lifesitenews--2020-05-19--Top French administrative authority rebukes president, demands reopening of churches

May 18 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — This afternoon , the French Council of State ( Conseil d ’ Etat ) ordered the prime minister , Edouard Philippe , to modify the decree prohibiting public worship under the sanitary state of emergency within eight days , in a landmark decision that recognizes the specific rights attached to the “ fundamental liberty ” of public worship .
By next week , churches in France should be allowed to organize public Masses and other religious ceremonies , which have been on hold since the second Sunday of Lent because of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their prohibition is no longer proportionate to the “ war on the coronavirus ” declared by President Emmanuel Macron on March 16 .
France ’ s highest administrative authority declared that the right to join a gathering or a reunion in places of worship — and not only that of praying at home or praying individually in such a place of worship — “ is an essential component of the freedom of worship , ” and curtailing such gatherings is “ a grave and manifestly illegal violation ” of that freedom .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the French government , which has shown the darkest side of its secularism in maintaining strict measures against religious worship , and especially Catholic worship , despite a wide-ranging “ deconfinement ” that has allowed primary schools , businesses , shops , and most shopping centers as well as libraries and small museums to reopen since May 11 .
The decision also reprimands the French bishops and French bishops ’ conference , who deliberately refrained from attacking the May 11 decree in the courts .
Instead , on May 1 , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be organized , offhandedly announced that there would be “ no Mass before June 2 , ” the bishops ’ conference ’ s president , Eric de Moulins-Beaufort , simply remarked : “ You can find this decision exaggeratedly cautious , but it still needs to be implemented.
” The May 11 decree went even farther in that it omitted to give a date for the return of public worship .
Four “ traditional Mass ” institutes under Roman authority — the Fraternity of Saint Peter ( FSSP ) , the Friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sovereign Priest represented by two canons of the ICKSP , the Institute of the Good Pastor , and the Dominican Fraternity of Saint-Vincent-Ferrier — joined forces to plead for the rights of the faithful .
The Society of St Pius X ( FSSPX ) also made an emergency recourse , asking in particular for the right to organize outdoor Masses on public or private grounds .
The Council of State did not respond definitively to this question .
Lay Catholics were represented by the AGRIF , a French and Christian “ anti-defamation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws in France , is fully habilitated to represent the rights of Catholics in the courts .
The author of this article had the honor of signing the recourse as one of the AGRIF ’ s vice presidents , together with Guillaume de Thieulloy , another vice president who runs the French conservative and Catholic news blog “ Le Salon beige , ” and AGRIF ’ s president , Bernard Antony , former European M.P .
and founder of a Christian cultural center ( the Centre Charlier , which launched the now famous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ association that helps persecuted Christians the world over , “ Chrétienté-Solidarité.
” The French Christian Democrat political party PCD , as well as a traditionalist group , Civitas , a group of lay Catholics from Metz in the East of France , and Bruno Gollnisch , former European M.P .
of the French National Front , also presented separate recourses .
A large number of arguments , varied but often convergent , were presented during the emergency hearing at the Council of State last Friday afternoon .
Any French citizen or group may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular emergency procedure called a “ référé-liberté ” by which the legality of an executive decision may be challenged .
The applications of the groups and individuals named above were submitted from the 12th to the 14th of May and were given wide publicity .
It was immediately made clear by the Council of State that the Friday the 15th hearing would group without merging all the requests concerning Catholics ’ demands for the restoration of public worship .
The French bishops could easily have presented their own application at this point , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the procedure in its preparatory stages before the May 11 decree .
They did not , despite the strength of the arguments against the continued “ confinement ” of public Masses .
In an interview with the unofficial daily of the French bishops , La Croix , the spokesman and secretary-general of the bishops ’ conference , Fr .
Thierry Magnin , reacted “ soberly , ” writes journalist Arnaud Bevilacqua .
It would be more appropriate to call his reaction “ aloof.
” We have duly taken note of this order and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , it is in line with a letter that the president of the CEF , Bishop Éric de Moulins-Beaufort , sent to the Prime Minister on Friday , May 15 .
We did not refer the matter to the Council of State , but we wanted to make our position clear .
The Council of State fully supports this position .
It says that the government has gone too far with the ban .
Our position has never been to enter into a wrestling match with the government .
That is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de Moulins-Beaufort .
It is not a matter of crowing over the decision , even though we obviously think it is a step in the right direction .
We have always been in direct contact with the government .
Today , Monday , May 18 , I myself have again sent more detailed proposals to regulate the resumption of worship .
In particular , it is being suggested that churches should be allowed to organize celebrations with a third of their potential congregation .
But to date , these “ behind-the-scenes ” negotiations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to say : We will continue to work intelligently together .
Bishop de Moulins-Beaufort ’ s letter to the Prime Minister was clear and in the relationship we are trying to maintain we can tell each other things in confidence .
I do not believe that the government had the will to minimize freedom of religion .
The associations that brought the matter before the Council of State made this appeal and we did otherwise by writing to the Prime Minister because we are in dialogue and there was the prospect of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 in the company of the other religious denominations .
These associations have done what they saw fit , and there are several ways of doing so .
We did not consider filing an appeal with the Council of State , but Bishop de Moulins-Beaufort pointed out that there was a legal problem , which was finally raised by the Council of State .
It would seem that the leaders of the French bishops are somewhat uncomfortable with the procedure that short-circuited their inter-religious and fruitless talks with the authorities .
This attitude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic hierarchy would explain why individual bishops , a number of whom have openly decried the prohibition of public worship , decided not to join the procedure .
Bishop Marc Aillet of Bayonne tweeted : “ I welcome the decision of the Council of State ordering the French government to lift the general ban on gatherings in places of worship .
Thank you to all those who initiated this and thanks to the Lord who inspired this just struggle.
” Bishop Bernard Ginoux of Montauban , who recently called the prohibition of public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” adding that “ we can not be subjected to an order that is contrary to common sense , ” was also satisfied by the decision : “ My thanks to justice which has acknowledged a ‘ grave and a legal violation of the freedom of worship.
’ ” Both the traditional priestly institutes and fraternities and the AGRIF quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church in order to underscore why Catholics have an urgent spiritual need of Mass , at which they should assist in person , because during Mass , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where they can receive the body and blood , soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in Communion as a necessary spiritual nourishment .
This may seem a strange argument in front of administrative judges who monitor the activity of the public authorities of a secular and even secularist Republic such as France .
But Jérôme Triomphe , who was one of the lawyers of the priestly institutes , told LifeSite that it was necessary to explain Catholics ’ specific needs in order to prove to the Council of State that not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of worship been restricted — and this can be allowed for proportionate reasons in the face of sanitary emergency — but that there was an “ urgent ” reason for putting a stop to the restriction .
Interestingly , the judges of the Council of State focused on religious freedom and freedom of worship of believers in order to say that “ the absolute and general prohibition ” decreed on May 11 ( apart from funerals , which have been possible since the beginning of confinement ) was illegal because less stringent measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They rejected the government representative ’ s arguments regarding a number of other public venues , such as sports centers , dance halls , and restaurants which may not receive the public until further notice , not only because of the activities involved , but because freedom of religious worship is “ essential ” and protected by international treaties , the French constitution , and laws in a way that those activities are not .
The judges did take into account the fact that gatherings of up to 10 people are now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement to LifeSite , Jérôme Triomphe said : “ This victory is a very important decision of general principle regarding the fundamental rights of worship , of which the French government had thought that it was not essential to the rights of believers .
It is just as essential for a Catholic to receive spiritual nourishment , in particular through sacramental Communion , as to take physical nourishment , because man does not live by bread alone , but by every word that comes from the mouth of God .
”

Ironically, the decision is also a reprimand for the French bishops' conference, whose representatives supported the government in its suppression of the Mass.
May 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — This afternoon, the French Council of State (Conseil d’Etat) ordered the prime minister, Edouard Philippe, to modify the decree prohibiting public worship under the sanitary state of emergency within eight days, in a landmark decision that recognizes the specific rights attached to the “fundamental liberty” of public worship. By next week, churches in France should be allowed to organize public Masses and other religious ceremonies, which have been on hold since the second Sunday of Lent because of the COVID-19 pandemic, on the grounds that their prohibition is no longer proportionate to the “war on the coronavirus” declared by President Emmanuel Macron on March 16.
France’s highest administrative authority declared that the right to join a gathering or a reunion in places of worship — and not only that of praying at home or praying individually in such a place of worship — “is an essential component of the freedom of worship,” and curtailing such gatherings is “a grave and manifestly illegal violation” of that freedom.
The decision is a slap in the face for the French government, which has shown the darkest side of its secularism in maintaining strict measures against religious worship, and especially Catholic worship, despite a wide-ranging “deconfinement” that has allowed primary schools, businesses, shops, and most shopping centers as well as libraries and small museums to reopen since May 11.
The decision also reprimands the French bishops and French bishops’ conference, who deliberately refrained from attacking the May 11 decree in the courts. Instead, on May 1, when Prime Minister Philippe, detailing how deconfinement would be organized, offhandedly announced that there would be “no Mass before June 2,” the bishops’ conference’s president, Eric de Moulins-Beaufort, simply remarked: “You can find this decision exaggeratedly cautious, but it still needs to be implemented.”
The May 11 decree went even farther in that it omitted to give a date for the return of public worship.
Four “traditional Mass” institutes under Roman authority — the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP), the Friends of the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest represented by two canons of the ICKSP, the Institute of the Good Pastor, and the Dominican Fraternity of Saint-Vincent-Ferrier — joined forces to plead for the rights of the faithful.
The Society of St Pius X (FSSPX) also made an emergency recourse, asking in particular for the right to organize outdoor Masses on public or private grounds. The Council of State did not respond definitively to this question.
Lay Catholics were represented by the AGRIF, a French and Christian “anti-defamation league” that, under existing anti-racist laws in France, is fully habilitated to represent the rights of Catholics in the courts. The author of this article had the honor of signing the recourse as one of the AGRIF’s vice presidents, together with Guillaume de Thieulloy, another vice president who runs the French conservative and Catholic news blog “Le Salon beige,” and AGRIF’s president, Bernard Antony, former European M.P. and founder of a Christian cultural center (the Centre Charlier, which launched the now famous Paris-Chartres Pentecost pilgrimage) and of an association that helps persecuted Christians the world over, “Chrétienté-Solidarité.”
The French Christian Democrat political party PCD, as well as a traditionalist group, Civitas, a group of lay Catholics from Metz in the East of France, and Bruno Gollnisch, former European M.P. of the French National Front, also presented separate recourses.
A large number of arguments, varied but often convergent, were presented during the emergency hearing at the Council of State last Friday afternoon.
Any French citizen or group may seize the Council of State in a particular emergency procedure called a “référé-liberté” by which the legality of an executive decision may be challenged.
The applications of the groups and individuals named above were submitted from the 12th to the 14th of May and were given wide publicity. It was immediately made clear by the Council of State that the Friday the 15th hearing would group without merging all the requests concerning Catholics’ demands for the restoration of public worship.
The French bishops could easily have presented their own application at this point, even after having declined invitations to join the procedure in its preparatory stages before the May 11 decree. They did not, despite the strength of the arguments against the continued “confinement” of public Masses.
In an interview with the unofficial daily of the French bishops, La Croix, the spokesman and secretary-general of the bishops’ conference, Fr. Thierry Magnin, reacted “soberly,” writes journalist Arnaud Bevilacqua. It would be more appropriate to call his reaction “aloof.”
Said Fr. Magnin:
We have duly taken note of this order and we think it is fair. In fact, it is in line with a letter that the president of the CEF, Bishop Éric de Moulins-Beaufort, sent to the Prime Minister on Friday, May 15. We did not refer the matter to the Council of State, but we wanted to make our position clear. The Council of State fully supports this position. It says that the government has gone too far with the ban. Our position has never been to enter into a wrestling match with the government. That is the whole point of the letter from Bishop de Moulins-Beaufort. It is not a matter of crowing over the decision, even though we obviously think it is a step in the right direction. We have always been in direct contact with the government. Today, Monday, May 18, I myself have again sent more detailed proposals to regulate the resumption of worship.
In particular, it is being suggested that churches should be allowed to organize celebrations with a third of their potential congregation. But to date, these “behind-the-scenes” negotiations have had zero success.
Magnin went on to say:
We will continue to work intelligently together. Bishop de Moulins-Beaufort’s letter to the Prime Minister was clear and in the relationship we are trying to maintain we can tell each other things in confidence. I do not believe that the government had the will to minimize freedom of religion. The associations that brought the matter before the Council of State made this appeal and we did otherwise by writing to the Prime Minister because we are in dialogue and there was the prospect of another meeting with the president on May 25 in the company of the other religious denominations. These associations have done what they saw fit, and there are several ways of doing so. We did not consider filing an appeal with the Council of State, but Bishop de Moulins-Beaufort pointed out that there was a legal problem, which was finally raised by the Council of State.
It would seem that the leaders of the French bishops are somewhat uncomfortable with the procedure that short-circuited their inter-religious and fruitless talks with the authorities.
This attitude on the part of the central French Catholic hierarchy would explain why individual bishops, a number of whom have openly decried the prohibition of public worship, decided not to join the procedure.
Bishop Marc Aillet of Bayonne tweeted: “I welcome the decision of the Council of State ordering the French government to lift the general ban on gatherings in places of worship. Thank you to all those who initiated this and thanks to the Lord who inspired this just struggle.”
Bishop Bernard Ginoux of Montauban, who recently called the prohibition of public Masses “unjust and totally absurd,” adding that “we cannot be subjected to an order that is contrary to common sense,” was also satisfied by the decision: “My thanks to justice which has acknowledged a ‘grave and a legal violation of the freedom of worship.’”
Both the traditional priestly institutes and fraternities and the AGRIF quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church in order to underscore why Catholics have an urgent spiritual need of Mass, at which they should assist in person, because during Mass, the sacrifice of the Cross is renewed, where they can receive the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in Communion as a necessary spiritual nourishment.
This may seem a strange argument in front of administrative judges who monitor the activity of the public authorities of a secular and even secularist Republic such as France. But Jérôme Triomphe, who was one of the lawyers of the priestly institutes, told LifeSite that it was necessary to explain Catholics’ specific needs in order to prove to the Council of State that not only had a fundamental liberty such as freedom of worship been restricted — and this can be allowed for proportionate reasons in the face of sanitary emergency — but that there was an “urgent” reason for putting a stop to the restriction.
Interestingly, the judges of the Council of State focused on religious freedom and freedom of worship of believers in order to say that “the absolute and general prohibition” decreed on May 11 (apart from funerals, which have been possible since the beginning of confinement) was illegal because less stringent measures could be applied while preserving public health.
They rejected the government representative’s arguments regarding a number of other public venues, such as sports centers, dance halls, and restaurants which may not receive the public until further notice, not only because of the activities involved, but because freedom of religious worship is “essential” and protected by international treaties, the French constitution, and laws in a way that those activities are not.
The judges did take into account the fact that gatherings of up to 10 people are now allowed in other public venues.
In a statement to LifeSite, Jérôme Triomphe said: “This victory is a very important decision of general principle regarding the fundamental rights of worship, of which the French government had thought that it was not essential to the rights of believers. It is just as essential for a Catholic to receive spiritual nourishment, in particular through sacramental Communion, as to take physical nourishment, because man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”
Follow Jeanne Jeanne Smits has worked as a journalist in France since 1987 after obtaining a Master of Arts in Law. She formerly directed the French daily Présent and was editor-in-chief of an all-internet French-speaking news site called reinformation.tv. She writes regularly for a number of Catholic journals (Monde & vie, L’Homme nouveau, Reconquête…) and runs a personal pro-life blog. In addition, she is often invited to radio and TV shows on alternative media. She is vice-president of the Christian and French defense association “AGRIF.” She is the French translator of The Dictator Pope by Henry Sire and Christus Vincit by Bishop Schneider, and recently contributed to the Bref examen critique de la communion dans la main about Communion in the hand. She is married and has three children, and lives near Paris.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-18--After Trump ban, military is still allowing transgender servicemen to sign on

May 18 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — In 2017 , President Donald Trump released a statement on Twitter announcing that he would re-instate a ban on people diagnosed with gender dysphoria from military service , a reversal of an Obama policy that would have permitted transgender people to serve openly in the various branches of the military ( even while pursuing medical “ transition ” ) .
The following year , then–secretary of defense James Mattis rolled out the details of the policy , and a battle among various branches of government began , with the Supreme Court permitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 while the Democrats in Congress voted in June of the same year to prevent the Pentagon from using any funds to put the ban into effect .
The issue has ping-ponged its way through the courts , with injunctions by judges in three separate cases being eliminated by the Supreme Court ’ s decision to allow the ban as well as a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland .
The Trump administration has claimed that the path is now clear for the ban to be enforced , but federal judge Colleen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the District of Columbia has responded by stating that the injunction she issued in a 2017 ruling that the military must admit transgender applicants still stands .
It appears that in practice , at least , Kollar-Kotelly ’ s injunction is sidelining the Trump policy .
The Pentagon admitted in February of 2018 that despite the ban , the first transgender person had signed a contract with the military .
Additionally , CNN is reporting this month that a waiver has been granted to a transgender member of the military permitting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gender.
” According to Navy spokeswoman Lt. Brittany Stephens ( speaking to CNN ) : “ The acting Secretary of the Navy has approved a specific request for exemption related to military service by transgender persons and persons with gender dysphoria [ . ]
… [ T ] his service member requested a waiver to serve in their preferred gender , to include obtaining a gender marker change in ( the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System ) and being allowed to adhere to standards associated with their preferred gender , such as uniforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been represented in a lawsuit filed against the ban in March by the GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders as well as the National Center for Lesbian Rights .
The director of GLAAD ’ s Transgender Rights Project , Jennifer Levi , also released a statement : “ While we are relieved that our client , a highly qualified Naval officer , will be able to continue her [ sic ] service , there are other equally qualified service members who have sought waivers and are still in limbo despite being perfectly fit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s press release : “ The fight is far from over.
” The LGBT movement has long seen the American military as an essential battleground in its fight to transform the nation .
The Armed Forces is perhaps one of the final institutions that still unites Americans , with members of both primary political parties paying the troops homage and respect at every opportunity .
Bestselling author Stephen Mansfield , who wrote The Faith of the American Soldier after embedding with troops in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom , told me in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel squeezed as LGBT activists successfully implement their agenda .
The soldiers feel the tension as well , Mansfield told me — there is now the feeling that standards of political correctness can end a promising military career over an ill timed joke .
“ When a huge portion of time is spent in sensitivity training and so on — why , for example , would the gay flag need to be raised over a military base ?
— this is an experiment , ” Mansfield told me .
“ This is trendiness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon the military , which is under state control , a level of political correctness that is meant to radiate around the country .
I have to tell you that those in uniform resent this , because if they ’ re in the military , what they want to be is proud , competent , and strong , and part of an amazing fighting force that does good in the world .
That ’ s why they ’ re there .
If they wanted to deal with the latest trends in political correctness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ university setting .
They could work in government .
They could form an NGO and advocate for a cause .
That ’ s not why they ’ re carrying a weapon or learning how to fly or knowing how to do munitions .
That ’ s not what they ’ re there for.
” To the LGBT movement , of course , it doesn ’ t matter whether or not the agenda is welcome .
What matters is whether they can force its implementation .
Jonathon ’ s new podcast , The Van @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement .
In his latest episode , he interviews Scott Klusendorf about the fundamental flaw Klusendorf sees in the idea of locking down the country under the guise of preventing people from getting coronavirus .
You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below :

The Pentagon admitted in February of 2018 that despite the ban, the first transgender person had signed a contract with the military. And that's not all.
May 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — In 2017, President Donald Trump released a statement on Twitter announcing that he would re-instate a ban on people diagnosed with gender dysphoria from military service, a reversal of an Obama policy that would have permitted transgender people to serve openly in the various branches of the military (even while pursuing medical “transition”). The following year, then–secretary of defense James Mattis rolled out the details of the policy, and a battle among various branches of government began, with the Supreme Court permitting the ban to go into effect in 2019 while the Democrats in Congress voted in June of the same year to prevent the Pentagon from using any funds to put the ban into effect.
The issue has ping-ponged its way through the courts, with injunctions by judges in three separate cases being eliminated by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the ban as well as a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland. The Trump administration has claimed that the path is now clear for the ban to be enforced, but federal judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has responded by stating that the injunction she issued in a 2017 ruling that the military must admit transgender applicants still stands.
It appears that in practice, at least, Kollar-Kotelly’s injunction is sidelining the Trump policy. The Pentagon admitted in February of 2018 that despite the ban, the first transgender person had signed a contract with the military. Additionally, CNN is reporting this month that a waiver has been granted to a transgender member of the military permitting the member to serve “in their preferred gender.”
According to Navy spokeswoman Lt. Brittany Stephens (speaking to CNN): “The acting Secretary of the Navy has approved a specific request for exemption related to military service by transgender persons and persons with gender dysphoria[.] … [T]his service member requested a waiver to serve in their preferred gender, to include obtaining a gender marker change in (the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System) and being allowed to adhere to standards associated with their preferred gender, such as uniforms and grooming.”
Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook
The anonymous naval officer had been represented in a lawsuit filed against the ban in March by the GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders as well as the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The director of GLAAD’s Transgender Rights Project, Jennifer Levi, also released a statement: “While we are relieved that our client, a highly qualified Naval officer, will be able to continue her [sic] service, there are other equally qualified service members who have sought waivers and are still in limbo despite being perfectly fit to serve.” According to GLAAD’s press release: “The fight is far from over.”
The LGBT movement has long seen the American military as an essential battleground in its fight to transform the nation. The Armed Forces is perhaps one of the final institutions that still unites Americans, with members of both primary political parties paying the troops homage and respect at every opportunity. Bestselling author Stephen Mansfield, who wrote The Faith of the American Soldier after embedding with troops in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom, told me in an interview that many chaplains are beginning to feel squeezed as LGBT activists successfully implement their agenda. The soldiers feel the tension as well, Mansfield told me — there is now the feeling that standards of political correctness can end a promising military career over an ill timed joke.
“When a huge portion of time is spent in sensitivity training and so on — why, for example, would the gay flag need to be raised over a military base? — this is an experiment,” Mansfield told me. “This is trendiness. This is an attempt to force upon the military, which is under state control, a level of political correctness that is meant to radiate around the country. I have to tell you that those in uniform resent this, because if they’re in the military, what they want to be is proud, competent, and strong, and part of an amazing fighting force that does good in the world. That’s why they’re there. If they wanted to deal with the latest trends in political correctness, they could have stayed in a university setting. They could work in government. They could form an NGO and advocate for a cause. That’s not why they’re carrying a weapon or learning how to fly or knowing how to do munitions. That’s not what they’re there for.”
To the LGBT movement, of course, it doesn’t matter whether or not the agenda is welcome. What matters is whether they can force its implementation.
Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he interviews Scott Klusendorf about the fundamental flaw Klusendorf sees in the idea of locking down the country under the guise of preventing people from getting coronavirus.
You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below:
Follow Jonathon Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States. He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-18--We can’t let coronavirus fear paralyze our society. Time to resume public Masses

May 18 , 2020 ( National Catholic Register ) — As many of you know , I was seriously ill with a strange , pneumonia-like illness from December through early February .
The hacking cough I developed eventually led to torn intercostal muscles , three broken ribs , pleurisy and internal bleeding .
I was in pain every time I coughed — which was all too frequently .
For four weeks I had to sleep sitting up in a chair .
It took immunosuppressors , four rounds of antibiotics , heavy doses of antihistamines and breathing treatments four times a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good health .
Thanks be to God and to expert medical help !
I provide this background to illustrate that I am not unsympathetic to the pulmonary distress that is the hallmark of COVID-19 .
In what follows , I do not argue that we should flip a switch and immediately return to what we called “ normal daily life ” just a couple of months ago .
Further , I am neither an epidemiologist nor an immunologist , and I accept that some degree of protective measures is necessary to protect the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disease .
However , I am also concerned about the serious and potentially deadly effects of this unprecedented shutdown .
I do not support every action or position of the demonstrators , but I am sympathetic to their essential concern that the “ cure should not be worse than the disease.
” The lives of those afflicted by or particularly susceptible to the new coronavirus matter , but so do the lives of others who are experiencing mounting losses and struggling to provide for their families .
Many with this concern are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and don ’ t care if other people die .
This is , of course , an unfair accusation .
Those who are calling for a gradual reopening want people to live , too .
Living consists of more than having a pulse .
Living involves thriving , interacting with others , cultural enrichment .
Living involves the dignity of work , contributing our labors and sharing in their fruits .
For a Catholic , living means the Holy Mass , receiving the sacraments and gathering for communal worship .
I ask those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shutdown to respect , rather than demonize , those of us who think that the balance is too heavily tilted toward safety and that other essential goods are being neglected .
If you don ’ t agree , present your position .
Describe your criteria for reopening and how you think it should be managed .
In my opinion , two things are required for individuals and our country in order for us be more disposed to a gradual reopening of the economy and culture .
First , we must face our fears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death are a part of life in this world we call “ Paradise Lost.
” Life is filled with countless risks ; we must be sober and prudent but at the same time courageous and accepting .
To be cognizant of risks and to try to minimize them is wise but to avoid all risk is neither possible nor healthy .
It is highly unlikely that the risk of contracting the coronavirus will be brought to zero .
At some point we are going to have to return to our “ normal ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right time and the acceptable amount of risk given the economic and social cost of continuing to remain locked down .
Even if we were to find a treatment or cure for COVID-19 tomorrow , there are countless other viruses , bacteria , allergens and toxins all around us .
God has equipped us with immune systems that do an almost miraculous job of keeping us healthy in the face of a daily onslaught of attacks .
For believers , trusting in God ’ s care and in what he has provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part in overcoming our fear .
Life has many risks , but our lives remain in God ’ s hands and we in his care .
This is not a call to recklessly abandon all the measures currently in place to reduce the spread of the virus , but it is a summons to remember that life has many risks , that accepting them is part of our life in this world , and that God is with us through it all .
Second , we have to accept the hard truth that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things , COVID-19 among them .
The vast majority of people who get the coronavirus will survive .
Some will be only mildly symptomatic , some will be severely ill , and yes , some will die .
People will also keep dying every day of heart disease , cancer , from strokes , and in automobile accidents .
Each of us is going to die one day , at a time and in a manner that is not of our own choosing .
It is alarming to me as a priest and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have had to say about death .
Death is a reality , but it is not something we should excessively fear .
Christ has conquered death and made it a doorway to the glory of Heaven for the faithful .
He also wrote this rather well-known passage : We all have a natural fear of death , especially the dying process itself , but as Christians we are taught to confront and conquer our fear of death .
The grace to do so has been given to us by Christ .
Scripture says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christ has conquered death and summoned us , by his grace , to become free of the fear of death through which the Devil keeps us in bondage .
Death is not the end ; it is a birth unto new life .
For the faithful Christian , the day of our death is the greatest day of our life .
Though we may require some purgation , we leave this world of sorrows and journey to that place of joys unspeakable and glories untold .
It is right that we should grieve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but something far more than grieving is going on in this current situation .
What we have today is a gripping fear that so dreads suffering and death that almost everything else must be sacrificed .
Much of this , I am convinced , is because in this increasingly secular world , suffering and death have lost their meaning .
Such an attitude is unacceptable for a Christian .
Jesus taught us that the cross is a tree of life and that suffering produces glory .
He taught us that to truly find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this world .
As Christ ’ s voice in this world , we have been too silent about these truths .
We should be summoning people to a courageous stance in the face of suffering and death .
This does not mean reckless risk-taking .
I am not advocating the complete , immediate reversal of all safety measures .
But the widespread , gripping fear in the face of this virus is unprecedented in my lifetime .
I have never seen anything like it .
Its worldwide scope tells me that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Church must speak more vigorously to exorcize the demons of fear .
Instead we have remained strangely quiet .
As usual , our muting of the Gospel message likely stems from a fear of appearing to be “ insensitive.
” If we were to speak out against the gripping fear or to suggest that not all of the limitations are necessarily good ideas , we might be accused of not caring if people die !
We have allowed this bullying and misrepresentation of our views to silence us .
Accepting reasonable safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we must preach the Gospel anyway to a world that is increasingly scornful of the cross and dubious that death has been conquered by Jesus Christ .
It is time to face our fears in this country we once called “ the land of the free and the home of the brave.
” Some degree of fear and anxiety is understandable , but the paralyzing fear manifest in the news reports and displayed by many Americans is destructive as well as unbecoming .
It is time for prudent , incremental measures to reopen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Different regions will open according to their situations , but in all cases it is going to require us to face our fears , master them , and accept that people are going to continue to die of COVID-19 in the months and years ahead ( although the vast majority will not ) .
People will also suffer and die from many other causes .
Dear Lord , may those who have died rest in peace .
May those who are ill recover .
May those who are unemployed due to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the sacraments soon be restored to them .
And may all those who suffer in myriad hidden ways find solace .
Calm our fears , Lord , and help us to remember that our life is in your hands .
Amen .
Published with permission from the National Catholic Register .

It is highly unlikely that the risk of contracting the coronavirus will be brought to zero. At some point we are going to have to return to our 'normal' lives.
May 18, 2020 (National Catholic Register) — As many of you know, I was seriously ill with a strange, pneumonia-like illness from December through early February. The hacking cough I developed eventually led to torn intercostal muscles, three broken ribs, pleurisy and internal bleeding. I was in pain every time I coughed — which was all too frequently. For four weeks I had to sleep sitting up in a chair.
It took immunosuppressors, four rounds of antibiotics, heavy doses of antihistamines and breathing treatments four times a day to finally bring me back to good health. Thanks be to God and to expert medical help! I provide this background to illustrate that I am not unsympathetic to the pulmonary distress that is the hallmark of COVID-19.
In what follows, I do not argue that we should flip a switch and immediately return to what we called “normal daily life” just a couple of months ago. Further, I am neither an epidemiologist nor an immunologist, and I accept that some degree of protective measures is necessary to protect the vulnerable and to minimize the spread of the disease.
However, I am also concerned about the serious and potentially deadly effects of this unprecedented shutdown. I do not support every action or position of the demonstrators, but I am sympathetic to their essential concern that the “cure should not be worse than the disease.” The lives of those afflicted by or particularly susceptible to the new coronavirus matter, but so do the lives of others who are experiencing mounting losses and struggling to provide for their families.
Many with this concern are demonized and told that they are selfish and don’t care if other people die. This is, of course, an unfair accusation. Those who are calling for a gradual reopening want people to live, too. Living consists of more than having a pulse. Living involves thriving, interacting with others, cultural enrichment. Living involves the dignity of work, contributing our labors and sharing in their fruits. For a Catholic, living means the Holy Mass, receiving the sacraments and gathering for communal worship.
I ask those who support the continuation of the current shutdown to respect, rather than demonize, those of us who think that the balance is too heavily tilted toward safety and that other essential goods are being neglected. If you don’t agree, present your position. Describe your criteria for reopening and how you think it should be managed.
In my opinion, two things are required for individuals and our country in order for us be more disposed to a gradual reopening of the economy and culture.
First, we must face our fears and accept that illness, suffering and death are a part of life in this world we call “Paradise Lost.” Life is filled with countless risks; we must be sober and prudent but at the same time courageous and accepting. To be cognizant of risks and to try to minimize them is wise but to avoid all risk is neither possible nor healthy.
It is highly unlikely that the risk of contracting the coronavirus will be brought to zero. At some point we are going to have to return to our “normal” lives. The debate is around determining the right time and the acceptable amount of risk given the economic and social cost of continuing to remain locked down.
Even if we were to find a treatment or cure for COVID-19 tomorrow, there are countless other viruses, bacteria, allergens and toxins all around us. God has equipped us with immune systems that do an almost miraculous job of keeping us healthy in the face of a daily onslaught of attacks. For believers, trusting in God’s care and in what he has provided to keep us healthy plays an important part in overcoming our fear. Life has many risks, but our lives remain in God’s hands and we in his care.
This is not a call to recklessly abandon all the measures currently in place to reduce the spread of the virus, but it is a summons to remember that life has many risks, that accepting them is part of our life in this world, and that God is with us through it all.
Second, we have to accept the hard truth that people die. They die of many things, COVID-19 among them. The vast majority of people who get the coronavirus will survive. Some will be only mildly symptomatic, some will be severely ill, and yes, some will die. People will also keep dying every day of heart disease, cancer, from strokes, and in automobile accidents. Each of us is going to die one day, at a time and in a manner that is not of our own choosing.
It is alarming to me as a priest and believer how little we as a Church have had to say about death. Death is a reality, but it is not something we should excessively fear. Christ has conquered death and made it a doorway to the glory of Heaven for the faithful.
St. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians:
Brothers, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you grieve like the rest, who are without hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, we also believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. (1 Thessalonians 4:13–14)
He also wrote this rather well-known passage:
Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O Death, is thy victory? Where, O Death, is thy sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ! Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast and immovable. (1 Corinthians 15:55–58)
We all have a natural fear of death, especially the dying process itself, but as Christians we are taught to confront and conquer our fear of death. The grace to do so has been given to us by Christ. Scripture says:
Now since the children have flesh and blood, Christ too shared in their humanity, so that by his death He might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. (Hebrews 2:14–15)
Pay attention, fellow believers: Christ has conquered death and summoned us, by his grace, to become free of the fear of death through which the Devil keeps us in bondage.
Death is not the end; it is a birth unto new life. For the faithful Christian, the day of our death is the greatest day of our life. Though we may require some purgation, we leave this world of sorrows and journey to that place of joys unspeakable and glories untold.
It is right that we should grieve the death of every human being, but something far more than grieving is going on in this current situation. What we have today is a gripping fear that so dreads suffering and death that almost everything else must be sacrificed.
Much of this, I am convinced, is because in this increasingly secular world, suffering and death have lost their meaning. Such an attitude is unacceptable for a Christian. Jesus taught us that the cross is a tree of life and that suffering produces glory. He taught us that to truly find our life, we must lose it to this world.
As Christ’s voice in this world, we have been too silent about these truths. We should be summoning people to a courageous stance in the face of suffering and death.
This does not mean reckless risk-taking. I am not advocating the complete, immediate reversal of all safety measures. But the widespread, gripping fear in the face of this virus is unprecedented in my lifetime. I have never seen anything like it. Its worldwide scope tells me that it is demonic in origin, and thus the Church must speak more vigorously to exorcize the demons of fear. Instead we have remained strangely quiet.
As usual, our muting of the Gospel message likely stems from a fear of appearing to be “insensitive.” If we were to speak out against the gripping fear or to suggest that not all of the limitations are necessarily good ideas, we might be accused of not caring if people die! We have allowed this bullying and misrepresentation of our views to silence us. Accepting reasonable safety measures, and making proper distinctions, we must preach the Gospel anyway to a world that is increasingly scornful of the cross and dubious that death has been conquered by Jesus Christ.
It is time to face our fears in this country we once called “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Some degree of fear and anxiety is understandable, but the paralyzing fear manifest in the news reports and displayed by many Americans is destructive as well as unbecoming.
It is time for prudent, incremental measures to reopen the economy and to resume public Masses. Different regions will open according to their situations, but in all cases it is going to require us to face our fears, master them, and accept that people are going to continue to die of COVID-19 in the months and years ahead (although the vast majority will not). People will also suffer and die from many other causes.
Dear Lord, may those who have died rest in peace. May those who are ill recover. May those who are unemployed due to the shutdown find work. May those deprived of the sacraments soon be restored to them. And may all those who suffer in myriad hidden ways find solace. Calm our fears, Lord, and help us to remember that our life is in your hands. Amen.
Published with permission from the National Catholic Register.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-18--Facebook caved to George Soros by creating ‘Oversight Board’: Hungarian official

BUDAPEST , Hungary , May 18 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – By establishing an “ Oversight Board , ” Facebook has caved to Hungarian-born far-left billionaire George Soros ’ agenda , according to the Hungarian government .
Zoltán Kovács , Secretary of State for International Communication and Relations , published an article on “ About Hungary , ” the website of the International Communications Office of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán .
Kovács based his article on a statement put out by the Free Speech Alliance ( FSA ) , which consists of more than 60 organizations and individuals who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media .
LifeSiteNews is part of the Free Speech Alliance .
“ Earlier this year at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland , Soros shocked more than a few people by claiming Facebook was working with Donald Trump to get him re-elected , ” Kovács wrote .
“ This wasn ’ t the first time that Soros had taken on the social media giant , but it was the first time that Mark Zuckerberg appears to have caved to the wishes of the billionaire ‘ philanthropist , ’ ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had written , “ Facebook can post deliberately misleading or false statements by candidates for public office and others , and take no responsibility for them.
” “ I believe that Mr. Trump and Facebook ’ s chief executive , Mark Zuckerberg , realize that their interests are aligned – the president ’ s in winning elections , Mr. Zuckerberg ’ s in making money , ” Soros claimed in The New York Times .
“ The responsible approach is self-evident , ” the billionaire went on .
“ Facebook is a publisher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platform.
’ It should be held accountable for the content that appears on its site.
” He concluded , “ I repeat and reaffirm my accusation against Facebook under the leadership of Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. ( Sheryl ) Sandberg .
They follow only one guiding principle : maximize profits irrespective of the consequences .
One way or another , they should not be left in control of Facebook.
” According to the government of Hungary , Facebook ’ s “ Oversight Board ” created in May “ appears to be packed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct ties to Soros himself.
” “ A bit of digging , ” Kovács said , referring to the FSA statement , “ reveals many ties to Soros-funded organizations and mouthpieces.
” The FSA had pointed out that of the four co-chairs of the “ Oversight Board , ” three are “ reliably liberal.
” Columbia Law Prof. Jamal Greene was an aide to Senator Kamala Harris ( D-California ) during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings .
Catalina Botero-Marino is the dean of the Universidad de los Andes Faculty of Law of Colombia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the board of directors of the Center for Reproductive Rights , a pro-abortion group .
That is especially infuriating to pro-life groups that are regularly targeted on social media for their beliefs .
No pro-life leader need apply to this board .
Then there ’ s the former prime minister of Denmark , Helle Thorning-Schmidt .
She declared she “ does not believe in eternal life , salvation or heaven and hell , ” according to the publication Kristligt Dagblad .
Thorning-Schmidt is also one of at least six of the 15 international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-Trump sentiments .
She posted recently on Twitter over a photo of Obama endorsing presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden : “ The endorsement !
!
OMG , Miss the voice of decency and grace.
” The other members of the “ Oversight Board ” were chosen by the co-chairs .
Three of the 20 members are directly linked to George Soros .
“ One works directly for his Open Society organizations , ” the FSA revealed .
“ Another was the founding dean at Central European University , which Soros founded and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even Oversight Board Executive Director Thomas Hughes comes from Article 19 , which has received more than $ 2 million from Soros.
” While the Hungarian government claims to have “ already seen the censorship of content … the establishment of this board to have supposedly far-reaching decision-making authority with such an imbalanced , left-leaning composition takes matters to a new , troubling level.
” Referring to Soros , Kovács asked , “ How does this private citizen , a person who promotes an ideology far outside the mainstream , along with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees and sympathizers move in to become regulators-in-chief for a platform catering to over 30 percent of the world ’ s population ?
” Kovács concluded by turning to Soros ’ article in The New York Times , in which he said Zuckerberg and Sandberg “ should not be left in control of Facebook ” as they only want to “ maximize profits.
” “ That strikes me as deeply cynical , ” Kovács commented , “ coming from a man who said in an interview that ‘ I am basically there to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not look at the social consequences of what I do.
’ ” Kovács felt reminded of communism since Zuckerberg “ is one of the founders and controlling shareholders of Facebook .
But in the Soros worldview , ideology trumps all and if a powerful platform like Facebook does not toe the open society party line , then ownership control must be taken away.
” Soros is a prolific financier of left-wing causes throughout the United States and around the world , including abortion , euthanasia , population control , same-sex “ marriage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His Open Society Foundations spend almost $ 1 billion annually in 100 different countries , including $ 150 million per year funding the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) , the leading abortion company Planned Parenthood , and other liberal groups .
He invested $ 5.1 million in a super PAC dedicated to funding groups working against Trump ’ s re-election ; and is an aggressive supporter of the European Union who has spent money in hopes of influencing the elections of multiple European nations .
In January , he announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ educational institutions for the purpose of advancing his interpretation of “ democratic values ” and combating the rise of “ nationalism.
” Earlier this month , Soros indicated that the coronavirus pandemic paves the way for societal changes previously thought impossible , calling it “ the crisis of my lifetime.
” Soros had lived through the Second World War as a youth .
Even before the pandemic hit , “ I realized that we were in a revolutionary moment where what would be impossible or even inconceivable in normal times had become not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
In the same interview , he also voiced his concern “ about the survival of the ( European Union ) because it is an incomplete union .
”

An article on the communications website of Hungary President Viktor Orban points out that the board is 'packed with liberals' who have an agenda.
BUDAPEST, Hungary, May 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – By establishing an “Oversight Board,” Facebook has caved to Hungarian-born far-left billionaire George Soros’ agenda, according to the Hungarian government.
Zoltán Kovács, Secretary of State for International Communication and Relations, published an article on “About Hungary,” the website of the International Communications Office of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
Kovács based his article on a statement put out by the Free Speech Alliance (FSA), which consists of more than 60 organizations and individuals who oppose the silencing of conservative voices on social media. LifeSiteNews is part of the Free Speech Alliance.
“Earlier this year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Soros shocked more than a few people by claiming Facebook was working with Donald Trump to get him re-elected,” Kovács wrote.
“This wasn’t the first time that Soros had taken on the social media giant, but it was the first time that Mark Zuckerberg appears to have caved to the wishes of the billionaire ‘philanthropist,’” he continued.
In January 2020, Soros had written, “Facebook can post deliberately misleading or false statements by candidates for public office and others, and take no responsibility for them.”
“I believe that Mr. Trump and Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, realize that their interests are aligned – the president’s in winning elections, Mr. Zuckerberg’s in making money,” Soros claimed in The New York Times.
“The responsible approach is self-evident,” the billionaire went on. “Facebook is a publisher not just a neutral moderator or ‘platform.’ It should be held accountable for the content that appears on its site.”
He concluded, “I repeat and reaffirm my accusation against Facebook under the leadership of Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. (Sheryl) Sandberg. They follow only one guiding principle: maximize profits irrespective of the consequences. One way or another, they should not be left in control of Facebook.”
According to the government of Hungary, Facebook’s “Oversight Board” created in May “appears to be packed with liberals, including more than one with direct ties to Soros himself.”
“A bit of digging,” Kovács said, referring to the FSA statement, “reveals many ties to Soros-funded organizations and mouthpieces.”
The FSA had pointed out that of the four co-chairs of the “Oversight Board,” three are “reliably liberal.”
Columbia Law Prof. Jamal Greene was an aide to Senator Kamala Harris (D-California) during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Catalina Botero-Marino is the dean of the Universidad de los Andes Faculty of Law of Colombia. She is also a member of the board of directors of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a pro-abortion group. That is especially infuriating to pro-life groups that are regularly targeted on social media for their beliefs. No pro-life leader need apply to this board.
Then there’s the former prime minister of Denmark, Helle Thorning-Schmidt. She declared she “does not believe in eternal life, salvation or heaven and hell,” according to the publication Kristligt Dagblad.
Thorning-Schmidt is also one of at least six of the 15 international members of the board who openly espouse anti-Trump sentiments. She posted recently on Twitter over a photo of Obama endorsing presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden: “The endorsement!! OMG, Miss the voice of decency and grace.”
The other members of the “Oversight Board” were chosen by the co-chairs. Three of the 20 members are directly linked to George Soros.
“One works directly for his Open Society organizations,” the FSA revealed. “Another was the founding dean at Central European University, which Soros founded and funded with nearly $1 billion. Even Oversight Board Executive Director Thomas Hughes comes from Article 19, which has received more than $2 million from Soros.”
While the Hungarian government claims to have “already seen the censorship of content … the establishment of this board to have supposedly far-reaching decision-making authority with such an imbalanced, left-leaning composition takes matters to a new, troubling level.”
Referring to Soros, Kovács asked, “How does this private citizen, a person who promotes an ideology far outside the mainstream, along with a group of his like-minded associates, paid employees and sympathizers move in to become regulators-in-chief for a platform catering to over 30 percent of the world’s population?”
Kovács concluded by turning to Soros’ article in The New York Times, in which he said Zuckerberg and Sandberg “should not be left in control of Facebook” as they only want to “maximize profits.”
“That strikes me as deeply cynical,” Kovács commented, “coming from a man who said in an interview that ‘I am basically there to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do.’”
Kovács felt reminded of communism since Zuckerberg “is one of the founders and controlling shareholders of Facebook. But in the Soros worldview, ideology trumps all and if a powerful platform like Facebook does not toe the open society party line, then ownership control must be taken away.”
Soros is a prolific financier of left-wing causes throughout the United States and around the world, including abortion, euthanasia, population control, same-sex “marriage,” transgenderism, and more.
His Open Society Foundations spend almost $1 billion annually in 100 different countries, including $150 million per year funding the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the leading abortion company Planned Parenthood, and other liberal groups. He invested $5.1 million in a super PAC dedicated to funding groups working against Trump’s re-election; and is an aggressive supporter of the European Union who has spent money in hopes of influencing the elections of multiple European nations.
In January, he announced the launch of an international network for educational institutions for the purpose of advancing his interpretation of “democratic values” and combating the rise of “nationalism.”
Earlier this month, Soros indicated that the coronavirus pandemic paves the way for societal changes previously thought impossible, calling it “the crisis of my lifetime.” Soros had lived through the Second World War as a youth.
Even before the pandemic hit, “I realized that we were in a revolutionary moment where what would be impossible or even inconceivable in normal times had become not only possible, but probably absolutely necessary,” he said.
In the same interview, he also voiced his concern “about the survival of the (European Union) because it is an incomplete union.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-18--Stanford medical prof says pandemic lockdowns are ‘doomed to fail’

STANFORD , California , May 18 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A Stanford University professor of medicine who just completed an important national study of the coronavirus has concluded that the lockdowns instituted across much of the nation and the world are more dangerous than they are helpful .
“ It ’ s not possible to eradicate ( the coronavirus ) with a lockdown .
We have to come to terms with that , ” said Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya , a professor of medicine at Stanford University , in a video interview with the Hoover Institute ’ s Peter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doomed to fail , ” said Bhattacharya , “ and it ’ s also going to be counterproductive.
” “ There is no safe option , ” he said .
“ If you think that having a lockdown will provide you safety , you ’ re mistaken.
” Bhattacharya explained that vaccines are very hard to develop , adding , “ There aren ’ t any vaccines for coronaviruses.
” “ The idea that we could continue the lockdown until a vaccine is developed is preposterous , ” suggested Robinson .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the health of people in the United States and worldwide , ” said Bhattacharya , enumerating some of the lockdown ’ s tragic unintended but foreseeable consequences .
“ There have been people who have delayed their chemotherapy as a result of the lockdown.
” “ ( People ) have had heart attacks and not gone to the doctor , ” he said .
“ I just saw a report estimating that 75,000 will have committed suicide as a result of the lockdown , ” he continued .
“ Seventy-five thousand ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. alone – a number that currently exceeds the total number of deaths due to the coronavirus in this country.
” “ Worldwide , there ’ s been a resurgence of diseases that we thought we had a handle on , ” noted Bhattacharya , citing “ 1.4 million cases of tuberculosis not treated in India ” as a result of the lockdowns .
“ In a place such as India , you impose a lockdown , and you ’ re pushing the entire population into a time machine .
Their health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robinson .
“ That ’ s not just true in India , ” responded Bhattacharya .
“ That ’ s true in every country on Earth .
Especially the poor people in every country on Earth will suffer from this global economic collapse that we ’ ve caused .
Part of it is due to COVID , but it ’ s partly also due to the response of governments around the world that shut down our economies.
” Bhattacharya indicated that people are putting too much faith in the lockdowns .
The measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said , but as soon as they are lifted the virus will “ just start growing again.
” “ The lockdowns are not a mechanism for disease eradication , ” said Bhattacharya .
Lockdowns “ will never eradicate a disease.
” Lockdowns “ will only delay when the disease happens .
Now or later .
You pay the cost now or you pay it later , ” he said .
“ You either face the problems that have to do with lifting the lockdowns , or you face the problems that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve caused as a result of trying to deal with COVID , ” he emphasized .
“ No matter what choice you make , ” said Bhattacharya , “ you are going to be on the hook.
” Robinson suggested that politicians are making political calculations as they govern , trying to find a way to not get blamed either for deaths to the virus or for misery caused by the economic collapse due to the lockdowns .
“ What I ’ d like to see is actual leadership , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do if he were the president or a governor , the Stanford medical professor said he would focus on the two groups that are most at risk when they contract the disease : those already sick and the elderly .
“ We have to work very hard to protect people when we start lifting lockdowns who fit that description , especially ( in ) the places where they live , ” said Bhattacharya .
“ The fact that such a large fraction of the deaths have occurred in nursing homes is a clue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be taking action to protect people.
” “ Quarantining – basically making the nursing homes much safer – is going to be a huge priority as we lift the lockdowns , ” he said .
“ What you ’ re saying is that whatever we need to do to protect the people most at risk is going to cost a tiny fraction of what we ’ ve already spent for this lockdown , ” suggested Robinson .
“ If we ’ re being sensible , we can do stuff that doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s right .
We need to better understand who actually is at risk , ” said Dr. Bhattacharya , “ and focus our attention on providing support for those folks.
” Dr. Bhattacharya had just completed a study of more than 5,600 employees of Major League Baseball ( MLB ) clubs around the nation , including athletes , coaches , and office staff .
The MLB testing involved looking for antibodies that provide evidence of current or past infection .
While it examined a “ unique population ” – MLB employees only – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into what the disease is doing all across the country in one go.
” Surprisingly , the study found that just 0.7 percent , or seven people in 1,000 MLB employees and family members , had evidence of having been infected with the virus .
This was much lower than findings of an early study conducted by Bhattacharya in Santa Clara County , California where about 3 percent of the population , or about 30 per thousand , were shown to have been infected with the virus .
This infection rate is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jurisdictions , including Los Angeles County , which had found that 4 percent , or about 40 per thousand residents there have or have had the virus .
The MLB findings also contrast sharply with Miami/Dade County , Florida at about 3 percent ; Upstate New York , also at about 3 percent ; and especially with New York City ’ s whopping 25 percent infection rate .
Bhattacharya and Robinson noted that this is perhaps because the majority of MLB employees are paid middle and upper-middle class wages and most likely live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the MLB employees for New York ’ s Yankees and Mets drove up the overall infection rate for the study – 5.44 percent and 2.73 percent , respectively – they still showed a far lower infection rate than the general population for that area .
While Bhattacharya attributed the lower infection rate to the fact that the MLB franchises worked hard to implement safe protocols at the outset of the pandemic , he noted that simple economics probably had a lot to do with it .
“ There ’ s a steep socioeconomic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this disease , ” said Bhattacharya , “ meaning that poorer people are much more likely to have had the disease.
” “ Poor people get hit harder , ” lamented Robinson .
“ That ’ s not something we like in America.
” “ We ’ re two months into this lockdown .
The economy is down 4 or 5 percent .
Fourteen percent of Americans are unemployed .
People have had it !
” exclaimed Robinson .
Robinson wondered about the rationale for maintaining lockdowns across the country , noting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place to make sure the nation ’ s hospitals would not be overwhelmed caring for COVID-19 patients .
“ In the backs of people ’ s ( minds ) is this idea that somehow we can eradicate the disease if we just stay locked down , ” said Dr. Bhattacharya .
“ That is not possible .
”

Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya says there are 'no safe options' and argues that shutdowns have 'had an enormous negative effect on the health of people' worldwide.
STANFORD, California, May 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A Stanford University professor of medicine who just completed an important national study of the coronavirus has concluded that the lockdowns instituted across much of the nation and the world are more dangerous than they are helpful.
“It’s not possible to eradicate (the coronavirus) with a lockdown. We have to come to terms with that,” said Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, in a video interview with the Hoover Institute’s Peter Robinson.
The lockdown strategy is “doomed to fail,” said Bhattacharya, “and it’s also going to be counterproductive.”
“There is no safe option,” he said. “If you think that having a lockdown will provide you safety, you’re mistaken.”
Bhattacharya explained that vaccines are very hard to develop, adding, “There aren’t any vaccines for coronaviruses.”
“The idea that we could continue the lockdown until a vaccine is developed is preposterous,” suggested Robinson.
Tragic unintended health consequences worldwide
“This lockdown has had an enormous negative effect on the health of people in the United States and worldwide,” said Bhattacharya, enumerating some of the lockdown’s tragic unintended but foreseeable consequences. “There have been people who have delayed their chemotherapy as a result of the lockdown.”
“(People) have had heart attacks and not gone to the doctor,” he said.
“I just saw a report estimating that 75,000 will have committed suicide as a result of the lockdown,” he continued. “Seventy-five thousand ‘deaths of despair’ are predicted in the U.S. alone – a number that currently exceeds the total number of deaths due to the coronavirus in this country.”
“Worldwide, there’s been a resurgence of diseases that we thought we had a handle on,” noted Bhattacharya, citing “1.4 million cases of tuberculosis not treated in India” as a result of the lockdowns.
“In a place such as India, you impose a lockdown, and you’re pushing the entire population into a time machine. Their health care regresses a century,” observed Robinson.
“That’s not just true in India,” responded Bhattacharya. “That’s true in every country on Earth. Especially the poor people in every country on Earth will suffer from this global economic collapse that we’ve caused. Part of it is due to COVID, but it’s partly also due to the response of governments around the world that shut down our economies.”
Bhattacharya indicated that people are putting too much faith in the lockdowns. The measures are effective while they are enforced, he said, but as soon as they are lifted the virus will “just start growing again.”
“The lockdowns are not a mechanism for disease eradication,” said Bhattacharya. Lockdowns “will never eradicate a disease.”
Lockdowns “will only delay when the disease happens. Now or later. You pay the cost now or you pay it later,” he said.
“You either face the problems that have to do with lifting the lockdowns, or you face the problems that have to do with the economic collapse that we’ve caused as a result of trying to deal with COVID,” he emphasized.
“No matter what choice you make,” said Bhattacharya, “you are going to be on the hook.”
A better, cost-effective idea
Robinson suggested that politicians are making political calculations as they govern, trying to find a way to not get blamed either for deaths to the virus or for misery caused by the economic collapse due to the lockdowns.
“What I’d like to see is actual leadership,” said Bhattacharya.
Asked what he would do if he were the president or a governor, the Stanford medical professor said he would focus on the two groups that are most at risk when they contract the disease: those already sick and the elderly.
“We have to work very hard to protect people when we start lifting lockdowns who fit that description, especially (in) the places where they live,” said Bhattacharya. “The fact that such a large fraction of the deaths have occurred in nursing homes is a clue that that’s where we basically should be taking action to protect people.”
“Quarantining – basically making the nursing homes much safer – is going to be a huge priority as we lift the lockdowns,” he said.
“What you’re saying is that whatever we need to do to protect the people most at risk is going to cost a tiny fraction of what we’ve already spent for this lockdown,” suggested Robinson. “If we’re being sensible, we can do stuff that doesn’t cost much.”
“That’s right. We need to better understand who actually is at risk,” said Dr. Bhattacharya, “and focus our attention on providing support for those folks.”
The Major League Baseball study
Dr. Bhattacharya had just completed a study of more than 5,600 employees of Major League Baseball (MLB) clubs around the nation, including athletes, coaches, and office staff.
The MLB testing involved looking for antibodies that provide evidence of current or past infection. While it examined a “unique population” – MLB employees only – Bhattacharya said it gives “a peek into what the disease is doing all across the country in one go.”
Surprisingly, the study found that just 0.7 percent, or seven people in 1,000 MLB employees and family members, had evidence of having been infected with the virus.
This was much lower than findings of an early study conducted by Bhattacharya in Santa Clara County, California where about 3 percent of the population, or about 30 per thousand, were shown to have been infected with the virus.
This infection rate is also much lower than reports from other local jurisdictions, including Los Angeles County, which had found that 4 percent, or about 40 per thousand residents there have or have had the virus.
The MLB findings also contrast sharply with Miami/Dade County, Florida at about 3 percent; Upstate New York, also at about 3 percent; and especially with New York City’s whopping 25 percent infection rate.
Bhattacharya and Robinson noted that this is perhaps because the majority of MLB employees are paid middle and upper-middle class wages and most likely live outside densely populated urban areas. While the MLB employees for New York’s Yankees and Mets drove up the overall infection rate for the study – 5.44 percent and 2.73 percent, respectively – they still showed a far lower infection rate than the general population for that area.
While Bhattacharya attributed the lower infection rate to the fact that the MLB franchises worked hard to implement safe protocols at the outset of the pandemic, he noted that simple economics probably had a lot to do with it.
“There’s a steep socioeconomic status gradient in who has been exposed to this disease,” said Bhattacharya, “meaning that poorer people are much more likely to have had the disease.”
“Poor people get hit harder,” lamented Robinson. “That’s not something we like in America.”
“We’re two months into this lockdown. The economy is down 4 or 5 percent. Fourteen percent of Americans are unemployed. People have had it!” exclaimed Robinson.
Robinson wondered about the rationale for maintaining lockdowns across the country, noting that initially the lockdowns were put in place to make sure the nation’s hospitals would not be overwhelmed caring for COVID-19 patients.
“In the backs of people’s (minds) is this idea that somehow we can eradicate the disease if we just stay locked down,” said Dr. Bhattacharya. “That is not possible.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-18--Here’s why we need paid professional Church musicians

May 18 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Church employees have been badly affected by the coronavirus epidemic and the subsequent cessation of public services .
Particularly hard hit are those who did not have formal contracts , or who were paid service-by-service .
This includes many musicians .
There is a strand of thinking in the Church that says that the liturgy should be served by musicians who appear spontaneously from the congregation and offer their skills for free .
Sometimes this is possible , and in particular circumstances it may be the best solution , or the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amateur singer myself .
The worrying thing about this claim , however , is the word “ should ” which appears in it : the idea that it is somehow less authentic , or appropriate , or worthy of the liturgy , to pay musicians .
Occasionally a parish may find that a member of the congregation has the skills to help fix the heating ; quite often parishioners help with the accounts .
But generally , people with professional qualifications need to be paid for their services .
This extends to things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as vestments and sacred vessels .
The more important something is for the liturgy , the more willing a parish should be to part with cash to get the best possible results .
It is not just a matter of hiring professionals .
Liturgical music is a specialism .
Gregorian chant , above all , is something rarely if ever taught to aspiring professional ( or indeed amateur ) musicians .
If no churches ever paid musicians , then no musicians could afford to specialize in liturgical music .
It would follow that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even on a summer course or in evening classes , because there would be no one to teach them .
We are not far from that situation today , in fact .
The market for professional liturgical musicians , as opposed to secular musicians who perform occasionally in churches , is so tiny that it is only by some musicians ’ extraordinary dedication that skills can be passed on at all : in America , this activity is centered around the Church Music Association of America .
In England the tradition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anglican cathedrals .
To say this is less than satisfactory from a Catholic perspective is an understatement , but very few Catholic cathedrals and major churches maintain good professional choirs .
An aspiring Catholic musician , therefore , who wants to specialize in liturgical music , is forced to spend much of his career singing or playing the organ for Anglican services .
This raises the question , of course , of why the liturgy needs a kind of music which requires skills , acquired only with dedication and hard work over a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from those of either mainstream classical or popular music .
Liturgical music , like ecclesiastical architecture , has not always differed so markedly , or even at all , from secular styles .
Liturgical motets from the Renaissance and the Baroque periods can be indistinguishable in style from secular madrigals by the same composers .
Medieval and early modern Oxford college chapels are strikingly similar , at least from the outside , to the dining halls which often sit next to them in our ancient quadrangles .
The answer is an important one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eloquence by the late Monsignor Richard Schuler ( for example in his talk available here ) .
Schuler distinguishes periods in which the Church was culturally dominant , and times when culture has been dominated by other forces .
When the Church is dominant in a culture , one can say that all culture is Catholic culture .
Churches built along the lines of civic meeting halls ( basilicas ) or the great halls of kings and nobles were not built in a secular rather than a sacred style : at those moments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distinction .
This is not so when the Church is a bit-player on the cultural scene .
For the Church to embrace the operatic music of the 19th century in the liturgy , for example , would have been to embrace associations and values which were not Catholic .
The Council of Trent was far-sighted , therefore , in insisting on a separation between sacred and secular music , contrary to the practice of the Middle Ages , and harking back to the practice of the Early Church .
In the Early Church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because of its association with pagan rites .
The Fathers of the Council of Trent realized that the Church was losing her cultural dominance and needed to adapt .
In a non-Catholic culture , for the Church to open her liturgy to non-liturgical musical styles is simply to secularize the liturgy .
It is essential to maintain a distinctively sacred style which people can recognize and come to associate with the liturgy , and which can draw people in to a prayerful atmosphere .
If this is to be done well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great church , they will comprise the choir , but they will be in the background even in the most humble parish , as models , teachers , and leaders .
If we want Catholic musicians to acquire the skills necessary for good sacred music , we must be prepared to pay them .

The more important something is for the liturgy, the more willing a parish should be to part with cash to get the best possible results.
May 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Church employees have been badly affected by the coronavirus epidemic and the subsequent cessation of public services. Particularly hard hit are those who did not have formal contracts, or who were paid service-by-service. This includes many musicians.
There is a strand of thinking in the Church that says that the liturgy should be served by musicians who appear spontaneously from the congregation and offer their skills for free. Sometimes this is possible, and in particular circumstances it may be the best solution, or the only one. Indeed, I am an amateur singer myself. The worrying thing about this claim, however, is the word “should” which appears in it: the idea that it is somehow less authentic, or appropriate, or worthy of the liturgy, to pay musicians.
Occasionally a parish may find that a member of the congregation has the skills to help fix the heating; quite often parishioners help with the accounts. But generally, people with professional qualifications need to be paid for their services. This extends to things intimately connected with the liturgy, such as vestments and sacred vessels. The more important something is for the liturgy, the more willing a parish should be to part with cash to get the best possible results.
It is not just a matter of hiring professionals. Liturgical music is a specialism. Gregorian chant, above all, is something rarely if ever taught to aspiring professional (or indeed amateur) musicians. If no churches ever paid musicians, then no musicians could afford to specialize in liturgical music. It would follow that no other musicians could learn the skills, even on a summer course or in evening classes, because there would be no one to teach them. We are not far from that situation today, in fact. The market for professional liturgical musicians, as opposed to secular musicians who perform occasionally in churches, is so tiny that it is only by some musicians’ extraordinary dedication that skills can be passed on at all: in America, this activity is centered around the Church Music Association of America.
In England the tradition of liturgical music is kept alive by the Anglican cathedrals. To say this is less than satisfactory from a Catholic perspective is an understatement, but very few Catholic cathedrals and major churches maintain good professional choirs. An aspiring Catholic musician, therefore, who wants to specialize in liturgical music, is forced to spend much of his career singing or playing the organ for Anglican services.
This raises the question, of course, of why the liturgy needs a kind of music which requires skills, acquired only with dedication and hard work over a protracted period of training, which differ from those of either mainstream classical or popular music. Liturgical music, like ecclesiastical architecture, has not always differed so markedly, or even at all, from secular styles. Liturgical motets from the Renaissance and the Baroque periods can be indistinguishable in style from secular madrigals by the same composers. Medieval and early modern Oxford college chapels are strikingly similar, at least from the outside, to the dining halls which often sit next to them in our ancient quadrangles.
The answer is an important one, and was set out with great eloquence by the late Monsignor Richard Schuler (for example in his talk available here). Schuler distinguishes periods in which the Church was culturally dominant, and times when culture has been dominated by other forces. When the Church is dominant in a culture, one can say that all culture is Catholic culture. Churches built along the lines of civic meeting halls (basilicas) or the great halls of kings and nobles were not built in a secular rather than a sacred style: at those moments in history, there was no such distinction.
This is not so when the Church is a bit-player on the cultural scene. For the Church to embrace the operatic music of the 19th century in the liturgy, for example, would have been to embrace associations and values which were not Catholic. The Council of Trent was far-sighted, therefore, in insisting on a separation between sacred and secular music, contrary to the practice of the Middle Ages, and harking back to the practice of the Early Church. In the Early Church instrumental music was forbidden in the liturgy, because of its association with pagan rites. The Fathers of the Council of Trent realized that the Church was losing her cultural dominance and needed to adapt.
In a non-Catholic culture, for the Church to open her liturgy to non-liturgical musical styles is simply to secularize the liturgy. It is essential to maintain a distinctively sacred style which people can recognize and come to associate with the liturgy, and which can draw people in to a prayerful atmosphere. If this is to be done well, it requires professional musicians. In a great church, they will comprise the choir, but they will be in the background even in the most humble parish, as models, teachers, and leaders. If we want Catholic musicians to acquire the skills necessary for good sacred music, we must be prepared to pay them.
Follow Joseph Dr Joseph Shaw has a Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford University, where he also gained a first degree in Politics and Philosophy and a graduate Diploma in Theology. He has published on Ethics and Philosophy of Religion and is the editor of The Case for Liturgical Restoration: Una Voce Position Papers on the Extraordinary Form (Angelico Press). He is the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales and Secretary of Una Voce International. He teaches Philosophy in Oxford University and lives nearby with his wife and nine children.
Share