lifesitenews--2020-07-27--Could roots of Vatican II council result in a church that leaves God behind?

July 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Professor Hubert Windisch , a German priest and retired professor of pastoral theology ( he taught at the University of Freiburg ) , has written a commentary for LifeSite on the current discussion of the Second Vatican Council ( 1962-1965 ) and its aftermath .
Referencing Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider with their own commentaries on the problem of the Second Vatican Council , Windisch explains that “ doctrinal and practical bad fruits in the Church of more than five decades of this history of impact give cause to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Vatican Council there are not only good roots.
” After referring to some earlier warning voices such as the ones of Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand and Professor Roberto de Mattei , the German professor concludes that “ there seem to be quite some breaks with the tradition of the teaching authority in the Second Vatican Council , which can not be covered up by the effort of a so-called hermeneutics of continuity ( similar to the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia ) .
” Professor Windisch also mentions the McCarrick scandal and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual abuse which highlights also the signs of moral weakness in the Catholic Church .
He states : “ Against the background of the shocking Viganò Report of August 2018 Hedwig von Beverfoerde [ A German pro-family activist ] ( see Die Tagespost of 28 August , 2018 “ The Smoke of Satan ” ) writes disillusioned and deeply disappointed of the Church : 'The facade of the post-conciliar Church has collapsed . '
” On July 15 , a group of scholars , priests , and other Catholics of public standing had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Bishop Schneider , thanking them for their critical remarks of some of the statements of the Second Vatican Council – such as regarding religious liberty , ecumenism , and the nature of the Church – and welcoming such a discourse , for the sake of the liberation of the Catholic Church from teachings that might weaken her magisterial and missionary voice .
While there were initially 50 signatories of this letter – among them Professor Roberto de Mattei , Professor Andrew Napolitano , and Dr. Taylor Marshall – this number has now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Janet Smith , Sir Raymond J de Souza , Father Richard Heilman , Professor Enrico Maria Radaelli , as well as numerous priests adding their name .
By their fruits you will know them ... ( cf .
Mt 7:15-20 ) : On the justified criticism of the Second Vatican Council In the last years of my teaching ( until 2012 ) , when I mentioned the Council during lectures , it happened more and more often that one of the more awake students who could make sense of the term “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do you mean ?
” In the beginning , such interposed questions irritated me .
How could anyone think that I could mean another Council than Vatican II ?
But I understood inevitably that these intermediate questions were justified .
They indicated a very uncomplicated relativization of Vatican II by the younger generation , and this in two ways .
On the one hand , in temporal terms : the questioners were usually born after 1980 , so that the Second Vatican Council was far away for them .
For them , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With it , the questioning young students pointed out unconsciously but in a wholesome way that church history does not begin only with the Second Vatican Council .
On the other hand , a relativization of the Second Vatican Council took place also in terms of content .
The Second Vatican Council fits indeed into the series of many Councils and is to be seen and understood in connection with them – above all with the four large Ecumenical Councils of the first centuries ( Nicaea 325 , Constantinople I 381 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose Christological topics are as important as ever .
But the statements of the Second Vatican Council can only be sounded out in their relevance in connection with and discussion of the Tridentinum [ Council of Trent ] and the First Vatican Council .
Integrated into the Tradition of the Church , the Second Vatican Council is therefore first of all the last Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church , certainly with its own message and a special mission for Christianity , but in relation to the greater whole of the Church on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this background , Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider have recently initiated a debate ( especially in relation to the declarations Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae of the Second Vatican Council ) which aims to stimulate a critical evaluation of the history of the Second Vatican Council in relation to the faith and life of the Catholic Church .
Doctrinal and practical bad fruits in the Church of more than five decades of this history of impact give cause to fear that in the texts of the Second Vatican Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unfortunately , already early warning voices which drew attention to it were not noticed or , if noticed , not taken seriously ; so for example Dietrich von Hildebrand and his The Trojan Horse in the City of God , Hans Urs von Balthasar with Cordula oder der Ernstfall [ The Moment of Christian Witness ] , Martin Mosebach with his The Heresy of Formlessness or Roberto de Mattei 's The Second Vatican Council – an Unwritten Story .
So there seem to be quite some breaks with the tradition of the teaching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which can not be covered up by the effort of a so-called hermeneutics of continuity ( similar to the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia ) .
It is rightly claimed that the Second Vatican Council , despite many beautiful and profound doctrinal statements ( e.g .
in Sacrosanctum Concilium , Dei Verbum , Lumen Gentium or also in nos .
47 - 52 of Gaudium et Spes on marriage and family ) was not a doctrinal but a pastoral Council .
That is true in so far as at the Second Vatican Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Rather , the Church tried to reposit herself in her time .
Thus the pastoral intention of the Council meets with the fundamental understanding of the Church 's pastoral approach , which is always essentially a contemporary event in the respective world .
In the past decades , the so-called “ spirit of the Council ” was gladly striven for in this pastoral shaping of the Church , but often it was only used to justify a selective perception and a selective use of the texts of the Second Vatican Council .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pastoral mission of the Church in the world has to be carried out on a firm dogmatic basis when connecting with the world and when contradicting it ; or , the Church 's turning to the world always has to have at the same time a detachment from worldliness , in taking up a provocative thought of Pope Benedict XVI from his speech in the Freiburg Concert House on 25 September 2011 .
Madeleine Delbrel , the saint of the Christian devotion to the world , is said to have put this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christians , we must , in order to be close to the people , remain strangers to them in some way .
Thus , when it is repeatedly propagated that John XXIII , with the convocation of the Second Vatican Council , opened the windows of the Church or the Vatican wide to provide fresh air after the era of the Popes Pius IX until Pius XII , one must not overlook the fact that when the windows are open , bad air can also penetrate from the outside to the inside .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ thrown out of the open windows of the Church in recent decades .
Just think of the at times even official proclamations on marriage and sexuality , which rather resemble a blessing of trends than Catholic views , or of the liturgical wild growths which are not so rare .
Here Karl Barth 's words about a remaining danger for the Church are applicable : In one of his late writings ( “ Das christliche Leben ” [ “ The Christian Life ” ] ) he describes a “ defective church , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , stammering and squinting , sells itself to the course of time .
One can literally hear Kurt Tucholsky 's biting remark , which he already made in 1930 in his famous bridal and physical education lessons towards the Protestant Church : “ What is striking about the attitude of both national churches is their tongue that is hanging out .
Breathlessly gasping , they run behind the time , so that nobody escapes them .
'We too , we too ! '
, no longer as centuries ago : 'We . '
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ transform what has been created by others , what has been developed by others , into elements that can be useful to them .
... the church has yielded ; it has not changed , it has been changed.
” The Catholic Church presents herself to contemporaries in much the same way .
Against the background of the shocking Viganò Report of August 2018 Hedwig von Beverfoerde ( see Die Tagespost of 28 August , 2018 “ The Smoke of Satan ” ) writes disillusioned and deeply disappointed of the Church : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collapsed.
” The so-called anthropological turn in theology since the sixties of the last century , closely connected with Karl Rahner and his writings , plays a major role as a basic drift for these developments in the theoretical and practical self-understanding of the Church .
Whether there is an error in this theological approach or in the zealous and often dilettantish implementation in pastoral practice ( especially in the proclamation and in the liturgy ) will not be examined in detail at this point .
In any case , the loss of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which began at that time , suggests deficits – according to the old axiom : “ bonum ex integra causa , falsum ex defectu.
” The Tradition was more and more often put into the dock , because the new as new had priority .
Since that time the Church with her message increasingly has to justify herself before the world and the historical changes instead of fulfilling her mission to bring the world and the historical changes before God 's justification in Jesus Christ .
The “ Extra nos ” of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Intra nos ” ( very clearly in Eugen Drewermann ) , which according to Fulbert Steffensky ultimately amounts to a “ domestication of God.
” But the Church in its basic movements “ Martyria , Leiturgia , Diakonia ” becomes thereby flat and banal , which is among other things also due to a disparity and the often one-sided reception of the Second Vatican Council .
In the end , the way to a self-secularization of the Church was smoothed , to which Harvey Cox in radical sharpness had already in 1965 referred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Fridolin Stier , the former Old Testament scholar from Tübingen , suspects and laments in his diary “ Vielleicht ist irgendwo Tag ” ( “ Perhaps Somewhere is Day ” ) that such a theology might even have to call itself Theothanatology .
Does this result in a Church without God – at least without a Christian God ?
Two consequences of this theological foundation , which to a large extent determine the present practice of the Church , suggest the affirmation of this question : 1 .
Do what you want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many legitimate religions ( cf .
the video on Pope Francis ' prayer opinion of January 2016 , where at the end the representatives of Buddhism , Judaism , Islam and Christianity stand side by side on an equal footing and each holds its religious symbol in the centre of the circle : a Buddha statue , a seven-armed candlestick , an Islamic prayer cord and – not a Crucifix but a small Baby Jesus figure ) .
So why not let an Imam preach in Catholic services ?
2 .
What you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer a critical point of reference extra nos , neither in doctrina nor in moralibus , and certainly not in pastoralibus .
The whole thing , rather , is held together by what one calls conscience , and this with ecclesiastic legitimization .
The sad result of this development culminates in the oppressive realization , which many leading church people unfortunately do not have or do not want to have , that one wants theology and Church in today 's world – contrary to the pastoral intentions of the Second Vatican Council – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed .

PETITION: Ask bishop to remove 'Catholic' from the University of Notre Dame if they refuse to rescind Pete Buttigieg's fellowship! Sign the petition here.
July 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Professor Hubert Windisch, a German priest and retired professor of pastoral theology (he taught at the University of Freiburg), has written a commentary for LifeSite on the current discussion of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and its aftermath.
Referencing Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider with their own commentaries on the problem of the Second Vatican Council, Windisch explains that “doctrinal and practical bad fruits in the Church of more than five decades of this history of impact give cause to fear that in the texts of the Second Vatican Council there are not only good roots.”
After referring to some earlier warning voices such as the ones of Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand and Professor Roberto de Mattei, the German professor concludes that “there seem to be quite some breaks with the tradition of the teaching authority in the Second Vatican Council, which cannot be covered up by the effort of a so-called hermeneutics of continuity (similar to the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia).”
Professor Windisch also mentions the McCarrick scandal and with it the scandalous phenomenon of clerical sexual abuse which highlights also the signs of moral weakness in the Catholic Church. He states: “Against the background of the shocking Viganò Report of August 2018 Hedwig von Beverfoerde [A German pro-family activist] (see Die Tagespost of 28 August, 2018 “The Smoke of Satan”) writes disillusioned and deeply disappointed of the Church: 'The facade of the post-conciliar Church has collapsed.'”
On July 15, a group of scholars, priests, and other Catholics of public standing had published an Open Letter to Archbishop Viganò and Bishop Schneider, thanking them for their critical remarks of some of the statements of the Second Vatican Council – such as regarding religious liberty, ecumenism, and the nature of the Church – and welcoming such a discourse, for the sake of the liberation of the Catholic Church from teachings that might weaken her magisterial and missionary voice. While there were initially 50 signatories of this letter – among them Professor Roberto de Mattei, Professor Andrew Napolitano, and Dr. Taylor Marshall – this number has now increased to more than 110, with Dr. Janet Smith, Sir Raymond J de Souza, Father Richard Heilman, Professor Enrico Maria Radaelli, as well as numerous priests adding their name.
***
Full statement by Professor Hubert Windisch, Germany:
By their fruits you will know them … (cf. Mt 7:15-20): On the justified criticism of the Second Vatican Council
By Hubert Windisch
In the last years of my teaching (until 2012), when I mentioned the Council during lectures, it happened more and more often that one of the more awake students who could make sense of the term “Council” asked: “which Council do you mean?” In the beginning, such interposed questions irritated me. How could anyone think that I could mean another Council than Vatican II? But I understood inevitably that these intermediate questions were justified. They indicated a very uncomplicated relativization of Vatican II by the younger generation, and this in two ways. On the one hand, in temporal terms: the questioners were usually born after 1980, so that the Second Vatican Council was far away for them. For them, it was simply a piece of church history. With it, the questioning young students pointed out unconsciously but in a wholesome way that church history does not begin only with the Second Vatican Council.
On the other hand, a relativization of the Second Vatican Council took place also in terms of content. The Second Vatican Council fits indeed into the series of many Councils and is to be seen and understood in connection with them – above all with the four large Ecumenical Councils of the first centuries (Nicaea 325, Constantinople I 381, Ephesus 431, Chalcedon 451), whose Christological topics are as important as ever. But the statements of the Second Vatican Council can only be sounded out in their relevance in connection with and discussion of the Tridentinum [Council of Trent] and the First Vatican Council. Integrated into the Tradition of the Church, the Second Vatican Council is therefore first of all the last Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, certainly with its own message and a special mission for Christianity, but in relation to the greater whole of the Church on its way through the millennia.
Against this background, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider have recently initiated a debate (especially in relation to the declarations Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae of the Second Vatican Council) which aims to stimulate a critical evaluation of the history of the Second Vatican Council in relation to the faith and life of the Catholic Church. Doctrinal and practical bad fruits in the Church of more than five decades of this history of impact give cause to fear that in the texts of the Second Vatican Council there are not only good roots. Unfortunately, already early warning voices which drew attention to it were not noticed or, if noticed, not taken seriously; so for example Dietrich von Hildebrand and his The Trojan Horse in the City of God, Hans Urs von Balthasar with Cordula oder der Ernstfall [The Moment of Christian Witness], Martin Mosebach with his The Heresy of Formlessness or Roberto de Mattei's The Second Vatican Council – an Unwritten Story. So there seem to be quite some breaks with the tradition of the teaching authority in the Second Vatican Council, which cannot be covered up by the effort of a so-called hermeneutics of continuity (similar to the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia).
It is rightly claimed that the Second Vatican Council, despite many beautiful and profound doctrinal statements (e.g. in Sacrosanctum Concilium, Dei Verbum, Lumen Gentium or also in nos. 47 – 52 of Gaudium et Spes on marriage and family) was not a doctrinal but a pastoral Council. That is true in so far as at the Second Vatican Council no dogmas were proclaimed or anathemas pronounced. Rather, the Church tried to reposit herself in her time. Thus the pastoral intention of the Council meets with the fundamental understanding of the Church's pastoral approach, which is always essentially a contemporary event in the respective world. In the past decades, the so-called “spirit of the Council” was gladly striven for in this pastoral shaping of the Church, but often it was only used to justify a selective perception and a selective use of the texts of the Second Vatican Council. With it, one deliberately overlooked that the pastoral mission of the Church in the world has to be carried out on a firm dogmatic basis when connecting with the world and when contradicting it; or, the Church's turning to the world always has to have at the same time a detachment from worldliness, in taking up a provocative thought of Pope Benedict XVI from his speech in the Freiburg Concert House on 25 September 2011. Madeleine Delbrel, the saint of the Christian devotion to the world, is said to have put this connection into these striking words: As Christians, we must, in order to be close to the people, remain strangers to them in some way.
Thus, when it is repeatedly propagated that John XXIII, with the convocation of the Second Vatican Council, opened the windows of the Church or the Vatican wide to provide fresh air after the era of the Popes Pius IX until Pius XII, one must not overlook the fact that when the windows are open, bad air can also penetrate from the outside to the inside. Indeed, much Catholic silverware has been thrown out of the open windows of the Church in recent decades. Just think of the at times even official proclamations on marriage and sexuality, which rather resemble a blessing of trends than Catholic views, or of the liturgical wild growths which are not so rare. Here Karl Barth's words about a remaining danger for the Church are applicable: In one of his late writings (“Das christliche Leben” [“The Christian Life”]) he describes a “defective church,” a church of the boulevard, which, stammering and squinting, sells itself to the course of time. One can literally hear Kurt Tucholsky's biting remark, which he already made in 1930 in his famous bridal and physical education lessons towards the Protestant Church: “What is striking about the attitude of both national churches is their tongue that is hanging out. Breathlessly gasping, they run behind the time, so that nobody escapes them. 'We too, we too!', no longer as centuries ago: 'We.' … These churches create nothing, they transform what has been created by others, what has been developed by others, into elements that can be useful to them. … the church has yielded; it has not changed, it has been changed.” The Catholic Church presents herself to contemporaries in much the same way. Against the background of the shocking Viganò Report of August 2018 Hedwig von Beverfoerde (see Die Tagespost of 28 August, 2018 “The Smoke of Satan”) writes disillusioned and deeply disappointed of the Church: “The facade of the post-conciliar Church has collapsed.”
The so-called anthropological turn in theology since the sixties of the last century, closely connected with Karl Rahner and his writings, plays a major role as a basic drift for these developments in the theoretical and practical self-understanding of the Church. Whether there is an error in this theological approach or in the zealous and often dilettantish implementation in pastoral practice (especially in the proclamation and in the liturgy) will not be examined in detail at this point. In any case, the loss of the kerygmatic consciousness of the Church, which began at that time, suggests deficits – according to the old axiom: “bonum ex integra causa, falsum ex defectu.” The Tradition was more and more often put into the dock, because the new as new had priority. Since that time the Church with her message increasingly has to justify herself before the world and the historical changes instead of fulfilling her mission to bring the world and the historical changes before God's justification in Jesus Christ. The “Extra nos” of our salvation was increasingly dissolved into an “Intra nos” (very clearly in Eugen Drewermann), which according to Fulbert Steffensky ultimately amounts to a “domestication of God.” But the Church in its basic movements “Martyria, Leiturgia, Diakonia” becomes thereby flat and banal, which is among other things also due to a disparity and the often one-sided reception of the Second Vatican Council. In the end, the way to a self-secularization of the Church was smoothed, to which Harvey Cox in radical sharpness had already in 1965 referred with his “City without God?” Fridolin Stier, the former Old Testament scholar from Tübingen, suspects and laments in his diary “Vielleicht ist irgendwo Tag” (“Perhaps Somewhere is Day”) that such a theology might even have to call itself Theothanatology. Does this result in a Church without God – at least without a Christian God?
Two consequences of this theological foundation, which to a large extent determine the present practice of the Church, suggest the affirmation of this question: 1. Do what you want. Christianity too is only one of many legitimate religions (cf. the video on Pope Francis' prayer opinion of January 2016, where at the end the representatives of Buddhism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity stand side by side on an equal footing and each holds its religious symbol in the centre of the circle: a Buddha statue, a seven-armed candlestick, an Islamic prayer cord and – not a Crucifix but a small Baby Jesus figure). So why not let an Imam preach in Catholic services? 2. What you do is right. There is no longer a critical point of reference extra nos, neither in doctrina nor in moralibus, and certainly not in pastoralibus. The whole thing, rather, is held together by what one calls conscience, and this with ecclesiastic legitimization. The sad result of this development culminates in the oppressive realization, which many leading church people unfortunately do not have or do not want to have, that one wants theology and Church in today's world – contrary to the pastoral intentions of the Second Vatican Council – as standards that are actually no longer needed.
Follow Maike Dr. Maike Hickson was born and raised in Germany. She holds a PhD from the University of Hannover, Germany, after having written in Switzerland her doctoral dissertation on the history of Swiss intellectuals before and during World War II. She now lives in the U.S. and is married to Dr. Robert Hickson, and they have been blessed with two beautiful children. She is a happy housewife who likes to write articles when time permits. Dr. Hickson published in 2014 a Festschrift, a collection of some thirty essays written by thoughtful authors in honor of her husband upon his 70th birthday, which is entitled A Catholic Witness in Our Time. Hickson has closely followed the papacy of Pope Francis and the developments in the Catholic Church in Germany, and she has been writing articles on religion and politics for U.S. and European publications and websites such as LifeSiteNews, OnePeterFive, The Wanderer, Rorate Caeli, Catholicism.org, Catholic Family News, Christian Order, Notizie Pro-Vita, Corrispondenza Romana, Katholisches.info, Der Dreizehnte, Zeit-Fragen, and Westfalen-Blatt.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-27--Christian minister challenges county ordinance forcing her to officiate gay ‘weddings’

DROP Disney+ : New teen film 'Out ' features openly homosexual main character !
Sign the petition here .
July 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A Christian minister has filed a federal lawsuit arguing that a local “ anti-discrimination ” law will effectively force her to officiate same-sex “ weddings.
” Kristi Stokes owns Covenant Weddings , which offers marriage services as well as homilies , vows , and prayers for unions “ between one biological man and one biological woman.
” Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom ( ADF ) , she is suing to block an ordinance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to local non-discrimination rules , which she says will not only force her to unite same-sex couples but forbid her from explaining why she only believes in heterosexual unions .
The ordinance penalizes violating businesses starting at $ 1,000 per violation , plus additional costs such as attorneys ’ fees .
Stokes says she has not faced such a suit yet , but realized she was in danger in December 2019 , when she turned down a request to officiate a same-sex union and realized she could have been sued for doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cleveland area alone has more than 70 options for officiants who will serve same-sex “ marriages.
” The danger is not hypothetical in jurisdictions across the United States , where Christians have been threatened and/or punished over their refusal to bake cakes , make invitations , shoot photographs , and provide venues for homosexual unions .
“ My religious beliefs influence every aspect of my life , and I can ’ t simply put my religious identity into separate personal and professional boxes , ” Stokes explains .
“ If you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and you ’ re hoping to incorporate a cannabis theme or write prayers to celebrate an open marriage , I ’ m not your girl .
Northeast Ohio is home to many diverse viewpoints , and I ’ m simply asking that my county also respect me , my business , and my freedoms as an American citizen instead of forcing me to write or speak messages that contradict my beliefs.
” “ No one should be forced to officiate ceremonies that conflict with their religious beliefs , ” ADF senior counsel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuyahoga County ’ s law , Kristi faces an impossible choice : disobey the law , defy her own faith , or ditch her business .
Many different religions and countless people of good will believe that weddings are sacred ceremonies between one man and one woman .
No matter one ’ s views on marriage , we all lose when bureaucrats can force citizens to participate in religious ceremonies they oppose , speak messages they disagree with , and stay silent about beliefs they hold dear.
” In response , Cuyahoga County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dealer that the county will review the lawsuit and “ vigorously defend ” the discrimination ordinance as “ an important piece of legislation written and passed to ensure equal access and opportunity for all citizens .
”

DROP Disney+: New teen film 'Out' features openly homosexual main character! Sign the petition here.
July 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A Christian minister has filed a federal lawsuit arguing that a local “anti-discrimination” law will effectively force her to officiate same-sex “weddings.”
Kristi Stokes owns Covenant Weddings, which offers marriage services as well as homilies, vows, and prayers for unions “between one biological man and one biological woman.” Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), she is suing to block an ordinance adding “sexual orientation and gender identity” to local non-discrimination rules, which she says will not only force her to unite same-sex couples but forbid her from explaining why she only believes in heterosexual unions.
The ordinance penalizes violating businesses starting at $1,000 per violation, plus additional costs such as attorneys’ fees. Stokes says she has not faced such a suit yet, but realized she was in danger in December 2019, when she turned down a request to officiate a same-sex union and realized she could have been sued for doing so – despite the fact that the Cleveland area alone has more than 70 options for officiants who will serve same-sex “marriages.”
The danger is not hypothetical in jurisdictions across the United States, where Christians have been threatened and/or punished over their refusal to bake cakes, make invitations, shoot photographs, and provide venues for homosexual unions.
“My religious beliefs influence every aspect of my life, and I can’t simply put my religious identity into separate personal and professional boxes,” Stokes explains. “If you’re looking for someone to officiate your wedding, and you’re hoping to incorporate a cannabis theme or write prayers to celebrate an open marriage, I’m not your girl. Northeast Ohio is home to many diverse viewpoints, and I’m simply asking that my county also respect me, my business, and my freedoms as an American citizen instead of forcing me to write or speak messages that contradict my beliefs.”
“No one should be forced to officiate ceremonies that conflict with their religious beliefs,” ADF senior counsel Kate Anderson declared. “Because of Cuyahoga County’s law, Kristi faces an impossible choice: disobey the law, defy her own faith, or ditch her business. Many different religions and countless people of good will believe that weddings are sacred ceremonies between one man and one woman. No matter one’s views on marriage, we all lose when bureaucrats can force citizens to participate in religious ceremonies they oppose, speak messages they disagree with, and stay silent about beliefs they hold dear.”
In response, Cuyahoga County spokeswoman Mary Louise Madigan told The Plain Dealer that the county will review the lawsuit and “vigorously defend” the discrimination ordinance as “an important piece of legislation written and passed to ensure equal access and opportunity for all citizens.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-27--US Supreme Court won’t intervene as Nevada limits church services but casinos can host thousands

PETITION : Tell politicians not to discriminate against churches when reopening society !
Sign the petition here .
WASHINGTON , D.C. , July 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) ― On Friday , the United States Supreme Court declined to intervene on behalf of a Nevada church challenging the state ’ s ban on religious gatherings of more than 50 people while casinos are allowed to fill with thousands as long as they are at 50 percent capacity .
In the case of Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley vs. Sisolak , legal representatives for Calvary Chapel , an evangelical church , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlawfully discriminating against houses of worship by allowing a number of public facilities to fill with crowds to 50 percent capacity while restricting religious gatherings to 50 people , no matter how large the building .
Calvary Chapel wishes to offer services to gatherings of up to 90 people , representing 50 percent capacity .
The state of Nevada argued , however , that it could lawfully discriminate against places of worship for public health and economic reasons .
The majority of the Supreme Court judges , 5 against 4 , rejected Calvary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alito , Neil Gorsuch , Brett Kavanaugh , and Clarence Thomas dissented , saying the high court should have heard the case .
In his dissent , Justice Alito contrasted Nevada ’ s treatment of churches with its preference for the state ’ s casinos , noting that even at 50 percent capacity some Las Vegas casinos are hosting thousands of patrons .
The judge also pointed out that the American Constitution guarantees “ free exercise of religion , ” not gambling .
Alito said that the Supreme Court ’ s willingness to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worship was “ disappointing.
” He stated also that the state ’ s directives violate the First Amendment and do “ irreparable harm ” to Calvary Chapel and its congregants .
Justice Gorsuch stated that it was obvious that Nevada was discriminating against places of worship in favor of houses of entertainment .
“ Under the Governor ’ s edict , a 10-screen ‘ multiplex ’ may host 500 moviegoers at any time .
A casino , too , may cater to hundreds at once , with perhaps six people huddled at each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gathered around every roulette wheel there , ” he continued .
“ Large numbers and close quarters are fine in such places .
But churches , synagogues , and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers—no matter how large the building , how distant the individuals , how many wear face masks , no matter the precautions at all.
” “ In Nevada , it seems , it is better to be in entertainment than religion .
Maybe that is nothing new.
” But the First Amendment forbids such “ obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.
” Justice Kavanaugh said that “ the First Amendment requires that religious organizations be treated equally to the favored or exempt secular organizations , unless the State can sufficiently justify the differentiation.
” He believes , with the abovementioned judges , that Nevada failed to do this .
Kavanaugh argued that Nevada ’ s justifications for the discrimination , public health and the economy , are not persuasive .
“ Nevada has not demonstrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach with restaurants , bars , casinos , and gyms and a stricter approach with places of worship , ” he wrote .
As for the economy , “ no precedent suggests that a State may discriminate against religion simply because a religious organization does not generate the economic benefits that a restaurant , bar , casino , or gym might provide , ” Kavanaugh stated .
“ The Constitution does not tolerate discrimination against religion merely because religious services do not yield a profit.
” An earlier case that provided a reference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pentecostal Church v. Newsom .
In this case , a church in California petitioned the Supreme Court against a COVID-19 measure imposed upon places of worship by Governor Gavin Newsom .
In South Bay , representatives for the church argued that Newsom had denigrated churches by considering them as “ non-essential ” as movie theaters , salons , and gyms , ignoring their preferred status in the Bill of Rights .
In that case , too , the Supreme Court denied the church ’ s application .
However , Justice Kavanaugh , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this case was different , as the issue in the earlier petition concerned facilities that kept large numbers of people at close quarters for a long period of time versus those that did not .
This is not the situation in Nevada , where people are allowed stand beside each other at games of chance : Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley offers three 45-minutes services on Sundays with 30-minute breaks between them so that the church can be cleaned .
The community also holds one service on Wednesday evenings .
Worshippers wear masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six feet apart .
Traffic in the church is one way , with a designated entrance and a separate designated exit .

'In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new,' commented Justice Neil Gorsuch in his dissent.
PETITION: Support pastors fighting against oppressive state mandates! Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― On Friday, the United States Supreme Court declined to intervene on behalf of a Nevada church challenging the state’s ban on religious gatherings of more than 50 people while casinos are allowed to fill with thousands as long as they are at 50 percent capacity.
In the case of Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley vs. Sisolak, legal representatives for Calvary Chapel, an evangelical church, argued that the state of Nevada is unlawfully discriminating against houses of worship by allowing a number of public facilities to fill with crowds to 50 percent capacity while restricting religious gatherings to 50 people, no matter how large the building. Calvary Chapel wishes to offer services to gatherings of up to 90 people, representing 50 percent capacity.
The state of Nevada argued, however, that it could lawfully discriminate against places of worship for public health and economic reasons.
The majority of the Supreme Court judges, 5 against 4, rejected Calvary Chapel’s application. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas dissented, saying the high court should have heard the case.
In his dissent, Justice Alito contrasted Nevada’s treatment of churches with its preference for the state’s casinos, noting that even at 50 percent capacity some Las Vegas casinos are hosting thousands of patrons.
The judge also pointed out that the American Constitution guarantees “free exercise of religion,” not gambling.
Alito said that the Supreme Court’s willingness to allow Nevada to discriminate against places of worship was “disappointing.” He stated also that the state’s directives violate the First Amendment and do “irreparable harm” to Calvary Chapel and its congregants.
Justice Gorsuch stated that it was obvious that Nevada was discriminating against places of worship in favor of houses of entertainment.
“This is a simple case,” he wrote.
“Under the Governor’s edict, a 10-screen ‘multiplex’ may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there,” he continued.
“Large numbers and close quarters are fine in such places. But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers—no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all.”
“In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new.”
But the First Amendment forbids such “obvious discrimination,” he said adding, “But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.”
Justice Kavanaugh said that “the First Amendment requires that religious organizations be treated equally to the favored or exempt secular organizations, unless the State can sufficiently justify the differentiation.” He believes, with the abovementioned judges, that Nevada failed to do this.
Kavanaugh argued that Nevada’s justifications for the discrimination, public health and the economy, are not persuasive.
“Nevada has not demonstrated that public health justifies taking a looser approach with restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms and a stricter approach with places of worship,” he wrote.
As for the economy, “no precedent suggests that a State may discriminate against religion simply because a religious organization does not generate the economic benefits that a restaurant, bar, casino, or gym might provide,” Kavanaugh stated.
“The Constitution does not tolerate discrimination against religion merely because religious services do not yield a profit.”
An earlier case that provided a reference for the hearing was South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. In this case, a church in California petitioned the Supreme Court against a COVID-19 measure imposed upon places of worship by Governor Gavin Newsom. In South Bay, representatives for the church argued that Newsom had denigrated churches by considering them as “non-essential” as movie theaters, salons, and gyms, ignoring their preferred status in the Bill of Rights.
In that case, too, the Supreme Court denied the church’s application. However, Justice Kavanaugh, who also dissented at that time, stated that this case was different, as the issue in the earlier petition concerned facilities that kept large numbers of people at close quarters for a long period of time versus those that did not. This is not the situation in Nevada, where people are allowed stand beside each other at games of chance:
In South Bay, a church relied on the fact that the California law treated churches less favorably than certain other facilities, such as factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, and retail stores. But the law was defended on the ground that in these facilities, unlike in houses of worship, “people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.” […] That cannot be said about the facilities favored in Nevada. In casinos and other facilities granted preferential treatment under the directive, people congregate in large groups and remain in close proximity for extended periods.
Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley offers three 45-minutes services on Sundays with 30-minute breaks between them so that the church can be cleaned. The community also holds one service on Wednesday evenings. Worshippers wear masks in the church, and households sit six feet apart. Traffic in the church is one way, with a designated entrance and a separate designated exit.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-27--Renowned priest calls on pro-life Americans to ‘make it their first priority…to re-elect President T

Renowned priest calls on pro-life Americans to ‘make it their first priority…to re-elect President Trump’

TITUSVILLE , Florida , July 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – On Sunday , July 26 , which marked the 100-day point until the completion of Elections 2020 , Fr .
Frank Pavone , National Director of Priests for Life , called on pro-life Americans to “ make it their first priority , as it will be mine , to re-elect President Trump.
” “ With 100 days left until Election Day , November 3 , 2020 , I call upon all of my fellow patriots who embrace pro-life and conservative principles to put aside , as much as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make it their first priority , as it will be mine , to re-elect President Trump , to give him a Republican House and Senate , and to elect Republicans on the state and local level as well , ” he said .
“ Along with all my brothers and sisters in Christ , I affirm that my platform is the Gospel of Jesus Christ .
I also affirm that the Democrat Party , in the principles and policies it embraces , has radically abandoned that Gospel , as well as the principles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Civilization rests , ” he continued .
“ It is no exaggeration to say that everything we ’ ve worked for , as a Church , a nation , and a pro-life , pro-family movement , is on the line in these next 100 days .
This is a spiritual battle and no less than a civil war .
We have to be all in , publicly , unapologetically , and with crystal clarity , ” he added .
Pavone said that a Democrat victory would “ bring the holocaust of abortion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels , taking away every restriction , even on infanticide ; it would destroy our nation , bringing us socialism and open borders ; it would replace law and order with mob rule and depleted law enforcement ; it would deprive the Church of the freedom to conduct her mission and instead subject ministries to oppressive mandates , as Biden has already promised ; it would destroy the family and any public protection for it ; it would ruin our economy , ensnare us in destructive international agreements , and allow China to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fill the courts with judges who tear up the Constitution rather than apply it ; it would roll back the protections President Trump has put in place for the consciences of healthcare workers , student on campus , and children who want to pray in school.
” The pro-life priest said that this would “ just the beginning of the woes.
” “ We have to be able to read the signs of the times , and understand the stark differences between the Democrat and Republican parties .
These are not merely difference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These are not two parties choosing different means to get to the same goal .
They have radically different and irreconcilable goals .
Only by choosing the Republican candidates can we preserve the values we hold as Americans and believers .
That is not the canonization of a party ; it is simply the recognition of who our friends and enemies in the political realm are at this point in time , ” he said .
“ Our President and the Republican candidates are standing for America as an exceptional nation , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for the protection of the unborn , for pro-life judges , for parental rights and school choice , for a strong military , strong but welcoming borders , and a strong economy , for fair trade deals , for the rights of pastors to preach the Word of God freely and of all believers – domestically and around the world -- to conduct their affairs without discrimination against their faith ; for strong and ethical healthcare , and for many more policies that protect rather than abandon our principles , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I am ashamed and disgusted at the silence and lack of leadership by so many of the Churches .
They have made themselves irrelevant , failing to preach on the issues of the day and using the lame excuse of political neutrality , and a desire to promote “ unity , ” to hide in the sanctuary instead of engage the public square while the Democrats destroy the unity on which this nation and the Church are founded .
Moreover , many Church leaders try to intimidate and silence those of us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judgment in matters of politics , and to name the enemy .
It is a disgrace , and it is time for believers to take matters into their own hands , link arms and hearts with fellow believers , and engage in new and creative ways to proclaim and apply the Gospel teachings to this moment in history , ” he added .
Pavone said that he stands “ proudly today with our President , and with Republican candidates all across this land , as we take back our country.
” “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blessed Cardinal Clemens von Galen , who died in 1946 , preached fearlessly against the Nazi regime and its oppression of human life and religious freedom .
He was not afraid to name and fight the political threat that was right before his eyes.
” “ And Pastor John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg , in his sermon of January 21 , 1776 , declared , `` In the language of the Holy Writ , there is a time for all things .
There is a time to preach and a time to fight .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
He then threw off his clerical robes to reveal the uniform of an officer in the Continental Army .
Drums began to roll , men kissed their wives , and they walked down the aisle to enlist .
The next day , Pastor Muhlenberg led 300 men of his church and surrounding churches to join General Washington 's Continental Army.
” Pavone said that what “ we are fighting for in this election is no less fundamental than what our Founding Fathers fought for ; the principles at stake are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must for these next 100 days , and indeed for life , ‘ pledge … our lives , our fortunes , and our sacred honor ’ ( Conclusion of the Declaration of Independence ) .
” “ As we devote ourselves totally to this task in these next 100 days , I invite my fellow patriots to work closely with the pro-life , conservative and political groups of their choice , to connect with their local Republican Party offices and candidate campaigns , and to connect with me and my team at www.ProLifeVote.com @ @ @ @ @

Pavone said that a Democrat victory would 'bring the holocaust of abortion, paid for by taxpayers, to unprecedented levels, taking away every restriction, even on infanticide; it would destroy our nation'
PETITION: Urge Catholic bishops to refuse Holy Communion to pro-abortion Biden! Sign the petition here.
TITUSVILLE, Florida, July 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – On Sunday, July 26, which marked the 100-day point until the completion of Elections 2020, Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, called on pro-life Americans to “make it their first priority, as it will be mine, to re-elect President Trump.”
“With 100 days left until Election Day, November 3, 2020, I call upon all of my fellow patriots who embrace pro-life and conservative principles to put aside, as much as possible, all other activities and to make it their first priority, as it will be mine, to re-elect President Trump, to give him a Republican House and Senate, and to elect Republicans on the state and local level as well,” he said.
“Along with all my brothers and sisters in Christ, I affirm that my platform is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I also affirm that the Democrat Party, in the principles and policies it embraces, has radically abandoned that Gospel, as well as the principles on which America was founded and Western Civilization rests,” he continued.
“It is no exaggeration to say that everything we’ve worked for, as a Church, a nation, and a pro-life, pro-family movement, is on the line in these next 100 days. This is a spiritual battle and no less than a civil war. We have to be all in, publicly, unapologetically, and with crystal clarity,” he added.
Pavone said that a Democrat victory would “bring the holocaust of abortion, paid for by taxpayers, to unprecedented levels, taking away every restriction, even on infanticide; it would destroy our nation, bringing us socialism and open borders; it would replace law and order with mob rule and depleted law enforcement; it would deprive the Church of the freedom to conduct her mission and instead subject ministries to oppressive mandates, as Biden has already promised; it would destroy the family and any public protection for it; it would ruin our economy, ensnare us in destructive international agreements, and allow China to pursue its destructive agenda; it would fill the courts with judges who tear up the Constitution rather than apply it; it would roll back the protections President Trump has put in place for the consciences of healthcare workers, student on campus, and children who want to pray in school.”
The pro-life priest said that this would “just the beginning of the woes.”
“We have to be able to read the signs of the times, and understand the stark differences between the Democrat and Republican parties. These are not merely difference of policy, but of principle. These are not two parties choosing different means to get to the same goal. They have radically different and irreconcilable goals. Only by choosing the Republican candidates can we preserve the values we hold as Americans and believers. That is not the canonization of a party; it is simply the recognition of who our friends and enemies in the political realm are at this point in time,” he said.
“Our President and the Republican candidates are standing for America as an exceptional nation, for our Constitution and the rule of law, for the protection of the unborn, for pro-life judges, for parental rights and school choice, for a strong military, strong but welcoming borders, and a strong economy, for fair trade deals, for the rights of pastors to preach the Word of God freely and of all believers – domestically and around the world — to conduct their affairs without discrimination against their faith; for strong and ethical healthcare, and for many more policies that protect rather than abandon our principles,” he continued.
“Along with countless others, I am ashamed and disgusted at the silence and lack of leadership by so many of the Churches. They have made themselves irrelevant, failing to preach on the issues of the day and using the lame excuse of political neutrality, and a desire to promote “unity,” to hide in the sanctuary instead of engage the public square while the Democrats destroy the unity on which this nation and the Church are founded. Moreover, many Church leaders try to intimidate and silence those of us who are not afraid to pass moral judgment in matters of politics, and to name the enemy. It is a disgrace, and it is time for believers to take matters into their own hands, link arms and hearts with fellow believers, and engage in new and creative ways to proclaim and apply the Gospel teachings to this moment in history,” he added.
Pavone said that he stands “proudly today with our President, and with Republican candidates all across this land, as we take back our country.”
“I am inspired today by two pastors. Blessed Cardinal Clemens von Galen, who died in 1946, preached fearlessly against the Nazi regime and its oppression of human life and religious freedom. He was not afraid to name and fight the political threat that was right before his eyes.”
“And Pastor John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg, in his sermon of January 21, 1776, declared, “In the language of the Holy Writ, there is a time for all things. There is a time to preach and a time to fight. And now is the time to fight.” He then threw off his clerical robes to reveal the uniform of an officer in the Continental Army. Drums began to roll, men kissed their wives, and they walked down the aisle to enlist. The next day, Pastor Muhlenberg led 300 men of his church and surrounding churches to join General Washington's Continental Army.”
Pavone said that what “we are fighting for in this election is no less fundamental than what our Founding Fathers fought for; the principles at stake are the same. As they did, we must for these next 100 days, and indeed for life, ‘pledge … our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor’ (Conclusion of the Declaration of Independence).”
“As we devote ourselves totally to this task in these next 100 days, I invite my fellow patriots to work closely with the pro-life, conservative and political groups of their choice, to connect with their local Republican Party offices and candidate campaigns, and to connect with me and my team at www.ProLifeVote.com,” he concluded.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-27--Our problem is not too many babies, but too few babies

July 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Amidst all the gloom and doom about overpopulation , occasionally someone actually takes a hard look at the numbers and accurately reports what they see .
This is what a team of researchers at the University of Washington ’ s Institute for Health Metrics and evaluation did .
Their findings , newly published in The Lancet , are eye-popping .
First , the UW researchers noted that family sizes have been dropping for decades .
Whereas in 1950 women worldwide had an average of 4.7 children over their reproductive lifetimes , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half , to 2.4 children .
They predicted that the number of children per woman will continue to decline , falling to well below 2.1 children by the year 2100 .
A fertility rate of 2.1 children constitutes “ replacement rate fertility.
” It ’ s called this because at that level of fertility the father and the mother have merely “ replaced ” themselves , neither adding to , nor subtracting from , the population .
Any fertility rate above 2.1 means the population will keep growing .
Any fertility rate below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be shrinking over time .
This is already the case in dozens of countries around the world , where for a generation or more couples have been averaging fewer than two children .
Italian women , for instance , are averaging only 1.33 children .
This means that – barring a huge uptick in Italian fertility – the Italians won ’ t be around for much longer , at least in any numbers .
But when will the entire world fall below replacement rate fertility ?
How far below replacement will it fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of total numbers ?
For decades the doomsayers at the U.N. Population Division ( UNPD ) , UNFPA , WHO and elsewhere have insisted that the population of the world will continue growing throughout the present century .
The U.N. Population Division ’ s latest forecast predicts that the population will reach almost 11 billion by 2100 ( 10,880,000,000 ) and will still be growing .
Nonsense , say the UW researchers .
( They didn ’ t put it exactly like that , of course . )
They predict that global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2064 , before falling to only 8.8 billion by the end of the century .
This is 2 billion fewer than the U.N. projects .
How does the U.N. massage the numbers to manufacture 2 billion additional people ?
It ’ s actually not very complicated .
As I have been saying for at least two decades , U.N. population projections exaggerate future numbers because they hang upon a single , unexplained , and completely unreasonable assumption about future fertility patterns .
The UNPD has long assumed that fertility rates in every country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generation or so , reach a “ fertility floor ” of 1.85 children per woman .
Countries where fertility rates are above 1.85 will gradually fall to that level , while countries like Italy which are below 1.85 will gradually rise to that level .
As I wrote in my 2008 book , Population Control : Real Costs , Illusory Benefits : In a belated recognition of plummeting birth rates worldwide , the UNDP has recently lowered its “ fertility floor ” to 1.75 .
But it continues to insist that this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humanity , pointing to a couple of countries which have seen mild fertility rebounds from very low fertility .
The evidence shows , they say , that once the fertility of a country falls to extremely low levels of 1.35 or so , it stays at low levels .
They criticize the U.N. for ignoring data from the many countries with very low fertility that not only show no signs of recovering to 1.75 , but show no signs of fertility recovery at all .
( “ Several countries with sustained low fertility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” they say of the UNDP . )
They criticize the UNDP ’ s claim of “ fertility rebounds ” as well , saying that these were simply women delaying childbirth .
The UW researchers are too polite to say so , but they are basically accusing the U.N. demographers of rigging the data set to produce an inflated number .
So where did the 2 billion people come from ?
The UW researchers explained : “ Our analysis also showed that slight differences ( 0.1 difference in global total fertility rate ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a difference of approximately 500 million individuals on the planet in 2100.
” In other words , for every 0.1 difference in your projected global total fertility rate ( TFR ) , you gain or lose 500 million people .
The UW researchers realistically predicted a future TFR of 1.35 .
The UNDP , on the other hand , artificially inflated the future population by “ installing ” an “ imaginary floor ” of 1.75 .
This 0.4 increase in TFR produced 2 billion “ imaginary people ” in the future population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fertility , primarily by assuming widespread lack of access to “ modern methods of contraception.
” In fact African , Asian , and Latin American countries are flooded with contraceptives , available free to virtually anyone who wants them .
The claim that there are vast numbers of Third World women with an unmet need for contraception , like the UNDP ’ s “ fertility floor ” , is not grounded in reality .
The UW ’ s lowest projection , which assumes that contraceptives are available to everyone who wants them on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population will peak in 2046 at 8.5 billion , declining by 2100 to 6.289 billion .
I suspect this latter is closer to the mark .
Whichever scenario turns out to be correct , the closing words of the study are sobering : “ Global population is likely to peak well before the end of the century .
Given that we forecasted that societies tend towards a TFR lower than 1.5 , once global population decline begins , it will probably continue inexorably.
” In other words , as I wrote in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back in 1997 : Steven W. Mosher ( @ StevenWMosher ) is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia : Why China ’ s Dream is the New Threat to World Order .

The population controllers at the U.N. have been lying to us for decades.
July 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Amidst all the gloom and doom about overpopulation, occasionally someone actually takes a hard look at the numbers and accurately reports what they see. This is what a team of researchers at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and evaluation did. Their findings, newly published in The Lancet, are eye-popping.
First, the UW researchers noted that family sizes have been dropping for decades. Whereas in 1950 women worldwide had an average of 4.7 children over their reproductive lifetimes, by 2017 that number had been cut in half, to 2.4 children. They predicted that the number of children per woman will continue to decline, falling to well below 2.1 children by the year 2100.
A fertility rate of 2.1 children constitutes “replacement rate fertility.” It’s called this because at that level of fertility the father and the mother have merely “replaced” themselves, neither adding to, nor subtracting from, the population.
Any fertility rate above 2.1 means the population will keep growing. Any fertility rate below that level means that the population will be shrinking over time.
This is already the case in dozens of countries around the world, where for a generation or more couples have been averaging fewer than two children. Italian women, for instance, are averaging only 1.33 children. This means that – barring a huge uptick in Italian fertility – the Italians won’t be around for much longer, at least in any numbers.
But when will the entire world fall below replacement rate fertility? How far below replacement will it fall? And what does this mean in terms of total numbers?
For decades the doomsayers at the U.N. Population Division (UNPD), UNFPA, WHO and elsewhere have insisted that the population of the world will continue growing throughout the present century. The U.N. Population Division’s latest forecast predicts that the population will reach almost 11 billion by 2100 (10,880,000,000) and will still be growing.
Nonsense, say the UW researchers. (They didn’t put it exactly like that, of course.) They predict that global population will peak at 9.7 billion around 2064, before falling to only 8.8 billion by the end of the century. This is 2 billion fewer than the U.N. projects.
How does the U.N. massage the numbers to manufacture 2 billion additional people?
It’s actually not very complicated.
As I have been saying for at least two decades, U.N. population projections exaggerate future numbers because they hang upon a single, unexplained, and completely unreasonable assumption about future fertility patterns.
The UNPD has long assumed that fertility rates in every country in the world will, within a generation or so, reach a “fertility floor” of 1.85 children per woman. Countries where fertility rates are above 1.85 will gradually fall to that level, while countries like Italy which are below 1.85 will gradually rise to that level.
As I wrote in my 2008 book, Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits:
How was this “fertility floor” determined? The UNPD report does not say. Why would fertility in Mexico fall to 1.85 and no further? The UNPD report offers no explanation, despite the fact that many countries have already fallen through this supposedly solid “floor.” And what about those countries? How will Italy or Spain, for example, manage to climb back up to the “fertility floor” after spending the last two decades in the “fertility basement”. The UNPD report is silent.
In a belated recognition of plummeting birth rates worldwide, the UNDP has recently lowered its “fertility floor” to 1.75. But it continues to insist that this is where birthrates will stabilize for all of humanity, pointing to a couple of countries which have seen mild fertility rebounds from very low fertility.
The UW researchers beg to differ.
The evidence shows, they say, that once the fertility of a country falls to extremely low levels of 1.35 or so, it stays at low levels. They criticize the U.N. for ignoring data from the many countries with very low fertility that not only show no signs of recovering to 1.75, but show no signs of fertility recovery at all. (“Several countries with sustained low fertility were excluded from their modelling exercise,” they say of the UNDP.) They criticize the UNDP’s claim of “fertility rebounds” as well, saying that these were simply women delaying childbirth.
The UW researchers are too polite to say so, but they are basically accusing the U.N. demographers of rigging the data set to produce an inflated number.
So where did the 2 billion people come from?
The UW researchers explained: “Our analysis also showed that slight differences (0.1 difference in global total fertility rate) in this equilibrium total fertility rate translate into a difference of approximately 500 million individuals on the planet in 2100.”
In other words, for every 0.1 difference in your projected global total fertility rate (TFR), you gain or lose 500 million people.
The UW researchers realistically predicted a future TFR of 1.35. The UNDP, on the other hand, artificially inflated the future population by “installing” an “imaginary floor” of 1.75. This 0.4 increase in TFR produced 2 billion “imaginary people” in the future population.
The UW study still exaggerates future fertility, primarily by assuming widespread lack of access to “modern methods of contraception.” In fact African, Asian, and Latin American countries are flooded with contraceptives, available free to virtually anyone who wants them. The claim that there are vast numbers of Third World women with an unmet need for contraception, like the UNDP’s “fertility floor”, is not grounded in reality.
The UW’s lowest projection, which assumes that contraceptives are available to everyone who wants them on an accelerated schedule, forecasts that global population will peak in 2046 at 8.5 billion, declining by 2100 to 6.289 billion.
I suspect this latter is closer to the mark.
Whichever scenario turns out to be correct, the closing words of the study are sobering: “Global population is likely to peak well before the end of the century. Given that we forecasted that societies tend towards a TFR lower than 1.5, once global population decline begins, it will probably continue inexorably.”
In other words, as I wrote in the pages of the Wall Street Journal way back in 1997:
Humanity’s long-term problem is not going to be too many children, but too few: too few children to fill the schools and universities, too few young people entering the work force, too few couples buying homes and second cars. In short, too few consumers and producers to drive the economy forward. The imploding markets of Europe and the economic sluggishness of Japan will spread soon enough to the U.S. and the rest of the world. Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on contraception and sterilization that will only bring that day closer?
Steven W. Mosher (@StevenWMosher) is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order.
Follow Steven Steven Mosher is an internationally recognised authority on China and population issues as well as an acclaimed author and speaker and founder and head of the Population Research Institute. He was the first American social scientist to visit mainland China in 1979 where he witnessed women being forced to have abortion under the new “one-child-policy” which he then exposed to the world. Mr. Mosher was a pro-choice atheist at the time, but witnessing these traumatic abortions led him to reconsider his convictions and to eventually become a practicing, pro-life Roman Catholic. Mosher has appeared numerous times before the US Congress as an expert in world population, China and human Rights abuses. He has also made TV appearances on Good Morning America, 60 Minutes, The Today Show, 20/20, FOX and CNN news, as well as being a regular guest on talk radio shows across the nation. He is the author of the best-selling A Mother’s Ordeal: One woman’s Fight Against China’s One-Child-Policy. His latest book is Bully of Asia, exposing the threat of China to the entire world at this time. Articles by Steve have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Reader’s Digest, The New Republic, The Washington Post, National Review, Reason, The Asian Wall Street Journal, Freedom Review, Linacre Quarterly, Catholic World Report, Human Life Review, First Things, and numerous other publications. Steven Mosher lives in Virginia with his wife, Vera, and their nine children.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-27--To lose hope and despair is to deny God’s mercy for us

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

To help keep this and other programs on the air, please donate here.
Watch Mother Miriam's Live originally aired on 7.27.2020. In today’s episode, Mother Miriam continues reviewing the Baltimore Catechism, focusing on God’s nature. She also reminds us not to despair or lose hope as that is to deny God’s mercy for us.
You can tune in daily at 10 am EST/7 am PST on our Facebook Page.
Subscribe to Mother Miriam Live here.


lifesitenews--2020-07-27--Gay group demands political party boot Christian pol or be banned from Pride parade

PETITION : Ask bishop to remove 'Catholic ' from the University of Notre Dame if they refuse to rescind Pete Buttigieg 's fellowship !
Sign the petition here .
July 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — One of the perverse things about today ’ s progressives is not simply that they are so often wrong , but that they often mean precisely the opposite of what they are saying but do not realize it .
The promoters of “ diversity ” and “ tolerance , ” for example , make the witch-burners look positively relaxed as they ruthlessly hunt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Diversity is acceptable only within the narrowest of lanes — you can , for example , support the LGBTQIA2S agenda , but nobody will get too fussed if you just say you support the LGBTQ agenda , because it is presumed that you mean the same thing .
Any indication that you do not support whatever the newest thing is , however , will not be tolerated .
The latest would-be victim of the heresy-hunters is British Columbian politician Laurie Throness , the MLA for the constituency of Chilliwack-Kent .
Throness and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , had run ads in a Christian publication that , to the horror of Chilliwack Progress editor Paul Henderson , apparently holds Christian views on sexuality : Three MLAs have since apologized , and party leader Andrew Wilkinson tweeted out the required statement that there is no place for any anti-LGBT sentiment in the B.C .
Liberal Party .
The B.C .
Liberals also announced that they would be reviewing their advertising policies to ensure that no ads were placed in such magazines .
As CTV put it : Apparently , opposing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which foists dangerous gender ideology on children , is beyond the pale .
Throness , at least , has noted that he will continue to advertise in the magazine as he shares its “ Biblical Christian values , ” noting that “ Biblical Christians follow their Lord in their sexual practice .
They don ’ t attack other people , they don ’ t condemn other people , because Jesus did not condemn other people .
They withdraw from sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has everything to do with following their conscience and following their Lord.
” To anyone familiar with what Christianity teaches , that ’ s pretty standard stuff .
But to progressives , this is genuinely offensive .
NDP MLA Spencer Chandra Herbert sent a letter to the B.C .
Liberal Party demanding that Throness be kicked out of caucus or fired from his job as opposition critic for the Ministry of Children and Family Development .
The Vancouver Pride Society even took the dramatic step of threatening to ban the B.C .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parade over the ads , stating that the magazine has “ published articles elevating anti-trans and pro–conversion therapy rhetoric targeting LGBQAI2S+ people.
” “ Despite being reassured by the B.C .
Liberal leader that that was no longer going to happen , they continue to invest in this magazine , ” Michelle Fortin , co-chair of the Vancouver Pride Society , noted ominously .
“ We ’ ve basically said to the Liberals until you take action and stop investing in that kind of publication , and until you deal with MLA Throness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the parade.
” Fortin even gave the B.C .
Liberal Party a deadline : the deadline for parade registration for the virtual parade being held on August 2 .
Throness must be “ dealt with ” before then .
Like the NDP , the Pride Society wants Throness either evicted or fired from his critic role .
In short , they want a scalp .
Throness is refusing to disavow Christian standards and will not disassociate himself from others who share those standards .
Thus , he must be punished .
“ In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that still thinks it 's OK to support transphobic or homophobic messaging [ . ]
...
It ’ s appalling , ” said Fortin .
Every political party will be forced to respond to such demands in the future .
Organizations like the Pride Society are not demanding diversity or tolerance ; they are demanding that politicians conform to their standards or else .
Media folks like Paul Henderson of the Chilliwack Progress , a bigot who spends much of his time fulminating on his editorial page about the wickedness of those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion ( that would include Christians , Orthodox Jews , Muslims , Sikhs , and Buddhists , just for starters ) , ensure that these non-stories get the coverage they need .
Thus , a Christian politician posting an ad in a Christian publication that frequently covers issues from a Christian perspective becomes a threat to civilized society in the minds of the progressive heresy-hunters .
The sinister irony is that they don ’ t even realize how ridiculous they are .

PETITION: Ask bishop to remove 'Catholic' from the University of Notre Dame if they refuse to rescind Pete Buttigieg's fellowship! Sign the petition here.
July 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — One of the perverse things about today’s progressives is not simply that they are so often wrong, but that they often mean precisely the opposite of what they are saying but do not realize it. The promoters of “diversity” and “tolerance,” for example, make the witch-burners look positively relaxed as they ruthlessly hunt heretics and hound them from their jobs. Diversity is acceptable only within the narrowest of lanes — you can, for example, support the LGBTQIA2S agenda, but nobody will get too fussed if you just say you support the LGBTQ agenda, because it is presumed that you mean the same thing. Any indication that you do not support whatever the newest thing is, however, will not be tolerated.
The latest would-be victim of the heresy-hunters is British Columbian politician Laurie Throness, the MLA for the constituency of Chilliwack-Kent. Throness and several other MLAs, as it turns out, had run ads in a Christian publication that, to the horror of Chilliwack Progress editor Paul Henderson, apparently holds Christian views on sexuality:
The controversy started when it came to light that Throness and several other MLAs, including [Andrew] Wilkinson, used taxpayer dollars to advertise in “The Light Magazine,” a Langley-based Christian publication that frequently runs articles that express antipathy towards the LGBTQ community in various ways.
Three MLAs have since apologized, and party leader Andrew Wilkinson tweeted out the required statement that there is no place for any anti-LGBT sentiment in the B.C. Liberal Party. The B.C. Liberals also announced that they would be reviewing their advertising policies to ensure that no ads were placed in such magazines. As CTV put it:
The Liberals had already pledged to review their advertising policy after critics pointed out ads for the party that ran in The Light Magazine, a Christian publication that has opposed B.C.’s Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) policy in public schools.
Apparently, opposing BC’s radical sex ed curriculum, which foists dangerous gender ideology on children, is beyond the pale. Throness, at least, has noted that he will continue to advertise in the magazine as he shares its “Biblical Christian values,” noting that “Biblical Christians follow their Lord in their sexual practice. They don’t attack other people, they don’t condemn other people, because Jesus did not condemn other people. They withdraw from sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. That has nothing to do with intolerance, it has everything to do with following their conscience and following their Lord.”
Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook
To anyone familiar with what Christianity teaches, that’s pretty standard stuff. But to progressives, this is genuinely offensive. NDP MLA Spencer Chandra Herbert sent a letter to the B.C. Liberal Party demanding that Throness be kicked out of caucus or fired from his job as opposition critic for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The Vancouver Pride Society even took the dramatic step of threatening to ban the B.C. Liberal Party from marching in the Pride Parade over the ads, stating that the magazine has “published articles elevating anti-trans and pro–conversion therapy rhetoric targeting LGBQAI2S+ people.”
“Despite being reassured by the B.C. Liberal leader that that was no longer going to happen, they continue to invest in this magazine,” Michelle Fortin, co-chair of the Vancouver Pride Society, noted ominously. “We’ve basically said to the Liberals until you take action and stop investing in that kind of publication, and until you deal with MLA Throness, you will not be allowed into the parade.”
Fortin even gave the B.C. Liberal Party a deadline: the deadline for parade registration for the virtual parade being held on August 2. Throness must be “dealt with” before then. Like the NDP, the Pride Society wants Throness either evicted or fired from his critic role. In short, they want a scalp. Throness is refusing to disavow Christian standards and will not disassociate himself from others who share those standards. Thus, he must be punished. “In 2020, a B.C. Liberal Party that still thinks it's OK to support transphobic or homophobic messaging[.] … It’s appalling,” said Fortin.
Every political party will be forced to respond to such demands in the future. Organizations like the Pride Society are not demanding diversity or tolerance; they are demanding that politicians conform to their standards or else. Media folks like Paul Henderson of the Chilliwack Progress, a bigot who spends much of his time fulminating on his editorial page about the wickedness of those who disagree with him on LGBT issues and abortion (that would include Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and Buddhists, just for starters), ensure that these non-stories get the coverage they need. Thus, a Christian politician posting an ad in a Christian publication that frequently covers issues from a Christian perspective becomes a threat to civilized society in the minds of the progressive heresy-hunters.
The sinister irony is that they don’t even realize how ridiculous they are.
Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he interviews Darlene Pawlik, victim of sex-trafficking from a young age. Darlene shares her story, including how she had to fake an abortion and ultimately run away in order to escape. You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below:
Follow Jonathon Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States. He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-27--Netherlands contemplates expanding assisted suicide for people over 75 ‘tired of living’

July 27 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A draft law proposing the legalization of assisted suicide for people over 75 who are “ tired of living ” has been presented in the Second Chamber of the Dutch parliament by Pia Dijkstra , of the D66 progressive “ social-liberal ” party .
While there is a relatively small chance that the proposed law will be able to cross all legislative hurdles – this usually takes at least nine months – before the present cabinet steps down , Dijkstra made clear that her main objective is to push the theme to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussed .
The idea of allowing people to choose to leave this life for personal reasons has been around for some time in the Netherlands .
Since euthanasia became legal in 2001 , pressure groups have been working to extend the scope of “ chosen death ” in the name of personal autonomy .
People who consider their life to be “ complete ” should be allowed to put an end to it even when they do not comply with the legal conditions : “ unbearable suffering , ” either physical or psychological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical condition , absence of available treatment , no perspective of improvement of their condition .
The principle of assisted death for people who are “ done with life ” is gaining traction in the Netherlands .
Four years ago , in 2016 , it was the ruling Dutch cabinet that promoted a new provision in the euthanasia law , via a letter signed by Health Minister Edith Schippers and Justice Minister Ard van der Steur .
The proposition never came to Parliament because of the general elections that were to take place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Netherlands are , it shocked public opinion .
But lobbying has continued , in particular on the part of the National Association for a Chosen End of Life ( NVVE ) that had applauded the cabinet ’ s initiative .
Over the last years , the Dutch government has decided to consult the population before a similar proposition is examined .
Commission Wijngaarden , as it is known , was created in 2017 to consult “ senior citizens ” to find out how many are actually “ tired of living.
” It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confrontations between Christian and Christian Democrat parties with more liberal parties in a country where forming a government is impossible without political alliances .
Second Chamber member Pia Dijkstra decided to accelerate the process , promising last September that she would “ soon ” present a draft law .
The government report was published last January .
It concluded that fewer of the elderly are “ done with life ” than had been suggested by the measure ’ s promoters : some 10,000 people aged 55 and older , mostly from lower-class backgrounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living and had a deep-rooted “ death wish.
” Pia Dijkstra decided that it was time to go ahead all the same ; she waited for the end of lockdown due to the Chinese coronavirus before officially presenting a draft law because she found it “ unfitting ” to do so while the country was facing such a “ grave crisis.
” In an interview with Algemeen Dagblad , Dijkstra said she decided to present her proposition despite the elections that will take place in March 2021 out of respect for D66 ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” on the party to promote assisted suicide during the present cabinet ’ s tenure .
“ Hard agreements have been made about this with VVD , CDA and ChristenUnie about this , ” she insisted , naming the liberal and Christian parties of the ruling coalition of which D66 is a member .
Dijkstra ’ s draft law comes with a 45-page explanatory memoir underscoring that it is impossible to give a single definition of “ completed life.
” Mrs. Dijstra describes a general feeling of “ letting go ” from “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a point of inner stress and revolt , and of the increasing population of old people – thanks to growing well-being and better healthcare – among whom the number of those who have had enough of life is also growing .
The law , if it were to be approved , would expand the existing euthanasia law by creating a situation where no medical grounds would be necessary in order to justify assisted suicide .
Helping another person to kill him or herself would no longer entail penal sanctions under certain conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of specialized “ end-of-life accompanists ” would be created to verify those conditions and help their correspondent to die .
In a historic exposé , Dijkstra ’ s memoir described how the Dutch euthanasia law came into being .
Several cases that reached the courts before the law was enacted included individuals who were not ill but “ desperate ” at the idea of continuing to live in a situation that would only deteriorate .
Dijkstra also comments on the January government report , underscoring the main common denominators of the will to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these include “ the pleasure of an agreeable home , independence and feeling free.
” By contrast , those who are tired of living named “ weariness of being ” and “ existential loneliness , ” with “ personal autonomy ” as a justifier for being institutionally afforded help with taking one ’ s own life .
Later in the text , Dijkstra says that of course steps should be taken to help the elderly not to feel lonely , but she adds that “ solidarity ” should also include respecting their wish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” as the Dutch expression says .
The age of 75 as a threshold for obtaining assisted suicide was chosen because , according to the memoir , significantly more people beyond that age express tiredness of life and the will to die ; probably it was also a way of reducing opposition to the proposed law .
Under its proposed conditions , any person over 75 would be able to file a request with an official “ end-of-life accompanist ” who would be charged with opening or facilitating a conversation that would , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s near and dear ones .
The “ end-of-life accompanist ” would have the possibility of consulting the candidate ’ s family doctor and would be tasked with making sure that no pressure be exerted from the outside to encourage the candidate to choose death .
The accompanist should also verify whether the death wish is well-established , unvarying , and made in full conscience , and whether other perspectives exist .
But the elderly person would have the right to reject any offered help .
Assisted suicide would only be available for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Netherlands for at least two years .
These conversations – at least two – would take place in a lapse of at least two months and would only lead to assisted suicide after a consultation by the “ end-of-life accompanist ” with one of his or her “ independent colleagues ” who would also be required to have a conversation with the candidate .
Paperwork and signed documents would also be involved .
Once the assisted suicide would be approved the first “ end-of-life accompanist ” would be responsible for writing out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to him or herself , that he or she would fetch from the drugstore , and would personally hand them over to the candidate at an agreed time , remaining to check that the drugs were properly swallowed , with or without the presence of family and friends .
The candidate would be allowed to step back at any time , in which case the “ end-of-life accompanist ” would personally return the drugs to the drugstore .
After the death , as in euthanasia cases , the accompanist would be required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents and details relative to the suicide to the authorities : a new regional commission that would verify whether legal requirements were fulfilled .
Interestingly , even left-wing media in the Netherlands are questioning the advisability of a “ tired of living ” law , underscoring that such a law would put moral pressure on the elderly to choose death so as not to be a burden on society .
But transgressive laws have all been put in place by lobbying , repetition , and patience ; the very fact of bringing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it more and more acceptable over time .

July 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A draft law proposing the legalization of assisted suicide for people over 75 who are “tired of living” has been presented in the Second Chamber of the Dutch parliament by Pia Dijkstra, of the D66 progressive “social-liberal” party. While there is a relatively small chance that the proposed law will be able to cross all legislative hurdles – this usually takes at least nine months – before the present cabinet steps down, Dijkstra made clear that her main objective is to push the theme to the fore in order to be extensively discussed. The idea […]
July 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A draft law proposing the legalization of assisted suicide for people over 75 who are “tired of living” has been presented in the Second Chamber of the Dutch parliament by Pia Dijkstra, of the D66 progressive “social-liberal” party. While there is a relatively small chance that the proposed law will be able to cross all legislative hurdles – this usually takes at least nine months – before the present cabinet steps down, Dijkstra made clear that her main objective is to push the theme to the fore in order to be extensively discussed.
The idea of allowing people to choose to leave this life for personal reasons has been around for some time in the Netherlands. Since euthanasia became legal in 2001, pressure groups have been working to extend the scope of “chosen death” in the name of personal autonomy. People who consider their life to be “complete” should be allowed to put an end to it even when they do not comply with the legal conditions: “unbearable suffering,” either physical or psychological, due to a serious or terminal medical condition, absence of available treatment, no perspective of improvement of their condition.
The principle of assisted death for people who are “done with life” is gaining traction in the Netherlands. Four years ago, in 2016, it was the ruling Dutch cabinet that promoted a new provision in the euthanasia law, via a letter signed by Health Minister Edith Schippers and Justice Minister Ard van der Steur. The proposition never came to Parliament because of the general elections that were to take place one year later, and liberal as the Netherlands are, it shocked public opinion.
But lobbying has continued, in particular on the part of the National Association for a Chosen End of Life (NVVE) that had applauded the cabinet’s initiative.
Over the last years, the Dutch government has decided to consult the population before a similar proposition is examined. Commission Wijngaarden, as it is known, was created in 2017 to consult “senior citizens” to find out how many are actually “tired of living.” It appeared as a way of avoiding inevitable confrontations between Christian and Christian Democrat parties with more liberal parties in a country where forming a government is impossible without political alliances.
Second Chamber member Pia Dijkstra decided to accelerate the process, promising last September that she would “soon” present a draft law.
The government report was published last January. It concluded that fewer of the elderly are “done with life” than had been suggested by the measure’s promoters: some 10,000 people aged 55 and older, mostly from lower-class backgrounds, agreed that they are tired of living and had a deep-rooted “death wish.”
Pia Dijkstra decided that it was time to go ahead all the same; she waited for the end of lockdown due to the Chinese coronavirus before officially presenting a draft law because she found it “unfitting” to do so while the country was facing such a “grave crisis.”
In an interview with Algemeen Dagblad, Dijkstra said she decided to present her proposition despite the elections that will take place in March 2021 out of respect for D66’s electorate, which is “counting” on the party to promote assisted suicide during the present cabinet’s tenure. “Hard agreements have been made about this with VVD, CDA and ChristenUnie about this,” she insisted, naming the liberal and Christian parties of the ruling coalition of which D66 is a member.
Dijkstra’s draft law comes with a 45-page explanatory memoir underscoring that it is impossible to give a single definition of “completed life.” Mrs. Dijstra describes a general feeling of “letting go” from “the world, others and yourself” to a point of inner stress and revolt, and of the increasing population of old people – thanks to growing well-being and better healthcare – among whom the number of those who have had enough of life is also growing.
The law, if it were to be approved, would expand the existing euthanasia law by creating a situation where no medical grounds would be necessary in order to justify assisted suicide. Helping another person to kill him or herself would no longer entail penal sanctions under certain conditions. Even more alarmingly, a corps of specialized “end-of-life accompanists” would be created to verify those conditions and help their correspondent to die.
In a historic exposé, Dijkstra’s memoir described how the Dutch euthanasia law came into being. Several cases that reached the courts before the law was enacted included individuals who were not ill but “desperate” at the idea of continuing to live in a situation that would only deteriorate.
Dijkstra also comments on the January government report, underscoring the main common denominators of the will to live in those over age 55: these include “the pleasure of an agreeable home, independence and feeling free.” By contrast, those who are tired of living named “weariness of being” and “existential loneliness,” with “personal autonomy” as a justifier for being institutionally afforded help with taking one’s own life.
Later in the text, Dijkstra says that of course steps should be taken to help the elderly not to feel lonely, but she adds that “solidarity” should also include respecting their wish to “step out of life,” as the Dutch expression says.
The age of 75 as a threshold for obtaining assisted suicide was chosen because, according to the memoir, significantly more people beyond that age express tiredness of life and the will to die; probably it was also a way of reducing opposition to the proposed law.
Under its proposed conditions, any person over 75 would be able to file a request with an official “end-of-life accompanist” who would be charged with opening or facilitating a conversation that would, when possible, include the candidate’s near and dear ones.
The “end-of-life accompanist” would have the possibility of consulting the candidate’s family doctor and would be tasked with making sure that no pressure be exerted from the outside to encourage the candidate to choose death. The accompanist should also verify whether the death wish is well-established, unvarying, and made in full conscience, and whether other perspectives exist. But the elderly person would have the right to reject any offered help. Assisted suicide would only be available for Dutch citizens or people having lived in the Netherlands for at least two years.
These conversations – at least two – would take place in a lapse of at least two months and would only lead to assisted suicide after a consultation by the “end-of-life accompanist” with one of his or her “independent colleagues” who would also be required to have a conversation with the candidate.
Paperwork and signed documents would also be involved.
Once the assisted suicide would be approved the first “end-of-life accompanist” would be responsible for writing out a suicide drug and an anti-emetic prescription, to him or herself, that he or she would fetch from the drugstore, and would personally hand them over to the candidate at an agreed time, remaining to check that the drugs were properly swallowed, with or without the presence of family and friends.
The candidate would be allowed to step back at any time, in which case the “end-of-life accompanist” would personally return the drugs to the drugstore.
After the death, as in euthanasia cases, the accompanist would be required to report the death and give all documents and details relative to the suicide to the authorities: a new regional commission that would verify whether legal requirements were fulfilled.
Interestingly, even left-wing media in the Netherlands are questioning the advisability of a “tired of living” law, underscoring that such a law would put moral pressure on the elderly to choose death so as not to be a burden on society.
But transgressive laws have all been put in place by lobbying, repetition, and patience; the very fact of bringing the subject up is a way of making it more and more acceptable over time.
Share