood are passionate about their causes , from animal rights to climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to immigration .
In other words , for many of them ( if not most ; only God knows ) , this is not just a show .
They truly believe they are in the right .
They truly believe conservative religion is damaging people ’ s lives .
They truly believe we are destroying the planet .
To quote Joaquin Phoenix at length , “ I think whether we ’ re talking about gender and equality , or racism , or queer rights , or indigenous rights , or animal rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight against injustice .
We ’ re talking about the fight against the belief that one people , one race , one gender , one species has the right to dominate , control , use , and exploit another with impunity.
” Not only so , but , “ We go into the natural world and plunder it of its resources .
We feel entitled to artificially inseminate a cow and then steal her baby , even though her cries of anguish are unmistakable.
” So , pity the poor baby cow ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creature ) , but rip those human “ clumps of cells ” out of their mother ’ s wombs .
This is the hypocrisy of Hollywood .
But this doesn ’ t answer two fundamental questions .
First , why is this segment of the population so outspoken about social and political issues ?
Why do they claim to care so much ?
Second , why have they taken up positions on the extreme left with issue after issue ?
Obviously , we can only speak in general terms , since Hollywood is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer to the first question is simply this : Everyone in Hollywood is involved with producing movies .
Most movies carry a message .
So , the people involved see themselves as messengers .
The editor of a major newspaper once told me that many journalists see themselves as having a prophetic role .
They do not just report the news .
They challenge injustice .
They seek to correct wrongs .
Consequently , some of their writing will reflect a particular bias .
Perhaps , in the same way , as actors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scripts and directors oversee the process , they feel they are playing a prophetic role in the society .
They are telling stories that need to be told .
They are making social statements .
Consequently , they themselves have something to say .
( For my response to this , see here . )
But how , then , did their message become so slanted ?
Why a quotation from Karl Marx ?
Why the concern about inseminating a cow ?
This , in my view , is the result of taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( I would say “ man-centered , ” but that uses the dreaded “ m ” word .
To say “ human-centered ” doesn ’ t seem to cut it as well . )
In other words , rather than seeing things from God ’ s perspective , they see things from an earthly perspective .
So , rather than see the meaning of marriage as God intended it for human flourishing and the wellbeing of society , they see the “ injustice ” of two women not being allowed to “ marry.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ animals as equal to humans ( since humans are not uniquely created in the image of God ) .
They even see trees as equal to humans ( and even better than humans , since trees are noble creatures that never hurt anyone ) .
As to how these views became so dominant in Hollywood , this would seem to reflect a process similar to that in our universities .
Specifically , after the counterculture shift of the 1960s , an increasing number of leftist intellectuals and artists and cultural influencers rose to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positions of dominance , effectively silencing and suppressing those who dissent .
Interestingly , though , many “ common people ” – the proletariat , if you will – are not having it .
As the Mail also reported , “ while the well-heeled crowd at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles applauded their speeches , their ‘ lectures ’ nauseated the audience at home .
“ Many viewers took to Twitter to slam the stars as ‘ hypocrites ’ and called the event the ‘ wokest Oscars ever ’ .
” Perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tastes of many ?
Personally , I can appreciate how gifted many of these actors and writers and cinematographers and directors are .
I can appreciate the sacrifices some of them make for their trade ( in other words , their riches come with a price ) .
I can even appreciate their concern for the environment ( within reason ) and their compassion for animals ( again , within reason ) .
But when wokeness means quoting Marx , celebrating queerness , and caring more for baby cows than for baby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message .
Hollywood , you need a spiritual awakening .
You are not yet truly woke .

At this year's Oscars, Joaquin Phoenix gave a passionate speech about animal rights, veganism and 'Speciesism,' and the director of an Obama documentary quoted Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto.
February 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Why do so many members of the Hollywood elite espouse such radical, leftist ideas? Why are they so pro-abortion, so pro-queer activism? Why are they so passionate about saving trees and caring for cows? How and why did Hollywood become so “woke”?
After Sunday’s Oscars, the Daily Mail ran this lengthy headline: “And the award for the most self-righteous Oscars acceptance speech goes to . . . Joaquin Phoenix lectures about animal rights, Brad Pitt slams impeachment trial and Obama documentary director urges ‘workers of the world to unite.’”
What? “Joaquin Phoenix launched a passionate speech about animal rights, veganism and Speciesism” while the director of an Obama documentary quoted Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto? The elite, the mega-rich, and the powerful called for the uprising of the oppressed working class?
Other tag lines in the Mail included:
Hair Love creator Matthew Cherry advocated for the Crown Act, a California law that prohibits discrimination based on hair style or texture, in his speech
American Factory co-director Julia Reichert – who is fighting terminal cancer – quoted from The Communist Manifesto
Janelle Monae opened the show by declaring herself a ‘proud’, ‘black queer artist telling stories’
Sigourney Weaver declared: ‘All women are superheroes’ when she presented an award
Yes, Hollywood has been “woke” for many years now, fashioning itself to be the prophetic voice of conscience. And, the truth be told, many in Hollywood are passionate about their causes, from animal rights to climate change, and from same-sex “marriage” to immigration.
In other words, for many of them (if not most; only God knows), this is not just a show. They truly believe they are in the right. They truly believe conservative religion is damaging people’s lives. They truly believe we are destroying the planet.
To quote Joaquin Phoenix at length, “I think whether we’re talking about gender and equality, or racism, or queer rights, or indigenous rights, or animal rights, we’re talking about the fight against injustice. We’re talking about the fight against the belief that one people, one race, one gender, one species has the right to dominate, control, use, and exploit another with impunity.”
Not only so, but, “We go into the natural world and plunder it of its resources. We feel entitled to artificially inseminate a cow and then steal her baby, even though her cries of anguish are unmistakable.”
So, pity the poor baby cow (after all, it is a living creature), but rip those human “clumps of cells” out of their mother’s wombs. This is the hypocrisy of Hollywood.
But this doesn’t answer two fundamental questions. First, why is this segment of the population so outspoken about social and political issues? Why do they claim to care so much? Second, why have they taken up positions on the extreme left with issue after issue?
Obviously, we can only speak in general terms, since Hollywood is not a monolith. But perhaps the answer to the first question is simply this: Everyone in Hollywood is involved with producing movies. Most movies carry a message. So, the people involved see themselves as messengers.
The editor of a major newspaper once told me that many journalists see themselves as having a prophetic role. They do not just report the news. They challenge injustice. They seek to correct wrongs. Consequently, some of their writing will reflect a particular bias.
Perhaps, in the same way, as actors play certain roles and screenwriters produce the scripts and directors oversee the process, they feel they are playing a prophetic role in the society. They are telling stories that need to be told. They are making social statements. Consequently, they themselves have something to say. (For my response to this, see here.)
But how, then, did their message become so slanted? Why a quotation from Karl Marx? Why the concern about inseminating a cow?
This, in my view, is the result of taking up causes from a me-centered perspective. (I would say “man-centered,” but that uses the dreaded “m” word. To say “human-centered” doesn’t seem to cut it as well.) In other words, rather than seeing things from God’s perspective, they see things from an earthly perspective.
So, rather than see the meaning of marriage as God intended it for human flourishing and the wellbeing of society, they see the “injustice” of two women not being allowed to “marry.”
That also means that they see animals as equal to humans (since humans are not uniquely created in the image of God). They even see trees as equal to humans (and even better than humans, since trees are noble creatures that never hurt anyone).
As to how these views became so dominant in Hollywood, this would seem to reflect a process similar to that in our universities. Specifically, after the counterculture shift of the 1960s, an increasing number of leftist intellectuals and artists and cultural influencers rose to the top. And they now hold positions of dominance, effectively silencing and suppressing those who dissent.
Interestingly, though, many “common people” – the proletariat, if you will – are not having it. As the Mail also reported, “while the well-heeled crowd at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles applauded their speeches, their ‘lectures’ nauseated the audience at home.
“Many viewers took to Twitter to slam the stars as ‘hypocrites’ and called the event the ‘wokest Oscars ever’.”
Perhaps a little too “woke” for the tastes of many?
Personally, I can appreciate how gifted many of these actors and writers and cinematographers and directors are.
I can appreciate the sacrifices some of them make for their trade (in other words, their riches come with a price).
I can even appreciate their concern for the environment (within reason) and their compassion for animals (again, within reason).
But when wokeness means quoting Marx, celebrating queerness, and caring more for baby cows than for baby humans, then I have a simple message. Hollywood, you need a spiritual awakening. You are not yet truly woke.
Follow Michael Dr. Brown is the author of more than 35 books, including Our Hands Are Stained with Blood: The Tragic Story of the “Church” and the Jewish People, which has been translated into more than twelve languages, the highly acclaimed five-volume series, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, a commentary on Jeremiah (part of the revised edition of the Expositor’s Bible Commentary), and several books on revival and the Jesus revolution. His most recent book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test?
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-11--Diocese pressures parish to cancel talk by man who threw Pachamama in Tiber

HERZOGENRATH , Germany , February 10 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — The German diocese of Aachen has pressured a parish not to host a talk by Alexander Tschugguel , who in October 2019 threw the Pachamama statues displayed in a church into the Tiber River .
According to a press release put out by parish priest Father Guido Rodheudt , the diocese feared that the talk , including a discussion immediately following , could “ unsettle the faithful , defame the pope , and contribute to a division within the Church.
” With that in mind , the parish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event .
Instead , it was moved to a secular location in Herzogenrath , not far from the parish hall , where it was scheduled to take place initially .
Following the event , Alexander Tschugguel told LifeSiteNews that the concerns of the diocese are unfounded .
“ I have done my best to spread the faith clearly according to the Catechism , ” he said .
As one of the principal motivations for his actions , Tschugguel named the duty of all Catholics to always pray for the Holy Father and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the bishop of Aachen , told LifeSiteNews that the diocese welcomes , in principle , “ the lively exchange and discussion on topics of faith.
” According to Wieland , the decision to cancel the event was taken by the parish and its parish priest , who were the organizers .
There had been no “ demand ” for this “ on the part of the Diocese of Aachen , ” said the press secretary .
He continued , “ With great concern that the faithful might be unsettled , the deputy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Father Rodheudt in a letter on behalf of Bishop Helmut Dieser that the event should not lead to a defamation of the pope.
” Rodheudt confirmed in a statement to LifeSiteNews that the diocese did not demand to cancel the event , but gave “ only food for thought.
” This led to the cancelation two days before the scheduled date — Monday , February 10 , 2020 — as a step “ to relieve the concerns of my bishop.
” At the same time , Rodheudt gave more details of his dealings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having Alexander Tschugguel speak in the parish hall .
The parish priest told LifeSiteNews , “ I received a written request from the general vicariate of Aachen with the request to describe the content and the progression .
I did so , pointing out that the event was to be a lively discussion which should have brought together the positions of those in favor and those against , which were already voiced in public.
” Rodheudt clarified that he did not plan to evaluate or judge what Tschugguel had done in Rome — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Pachamama statues he had taken out of a church .
He continued , “ I received a reply from the head of the department in question that I should not have invited Tschugguel because of his theft of the Pachamama statues.
” Rodheudt quoted from a letter written by this diocesan official , dated February 6 : “ This action contributes to the division of people and thus also of the Catholic Church .
That , too , is reprehensible , in my view .
That ’ s why you as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event.
” Only then did Rodheudt receive the letter from deputy vicar general Cremer , “ expressing the bishop ’ s concern that my event could unsettle the faithful and defame the pope .
It was also pointed out that the event was not to be used ‘ subsequently to justify spiritually the infringing actions of the person invited.
’ ” The event in Herzogenrath , which had first been advertised last December , was criticized not only by the diocese , but also by Misereor , a relief organization supervised by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Misereor has supported projects to help the poor in various continents , including Asia , Africa , and Latin America , since 1958 .
According to the organization ’ s website , “ [ t ] he mandate given to Misereor by the German bishops rules out the promotion of pastoral or missionary measures.
” Instead , projects to combat climate change are prominently featured , among other things .
In 2018 , Misereor collected more than €232 million , with more than €165 million being provided by the German government .
Donations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Commenting in general on the role of relief organizations supervised by the German bishops , Tschugguel said , “ In the context of the Amazon Synod , many of these so-called relief organizations , which are highly controversial , have advocated a new syncretistic unified religion and have spoken out against baptizing and evangelizing the natives.
” Referring to the Amazon Synod last year , Misereor recounted in a statement made February 3 , “ Resistance against new paths accompanied the synod already during its preparation .
In Rome , opponents then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worshiping idols and preaching paganism .
One of them stole four wooden figures made by a wood carver in the Amazon region , each of them depicting a pregnant woman and used in worship services inside and outside the synod .
He stole them from a church and then sank them into the Tiber.
” [ Editor ’ s note : It is generally understood that the statues , being made of wood , floated . ]
According to Misereor , the Pachamama statues express “ that the peoples of the Amazon region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their lives.
” Throwing those statues into the Tiber , Misereor argued , “ was not an act of self-defense , but an expression of cultural and religious intolerance and forgetfulness of God under the pretext of acting in the name of God and the Catholic Church.
” Misereor expressed its expectations that “ the future on our planet will depend on whether we succeed in clearing the way for us to be able to cooperate with each other in cultural and religious diversity as equals in faith.
” Similarly , Stefan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LifeSiteNews to Pope Francis , who “ took a clear position in the context of the Amazon Synod : to value the faith of the people living there and support their commitment to social and ecological justice.
” The organization preparing theology students in Aachen to become teachers at primary and secondary schools referred to the statement by Misereor , commenting , with a comparison to the Third Reich , “ While on January 27 , 2020 , we remembered the atrocities of the Nazi regime against the Jewish people , we must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may soon be willing to drown people.
” Tschugguel considered being compared to the evils of the Nazis “ very far-fetched.
” He pointed out that in the past , he had on multiple occasions talked about the fact that “ I ’ m not a nationalist , I ’ m not a socialist , and I ’ m certainly not a National Socialist.
” Father Rodheudt , in his press release , spoke of an “ interesting gain of knowledge ” following the pressure from the diocese and the statement by Misereor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he means by that , the priest responded , “ The debate about the legitimacy of the discussion shows that there are obviously taboos which are seemingly problematic to talk about.
” Rodheudt expressed his astonishment , given that earlier this month “ at the Synodal Path in Frankfurt resolutions that contradict the teaching of the Church were admitted , too.
” This indicated , according to Rodheudt , that “ the classical taboo of conformity with the teaching of the Church may be broken .
So we find ourselves in an area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be considered .
So , too , will the questions of the understanding of mission , the knowledge of truth , and its development.
” In his conversation with LifeSiteNews , Tschugguel asked , “ How openly can we discuss things within the Church ?
Which issues are not allowed to be touched ?
” On Facebook , Alexander Tschugguel commented on the cancelation of his event and its move to a different location : “ We won ’ t let that get us down !
”

The concern was that Alexander Tschugguel's planned talk could 'unsettle the faithful, defame the pope, and contribute to a division within the Church.'
HERZOGENRATH, Germany, February 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The German diocese of Aachen has pressured a parish not to host a talk by Alexander Tschugguel, who in October 2019 threw the Pachamama statues displayed in a church into the Tiber River.
According to a press release put out by parish priest Father Guido Rodheudt, the diocese feared that the talk, including a discussion immediately following, could “unsettle the faithful, defame the pope, and contribute to a division within the Church.”
With that in mind, the parish decided not to go forward with the event. Instead, it was moved to a secular location in Herzogenrath, not far from the parish hall, where it was scheduled to take place initially.
Following the event, Alexander Tschugguel told LifeSiteNews that the concerns of the diocese are unfounded. “I have done my best to spread the faith clearly according to the Catechism,” he said. As one of the principal motivations for his actions, Tschugguel named the duty of all Catholics to always pray for the Holy Father and his salvation.
Stefan Wieland, press secretary of the bishop of Aachen, told LifeSiteNews that the diocese welcomes, in principle, “the lively exchange and discussion on topics of faith.” According to Wieland, the decision to cancel the event was taken by the parish and its parish priest, who were the organizers. There had been no “demand” for this “on the part of the Diocese of Aachen,” said the press secretary.
He continued, “With great concern that the faithful might be unsettled, the deputy vicar general Rolf-Peter Cremer had previously asked Father Rodheudt in a letter on behalf of Bishop Helmut Dieser that the event should not lead to a defamation of the pope.”
Rodheudt confirmed in a statement to LifeSiteNews that the diocese did not demand to cancel the event, but gave “only food for thought.” This led to the cancelation two days before the scheduled date — Monday, February 10, 2020 — as a step “to relieve the concerns of my bishop.”
At the same time, Rodheudt gave more details of his dealings with his diocese on the question of having Alexander Tschugguel speak in the parish hall.
The parish priest told LifeSiteNews, “I received a written request from the general vicariate of Aachen with the request to describe the content and the progression. I did so, pointing out that the event was to be a lively discussion which should have brought together the positions of those in favor and those against, which were already voiced in public.”
Rodheudt clarified that he did not plan to evaluate or judge what Tschugguel had done in Rome — namely, the throwing into the Tiber of Pachamama statues he had taken out of a church.
He continued, “I received a reply from the head of the department in question that I should not have invited Tschugguel because of his theft of the Pachamama statues.”
Rodheudt quoted from a letter written by this diocesan official, dated February 6: “This action contributes to the division of people and thus also of the Catholic Church. That, too, is reprehensible, in my view. That’s why you as the responsible priest should actually not allow this event.”
Only then did Rodheudt receive the letter from deputy vicar general Cremer, “expressing the bishop’s concern that my event could unsettle the faithful and defame the pope. It was also pointed out that the event was not to be used ‘subsequently to justify spiritually the infringing actions of the person invited.’”
The event in Herzogenrath, which had first been advertised last December, was criticized not only by the diocese, but also by Misereor, a relief organization supervised by the German bishops. Based in Aachen, Misereor has supported projects to help the poor in various continents, including Asia, Africa, and Latin America, since 1958.
According to the organization’s website, “[t]he mandate given to Misereor by the German bishops rules out the promotion of pastoral or missionary measures.” Instead, projects to combat climate change are prominently featured, among other things.
In 2018, Misereor collected more than €232 million, with more than €165 million being provided by the German government. Donations by the faithful amounted to €57 million.
Commenting in general on the role of relief organizations supervised by the German bishops, Tschugguel said, “ In the context of the Amazon Synod, many of these so-called relief organizations, which are highly controversial, have advocated a new syncretistic unified religion and have spoken out against baptizing and evangelizing the natives.”
Referring to the Amazon Synod last year, Misereor recounted in a statement made February 3, “Resistance against new paths accompanied the synod already during its preparation. In Rome, opponents then accused the synod and the pope of worshiping idols and preaching paganism. One of them stole four wooden figures made by a wood carver in the Amazon region, each of them depicting a pregnant woman and used in worship services inside and outside the synod. He stole them from a church and then sank them into the Tiber.” [Editor’s note: It is generally understood that the statues, being made of wood, floated.]
According to Misereor, the Pachamama statues express “that the peoples of the Amazon region protect life, that they experience God in their lives.”
Throwing those statues into the Tiber, Misereor argued, “was not an act of self-defense, but an expression of cultural and religious intolerance and forgetfulness of God under the pretext of acting in the name of God and the Catholic Church.”
Misereor expressed its expectations that “the future on our planet will depend on whether we succeed in clearing the way for us to be able to cooperate with each other in cultural and religious diversity as equals in faith.”
Similarly, Stefan Wieland of the diocese of Aachen pointed LifeSiteNews to Pope Francis, who “took a clear position in the context of the Amazon Synod: to value the faith of the people living there and support their commitment to social and ecological justice.”
The organization preparing theology students in Aachen to become teachers at primary and secondary schools referred to the statement by Misereor, commenting, with a comparison to the Third Reich, “While on January 27, 2020, we remembered the atrocities of the Nazi regime against the Jewish people, we must now admonish: Whoever drowns religious symbols may soon be willing to drown people.”
Tschugguel considered being compared to the evils of the Nazis “very far-fetched.” He pointed out that in the past, he had on multiple occasions talked about the fact that “I’m not a nationalist, I’m not a socialist, and I’m certainly not a National Socialist.”
Father Rodheudt, in his press release, spoke of an “interesting gain of knowledge” following the pressure from the diocese and the statement by Misereor. Asked by LifeSiteNews to clarify what he means by that, the priest responded, “The debate about the legitimacy of the discussion shows that there are obviously taboos which are seemingly problematic to talk about.”
Rodheudt expressed his astonishment, given that earlier this month “at the Synodal Path in Frankfurt resolutions that contradict the teaching of the Church were admitted, too.” This indicated, according to Rodheudt, that “the classical taboo of conformity with the teaching of the Church may be broken. So we find ourselves in an area of new taboos. This will have to be considered. So, too, will the questions of the understanding of mission, the knowledge of truth, and its development.”
In his conversation with LifeSiteNews, Tschugguel asked, “How openly can we discuss things within the Church? Which issues are not allowed to be touched?”
On Facebook, Alexander Tschugguel commented on the cancelation of his event and its move to a different location: “We won’t let that get us down!”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-11--As Muslim govt ignores slaughter of Christians, Nigerian bishops beg West for help

February 10 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — The president of the Nigerian Catholic bishops ’ conference has called on Western nations to “ make known the atrocities ” inflicted upon Christians and other groups in Nigeria by Islamic terrorists .
Archbishop Augustine Obiora Akubeze , the bishop of Benin City , told Aid to the Church in Need ( ACN ) that Boko Haram “ have attacked both Muslims and Christians in the past .
But presently , they are focusing mainly on the killing and kidnapping of Christians.
” The Catholic bishops in Nigeria say the government is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country and that they do not do enough to help communities under attack .
After explaining that “ [ p ] eople are kidnapped for ransom basically in every part of Nigeria , ” Archbishop Akubeze said that for the government “ to do nothing … makes it difficult to convince more Nigerians that there is no connection between one-sided appointments of officials and the lack of prosecution of perpetrators of these crimes against humanity and the seemingly selective killing of Christians.
” Last month , Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah of Sokoto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government and Boko Haram “ is Boko Haram is holding a bomb.
” On Christmas Eve , 2019 , Boko Haram reportedly killed seven people in an attack on a Christian village .
On Boxing Day 2019 , Islamic State West Africa Province ( ISWAP ) released a video of its members beheading 10 Christians and shooting one Muslim .
Bishop Kukah said that the Nigerian government is “ using the levers of power to secure the supremacy of Islam.
” He said this “ gives more weight to the idea that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the situation in Nigeria , it is hard to see the moral basis they have to defeat Boko Haram.
” “ They have created the conditions to make it possible for Boko Haram to behave the way they are behaving , ” the bishop added .
Archbishop Akubeze said government appointments to sensitive security positions are “ completely suspicious.
” “ Virtually all the officials who advise the president are from the same Hausa-Fulani ethnic group , ” he said .
“ Ninety-five percent of them are Muslims in a country where there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority to provide leadership in the security sector is led by one religious sect , one ethnic group , in a multi-religious and multi-ethnic nation .
We at the Catholic Bishops ’ Conference of Nigeria have repeatedly spoken out against this attitude of the federal government .
We have met the president and expressed our complete disapproval at this position and action of the government.
” Boko Haram ’ s attacks on Nigerians have continued for many years .
This terrorist group that has sworn allegiance to ISIS operates in northeast Nigeria .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abuja , the federal capital .
Their religious extremist ideology is to make the whole of Nigeria an Islamic republic .
They resent and reject everything that is Western , except that they use Western-made guns and ammunition to attack innocent Nigerians .
They have attacked both Muslims and Christians in the past .
But presently , they are focusing mainly on the killing and kidnapping of Christians .
Archbishop Akubeze said that for the majority of Nigerians , “ the government response has largely been unsatisfactory.
” “ As we speak , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Boko Haram and refused to renounce her Christian faith , is still being held , ” the archbishop continued .
“ Only a few weeks ago , a local government chairman of the Christian Association of Nigeria was beheaded by Boko Haram .
Rev .
Lawan Andima was 58 years old , married and the father of nine children when he was killed simply because he was a Christian.
” Archbishop Akubeze said many Nigerians “ wonder whether the president lives in a parallel universe ” after the Muslim president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shocked at the unabated killing of Nigerians .
The archbishop asked : “ How can he be surprised at this time , after some of us have attended mass burials of Christians killed by Boko Haram ?
” Speaking of the recent kidnapping of four Catholic seminarians , with one being killed and three being released , Archbishop Akubeze said that “ there is no doubt that the young men would have been greatly distressed and traumatized.
” “ We are pained and saddened at the killing of Michael Nnadi .
And to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more painful .
May his soul and the souls of all who have died in the hands of these criminals rest in peace.
” Asked by the ACN reporter what could be done to help , Archbishop Akubeze thanked ACN for showing “ the plight of the poor in Nigeria.
” But he said “ significant Western coverage ” is needed to put pressure on the Nigerian government to act .

The Catholic bishops in Nigeria say the government is complicit in the murder of Christians in the country.
February 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The president of the Nigerian Catholic bishops’ conference has called on Western nations to “make known the atrocities” inflicted upon Christians and other groups in Nigeria by Islamic terrorists.
Archbishop Augustine Obiora Akubeze, the bishop of Benin City, told Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) that Boko Haram “have attacked both Muslims and Christians in the past. But presently, they are focusing mainly on the killing and kidnapping of Christians.”
The Catholic bishops in Nigeria say the government is complicit in the murder of Christians in the country and that they do not do enough to help communities under attack.
After explaining that “[p]eople are kidnapped for ransom basically in every part of Nigeria,” Archbishop Akubeze said that for the government “to do nothing … makes it difficult to convince more Nigerians that there is no connection between one-sided appointments of officials and the lack of prosecution of perpetrators of these crimes against humanity and the seemingly selective killing of Christians.”
Last month, Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah of Sokoto said the only difference between the Nigerian government and Boko Haram “is Boko Haram is holding a bomb.” On Christmas Eve, 2019, Boko Haram reportedly killed seven people in an attack on a Christian village. On Boxing Day 2019, Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) released a video of its members beheading 10 Christians and shooting one Muslim.
Bishop Kukah said that the Nigerian government is “using the levers of power to secure the supremacy of Islam.” He said this “gives more weight to the idea that it can be achieved by violence. With the situation in Nigeria, it is hard to see the moral basis they have to defeat Boko Haram.”
“They have created the conditions to make it possible for Boko Haram to behave the way they are behaving,” the bishop added.
Archbishop Akubeze said government appointments to sensitive security positions are “completely suspicious.”
“Virtually all the officials who advise the president are from the same Hausa-Fulani ethnic group,” he said. “Ninety-five percent of them are Muslims in a country where there are about 50 percent Christians. The authority to provide leadership in the security sector is led by one religious sect, one ethnic group, in a multi-religious and multi-ethnic nation. We at the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria have repeatedly spoken out against this attitude of the federal government. We have met the president and expressed our complete disapproval at this position and action of the government.”
Archbishop Akubeze continued:
Boko Haram’s attacks on Nigerians have continued for many years. This terrorist group that has sworn allegiance to ISIS operates in northeast Nigeria. But they have staged attacks even in Abuja, the federal capital. Their religious extremist ideology is to make the whole of Nigeria an Islamic republic. They resent and reject everything that is Western, except that they use Western-made guns and ammunition to attack innocent Nigerians. They have attacked both Muslims and Christians in the past. But presently, they are focusing mainly on the killing and kidnapping of Christians.
Archbishop Akubeze said that for the majority of Nigerians, “the government response has largely been unsatisfactory.”
“As we speak, Leah Sharibu, who was taken captive by the Boko Haram and refused to renounce her Christian faith, is still being held,” the archbishop continued. “Only a few weeks ago, a local government chairman of the Christian Association of Nigeria was beheaded by Boko Haram. Rev. Lawan Andima was 58 years old, married and the father of nine children when he was killed simply because he was a Christian.”
Archbishop Akubeze said many Nigerians “wonder whether the president lives in a parallel universe” after the Muslim president, Muhammadu Buhari, said that he was shocked at the unabated killing of Nigerians. The archbishop asked: “How can he be surprised at this time, after some of us have attended mass burials of Christians killed by Boko Haram?”
Speaking of the recent kidnapping of four Catholic seminarians, with one being killed and three being released, Archbishop Akubeze said that “there is no doubt that the young men would have been greatly distressed and traumatized.”
“We are pained and saddened at the killing of Michael Nnadi. And to know that he was an orphan is more painful. May his soul and the souls of all who have died in the hands of these criminals rest in peace.”
Asked by the ACN reporter what could be done to help, Archbishop Akubeze thanked ACN for showing “the plight of the poor in Nigeria.” But he said “significant Western coverage” is needed to put pressure on the Nigerian government to act.
One area that I think the Western nations and the media can be of great help is to cover the stories of these atrocities in Nigeria. The number of killings is just mind-boggling. Maybe with significant Western coverage, the government of Nigeria may be put under pressure to act. In the same light, the government of EU nations and America will probably see the moral obligation to seek ways to protect the lives of Christians and other Nigerians who are constantly being attacked by Boko Haram and the herdsmen.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-11--Argentine bishop praises Trump’s ‘extraordinary’ pro-life commitment

BUENOS AIRES , February 10 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A prominent Latin American bishop praised U.S. president Donald Trump for his pro-life commitment and “ extraordinary defense of life.
” In a Feb. 8 video appeal to fellow Argentines encouraging them to fight the proposed decriminalization of abortion , Archbishop Emeritus Héctor Aguer of La Plata , Argentina praised President Trump for his appearance at the 2020 March for Life and for his “ magnificent speech , a commitment , an extraordinary defense of life.
” “ The contrast with the politics and government of Argentina is scandalous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 March for Life , Trump made the first presidential appearance at the annual event , telling the crowd of thousands that “ unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House.
” In addition , Trump ’ s nominations to the Supreme Court and federal courts have been applauded by pro-life advocates , even while praise from U.S. Catholic bishops has been scant .
Archbishop Aguer — who frequently comments on Church affairs and is counted as one of the most orthodox prelates in the South American republic — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president Alberto Fernández of Argentina and called on pro-life patriots to march once again in defense of life .
Fernández and the left-wing Peronist movement have been successful , so far , in legalizing same-sex “ marriage ” and have promoted a pro-LGBT agenda .
However , in 2018 , sweeping legislation to decriminalize abortion was narrowly defeated in the Argentine Senate when pro-life Argentines held mass rallies in defense of human life .
Since then , the newly elected pro-abortion Peronist movement in the persons of Fernández and Vice President Cristina Kirchner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to diminish protections for unborn babies through legislation and regulatory fiat .
In his video message , Aguer recalled that just before his recent meeting with Pope Francis , President Fernández announced that part of his plan to legalize abortion will be to offer assistance to adolescent and adult women who decide not to abort their babies .
The president made the offer , apparently , to lessen the impact of his expansion of abortion services .
And even while the government claims that objections on the basis of conscience will be protected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear they will have to choose between their jobs and committing abortions .
“ Our country ’ s president is a strong supporter of legalized abortion .
One of the first items of his government has been the resuscitation of an abortion bill that failed in the [ Argentine ] Senate two years ago .
But because he was to meet the Holy Father , he added a small concession : that the state will accompany the expectant woman who wants to continue the pregnancy and have her baby .
So , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is bad , ” he said .
“ The current health minister , Dr. Ginés Gonzáles García , issued a protocol through which a 14- or 15 year-old teen can request an abortion , if she is the victim of rape , without parental permission , ” he added .
Aguer said that during Gonzáles ’ s previous turn as health minister during the Kirchner government , Gonzáles said of the government ’ s distribution of condoms : “ God always forgives , but AIDS doesn ’ t forgive.
” The archbishop remonstrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forgive , but only those who sincerely repent of their sins and then resolve to leave sin behind .
Aguer said that because the current government is bent on promoting abortion , Christians and others of good faith should not be shy in making their pro-life witness known .
Apart from making appeals on the individual and local levels , Aguer said pro-lifers should make their views known in mass rallies .
In 2018 , when thousands of Argentines hit the streets in Buenos Aires and other cities to repudiate the proposed decriminalization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understood then that there are “ some things that should not be touched.
” He called on Argentines to gather on March 28 in Buenos Aires to repudiate abortion once again and rally in defense of life .
Evangelical Christians and Catholics are jointly involved in the March .
In addition , on March 25 , which falls on the Feast of the Annunciation , Catholics have also been invited to pray the rosary at the cathedral of Buenos Aires and cities all across the country and to attend Mass with the intention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Feast of the Annunciation commemorates the moment recorded in the Gospel when the angel Gabriel asked Mary to become the mother of God .
At her “ yes , ” she became pregnant with Jesus Christ .
The solemnity has been dubbed the Day of the Pre-Born Child by pro-life advocates in Argentina .
Yes to the lives of women and babies While the rest of the world celebrates International Women ’ s Day on March 8 , thousands of Catholics will set out on a pilgrimage to Luján , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the Peronist pro-abortion policy .
The Catholic bishops of Argentina will concelebrate a Mass in the large square outside the Basilica of Our Lady of Luján .
The bishops are slated to ask the Patroness of Argentina to offer protection for human life “ from conception until natural death.
” The slogan for the pilgrimage is “ Yes to woman ; yes to life.
” The bishops invited all people of “ good faith ” to join in common prayers on that day .
Thousands turned out for pro-life Masses in Luján @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held outside of the basilica because of the over-capacity crowds .
In Buenos Aires , Catholics will gather on March 7 to pray the rosary at Plaza Guemes , one of the largest public squares that honors one of the heroes of the nation ’ s independence .
This is the second such public recitation of the rosary in defense of human life .
Last year ’ s gathering brought together several thousands in prayer to end abortion .
This is one of a number of public demonstrations of faith that are expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for decriminalization of abortion .
Some demonstrations by pro-abortion groups have been marked by violence , and pro-life advocates told LifeSiteNews that they fear that leftists and feminists may attack and burn churches as the year advances and congressional debate over abortion heats up , In Mexico , and neighboring Chile and Peru , leftists and feminists have been held responsible for such arson attacks on churches of various Christian denominations .
The historical memory of Argentines prompts some to fear attacks on churches this year .
Many can recall that Peronists burned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of President Juan Domingo Peron .
A video emerged last week that showed that President Fernández and his mistress both received Holy Communion at St. Peter ’ s Basilica in Rome from the hands of Argentine archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo .
When LifeSiteNews journalist Diane Montagna asked Sorondo to justify giving the Eucharist to Fernández , the archbishop called her a “ fanatic.
” Sorondo , who serves as chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences , denied that canon law “ obliges ” a priest to deny the Eucharist to openly pro-abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president is not excommunicated , so I can give him Communion , ” he told LifeSiteNews .
The pro-abortion policies of the president have “ nothing to do with it , ” he said .
He suggested that denial of the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians is exclusively an issue for the Church in the United States .
However , Archbishop Aguer expressed dismay last week that Fernández was permitted the Holy Eucharist .

BUENOS AIRES, February 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A prominent Latin American bishop praised U.S. president Donald Trump for his pro-life commitment and “extraordinary defense of life.”
In a Feb. 8 video appeal to fellow Argentines encouraging them to fight the proposed decriminalization of abortion, Archbishop Emeritus Héctor Aguer of La Plata, Argentina praised President Trump for his appearance at the 2020 March for Life and for his “magnificent speech, a commitment, an extraordinary defense of life.”
“The contrast with the politics and government of Argentina is scandalous,” he said.
At the 2020 March for Life, Trump made the first presidential appearance at the annual event, telling the crowd of thousands that “unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House.” In addition, Trump’s nominations to the Supreme Court and federal courts have been applauded by pro-life advocates, even while praise from U.S. Catholic bishops has been scant.
Archbishop Aguer — who frequently comments on Church affairs and is counted as one of the most orthodox prelates in the South American republic — denounced in his video appeal pro-abortion Catholic president Alberto Fernández of Argentina and called on pro-life patriots to march once again in defense of life.
Fernández and the left-wing Peronist movement have been successful, so far, in legalizing same-sex “marriage” and have promoted a pro-LGBT agenda. However, in 2018, sweeping legislation to decriminalize abortion was narrowly defeated in the Argentine Senate when pro-life Argentines held mass rallies in defense of human life. Since then, the newly elected pro-abortion Peronist movement in the persons of Fernández and Vice President Cristina Kirchner and their majority in Congress have sought to diminish protections for unborn babies through legislation and regulatory fiat.
In his video message, Aguer recalled that just before his recent meeting with Pope Francis, President Fernández announced that part of his plan to legalize abortion will be to offer assistance to adolescent and adult women who decide not to abort their babies. The president made the offer, apparently, to lessen the impact of his expansion of abortion services. And even while the government claims that objections on the basis of conscience will be protected, government doctors and health professionals still fear they will have to choose between their jobs and committing abortions.
“Our country’s president is a strong supporter of legalized abortion. One of the first items of his government has been the resuscitation of an abortion bill that failed in the [Argentine] Senate two years ago. But because he was to meet the Holy Father, he added a small concession: that the state will accompany the expectant woman who wants to continue the pregnancy and have her baby. So, he added a little good to something that is bad,” he said.
“The current health minister, Dr. Ginés Gonzáles García, issued a protocol through which a 14- or 15 year-old teen can request an abortion, if she is the victim of rape, without parental permission,” he added.
Aguer said that during Gonzáles’s previous turn as health minister during the Kirchner government, Gonzáles said of the government’s distribution of condoms: “God always forgives, but AIDS doesn’t forgive.” The archbishop remonstrated with the official, saying God does forgive, but only those who sincerely repent of their sins and then resolve to leave sin behind.
Aguer said that because the current government is bent on promoting abortion, Christians and others of good faith should not be shy in making their pro-life witness known. Apart from making appeals on the individual and local levels, Aguer said pro-lifers should make their views known in mass rallies.
In 2018, when thousands of Argentines hit the streets in Buenos Aires and other cities to repudiate the proposed decriminalization of abortion, Aguer said the Senate understood then that there are “some things that should not be touched.” He called on Argentines to gather on March 28 in Buenos Aires to repudiate abortion once again and rally in defense of life.
Evangelical Christians and Catholics are jointly involved in the March. In addition, on March 25, which falls on the Feast of the Annunciation, Catholics have also been invited to pray the rosary at the cathedral of Buenos Aires and cities all across the country and to attend Mass with the intention of preserving the lives of unborn babies. The Feast of the Annunciation commemorates the moment recorded in the Gospel when the angel Gabriel asked Mary to become the mother of God. At her “yes,” she became pregnant with Jesus Christ. The solemnity has been dubbed the Day of the Pre-Born Child by pro-life advocates in Argentina.
Yes to the lives of women and babies
While the rest of the world celebrates International Women’s Day on March 8, thousands of Catholics will set out on a pilgrimage to Luján, a city near Buenos Aires, to protest against the Peronist pro-abortion policy. The Catholic bishops of Argentina will concelebrate a Mass in the large square outside the Basilica of Our Lady of Luján. The bishops are slated to ask the Patroness of Argentina to offer protection for human life “from conception until natural death.” The slogan for the pilgrimage is “Yes to woman; yes to life.” The bishops invited all people of “good faith” to join in common prayers on that day.
Thousands turned out for pro-life Masses in Luján in previous years, which have been held outside of the basilica because of the over-capacity crowds.
In Buenos Aires, Catholics will gather on March 7 to pray the rosary at Plaza Guemes, one of the largest public squares that honors one of the heroes of the nation’s independence. This is the second such public recitation of the rosary in defense of human life. Last year’s gathering brought together several thousands in prayer to end abortion. This is one of a number of public demonstrations of faith that are expected this year while Congress continues to push for decriminalization of abortion.
Some demonstrations by pro-abortion groups have been marked by violence, and pro-life advocates told LifeSiteNews that they fear that leftists and feminists may attack and burn churches as the year advances and congressional debate over abortion heats up, In Mexico, and neighboring Chile and Peru, leftists and feminists have been held responsible for such arson attacks on churches of various Christian denominations. The historical memory of Argentines prompts some to fear attacks on churches this year. Many can recall that Peronists burned churches in the 1950s at the behest of President Juan Domingo Peron.
Pro-abortion Fernández receives Holy Communion at Vatican
A video emerged last week that showed that President Fernández and his mistress both received Holy Communion at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome from the hands of Argentine archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo.
When LifeSiteNews journalist Diane Montagna asked Sorondo to justify giving the Eucharist to Fernández, the archbishop called her a “fanatic.” Sorondo, who serves as chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, denied that canon law “obliges” a priest to deny the Eucharist to openly pro-abortion politicians.
“The [Argentine] president is not excommunicated, so I can give him Communion,” he told LifeSiteNews. The pro-abortion policies of the president have “nothing to do with it,” he said. He suggested that denial of the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians is exclusively an issue for the Church in the United States. However, Archbishop Aguer expressed dismay last week that Fernández was permitted the Holy Eucharist.
Share