lifesitenews--2020-07-02--Priest in NY church: ‘Christ is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer’

July 2 , 2020 ( Sons of St. Joseph ) — On June 28 , 2020 , Paulist priest Rick Walsh offered “ a reflection ” entitled “ We All Belong to Each Other ” at St. Paul the Apostle Catholic Church in New York City ; the parish is the motherhouse of the Paulist order .
On June 25 , 2020 , Walsh also was the “ celebrant ” for the parish ’ s Pride Mass sponsored by the Paulist ’ s LGBT ministry “ Out at St. Paul .
( OSP ) ” During his “ reflection ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a woman… …Christ is Black In Christ , I am also Black .
Once you belong to Christ , you belong to all others who belong to Christ as well .
Some say that those of us who are LGBTQ members if Christ ’ s body do not belong to the body of Christ ; totally denying our baptism .
Are they not aware that we who are LGBTQ are also living now in Christ ?
That we are Christ .
Christ is lesbian , gay , bisexual , transgender , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lesbian , gay , bisexual , transgender , and queer .
Once you belong to Christ , you belong to all others who belong to Christ as well .
The “ queer-Christ ” meme has become a cornerstone of so-called Catholic LGBT ministries .
OSP has a long history of gay-affirmative pastoral practices and public statements in support of same-sex marriage .
On May 15 , 2018 , Out at St. Paul , hosted a “ Rooftop Social ” at gay sports bar Boxers in Hell ’ s Kitchen .
However , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ St. Paul has held meetings at gay bars .
On March 22 , 2017 , Out at St. Paul hosted a “ Spring Social ” at the Hell ’ s Kitchen gay bar Bottoms Up .
Then again , on January 31 , 2018 , they hosted their “ Winter Social ” at the Rise gay bar in Hell ’ s Kitchen .
In the past , Out at St. Paul sponsored and promoted “ your favorite queer saint , ” “ countertraditions ” to Adam and Eve , and “ Christian ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On June 16 , 2018 , concerning an article from the gay-periodical “ The Advocate , ” in which they reported that Pope Francis ’ s “ definition of a family excludes same-sex couples , ” Out at St. Paul stated : “ Pope Francis is wrong.
” On August 3 , 2018 , OSP posted the following message to their official Facebook page : Yesterday , Pope Francis declared the death penalty inadmissible in all cases .
It shows us that Catholic teaching can and does change over time ( or , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Pope Francis specifically called for the language in the catechism to be altered .
He has the power to recognize other “ developments ” in doctrine as well .
This is why we push for the language about LGBTQ people in the catechism to change .
We are not , and have never been , “ intrinsically disordered.
” It is time for the Church to listen to LGBTQ believers and recognize the harm that its official doctrine has caused to millions of people around the world .
Out at St. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On July 16 , 2017 , Martin , addressed Out at St. Paul ; he previously spoke to the group on March 2 , 2017 .
On several occasions , Martin has recommended both the Parish and OSP ( see video interview , and a Facebook live discussion . )
Following his July 2017 appearance at OSP , to publicize his latest book , “ Building a Bridge : How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter Into a Relationship of Respect , Compassion , and Sensitivity , ” Martin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the event and thanked the following : On June 15 , 2017 , Martin recommended Out at St. Paul on his official Twitter account .
Dear friends : “ Out at St. Paul ” is one of the most dynamic Catholic LGBT ministries in the country , and probably the world .
It is a ministry of the Church of St. Paul the Apostle in New York City , just next door to our Jesuit community .
They shared this video with me and asked me to share it with you .
May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ striving to be welcoming places for everyone .
Gil Martinez was the former chaplain for Out at St. Paul .
He had been an outspoken supporter of the group , specifically promoting the “ Owning Our Faith ” video series which was sponsored by OSP and St. Paul the Apostle Parish .
In 2015 , Martinez traveled to Rome and personally gave a copy of the video “ Owning Our Faith ” to both Pope Francis and Cardinal Walter Kasper .
On March 5 , 2018 , Cardinal Kasper celebrated Mass at St. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testimonies from several OSP members as well as “ gay ” and transgender advocates including dissident nun Jeannine Gramick who was officially sanctioned by the Vatican in 1999 and permanently prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexuals and Warren Hall , a self-outed “ gay ” priest .
Warren has since been suspended and in 2017 he wrote : Also included is an interview with a “ gay ” married couple , one of whom stated : And another “ gay ” man who said : I think what ’ s interesting is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is accepting of gay people , because its message is ‘ gay people exist and we should love them and not discriminate against them .
But because the Church also tells gay people essentially that they need to be celibate , what the Church is saying is ‘ you can not live fully .
You can be gay but you can ’ t live that life.
’ And so that inherently is discriminatory .
Excerpts from “ Owning Our Faith ” are included in a video from James Martin , in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Building a Bridge.
’ ” In residence at St. Paul the Apostle Parish is Fr .
David Dwyer , the host of the SiriusXM Radio program “ Busted Halo.
” Cardinal Timothy Dolan is a frequent guest on the show .
On July 1 , 2018 , the Archdiocese of Los Angeles approved Martinez as Pastor at the Paulist parish St. Paul the Apostle in Los Angeles .
In 2019 , Martinez returned to New York City to celebrate Mass for Out at St. Paul in front of the building where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with permission from the Sons of St. Joseph .

'Once you belong to Christ,' said Fr. Rick Walsh, 'you belong to all others who belong to Christ as well.'
July 2, 2020 (Sons of St. Joseph) — On June 28, 2020, Paulist priest Rick Walsh offered “a reflection” entitled “We All Belong to Each Other” at St. Paul the Apostle Catholic Church in New York City; the parish is the motherhouse of the Paulist order. On June 25, 2020, Walsh also was the “celebrant” for the parish’s Pride Mass sponsored by the Paulist’s LGBT ministry “Out at St. Paul. (OSP)” During his “reflection” Walsh said:
Are they not aware…Christ is a woman…
…Christ is Black
In Christ, I am also Black.
Once you belong to Christ, you belong to all others who belong to Christ as well.
Some say that those of us who are LGBTQ members if Christ’s body do not belong to the body of Christ; totally denying our baptism.
Are they not aware that we who are LGBTQ are also living now in Christ?
That we are Christ.
Christ is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer.
In Christ, I am lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer.
Once you belong to Christ, you belong to all others who belong to Christ as well.
Jesuit priest Donal Godfrey once wrote something strangely similar:
If God must become Asian or African, then God is also in some sense queer…Is it less appropriate for gays to imagine Jesus as gay than for African Christians to picture him as black, Asian Christians as Asian?
The “queer-Christ” meme has become a cornerstone of so-called Catholic LGBT ministries.
OSP has a long history of gay-affirmative pastoral practices and public statements in support of same-sex marriage. On May 15, 2018, Out at St. Paul, hosted a “Rooftop Social” at gay sports bar Boxers in Hell’s Kitchen. However, this is not the first time Out at St. Paul has held meetings at gay bars. On March 22, 2017, Out at St. Paul hosted a “Spring Social” at the Hell’s Kitchen gay bar Bottoms Up. Then again, on January 31, 2018, they hosted their “Winter Social” at the Rise gay bar in Hell’s Kitchen. In the past, Out at St. Paul sponsored and promoted “your favorite queer saint,” “countertraditions” to Adam and Eve, and “Christian” theories in support of same-sex marriage.
On June 16, 2018, concerning an article from the gay-periodical “The Advocate,” in which they reported that Pope Francis’s “definition of a family excludes same-sex couples,” Out at St. Paul stated: “Pope Francis is wrong.”
On August 3, 2018, OSP posted the following message to their official Facebook page:
Yesterday, Pope Francis declared the death penalty inadmissible in all cases. It shows us that Catholic teaching can and does change over time (or, “develop,” using theological terminology). Pope Francis specifically called for the language in the catechism to be altered. He has the power to recognize other “developments” in doctrine as well. This is why we push for the language about LGBTQ people in the catechism to change. We are not, and have never been, “intrinsically disordered.” It is time for the Church to listen to LGBTQ believers and recognize the harm that its official doctrine has caused to millions of people around the world.
Out at St. Paul is a favorite of James Martin. On July 16, 2017, Martin, addressed Out at St. Paul; he previously spoke to the group on March 2, 2017. On several occasions, Martin has recommended both the Parish and OSP (see video interview, and a Facebook live discussion.) Following his July 2017 appearance at OSP, to publicize his latest book, “Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter Into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity,” Martin posted pictures to his Facebook account from the event and thanked the following:
Thanks to Fr. Gil Martinez, CSP, the pastor; Xorje Olivares and everyone at “Out at St. Paul’s,” the LGBT outreach group at the parish; and everyone who came to the “Building a Bridge” event tonight.
On June 15, 2017, Martin recommended Out at St. Paul on his official Twitter account.
On his Facebook page, Martin wrote:
Dear friends: “Out at St. Paul” is one of the most dynamic Catholic LGBT ministries in the country, and probably the world. It is a ministry of the Church of St. Paul the Apostle in New York City, just next door to our Jesuit community. They shared this video with me and asked me to share it with you. May it give hope to parishes who are striving to be welcoming places for everyone.
Gil Martinez was the former chaplain for Out at St. Paul. He had been an outspoken supporter of the group, specifically promoting the “Owning Our Faith” video series which was sponsored by OSP and St. Paul the Apostle Parish. In 2015, Martinez traveled to Rome and personally gave a copy of the video “Owning Our Faith” to both Pope Francis and Cardinal Walter Kasper. On March 5, 2018, Cardinal Kasper celebrated Mass at St. Paul the Apostle. The video features testimonies from several OSP members as well as “gay” and transgender advocates including dissident nun Jeannine Gramick who was officially sanctioned by the Vatican in 1999 and permanently prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexuals and Warren Hall, a self-outed “gay” priest. Warren has since been suspended and in 2017 he wrote:
…I could not in good conscience take the Oath of Fidelity that all priests take upon ordination and when assuming a pastorate, namely, that I “accept and hold everything that is proposed by the hierarchy” and that I “adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings.”
Also included is an interview with a “gay” married couple, one of whom stated:
If we leave it, if we abandon the Church then it’s never going to change. So we have to continue living here, being an example and encouraging other people to be that example because that’s what’s going to change the Church.
And another “gay” man who said:
I think what’s interesting is that the Catholic Church probably thinks that it is accepting of gay people, because its message is ‘gay people exist and we should love them and not discriminate against them. But because the Church also tells gay people essentially that they need to be celibate, what the Church is saying is ‘you cannot live fully. You can be gay but you can’t live that life.’ And so that inherently is discriminatory.
Excerpts from “Owning Our Faith” are included in a video from James Martin, in which he addresses “5 common questions about ‘Building a Bridge.’”
In residence at St. Paul the Apostle Parish is Fr. David Dwyer, the host of the SiriusXM Radio program “Busted Halo.” Cardinal Timothy Dolan is a frequent guest on the show.
On July 1, 2018, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles approved Martinez as Pastor at the Paulist parish St. Paul the Apostle in Los Angeles.
In 2019, Martinez returned to New York City to celebrate Mass for Out at St. Paul in front of the building where the Stonewall Riots occurred in 1969.
Published with permission from the Sons of St. Joseph.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-02--When receiving Communion in the hand can be sinful

July 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Many bishops around the world are attempting to compel Catholics , who are in the right dispositions to approach the Holy Eucharist , to receive Our Lord in the hand , contrary to their well formed consciences about the risks involved in that method and contrary to their canonical rights to receive on the tongue .
I have received many questions from worried Catholics asking if the bishops really have such authority and if it is ever right for the faithful to go along with such decrees .
Here , I present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While thankfully I have regular access to the Blessed Sacrament , my sons are currently residing in a diocese where the bishop , like so many others , has “ mandated ” Communion in the hand .
I discussed with my sons how the bishop has no authority to mandate such a thing , and shared many articles ( including yours ) , which my sons discussed with their priests .
These priests , however , are going to “ just do what the bishop says , ” and for the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receiving Communion at all rather than have to receive on the hand .
Should my sons continue to refrain from receiving ?
To me , it seems as if it would be just the capitulation the Devil desires if we were to say “ okay , whatever — I need Communion , so I ’ ll go ahead and receive on the hand for now , since it ’ s my only choice.
” I hate to “ give in ” to this destructive progressivism in any way , but would it be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if there was no other way available ?
This is a painful cross that so many Catholics have to bear in these days of upside-down priorities .
A few considerations .
1 .
Inasmuch as the bishops are abusing their authority ( and that they are doing so is beyond doubt , given universal law , which they can not simply put aside ) , it is wrong to capitulate to their requests , since this would only confirm them in their contempt for law , tradition , and the legitimate rights of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the priests : they want to be “ obedient , ” but they are actually being enablers of episcopal overreach , as I explain here .
We may pardon their weakness , but we shouldn ’ t applaud it by “ falling in line.
” Remember the Austrian Catholics at the time of Hitler ?
They fell into line except for Franz Jägerstätter : they all said “ Oh , we can square this National Socialist oath of allegiance with Catholicism , ” and he said : “ Not so fast : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can.
” He is acknowledged by the Church as a martyr .
We can hope the Lord had mercy on the rest who caved in .
2 .
“ Is it a big deal to receive in the hand ?
” Well , for starters , if we were doing it in the ancient manner , we would receive in the right hand ( not the left ! )
, and bow down in adoration to take up the holy bread with our tongue , and then would lick our palm to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( One still sees Byzantine priests licking their fingers as they clean the antimension after Communion . )
In other words , not at all what is being done today since the faux “ revival ” of Communion in the hand in the 1960s and ’ 70s .
It might be possible to receive in the truly ancient manner without sin , but in doing so one would very obviously “ stick out ” from the rest of the people — and one would still be licking one ’ s hand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s standards , especially if there is a danger of harmful germs .
Put differently , the ancient manner of receiving in the hand has twice the disadvantage , from a hygienic point of view , of receiving directly on the tongue .
3 .
It seems to me that there is a great risk of consequentialism here : “ We want sacrament X ... therefore we are willing to receive it less reverently.
” If sacrament X were one of absolute necessity , that would be more understandable ; but the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not just for my personal benefit , but for the adoration of God in Himself , and for His glorification in me .
So I must not simply discount the manner in which the Holy Spirit has led the Church to perfect her expressions of reverence , above all when it comes to the reception of the God-Man Jesus Christ in Holy Communion .
4 .
Practically speaking , we should try to find priests who are willing , at least privately , to give Communion in the traditional and still normative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and if this is not possible , then perhaps one could , once a month , drive to a place where that is possible and make a half-day of it , praying the rosary or some part of the Divine Office , and treating the Eucharistic Lord with the honor He deserves .
In the meantime , we know that saints have not only recommended spiritual communion , but have emphasized its power .
St Thérèse at the end of her life was compelled to make spiritual communions because she could not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that into yet another means of purification and sanctification .
It seems to me that this dire situation can not last forever .
There will always be clergy who — in spite of being compared to rebellious adolescents by the pope — will see clearly their solemn duties before God and man and will take these duties seriously .
Meanwhile , we must keep up our prayer life in all the ways that are open to us as laymen .
In this way , we will be strengthened for the journey through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate between some of my friends and me over the matter of receiving Holy Communion in the hand .
One young man , although favoring the abrogation of hand Communion , believes that it is wrong to say it is sinful .
His main argument is that “ the living Magisterium has allowed it ” ( see Redemptionis Sacramentum , no .
92 ) , thus to hold that opinion would be the result of an improperly formed conscience .
This to me sounds like a positivistic and ultramontanist approach .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Magisterium must adhere to .
It seems to me that Communion in the hand could be a sacrilege , and if so , we know that sacrilege is a sin .
I think the broader question is , can the living Magisterium promote something sinful through official documents ?
It would be difficult to maintain that it is necessarily a sin to receive the Eucharist in one ’ s hand , if adequate precautions were taken .
After all , if it were sinful in itself , it could never have been practiced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed the description attributed to St. Cyril , one would place the right hand above the left hand , and when the host is in the palm , one would bow down to the hand ( not moving the hand ) and take up the host with one ’ s mouth , licking the area on the palm in order to make sure no particles remained .
This is not a form of “ self-communication ” but is simply using the right hand as a paten , and showing adoration by the bow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
All the same , we do not live anymore in the fifth century ; we live in the twenty-first , after a millennium during which the Church , moved by the Holy Spirit , abandoned Communion in the hand everywhere because of ever growing reverence for the Most Holy Sacrament , a deepening appreciation of the special anointing conferred on the hands of the priest for handling sacred things , and a realization of the dangers connected with hand reception .
Something that might have been acceptable in one age comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , precisely because the Church ’ s practice develops , even as her insight into revealed mysteries develops .
( And if one were to counter that this development went in the direction of corruption , he has basically become a Protestant or a devotee of the error of false antiquarianism . )
For those who realize , as every well catechized Catholic should , that the Church ’ s traditions are to be revered and trusted , and who know that Communion on the hand had long been abandoned and replaced for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it would be sinful to receive on the hand , because one would be acting against one ’ s conscience and against one ’ s understanding of the Faith .
However , there are very many Catholics who are so poorly trained and so ignorant that they actually do not know what the tradition was or why it was that way — or even that we should trust our traditions to begin with .
Such a Catholic , if in a state of grace and attempting to do what he believes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not ( necessarily ) be committing a sin .
Obviously , saying this doesn ’ t cancel out in any way the serious problems with Communion in the hand .
It is unfitting for unanointed hands to handle the Body of Christ .
It risks profaning Our Lord by the loss of fragments .
It is contrary to organic tradition .
The living Magisterium itself , as you rightly say , has an obligation to adhere to the tradition and not to contradict it , which would be equivalent to telling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paul VI , who was colorblind and tone-deaf when it came to liturgy , seems to have recognized this ( see the strangely contradictory document Memoriale Domini of May 29 , 1969 , from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship , approved by Paul VI ) , but he was too weak and self-doubting to uphold what he knew to be true .
We , on the other hand , should not be weak and self-doubting in following the wisdom of tradition .
Some people say Communion in the hand can be sinful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mass , because it is forbidden there , yet not sinful in the New Rite , where it is permitted .
How could this make any sense ?
Can something be sinful in one rite but not the next ?
Or are you saying the act in itself is not a sin , but the knowledge of the receiver can determine their culpability and thus the weight of the sin ?
Also , is it always wrong to go against one ’ s conscience ?
Let ’ s say someone ’ s conscience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; should he confess it ?
I would think yes , and we should never go against our conscience , but I just wanted to clarify .
It can be a sin to go against required rubrics .
Since Communion on the tongue is required in the old rite , to hold that in contempt would be a sin .
In the new rite , by contrast , Communion in the hand is not required ; it is permitted .
In fact , the universal norm is on the tongue , with Communion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the norm .
That means it could never be sinful to refuse to receive Communion in the hand , just as it could never be wrong to insist on receiving on the tongue , provided one was in a condition to approach the Sacrament .
According to Memoriale Domini , a number of specific conditions have to be met before Communion in the hand can be allowed , and if any conditions cease to be met , it must be discontinued .
These conditions are seldom respected or achieved , and the evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Once clergy become aware of that fact , they have an obligation , based on natural law , divine law , and ecclesiastical law , to curtail Communion in the hand and eventually to replace it with the normative traditional practice .
In general , once one becomes aware of the problems surrounding Communion in the hand — that it risks profanation , that it leads to a loss of faith in the Real Presence and the special nature of the ordained priesthood , that it is contrary to a fitting tradition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even to Paul VI ’ s stipulations , that it facilitates the theft of the Host for satanic rituals , etc.—then it would be contrary to a well informed conscience to receive in that way , and so , it would be sinful .
This is not , after all , a strange situation .
Many times , people are badly informed about moral actions , and it can be that they were so badly formed and at such a disadvantage that they are not culpable for their ignorance .
People can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guilty of choosing them as evil .
However , once they “ wise up , ” then they are obliged to follow their better informed consciences .
We must also remember the clear teaching of Scripture and of the saints : God is still displeased by objectively evil actions , even when their perpetrators are ignorant or deceived about what they are doing .
Moreover , people will still suffer negative consequences for evil actions .
The one who thinks contraception is morally acceptable is nonetheless injured in his life and relationships by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of God , Creator and Lord of life .
That is why the Catholic tradition places such a premium on the accurate formation of conscience and why it makes sense for someone to confess anything that seems , to him , to be a sin against what is known or believed to be pleasing to God .

I have received many questions from worried Catholics asking if it is right for the faithful to go along with bishops' decrees forcing Communion in the hand. Here are some answers.
July 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Many bishops around the world are attempting to compel Catholics, who are in the right dispositions to approach the Holy Eucharist, to receive Our Lord in the hand, contrary to their well formed consciences about the risks involved in that method and contrary to their canonical rights to receive on the tongue. I have received many questions from worried Catholics asking if the bishops really have such authority and if it is ever right for the faithful to go along with such decrees. Here, I present some of those questions and my answers.
QUESTION
While thankfully I have regular access to the Blessed Sacrament, my sons are currently residing in a diocese where the bishop, like so many others, has “mandated” Communion in the hand. I discussed with my sons how the bishop has no authority to mandate such a thing, and shared many articles (including yours), which my sons discussed with their priests. These priests, however, are going to “just do what the bishop says,” and for the past few weeks my sons have refrained from receiving Communion at all rather than have to receive on the hand. Should my sons continue to refrain from receiving? To me, it seems as if it would be just the capitulation the Devil desires if we were to say “okay, whatever — I need Communion, so I’ll go ahead and receive on the hand for now, since it’s my only choice.” I hate to “give in” to this destructive progressivism in any way, but would it be actually wrong to receive on the hand if there was no other way available?
ANSWER
This is a painful cross that so many Catholics have to bear in these days of upside-down priorities. A few considerations.
1. Inasmuch as the bishops are abusing their authority (and that they are doing so is beyond doubt, given universal law, which they cannot simply put aside), it is wrong to capitulate to their requests, since this would only confirm them in their contempt for law, tradition, and the legitimate rights of the faithful. The same is true for the priests: they want to be “obedient,” but they are actually being enablers of episcopal overreach, as I explain here. We may pardon their weakness, but we shouldn’t applaud it by “falling in line.” Remember the Austrian Catholics at the time of Hitler? They fell into line except for Franz Jägerstätter: they all said “Oh, we can square this National Socialist oath of allegiance with Catholicism,” and he said: “Not so fast: I don’t see how I can.” He is acknowledged by the Church as a martyr. We can hope the Lord had mercy on the rest who caved in.
2. “Is it a big deal to receive in the hand?” Well, for starters, if we were doing it in the ancient manner, we would receive in the right hand (not the left!), and bow down in adoration to take up the holy bread with our tongue, and then would lick our palm to make sure no fragments would be left over. (One still sees Byzantine priests licking their fingers as they clean the antimension after Communion.) In other words, not at all what is being done today since the faux “revival” of Communion in the hand in the 1960s and ’70s. It might be possible to receive in the truly ancient manner without sin, but in doing so one would very obviously “stick out” from the rest of the people — and one would still be licking one’s hand, which is hardly sanitary by today’s standards, especially if there is a danger of harmful germs. Put differently, the ancient manner of receiving in the hand has twice the disadvantage, from a hygienic point of view, of receiving directly on the tongue.
3. It seems to me that there is a great risk of consequentialism here: “We want sacrament X…therefore we are willing to receive it less reverently.” If sacrament X were one of absolute necessity, that would be more understandable; but the only such sacrament is baptism. The sacraments are not just for my personal benefit, but for the adoration of God in Himself, and for His glorification in me. So I must not simply discount the manner in which the Holy Spirit has led the Church to perfect her expressions of reverence, above all when it comes to the reception of the God-Man Jesus Christ in Holy Communion.
4. Practically speaking, we should try to find priests who are willing, at least privately, to give Communion in the traditional and still normative way — i.e., on the tongue — and if this is not possible, then perhaps one could, once a month, drive to a place where that is possible and make a half-day of it, praying the rosary or some part of the Divine Office, and treating the Eucharistic Lord with the honor He deserves. In the meantime, we know that saints have not only recommended spiritual communion, but have emphasized its power. St Thérèse at the end of her life was compelled to make spiritual communions because she could not keep food down, and she turned that into yet another means of purification and sanctification.
It seems to me that this dire situation cannot last forever. There will always be clergy who — in spite of being compared to rebellious adolescents by the pope — will see clearly their solemn duties before God and man and will take these duties seriously. Meanwhile, we must keep up our prayer life in all the ways that are open to us as laymen. In this way, we will be strengthened for the journey through the desert.
QUESTION
There has been a big debate between some of my friends and me over the matter of receiving Holy Communion in the hand. One young man, although favoring the abrogation of hand Communion, believes that it is wrong to say it is sinful. His main argument is that “the living Magisterium has allowed it” (see Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 92), thus to hold that opinion would be the result of an improperly formed conscience. This to me sounds like a positivistic and ultramontanist approach. There is an objective liturgical tradition that the living Magisterium must adhere to. It seems to me that Communion in the hand could be a sacrilege, and if so, we know that sacrilege is a sin. I think the broader question is, can the living Magisterium promote something sinful through official documents?
ANSWER
It would be difficult to maintain that it is necessarily a sin to receive the Eucharist in one’s hand, if adequate precautions were taken. After all, if it were sinful in itself, it could never have been practiced in the early Church. If one followed the description attributed to St. Cyril, one would place the right hand above the left hand, and when the host is in the palm, one would bow down to the hand (not moving the hand) and take up the host with one’s mouth, licking the area on the palm in order to make sure no particles remained. This is not a form of “self-communication” but is simply using the right hand as a paten, and showing adoration by the bow. (I speak of this here.)
All the same, we do not live anymore in the fifth century; we live in the twenty-first, after a millennium during which the Church, moved by the Holy Spirit, abandoned Communion in the hand everywhere because of ever growing reverence for the Most Holy Sacrament, a deepening appreciation of the special anointing conferred on the hands of the priest for handling sacred things, and a realization of the dangers connected with hand reception. Something that might have been acceptable in one age comes to be seen as unacceptable in another, precisely because the Church’s practice develops, even as her insight into revealed mysteries develops. (And if one were to counter that this development went in the direction of corruption, he has basically become a Protestant or a devotee of the error of false antiquarianism.)
For those who realize, as every well catechized Catholic should, that the Church’s traditions are to be revered and trusted, and who know that Communion on the hand had long been abandoned and replaced for fitting reasons with Communion on the tongue, it would be sinful to receive on the hand, because one would be acting against one’s conscience and against one’s understanding of the Faith. However, there are very many Catholics who are so poorly trained and so ignorant that they actually do not know what the tradition was or why it was that way — or even that we should trust our traditions to begin with. Such a Catholic, if in a state of grace and attempting to do what he believes the Church is asking him to do, would not (necessarily) be committing a sin.
Obviously, saying this doesn’t cancel out in any way the serious problems with Communion in the hand. It is unfitting for unanointed hands to handle the Body of Christ. It risks profaning Our Lord by the loss of fragments. It is contrary to organic tradition. The living Magisterium itself, as you rightly say, has an obligation to adhere to the tradition and not to contradict it, which would be equivalent to telling the Holy Spirit to get lost. Even Paul VI, who was colorblind and tone-deaf when it came to liturgy, seems to have recognized this (see the strangely contradictory document Memoriale Domini of May 29, 1969, from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, approved by Paul VI), but he was too weak and self-doubting to uphold what he knew to be true. We, on the other hand, should not be weak and self-doubting in following the wisdom of tradition.
QUESTION
Some people say Communion in the hand can be sinful in the context of the traditional Latin Mass, because it is forbidden there, yet not sinful in the New Rite, where it is permitted. How could this make any sense? Can something be sinful in one rite but not the next? Or are you saying the act in itself is not a sin, but the knowledge of the receiver can determine their culpability and thus the weight of the sin?
Also, is it always wrong to go against one’s conscience? Let’s say someone’s conscience bothers him about receiving in the hand; should he confess it? I would think yes, and we should never go against our conscience, but I just wanted to clarify.
ANSWER
It can be a sin to go against required rubrics. Since Communion on the tongue is required in the old rite, to hold that in contempt would be a sin. In the new rite, by contrast, Communion in the hand is not required; it is permitted. In fact, the universal norm is on the tongue, with Communion in the hand being an exception to the norm. That means it could never be sinful to refuse to receive Communion in the hand, just as it could never be wrong to insist on receiving on the tongue, provided one was in a condition to approach the Sacrament.
According to Memoriale Domini, a number of specific conditions have to be met before Communion in the hand can be allowed, and if any conditions cease to be met, it must be discontinued. These conditions are seldom respected or achieved, and the evidence indicates that they are habitually violated. Once clergy become aware of that fact, they have an obligation, based on natural law, divine law, and ecclesiastical law, to curtail Communion in the hand and eventually to replace it with the normative traditional practice.
In general, once one becomes aware of the problems surrounding Communion in the hand — that it risks profanation, that it leads to a loss of faith in the Real Presence and the special nature of the ordained priesthood, that it is contrary to a fitting tradition of many centuries, that it is contrary even to Paul VI’s stipulations, that it facilitates the theft of the Host for satanic rituals, etc.—then it would be contrary to a well informed conscience to receive in that way, and so, it would be sinful.
This is not, after all, a strange situation. Many times, people are badly informed about moral actions, and it can be that they were so badly formed and at such a disadvantage that they are not culpable for their ignorance. People can do objectively wrong things while not being subjectively guilty of choosing them as evil. However, once they “wise up,” then they are obliged to follow their better informed consciences.
We must also remember the clear teaching of Scripture and of the saints: God is still displeased by objectively evil actions, even when their perpetrators are ignorant or deceived about what they are doing. Moreover, people will still suffer negative consequences for evil actions. The one who thinks contraception is morally acceptable is nonetheless injured in his life and relationships by practicing it and truly contradicts the will of God, Creator and Lord of life.
That is why the Catholic tradition places such a premium on the accurate formation of conscience and why it makes sense for someone to confess anything that seems, to him, to be a sin against what is known or believed to be pleasing to God.
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--2020-07-02--Confederate statues should go, but Founders should stay, Biden says

PETITION : Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues !
Sign the petition here .
July 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Former Vice President and current Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden partially broke from the elements of his base demanding the elimination of monuments to various American historical figures , endorsing the removal of Confederate generals while drawing the line at America ’ s Founding Fathers .
“ The idea of comparing whether or not George Washington owned slaves or Thomas Jefferson owned slaves , and somebody who was in rebellion committing treason trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slavery , I think there ’ s a distinction there , ” Biden said Tuesday , The Hill reports .
“ The idea of bringing down all those Confederate monuments to Confederate soldiers and generals who strongly supported secession and maintaining slavery and going to war to do it , I think those statues belong in museums , they don ’ t belong in public places.
” “ I think with regard to those statues and monuments , like the Jefferson Memorial , there ’ s an obligation that the government protect those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Biden continued .
“ That ’ s a remembrance , it ’ s not dealing with revering somebody who had that view .
They had much broader views .
They may have had things in their past that were now and then distasteful , but that ’ s a judgment.
” “ I can understand the anger and anguish that people feel by having for years and years been under the statue of Robert E. Lee if you ’ re an African American , ” the vice president went on .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it peacefully … the elected officials where those statues are have a responsibility to remove , put them in museums .
Get them down … and don ’ t be surprised if someone pulls down the statue of Jefferson Davis .
It ’ s better that they do not , but it ’ s fundamentally different than … grabbing Jefferson off his chair.
” Black Lives Matter ( BLM ) protests began in the United States at the end of May , following the death of Minnesota man George Floyd at the hands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrations started as a call to act against police brutality , but quickly morphed into a broader condemnation of America ’ s alleged “ systemic racism , ” expanding into issues such as commemoration of “ problematic ” historical figures in art , sculpture , and location names .
The people who have torn statues down from public property are nothing less than “ the armed militia of the Democratic Party , ” “ working to overthrow our system of government , ” Fox News host Tucker Carlson said last week .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppose racism , and then they rip down monuments to abolitionists .
They do n't see the contradiction in that because they have no idea who the abolitionists were .
They think it 's a band from the 80s.
” While the Confederacy ’ s secession from the United States was indeed rooted in large part in the desire to preserve slavery , its military officers often had a more complicated relationship to the issue , with their service perceived as fulfilling a duty to defend their homes rather than slavery .
Further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ erected not as celebrations of secession or slavery , but were allowed as gestures of peace during the postwar Reconstruction period .
As for the Founders , many of them did own slaves ( while at the same time making provisions to free them when possible ) .
But they also despised the institution of slavery , and while they were unable to abolish it outright in the nation ’ s infancy ( during which pressing the issue would have shattered the union between northern and southern states ) , they consciously laid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crafting the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution ’ s principles of human equality and individual liberty .
It ’ s not just statues of Confederate generals or the Founding Fathers that are being targeted , though ; BLM activists have also set their sights on religious statues .
Rioters have pulled down and desecrated statues of St. Junipero Serra in San Francisco and Los Angeles , after local authorities in Los Angeles approved the removal of another of his statues outside Ventura City Hall .
There is also an effort to remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only French king to be canonized a Catholic saint , in St. Louis , Missouri .
Shaun King , a leading voice in the BLM movement , has called for the destruction of images and statues of a “ white ” Jesus and Mary his mother .
Another Black Lives Matter activist recently used social media to call on mobs and rioters to protest a Catholic parish in San Diego , saying that the “ white ” parishioners did not think black lives mattered and they were “ staunch ” Trump supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an effort to straddle a fine line between his party ’ s increasingly far-left base and the moderate Americans he needs to vote for him .
And while he disavowed the anti-statue movement ’ s harshest extremes , he has also endorsed BLM ’ s underlying indictment of the United States .
“ Systemic racism ” is “ not just in law enforcement , it ’ s across the board .
It ’ s in housing , and it ’ s in education , and it ’ s in everything we do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month .
“ Look , not all law enforcement officers are racist .
My lord , there are some really good , good cops out there .
But the way in which it works right now is — we ’ ve seen too many examples of it.
” In fact , research shows that police are not disproportionately likely to use excessive lethal force against black suspects .

Biden’s remarks appear to be an effort to straddle a fine line between his party’s increasingly far-left base and the moderate Americans he needs to vote for him.
PETITION: Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues! Sign the petition here.
July 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Former Vice President and current Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden partially broke from the elements of his base demanding the elimination of monuments to various American historical figures, endorsing the removal of Confederate generals while drawing the line at America’s Founding Fathers.
“The idea of comparing whether or not George Washington owned slaves or Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and somebody who was in rebellion committing treason trying to take down a union to keep slavery, I think there’s a distinction there,” Biden said Tuesday, The Hill reports. “The idea of bringing down all those Confederate monuments to Confederate soldiers and generals who strongly supported secession and maintaining slavery and going to war to do it, I think those statues belong in museums, they don’t belong in public places.”
“I think with regard to those statues and monuments, like the Jefferson Memorial, there’s an obligation that the government protect those monuments because they’re different,” Biden continued. “That’s a remembrance, it’s not dealing with revering somebody who had that view. They had much broader views. They may have had things in their past that were now and then distasteful, but that’s a judgment.”
“I can understand the anger and anguish that people feel by having for years and years been under the statue of Robert E. Lee if you’re an African American,” the vice president went on. “It’s always better to do it peacefully … the elected officials where those statues are have a responsibility to remove, put them in museums. Get them down … and don’t be surprised if someone pulls down the statue of Jefferson Davis. It’s better that they do not, but it’s fundamentally different than … grabbing Jefferson off his chair.”
Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests began in the United States at the end of May, following the death of Minnesota man George Floyd at the hands of a white police officer. The demonstrations started as a call to act against police brutality, but quickly morphed into a broader condemnation of America’s alleged “systemic racism,” expanding into issues such as commemoration of “problematic” historical figures in art, sculpture, and location names.
The people who have torn statues down from public property are nothing less than “the armed militia of the Democratic Party,” “working to overthrow our system of government,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson said last week. “They know nothing… They say they oppose racism, and then they rip down monuments to abolitionists. They don't see the contradiction in that because they have no idea who the abolitionists were. They think it's a band from the 80s.”
While the Confederacy’s secession from the United States was indeed rooted in large part in the desire to preserve slavery, its military officers often had a more complicated relationship to the issue, with their service perceived as fulfilling a duty to defend their homes rather than slavery. Further, many monuments to Southern generals were erected not as celebrations of secession or slavery, but were allowed as gestures of peace during the postwar Reconstruction period.
As for the Founders, many of them did own slaves (while at the same time making provisions to free them when possible). But they also despised the institution of slavery, and while they were unable to abolish it outright in the nation’s infancy (during which pressing the issue would have shattered the union between northern and southern states), they consciously laid the groundwork for its eventual abolition in crafting the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution’s principles of human equality and individual liberty.
It’s not just statues of Confederate generals or the Founding Fathers that are being targeted, though; BLM activists have also set their sights on religious statues. Rioters have pulled down and desecrated statues of St. Junipero Serra in San Francisco and Los Angeles, after local authorities in Los Angeles approved the removal of another of his statues outside Ventura City Hall.
There is also an effort to remove a statue of St. Louis IX, the only French king to be canonized a Catholic saint, in St. Louis, Missouri.
Shaun King, a leading voice in the BLM movement, has called for the destruction of images and statues of a “white” Jesus and Mary his mother. Another Black Lives Matter activist recently used social media to call on mobs and rioters to protest a Catholic parish in San Diego, saying that the “white” parishioners did not think black lives mattered and they were “staunch” Trump supporters.
Biden’s remarks appear to be an effort to straddle a fine line between his party’s increasingly far-left base and the moderate Americans he needs to vote for him. And while he disavowed the anti-statue movement’s harshest extremes, he has also endorsed BLM’s underlying indictment of the United States.
“Systemic racism” is “not just in law enforcement, it’s across the board. It’s in housing, and it’s in education, and it’s in everything we do,” Biden told CBS News last month. “Look, not all law enforcement officers are racist. My lord, there are some really good, good cops out there. But the way in which it works right now is — we’ve seen too many examples of it.”
In fact, research shows that police are not disproportionately likely to use excessive lethal force against black suspects.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-01--Home education will be the survival of the Catholic family

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

To help keep this and other programs on the air, please donate here.
Watch Mother Miriam's Live aired on 7.1.2020. In today’s episode, Mother speaks about the importance of homeschooling, especially for Catholic families. Catholic parents have a duty to educate their children in the faith and they need to take that duty seriously.
You can tune in daily at 10 am EST/7 am PST on our Facebook Page.
Subscribe to Mother Miriam Live here.


lifesitenews--2020-07-03--LGBT activist thinks he has a plan to stop UK parents from withdrawing kids from sex-ed

July 3 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A video has emerged of prominent UK LGBT activist Peter Tatchell saying that forcing parents to pick their children up from school would be an effective way to stop them from exercising their right to withdraw children from sex education lessons .
A video clip reportedly from a 2018 “ Pride debate ” showing Tatchell discussing the UK government ’ s new sex education plans was posted to Twitter earlier this week .
“ On the issue on relationships and sex education in schools , some of you may know that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK has produced a website called theclassroom.org.uk which has downloadable lessons which teachers can use to integrate LGBT issues into every subject , so they ’ re not marginalised they ’ re integrated into mathematics , geography and so on , ” Tatchell began .
“ In the UK the government is still saying that the parents of kids should have the right to withdraw them from relationships and sex education .
We ’ re not going to win that one to stop that , but what I ’ m proposing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a parental opt-out should remain , but parents should be required to come to the school and take their child out of each individual lesson , ” Tatchell continued while other members of the group laughed .
“ And of all places , two schools in the north of Ireland trialed this about five or six years before they got stopped .
But they found that the level of parental opt-out dropped to almost zero , ” he concluded as the laughter increased .
In September , new relationships and sex education ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take effect in the UK .
This has now been delayed until September 2021 .
Under the new legislation , relationships education will be compulsory in all primary schools , but parents will be able to withdraw their children in primary school from sex education classes .
Relationships and Sex Education ( RSE ) will be compulsory in all secondary schools .
Parents will not be able to withdraw their children from RSE at secondary school , but will only be able to request that their child be withdrawn from the sex education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being given to the headteacher .
From age 15 , the child has the right to override any parental request that they be withdrawn from Sex Education .
Dr. Tom Rogers , education manager for UK pro-life and pro-family group Society for the Protection of Unborn Children , told LifeSiteNews that Tatchell ’ s views “ reveal the dangerous extremism of certain factions of the LGBT lobby.
” “ Attempting to come between children and their parents in this way , and trying to disrupt the sacred bond between them , is abhorrent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploitation , ” Rogers said .
“ What is particularly concerning is that Tatchell has consistently campaigned for the lowering of the age of consent , and indeed has written of abolishing a legal age of consent altogether .
He is on record as stating that ‘ not all sex involving children is unwanted , abusive and harmful , ’ ” he continued .
Rogers said that Tatchell and much of the LGBT lobby fail to understand the principle on which the education system is founded -- that education is the responsibility of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school to be educated on their behalf .
“ Parents have a right , recognised under international human rights law , to educate their children according to their own beliefs and values , ” he added .
“ That is especially important in the area of sex and relationships where there are now for too many , like Tatchell , out there , who want to exploit children ’ s vulnerability and promote to them dangerous , unnatural and immoral lifestyle choices .
”

Making a mom or dad come to school to take a child out of class would deter them from opting out, the LGBT advocate explained.
July 3, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A video has emerged of prominent UK LGBT activist Peter Tatchell saying that forcing parents to pick their children up from school would be an effective way to stop them from exercising their right to withdraw children from sex education lessons.
A video clip reportedly from a 2018 “Pride debate” showing Tatchell discussing the UK government’s new sex education plans was posted to Twitter earlier this week.
“On the issue on relationships and sex education in schools, some of you may know that the LGBT+ group ‘Schools Out’ in the UK has produced a website called theclassroom.org.uk which has downloadable lessons which teachers can use to integrate LGBT issues into every subject, so they’re not marginalised they’re integrated into mathematics, geography and so on,” Tatchell began.
“In the UK the government is still saying that the parents of kids should have the right to withdraw them from relationships and sex education. We’re not going to win that one to stop that, but what I’m proposing and my foundation is proposing is that yes a parental opt-out should remain, but parents should be required to come to the school and take their child out of each individual lesson,” Tatchell continued while other members of the group laughed.
“And of all places, two schools in the north of Ireland trialed this about five or six years before they got stopped. But they found that the level of parental opt-out dropped to almost zero,” he concluded as the laughter increased.
A clip from the 2018 Pride Debate. @PeterTatchell advocates forcing parents that don't want their kids in the new Sex Ed classes to pick up their kids from schools. He says this wears them down and forces the resistance rate for the classes down to 0 ��#IrelandsPedoGate pic.twitter.com/SfDL3HjwRH — Professor JennyQ (@jenny87797866) July 1, 2020
In September, new relationships and sex education (RSE) courses had been scheduled to take effect in the UK. This has now been delayed until September 2021.
Under the new legislation, relationships education will be compulsory in all primary schools, but parents will be able to withdraw their children in primary school from sex education classes.
Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) will be compulsory in all secondary schools. Parents will not be able to withdraw their children from RSE at secondary school, but will only be able to request that their child be withdrawn from the sex education parts of RSE with the final decision being given to the headteacher. From age 15, the child has the right to override any parental request that they be withdrawn from Sex Education.
Dr. Tom Rogers, education manager for UK pro-life and pro-family group Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, told LifeSiteNews that Tatchell’s views “reveal the dangerous extremism of certain factions of the LGBT lobby.”
“Attempting to come between children and their parents in this way, and trying to disrupt the sacred bond between them, is abhorrent and puts children at great risk of exploitation,” Rogers said.
“What is particularly concerning is that Tatchell has consistently campaigned for the lowering of the age of consent, and indeed has written of abolishing a legal age of consent altogether. He is on record as stating that ‘not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful,’” he continued.
Rogers said that Tatchell and much of the LGBT lobby fail to understand the principle on which the education system is founded — that education is the responsibility of the parent who sends their child to school to be educated on their behalf.
“Parents have a right, recognised under international human rights law, to educate their children according to their own beliefs and values,” he added.
“That is especially important in the area of sex and relationships where there are now for too many, like Tatchell, out there, who want to exploit children’s vulnerability and promote to them dangerous, unnatural and immoral lifestyle choices.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-03--Chinese government now forcing abortion on ethnic minority women

XINJIANG , China , July 3 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) ― China has been forcing contraceptives , sterilization , and abortion on minority women living in the country .
On June 29 , the Associated Press ( AP ) published an investigative article about the communist dictatorship ’ s successful campaign to decrease the number of children being born to the Muslim Uighur minority , Kazahks , and other minorities in China ’ s mountainous northwest Xinjiang province .
AP characterized China ’ s enforcement of its infamous two-child policy upon the Uighur people as a form of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that birth rates “ in the mostly Uighur regions of Hotan and Kashgar plunged by more than 60 percent from 2015 to 2018 , the latest year available in government statistics.
” “ Across the Xinjiang region , birth rates continue to plummet , falling nearly 24 percent last year alone — compared to just 4.2 percent nationwide.
” The data also show that in 2010 , ethnic minority women in Xinjiang were having more children than the average woman in China and that ethnic minority women in Hotan and Kashgar were having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,000 population were 11.9 births for the nation as a whole , 14.5 for the Xinjiang region , and 24.27 for Hotan and Kashgar .
Until 2014 , China ’ s ethnic minorities , many of whom are Muslims , were not subject to the same draconian birth control measures forced on the majority Han people .
“ Minority populations were tiny ( in Chinese terms ) , they lived in remote places , and government policy was not to antagonize them unduly , ” Canadian former ambassador to China David Mulroney told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birth-control measures were relaxed for the Han , too , as China ’ s government came to understand the looming demographic disaster that they had created .
What ’ s happening to the Uighurs is a tragic return to the draconian policies of the 1980s and ‘ 90s.
” AP reported that the Chinese birth rates in 2018 were 10.94 births per 1000 population in China as a whole , 10.69 for the Xinjiang region , and a shocking 8.7 for Hotan and Kashgar .
The number of births in Xinjiang began to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hotan and Kashgar in 2017 .
The reason for the change : the policies of China ’ s dictator Xi Jinping .
After Xi paid a visit to the Xinjiang region in 2014 , a leading local government authority said that from now on there would be “ equal family planning policies ” for all ethnic groups in China and it was time to “ reduce and stabilize birth rates.
” Soon after , the one-child rule for Han Chinese was relaxed to allow for a second child , and “ three in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like minorities , ” AP reported .
“ The One Child policy officially ended in 2015 , but it had been unevenly enforced for the previous decade , ” Mulroney told LifeSiteNews .
“ In some rural areas , zealous communist busy-bodies still terrorized their fellow citizens , but in much of urban China , the problem was a steady decline in annual birth rates.
” The decline in births brought a host of problems : a dwindling workforce just as China ’ s new capitalist economy took off , a welfare pyramid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support his parents and grandparents financially , and the gross imbalance in the ratio of men to women , leading to 40 million permanent bachelors .
But now the same violent and invasive procedures once commonplace to control the birth rate among Han Chinese are being used on Uighurs and other minorities .
For the past four years , the Chinese government has been forcing demographic winter on its minorities in Xinjiang .
“ The state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks , and forces intrauterine devices , sterilization and even abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported .
Whereas the use of intrauterine devices ( IUDs ) and sterilization has dropped in the rest of mainland China , their use has risen in Xinjiang as women are terrorized into using , or forced to , use them .
Minority families are threatened with imprisonment in detention camps if they have more than two children , even though legally three children are allowed .
Women sent to the camps report that they have IUDs inserted in them , or are given contraceptive shots , against their will .
Others report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One woman who spoke to AP said she met a woman who had had her baby taken away shortly after giving birth .
‘ Is it possible the Western conscience is being pricked ?
’ British pro-life activist Fiorella Nash , the author of The Abolition of Woman : How Radical Feminism is Betraying Women , told LifeSiteNews that China ’ s terrible treatment of minority women is in keeping with its 40 years of control over the fertility of the majority .
“ Nobody should be surprised because the whole point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control the people , not to control births , ” she told LifeSiteNews .
“ These policies were never necessary to bring down the birth rate because all the neighboring countries experienced a drop in population , and they never used force.
” Experts say it is the Uighurs ’ Muslims faith that has changed the Chinese government ’ s policy of benign neglect where their fertility is concerned .
One Chinese scholar cited by AP characterized the population as a breeding ground for poverty and extremism that could “ heighten political risk.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ regarding minority fertility is to weaken the minorities ’ cultural vitality and even to bring them to an end through “ slow genocide.
” “ What we ’ re seeing in Xinjiang is a reintroduction of the ( population control ) program at its harshest , ” Mulroney told LifeSiteNews .
“ But the rationale isn ’ t economic ― fewer mouths to feed ― as spurious as that was .
It is political , ideological and racial .
China wants fewer Uighurs and fewer Muslims.
” Although forced contraception , sterilization and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1979 , Nash welcomes the interest of mainstream Western media and politicians in the outrages being committed on the bodies of Uighur , Kazakh and other minority women .
“ Is it possible that the Western conscience is being pricked 40 years later ?
” she asked .
The sad truth is that Western agencies were complicit in the drive to reduce China ’ s population in the first place .
“ First , population control measures were actually introduced and encouraged in the 1950s , ‘ 60s and ‘ 70s in China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the other usual suspects , ” Mulroney told LifeSiteNews .
“ For those foreign agencies , reducing the number of Chinese babies was a long-cherished objective , ” he continued .
“ Once senior Communist officials had been persuaded that children were a problem , something that happened in the early 1970s , they introduced population control with a will .
“ Mulroney said the policy was run like a “ military campaign ” because China ’ s rural population , then the vast majority , believed that children were a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one thing for Westerners ; racist forced abortion seems to be another .
China ’ s attacks on the fertility of its minority groups have proved too much for abortion-extremist Joe Biden to bear : On Wednesday , he condemned the “ unconscionable crimes against Chinese women ” exposed by AP .
However , as Catholic News Agency ( CNA ) pointed out , in 2011 Biden told a Chinese audience that he would not “ second-guess ” their one-child policy .
Once again , Nash says the news that Chinese population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a surprise to anyone .
Forced abortion is a staple of a population policy by definition , ” she said .
“ How did they think China was going to stop women from having more than one child ?
”

The Associated Press reported that the Communist government is limiting the number of children born to Uighurs, Kazahks and others.
XINJIANG, China, July 3, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― China has been forcing contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion on minority women living in the country.
On June 29, the Associated Press (AP) published an investigative article about the communist dictatorship’s successful campaign to decrease the number of children being born to the Muslim Uighur minority, Kazahks, and other minorities in China’s mountainous northwest Xinjiang province.
AP characterized China’s enforcement of its infamous two-child policy upon the Uighur people as a form of “demographic genocide.” It cited data showing that birth rates “in the mostly Uighur regions of Hotan and Kashgar plunged by more than 60 percent from 2015 to 2018, the latest year available in government statistics.”
“Across the Xinjiang region, birth rates continue to plummet, falling nearly 24 percent last year alone — compared to just 4.2 percent nationwide.”
The data also show that in 2010, ethnic minority women in Xinjiang were having more children than the average woman in China and that ethnic minority women in Hotan and Kashgar were having many more children. The numbers per 1,000 population were 11.9 births for the nation as a whole, 14.5 for the Xinjiang region, and 24.27 for Hotan and Kashgar.
Until 2014, China’s ethnic minorities, many of whom are Muslims, were not subject to the same draconian birth control measures forced on the majority Han people.
“Minority populations were tiny (in Chinese terms), they lived in remote places, and government policy was not to antagonize them unduly,” Canadian former ambassador to China David Mulroney told LifeSiteNews.
“Over time, draconian birth-control measures were relaxed for the Han, too, as China’s government came to understand the looming demographic disaster that they had created. What’s happening to the Uighurs is a tragic return to the draconian policies of the 1980s and ‘90s.”
AP reported that the Chinese birth rates in 2018 were 10.94 births per 1000 population in China as a whole, 10.69 for the Xinjiang region, and a shocking 8.7 for Hotan and Kashgar. The number of births in Xinjiang began to drop in 2015 and to plummet in Hotan and Kashgar in 2017.
More children permitted majority, fewer to minorities
The reason for the change: the policies of China’s dictator Xi Jinping. After Xi paid a visit to the Xinjiang region in 2014, a leading local government authority said that from now on there would be “equal family planning policies” for all ethnic groups in China and it was time to “reduce and stabilize birth rates.”
Soon after, the one-child rule for Han Chinese was relaxed to allow for a second child, and “three in Xinjiang’s rural areas, just like minorities,” AP reported.
“The One Child policy officially ended in 2015, but it had been unevenly enforced for the previous decade,” Mulroney told LifeSiteNews.
“In some rural areas, zealous communist busy-bodies still terrorized their fellow citizens, but in much of urban China, the problem was a steady decline in annual birth rates.”
The decline in births brought a host of problems: a dwindling workforce just as China’s new capitalist economy took off, a welfare pyramid in which one adult child has to support his parents and grandparents financially, and the gross imbalance in the ratio of men to women, leading to 40 million permanent bachelors.
But now the same violent and invasive procedures once commonplace to control the birth rate among Han Chinese are being used on Uighurs and other minorities. For the past four years, the Chinese government has been forcing demographic winter on its minorities in Xinjiang.
“The state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands,” AP reported.
Whereas the use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and sterilization has dropped in the rest of mainland China, their use has risen in Xinjiang as women are terrorized into using, or forced to, use them.
Minority families are threatened with imprisonment in detention camps if they have more than two children, even though legally three children are allowed. Women sent to the camps report that they have IUDs inserted in them, or are given contraceptive shots, against their will. Others report being coerced or forced ito having abortions. One woman who spoke to AP said she met a woman who had had her baby taken away shortly after giving birth.
‘Is it possible the Western conscience is being pricked?’
British pro-life activist Fiorella Nash, the author of The Abolition of Woman: How Radical Feminism is Betraying Women, told LifeSiteNews that China’s terrible treatment of minority women is in keeping with its 40 years of control over the fertility of the majority.
“Nobody should be surprised because the whole point to the Chinese population policies was to control the people, not to control births,” she told LifeSiteNews.
“These policies were never necessary to bring down the birth rate because all the neighboring countries experienced a drop in population, and they never used force.”
Experts say it is the Uighurs’ Muslims faith that has changed the Chinese government’s policy of benign neglect where their fertility is concerned. One Chinese scholar cited by AP characterized the population as a breeding ground for poverty and extremism that could “heighten political risk.” Foreign experts say the new policies regarding minority fertility is to weaken the minorities’ cultural vitality and even to bring them to an end through “slow genocide.”
“What we’re seeing in Xinjiang is a reintroduction of the (population control) program at its harshest,” Mulroney told LifeSiteNews.
“But the rationale isn’t economic ― fewer mouths to feed ― as spurious as that was. It is political, ideological and racial. China wants fewer Uighurs and fewer Muslims.”
Although forced contraception, sterilization and abortion have been commonplace in China since 1979, Nash welcomes the interest of mainstream Western media and politicians in the outrages being committed on the bodies of Uighur, Kazakh and other minority women.
“Is it possible that the Western conscience is being pricked 40 years later?” she asked.
The sad truth is that Western agencies were complicit in the drive to reduce China’s population in the first place.
“First, population control measures were actually introduced and encouraged in the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s in China by the UN, International Planned Parenthood, and the other usual suspects,” Mulroney told LifeSiteNews.
“For those foreign agencies, reducing the number of Chinese babies was a long-cherished objective,” he continued.
“Once senior Communist officials had been persuaded that children were a problem, something that happened in the early 1970s, they introduced population control with a will. “
Mulroney said the policy was run like a “military campaign” because China’s rural population, then the vast majority, believed that children were a blessing.
Forced abortion in faraway China is one thing for Westerners; racist forced abortion seems to be another. China’s attacks on the fertility of its minority groups have proved too much for abortion-extremist Joe Biden to bear: On Wednesday, he condemned the “unconscionable crimes against Chinese women” exposed by AP. However, as Catholic News Agency (CNA) pointed out, in 2011 Biden told a Chinese audience that he would not “second-guess” their one-child policy.
Once again, Nash says the news that Chinese population policies involve forced abortion should not come as a surprise to anyone.
Forced abortion is a staple of a population policy by definition,” she said.
“How did they think China was going to stop women from having more than one child?”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-03--University removes feminist professor who affirms importance of biological sex from admin post

EDMONTON , Alberta , July 3 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A western Canadian anthropology professor says she was removed from an administrative position at the University of Alberta because she views biological sex as “ real and relevant ” despite it being “ currently out of fashion in academia.
” In March , Kathleen Lowrey , a self-described gender-critical feminist , said she was informed by Lesley Cormack , the Faculty of Arts dean , that her three-year term as associate chair of the undergraduate department of anthropology would end effective July 1 .
In the letter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best interests of “ the students or the university for you to carry on , ” and that she was no longer “ effective ” in her administrative role .
Lowrey , who has been at the university since 2005 , told the National Post that the university ’ s Office of Safe Disclosure and Human Rights said anonymous complaints were made to them by students who claimed Lowrey ’ s views were making them feel “ unsafe.
” Lowrey , who is a tenured professor with the university , said she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her administrative role was being terminated , but she believes it was due to her views on biological sex .
“ I don ’ t agree with biological sex being irrelevant , ” Lowrey was quoted as saying by the Edmonton Journal .
“ I think treating biological sex as irrelevant has some really serious policy implications .
As an example , housing trans-identified men in women ’ s prisons is not fair to women prisoners and I think it puts women at risk.
” Lowrey recently took on the role of associate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the university .
Lowrey told the National Post that she was urged to resign from her position “ for the good of the department ” before she was officially let go by the University .
“ My chair was hoping that for the good of the department I would resign from my position , ” she explained .
LifeSiteNews reached out to the University of Alberta for comment regarding Lowrey .
Hallie Brodie , the university ’ s strategic communications manager , told LifeSiteNews that Lowrey ’ s academic appointment as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the University of Alberta “ has not changed.
” “ Her research and teaching continue , including her exploration of gender-critical feminism , ” Brodie told LifeSiteNews .
“ For privacy reasons , we can not comment on the status of her administrative appointment .
We have no further comment.
” LifeSiteNews also contacted Lowrey but was not able to connect with her before this report was filed .
Lowrey told the Edmonton Journal that she tells her students from the “ the first day of class we ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently out of fashion in academia.
” She added that she made sure that her students did not “ have to agree with me.
” “ Since this is a university , I think it ’ s important to be exposed to — this is important literature they should be aware of.
” Lowrey also told the Edmonton Journal that there are “ very dangerous ” implications in what the university has said on the matter because they terminated her from an administrative role .
“ The university has said it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that men can get pregnant , for doubting lesbians can have penises , ” she said .
“ The implications are very dangerous because this is a live issue in our contemporary Canadian democracy.
” Lowrey said the faculty association has filed a grievance on her behalf .
In an op-ed piece dated June 11 , Edmonton Sun columnist Lorne Gunter commented that even though he might not see “ eye-to-eye ” on much with Lowrey because “ she ’ s a Marxist and radical feminist , ” free speech is not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Free speech doesn ’ t mean much if you only defend it for people you agree with .
… Free speech is useless unless it protects even speech you find offensive , ” Gunter wrote .
“ If the University of Alberta can not see how dangerous it is to let one group dictate what the truth is and silence all other points of view , then it is in serious intellectual trouble.
” Lowrey ’ s views that biological sex is relevant have been shared by other prominent self-proclaimed feminists who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s birth sex can have detrimental consequences for women .
Recently , Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling was heavily criticized for saying she refuses to “ bow down ” to “ new trans activism.
” Rowling published a lengthy essay on her website June 10 giving the reasons why she opposes the transgender agenda .
“ When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he ’ s a woman – and , as I ’ ve said , gender confirmation certificates may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside .
That is the simple truth.
” “ So I want trans women to be safe .
At the same time , I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe , ” Rowling wrote in her essay .

The tenured faculty member at the University of Alberta says she was told her views made some students feel 'unsafe.'
EDMONTON, Alberta, July 3, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A western Canadian anthropology professor says she was removed from an administrative position at the University of Alberta because she views biological sex as “real and relevant” despite it being “currently out of fashion in academia.”
In March, Kathleen Lowrey, a self-described gender-critical feminist, said she was informed by Lesley Cormack, the Faculty of Arts dean, that her three-year term as associate chair of the undergraduate department of anthropology would end effective July 1.
In the letter, Cormack said it is no longer in the best interests of “the students or the university for you to carry on,” and that she was no longer “effective” in her administrative role.
Lowrey, who has been at the university since 2005, told the National Post that the university’s Office of Safe Disclosure and Human Rights said anonymous complaints were made to them by students who claimed Lowrey’s views were making them feel “unsafe.”
Lowrey, who is a tenured professor with the university, said she was given no reasons as to why her administrative role was being terminated, but she believes it was due to her views on biological sex.
“I don’t agree with biological sex being irrelevant,” Lowrey was quoted as saying by the Edmonton Journal.
“I think treating biological sex as irrelevant has some really serious policy implications. As an example, housing trans-identified men in women’s prisons is not fair to women prisoners and I think it puts women at risk.”
Lowrey recently took on the role of associate chair of the undergraduate department of anthropology at the university.
Lowrey told the National Post that she was urged to resign from her position “for the good of the department” before she was officially let go by the University.
“My chair was hoping that for the good of the department I would resign from my position,” she explained.
LifeSiteNews reached out to the University of Alberta for comment regarding Lowrey.
Hallie Brodie, the university’s strategic communications manager, told LifeSiteNews that Lowrey’s academic appointment as an associate professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Alberta “has not changed.”
“Her research and teaching continue, including her exploration of gender-critical feminism,” Brodie told LifeSiteNews.
“For privacy reasons, we cannot comment on the status of her administrative appointment. We have no further comment.”
LifeSiteNews also contacted Lowrey but was not able to connect with her before this report was filed.
Lowrey told the Edmonton Journal that she tells her students from the “the first day of class we’re going to read materials in this class that are currently out of fashion in academia.”
She added that she made sure that her students did not “have to agree with me.”
“Since this is a university, I think it’s important to be exposed to — this is important literature they should be aware of.”
Lowrey also told the Edmonton Journal that there are “very dangerous” implications in what the university has said on the matter because they terminated her from an administrative role.
“The university has said it’s perfectly OK to fire people for doubting that men can get pregnant, for doubting lesbians can have penises,” she said. “The implications are very dangerous because this is a live issue in our contemporary Canadian democracy.”
Lowrey said the faculty association has filed a grievance on her behalf.
In an op-ed piece dated June 11, Edmonton Sun columnist Lorne Gunter commented that even though he might not see “eye-to-eye” on much with Lowrey because “she’s a Marxist and radical feminist,” free speech is not just for “people you agree with.”
“Free speech doesn’t mean much if you only defend it for people you agree with. … Free speech is useless unless it protects even speech you find offensive,” Gunter wrote.
“If the University of Alberta cannot see how dangerous it is to let one group dictate what the truth is and silence all other points of view, then it is in serious intellectual trouble.”
Lowrey’s views that biological sex is relevant have been shared by other prominent self-proclaimed feminists who say that eliminating the reality of one’s birth sex can have detrimental consequences for women.
Recently, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling was heavily criticized for saying she refuses to “bow down” to “new trans activism.”
Rowling published a lengthy essay on her website June 10 giving the reasons why she opposes the transgender agenda.
“When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.”
“So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe,” Rowling wrote in her essay.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-03--Trudeau gov’t and Kielburgers’ WE Charity end controversial deal on student grant program

OTTAWA , July 3 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Canada ’ s Liberal government and WE Charities have ended their controversial agreement to have the charity manage a $ 900-million student summer volunteer grants program .
The announcement came a day after a Rebel News exclusive report revealed that WE Charity founders Craig and Marc Kielburger have donated to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ’ s political campaigns and the Liberal Party .
Trudeau said Friday that civil servants would administer the program , Canadian Press reported .
Youth Minister Bardish Chagger released a statement the same day saying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutually agreed upon , ” reported the CBC .
“ According to documents we ’ ve uncovered , Craig Kielburger donated $ 2,400 in two installments to Justin Trudeau directly in 2013 .
In 2011 he also donated to the Ontario Liberal Party , ” Keean Bexte of Rebel News reported Thursday .
“ Craig ’ s brother and co-founder , Marc Kielburger , donated to the Scott Brison leadership campaign and directly to the Liberal Party coffers , ” Bexte added .
Moreover , during the time Trudeau has been in power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over $ 5,197,155 in taxpayer funded contracts with Canadian Heritage , Employment and Social Development Canada , and Environment and Climate Change Canada , ” Bexte wrote .
Trudeau announced the Canada Student Service Grant ( CSSG ) June 25 , along with the news that WE Charities would be the program ’ s sole administrator .
The CSSG provides eligible students up to $ 5000 toward the cost of returning to school in the fall in return for their volunteer work with non-profit groups to support Canada ’ s coronavirus pandemic response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the number of hours each volunteer completes , with $ 1,000 provided for each 100 hours completed , up to a maximum of $ 5,000 for 500 hours , ” stated the government ’ s press release .
However , controversy erupted over Liberals ’ decision to outsource administration of the CSSG solely to WE Charities , which has close ties to the Trudeaus .
WE Charities is but one branch of WE , which has grown from the child advocacy group Free the Children that Craig Kielburger started in 1995 at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that bills itself as a movement that “ empowers people to change the world.
” The prime minister , his mother and his wife have made a number of appearances at WE events , and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau hosts a podcast for WE .
The federal Conservatives called for an investigation into the agreement , stating in a letter to the auditor general that outsourcing the CSSG undermines Parliament ’ s ability to monitor the program , the CBC reported .
Trudeau initially defended the decision , stating that civil servants chose We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal program .
That was reiterated by Chagger , who in announcing the agreement ’ s end on Friday said that Employment and Social Development Canada ( ESDC ) had advised that a third party manage the CSSG , “ given the scope and scale of the program ” and the “ urgent need to deliver ” it .
Students who have already applied and placed as volunteers “ won ’ t be adversely affected ” by the decision , and WE Charities has “ decided to return any funds that had already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Liberals earmarked about $ 19 million for WE Charities to manage the program , but the final amount was contingent on how many students took part .
The charity would not say how much it received or paid back , Canadian Press reported .
In a statement also released Friday , the Kielburgers said the CSSG program has “ been enmeshed in controversy from the moment of its announcement ” which “ has not abated.
” “ Our concern is that to continue in this way , the program itself will begin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , opportunities for students might be negatively affected.
” They stated that the government approached WE Charities in late April about managing the program , and that the launch last week was so successful that CSSG can now be “ otherwise administered.
” In the week since the program began , more than 35,000 students from all provinces and territories have applied , and include a “ wide diversity of applicants with 64 % visible minority and 10 % LGBTQ2+.
” WE Charities is waiving all costs of the launch , and also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CSSG “ in order to avoid any perceived undue benefit , ” the Kielburgers stated .
According to Bexte , WE Charities would have paid student volunteers at “ 33 per cent below minimum wage in some cases to support the efforts of the left-wing charity , ” and taxpayers would have paid for students “ to become progressive social influencers for two brothers that are financial donors to Justin Trudeau ’ s political campaign.
” The WE organization is known for its stadium mega-show WE Days that students “ earn ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WE Schools program , in which they commit to one global and local action for change during the academic year .
Although many Catholic school boards participate in the WE Schools program , WE Days often feature sexually charged acts by performers such as rapper Big Sean , Jennifer Lopez , Kardinal Offishall , as well as appearances by abortion advocates such as Harry Potter film star Emma Watson and Trudeau , Canada ’ s most pro-abortion prime minister .
The Kielburgers have stated in the past that they are Catholic , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a letter to the Ottawa Catholic School Board that Free the Children stocked contraceptives at their Baraka Medical Clinic clinics in Kenya .
The Kenyan bishops asked Canadian and U.S. Catholics to stop funding the charity for this reason .
The brothers signed a Mother ’ s Day Manifesto in 2011 denouncing the Conservatives ’ planned funding cuts to the International Planned Parenthood Federation , describing the abortion provider as “ an organization that provides reproductive health services abroad , ” and the government ’ s action “ paternalistic refusal to offer women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women in Canada.
” WE Day Toronto to include lewd gay anthem rapper Macklemore performing for school children ‘ Trudeau !
Trudeau !
’ : We Day leads 16,000 youth in chant for Canada ’ s new pro-abortion prime minister Kielburgers : We ’ re Catholic but don ’ t take a stance on abortion Kielburgers ’ Free the Children caught promoting abortion for Third World Free the Children manager resigns after report on his work as gay stripper

The Trudeaus and the Kielburgers have long had close ties.
OTTAWA, July 3, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Canada’s Liberal government and WE Charities have ended their controversial agreement to have the charity manage a $900-million student summer volunteer grants program.
The announcement came a day after a Rebel News exclusive report revealed that WE Charity founders Craig and Marc Kielburger have donated to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s political campaigns and the Liberal Party.
Trudeau said Friday that civil servants would administer the program, Canadian Press reported. Youth Minister Bardish Chagger released a statement the same day saying the decision to end the partnership was “mutually agreed upon,” reported the CBC.
“According to documents we’ve uncovered, Craig Kielburger donated $2,400 in two installments to Justin Trudeau directly in 2013. In 2011 he also donated to the Ontario Liberal Party,” Keean Bexte of Rebel News reported Thursday.
“Craig’s brother and co-founder, Marc Kielburger, donated to the Scott Brison leadership campaign and directly to the Liberal Party coffers,” Bexte added.
Moreover, during the time Trudeau has been in power, “the Kielburger organization has scooped over $5,197,155 in taxpayer funded contracts with Canadian Heritage, Employment and Social Development Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada,” Bexte wrote.
Trudeau announced the Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG) June 25, along with the news that WE Charities would be the program’s sole administrator.
The CSSG provides eligible students up to $5000 toward the cost of returning to school in the fall in return for their volunteer work with non-profit groups to support Canada’s coronavirus pandemic response.
The one-time payment is “based on the number of hours each volunteer completes, with $1,000 provided for each 100 hours completed, up to a maximum of $5,000 for 500 hours,” stated the government’s press release.
However, controversy erupted over Liberals’ decision to outsource administration of the CSSG solely to WE Charities, which has close ties to the Trudeaus.
WE Charities is but one branch of WE, which has grown from the child advocacy group Free the Children that Craig Kielburger started in 1995 at age 12, into an international organization that bills itself as a movement that “empowers people to change the world.”
The prime minister, his mother and his wife have made a number of appearances at WE events, and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau hosts a podcast for WE.
The federal Conservatives called for an investigation into the agreement, stating in a letter to the auditor general that outsourcing the CSSG undermines Parliament’s ability to monitor the program, the CBC reported.
Trudeau initially defended the decision, stating that civil servants chose We Charities as best suited to run the federal program.
That was reiterated by Chagger, who in announcing the agreement’s end on Friday said that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) had advised that a third party manage the CSSG, “given the scope and scale of the program” and the “urgent need to deliver” it.
Students who have already applied and placed as volunteers “won’t be adversely affected” by the decision, and WE Charities has “decided to return any funds that had already been received,” she said.
The Liberals earmarked about $19 million for WE Charities to manage the program, but the final amount was contingent on how many students took part. The charity would not say how much it received or paid back, Canadian Press reported.
In a statement also released Friday, the Kielburgers said the CSSG program has “been enmeshed in controversy from the moment of its announcement” which “has not abated.”
“Our concern is that to continue in this way, the program itself will begin to suffer – and as a consequence, opportunities for students might be negatively affected.”
They stated that the government approached WE Charities in late April about managing the program, and that the launch last week was so successful that CSSG can now be “otherwise administered.”
In the week since the program began, more than 35,000 students from all provinces and territories have applied, and include a “wide diversity of applicants with 64% visible minority and 10% LGBTQ2+.”
WE Charities is waiving all costs of the launch, and also withdrawing the volunteer positions it offered under the CSSG “in order to avoid any perceived undue benefit,” the Kielburgers stated.
According to Bexte, WE Charities would have paid student volunteers at “33 per cent below minimum wage in some cases to support the efforts of the left-wing charity,” and taxpayers would have paid for students “to become progressive social influencers for two brothers that are financial donors to Justin Trudeau’s political campaign.”
The WE organization is known for its stadium mega-show WE Days that students “earn” the right to attend by joining the WE Schools program, in which they commit to one global and local action for change during the academic year.
Although many Catholic school boards participate in the WE Schools program, WE Days often feature sexually charged acts by performers such as rapper Big Sean, Jennifer Lopez, Kardinal Offishall, as well as appearances by abortion advocates such as Harry Potter film star Emma Watson and Trudeau, Canada’s most pro-abortion prime minister.
The Kielburgers have stated in the past that they are Catholic, but Marc Kielburger admitted in March 2011 in a letter to the Ottawa Catholic School Board that Free the Children stocked contraceptives at their Baraka Medical Clinic clinics in Kenya. The Kenyan bishops asked Canadian and U.S. Catholics to stop funding the charity for this reason.
The brothers signed a Mother’s Day Manifesto in 2011 denouncing the Conservatives’ planned funding cuts to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, describing the abortion provider as “an organization that provides reproductive health services abroad,” and the government’s action “paternalistic refusal to offer women in Africa the same rights offered to women in Canada.”
RELATED:
WE Day Toronto to include lewd gay anthem rapper Macklemore performing for school children
‘Trudeau! Trudeau!’: We Day leads 16,000 youth in chant for Canada’s new pro-abortion prime minister
Kielburgers: We’re Catholic but don’t take a stance on abortion
Kielburger’s Free the Children board chairman a leading homosexual activist
Kielburgers’ Free the Children caught promoting abortion for Third World
Free the Children manager resigns after report on his work as gay stripper
Share