lifesitenews--2020-06-10--Moral theologian confirms: Catholic charity org ‘affirming’ LGBT against Church teaching

June 10 , 2020 ( Lepanto Institute ) — In July of 2019 , the Lepanto Institute published a report on a $ 750,000 grant from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development ( CCHD ) that went to an organization called the Ignatian Solidarity Network ( ISN ) .
At issue was the fact that ISN has published a number of articles affirming homosexuality and transgenderism and hosts an annual conference that includes workshops geared toward indoctrinating high school aged children in homosexual and transgender activism .
A couple of weeks later , the CCHD defended its grant to ISN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ISN held another conference which again included open promotion of LGBT activism .
Faithful Catholics continue to be upset that Catholic funds went to an organization blatantly acting against Church teaching , so the Lepanto Institute asked moral theologian , Dr. Janet Smith to examine the issue and prepare a moral analysis of the situation .
Dr. Smith is the author of several books and many articles on Humanae Vitae , human sexuality , contraception , and abortion .
She served three terms as a consulter to the Pontifical Council on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission , III for 8 years .
She has received two honorary doctorates and several other awards for scholarship and service .
Dr. Smith carefully weighed the evidence provided by the Lepanto Institute and the defense given by CCHD and affirmed the Lepanto Institute ’ s findings , saying “ The CCHD should welcome feedback from diligent Catholics and when they are correct , they should remedy poor judgments .
This is just such a time.
” Dr. Smith pointed out that despite ISN ’ s claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ has articles posted on its website that promote homosexual relationships , and hosts speakers who promote same-sex marriage and who accept that some people ’ s biological sex is not their authentic sex.
” Upon examining those articles and speakers , Dr. Smith continued by saying : The Catechism of the Catholic Church , entry 2357 clearly presents Church teaching on homosexuality and transgenderism , stating : After referencing ISN materials which speak of “ inclusivity ” regarding the LGBT community and affirmation of them within their identities as homosexual or transgendered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s defense of ISN , which claimed it to be in line with Catholic teaching : Any program that is faithful to Church teaching could not promote such affirmation and rather should help individuals understand that their sexual identity , their gender , is the same as their biological sex ; it is something God-given and it should be the foundation of their identity as beloved sons and daughters of God .
...
The fact that not a single article appears on the ISN website that explains that homosexual sexual acts are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for sexuality , that makes no reference to the passages in the Catechism that teach why such acts are not in accord with God ’ s will , that is makes no reference to any Church documents that address transgenderism , undercuts their insistence that they teaching nothing against Church teaching .
Dr. Smith then questioned the integrity of ISN by pointing out that their omission of the fullness of Catholic teaching on homosexuality and transgenderism “ falsifies their claim to be faithful to Church teaching.
” She wrote : Despite the CCHD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Solidarity Network ( ISN ) was not encouraging or promoting anything contrary to Catholic teaching , ” Dr. Smith responded that Catholics “ have no reason to be confident that the materials and programs of the ISN fully present and promote the Church ’ s teachings on homosexuality and transgenderism.
” The Lepanto Institute is reiterating its call for faithful Catholics to contact the CCHD main offices to demand that ISN return the $ 750,000 grant from the CCHD .
Catholics are also encouraged to contact their bishops ( click here for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , asking them to withdraw from the CCHD collection until ISN returns the full $ 750,000 grant .
For over thirty years I was on the board of a Catholic organization that would give around a million dollars a year to Catholic apostolates .
One of our primary concerns was to determine that the organization requesting a grant was fully faithful to Church teaching .
Sadly , it is not enough that an organization calls itself Catholic , that it has Catholics on its board , and that it makes strong assurances that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Church teaching .
We had to dig deeper .
The Lepanto Institute has done sleuthing that should be valued by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development ( CCHD ) : it has dug deeper into the organizations with which the CCHD — an organization that is a part of and represents the Catholic Church — is associated and which it funds .
It should welcome an investigation that uncovers activity that is not in accord with Church teaching .
The organization about which the Lepanto Institute has uncovered troubling information is the Ignatian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ network , educate , and form advocates for social justice.
” While there might be several programs and commitments of the ISN that raise concerns , the Lepanto Institute has focused on the advocacy for LGBT issues .
Of course , it is important that those who experience same-sex attraction and those who believe themselves to be transgendered be treated justly with love and compassion .
But the importance of such treatment is not the whole of the Church ’ s teaching on these issues .
The Lepanto Institute has documented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its claims to teach with Church teaching , has articles posted on its website that promote homosexual relationships , and hosts speakers who promote same-sex marriage and who accept that some people ’ s biological sex is not their authentic sex .
There is absolutely no indication that when teaching about homosexuality or transgenderism that the presenters give a clear and supportive presentation of homosexual acts as contrary to God ’ s plan for sexuality .
To fail to explain and promote such teaching is to do a disservice to those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on God ’ s teaching on sexuality .
Again , it is undeniably true that those who experience same sex attraction ... and those who believe themselves to be transgendered be treated justly with love and compassion .
But love and compassion also require that we attempt teach the truth and that we help people reject the many falsities championed by modern society , among them that homosexual sexual relationships can be moral and that one can be born in the “ wrong ” body .
It is an understatement to say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and related matters is unpopular , but Catholic are to be courageous witnesses to the truths of the Gospel .
Many of the goals of the ISN are worthy but the terminology used to explain their goals and methods is ambiguous at best and is more likely to be fitting for activity contrary to Church teaching than in accord with Church teaching .
For instance ISN materials speak of Catholic institutions needing to be “ inclusive ” of the LGBTQ community , which is used by LGBTQ advocacy groups to mean that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment of LGBTQ people but also to mean that they are to affirm such individuals in identifying as gay or as transgendered .
Any program that is faithful to Church teaching could not promote such affirmation and rather should help individuals understand that their sexual identity , their gender , is the same as their biological sex ; it is something God-given and it should be the foundation of their identity as beloved sons and daughters of God .
The CCHD has defended itself against the charges of the Lepanto Institute simply by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraging or promoting anything contrary to Catholic teaching ” but it makes reference to only a part of that teaching “ that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
” ( CCC 2358 ) .
The fact that not a single article appears on the ISN website that explains that homosexual sexual acts are not in accord with God ’ s will for sexuality , that makes no reference to the passages in the Catechism that teach why such acts are not in accord with God ’ s will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any Church documents that address transgenderism , undercuts their insistence that they [ are ] teaching nothing against Church teaching .
There is much reason to think that in fact they promote an acceptance of homosexual sexual acts and transgenderism that is not compatible with Church teaching and the fact that they present the Church ’ s teaching on these matters in a very selective way falsifies their claim to be faithful to Church teaching .
There are groups that faithfully teach the fullness of the Church ’ s teaching on God ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no question that those who use their materials or attend their conferences and workshops will be fully respected in their human dignity , who will be treated with love and compassion , but who will also come to understand why homosexual sexual acts and transgenderism are not in accord with God ’ s plan for sexuality and can not be compatible with their fundamental identity as beloved sons and daughters of God .
Those who are formed by such organizations become more inclined to pursue chastity and do so by more frequent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deeper prayer life and healthier friendships .
The journey is not an easy one but it is not impossible either .
Nothing in the materials of the ISN speak of chastity , the sacraments , prayer or healthy friendships .
That Catholics object to their money being given to the ISN should not be surprising .
They have no reason to be confident that the materials and the programs of the ISN fully present and promote the Church ’ s teaching on homosexuality and transgenderism .
The CCHD should welcome feedback from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they should remedy poor judgments .
This is just such a time .
Published with permission from the Lepanto Institute .

June 10, 2020 (Lepanto Institute) — In July of 2019, the Lepanto Institute published a report on a $750,000 grant from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) that went to an organization called the Ignatian Solidarity Network (ISN). At issue was the fact that ISN has published a number of articles affirming homosexuality and transgenderism and hosts an annual conference that includes workshops geared toward indoctrinating high school aged children in homosexual and transgender activism. A couple of weeks later, the CCHD defended its grant to ISN, claiming:
The Ignatian Solidarity Network (ISN) was not encouraging or promoting anything contrary to Catholic teaching. The topics and workshops were designed to inspire inclusion and safety for those who are physically or emotionally threatened for being LGBT, in line with the Catechism’s instruction that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”
Four months after that, ISN held another conference which again included open promotion of LGBT activism.
Faithful Catholics continue to be upset that Catholic funds went to an organization blatantly acting against Church teaching, so the Lepanto Institute asked moral theologian, Dr. Janet Smith to examine the issue and prepare a moral analysis of the situation. Dr. Smith is the author of several books and many articles on Humanae Vitae, human sexuality, contraception, and abortion. She served three terms as a consulter to the Pontifical Council on the Family and also served as a member of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission, III for 8 years. She has received two honorary doctorates and several other awards for scholarship and service.
Dr. Smith carefully weighed the evidence provided by the Lepanto Institute and the defense given by CCHD and affirmed the Lepanto Institute’s findings, saying “The CCHD should welcome feedback from diligent Catholics and when they are correct, they should remedy poor judgments. This is just such a time.”
Dr. Smith pointed out that despite ISN’s claim to teach with Church teaching, it “has articles posted on its website that promote homosexual relationships, and hosts speakers who promote same-sex marriage and who accept that some people’s biological sex is not their authentic sex.” Upon examining those articles and speakers, Dr. Smith continued by saying:
There is absolutely no indication that, when teaching about homosexuality or transgenderism, the presenters give a clear and supportive presentation of homosexual acts as contrary to God’s plan for sexuality. To fail to explain and promote such teaching is to do a disservice to those who turn to the Catholic Church for guidance on God’s teaching on sexuality.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, entry 2357 clearly presents Church teaching on homosexuality and transgenderism, stating:
Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
After referencing ISN materials which speak of “inclusivity” regarding the LGBT community and affirmation of them within their identities as homosexual or transgendered, Dr. Smith eviscerates the CCHD’s defense of ISN, which claimed it to be in line with Catholic teaching:
Any program that is faithful to Church teaching could not promote such affirmation and rather should help individuals understand that their sexual identity, their gender, is the same as their biological sex; it is something God-given and it should be the foundation of their identity as beloved sons and daughters of God. … The fact that not a single article appears on the ISN website that explains that homosexual sexual acts are not in accord with God’s will for sexuality, that makes no reference to the passages in the Catechism that teach why such acts are not in accord with God’s will, that is makes no reference to any Church documents that address transgenderism, undercuts their insistence that they [are] teaching nothing against Church teaching.
Dr. Smith then questioned the integrity of ISN by pointing out that their omission of the fullness of Catholic teaching on homosexuality and transgenderism “falsifies their claim to be faithful to Church teaching.” She wrote:
There is much reason to think that in fact they promote an acceptance of homosexual sexual acts and transgenderism that is not compatible with Church teaching and the fact that they present the Church’s teaching on these matters in a very selective way falsifies their claim to be faithful to Church teaching.
Despite the CCHD’s insistence that “The Ignatian Solidarity Network (ISN) was not encouraging or promoting anything contrary to Catholic teaching,” Dr. Smith responded that Catholics “have no reason to be confident that the materials and programs of the ISN fully present and promote the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and transgenderism.”
The Lepanto Institute is reiterating its call for faithful Catholics to contact the CCHD main offices to demand that ISN return the $750,000 grant from the CCHD. Catholics are also encouraged to contact their bishops (click here for a list of diocesan emails and addresses), asking them to withdraw from the CCHD collection until ISN returns the full $750,000 grant.
Dr. Janet Smith’s full moral analysis follows:
For over thirty years I was on the board of a Catholic organization that would give around a million dollars a year to Catholic apostolates. One of our primary concerns was to determine that the organization requesting a grant was fully faithful to Church teaching. Sadly, it is not enough that an organization calls itself Catholic, that it has Catholics on its board, and that it makes strong assurances that everything it does is in accord with Church teaching. We had to dig deeper.
The Lepanto Institute has done sleuthing that should be valued by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD): it has dug deeper into the organizations with which the CCHD — an organization that is a part of and represents the Catholic Church — is associated and which it funds. It should welcome an investigation that uncovers activity that is not in accord with Church teaching.
The organization about which the Lepanto Institute has uncovered troubling information is the Ignatian Solidarity Network (ISN) which exists to “network, educate, and form advocates for social justice.” While there might be several programs and commitments of the ISN that raise concerns, the Lepanto Institute has focused on the advocacy for LGBT issues. Of course, it is important that those who experience same-sex attraction and those who believe themselves to be transgendered be treated justly with love and compassion. But the importance of such treatment is not the whole of the Church’s teaching on these issues.
The Lepanto Institute has documented well that the ISN, in spite of its claims to teach with Church teaching, has articles posted on its website that promote homosexual relationships, and hosts speakers who promote same-sex marriage and who accept that some people’s biological sex is not their authentic sex. There is absolutely no indication that when teaching about homosexuality or transgenderism that the presenters give a clear and supportive presentation of homosexual acts as contrary to God’s plan for sexuality. To fail to explain and promote such teaching is to do a disservice to those who turn to the Catholic Church for guidance on God’s teaching on sexuality. Again, it is undeniably true that those who experience same sex attraction … and those who believe themselves to be transgendered be treated justly with love and compassion. But love and compassion also require that we attempt teach the truth and that we help people reject the many falsities championed by modern society, among them that homosexual sexual relationships can be moral and that one can be born in the “wrong” body. It is an understatement to say that the teaching of the Church on these and related matters is unpopular, but Catholic are to be courageous witnesses to the truths of the Gospel.
Many of the goals of the ISN are worthy but the terminology used to explain their goals and methods is ambiguous at best and is more likely to be fitting for activity contrary to Church teaching than in accord with Church teaching. For instance ISN materials speak of Catholic institutions needing to be “inclusive” of the LGBTQ community, which is used by LGBTQ advocacy groups to mean that the institutions are to promote just and loving treatment of LGBTQ people but also to mean that they are to affirm such individuals in identifying as gay or as transgendered. Any program that is faithful to Church teaching could not promote such affirmation and rather should help individuals understand that their sexual identity, their gender, is the same as their biological sex; it is something God-given and it should be the foundation of their identity as beloved sons and daughters of God.
The CCHD has defended itself against the charges of the Lepanto Institute simply by reiterating that the ISN “was not encouraging or promoting anything contrary to Catholic teaching” but it makes reference to only a part of that teaching “that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (CCC 2358). The fact that not a single article appears on the ISN website that explains that homosexual sexual acts are not in accord with God’s will for sexuality, that makes no reference to the passages in the Catechism that teach why such acts are not in accord with God’s will, that is makes no reference to any Church documents that address transgenderism, undercuts their insistence that they [are] teaching nothing against Church teaching. There is much reason to think that in fact they promote an acceptance of homosexual sexual acts and transgenderism that is not compatible with Church teaching and the fact that they present the Church’s teaching on these matters in a very selective way falsifies their claim to be faithful to Church teaching.
There are groups that faithfully teach the fullness of the Church’s teaching on God’s plan for sexuality — where there is no question that those who use their materials or attend their conferences and workshops will be fully respected in their human dignity, who will be treated with love and compassion, but who will also come to understand why homosexual sexual acts and transgenderism are not in accord with God’s plan for sexuality and cannot be compatible with their fundamental identity as beloved sons and daughters of God. Those who are formed by such organizations become more inclined to pursue chastity and do so by more frequent reception of the sacraments and by developing a deeper prayer life and healthier friendships. The journey is not an easy one but it is not impossible either. Nothing in the materials of the ISN speak of chastity, the sacraments, prayer or healthy friendships.
That Catholics object to their money being given to the ISN should not be surprising. They have no reason to be confident that the materials and the programs of the ISN fully present and promote the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and transgenderism. The CCHD should welcome feedback from diligent Catholics and when they are correct, they should remedy poor judgments. This is just such a time.
Published with permission from the Lepanto Institute.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-09--How Church’s greatest theologian explains and defends marriage

June 9 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Each year , the summer is the season of ( most ) weddings .
This year , celebrations of marriage may have a very different appearance from what they would have had pre-coronavirus .
Nevertheless , as long as time goes on , with or without plagues , Christians will be throwing their lots together for life and endeavor to imitate the fruitful and indissoluble union of Christ and the Church .
The Catholic Church ’ s “ Common Doctor ” or universal theologian , St. Thomas Aquinas , has many beautiful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deserve to be better known as guiding principles in marriage preparation , catechesis , preaching , and ongoing education .
The friendship spoken of here is a friendship of virtue , premised on the most proper human goods and a sharing in the totality of the life of the household — not a mere friendship of pleasure or of utility , which would reduce the other ’ s value to gratification or benefit .
As Aristotle explains , a friendship of virtue does contain pleasure and utility , but it essentially goes beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the person for his own sake , as one for whom we will the possession of the good — indeed , the greatest good .
Regarding the act of fleshly intercourse , St. Thomas comments , on Hebrews 13:4 , “ Let marriage be held in honor among all , and let the marriage bed be undefiled ” : Considered as a sacrament of the New Law , marriage between the faithful is a genuine cause of grace , indeed a continual cause , argues St. Thomas ( In IV Sent .
d. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
1 , qa .
2 ; the same point is made more extensively in In IV Sent .
d. 26 , q .
2 , a .
3 and ST III , q .
65 , a .
1 .
Cf .
Cf .
In IV Sent .
d. 26 , q .
2 , a .
3 , sc ) .
Although marriage does not confer a sacramental character ( In IV Sent .
d. 31 , q .
1 , a .
3 , ad 5 ) , it establishes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a permanent spiritual nexus between spouses , which “ operates dispositively to bring grace by the power of divine institution ” [ 1 ] .
This nexus is an ever-flowing source of actual graces for spouses who remain in the state of grace .
Moreover , “ from the fact that Christ represented it in His Passion , ” marriage has power to sanctify the spouses , even as His Passion sanctifies the Church ( In IV Sent .
d. 26 , q .
2 , a .
3 , ad 1 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ body , but , more importantly , in soul , in spirit ( In IV Sent .
d. 42 , a .
1 , sc 2 ; ibid.
, ad 3 .
In IV Sent .
d. 27 , q .
1 , a .
1 , qa .
2 , ad 3 ) ; it empowers them to live their common life in the friendship of charity .
Finally , marriage supplies new members for the Church , the populum fidelium or fidelium collectio , even as it replenishes and expands the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , marriage is given “ as a remedy ... against the decrease in numbers that results from death , ” while on the supernatural plane , it has the privilege of “ bringing into being the recipients who approach the sacraments ” ( ST III , q .
65 , a .
1 , corp. and ad 3 ) .
SCG IV , ch .
78 : The sacrament obliges and equips husband and wife to bring back to God , through Christ and his Church , the gift of children they receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of marriage is offspring brought up for the worship of God ( proles ad cultum Dei educanda ) ” ( In IV Sent .
d. 39 , q .
1 , a .
1 ) .
The married , in a way properly theirs , help build up the human race into the body of Christ , the true goal of humanity .
When treating of the sacraments of the New Law , St. Thomas makes a distinction between agents and recipients in “ hierarchical actions ” and notes the obvious but still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there could be no giving of sacraments by their agents ( ST III , q .
65 , a .
1 , ad 3 ) .
We tend to pass over too quickly the enormous privilege granted to Christian men and women of , as the saint puts it , “ bringing into being the recipients who approach the sacraments ” ( ibid . )
, and so , assisting Christ in providing spiritual nourishment for His people .
Upbringing , says Thomas , has to take into account the bodily nourishment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it has much more to do with “ nourishment of the soul ( nutrimentum animae ) ” ( In Super I Cor .
7 , lec .
1 ; see In IV Sent .
d. 31 , q .
2 , a .
3 , ad 1 ; In IV Sent .
d. 33 , q .
1 , a .
2 , ad 5 ; In IV Sent .
d. 39 , q .
1 , a .
2 ; SCG III , ch .
122 ; SCG IV , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most special about Christian marriage is its unique and proper signification : “ since wedlock ( conjugium ) is a sacrament , it is a sacred sign , and of a sacred thing ” [ 2 ] — namely , “ the mystery of the conjoining of Christ and the Church , ” “ which is made in the freedom of love ( secundum libertatem amoris ) .
” So important is marriage ’ s sign value that Thomas can say : “ In every way , ‘ sacrament ’ is the foremost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for it pertains to marriage insofar as it is a sacrament of grace , whereas the other two [ goods , viz.
, offspring and fidelity ] pertain to it insofar as it is an office of nature — and the perfection of grace is nobler than the perfection of nature ” ( In IV Sent .
d. 31 , q .
1 , a .
3 .
In IV Sent .
d. 31 , q .
1 , a .
3 , sc 2 ) .
As Marc Cardinal Ouellet explains in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trinitarian Anthropology of the Family ( Eerdmans , 2006 ) , St. Thomas sees the sacramentality of marriage as a perfection that God introduces from without , so to speak , rather than something that wells up immanently from human nature , the way offspring and fidelity do .
Thus , to the question “ What is most essential to marriage ?
, ” there must be two answers : one from the vantage of its natural function , namely to promote the human race by “ increasing and multiplying , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supernatural function , which emanates from and concerns itself with the nuptial union of Christ and the Church .
Nevertheless , St. Thomas says that if by “ offspring ” or “ fidelity ” one means not the thing itself but the intention thereof — the intention to have a family and the intention to remain faithful — then either of these is more essential to marriage than sacramentality , inasmuch as the nature of a thing precedes its elevation by grace .
If there is no man , there is no saint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no permanent sexual relationship ordered to offspring , there is no indissoluble grace-giving bond ( see In IV Sent .
d. 33 , q .
1 , a .
1 ) .
That is the basic reason why there can be no such thing as “ gay marriage , ” nor a marriage between man and woman if either of the parties refuses , in principle , to be open to children .
While more recent authors on marriage write many more words , often enthusiastic and poetic in tone , they seldom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those we can find in the writings of the Angelic Doctor .
He provides us with those mustard seeds of understanding that can mature into mighty trees .
[ 1 ] See In IV Sent .
d. 26 , q .
2 , a .
3 , ad 2 .
Formally speaking , marriage confers a specific power “ for bodily acts ” — namely , those ordered to the suitable and dignified procreation of children , which includes the power to bring them up well .
This is why marriage does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordered to “ spiritual acts ” ( see In IV Sent .
d. 31 , q .
1 , a .
3 , ad 5 ) , as can be seen in the sacraments that do confer it — baptism , confirmation , and holy orders .
Put differently , since character is a metaphysical participation in the high priesthood of Jesus Christ , only those sacraments confer a character that confer the ability to share in the very activity of Christ , and marriage equips earthly spouses to do something other than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obviously not anything inherently incompatible with what he does ) .
Some Thomists speak of a “ quasi-character ” conferred by Christian matrimony .
[ 2 ] For these three points : see In IV Sent .
d. 26 , prologue ( it is a distinct sacrament because it uniquely signifies a determinate sacred thing : In IV Sent .
d. 31 , q .
1 , a .
3 , ad 2 ) ; In IV Sent .
d. 26 , q .
2 , a .
2 , one among a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ marriage signifies the conjoining of Christ to the Church , which is made in the freedom of love .
Therefore it can not happen by coerced consent ” ( In IV Sent .
d. 29 , a .
3 , qa .
1 , sc 2 ) .

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, marriage is a friendship of virtue, premised on the most proper human goods and a sharing in the totality of the life of the household.
June 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Each year, the summer is the season of (most) weddings. This year, celebrations of marriage may have a very different appearance from what they would have had pre-coronavirus. Nevertheless, as long as time goes on, with or without plagues, Christians will be throwing their lots together for life and endeavor to imitate the fruitful and indissoluble union of Christ and the Church.
The Catholic Church’s “Common Doctor” or universal theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, has many beautiful things to say about marriage, which deserve to be better known as guiding principles in marriage preparation, catechesis, preaching, and ongoing education.
St. Thomas considers marriage an optimal instance of lifelong friendship:
The greater the friendship, the more stable and lasting is it. Now, between a man and his wife there seems to be the greatest friendship; for they are made one not only in the act of fleshly intercourse, which even among beasts causes an agreeable fellowship, but also as partners in the whole of domestic life (ad totius domesticae conversationis consortium). (SCG III.123)
The friendship spoken of here is a friendship of virtue, premised on the most proper human goods and a sharing in the totality of the life of the household — not a mere friendship of pleasure or of utility, which would reduce the other’s value to gratification or benefit. As Aristotle explains, a friendship of virtue does contain pleasure and utility, but it essentially goes beyond them by taking in the value of the person for his own sake, as one for whom we will the possession of the good — indeed, the greatest good.
Regarding the act of fleshly intercourse, St. Thomas comments, on Hebrews 13:4, “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled”:
Contrary to [the opinion of] certain heretics, this verse shows that the marital act can exist without sin. “If a virgin marries, she does not sin” (1 Cor. 7:28). Hence, the Lord, in order to show that the marital act is good, worked His first sign during a wedding and ennobled marriage by His bodily presence there, and, moreover, willed to be born of a married woman. (Super Hebr. 13, lec. 1; Marietti ed., n. 732.)
Considered as a sacrament of the New Law, marriage between the faithful is a genuine cause of grace, indeed a continual cause, argues St. Thomas (In IV Sent. d. 2, q. 1, a. 1, qa. 2; the same point is made more extensively in In IV Sent. d. 26, q. 2, a. 3 and ST III, q. 65, a. 1. Cf. Cf. In IV Sent. d. 26, q. 2, a. 3, sc). Although marriage does not confer a sacramental character (In IV Sent. d. 31, q. 1, a. 3, ad 5), it establishes something like a character — namely, a permanent spiritual nexus between spouses, which “operates dispositively to bring grace by the power of divine institution” [1]. This nexus is an ever-flowing source of actual graces for spouses who remain in the state of grace.
Moreover, “from the fact that Christ represented it in His Passion,” marriage has power to sanctify the spouses, even as His Passion sanctifies the Church (In IV Sent. d. 26, q. 2, a. 3, ad 1). It joins spouses not only in body, but, more importantly, in soul, in spirit (In IV Sent. d. 42, a. 1, sc 2; ibid., ad 3. In IV Sent. d. 27, q. 1, a. 1, qa. 2, ad 3); it empowers them to live their common life in the friendship of charity.
Finally, marriage supplies new members for the Church, the populum fidelium or fidelium collectio, even as it replenishes and expands the human race. On the natural plane, marriage is given “as a remedy … against the decrease in numbers that results from death,” while on the supernatural plane, it has the privilege of “bringing into being the recipients who approach the sacraments” (ST III, q. 65, a. 1, corp. and ad 3). SCG IV, ch. 78:
Since the people of the faithful (populum fidelium) were to be perpetuated even to the end of the world, it was necessary that this be done by generation, through which also the human race is perpetuated. … Now human generation is ordered to several ends: the continuation of the species; the securing of some political good, such as the preservation of the people in some civic body; it is, moreover, ordered to the perpetuity of the Church, which consists in the assembly of the faithful (fidelium collectione).
The sacrament obliges and equips husband and wife to bring back to God, through Christ and his Church, the gift of children they receive from God. “The foremost good of marriage is offspring brought up for the worship of God (proles ad cultum Dei educanda)” (In IV Sent. d. 39, q. 1, a. 1). The married, in a way properly theirs, help build up the human race into the body of Christ, the true goal of humanity.
When treating of the sacraments of the New Law, St. Thomas makes a distinction between agents and recipients in “hierarchical actions” and notes the obvious but still wonderful truth that without suitable recipients, there could be no giving of sacraments by their agents (ST III, q. 65, a. 1, ad 3). We tend to pass over too quickly the enormous privilege granted to Christian men and women of, as the saint puts it, “bringing into being the recipients who approach the sacraments” (ibid.), and so, assisting Christ in providing spiritual nourishment for His people. Upbringing, says Thomas, has to take into account the bodily nourishment of one’s children, of course, but it has much more to do with “nourishment of the soul (nutrimentum animae)” (In Super I Cor. 7, lec. 1; see In IV Sent. d. 31, q. 2, a. 3, ad 1; In IV Sent. d. 33, q. 1, a. 2, ad 5; In IV Sent. d. 39, q. 1, a. 2; SCG III, ch. 122; SCG IV, ch. 58).
What is most special about Christian marriage is its unique and proper signification: “since wedlock (conjugium) is a sacrament, it is a sacred sign, and of a sacred thing” [2] — namely, “the mystery of the conjoining of Christ and the Church,” “which is made in the freedom of love (secundum libertatem amoris).” So important is marriage’s sign value that Thomas can say: “In every way, ‘sacrament’ is the foremost of the three goods of marriage, for it pertains to marriage insofar as it is a sacrament of grace, whereas the other two [goods, viz., offspring and fidelity] pertain to it insofar as it is an office of nature — and the perfection of grace is nobler than the perfection of nature” (In IV Sent. d. 31, q. 1, a. 3. In IV Sent. d. 31, q. 1, a. 3, sc 2).
As Marc Cardinal Ouellet explains in his book Divine Likeness: Toward a Trinitarian Anthropology of the Family (Eerdmans, 2006), St. Thomas sees the sacramentality of marriage as a perfection that God introduces from without, so to speak, rather than something that wells up immanently from human nature, the way offspring and fidelity do. Thus, to the question “What is most essential to marriage?,” there must be two answers: one from the vantage of its natural function, namely to promote the human race by “increasing and multiplying,” and the other from the vantage of its supernatural function, which emanates from and concerns itself with the nuptial union of Christ and the Church.
Nevertheless, St. Thomas says that if by “offspring” or “fidelity” one means not the thing itself but the intention thereof — the intention to have a family and the intention to remain faithful — then either of these is more essential to marriage than sacramentality, inasmuch as the nature of a thing precedes its elevation by grace. If there is no man, there is no saint; so too, if there is no permanent sexual relationship ordered to offspring, there is no indissoluble grace-giving bond (see In IV Sent. d. 33, q. 1, a. 1). That is the basic reason why there can be no such thing as “gay marriage,” nor a marriage between man and woman if either of the parties refuses, in principle, to be open to children.
While more recent authors on marriage write many more words, often enthusiastic and poetic in tone, they seldom express truths as profound and fruitful as those we can find in the writings of the Angelic Doctor. He provides us with those mustard seeds of understanding that can mature into mighty trees.
[1] See In IV Sent. d. 26, q. 2, a. 3, ad 2. Formally speaking, marriage confers a specific power “for bodily acts” — namely, those ordered to the suitable and dignified procreation of children, which includes the power to bring them up well. This is why marriage does not confer a character, which is always ordered to “spiritual acts” (see In IV Sent. d. 31, q. 1, a. 3, ad 5), as can be seen in the sacraments that do confer it — baptism, confirmation, and holy orders. Put differently, since character is a metaphysical participation in the high priesthood of Jesus Christ, only those sacraments confer a character that confer the ability to share in the very activity of Christ, and marriage equips earthly spouses to do something other than what Christ Himself actually does (although obviously not anything inherently incompatible with what he does). Some Thomists speak of a “quasi-character” conferred by Christian matrimony.
[2] For these three points: see In IV Sent. d. 26, prologue (it is a distinct sacrament because it uniquely signifies a determinate sacred thing: In IV Sent. d. 31, q. 1, a. 3, ad 2); In IV Sent. d. 26, q. 2, a. 2, one among a hundred such texts; the full statement: “marriage signifies the conjoining of Christ to the Church, which is made in the freedom of love. Therefore it cannot happen by coerced consent” (In IV Sent. d. 29, a. 3, qa. 1, sc 2).
Peter Kwasniewski, Thomistic theologian, liturgical scholar, and choral composer, is a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College in California (B.A. Liberal Arts) and The Catholic University of America in Washington, DC (M.A. and Ph.D. in Philosophy). He taught at the International Theological Institute in Austria and the Franciscan University of Steubenville’s Austria Program, then helped establish Wyoming Catholic College in 2006. There he taught theology, philosophy, music, and art history and directed the choirs until leaving in 2018 to devote himself full-time to writing and lecturing. Today he contributes regularly to many websites and publications, including New Liturgical Movement, OnePeterFive, LifeSiteNews, Rorate Caeli, The Remnant, and Catholic Family News, and has published thirteen books, including four on traditional Catholicism: Resurgent in the Midst of Crisis (Angelico, 2014, also available in Czech, Polish, German, Portuguese, Spanish, and Belarusian), Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness (Angelico, 2017), Tradition and Sanity (Angelico, 2018), and Reclaiming Our Roman Catholic Birthright: The Genius and Timeliness of the Traditional Latin Mass (Angelico, 2020). His work has been translated into at least eighteen languages. Kwasniewski is a scholar of The Aquinas Institute in Green Bay, which is publishing the Opera Omnia of the Angelic Doctor, a Fellow of the Albertus Magnus Center for Scholastic Studies, and a Senior Fellow of the St. Paul Center. He has published over a thousand articles on Thomistic thought, sacramental and liturgical theology, the history and aesthetics of music, and the social doctrine of the Church. For news, information, article links, sacred music, and the home of Os Justi Press, visit his personal website, www.peterkwasniewski.com.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-11--Peaceful George Floyd protesters must strongly condemn rioters co-opting their movement

June 10 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — In the face of the recent riots , many try to distinguish between protesters and the “ radical elements ” who riot .
The former are always good and even patriotic .
The latter are lamentable and perhaps criminal .
In the words of Gen. James Mattis , the riots are the work of “ a small number of lawbreakers ” that detract from the overall quest for justice .
The general , who is a scholar , should know better .
When protests that turn into riots happen everywhere at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slogans , it is not the work of a small number of lawbreakers .
When pallets of bricks allegedly appear near places of looting , this is not the work of random opportunists .
When the bailed out rioters enjoy the universal support of the liberal media , politicians , celebrities , business leaders , and clergy , something bigger is at play .
This now worldwide effort is guided by those who know how to direct and articulate events toward a determined goal .
These riots are not spontaneous or random .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and narrative .
Riots need riot-makers .
Most protesters are not riot-makers .
Many just want to manifest their anger over the death of George Floyd .
However , when violent groups turn peaceful protests into riots , the riot-makers use the cover and momentum of the protesters to advance their violent class struggle narrative .
Likewise , not all riot-makers participate in the riots , but they , above all , facilitate them .
The final goal is to give the impression that everyone supports their struggle .
When protesters fail to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prevail .
Thus , protesters should immediately condemn and disassociate themselves from the violence .
There is nothing patriotic about the wanton destruction of property that has ruined the lives of thousands of Americans .
Indeed , the life of George Floyd is not worth intrinsically more than the life of David Dorn , the black ex–police captain murdered by rioters in St. Louis .
Do not all black lives matter ?
Why is one mourned and the other ignored ?
PETITION : Yes to reform .
No to riots & revolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , riot-makers see the situation differently .
They need violence because they are writing the narrative that everyone is following .
It is the same tired narrative of the left that history is an eternal struggle between the exploiters and the exploited .
Riot-makers do not want social harmony since it impedes the advance of the revolutionary process that they think will assure them of victory .
The radical left has capitalized on the riots to foment class struggle on a mass scale .
Indeed , all the familiar characters in this drama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists , socialists , feminists , and even Satanists join ranks in this revolution against the established order .
This struggle explains why the riot-makers inside the left , the media , and the liberal establishment frame this crisis as a “ systemic ” crisis .
They know that a systemic crisis can be changed only by bringing down the system .
They can claim that violence is the only way rioters can express their helplessness in the face of the massive system that oppresses them .
In a systemic crisis , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real and concrete problems .
The riot-makers make impossible demands that they know can not be met inside the present system .
When the riot-makers take control , the “ offending ” class can never change enough to suit them .
They rule with cruel tyranny over actions and even thoughts .
The only things accepted by the riot-makers are concessions and submission .
The established order must invent the concessions it will make to facilitate its self-destruction .
Everyone must apologize and surrender .
Thus , city governments voluntarily offer to defund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tie the hands of their officers while rioters attack and kill these brave defenders on the thin blue line .
Civil and business leaders trip over each other in seeing who can surrender the most in this macabre dance toward society ’ s dissolution .
Moreover , the riot-makers see violence as a means to accelerate change .
If the object of their revolution is to destroy the established order , it must be physically threatened to scare the comfortable bourgeois to concede .
Riots fast-forward so-called historical processes and avoid the ugly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Framing the debate as a systemic crisis allows the riot-makers to avoid anyone from raising moral questions about their action .
A systemic crisis absolves people of personal responsibility and free will since they insist the system determines how people behave .
It also hides the real problem .
Indeed , it is much greater than racism , which is only a consequence .
This problem is a moral crisis of massive proportions that is tearing America apart .
This crisis happened because modern society developed styles of life that teach individuals not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It created conditions whereby people became slaves to their unbridled passions .
The result is a sinful society that becomes ever more disordered .
In the present war against order , the riot-makers now fight with increased rage against the remnants of the natural moral law that seeks to restrain them — even if only by fallible police .
They want their bricks to bring down the present decadent system , full of family , cultural , and even economic institutions that remind people of the Christian order that still survives in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rage against God and His Law .
For this reason , the left seeks to avoid addressing the moral dimension .
A moral worldview assumes human freedom and makes harmonious change possible .
Moral law proposes solutions that work in union with human nature , not against it .
Christian charity works toward ordering society and helping the needy .
When the issue is framed in moral terms , as it should be , the riot-makers will always lose .
They avoid this .
They fear the moral reawakening of an America that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defeat .

When violent groups turn peaceful protests into riots, the riot-makers use the cover and momentum of the protesters to advance their violent class struggle narrative.
June 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — In the face of the recent riots, many try to distinguish between protesters and the “radical elements” who riot. The former are always good and even patriotic. The latter are lamentable and perhaps criminal. In the words of Gen. James Mattis, the riots are the work of “a small number of lawbreakers” that detract from the overall quest for justice.
The general, who is a scholar, should know better. When protests that turn into riots happen everywhere at the same time, using similar tactics and slogans, it is not the work of a small number of lawbreakers. When pallets of bricks allegedly appear near places of looting, this is not the work of random opportunists. When the bailed out rioters enjoy the universal support of the liberal media, politicians, celebrities, business leaders, and clergy, something bigger is at play.
This now worldwide effort is guided by those who know how to direct and articulate events toward a determined goal. These riots are not spontaneous or random. Things like this need organization, thought and narrative. Riots need riot-makers.
Protesters Need to Condemn Rioters
Most protesters are not riot-makers. Many just want to manifest their anger over the death of George Floyd. However, when violent groups turn peaceful protests into riots, the riot-makers use the cover and momentum of the protesters to advance their violent class struggle narrative.
Likewise, not all riot-makers participate in the riots, but they, above all, facilitate them. The final goal is to give the impression that everyone supports their struggle. When protesters fail to condemn rioters, they allow this impression to prevail.
Thus, protesters should immediately condemn and disassociate themselves from the violence. There is nothing patriotic about the wanton destruction of property that has ruined the lives of thousands of Americans. Indeed, the life of George Floyd is not worth intrinsically more than the life of David Dorn, the black ex–police captain murdered by rioters in St. Louis. Do not all black lives matter? Why is one mourned and the other ignored?
PETITION: Yes to reform. No to riots & revolution! Sign the petition here.
A Need for Violence
However, riot-makers see the situation differently. They need violence because they are writing the narrative that everyone is following. It is the same tired narrative of the left that history is an eternal struggle between the exploiters and the exploited. Riot-makers do not want social harmony since it impedes the advance of the revolutionary process that they think will assure them of victory.
The radical left has capitalized on the riots to foment class struggle on a mass scale. Indeed, all the familiar characters in this drama remain the same. Pro-abortionists, LGBT activists, socialists, feminists, and even Satanists join ranks in this revolution against the established order.
Framing the Debate as a Systemic Crisis
This struggle explains why the riot-makers inside the left, the media, and the liberal establishment frame this crisis as a “systemic” crisis. They know that a systemic crisis can be changed only by bringing down the system. They can claim that violence is the only way rioters can express their helplessness in the face of the massive system that oppresses them.
In a systemic crisis, there can be no solutions to the very real and concrete problems. The riot-makers make impossible demands that they know cannot be met inside the present system. When the riot-makers take control, the “offending” class can never change enough to suit them. They rule with cruel tyranny over actions and even thoughts.
The only things accepted by the riot-makers are concessions and submission. The established order must invent the concessions it will make to facilitate its self-destruction. Everyone must apologize and surrender. Thus, city governments voluntarily offer to defund or even abolish their police. They tie the hands of their officers while rioters attack and kill these brave defenders on the thin blue line. Civil and business leaders trip over each other in seeing who can surrender the most in this macabre dance toward society’s dissolution.
Moreover, the riot-makers see violence as a means to accelerate change. If the object of their revolution is to destroy the established order, it must be physically threatened to scare the comfortable bourgeois to concede. Riots fast-forward so-called historical processes and avoid the ugly defeats suffered through slower democratic processes.
Avoiding Moral Issues
Framing the debate as a systemic crisis allows the riot-makers to avoid anyone from raising moral questions about their action. A systemic crisis absolves people of personal responsibility and free will since they insist the system determines how people behave.
It also hides the real problem. Indeed, it is much greater than racism, which is only a consequence. This problem is a moral crisis of massive proportions that is tearing America apart. This crisis happened because modern society developed styles of life that teach individuals not to assume moral responsibility for their actions. It created conditions whereby people became slaves to their unbridled passions. The result is a sinful society that becomes ever more disordered.
In the present war against order, the riot-makers now fight with increased rage against the remnants of the natural moral law that seeks to restrain them — even if only by fallible police. They want their bricks to bring down the present decadent system, full of family, cultural, and even economic institutions that remind people of the Christian order that still survives in these times. The most radical riot-makers rage against God and His Law.
For this reason, the left seeks to avoid addressing the moral dimension. A moral worldview assumes human freedom and makes harmonious change possible. Moral law proposes solutions that work in union with human nature, not against it. Christian charity works toward ordering society and helping the needy.
When the issue is framed in moral terms, as it should be, the riot-makers will always lose. They avoid this. They fear the moral reawakening of an America that will call upon God and seal their defeat.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-11--Did you know Black Lives Matter supports abortion, homosexuality, anti-family agenda?

June 10 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — While Black Lives Matter seems on the outside to be a social justice organization that aims to further the rights of African-Americans , many are surprised to discover that the group has an alarming pro-abortion , pro-homosexual , and anti-family agenda at the core of its mission to remake America .
In its online manifesto titled “ What We Believe , ” the Black Lives Matter organizers Patrisse Khan-Cullors , Alicia Garza , and Opal Tometi say they and their followers “ disrupt ” the “ Western-prescribed ” family .
They also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heteronormative thinking ” and demand “ reproductive justice.
” “ We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘ villages ’ that collectively care for one another , especially our children , to the degree that mothers , parents , and children are comfortable , ” they wrote .
“ We foster a queer‐affirming network .
When we gather , we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking , or rather , the belief that all in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or they disclose otherwise ) , ” they continued .
“ We deserve and thus we demand reproductive justice [ i.e.
, abortion ] that gives us autonomy over our bodies and our identities while ensuring that our children and families are supported , safe , and able to thrive.
” Despite disrupting the “ nuclear family , ” all three founders of the Black Lives Movement were raised in intact families .
Patrisse Khan-Cullors , 36 , is an LGBT activist who left her married parents ’ home at the age of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identity .
Alicia Garza , 39 , also grew up with both parents at home and is now “ married ” to a white female who identifies as a “ transgender male.
” Garza , too , considers herself an LGBT activist .
Opal Tometi , 35 , grew up with a Nigerian mother and father and two brothers in Arizona .
In a 2015 interview with MSNBC , Khan-Cullors stressed the “ queer identity ” of the Black Lives Matter founders .
“ Even the hashtag [ # BlackLivesMatter ] was created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Alicia , and one Nigerian-American woman , Opal Tometi , ” she said .
Khan-Cullors explained that “ from the beginning ” it was important to the movement to address not only the “ killings of young black boys , ” but “ all black lives , ” including those of transgender people .
Khan-Cullors suggested that civil rights leaders of the past have not been representative of all black people .
PETITION : Yes to reform .
No to riots & revolution !
Sign the petition here .
“ The historical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for black cis-hetero Christian men , both their lives [ and ] also them being at the forefront of the conversation , ” she said .
Black Lives Matter has been accused by some pundits of having hijacked George Floyd ’ s murder for political gains .
Ryan Bomberger , a mixed-race pro-life activist , said the Black Lives Matter organization ’ s focus on LGBT ideology is one of the ten reasons he will never join the movement .
“ They heavily promote homosexuality and transgenderism , ” Bomberger wrote on June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not embracing confusion , ” he added .
“ Loving every human being is not the same as loving every human doing.
” Bomberger also objected to Black Lives Matter ’ s refusal to address the overwhelming problem of fatherlessness in the black American community .
“ They completely ignore fatherhood , ” he wrote .
“ Every ‘ village ’ that has fatherless families is a village that suffers higher crime rates , higher drug usage , higher abortion rates , higher drop-out rates , higher poverty rates , and so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also noted that the youngest black lives do not seem to matter to the authors of the Black Lives Matter manifesto .
“ Aborted children don ’ t thrive .
BLM groups announced ‘ solidarity ’ with ‘ reproductive justice ’ groups back in February 2015 .
You can not simultaneously fight violence while celebrating it , ” he stated .
Khan-Cullors and Garza began the “ Black Lives Matter ” movement after the Hispanic George Zimmerman was acquitted in 2013 of second-degree murder and manslaughter of a 17-year-old black boy named Trayvon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now synonymous with the protests that have swept the United States and other Western countries since convicted felon George Floyd was filmed dying under the knee of a white police officer .

June 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — While Black Lives Matter seems on the outside to be a social justice organization that aims to further the rights of African-Americans, many are surprised to discover that the group has an alarming pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and anti-family agenda at the core of its mission to remake America.
In its online manifesto titled “What We Believe,” the Black Lives Matter organizers Patrisse Khan-Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi say they and their followers “disrupt” the “Western-prescribed” family. They also say they have freed themselves from “heteronormative thinking” and demand “reproductive justice.”
“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable,” they wrote.
“We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise),” they continued.
“We deserve and thus we demand reproductive justice [i.e., abortion] that gives us autonomy over our bodies and our identities while ensuring that our children and families are supported, safe, and able to thrive.”
Despite disrupting the “nuclear family,” all three founders of the Black Lives Movement were raised in intact families. Patrisse Khan-Cullors, 36, is an LGBT activist who left her married parents’ home at the age of 16 after informing them of her homosexual identity. Alicia Garza, 39, also grew up with both parents at home and is now “married” to a white female who identifies as a “transgender male.” Garza, too, considers herself an LGBT activist. Opal Tometi, 35, grew up with a Nigerian mother and father and two brothers in Arizona.
In a 2015 interview with MSNBC, Khan-Cullors stressed the “queer identity” of the Black Lives Matter founders.
“Even the hashtag [#BlackLivesMatter] was created by two black queer women, myself and Alicia, and one Nigerian-American woman, Opal Tometi,” she said.
Khan-Cullors explained that “from the beginning” it was important to the movement to address not only the “killings of young black boys,” but “all black lives,” including those of transgender people. Khan-Cullors suggested that civil rights leaders of the past have not been representative of all black people.
PETITION: Yes to reform. No to riots & revolution! Sign the petition here.
“The historical narrative of black people has been fighting for black cis-hetero Christian men, both their lives [and] also them being at the forefront of the conversation,” she said.
Black Lives Matter has been accused by some pundits of having hijacked George Floyd’s murder for political gains.
Ryan Bomberger, a mixed-race pro-life activist, said the Black Lives Matter organization’s focus on LGBT ideology is one of the ten reasons he will never join the movement.
“They heavily promote homosexuality and transgenderism,” Bomberger wrote on June 5 for Townhall.
“I’m not embracing confusion,” he added. “Loving every human being is not the same as loving every human doing.”
Bomberger also objected to Black Lives Matter’s refusal to address the overwhelming problem of fatherlessness in the black American community.
“They completely ignore fatherhood,” he wrote. “Every ‘village’ that has fatherless families is a village that suffers higher crime rates, higher drug usage, higher abortion rates, higher drop-out rates, higher poverty rates, and so much more. #DadsMatter.”
Bomberger also noted that the youngest black lives do not seem to matter to the authors of the Black Lives Matter manifesto.
“Aborted children don’t thrive. BLM groups announced ‘solidarity’ with ‘reproductive justice’ groups back in February 2015. You cannot simultaneously fight violence while celebrating it,” he stated.
Khan-Cullors and Garza began the “Black Lives Matter” movement after the Hispanic George Zimmerman was acquitted in 2013 of second-degree murder and manslaughter of a 17-year-old black boy named Trayvon Martin. The movement’s name is now synonymous with the protests that have swept the United States and other Western countries since convicted felon George Floyd was filmed dying under the knee of a white police officer.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-11--Australian bishops’ commissioned report calls for Church governance by lay women

AUSTRALIA , June 10 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A report commissioned jointly by the Australian Catholic Bishops ’ Conference ( ACBC ) and Catholic Religious Australia ( CRA ) has called for radical changes in the Church ’ s governance .
The report recommends significant increases in the influence of laity , especially women , while criticizing the Church ’ s male-only priesthood .
“ The Light from the Southern Cross , ” a 208-page review of the governance of the Church in Australia , was commissioned in response to a recommendation from a five-year government inquiry into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Australian society .
The review was published in full last week by La Croix International .
Massimo Faggioli , one of the 18 contributors to the report , has said the document lays out “ a new praxis of church governance , ” which is “ a model of synodal church governance that the global Catholic Church can embrace.
” “ The work of the group and our report promote a development in the governance of the church toward the direction of a co-responsible synodal model that involves much more input from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels , ” Faggioli wrote last month in an article for the National Catholic Reporter .
The review recommends that “ the appointment of lay women and men to senior decision-making bodies and agencies be accelerated ” and outlines a number of ways for members of the laity to exercise greater influence in ecclesial matters .
These include that diocesan “ leadership teams ” include members of the laity who exercise “ co-responsibility with bishops , priests and religious.
” Moreover , the review recommends that laity with “ appropriate expertise ” should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ placement of priests in parishes ” and in the appointment of bishops .
Fr .
Glen Tattersall , a parish priest in the Archdiocese of Melbourne , told LifeSiteNews that the true purpose of the review is to “ break the nexus between the sacrament of Holy Orders and pastoral governance.
” “ But such a Church could at best be described as an extreme form of Protestantism ; it could not pretend to be Apostolic , and therefore it could not be the Catholic Church , ” Fr .
Tattersall said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ world : Feed your flock !
Sign the petition here .
“ This is really about so tying up things that it ’ s unnecessary to get female ordination , because ordained ministers will just be functionaries governed by lay groups , ” he added .
Cardinal Gerhard Müller , former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith , addressed similar issues last year when criticizing the Amazon Synod ’ s working document ( number 127 ) , which proposed to “ reconsider the notion that the exercise of jurisdiction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ linked in all areas ( sacramental , judicial , administrative ) and in a permanent way to the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
” And following the publication of Pope Francis ’ s post-synodal exhortation , Querida Amazonia , Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes , a retired curial cardinal living in Rome , argued that a footnote in Querida Amazonia quotes canon law in a defective way so as to promote the idea of non-ordained parochial leaders .
The review of the Church in Australia also recommends that “ women take a critical role in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seminarians and participate in the evaluation team deciding suitability for ordination ” and that a national center be established which reviews formation programmes .
Fr .
Tattersall said that individuals in what is effectively a “ Deep Church ” are desperate to get control of priestly formation and to stop conservative and traditional men becoming priests .
“ Anyone who is not a ‘ yes ’ person , who doesn ’ t go along with the programme will never get through seminary , ” he said .
“ The authors of this report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative and even traditionalist young men coming through the seminaries and they are determined to stamp that out.
” The review argues that , despite women having been appointed to “ senior professional leadership roles within the Church , ” women , “ nonetheless , still experience the detrimental effects of a prevailing culture of ‘ clericalism ’ that elevates the male ordained above religious and the laity.
” “ The most visible indicator of the barriers to full participation is that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Australia , as in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclusively male ” the review asserts .
The review claims that “ the Church in Australia is at variance with contemporary norms of equality between men and women ” and that “ [ t ] his robs the Church of the full benefits of the feminine in dialogue , in celebration , and in decision-making.
” The review also recommends that each diocese should hold a local synod at least every 10 years ; that all reports of alleged abuse or cover-up by bishops be reviewed by independent experts ; and that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diocesan pastoral councils should be established and consulted on all major decisions in the diocese .
Archbishop Mark Coleridge , president of the ACBC , welcomed the report .
In a statement released last month after the report was sent to the Australian bishops , Coleridge said : “ We owe a debt of gratitude to the Governance Review Project Team for their important and comprehensive contribution to this ongoing process of discernment.
” Coleridge said the review “ will undoubtedly contribute to the eventual formation of proposals to be considered during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was scheduled to begin a plenary council later this year , but it has now been delayed until next year due to the coronavirus crisis .
A plenary council is the highest formal gathering of the Catholic Church in a particular country .
The last one held in Australia was in 1937 .
Decisions made at the council must be approved by Rome .
If approved , they will be binding on the Church in Australia .
Last year , Coleridge presided at an event in preparation for the upcoming plenary council , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Australia develop a “ rite of blessing ” for same-sex couples and for divorced Catholics calling themselves “ married ” to people not their spouses .
The proposal was made on large screens at the Brisbane Assembly , a two-day event organized by the Brisbane archdiocese .
Abp .
Coleridge , primate of Brisbane , was seated in the front row immediately underneath the screens when the proposal was displayed .
Shortly afterward , Coleridge gave his concluding speech for the event in which he asked the audience of approximately 400 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sisters and brothers , I ask you , are you ready to surrender ?
Are you open to being transformed ?
Are you willing to let God reshape you ?
Are we as a Church , as a diocese , willing to let God reshape us ?
” At the beginning of the two-day event in Brisbane , Fr .
Noel Conolly , a Catholic priest and member of the Plenary Council Facilitation Team , gave a presentation calling for major reform in the Church .
Fr .
Conolly said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new church in Australia .
A listening church , a discerning church , a pilgrim church .
It wo n't be the same church , I hope , after the plenary council .
Well , hopefully , it ’ ll be the same church , but it will have a totally different kind of culture .
”

The review recommends that 'the appointment of lay women and men to senior decision-making bodies and agencies be accelerated' among other radical proposals.
AUSTRALIA, June 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A report commissioned jointly by the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference (ACBC) and Catholic Religious Australia (CRA) has called for radical changes in the Church’s governance. The report recommends significant increases in the influence of laity, especially women, while criticizing the Church’s male-only priesthood.
“The Light from the Southern Cross,” a 208-page review of the governance of the Church in Australia, was commissioned in response to a recommendation from a five-year government inquiry into institutional child sexual abuse in all areas of Australian society. The review was published in full last week by La Croix International.
Massimo Faggioli, one of the 18 contributors to the report, has said the document lays out “a new praxis of church governance,” which is “a model of synodal church governance that the global Catholic Church can embrace.”
“The work of the group and our report promote a development in the governance of the church toward the direction of a co-responsible synodal model that involves much more input from laypeople, particularly women, at all levels,” Faggioli wrote last month in an article for the National Catholic Reporter.
The review recommends that “the appointment of lay women and men to senior decision-making bodies and agencies be accelerated” and outlines a number of ways for members of the laity to exercise greater influence in ecclesial matters.
These include that diocesan “leadership teams” include members of the laity who exercise “co-responsibility with bishops, priests and religious.”
Moreover, the review recommends that laity with “appropriate expertise” should be “involved in decisions regarding the placement of priests in parishes” and in the appointment of bishops.
Fr. Glen Tattersall, a parish priest in the Archdiocese of Melbourne, told LifeSiteNews that the true purpose of the review is to “break the nexus between the sacrament of Holy Orders and pastoral governance.”
“But such a Church could at best be described as an extreme form of Protestantism; it could not pretend to be Apostolic, and therefore it could not be the Catholic Church,” Fr. Tattersall said.
Urgent appeal to the bishops of the world: Feed your flock! Sign the petition here.
“This is really about so tying up things that it’s unnecessary to get female ordination, because ordained ministers will just be functionaries governed by lay groups,” he added.
Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, addressed similar issues last year when criticizing the Amazon Synod’s working document (number 127), which proposed to “reconsider the notion that the exercise of jurisdiction (power of government) must be linked in all areas (sacramental, judicial, administrative) and in a permanent way to the Sacrament of Holy Orders.”
And following the publication of Pope Francis’s post-synodal exhortation, Querida Amazonia, Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, a retired curial cardinal living in Rome, argued that a footnote in Querida Amazonia quotes canon law in a defective way so as to promote the idea of non-ordained parochial leaders.
The review of the Church in Australia also recommends that “women take a critical role in relation to the selection and formation of seminarians and participate in the evaluation team deciding suitability for ordination” and that a national center be established which reviews formation programmes.
Fr. Tattersall said that individuals in what is effectively a “Deep Church” are desperate to get control of priestly formation and to stop conservative and traditional men becoming priests.
“Anyone who is not a ‘yes’ person, who doesn’t go along with the programme will never get through seminary,” he said.
“The authors of this report and its apologists know that there are conservative and even traditionalist young men coming through the seminaries and they are determined to stamp that out.”
The review argues that, despite women having been appointed to “senior professional leadership roles within the Church,” women, “nonetheless, still experience the detrimental effects of a prevailing culture of ‘clericalism’ that elevates the male ordained above religious and the laity.”
“The most visible indicator of the barriers to full participation is that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Australia, as in the Church across the world, remains exclusively male” the review asserts.
The review claims that “the Church in Australia is at variance with contemporary norms of equality between men and women” and that “[t]his robs the Church of the full benefits of the feminine in dialogue, in celebration, and in decision-making.”
The review also recommends that each diocese should hold a local synod at least every 10 years; that all reports of alleged abuse or cover-up by bishops be reviewed by independent experts; and that, where they do not already exist, diocesan pastoral councils should be established and consulted on all major decisions in the diocese.
Archbishop Mark Coleridge, president of the ACBC, welcomed the report. In a statement released last month after the report was sent to the Australian bishops, Coleridge said: “We owe a debt of gratitude to the Governance Review Project Team for their important and comprehensive contribution to this ongoing process of discernment.”
Coleridge said the review “will undoubtedly contribute to the eventual formation of proposals to be considered during the Plenary Council.”
The Church in Australia was scheduled to begin a plenary council later this year, but it has now been delayed until next year due to the coronavirus crisis. A plenary council is the highest formal gathering of the Catholic Church in a particular country. The last one held in Australia was in 1937. Decisions made at the council must be approved by Rome. If approved, they will be binding on the Church in Australia.
Last year, Coleridge presided at an event in preparation for the upcoming plenary council, where it was proposed that the Church in Australia develop a “rite of blessing” for same-sex couples and for divorced Catholics calling themselves “married” to people not their spouses.
The proposal was made on large screens at the Brisbane Assembly, a two-day event organized by the Brisbane archdiocese. Abp. Coleridge, primate of Brisbane, was seated in the front row immediately underneath the screens when the proposal was displayed.
Shortly afterward, Coleridge gave his concluding speech for the event in which he asked the audience of approximately 400 people, “So, brothers and sisters, sisters and brothers, I ask you, are you ready to surrender? Are you open to being transformed? Are you willing to let God reshape you? Are we as a Church, as a diocese, willing to let God reshape us?”
At the beginning of the two-day event in Brisbane, Fr. Noel Conolly, a Catholic priest and member of the Plenary Council Facilitation Team, gave a presentation calling for major reform in the Church. Fr. Conolly said, “We're in the birth pangs of a new church in Australia. A listening church, a discerning church, a pilgrim church. It won't be the same church, I hope, after the plenary council. Well, hopefully, it’ll be the same church, but it will have a totally different kind of culture.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-11--Hungary’s deputy minister explains how govt fought COVID without abusing powers

June 10 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — When Hungary ’ s government imposed a nationwide lockdown in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic in March , liberal commentators spoke with a unified voice .
Historian and columnist Anne Applebaum called the policy a “ de facto coup d ’ etat ” in the prestigious pages of The Atlantic , warning that it was another example of “ creeping authoritarianism.
” Her colleague Yasmeen Serhan concurred , adding that the policy was actually “ outright authoritarianism.
” Over in the Washington Post , Dalibor Rohac went all in , declaring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s power grab is without parallel in recent European history.
” In fact , Rohac informed us , “ Hungary is bound to emerge from the current crisis as a full-fledged dictatorship.
” Other commentators demanded an accounting from traditionalist conservative supporters of Orbán ’ s government , including Rod Dreher , who has been enthusiastic about Orbán ’ s pro-life and pro-family policies ( as have I ) .
Hungary ’ s state of emergency passed the Hungarian Parliament on March 30 , and Dreher responded on April 6 , noting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little overblown .
John O ’ Sullivan responded to Applebaum in a similar vein over at National Review , noting that he had concerns but that the hysteria was unwarranted .
In fact , considering the almost universal condemnation by liberals of Hungary ’ s rejection of the progressive project , the condemnation was unsurprising — although the fact that many other Western jurisdictions embarked on similarly draconian policies without facing criticism made the salvoes at Orbán seem , once again , opportunistic .
Michael Brendan Dougherty has penned the definitive rebuttal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a scathing essay titled “ The 82-Day Dictatorship , ” in which he noted that Hungary successfully weathered the pandemic , did not abuse the emergency powers , and began to lift the restrictions before other democracies that came in for no criticism ( like France ) .
“ One suspects , ” Dougherty noted , that “ [ the response ] is just simple hatred of Christian conservatism , a fanatical projection of culture war antipathies to the near abroad.
” I concur heartily with that analysis .
For the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the emergency measures — which , once again , was leveled at virtually nobody else — I spoke with Hungary ’ s deputy minister of the prime minister ’ s office , Balázs Orbán , who was kind enough to answer my questions via email .
( His previous comments on the COVID-19 lockdown can be found in an essay at The National Interest . )
What was the purpose of the lockdown ?
On 11 March 2020 , the Hungarian Government declared a state of danger that is an extraordinary legal order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The state of danger enables the government to introduce extraordinary measures swiftly and effectively .
The primary objective of these extraordinary measures was to preserve the health and safety of the Hungarian people .
Subsequently , by the means of the extraordinary measures , the Hungarian government simply wanted to safeguard the economic accomplishments of the past decade .
In Europe , Hungary was amongst the first countries to take measures in order to get the Covid-19 outbreak under control .
The government established early on a special task force — called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evaluate the pandemic , which action also deserves attention .
Notably , this happened in January , when the number of cases was still low Europe wide .
The Hungarian Government declared a state of emergency already 7 days after the first domestic case was registered .
In comparison , Italy had waited 38 days to take action .
On 16 March , just 12 days after the first case , the government shut down elementary and high schools .
Austria made the same decision 12 days later , Italy followed suit with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following day Hungary closed its borders , so that only Hungarian citizens were allowed to enter .
The government undoubtedly succeeded in this endeavor .
Just a week before , Chief Medical Officer Cecília Müller announced that we have reached a static stage and the epidemic is declining .
Official data available on 24 May indicate that the death rate of the pandemic in Hungary is 5 people for every 100.000 inhabitants .
In comparison , the United Kingdom has lost 56 lives , Spain 61 , Belgium 81 , for every 100.000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managed to effectively curb the epidemic in a two-month timeframe .
As far as the economic measures are concerned , in its most recent outlook , the IMF stated that the Hungarian economy — following the Maltese — will suffer the least severe economic downturn .
Moreover , based on the same projections the Hungarian economy is expected to grow at an annual rate of 4.2 percent next year .
PETITION : Tell politicians not to discriminate against churches when reopening society !
Sign the petition here .
What was the government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When initiating the introduction of these extraordinary measures the Hungarian government acted within and in line with its constitutional framework and the Hungarian constitutional system had not been suspended .
There is tangible proof for this claim , since the constitutional rights were not restricted the Hungarian National Assembly proceeded to exercise her legislative functions .
On this note , on May 26 the government initiated the process of revoking the state of danger which is precisely the contrary of what the mainstream international liberal media — with the Hungarian opposition parties on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the special legal order was introduced .
At the same time , the government initiated the process to reinforce the authority of the Chief Medical Officer .
This move indicates that we already started our preparations for the predicted second wave of the pandemic .
What is the government ’ s response to the silence from these same critics as Hungary lifts the lockdown ?
The Hungarian government never wanted to silence any of her critics .
At the same time , it never refrained from contradicting false accusations and unsubstantiated criticism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ government is again subject to a political campaign exclusively on the part of the usual actors .
The leftist opposition almost routinely joined forces with the network of the Soros-founded NGOs to exclaim dictatorship in Hungary .
One thing is confusing .
Over the past ten years , the main purpose of the Hungarian opposition and the mainstream liberal media has been to depict the Hungarian constitutional order as an ever-emerging autocracy .
The Hungarian people are very familiar with the true form of a dictatorship ; therefore , if Hungary were an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an overwhelming electoral support for the government .
Moreover , in an actual dictatorship , these accusations could not be published at all , since criticism against the regime would be prohibited and severely punished .
Conversely , if we agree that Hungary has been a full-fledged dictatorship for years now , how should we regard the period after the introduction of the extraordinary measures ?
I believe that either way , the answer leads us to the conclusion : those points of criticism can not be taken seriously .
Then the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own self-contradictions , these forces were so blinded by their own narrative , that they raised the stakes by claiming that this was the exact time when Hungary became an outright dictatorship .
By doing so , they actually blew their own ten-year-project , since by definition an ‘ a priori ’ dictatorship can not be more dictatorial .
These forces should apologize to the Government and the Hungarian people .
Was Hungary ’ s lockdown as severe as others throughout the West ?
With the exception of Sweden — notably the Swedish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European country introduced a form of lockdown .
Respectively , over the course of the past two months almost every European country deployed extraordinary measures to curb the pandemic and mitigate the economic consequences .
There were instances where the legality of these measures were questionable .
In other cases the governmental practice posed questions as far as adherence to the international legal regimes are concerned .
Surprising enough , some countries completely lacked a clear constitutional framework to introduce swift measures that eventually turned out to be of extraordinary nature .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European countries , because the appropriate constitutional framework had been in place .
This means that the rules for extraordinary legal order were apparent and transparent .
At the same time , Hungary clearly understood the challenges each and every country faced .
For this reason the government refrained from employing any judgement — let alone expressing criticism — towards our European and American partners .
Consequently , we stated that in these desperate times individual countries should choose corresponding measures to tackle the pandemic .
In this regard Hungary aligned her standpoint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Council of Europe ’ s commission in its latest report firmly expressed that a fairly wide range of legal constellations can be regarded as equally democratically introduced extraordinary legal orders .
I think the legal opinion expressed by the Venice Commission should be summarized just as the saying goes : there is no accounting for tastes .
Jonathon ’ s new podcast , The Van Maren Show , is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement .
In the latest episode , African-American pro-life leader Ryan Bomberger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Black Lives Matter organization and the best way to respond to the injustices that are happening in the U.S. and around the world .
You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below :

I spoke with Hungary's deputy minister of the prime minister's office, Balázs Orbán, about the globalist backlash against Hungary's — and only Hungary's — response to the coronavirus outbreak.
June 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — When Hungary’s government imposed a nationwide lockdown in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic in March, liberal commentators spoke with a unified voice. Historian and columnist Anne Applebaum called the policy a “de facto coup d’etat” in the prestigious pages of The Atlantic, warning that it was another example of “creeping authoritarianism.” Her colleague Yasmeen Serhan concurred, adding that the policy was actually “outright authoritarianism.” Over in the Washington Post, Dalibor Rohac went all in, declaring that the “brazenness of Orbán’s power grab is without parallel in recent European history.” In fact, Rohac informed us, “Hungary is bound to emerge from the current crisis as a full-fledged dictatorship.”
Other commentators demanded an accounting from traditionalist conservative supporters of Orbán’s government, including Rod Dreher, who has been enthusiastic about Orbán’s pro-life and pro-family policies (as have I). Hungary’s state of emergency passed the Hungarian Parliament on March 30, and Dreher responded on April 6, noting that the liberal panic was more than a little overblown. John O’Sullivan responded to Applebaum in a similar vein over at National Review, noting that he had concerns but that the hysteria was unwarranted. In fact, considering the almost universal condemnation by liberals of Hungary’s rejection of the progressive project, the condemnation was unsurprising — although the fact that many other Western jurisdictions embarked on similarly draconian policies without facing criticism made the salvoes at Orbán seem, once again, opportunistic.
Michael Brendan Dougherty has penned the definitive rebuttal to Orbán’s critics in National Review in a scathing essay titled “The 82-Day Dictatorship,” in which he noted that Hungary successfully weathered the pandemic, did not abuse the emergency powers, and began to lift the restrictions before other democracies that came in for no criticism (like France). “One suspects,” Dougherty noted, that “[the response] is just simple hatred of Christian conservatism, a fanatical projection of culture war antipathies to the near abroad.” I concur heartily with that analysis.
For the government’s take on the backlash to the emergency measures — which, once again, was leveled at virtually nobody else — I spoke with Hungary’s deputy minister of the prime minister’s office, Balázs Orbán, who was kind enough to answer my questions via email. (His previous comments on the COVID-19 lockdown can be found in an essay at The National Interest.)
Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook
What was the purpose of the lockdown?
On 11 March 2020, the Hungarian Government declared a state of danger that is an extraordinary legal order clearly defined in the Hungarian Fundamental Law. The state of danger enables the government to introduce extraordinary measures swiftly and effectively. The primary objective of these extraordinary measures was to preserve the health and safety of the Hungarian people. Subsequently, by the means of the extraordinary measures, the Hungarian government simply wanted to safeguard the economic accomplishments of the past decade.
In Europe, Hungary was amongst the first countries to take measures in order to get the Covid-19 outbreak under control. The government established early on a special task force — called the Operational group — to monitor and evaluate the pandemic, which action also deserves attention. Notably, this happened in January, when the number of cases was still low Europe wide.
The Hungarian Government declared a state of emergency already 7 days after the first domestic case was registered. In comparison, Italy had waited 38 days to take action. On 16 March, just 12 days after the first case, the government shut down elementary and high schools. Austria made the same decision 12 days later, Italy followed suit with a 34 days delay. On the following day Hungary closed its borders, so that only Hungarian citizens were allowed to enter.
The government undoubtedly succeeded in this endeavor. Just a week before, Chief Medical Officer Cecília Müller announced that we have reached a static stage and the epidemic is declining. Official data available on 24 May indicate that the death rate of the pandemic in Hungary is 5 people for every 100.000 inhabitants. In comparison, the United Kingdom has lost 56 lives, Spain 61, Belgium 81, for every 100.000 inhabitants. This means that the government managed to effectively curb the epidemic in a two-month timeframe.
As far as the economic measures are concerned, in its most recent outlook, the IMF stated that the Hungarian economy — following the Maltese — will suffer the least severe economic downturn. Moreover, based on the same projections the Hungarian economy is expected to grow at an annual rate of 4.2 percent next year.
PETITION: Tell politicians not to discriminate against churches when reopening society! Sign the petition here.
What was the government’s response to accusations of dictatorship?
When initiating the introduction of these extraordinary measures the Hungarian government acted within and in line with its constitutional framework and the Hungarian constitutional system had not been suspended. There is tangible proof for this claim, since the constitutional rights were not restricted the Hungarian National Assembly proceeded to exercise her legislative functions. On this note, on May 26 the government initiated the process of revoking the state of danger which is precisely the contrary of what the mainstream international liberal media — with the Hungarian opposition parties on its side — have been predicting since the special legal order was introduced. At the same time, the government initiated the process to reinforce the authority of the Chief Medical Officer. This move indicates that we already started our preparations for the predicted second wave of the pandemic.
What is the government’s response to the silence from these same critics as Hungary lifts the lockdown?
The Hungarian government never wanted to silence any of her critics. At the same time, it never refrained from contradicting false accusations and unsubstantiated criticism. One should clearly see that the Hungarian government is again subject to a political campaign exclusively on the part of the usual actors. The leftist opposition almost routinely joined forces with the network of the Soros-founded NGOs to exclaim dictatorship in Hungary.
One thing is confusing. Over the past ten years, the main purpose of the Hungarian opposition and the mainstream liberal media has been to depict the Hungarian constitutional order as an ever-emerging autocracy. The Hungarian people are very familiar with the true form of a dictatorship; therefore, if Hungary were an autocracy, there would not be such an overwhelming electoral support for the government. Moreover, in an actual dictatorship, these accusations could not be published at all, since criticism against the regime would be prohibited and severely punished. Conversely, if we agree that Hungary has been a full-fledged dictatorship for years now, how should we regard the period after the introduction of the extraordinary measures? I believe that either way, the answer leads us to the conclusion: those points of criticism cannot be taken seriously.
Then the state of danger was introduced. Neglecting their own self-contradictions, these forces were so blinded by their own narrative, that they raised the stakes by claiming that this was the exact time when Hungary became an outright dictatorship. By doing so, they actually blew their own ten-year-project, since by definition an ‘a priori’ dictatorship cannot be more dictatorial. These forces should apologize to the Government and the Hungarian people.
Was Hungary’s lockdown as severe as others throughout the West?
With the exception of Sweden — notably the Swedish approach resulted in dubious results — every European country introduced a form of lockdown. Respectively, over the course of the past two months almost every European country deployed extraordinary measures to curb the pandemic and mitigate the economic consequences.
There were instances where the legality of these measures were questionable. In other cases the governmental practice posed questions as far as adherence to the international legal regimes are concerned. Surprising enough, some countries completely lacked a clear constitutional framework to introduce swift measures that eventually turned out to be of extraordinary nature.
In this respect Hungary clearly differs from many European countries, because the appropriate constitutional framework had been in place. This means that the rules for extraordinary legal order were apparent and transparent.
At the same time, Hungary clearly understood the challenges each and every country faced. For this reason the government refrained from employing any judgement — let alone expressing criticism — towards our European and American partners. Consequently, we stated that in these desperate times individual countries should choose corresponding measures to tackle the pandemic. In this regard Hungary aligned her standpoint to the Venice Commission’s standards. The Council of Europe’s commission in its latest report firmly expressed that a fairly wide range of legal constellations can be regarded as equally democratically introduced extraordinary legal orders. I think the legal opinion expressed by the Venice Commission should be summarized just as the saying goes: there is no accounting for tastes.
Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement.
In the latest episode, African-American pro-life leader Ryan Bomberger speaks out about the harm being done by the Black Lives Matter organization and the best way to respond to the injustices that are happening in the U.S. and around the world.
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