lifesitenews--2020-05-04--German theology prof says restricting priests’ power will not stop abuse

May 4 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — German theology professor Nina Heeremann has pointed out there is no “ causal connection ” between the abuse scandal among priests “ and the so-called power wielded by the clergy.
” Instead of identifying power as the problem , she stressed “ the choice and formation of those men to whom this ministry is entrusted.
” Heeremann was originally trained as a lawyer but had a conversion experience at World Youth Day 1997 in Paris .
She studied theology , culminating in a doctoral degree with the famous “ École biblique , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies , in Jerusalem .
The German theologian is now an assistant professor of sacred Scripture at St. Patrick ’ s Seminary & University in Menlo Park , California .
In addition , she provides a daily short video catechesis in German on YouTube , based on the Mass readings for the day .
The power of the priest is from God and , as such , “ intrinsically good , ” Heeremann explained during an interview with German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost ( see below ) .
At the same time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protected against abusing their power .
That abuse takes place not only in the context of sexuality , but , for instance , “ in the alarming number of clergy who have placed themselves in opposition to the teaching of the Church and the Magisterium.
” Heeremann countered demands for restricting the power of priests , as they are made during the Synodal Path of the Catholic Church in Germany , by saying their power “ is already restricted by the Gospel and the teaching of the Church.
” Based on the Bible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] riestly life also used to be called sacrificial life , thus expressing a very deep truth .
The priest is indeed called in a special way to be conformed to Christ Crucified , to ‘ lose ’ his life in the service of the people.
” Updating the Church ’ s teachings to the sentiments of modern man has led , Heeremann is convinced , to people “ running away from the Church in droves , ” as evidenced by “ the last fifty years.
” “ It is a phenomenon that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where people truly make the Gospel their ‘ rule of life ’ , the Church grows , and attracts young and old , women and men alike , ” she said in conclusion .
Full text of the interview below : “ But it is not so among you !
” Power and abuse of power in the Church : Where to find the true cure .
A conversation with theologian Nina Heeremann Professor Heeremann , following the abuse scandal , the Church is in a deep crisis .
The German Bishops ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholics wish to tackle it by pursuing the “ Synodal Path ” .
Power and the division of powers in the Church is one of the central themes of the Synodal Path .
Where do you see the causes of the abuse of power in the Church ?
Your question implies a correlation between the abuse scandal and the so-called power wielded by the clergy in the Church .
I can not agree with this causal connection .
It is indeed correct that those members of the clergy who are guilty of such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the most scandalous way .
But this is not an abuse of power which is inherent to the priesthood .
The danger of abuse exists in every relationship where power or authority plays a role .
This is already evident in the example of the family .
The parents are endowed by nature with a “ position of power ” in relation to their children .
And it is no coincidence that the vast majority of abuse cases take place within families .
Should we therefore abolish the family ?
The problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the clergy , but rather the choice and formation of those men to whom this ministry is entrusted .
In contrast to the family , the power of the clergy has been legitimised by the Divine .
This makes a significant difference .
Indeed , in the Church , we are not dealing with a democratically legitimised power .
Rather , we are looking at an empowerment from God , which is why it is bound to the sacrament of episcopal or priestly ordination .
As a power coming from God , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we see this in both the Old and the New Testament , a power with divine origin does not protect against abuse .
We can not respond to the abuse of power in the clergy by changing the priestly ministry or its structures .
We are not entitled to do so , because it is founded by Jesus .
The answer is as old and as new as the Gospel itself : the ministers and the people are together called to repentance and conversion .
Where do you see abuse of power in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the abuse scandal .
However , there are other very different forms of abuse .
I see such an abuse of power in the alarming number of clergy who have placed themselves in opposition to the teaching of the Church and the Magisterium .
The staggering numbers of priests who proclaim just about everything except the Gospel and the teaching of the Church : that is what I perceive to be an abuse of authority .
No one is forcing them to believe in the teaching of the Church .
But when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I expect them to take the “ power ” bound to the Sacrament , and use it to sanctify , to teach and to lead in loyalty to the teachings of the Church .
Incidentally , in the language of the Church , “ power ” is munus , which means “ service ” .
Yet in the Church , “ service ” also means to lead and to govern .
Whoever decides , has authority and power .
Let us take the episcopal office , which is without a doubt a position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regendi ) is the only service in the Church in whose context the word “ power ” is appropriate .
Yes , a lot of power is given to a bishop , and to a lesser extent , to priests .
Again , the neglect of this power has done more harm to the Church than its overuse .
To join the Council theologian Louis Bouyer : nowadays , “ to serve ” appears to mean that those entrusted with the office of ministry no longer need to take their responsibility as leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow the flock instead of courageously showing them the way of the Gospel .
We would be in a different position today if the Church hierarchy had not stopped proclaiming the Gospel in an unabridged way .
Also , the laissez-faire approach to perpetrators of abuse was basically an abuse of power stemming from a lack of leadership .
How should power in the Church be understood and practised ?
What does Holy Scripture say on this topic ?
Power in the Church is very different from power in the world .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we are talking about an authorisation from God to sanctify people , to interpret the Gospel of Christ authentically and to lead the community of the baptised in the name of God .
When we consult Scripture , the first thing we hear is that Jesus taught people with divine authority ( Matthew 7:29 ; Mark 1:22 ) , that the Son of Man on earth has the power to forgive sins ( Matthew 9:6 ) , that He commanded the unclean spirits to flee “ with authority and power ” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Father gave Him power over all people to give eternal life to all whom the Father has given Him ( John 17:2 ) .
We see , then , that where the New Testament speaks of power , it is first of all a question of an authorisation , an empowerment , of the Son from the Father , which is entirely at the service of the healing and redemption of humanity .
Jesus transfers this authority to his disciples .
This does not say anything about how the hierarchy in God ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Jesus Himself has shown by His word and example how to ultimately live with this power .
“ You know ” , He told His career-thirsty disciples , “ that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and the great ones abuse their authority over the people .
But it shall not be so among you .
For whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant , and whoever wishes to be first among you must be the slave of all .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be served , but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many ” ( Mark 10:42-45 ) .
This actually says everything .
Priestly life also used to be called sacrificial life , thus expressing a very deep truth .
The priest is indeed called in a special way to be conformed to Christ Crucified , to “ lose ” his life in the service of the people .
At least , this is what all four Gospels and all the letters of Saint Paul testify .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the “ power ” of the clergy is purely sacramental .
This means , on the one hand , that it is given by Jesus , who received it from the Father and delegates it with full effect to His disciples .
On the other hand , it means that the power is precisely defined and takes Jesus as its only valid standard .
Any exercise of power that goes beyond this is thieving presumption ( John 10:8 ) , and any refusal to exercise the power received in ordination to heal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priest is not a shepherd as the Gospel stipulates .
Does this sacramental dimension not lead to an adulation of the clergy , to a two-tier society in the Church ?
This is time and again being sharply criticised in the course of the discussions of the Synodal Path .
Do not all of us share the same mission ?
We all share in the same mission to carry the Gospel to the ends of the earth .
But the concrete execution of this mission varies according to one ’ s state in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for only one reason : to serve the baptised .
If there were a “ two-tier society ” in the Church – which does not exist – the clergy would be counted among the slaves and the laity among the masters .
This is why St. Paul wishes that the Corinthians would come to reign ( 1 Corinthians 4:8 ) , while saying of himself and the apostles that they should be “ regarded as servants of Christ ” ( 1 Corinthians 4:1 ) .
It is an expression of his deepest conviction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that God has put us apostles in the last place , as those who are condemned to death ” ( 1 Corinthians 4:9 ) .
In the course of the discussions about the Synodal Path , there are many voices that emphatically demand for the power of the clergy to be restricted .
Is this unjust ?
The power of the clergy is already restricted by the Gospel and the teaching of the Church .
Yes , there are clerics who do not respect these limits , but they will have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
It has always been the task of the prophets to call the religious leaders back to obedient service of the Word of God , and even to call them to once again place themselves under – and not above – the yoke of the Torah .
This prophetic charism is given to the whole people and , according to a saying from Saint Hildegard , especially to women .
If we , as the people of God , following the example of the early Christian community , return to the apostles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , breaking of bread and prayers ( Acts 2:42 ) , the clergy will soon follow .
Is there a biblical model for the division of powers in the Church ?
The division of powers , as we know it from modern democracy , is not provided for in the Bible .
This is partly because the Church is not a democracy .
The Church is not a state and not even a people in the Old Testament sense .
It is an assembly ( ecclesia ) of God , called and constituted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human and given for us on the Cross , made present in the Eucharist .
Each and every one of us is subject to divine authority and power .
In the Gospel , this power comes to us ever anew , not only calling us , but enabling us to obey the divine legislature , thereby giving us the freedom of children of God in the knowledge of the truth .
That ’ s how the Church sees it .
But many people no longer share such beliefs .
And this does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the clergy .
Is it not high time to reconsider traditional positions and to adapt them to the world today , as demanded by numerous protagonists of the Synodal Path ?
Otherwise , people will surely run away from the Church .
In my opinion , the reason people have been running away from the Church in droves over the last fifty years is that we have preached according to the spirit of the times and not according to the spirit of the Gospel .
It is a phenomenon that I observe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truly make the Gospel their “ rule of life ” , the Church grows , and attracts young and old , women and men alike .
The interview was originally published by Die Tagespost .
It has been translated by Cecilia Fitzpatrick and is published here with permission .

PETITION: Join faithful German Catholics in resisting bishops’ plan to ‘Protestantize’ Church Sign the petition here.
May 4, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — German theology professor Nina Heeremann has pointed out there is no “causal connection” between the abuse scandal among priests “and the so-called power wielded by the clergy.” Instead of identifying power as the problem, she stressed “the choice and formation of those men to whom this ministry is entrusted.”
Heeremann was originally trained as a lawyer but had a conversion experience at World Youth Day 1997 in Paris. She studied theology, culminating in a doctoral degree with the famous “École biblique,” a school for biblical and archaeological studies, in Jerusalem.
The German theologian is now an assistant professor of sacred Scripture at St. Patrick’s Seminary & University in Menlo Park, California. In addition, she provides a daily short video catechesis in German on YouTube, based on the Mass readings for the day.
The power of the priest is from God and, as such, “intrinsically good,” Heeremann explained during an interview with German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost (see below).
At the same time, she said, priests are not automatically protected against abusing their power. That abuse takes place not only in the context of sexuality, but, for instance, “in the alarming number of clergy who have placed themselves in opposition to the teaching of the Church and the Magisterium.”
Heeremann countered demands for restricting the power of priests, as they are made during the Synodal Path of the Catholic Church in Germany, by saying their power “is already restricted by the Gospel and the teaching of the Church.”
Based on the Bible, she said, “[p]riestly life also used to be called sacrificial life, thus expressing a very deep truth. The priest is indeed called in a special way to be conformed to Christ Crucified, to ‘lose’ his life in the service of the people.”
Updating the Church’s teachings to the sentiments of modern man has led, Heeremann is convinced, to people “running away from the Church in droves,” as evidenced by “the last fifty years.”
“It is a phenomenon that I observe all over the world: where people truly make the Gospel their ‘rule of life’, the Church grows, and attracts young and old, women and men alike,” she said in conclusion.
Full text of the interview below:
“But it is not so among you!”
Power and abuse of power in the Church: Where to find the true cure. A conversation with theologian Nina Heeremann
By Markus Reder
Translated by Cecilia Fitzpatrick
Professor Heeremann, following the abuse scandal, the Church is in a deep crisis. The German Bishops’ Conference and the Central Committee of German Catholics wish to tackle it by pursuing the “Synodal Path”. Power and the division of powers in the Church is one of the central themes of the Synodal Path. Where do you see the causes of the abuse of power in the Church?
Your question implies a correlation between the abuse scandal and the so-called power wielded by the clergy in the Church. I cannot agree with this causal connection. It is indeed correct that those members of the clergy who are guilty of such crimes have abused their “power” in the most scandalous way. But this is not an abuse of power which is inherent to the priesthood. The danger of abuse exists in every relationship where power or authority plays a role. This is already evident in the example of the family. The parents are endowed by nature with a “position of power” in relation to their children. And it is no coincidence that the vast majority of abuse cases take place within families. Should we therefore abolish the family? The problem is not the “power” of the clergy, but rather the choice and formation of those men to whom this ministry is entrusted.
In contrast to the family, the power of the clergy has been legitimised by the Divine. This makes a significant difference.
Indeed, in the Church, we are not dealing with a democratically legitimised power. Rather, we are looking at an empowerment from God, which is why it is bound to the sacrament of episcopal or priestly ordination. As a power coming from God, it is intrinsically good. But, and we see this in both the Old and the New Testament, a power with divine origin does not protect against abuse. We cannot respond to the abuse of power in the clergy by changing the priestly ministry or its structures. We are not entitled to do so, because it is founded by Jesus. The answer is as old and as new as the Gospel itself: the ministers and the people are together called to repentance and conversion.
Where do you see abuse of power in the Church?
We have already spoken about the abuse scandal. However, there are other very different forms of abuse. I see such an abuse of power in the alarming number of clergy who have placed themselves in opposition to the teaching of the Church and the Magisterium. The staggering numbers of priests who proclaim just about everything except the Gospel and the teaching of the Church: that is what I perceive to be an abuse of authority. No one is forcing them to believe in the teaching of the Church. But when they are ordained by the Church, I expect them to take the “power” bound to the Sacrament, and use it to sanctify, to teach and to lead in loyalty to the teachings of the Church. Incidentally, in the language of the Church, “power” is munus, which means “service”.
Yet in the Church, “service” also means to lead and to govern. Whoever decides, has authority and power. Let us take the episcopal office, which is without a doubt a position of power.
Pastoral governance (munus regendi) is the only service in the Church in whose context the word “power” is appropriate. Yes, a lot of power is given to a bishop, and to a lesser extent, to priests. Again, the neglect of this power has done more harm to the Church than its overuse. To join the Council theologian Louis Bouyer: nowadays, “to serve” appears to mean that those entrusted with the office of ministry no longer need to take their responsibility as leaders and teachers seriously, and should rather follow the flock instead of courageously showing them the way of the Gospel. We would be in a different position today if the Church hierarchy had not stopped proclaiming the Gospel in an unabridged way. Also, the laissez-faire approach to perpetrators of abuse was basically an abuse of power stemming from a lack of leadership.
How should power in the Church be understood and practised? What does Holy Scripture say on this topic?
Power in the Church is very different from power in the world. When we speak of power in the Church, we are talking about an authorisation from God to sanctify people, to interpret the Gospel of Christ authentically and to lead the community of the baptised in the name of God. When we consult Scripture, the first thing we hear is that Jesus taught people with divine authority (Matthew 7:29; Mark 1:22), that the Son of Man on earth has the power to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6), that He commanded the unclean spirits to flee “with authority and power” (Luke 4:36), and that the Father gave Him power over all people to give eternal life to all whom the Father has given Him (John 17:2). We see, then, that where the New Testament speaks of power, it is first of all a question of an authorisation, an empowerment, of the Son from the Father, which is entirely at the service of the healing and redemption of humanity. Jesus transfers this authority to his disciples.
This does not say anything about how the hierarchy in God’s Church deals with this power today.
Jesus Himself has shown by His word and example how to ultimately live with this power. “You know”, He told His career-thirsty disciples, “that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and the great ones abuse their authority over the people. But it shall not be so among you. For whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be the slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:42-45). This actually says everything. Priestly life also used to be called sacrificial life, thus expressing a very deep truth. The priest is indeed called in a special way to be conformed to Christ Crucified, to “lose” his life in the service of the people. At least, this is what all four Gospels and all the letters of Saint Paul testify. It is important to always keep in mind that the “power” of the clergy is purely sacramental. This means, on the one hand, that it is given by Jesus, who received it from the Father and delegates it with full effect to His disciples. On the other hand, it means that the power is precisely defined and takes Jesus as its only valid standard. Any exercise of power that goes beyond this is thieving presumption (John 10:8), and any refusal to exercise the power received in ordination to heal, teach and guide reveals that the priest is not a shepherd as the Gospel stipulates.
Does this sacramental dimension not lead to an adulation of the clergy, to a two-tier society in the Church? This is time and again being sharply criticised in the course of the discussions of the Synodal Path. Do not all of us share the same mission?
We all share in the same mission to carry the Gospel to the ends of the earth. But the concrete execution of this mission varies according to one’s state in the Church. The ministerial priesthood exists for only one reason: to serve the baptised. If there were a “two-tier society” in the Church – which does not exist – the clergy would be counted among the slaves and the laity among the masters. This is why St. Paul wishes that the Corinthians would come to reign (1 Corinthians 4:8), while saying of himself and the apostles that they should be “regarded as servants of Christ” (1 Corinthians 4:1). It is an expression of his deepest conviction when he says: “For I believe that God has put us apostles in the last place, as those who are condemned to death” (1 Corinthians 4:9).
In the course of the discussions about the Synodal Path, there are many voices that emphatically demand for the power of the clergy to be restricted. Is this unjust?
The power of the clergy is already restricted by the Gospel and the teaching of the Church. Yes, there are clerics who do not respect these limits, but they will have to answer to God’s judgment for this. It has always been the task of the prophets to call the religious leaders back to obedient service of the Word of God, and even to call them to once again place themselves under – and not above – the yoke of the Torah. This prophetic charism is given to the whole people and, according to a saying from Saint Hildegard, especially to women. If we, as the people of God, following the example of the early Christian community, return to the apostles’ teaching and hold fast to fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers (Acts 2:42), the clergy will soon follow.
Is there a biblical model for the division of powers in the Church?
The division of powers, as we know it from modern democracy, is not provided for in the Bible. This is partly because the Church is not a democracy. The Church is not a state and not even a people in the Old Testament sense. It is an assembly (ecclesia) of God, called and constituted by God’s Word, made human and given for us on the Cross, made present in the Eucharist. Each and every one of us is subject to divine authority and power. In the Gospel, this power comes to us ever anew, not only calling us, but enabling us to obey the divine legislature, thereby giving us the freedom of children of God in the knowledge of the truth.
That’s how the Church sees it. But many people no longer share such beliefs. And this does not only apply to the understanding of hierarchy and the clergy. Is it not high time to reconsider traditional positions and to adapt them to the world today, as demanded by numerous protagonists of the Synodal Path? Otherwise, people will surely run away from the Church.
In my opinion, the reason people have been running away from the Church in droves over the last fifty years is that we have preached according to the spirit of the times and not according to the spirit of the Gospel. It is a phenomenon that I observe all over the world: where people truly make the Gospel their “rule of life”, the Church grows, and attracts young and old, women and men alike.
The interview was originally published by Die Tagespost. It has been translated by Cecilia Fitzpatrick and is published here with permission.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-04--Why Cdl. Sarah is right to denounce ‘take-out’ Communion in plastic bag as ‘insane’

May 4 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Someone in the Italian bishops ’ conference has had the bright idea that people could be given Holy Communion not on the tongue , not in the hand , but in a plastic bag .
There may be some logic to what is being called “ take-out ” communion from perhaps a hygienic point of view , but Cardinal Robert Sarah , the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship , was quick to point out that it is , well , “ insane.
” The Italian bishops ’ proposal is extreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an idea which is widespread : that ultimately , it just doesn ’ t matter , or matters very little , how we receive Holy Communion , or how Mass is celebrated ( as long as it is valid ) .
Those who share Cardinal Sarah ’ s instinct are challenged : would you refuse to receive Holy Communion if you could not do so in a way you personally regarded as adequately respectful ?
Where is your love of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament if you reject Him on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument is supposed to parallel this thought : if your only chance to see your beloved were in some annoying , inconvenient , or humiliating context , then you ’ d bite the bullet and go .
But receiving Holy Communion is not like that .
It is not our only chance to meet Christ .
It is a privileged opportunity to meet Christ : in the liturgy and in Holy Communion we meet Christ in a special way .
The point of receiving is to receive spiritual fruits .
If the reception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in circumstances in which we are subjectively not able to participate so as to receive abundant graces , then it makes perfect sense not to receive .
This looks as though I am pleading guilty to the charge of Cardinal Sarah ’ s opponents .
I ’ m admitting that purely subjective considerations can prevent us from participating fruitfully in the sacraments .
But this isn ’ t the shameful secret of liturgical conservatives .
Everyone knows that this is true .
The people who complain that they can ’ t fruitfully participate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in some conservative way they don ’ t like ( with Latin , say , or Gregorian Chant ) are saying the same thing .
The next thing to notice is that our subjective sensitivity to what is going on may correspond to an objective reality about the worthiness or otherwise of the way the liturgy is being celebrated .
This is obviously true when it comes to liturgical abuses .
As the Congregation for Divine Worship noted long before Cardinal Sarah was put in charge of it , abuses “ contribute to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament.
” “ [ T ] hey also hinder the faithful from “ re-living in a certain way the experience of the two disciples of Emmaus : ‘ and their eyes were opened , and they recognized him ’ ” ( Redemptoris Sacramentum [ 2004 ] 4–6 ) .
Liturgical abuses are bad because they make obscure the theological truths that should be reflected by the liturgy , and so they prevent these truths contributing to the liturgical experience of the worshiper .
If the worshiper hates to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Blessed Sacrament being suggested by the way Mass is being celebrated , that is the worshiper ’ s problem .
If the worshiper hates to see the falsehood that Jesus is not really present in the Blessed Sacrament being suggested by the way the Mass is being celebrated , that is the celebrant ’ s problem .
The theological appropriateness and the reverence and worthiness of the details of the celebration are something we should be sensitive to : we should feel pained when our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due .
If offered Holy Communion in a plastic bag , we should not receive Him , because that would not be conducive to a reception giving us abundant graces .
We should work to make our subjective response to the liturgy correspond to the objective reality : we should be sensitive to the reality .
That way we will actually notice , at some level ( not everything has to be thought out loud ) , the theological truths that the liturgy is showing us .
But sensitivity cuts both ways .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we will be sensitive to the bad .
If you are pained by acts of disrespect toward the Blessed Sacrament , that is not you allowing your tastes and preferences to prevent your fruitful participation in the liturgy .
It is a recognition of reality .

Someone in the Italian bishops’ conference had the bright idea that people could be given Holy Communion in a plastic bag. The prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship says not so fast.
Urgent appeal to the bishops of the world: Feed your flock Sign the petition here.
May 4, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Someone in the Italian bishops’ conference has had the bright idea that people could be given Holy Communion not on the tongue, not in the hand, but in a plastic bag. There may be some logic to what is being called “take-out” communion from perhaps a hygienic point of view, but Cardinal Robert Sarah, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, was quick to point out that it is, well, “insane.”
Cardinal Sarah said, accord to Crux:
It’s absolutely not possible, God deserves respect, you can’t put him in a bag. I don’t know who thought this absurdity, but if it is true that the deprivation of the Eucharist is certainly a suffering, one cannot negotiate how to receive communion. We receive communion in a dignified way, worthy of God who comes to us.
The Italian bishops’ proposal is extreme, but it is a useful test of an idea which is widespread: that ultimately, it just doesn’t matter, or matters very little, how we receive Holy Communion, or how Mass is celebrated (as long as it is valid). Those who share Cardinal Sarah’s instinct are challenged: would you refuse to receive Holy Communion if you could not do so in a way you personally regarded as adequately respectful? Where is your love of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament if you reject Him on the basis of such trivial inconveniences?
The argument is supposed to parallel this thought: if your only chance to see your beloved were in some annoying, inconvenient, or humiliating context, then you’d bite the bullet and go. But receiving Holy Communion is not like that. It is not our only chance to meet Christ. It is a privileged opportunity to meet Christ: in the liturgy and in Holy Communion we meet Christ in a special way. The point of receiving is to receive spiritual fruits. If the reception of Holy Communion is to take place in circumstances in which we are subjectively not able to participate so as to receive abundant graces, then it makes perfect sense not to receive.
This looks as though I am pleading guilty to the charge of Cardinal Sarah’s opponents. I’m admitting that purely subjective considerations can prevent us from participating fruitfully in the sacraments. But this isn’t the shameful secret of liturgical conservatives. Everyone knows that this is true. The people who complain that they can’t fruitfully participate in the Mass when it is done in some conservative way they don’t like (with Latin, say, or Gregorian Chant) are saying the same thing. The next thing to notice is that our subjective sensitivity to what is going on may correspond to an objective reality about the worthiness or otherwise of the way the liturgy is being celebrated.
This is obviously true when it comes to liturgical abuses. As the Congregation for Divine Worship noted long before Cardinal Sarah was put in charge of it, abuses “contribute to the obscuring of the Catholic faith and doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament.” “[T]hey also hinder the faithful from “re-living in a certain way the experience of the two disciples of Emmaus: ‘and their eyes were opened, and they recognized him’” (Redemptoris Sacramentum [2004] 4–6).
Liturgical abuses are bad because they make obscure the theological truths that should be reflected by the liturgy, and so they prevent these truths contributing to the liturgical experience of the worshiper. If the worshiper hates to see the truth that Jesus is really present in the Blessed Sacrament being suggested by the way Mass is being celebrated, that is the worshiper’s problem. If the worshiper hates to see the falsehood that Jesus is not really present in the Blessed Sacrament being suggested by the way the Mass is being celebrated, that is the celebrant’s problem.
The theological appropriateness and the reverence and worthiness of the details of the celebration are something we should be sensitive to: we should feel pained when our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament is not given the respect that is his due. If offered Holy Communion in a plastic bag, we should not receive Him, because that would not be conducive to a reception giving us abundant graces.
We should work to make our subjective response to the liturgy correspond to the objective reality: we should be sensitive to the reality. That way we will actually notice, at some level (not everything has to be thought out loud), the theological truths that the liturgy is showing us. But sensitivity cuts both ways. If we are sensitive to the good, we will be sensitive to the bad. If you are pained by acts of disrespect toward the Blessed Sacrament, that is not you allowing your tastes and preferences to prevent your fruitful participation in the liturgy. It is a recognition of reality.
Follow Joseph Dr Joseph Shaw has a Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford University, where he also gained a first degree in Politics and Philosophy and a graduate Diploma in Theology. He has published on Ethics and Philosophy of Religion and is the editor of The Case for Liturgical Restoration: Una Voce Position Papers on the Extraordinary Form (Angelico Press). He is the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales and Secretary of Una Voce International. He teaches Philosophy in Oxford University and lives nearby with his wife and nine children.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-04--Cardinal Sarah: ‘Nobody can prevent a priest from confessing and giving communion’

May 4 , 2020 ( La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana ) – In this exclusive interview with the Daily Compass , the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments intervenes on the subject of “ take away ” Communion and on the “ negotiations ” underway to guarantee its taken with the correct precautions : no compromise , “ the Eucharist is a gift we receive from God and we must receive it in a dignified way .
We are not at the supermarket.
” “ No-one has the right to prevent a priest from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is a rule and this must be respected , the faithful are free to receive Communion in the hand or in the mouth.
” “ It ’ s a question of faith , the heart of the problem lies in the crisis of faith in the priesthood.
” “ Mass in streaming is misleading also for priests : they must look at God not at a camera.
” “ It ’ s a matter of faith and if we were really aware of what we are celebrating in the Mass and what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distributing Communion wouldn ’ t even come to mind.
” Cardinal Sarah , Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments responds publicly to the “ concerns ” of the faithful , who have not only been deprived of Holy Mass , but who are now dismayed by the bizarre proposals being put forward , with a view to a limited return to public Masses , that guarantee hygienic safety for the distribution of communion .
Recently , and in Italy , there has been talk about a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germany by some , whereby the Body of Christ is `` packaged '' : `` To allow Italian Catholics to return to it , whilst avoiding contamination - states the newspaper La Stampa - consideration is being given to a `` do it yourself '' communion with `` take away '' hosts previously consecrated by the priest , which would be closed individually in plastic bags placed on shelves in the church . ''
“ No , no , no , ” – Cardinal Sarah replies shocked on the phone – “ it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respect , you ca n't put Him in a bag .
I do n't know who thought of this absurdity , even if it is true that the deprivation of the Eucharist is certainly a suffering , the matter of how to communicate is not open to negotiation .
We communicate in a dignified way , worthy of God who comes to us .
The Eucharist must be treated with faith , we can not treat it as a trivial object , we are not at the supermarket .
This is total madness.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ place in Germany ...
Unfortunately , many things are done in Germany that are not Catholic , but that does n't mean you have to imitate them .
Recently I heard a bishop say that in the future there will be no more Eucharistic assemblies , only the liturgy of the Word .
But this is Protestantism .
As usual , `` compassionate '' reasons prevail : the faithful need Communion , which they have been deprived of for some time , but since the risk of contagion is still high , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two issues that must be absolutely clarified .
First of all , the Eucharist is not a right or a duty : it is a gift that we receive freely from God and that we must welcome with veneration and love .
The Lord is a person , no one would welcome the person he loves in a bag or otherwise in an unworthy way .
The response to the privation of the Eucharist can not be desecration .
This really is a matter of faith , if we believe we can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue ?
Nobody can prevent a priest from confessing and giving communion , nobody has the right to stop him .
The sacrament must be respected .
So even if it is not possible to attend Masses , the faithful can ask to be confessed and to receive Communion .
Speaking of Masses , what do you think about the prolonging of celebrations on streaming or on TV ?
We can not get used to this , God became incarnate , He is flesh and blood , He is not a virtual reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priests .
In Mass the priest has to look at God , instead he is getting used to looking at the camera , as if it were a show .
We can not go on like this .
Let 's go back to Communion .
In a few weeks , there is still hope that public Masses will be restored .
And apart from the more sacrilegious solutions , there is also discussion as to whether it is more appropriate to receive Communion in the mouth or in the hand , and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the hand .
What should be done ?
There is already a rule in the Church and this must be respected : the faithful are free to receive Communion in the mouth or hand .
In recent years , there has been concern that a clear attack on the Eucharist is taking place : first there was the question of the divorced and remarried , under the banner of `` communion for all '' ; then intercommunion with Protestants ; then the proposals on making the Eucharist available in the Amazon and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clergy , now the Masses at the time of the coronavirus ...
It should not surprise us .
The devil strongly attacks the Eucharist because it is the heart of the life of the Church .
But I believe , as I have already written in my books , that the heart of the problem is the crisis of faith in the priesthood .
If priests are aware of what the Mass is and what the Eucharist is , certain ways of celebrating or certain hypotheses about Communion would not even come to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like this .

May 4, 2020 (La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana) – In this exclusive interview with the Daily Compass, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments intervenes on the subject of “take away” Communion and on the “negotiations” underway to guarantee its taken with the correct precautions: no compromise, “the Eucharist is a gift we receive from God and we must receive it in a dignified way. We are not at the supermarket.” “No-one has the right to prevent a priest from hearing Confession and giving Communion.” “ There is a rule and this must be respected, the faithful are free to receive Communion in the hand or in the mouth.” “It’s a question of faith, the heart of the problem lies in the crisis of faith in the priesthood.” “Mass in streaming is misleading also for priests: they must look at God not at a camera.”
“It’s a matter of faith and if we were really aware of what we are celebrating in the Mass and what the Eucharist is, certain ways of distributing Communion wouldn’t even come to mind.” Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments responds publicly to the “concerns” of the faithful, who have not only been deprived of Holy Mass, but who are now dismayed by the bizarre proposals being put forward, with a view to a limited return to public Masses, that guarantee hygienic safety for the distribution of communion.
Recently, and in Italy, there has been talk about a solution which has already been adopted in Germany by some, whereby the Body of Christ is “packaged” : “To allow Italian Catholics to return to it, whilst avoiding contamination – states the newspaper La Stampa – consideration is being given to a “do it yourself” communion with “take away” hosts previously consecrated by the priest, which would be closed individually in plastic bags placed on shelves in the church.” “No, no, no,” – Cardinal Sarah replies shocked on the phone – “it's absolutely not possible, God deserves respect, you can't put Him in a bag. I don't know who thought of this absurdity, even if it is true that the deprivation of the Eucharist is certainly a suffering, the matter of how to communicate is not open to negotiation. We communicate in a dignified way, worthy of God who comes to us. The Eucharist must be treated with faith, we cannot treat it as a trivial object, we are not at the supermarket. This is total madness.”
Something like this has already taken place in Germany …
Unfortunately, many things are done in Germany that are not Catholic, but that doesn't mean you have to imitate them. Recently I heard a bishop say that in the future there will be no more Eucharistic assemblies, only the liturgy of the Word. But this is Protestantism.
As usual, “compassionate” reasons prevail: the faithful need Communion, which they have been deprived of for some time, but since the risk of contagion is still high, a compromise must be found …
There are two issues that must be absolutely clarified. First of all, the Eucharist is not a right or a duty: it is a gift that we receive freely from God and that we must welcome with veneration and love. The Lord is a person, no one would welcome the person he loves in a bag or otherwise in an unworthy way. The response to the privation of the Eucharist cannot be desecration. This really is a matter of faith, if we believe we cannot treat it unworthily.
And the second issue?
Nobody can prevent a priest from confessing and giving communion, nobody has the right to stop him. The sacrament must be respected. So even if it is not possible to attend Masses, the faithful can ask to be confessed and to receive Communion.
Nobody can prevent a priest from confessing and giving communion, nobody has the right to stop him. The sacrament must be respected. So even if it is not possible to attend Masses, the faithful can ask to be confessed and to receive Communion. +RS pic.twitter.com/ZvwjSoTpuo — Cardinal R. Sarah (@Card_R_Sarah) May 3, 2020
Speaking of Masses, what do you think about the prolonging of celebrations on streaming or on TV?
We cannot get used to this, God became incarnate, He is flesh and blood, He is not a virtual reality. It is also highly misleading for priests. In Mass the priest has to look at God, instead he is getting used to looking at the camera, as if it were a show. We cannot go on like this.
Let's go back to Communion. In a few weeks, there is still hope that public Masses will be restored. And apart from the more sacrilegious solutions, there is also discussion as to whether it is more appropriate to receive Communion in the mouth or in the hand, and in the latter case how to receive it in the hand. What should be done?
There is already a rule in the Church and this must be respected: the faithful are free to receive Communion in the mouth or hand.
In recent years, there has been concern that a clear attack on the Eucharist is taking place: first there was the question of the divorced and remarried, under the banner of “communion for all”; then intercommunion with Protestants; then the proposals on making the Eucharist available in the Amazon and in the regions with a shortage of clergy, now the Masses at the time of the coronavirus …
It should not surprise us. The devil strongly attacks the Eucharist because it is the heart of the life of the Church. But I believe, as I have already written in my books, that the heart of the problem is the crisis of faith in the priesthood. If priests are aware of what the Mass is and what the Eucharist is, certain ways of celebrating or certain hypotheses about Communion would not even come to mind. Jesus cannot be treated like this.
Reprinted with permission from La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-04--State Dept sends taxpayer funds to abortion-promoting, lawbreaking WHO underling

WASHINGTON , D.C. , May 2 , 2020 ( C-Fam ) — Last week , the U.S. State Department decided to continue funding the Pan American Health Organization ( PAHO ) , while defunding its parent organization , the World Health Organization ( WHO ) .
PAHO ’ s promotion of abortion is at odds with Trump administration foreign policy , and it also violates the Siljander Amendment to U.S. foreign aid law which forbids U.S. funding being used to lobby for or against abortion .
In March of 2019 , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a funding cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American States ( OAS ) , citing promotion of abortion by the OAS subsidiary bodies on human rights and women ’ s issues .
These continue to promote abortion in response to the COVID-19 epidemic .
The State Department did not defund PAHO at that time .
PAHO escaped funding cuts again last week because State Department lawyers argued it was not part of WHO , a source told the Friday Fax .
In fact , PAHO is both the specialized health agency of the Inter-American System and the Regional Office for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notably backed UNICEF when it advocated to keep abortion legal in Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic .
In “ Reproductive Health and Healthy Motherhood : Aligning National Legislation with International Human Rights Law , ” PAHO identified “ challenges with respect to reproductive rights and healthy motherhood , ” including “ legal provisions that restrict human rights , such as the dissemination of confidential information on reproductive health ; restricted access to emergency oral contraceptives ( EOC ) and family planning methods ; and a lack of protocols for therapeutic abortion.
” PAHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the human rights of adolescents , including “ [ i ] nsufficient safe , confidential , institutional services for sexual and reproductive health that offer information , counseling , and the interruption of pregnancy , ” and “ lack of protocols for the therapeutic interruption of pregnancy ” for minors .
PAHO cites the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , the Convention on Economic , Social , and Cultural Rights , the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women , and the Convention on the Rights of the Child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obligate nations to legalize it or provide it .
It also cites the International Conference on Population and Development , a 1994 conference whose participants expressly rejected a human right to abortion .
The report ’ s authors work for both PAHO and WHO , according to the report .
Among their co-authors is the pro-abortion public interest law firm Center for Reproductive Rights .
PAHO endorses WHO protocols that advance abortion as maternal health care .
In “ Packages of Interventions for Family Planning , Safe Abortion Care , Maternal , Newborn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guiding principles ” including “ ensuring universal access to family planning , safe abortion , maternal , newborn and child health care.
” The guidance includes “ policy broadening legal grounds for safe abortion , universal access to safe services , universal knowledge about the law and services and importance of safe abortion care.
” In an April 2010 meeting co-organized with Planned Parenthood of America , PAHO developed “ strategies and initiatives that advance women ’ s reproductive rights in PAHO Member States , ” to “ review mandates , strategies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family planning , oral emergency contraception , and prevention of unplanned pregnancies.
” At another event , PAHO endorsed the expansion of abortion in Panama .
The amendment to U.S. law , named after Rep. Mark Siljander , applies to all foreign assistance funds available through annual appropriations , including health , development , economic support , transition initiatives , complex crises funds , and others .

The U.S. State Department decided to continue funding the Pan American Health Organization even as State defunded the WHO, its parent.
PETITION: Thank President Trump for halting U.S. funding to pro-abortion World Health Organization Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 2, 2020 (C-Fam) — Last week, the U.S. State Department decided to continue funding the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), while defunding its parent organization, the World Health Organization (WHO). PAHO’s promotion of abortion is at odds with Trump administration foreign policy, and it also violates the Siljander Amendment to U.S. foreign aid law which forbids U.S. funding being used to lobby for or against abortion.
In March of 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a funding cut of $210,000 to the Organization of American States (OAS), citing promotion of abortion by the OAS subsidiary bodies on human rights and women’s issues. These continue to promote abortion in response to the COVID-19 epidemic. The State Department did not defund PAHO at that time. PAHO escaped funding cuts again last week because State Department lawyers argued it was not part of WHO, a source told the Friday Fax.
In fact, PAHO is both the specialized health agency of the Inter-American System and the Regional Office for the Americas of the WHO. The organization notably backed UNICEF when it advocated to keep abortion legal in Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic.
In “Reproductive Health and Healthy Motherhood: Aligning National Legislation with International Human Rights Law,” PAHO identified “challenges with respect to reproductive rights and healthy motherhood,” including “legal provisions that restrict human rights, such as the dissemination of confidential information on reproductive health; restricted access to emergency oral contraceptives (EOC) and family planning methods; and a lack of protocols for therapeutic abortion.”
PAHO further identified legal “obstacles” to the human rights of adolescents, including “[i]nsufficient safe, confidential, institutional services for sexual and reproductive health that offer information, counseling, and the interruption of pregnancy,” and “lack of protocols for the therapeutic interruption of pregnancy” for minors.
PAHO cites the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, none of which mention abortion or obligate nations to legalize it or provide it. It also cites the International Conference on Population and Development, a 1994 conference whose participants expressly rejected a human right to abortion. The report’s authors work for both PAHO and WHO, according to the report. Among their co-authors is the pro-abortion public interest law firm Center for Reproductive Rights.
PAHO endorses WHO protocols that advance abortion as maternal health care. In “Packages of Interventions for Family Planning, Safe Abortion Care, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health” it backs “guiding principles” including “ensuring universal access to family planning, safe abortion, maternal, newborn and child health care.” The guidance includes “policy broadening legal grounds for safe abortion, universal access to safe services, universal knowledge about the law and services and importance of safe abortion care.”
In an April 2010 meeting co-organized with Planned Parenthood of America, PAHO developed “strategies and initiatives that advance women’s reproductive rights in PAHO Member States,” to “review mandates, strategies and best practices” with emphasis on “family planning, oral emergency contraception, and prevention of unplanned pregnancies.” At another event, PAHO endorsed the expansion of abortion in Panama.
The amendment to U.S. law, named after Rep. Mark Siljander, applies to all foreign assistance funds available through annual appropriations, including health, development, economic support, transition initiatives, complex crises funds, and others.
Published with permission from C-Fam.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-04--UN secretary general demands abortion access worldwide during coronavirus panic

NEW YORK , May 2 , 2020 ( C-Fam ) — Two competing draft resolutions emerged at the UN this week on the impact of COVID-19 on women .
One of the main disputes in negotiations is over national prerogatives on abortion .
Both resolutions are based on a policy brief from UN Secretary General , Antonio Guterres , published just before Easter on “ The impact of COVID-19 on Women.
” The brief seeks to designate a list of priority policies to protect women from the pandemic , among them “ sexual and reproductive health services.
” One resolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Egypt , Saudi Arabia , and Zambia , recognizes national prerogatives when it comes to “ sexual and reproductive health.
” The other , sponsored by Europeans , minimizes national prerogatives and gives the UN bureaucracy a broad sweeping mandate , even endorsing the UN Secretary General ’ s brief and a more explicitly pro-abortion guidance note from a UN human rights committee that declared abortion essential to the COVID-19 response .
The brief and both of the initial drafts of the resolutions specifically identify “ sexual and reproductive health ” as essential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be disrupted by COVID-19 health policy decisions .
It is unclear if this same level of priority will be retained after the resolutions are discussed remotely by UN member states .
The COVID-19 pandemic has upended normal UN negotiating dynamics , making the negotiating process less transparent .
The normal procedures of the UN system came to a halt as a result of the global panic over the novel coronavirus .
Since mid-March , the day-to-day operations of the international organization have been reduced to bare essentials .
Human rights panels have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diplomatic pow-wows put on indefinite hold .
The daily deluge of dozens of UN documents is down to a trickle , and operations at UN headquarters are all but shut down .
UN member states are having to rubberstamp resolutions remotely , through a silent procedure .
There are no informal negotiations of resolutions .
Delegations are given time-frames within which to object to resolutions .
If no objection is made , it is declared adopted .
This may be why there are two seemingly competing resolutions on COVID-19 and women .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is widely used to cluster abortion alongside more widely accepted maternal health and family planning health policies .
The Trump administration has spearheaded efforts to remove the term in UN policy and use less ambiguous terminology .
While recognizing the significantly higher impact of COVID-19 on men , the UN Secretary General ’ s policy brief argues that “ the health of women generally is adversely impacted through the reallocation of resources and priorities , including sexual and reproductive health services ” calling them “ central to health , rights and well-being of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was declared a pandemic , UN agencies promoted abortion as an essential service that should not be disrupted in COVID-19 health responses .
Even more attention and resources were dedicated to “ sexual and reproductive health ” in the UN Secretary General ’ s appeal to the UN system for the pandemic , which also made abortion part of the UN ’ s response by incorporating a UN agency manual that refers to abortion as a human right .
The CEDAW Committee , a UN human rights panel that tracks the efforts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women ’ s rights , also came out with its own guidance note on COVID-19 telling countries they “ must ” provide “ confidential access to sexual and reproductive health information and services such as modern forms of contraception , safe abortion and post-abortion services ” during the pandemic .

The U.N. secretary general’s policy brief calls 'sexual and reproductive health services' 'central to health, rights and well-being of women and girls.'
PETITION: Urge state governors to stop abortions during coronavirus crisis Sign the petition here.
NEW YORK, May 2, 2020 (C-Fam) — Two competing draft resolutions emerged at the UN this week on the impact of COVID-19 on women. One of the main disputes in negotiations is over national prerogatives on abortion.
Both resolutions are based on a policy brief from UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, published just before Easter on “The impact of COVID-19 on Women.” The brief seeks to designate a list of priority policies to protect women from the pandemic, among them “sexual and reproductive health services.”
One resolution, sponsored by Algeria, China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Zambia, recognizes national prerogatives when it comes to “sexual and reproductive health.” The other, sponsored by Europeans, minimizes national prerogatives and gives the UN bureaucracy a broad sweeping mandate, even endorsing the UN Secretary General’s brief and a more explicitly pro-abortion guidance note from a UN human rights committee that declared abortion essential to the COVID-19 response.
The brief and both of the initial drafts of the resolutions specifically identify “sexual and reproductive health” as essential “health services” that should not be disrupted by COVID-19 health policy decisions. It is unclear if this same level of priority will be retained after the resolutions are discussed remotely by UN member states.
The COVID-19 pandemic has upended normal UN negotiating dynamics, making the negotiating process less transparent.
The normal procedures of the UN system came to a halt as a result of the global panic over the novel coronavirus. Since mid-March, the day-to-day operations of the international organization have been reduced to bare essentials. Human rights panels have been canceled, UN commissions postponed, and diplomatic pow-wows put on indefinite hold. The daily deluge of dozens of UN documents is down to a trickle, and operations at UN headquarters are all but shut down.
UN member states are having to rubberstamp resolutions remotely, through a silent procedure. There are no informal negotiations of resolutions. Delegations are given time-frames within which to object to resolutions. If no objection is made, it is declared adopted. This may be why there are two seemingly competing resolutions on COVID-19 and women.
The term “sexual and reproductive health” is widely used to cluster abortion alongside more widely accepted maternal health and family planning health policies. The Trump administration has spearheaded efforts to remove the term in UN policy and use less ambiguous terminology.
While recognizing the significantly higher impact of COVID-19 on men, the UN Secretary General’s policy brief argues that “the health of women generally is adversely impacted through the reallocation of resources and priorities, including sexual and reproductive health services” calling them “central to health, rights and well-being of women and girls.”
Since before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, UN agencies promoted abortion as an essential service that should not be disrupted in COVID-19 health responses. Even more attention and resources were dedicated to “sexual and reproductive health” in the UN Secretary General’s appeal to the UN system for the pandemic, which also made abortion part of the UN’s response by incorporating a UN agency manual that refers to abortion as a human right.
The CEDAW Committee, a UN human rights panel that tracks the efforts of countries to implement the UN treaty on women’s rights, also came out with its own guidance note on COVID-19 telling countries they “must” provide “confidential access to sexual and reproductive health information and services such as modern forms of contraception, safe abortion and post-abortion services” during the pandemic.
Published with permission from C-Fam.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-04--In homeschooling debate, opposing sides are gathering their forces for battle

May 2 , 2020 ( CatholicCulture.org ) — This spring , due to the school closures mandated by the CO19 lockdown , hundreds of thousands of American parents are having their first experience with home schooling .
Coincidentally , for the many Americans who have already made home schooling a way of life , there have arisen two other critically important news developments : one a serious threat to home schooling , the other a huge potential opportunity .
Consider the threat first .
The May-June issue of Harvard Magazine contains a remarkably candid article entitled “ The Risks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harvard Law School professor , Elizabeth Bartholet , makes her argument for a “ presumptive ban ” on the practice of home schooling .
Bartholet sees the practice as “ dangerous , ” because of the likelihood that parents will take an “ authoritarian ” attitude toward their own children .
Digging further into Bartholet ’ s views on the subject , the New Boston Post discovered an article in the Arizona Law Review in which she had explained her perspective more fully : Many home-schooling parents might concede that point , actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ task of educating their children precisely because they don ’ t want to give those children an education comparable to what the public schools provide .
In far too many public schools , students are more likely to learn about climate change and transgender rights than about the multiplication tables and ABCs .
But I digress .
Bartholet is not alone , unfortunately , in viewing parents as a threat to their own children .
At William and Mary , another law professor , James Dwyer , also wants to break down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions about the education of their offspring .
Dwyer argues unapologetically that the government , not the parents , should have the last say .
In fact he claims that “ the reason parent-child relationships exist is because the State confers legal parenthood.
” Dwyer ’ s argument might come as a special surprise to mothers , who thought their relationships with their children began in their wombs , long before the State knew anything about them .
And as a matter of constitutional law , Dwyer ’ s argument runs directly counter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court , in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters ( 1925 ) : “ The child is not the mere creature of the State ; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right , coupled with the high duty , to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.
” The idea that parental authority is subject to State control is repugnant to the common sense , to Christian teaching , and to American law .
Yet regrettably , we can not dismiss their arguments as the rantings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are respected legal scholars , teaching at prestigious institutions , with considerable resources at their disposal .
And they have plans .
In June , Harvard Law School has scheduled a “ summit ” on home schooling , with Bartholet and Dwyer playing key roles in organizing the event .
The invitation-only summit will bring together legal minds that share the organizers ’ views , and clearly they hope to plan a campaign that could overturn existing precedents , ban or restrict home schooling , and undermine parental rights .
This spring the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case of Espinoza v. Montana .
The case involves Kendra Espinoza , who took advantage of a scholarship program to send her daughters to Stillwater Christian School .
The scholarship program in turn was funded by a tax-credit system , established by the Montana legislature .
But the state ’ s supreme court struck down the tax-credit system , citing the “ Blaine Amendment , ” which bars any form of government funding for religious schools .
So the scholarship program disappeared , and with it Kendra Espinoza ’ s hopes for her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advantages for school-choice advocates , who eagerly took up the legal argument : • The Montana scholarship program does not support religious schools .
It supports parents , who can spend the money as they see fit .
• The state tax-credit program serves a clear public purpose ; the funds can be used only at schools that meet certain criteria set by the state .
• The Blaine Amendment in Montana , like similar measures in many other states , is the product of a wave of anti-Catholic bigotry that swept the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many leading jurists ( including Supreme Court justices ) believe that these amendments themselves are discriminatory and should be overturned .
Espinoza ’ s attorneys came away from their Supreme Court hearing optimistic about the prospects for a favorable decision .
The Court is expected to issue its ruling before the end of June .
A decision in Espinoza ’ s favor , and against the Blaine Amendment , would immediately trigger legal challenges against the Blaine Amendments in other states , and clear the way for a political offensive by advocates of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered dozens of new measures to support private schools , religious schools , and home schools .
My friend Michael Gilleran , an attorney who prepared an amicus brief for the Supreme Court in the Espinoza case , spoke about the background , the legal issues , and the likely outcome of the case in an April talk sponsored by the Center for the Restoration of Christian Culture at Thomas More College .
I strongly recommend that informative talk to interested readers .
And speaking of that Center ( for which I serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13 we shall hold our own “ summit ” on home schooling , as a pre-emptive response to the event at Harvard Law School : Who Owns Our Children : Home Education in an Authoritarian Age .
With our own impressive lineup of speakers , we ’ ll take up the challenge , and join in what could be a pivotal political battle for 2020 and beyond .

May 2, 2020 (CatholicCulture.org) — This spring, due to the school closures mandated by the CO19 lockdown, hundreds of thousands of American parents are having their first experience with home schooling. Coincidentally, for the many Americans who have already made home schooling a way of life, there have arisen two other critically important news developments: one a serious threat to home schooling, the other a huge potential opportunity.
Consider the threat first. The May-June issue of Harvard Magazine contains a remarkably candid article entitled “The Risks of Homeschooling”, in which a distinguished Harvard Law School professor, Elizabeth Bartholet, makes her argument for a “presumptive ban” on the practice of home schooling. Bartholet sees the practice as “dangerous,” because of the likelihood that parents will take an “authoritarian” attitude toward their own children.
Digging further into Bartholet’s views on the subject, the New Boston Post discovered an article in the Arizona Law Review in which she had explained her perspective more fully:
Parents who are ideologically committed to raising children in isolation from the larger society, with views and values counter to much of the education provided in public schools, are not going to be willing or able to provide an education comparable to what schools provide.
Many home-schooling parents might concede that point, actually. They have taken upon themselves the task of educating their children precisely because they don’t want to give those children an education comparable to what the public schools provide. In far too many public schools, students are more likely to learn about climate change and transgender rights than about the multiplication tables and ABCs. But I digress.
Bartholet is not alone, unfortunately, in viewing parents as a threat to their own children. At William and Mary, another law professor, James Dwyer, also wants to break down the presumption that parents should make their own decisions about the education of their offspring. Dwyer argues unapologetically that the government, not the parents, should have the last say. In fact he claims that “the reason parent-child relationships exist is because the State confers legal parenthood.”
Dwyer’s argument might come as a special surprise to mothers, who thought their relationships with their children began in their wombs, long before the State knew anything about them. And as a matter of constitutional law, Dwyer’s argument runs directly counter to the clear ruling of the US Supreme Court, in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): “The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
The idea that parental authority is subject to State control is repugnant to the common sense, to Christian teaching, and to American law. Yet regrettably, we cannot dismiss their arguments as the rantings of a few isolated extremists. These are respected legal scholars, teaching at prestigious institutions, with considerable resources at their disposal. And they have plans.
In June, Harvard Law School has scheduled a “summit” on home schooling, with Bartholet and Dwyer playing key roles in organizing the event. The invitation-only summit will bring together legal minds that share the organizers’ views, and clearly they hope to plan a campaign that could overturn existing precedents, ban or restrict home schooling, and undermine parental rights.
Now the good news.
This spring the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Espinoza v. Montana. The case involves Kendra Espinoza, who took advantage of a scholarship program to send her daughters to Stillwater Christian School. The scholarship program in turn was funded by a tax-credit system, established by the Montana legislature. But the state’s supreme court struck down the tax-credit system, citing the “Blaine Amendment,” which bars any form of government funding for religious schools. So the scholarship program disappeared, and with it Kendra Espinoza’s hopes for her daughters.
The Espinoza case offers several advantages for school-choice advocates, who eagerly took up the legal argument:
The Montana scholarship program does not support religious schools. It supports parents, who can spend the money as they see fit.
The state tax-credit program serves a clear public purpose; the funds can be used only at schools that meet certain criteria set by the state.
The Blaine Amendment in Montana, like similar measures in many other states, is the product of a wave of anti-Catholic bigotry that swept the US in the late 19th-century, and many leading jurists (including Supreme Court justices) believe that these amendments themselves are discriminatory and should be overturned.
Espinoza’s attorneys came away from their Supreme Court hearing optimistic about the prospects for a favorable decision. The Court is expected to issue its ruling before the end of June. A decision in Espinoza’s favor, and against the Blaine Amendment, would immediately trigger legal challenges against the Blaine Amendments in other states, and clear the way for a political offensive by advocates of school choice. State legislatures could be offered dozens of new measures to support private schools, religious schools, and home schools.
My friend Michael Gilleran, an attorney who prepared an amicus brief for the Supreme Court in the Espinoza case, spoke about the background, the legal issues, and the likely outcome of the case in an April talk sponsored by the Center for the Restoration of Christian Culture at Thomas More College. I strongly recommend that informative talk to interested readers.
And speaking of that Center (for which I serve as Program Director), on May 13 we shall hold our own “summit” on home schooling, as a pre-emptive response to the event at Harvard Law School: Who Owns Our Children: Home Education in an Authoritarian Age. With our own impressive lineup of speakers, we’ll take up the challenge, and join in what could be a pivotal political battle for 2020 and beyond.
Published with permission from CatholicCulture.org.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-05--New report reveals Catholic Relief Services paying for pornographic sex ed

BALTIMORE , Maryland , May 4 , 2020 ( Lepanto Institute ) — A sixth investigative report on Catholic Relief Services projects , published by the Lepanto Institute , shows that CRS both implemented and promoted comprehensive sexual education curriculums that include pornographic images and the promotion of contraception .
The first curriculum profiled by the Lepanto Institute , called Go Girls !
, was linked to directly by a CRS copyrighted document about its DREAMS/4Children project in Lesotho titled , “ TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS TEN.
” The CRS-produced document says that the Go Girls !
curriculum was adapted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a footnote referencing the curriculum provided a link directly to it .
“ The Go Girls !
curriculum not only pushes contraception and promotes masturbation , but has a pornographic illustration that actually demonstrates the genital use of a condom , ” said Michael Hichborn , president of the Lepanto Institute .
“ Why on Earth would someone at CRS ever think this curriculum would be acceptable on any level ?
The leadership at CRS needs to ask why a morally acceptable curriculum wasn ’ t used , because CRS paid for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable community.
” The Lepanto Institute ’ s report also showed that CRS had implemented a curriculum called Aflateen , and maintains a close relationship with Aflateen ’ s parent company , Aflatoun .
Not only does the Aflateen curriculum clearly promotes the use of contraception , but Aflatoun publicly signed a statement announcing its support for the abortion-funding initiative called “ She Decides.
” But despite this , CRS has been found to be promoting the curriculum to other agencies .
“ Curriculums like this have to be paid for when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if CRS claims to have implemented a sanitized version of them , they still paid for them , ” said Hichborn .
“ These curriculums might as well have been created by Planned Parenthood ; would CRS purchase curriculums from Planned Parenthood with the intention of using only the morally acceptable portions ?
If the answer is no , then CRS is guilty by purchasing and distributing these curriculums.
” The report can be viewed at the link , here : https : //www.lepantoin.org/pornographic-contraception-promoting-curriculums-used-by-catholic-relief-services/ “ For the last two months , we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are serious problems with Catholic Relief Services projects , and despite an initial promise to investigate and respond , CRS has yet to address a single concern , ” Hichborn added .
“ It is for this reason that we continue to call upon the bishops of the United States to conduct an independent , third party investigation of CRS , and to withhold their support for the agency until such an investigation is convened.
” A petition asking bishops to conduct an investigation of CRS can be found here : https : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute .

PETITION: Urge US bishops to stop Catholic Relief Services' condom promotion Sign the petition here.
BALTIMORE, Maryland, May 4, 2020 (Lepanto Institute) — A sixth investigative report on Catholic Relief Services projects, published by the Lepanto Institute, shows that CRS both implemented and promoted comprehensive sexual education curriculums that include pornographic images and the promotion of contraception.
The first curriculum profiled by the Lepanto Institute, called Go Girls!, was linked to directly by a CRS copyrighted document about its DREAMS/4Children project in Lesotho titled, “TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS TEN.” The CRS-produced document says that the Go Girls! curriculum was adapted for use by CRS Lesotho, and a footnote referencing the curriculum provided a link directly to it.
“The Go Girls! curriculum not only pushes contraception and promotes masturbation, but has a pornographic illustration that actually demonstrates the genital use of a condom,” said Michael Hichborn, president of the Lepanto Institute. “Why on Earth would someone at CRS ever think this curriculum would be acceptable on any level? The leadership at CRS needs to ask why a morally acceptable curriculum wasn’t used, because CRS paid for this immoral curriculum and provided it to a vulnerable community.”
The Lepanto Institute’s report also showed that CRS had implemented a curriculum called Aflateen, and maintains a close relationship with Aflateen’s parent company, Aflatoun. Not only does the Aflateen curriculum clearly promotes the use of contraception, but Aflatoun publicly signed a statement announcing its support for the abortion-funding initiative called “She Decides.” But despite this, CRS has been found to be promoting the curriculum to other agencies.
“Curriculums like this have to be paid for when they are implemented, which means that even if CRS claims to have implemented a sanitized version of them, they still paid for them,” said Hichborn. “These curriculums might as well have been created by Planned Parenthood; would CRS purchase curriculums from Planned Parenthood with the intention of using only the morally acceptable portions? If the answer is no, then CRS is guilty by purchasing and distributing these curriculums.”
The report can be viewed at the link, here: https://www.lepantoin.org/pornographic-contraception-promoting-curriculums-used-by-catholic-relief-services/
“For the last two months, we have been issuing heavily documented proof that there are serious problems with Catholic Relief Services projects, and despite an initial promise to investigate and respond, CRS has yet to address a single concern,” Hichborn added. “It is for this reason that we continue to call upon the bishops of the United States to conduct an independent, third party investigation of CRS, and to withhold their support for the agency until such an investigation is convened.”
A petition asking bishops to conduct an investigation of CRS can be found here: https://lifepetitions.com/petition/stop-catholic-relief-services-condom-promotion-now
Published with permission from the Lepanto Institute.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-03--In homeschooling debate, opposing sides are gathering their forces for battle


lifesitenews--2020-05-03--UN secretary general demands abortion access worldwide during coronavirus panic


lifesitenews--2020-05-03--State Dept sends taxpayer funds to abortion-promoting, lawbreaking WHO underling


lifesitenews--2020-05-05--Vatican strips ‘Catholic’ label from Brothers of Charity Belgian hospitals for refusing to stop euth

Vatican strips ‘Catholic’ label from Brothers of Charity Belgian hospitals for refusing to stop euthanasia

May 5 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The Vatican 's doctrinal congregation has ordered about a dozen psychiatric hospitals in Belgium belonging to the Brothers of Charity to drop the name “ Catholic ” after the institutions defended allowing patients to be euthanized .
The order from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith follows three years of fruitless talks between Rome and the mostly non-religious governors ’ board of the institution that has consistently refused to modify its guidelines allowing legal euthanasia for the mentally ill .
The congregation of the Brothers of Charity is also expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ network of psychiatric hospitals in Belgium .
News emerged Monday of a letter sent March 30 by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith , Cardinal Luis Ladaria , announcing the decision that the Vatican no longer considers the 12 centers to be Catholic , with immediate effect .
The Belgian Christian weekly Tertio published a few quotes from the letter that refers to the decision on the part of the congregation .
“ The psychiatric centres of the organisation will no longer be considered as Catholic institutions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Brothers of Charity shall be severed , ” said the letter .
The CDF wrote that “ Catholic teaching affirms the sacred value of human life , ” the “ importance of caring for and accompanying the sick and disabled , ” as well as “ the Christian value of suffering , the moral unacceptability of euthanasia ” and “ the impossibility of introducing this practice in Catholic hospitals , not even in extreme cases , as well as of collaborating in this regard with civil institutions , ” according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deplored that the March 2017 guidelines do not contain “ any reference to God , the Scriptures or the Christian vision of man.
” Cardinal Ladaria is described as having said he took the decision “ with great sadness.
” From the start of this affair , Brother René Stockman – also a member of the John Paul II Academy for Life and Family – exercised his responsibility as head of the Congregation of the Brothers of Charity in Rome .
It was he who , months after the Belgian branch of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all directors and medical practitioners working in its facilities , brought the matter to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ( CDF ) in August 2017 .
The guidelines stated the following : “ If certain care requirements are met , the doctor and the patient can choose the place where the euthanasia will be performed taking into account the context , including the impact on fellow patients .
Whereas until now it was expected that the physician would always refer the patient to another place for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the due requirements are respected and applied.
” Brother Stockman immediately acted behind the scenes to reverse this new policy that was adopted , according to its proponents , for “ personalistic ” reasons .
But neither the Congregations ’ central authority nor the CDF was successful in obtaining a return to observance of Catholic doctrine and the general prohibition of killing the innocent .
Mediation efforts set up at the initiative of the Vatican , undertaken by the auxiliary Bishop of Amsterdam , Jan Hendriks , were also ineffective .
A previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor , Rik Torfs , was no more successful .
In September 2017 , he determined that the rift between Rome and the Belgian brothers was too large .
It was “ not a case of one or two euthanasia decisions per year , ” he said , but of the “ important philosophic opening regarding the need to protect life.
” According to the Belgian Brothers of Charity , protection of life can in some cases give way to patient autonomy and a proper care relationship .
At the time , Raf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board of the Brothers of Charity in Belgium , said , “ When you forbid something , you only need one sentence .
That puts a stop to every ethical consideration and to every conversation .
We on the contrary want to enter in dialogue with the suffering person .
According to us , that is a vision inspired by the Gospel .
Jesus Christ also put the Sabbath and other rules aside in order to be near to the suffering person .
More than one Christian inspired vision is possible.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the seventh day , which is a positive commandment that needs to take the exigencies of justice and charity into account , nor the absolute prohibition of idol worshipping , murder , adultery , stealing or lying .
Faced with clear judgment from Rome , De Rycke “ regretted ” the decision but clearly stuck to the same idea .
He told vrt.be : “ The Vatican ’ s letter concentrates on an ideological issue .
In ecclesiastical doctrine we only look at the action , while we rather look at the situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way , we do not allow euthanasia just like that , we weigh up all kinds of values .
We differ in vision , and as a result our institutions have been retroactively deprived of the designation ‘ Catholic , ’ since the end of ‘ March , ’ ” he confirmed , adding he had “ every respect for that.
” In the meantime , the Brothers of Charity and its managing corporation , including a majority of lay members , had flatly refused to fall in with the CDF ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an unequivocal way their adherence to the principles of the sacredness of human life and the unacceptability of euthanasia , and , as a consequence , the absolute refusal to carry it out in the institutions they depend on.
” De Rycke said he had less understanding for Brother Stockman who has underscored that the buildings in which the psychiatric hospitals operate belong to the Congregation , and therefore to the church itself in canon law .
De Rycke added that the Belgian Brothers of Charity have no intention of hiring or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a de facto alienation over the years .
“ It is a very , very painful situation , yes , we are sorry that the Superior General in Rome should be aiming his arrows at us .
Especially when you realize what the organization has already meant for the community .
Also , he is creating a dangerous precedent .
Give me the name of only one hospital in our country where euthanasia is not yet available .
Should we deprive them all of the adjective ‘ Catholic ’ ?
” he stated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a touchy and complex subject such as euthanasia should be misused in a wider and long-running conflict between the general head of the congregation and our region , ” he said .
But ultimately , the Belgian Brothers of Charity were given three years in which to decide to respect Catholic doctrine .
They chose not to do so .
Brother Stockman commented on the situation in a statement quoted by nieuwsblad.de : “ The loss of the Catholic identity of our psychiatric centers in Belgium is a painful situation for the congregation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congregation can do no other than remain faithful to its charisma of caritas , and this can not be reconciled with the practice of euthanasia on psychiatric patients .
It is with a heavy heart that the congregation must let go of its psychiatric centers in Belgium .
The question here is not that of the umpteenth letter about the euthanasia theme , but the definitive answer of the Vatican .
It follows that there will have to be agreements , among others regarding under what conditions the buildings will be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also recalled that the Brothers of Charity “ were among the pioneers in the field of mental health care ” in Belgium .
The rift between the congregation and its Belgian branch has deepened since the beginning of this affair .
In July 2018 , the general chapter of the group stressed that the Brothers of Charity believe “ in sacredness and absolute respect for every human life , from conception to natural death , ” reported Catholic News Agency .
“ The general chapter requires that each brother , associate member and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congregation adhere to the doctrine of the Catholic Church on ethical issues.
” On March 23 , one week before the CDF issued its firm letter , the Belgian Brothers of Charity , together with the psychiatric center of the Catholic University of Louvain ’ s several shelters for “ safe living , ” opened a new unit in the university town where patients can freely “ walk in ” to talk about their death wish , either alone or with their loved ones .
Named Reakiro ( Esperanto for “ recovery ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giving information in a “ warm ” and homely environment , to accompany people “ in their quest between life and death , between the unbearableness of suffering and the possibility of hope and healing.
” Everyone is welcome , and while the practical follow-up of a euthanasia request does not take place in Reakiro , open dialogue is offered as in a “ safe place ” with the objective of helping people who want euthanasia to find that maybe something more can be done , but always “ with respect for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @

May 5, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The Vatican's doctrinal congregation has ordered about a dozen psychiatric hospitals in Belgium belonging to the Brothers of Charity to drop the name “Catholic” after the institutions defended allowing patients to be euthanized.
The order from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith follows three years of fruitless talks between Rome and the mostly non-religious governors’ board of the institution that has consistently refused to modify its guidelines allowing legal euthanasia for the mentally ill. The congregation of the Brothers of Charity is also expected to sever all existing links with its network of psychiatric hospitals in Belgium.
News emerged Monday of a letter sent March 30 by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Luis Ladaria, announcing the decision that the Vatican no longer considers the 12 centers to be Catholic, with immediate effect.
The Belgian Christian weekly Tertio published a few quotes from the letter that refers to the decision on the part of the congregation. “The psychiatric centres of the organisation will no longer be considered as Catholic institutions. Ties between the centers and the congregation of the Brothers of Charity shall be severed,” said the letter.
The CDF wrote that “Catholic teaching affirms the sacred value of human life,” the “importance of caring for and accompanying the sick and disabled,” as well as “the Christian value of suffering, the moral unacceptability of euthanasia” and “the impossibility of introducing this practice in Catholic hospitals, not even in extreme cases, as well as of collaborating in this regard with civil institutions,” according to Catholic News Agency.
The letter also deplored that the March 2017 guidelines do not contain “any reference to God, the Scriptures or the Christian vision of man.”
Cardinal Ladaria is described as having said he took the decision “with great sadness.”
From the start of this affair, Brother René Stockman – also a member of the John Paul II Academy for Life and Family – exercised his responsibility as head of the Congregation of the Brothers of Charity in Rome. It was he who, months after the Belgian branch of the congregation discreetly distributed the pro-euthanasia guidelines to all directors and medical practitioners working in its facilities, brought the matter to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in August 2017.
The guidelines stated the following: “If certain care requirements are met, the doctor and the patient can choose the place where the euthanasia will be performed taking into account the context, including the impact on fellow patients. Whereas until now it was expected that the physician would always refer the patient to another place for this, this expectation no longer applies when the due requirements are respected and applied.”
Brother Stockman immediately acted behind the scenes to reverse this new policy that was adopted, according to its proponents, for “personalistic” reasons.
But neither the Congregations’ central authority nor the CDF was successful in obtaining a return to observance of Catholic doctrine and the general prohibition of killing the innocent.
Mediation efforts set up at the initiative of the Vatican, undertaken by the auxiliary Bishop of Amsterdam, Jan Hendriks, were also ineffective.
A previous mediation attempt involving a Belgian canon law professor, Rik Torfs, was no more successful. In September 2017, he determined that the rift between Rome and the Belgian brothers was too large. It was “not a case of one or two euthanasia decisions per year,” he said, but of the “important philosophic opening regarding the need to protect life.”
According to the Belgian Brothers of Charity, protection of life can in some cases give way to patient autonomy and a proper care relationship. At the time, Raf De Rycke, president of the governing board of the Brothers of Charity in Belgium, said, “When you forbid something, you only need one sentence. That puts a stop to every ethical consideration and to every conversation. We on the contrary want to enter in dialogue with the suffering person. According to us, that is a vision inspired by the Gospel. Jesus Christ also put the Sabbath and other rules aside in order to be near to the suffering person. More than one Christian inspired vision is possible.”
But Jesus did not put aside rest on the seventh day, which is a positive commandment that needs to take the exigencies of justice and charity into account, nor the absolute prohibition of idol worshipping, murder, adultery, stealing or lying.
Faced with clear judgment from Rome, De Rycke “regretted” the decision but clearly stuck to the same idea. He told vrt.be:
“The Vatican’s letter concentrates on an ideological issue. In ecclesiastical doctrine we only look at the action, while we rather look at the situation in context, ethically. By the way, we do not allow euthanasia just like that, we weigh up all kinds of values. We differ in vision, and as a result our institutions have been retroactively deprived of the designation ‘Catholic,’ since the end of ‘March,’” he confirmed, adding he had “every respect for that.”
In the meantime, the Brothers of Charity and its managing corporation, including a majority of lay members, had flatly refused to fall in with the CDF’s request: “affirm in writing and in an unequivocal way their adherence to the principles of the sacredness of human life and the unacceptability of euthanasia, and, as a consequence, the absolute refusal to carry it out in the institutions they depend on.”
De Rycke said he had less understanding for Brother Stockman who has underscored that the buildings in which the psychiatric hospitals operate belong to the Congregation, and therefore to the church itself in canon law. De Rycke added that the Belgian Brothers of Charity have no intention of hiring or buying those buildings because there has been a de facto alienation over the years.
“It is a very, very painful situation, yes, we are sorry that the Superior General in Rome should be aiming his arrows at us. Especially when you realize what the organization has already meant for the community. Also, he is creating a dangerous precedent. Give me the name of only one hospital in our country where euthanasia is not yet available. Should we deprive them all of the adjective ‘Catholic’?” he stated.
“It is a pity that a touchy and complex subject such as euthanasia should be misused in a wider and long-running conflict between the general head of the congregation and our region,” he said.
But ultimately, the Belgian Brothers of Charity were given three years in which to decide to respect Catholic doctrine. They chose not to do so.
Brother Stockman commented on the situation in a statement quoted by nieuwsblad.de: “The loss of the Catholic identity of our psychiatric centers in Belgium is a painful situation for the congregation. But at the same time the congregation can do no other than remain faithful to its charisma of caritas, and this cannot be reconciled with the practice of euthanasia on psychiatric patients. It is with a heavy heart that the congregation must let go of its psychiatric centers in Belgium. The question here is not that of the umpteenth letter about the euthanasia theme, but the definitive answer of the Vatican. It follows that there will have to be agreements, among others regarding under what conditions the buildings will be able to be used from now on.”
He also recalled that the Brothers of Charity “were among the pioneers in the field of mental health care” in Belgium.
The rift between the congregation and its Belgian branch has deepened since the beginning of this affair.
In July 2018, the general chapter of the group stressed that the Brothers of Charity believe “in sacredness and absolute respect for every human life, from conception to natural death,” reported Catholic News Agency. “The general chapter requires that each brother, associate member and others associated with the mission of the congregation adhere to the doctrine of the Catholic Church on ethical issues.”
On March 23, one week before the CDF issued its firm letter, the Belgian Brothers of Charity, together with the psychiatric center of the Catholic University of Louvain’s several shelters for “safe living,” opened a new unit in the university town where patients can freely “walk in” to talk about their death wish, either alone or with their loved ones.
Named Reakiro (Esperanto for “recovery”), the project prides itself on giving information in a “warm” and homely environment, to accompany people “in their quest between life and death, between the unbearableness of suffering and the possibility of hope and healing.” Everyone is welcome, and while the practical follow-up of a euthanasia request does not take place in Reakiro, open dialogue is offered as in a “safe place” with the objective of helping people who want euthanasia to find that maybe something more can be done, but always “with respect for the ultimate choice of the guest.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-05--From abuse victim, anti-God, Republican hater to Trump promoting Catholic

Y.G .
Nyghtstorm was raped at the age of 11 by a camp counselor and homeless at 18 .
He @ @ @ @ @ blame him for what happened to him in his youth .
Now , he ’ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic .

Y.G. Nyghtstorm was raped at the age of 11 by a camp counselor and homeless at 18. He used to hate God and blame him for what happened to him in his youth. Now, he’s a pro-life, pro-Trump Catholic.
Share