lifesitenews--2020-02-17--Richard Dawkins claims to oppose eugenics but defends abortion to ‘avoid birth defects’

February 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Last fall , the BBC aired a chilling and brilliant two-part documentary titled Eugenics : Science ’ s Greatest Scandal .
In painful detail , the documentary told the stories of children scooped off the streets and locked in asylums for life because they were considered imperfect , of asylum inmates having their babies forcibly aborted because the doctors deemed them to be mentally incompetent , and of the appalling devaluing of human life that came from the policies of eugenics first pioneered by Sir Francis Galton , who was inspired by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwin .
Eugenics , which was practiced far more widely in both Great Britain and in North America than most realize , was the idea that the selective breeding of human beings could produce a better species .
This could be done by ensuring that the best specimens produced many children , and conversely making sure that those considered less than perfect did not ( eugenics is Greek for “ good birth.
” ) These practices , understandably , fell out of favor when the Third Reich implemented them on a state-wide scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to forced sterilization .
It is a scarcely mentioned fact that it was Sir Francis Galton who first proposed the idea of benevolent concentration camps of a kind as a place to put populations of people deemed unsuitable for breeding .
To my surprise , the BBC documentary also addressed the fact that abortion is being used as a new eugenic tool , with the vast majority of children diagnosed with Down syndrome in the womb being killed before they see the light of day .
Galton has fallen out of favor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stopes abortion clinics across the U.K. Stopes , incidentally , was also a radical eugenicist as well as a virulent racist .
Fortunately for her , abortion activists are impervious to cancel culture , as their legacies are simply too important to be dispensed with .
For some strange reason , famous anti-theist and author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins decided to resurrect the eugenics debate this weekend , tweeting on February 16 that “ It ’ s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological , political , moral grounds .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it wouldn ’ t work in practice .
Of course it would .
It works for cows , horses , pigs , dogs & roses .
Why on earth wouldn ’ t it work for humans ?
Facts ignore ideology.
” As the outrage began to spread across the Twittersphere , he added a few hasty clarifications : “ For those determined to miss the point , I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy .
I simply said deploring it doesn ’ t mean it wouldn ’ t work .
Just as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher .
But heaven forbid that we should do it.
” Heaven forbid , indeed .
It appears that even an atheist must appeal to a higher power when he wants to condemn something heinous .
“ A eugenic policy would be bad , ” Dawkins went on .
“ I ’ m combating the illogical step from ‘ X would be bad ’ to ‘ So X is impossible.
’ It would work in the same sense as it works for cows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moral grounds .
Deny scientific facts & we lose—or at best derail—the argument.
” He did not explain why it was so important to resurrect a debate about whether the selective breeding of human beings would work , or why he decided to do so .
There is , of course , a very good reason that people are so outraged by Dawkins ’ assertion , and that is because , despite his protestations , he has come out as a champion of eugenics in the past .
At one point , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defects is not about eugenics .
It ’ s about the avoidance of human suffering.
” He ignored the fact that this is one of the key arguments that the eugenicists—including the Nazis—used to justify their mercy killings .
History is clearly not his strong suit .
Even more brutally , back in 2014 Dawkins responded to a question from a Twitter follower about what to do if a baby in the womb is discovered to have Down syndrome by saying “ Abort it and try again , ” following that up with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.
” By “ it , ” Dawkins meant the baby with Down syndrome , and he vigorously defended his position as disability activists responded in horror .
This exchange cuts right to the heart of the problem : When an atheist advocates that we should oppose eugenics on “ moral ” grounds after having previously stated that not killing your pre-born child if he or she has Down syndrome is “ immoral , ” we might be understandably concerned that Dawkins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trustworthy .
The fact is that if one believes Heaven to be empty , as Dawkins does , there really is no morality to guide our actions .
Dawkins himself proves this with his repulsive view of people with Down syndrome and other disabilities .
Thus , “ moral ” and “ immoral ” become , for godless men like Dawkins , arbitrary terms that can be applied to practices they do not prefer .
Dawkins can say that eugenics is “ immoral , ” but also say that it is “ immoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Down syndrome .
The God of Heaven does , in fact , forbid such brutality , but Dawkins does not care—even though the occasional Freudian slip does have him appealing to the divine authority .
Instinctually , perhaps , even Dawkins realizes that for there to be a moral law at all , we must have a lawgiver—and only then is every member of the human family safe from the spinning moral compasses of men like himself .
Jonathon ’ s new podcast , The Van Maren Show , is dedicated to telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement .
In his latest episode , he interviews Joseph Pearce , a man who became quite close to renowned Russian thinker and writer Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn .
Pearce shares his stories of Solzhenitsyn and his wisdom that may help save society .
You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below :

February 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Last fall, the BBC aired a chilling and brilliant two-part documentary titled Eugenics: Science’s Greatest Scandal. In painful detail, the documentary told the stories of children scooped off the streets and locked in asylums for life because they were considered imperfect, of asylum inmates having their babies forcibly aborted because the doctors deemed them to be mentally incompetent, and of the appalling devaluing of human life that came from the policies of eugenics first pioneered by Sir Francis Galton, who was inspired by the work of his cousin, Charles Darwin.
Eugenics, which was practiced far more widely in both Great Britain and in North America than most realize, was the idea that the selective breeding of human beings could produce a better species. This could be done by ensuring that the best specimens produced many children, and conversely making sure that those considered less than perfect did not (eugenics is Greek for “good birth.”) These practices, understandably, fell out of favor when the Third Reich implemented them on a state-wide scale and added the practice of wide-scale extermination to forced sterilization. It is a scarcely mentioned fact that it was Sir Francis Galton who first proposed the idea of benevolent concentration camps of a kind as a place to put populations of people deemed unsuitable for breeding.
To my surprise, the BBC documentary also addressed the fact that abortion is being used as a new eugenic tool, with the vast majority of children diagnosed with Down syndrome in the womb being killed before they see the light of day. Galton has fallen out of favor, but his spirit lives on in Marie Stopes abortion clinics across the U.K. Stopes, incidentally, was also a radical eugenicist as well as a virulent racist. Fortunately for her, abortion activists are impervious to cancel culture, as their legacies are simply too important to be dispensed with.
For some strange reason, famous anti-theist and author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins decided to resurrect the eugenics debate this weekend, tweeting on February 16 that “It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.”
Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook
As the outrage began to spread across the Twittersphere, he added a few hasty clarifications: “For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.”
Heaven forbid, indeed. It appears that even an atheist must appeal to a higher power when he wants to condemn something heinous. “A eugenic policy would be bad,” Dawkins went on. “I’m combating the illogical step from ‘X would be bad’ to ‘So X is impossible.’ It would work in the same sense as it works for cows. Let’s fight in on moral grounds. Deny scientific facts & we lose—or at best derail—the argument.” He did not explain why it was so important to resurrect a debate about whether the selective breeding of human beings would work, or why he decided to do so.
There is, of course, a very good reason that people are so outraged by Dawkins’ assertion, and that is because, despite his protestations, he has come out as a champion of eugenics in the past. At one point, he tweeted that “Abortion to avoid birth defects is not about eugenics. It’s about the avoidance of human suffering.” He ignored the fact that this is one of the key arguments that the eugenicists—including the Nazis—used to justify their mercy killings. History is clearly not his strong suit.
Even more brutally, back in 2014 Dawkins responded to a question from a Twitter follower about what to do if a baby in the womb is discovered to have Down syndrome by saying “Abort it and try again,” following that up with the admonition that “It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.” By “it,” Dawkins meant the baby with Down syndrome, and he vigorously defended his position as disability activists responded in horror. This exchange cuts right to the heart of the problem: When an atheist advocates that we should oppose eugenics on “moral” grounds after having previously stated that not killing your pre-born child if he or she has Down syndrome is “immoral,” we might be understandably concerned that Dawkins’ moral compass might not be particularly trustworthy.
The fact is that if one believes Heaven to be empty, as Dawkins does, there really is no morality to guide our actions. Dawkins himself proves this with his repulsive view of people with Down syndrome and other disabilities. Thus, “moral” and “immoral” become, for godless men like Dawkins, arbitrary terms that can be applied to practices they do not prefer. Dawkins can say that eugenics is “immoral,” but also say that it is “immoral” not to abort a child with Down syndrome. The God of Heaven does, in fact, forbid such brutality, but Dawkins does not care—even though the occasional Freudian slip does have him appealing to the divine authority. Instinctually, perhaps, even Dawkins realizes that for there to be a moral law at all, we must have a lawgiver—and only then is every member of the human family safe from the spinning moral compasses of men like himself.
Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he interviews Joseph Pearce, a man who became quite close to renowned Russian thinker and writer Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn. Pearce shares his stories of Solzhenitsyn and his wisdom that may help save society.
You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below:
Follow Jonathon Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States. He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-18--2020 Democrats refuse to condemn killing babies after they’re born

February 17 , 2020 ( FRC Action ) — You never happened .
Imagine sitting down to that headline if you 're Melissa Ohden , Gianna Jessen , or one of a thousand other victims the media says do n't exist .
Vox even put the phrase `` abortion survivors '' in scare quotes , as if the punctuation would help convince America the documented cases are n't real .
Of course , there 's a reason Democrats are desperate for people to believe this is a `` fake issue . ''
They 're hoping the country will ignore their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have n't .
`` Senate Republicans want to protect babies 'born alive ' after an abortion , '' Vice scoffed .
`` That does n't happen . ''
Writing for the site , Carter Sherman goes on to argue that pro-lifers are somehow conflating infanticide with `` end-of-life care . ''
But `` end-of-life care '' that ends in death is n't care at all — a fact that is n't lost on most reasonable people .
And if the end of life is at its start , then let 's not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infanticide , not `` letting the infant pass naturally , '' as Vice so blithely puts it .
At one point , Sherman , realizing the facts are bound to catch up with him , admits there are , `` exceedingly rare situations where infants show signs of life after attempted abortions . ''
So we 've gone from `` that does n't happen '' to `` the casualties are too few to worry about . ''
He points to the 143 born-alive deaths listed in the CDC 's report with a shrug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the numbers from six U.S. states .
The government could n't factor in the other 44 , like Virginia , where infanticide is common enough that Governor Ralph Northam ( D ) referred to it as `` comfort care . ''
But the reality is , it should n't matter how many babies were left to die .
Rareness does n't equal rightness .
Terrorism does n't happen every day either .
Does that mean we leave the country completely unprotected ?
Absolutely not .
A life is a life .
If taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it 's wrong every time .
Tell that to the 2020 candidates .
With the exception of Donald Trump , not one person vying for the job is willing to admit that walking away from a table , while a baby struggles for life , is wrong .
`` I respect where you 're coming from , '' former Mayor Pete Buttigieg said , `` and I hope to earn your vote , but I 'm not going to try to earn your vote by tricking you . ''
Buttigieg said , `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a woman ought to be able to make that decision . ''
By `` that decision , '' the Indianapolis Star points out , he means any decision .
As `` the moderate , '' James Briggs writes to his fellow Hoosiers , `` You might expect such a candidate to have staked out some sort of middle ground on abortion , Buttigieg has not — and his position reveals why many people who are otherwise open to voting for Democrats find the party so hostile to their values that they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reservations . ''
Even Senator Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) , who 's only being considered a moderate because she 's not a socialist , could n't bring herself to say that an infant who 's born alive deserves the same care as a wanted baby .
She 's already voted once to make infanticide the new `` choice . ''
Yet , despite all of her support for late-term abortion , birth day abortion , and taxpayer-funded abortion , she tells pro-lifers they 're welcome to join the party .
Welcome to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg , his closing argument to primary voters in Nevada is the promise of free abortions .
His health care plan , he argued , will `` support , reimburse , and fund '' abortion .
But the idea , Slate has warned , is n't as popular as Democrats think .
The majority of Americans ( 54 percent to 39 percent ) do n't think taxpayers should be financing the killing of innocent children .
Obviously , Briggs warns , the Democratic Party has stopped listening to voters ' sincere concerns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bend even rhetorically toward the right . ''
That 's bad news for a party whose November hopes are entirely dependent on the undecided middle .
`` It 's not hard to find people who both oppose abortion and are dissatisfied with Trump 's performance as president , '' Briggs agrees .
`` But if Buttigieg 's position on abortion is indicative of the choices conservatives will face in November , it might be hard for Democrats to win any of them . ''

With the exception of Donald Trump, not one person vying for the presidency is willing to admit that walking away from a table, while a baby struggles for life, is wrong.
February 17, 2020 (FRC Action) — You never happened. Imagine sitting down to that headline if you're Melissa Ohden, Gianna Jessen, or one of a thousand other victims the media says don't exist. Vox even put the phrase “abortion survivors” in scare quotes, as if the punctuation would help convince America the documented cases aren't real. Of course, there's a reason Democrats are desperate for people to believe this is a “fake issue.” They're hoping the country will ignore their inhumanity. It isn't, and we haven't.
“Senate Republicans want to protect babies 'born alive' after an abortion,” Vice scoffed. “That doesn't happen.” Writing for the site, Carter Sherman goes on to argue that pro-lifers are somehow conflating infanticide with “end-of-life care.” But “end-of-life care” that ends in death isn't care at all — a fact that isn't lost on most reasonable people. And if the end of life is at its start, then let's not fool ourselves. We're talking about infanticide, not “letting the infant pass naturally,” as Vice so blithely puts it.
At one point, Sherman, realizing the facts are bound to catch up with him, admits there are, “exceedingly rare situations where infants show signs of life after attempted abortions.” So we've gone from “that doesn't happen” to “the casualties are too few to worry about.” He points to the 143 born-alive deaths listed in the CDC's report with a shrug, never mentioning that these only are the numbers from six U.S. states. The government couldn't factor in the other 44, like Virginia, where infanticide is common enough that Governor Ralph Northam (D) referred to it as “comfort care.”
But the reality is, it shouldn't matter how many babies were left to die. Rareness doesn't equal rightness. Terrorism doesn't happen every day either. Does that mean we leave the country completely unprotected? Absolutely not. A life is a life. If taking an innocent life is wrong, then it's wrong every time.
Tell that to the 2020 candidates. With the exception of Donald Trump, not one person vying for the job is willing to admit that walking away from a table, while a baby struggles for life, is wrong. “I respect where you're coming from,” former Mayor Pete Buttigieg said, “and I hope to earn your vote, but I'm not going to try to earn your vote by tricking you.” Buttigieg said, “I am pro-choice. And I believe that a woman ought to be able to make that decision.” By “that decision,” the Indianapolis Star points out, he means any decision.
As “the moderate,” James Briggs writes to his fellow Hoosiers, “You might expect such a candidate to have staked out some sort of middle ground on abortion, Buttigieg has not — and his position reveals why many people who are otherwise open to voting for Democrats find the party so hostile to their values that they are sticking with President Donald Trump despite many reservations.”
Even Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who's only being considered a moderate because she's not a socialist, couldn't bring herself to say that an infant who's born alive deserves the same care as a wanted baby. She's already voted once to make infanticide the new “choice.” Yet, despite all of her support for late-term abortion, birth day abortion, and taxpayer-funded abortion, she tells pro-lifers they're welcome to join the party. Welcome to be ignored, maybe.
As for Buttigieg, his closing argument to primary voters in Nevada is the promise of free abortions. His health care plan, he argued, will “support, reimburse, and fund” abortion. But the idea, Slate has warned, isn't as popular as Democrats think. The majority of Americans (54 percent to 39 percent) don't think taxpayers should be financing the killing of innocent children. Obviously, Briggs warns, the Democratic Party has stopped listening to voters' sincere concerns, “as evidenced by Buttigieg's unwillingness to bend even rhetorically toward the right.”
That's bad news for a party whose November hopes are entirely dependent on the undecided middle. “It's not hard to find people who both oppose abortion and are dissatisfied with Trump's performance as president,” Briggs agrees. “But if Buttigieg's position on abortion is indicative of the choices conservatives will face in November, it might be hard for Democrats to win any of them.”
Published with permission from FRC Action.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-18--How funerals beautifully teach children about the meaning of life

February 17 , 2020 ( The Catholic Thing ) — Somebody alerted me the other day to a podcast by a child psychologist .
He was asked whether children should attend funerals and firmly replied that they should not .
Funerals are very private , intimate , and ugly affairs , he reasoned .
Even adults only attend them because they must , and when attending them children might see their parents in a state of fragility , which can be traumatic .
Of course , there ’ s a lot of this these days : it ’ s part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But I admit I was shocked to hear it from the mouth of a professional therapist .
I remember taking a newborn baby to the funeral of a good friend ’ s grandfather .
I simply didn ’ t have anywhere to leave him .
I knew no harm would come to him , but I wasn ’ t expecting the effect it would have on everybody else .
His presence lit up what was otherwise a rather heavy and gloomy affair .
People in mourning seemed grateful to be able to stoop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ musing on death and what had been a drawn-out illness .
The conversation turned to the joys and potential of young life .
I suppose some funerals might be ugly and sad , but do they have to be ?
The only funerals I ’ ve been to that I ’ d describe as ugly were those of people who had no faith and , therefore , no hope in the afterlife .
These invariably end up at the ugliest institution created by modern man : the crematorium .
But funerals can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure about joyful , but definitely beautiful .
And what a privilege to be a part of that beauty .
To share in that moment with a family .
When was it that sad and tragic became synonymous with ugly ?
I want my funeral to be a declaration of my faith in the resurrection and eternal life .
I want my body placed in the earth like the sacred thing it is , not incinerated like waste .
I want booming hymns and a liturgy that makes the knees of my many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve told my football friends that they can drape my ( simple ) coffin in my club ’ s flag , but only outside of the church .
I want nothing between me and my Lord and Savior when I ’ m placed in his sanctuary .
My wife keeps telling me I should write everything down so that she knows what to do when the time comes .
I think I will .
I decided to write a short piece in reply to the therapist , laying out why I will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to speak to them frankly and openly about the fact that those we love grow old , frail , and die .
Or sometimes die earlier and in more tragic circumstances .
I published it on my blog and shared it on social media and prepared myself for a couple of pats on the back and maybe some criticism .
( Both the original podcast and my response are in Portuguese ) .
Instead , it went viral .
Thousands of hits later I am still overwhelmed by many of the stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how consoling it was to be able to say a final goodbye to loved ones when they were small .
My own sister never got over the fact that she missed our great-grandmother ’ s funeral because we were out of the country .
One story , shared by a priest friend , struck me in particular : “ When I was 10 I lost my older brother , who was 12 .
The truth and the pain of what was going on were never kept from us during his illness .
My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I would never have understood him , nor the anxiety he felt for me during my own adolescence , had I not seen his face that day.
” Another friend shared that when her father died the family organized a special Mass just for the children , where a message of hope in eternal life was shared with them in a way they could better understand .
What a wonderful idea !
Of course , if all there is to look forward to after you die is to have your decaying body @ @ @ @ @ @ @ introducing the topic to impressionable kids .
But in that case , your problem isn ’ t death but a lack of faith .
My children don ’ t like the idea that their 90-year-old great-grandfather might not be with us much longer .
When some close friends of ours lost their newborn son , there were nights when our 9-year-old crawled into our bed for comfort .
But this is the same little girl who , being told of the premature death of a very good friend — a priest — from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was about .
Surely , he was happy in heaven now !
Yes , we think we ’ re strengthening them by exposing them to this , but sometimes it ’ s we who walk away with our faith uplifted .
Of course , there is a time and a place .
I ’ m not suggesting we take children to every funeral we go to and make them stare at random corpses .
But there are other ways of preparing them .
Stories about martyrs , heroes who gave their lives for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is more important than the body , and that love sometimes requires the ultimate sacrifice .
Secularists often say we are harming our kids by filling their heads with fantasies about God , saints and angels .
But what could be more harmful in the long run than bringing up your child to think that nobody they love dies ?
They ’ ll find out eventually , right ?
The question is , do we want to raise our children to be unrealistically happy , or to be free ?
If happiness is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all cost , it ’ s bound to be short-lived — and harmful , as the psychologists should recognize .
I ’ ll take freedom , true freedom any day : a freedom that strengthens and gives hope and does not tremble in the face of death .
The freedom Christ bequeathed us on the day he broke our chains .
Published with permission from The Catholic Thing .

Do we want to raise our children to be unrealistically happy, or to be free?
February 17, 2020 (The Catholic Thing) — Somebody alerted me the other day to a podcast by a child psychologist. He was asked whether children should attend funerals and firmly replied that they should not.
Funerals are very private, intimate, and ugly affairs, he reasoned. Even adults only attend them because they must, and when attending them children might see their parents in a state of fragility, which can be traumatic.
Of course, there’s a lot of this these days: it’s part of the post-Christian outlook on death. But I admit I was shocked to hear it from the mouth of a professional therapist.
I remember taking a newborn baby to the funeral of a good friend’s grandfather. I simply didn’t have anywhere to leave him. I knew no harm would come to him, but I wasn’t expecting the effect it would have on everybody else. His presence lit up what was otherwise a rather heavy and gloomy affair. People in mourning seemed grateful to be able to stoop down and play with him instead of musing on death and what had been a drawn-out illness. The conversation turned to the joys and potential of young life.
I suppose some funerals might be ugly and sad, but do they have to be? The only funerals I’ve been to that I’d describe as ugly were those of people who had no faith and, therefore, no hope in the afterlife. These invariably end up at the ugliest institution created by modern man: the crematorium.
But funerals can be beautiful. I’m not so sure about joyful, but definitely beautiful. And what a privilege to be a part of that beauty. To share in that moment with a family. When was it that sad and tragic became synonymous with ugly?
I want my funeral to be a declaration of my faith in the resurrection and eternal life. I want my body placed in the earth like the sacred thing it is, not incinerated like waste. I want booming hymns and a liturgy that makes the knees of my many atheist friends quake in awe.
I’ve told my football friends that they can drape my (simple) coffin in my club’s flag, but only outside of the church. I want nothing between me and my Lord and Savior when I’m placed in his sanctuary.
My wife keeps telling me I should write everything down so that she knows what to do when the time comes. I think I will.
I decided to write a short piece in reply to the therapist, laying out why I will continue to take my children to funerals and to speak to them frankly and openly about the fact that those we love grow old, frail, and die. Or sometimes die earlier and in more tragic circumstances. I published it on my blog and shared it on social media and prepared myself for a couple of pats on the back and maybe some criticism. (Both the original podcast and my response are in Portuguese).
Instead, it went viral. Thousands of hits later I am still overwhelmed by many of the stories people have shared with me, about how consoling it was to be able to say a final goodbye to loved ones when they were small. My own sister never got over the fact that she missed our great-grandmother’s funeral because we were out of the country.
One story, shared by a priest friend, struck me in particular: “When I was 10 I lost my older brother, who was 12. The truth and the pain of what was going on were never kept from us during his illness. My father’s expression changed forever, and I would never have understood him, nor the anxiety he felt for me during my own adolescence, had I not seen his face that day.”
Another friend shared that when her father died the family organized a special Mass just for the children, where a message of hope in eternal life was shared with them in a way they could better understand. What a wonderful idea!
Of course, if all there is to look forward to after you die is to have your decaying body eaten by worms, you might fear introducing the topic to impressionable kids. But in that case, your problem isn’t death but a lack of faith.
My children don’t like the idea that their 90-year-old great-grandfather might not be with us much longer. When some close friends of ours lost their newborn son, there were nights when our 9-year-old crawled into our bed for comfort. But this is the same little girl who, being told of the premature death of a very good friend — a priest — from cancer, asked what all the fuss was about. Surely, he was happy in heaven now!
Yes, we think we’re strengthening them by exposing them to this, but sometimes it’s we who walk away with our faith uplifted.
Of course, there is a time and a place. I’m not suggesting we take children to every funeral we go to and make them stare at random corpses. But there are other ways of preparing them. Stories about martyrs, heroes who gave their lives for others, gentle reminders that the soul is more important than the body, and that love sometimes requires the ultimate sacrifice.
Secularists often say we are harming our kids by filling their heads with fantasies about God, saints and angels. But what could be more harmful in the long run than bringing up your child to think that nobody they love dies? They’ll find out eventually, right?
The question is, do we want to raise our children to be unrealistically happy, or to be free? If happiness is based on shielding them from tragedy at all cost, it’s bound to be short-lived — and harmful, as the psychologists should recognize. I’ll take freedom, true freedom any day: a freedom that strengthens and gives hope and does not tremble in the face of death.
The freedom Christ bequeathed us on the day he broke our chains.
Published with permission from The Catholic Thing.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-18--Pro-life groups in Portugal organize referendum to fight govt push for euthanasia

February 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — The pro-life movement in Portugal is fighting back against an attempt by the government to quickly legalize euthanasia in the country and are calling for a referendum to be held that would allow citizens themselves to decide if doctors should be killers of sick patients .
The Portuguese parliament is pushing a bill that , if signed into law , would allow euthanasia and assisted suicide for various motives .
“ They are in an incredible hurry and would want the final vote to take place before summer , ” Antonio Pinheiro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pro-Life Federation , told LifeSiteNews .
In order for a referendum to take place , however , the campaign first has to collect 60,000 signatures .
Then Parliament has to approve the proposal for a referendum .
At the current stage , the proposed question all Portuguese citizens would be asked is , “ Do you agree that killing someone at his or her demand or helping someone to commit suicide should continue to be punishable by the penal law under every circumstance ?
” Torres explained that the deadline for collecting signatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote on the bill .
Given that the first debate and vote in parliament will be held only this Thursday , February 20 , no date for the final vote has been announced yet .
After the first debate , the bill will be sent to a specialized commission , where hearings and additional work on it are supposed to take place .
Following a vote by the commission , all members of Parliament will vote again on the bill before it would be signed into law .
“ The proposition is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Belgium and the Netherlands : euthanasia and assisted suicide for various and very vague motives , ” said Torres of the bill , with the procedure itself being “ full of legal loopholes .
If approved , we would certainly have a slippery slope.
” The process of moving the bill through the different stages foreseen by the legislative process in Portugal would be interrupted as soon as a referendum is approved by parliament .
At that point , the elected officials would have to wait for the results of the referendum .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointed out that the collection of signatures is going well , with a noticeable uprising against the push for euthanasia .
He estimated that of the numerous newspaper articles being written on the subject , for every ten pieces against euthanasia , there is only one in favor .
In fact , he said , “ they are very few people , ” but they have a majority in Parliament .
As a matter of fact , the Portuguese parliament had already voted against euthanasia in 2018 .
“ Drafted by the ruling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 230-seat parliament but was stymied by 115 opponents , with 4 abstentions , after a heated debate and a vote that required each lawmaker to declare his or her stance , ” Reuters reported at the time .
After the election of 2019 , “ the Socialist Party , the Left Bloc and PAN , an animal rights party , all increased their presence in parliament , at the expense of the Social Democrats , the Christian Democrats and the Portuguese Communist Party , ” according to the Catholic Herald .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ against euthanasia .
In the 2019 election , those two parties lost a combined 18 seats .
This development would lead to a majority for the parties supporting euthanasia , if it comes to a final vote on the bill .
Religious communities in Portugal support the campaign for a referendum .
Already in 2018 , religious leaders had published a joint declaration titled “ Caring with Compassion until the End.
” In the wake of the new bill following the 2019 election , the declaration was affirmed .
“ We believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as such , irreplaceable and necessary to the society of which he or she is a part , subject to an intrinsic dignity prior to any and all criteria of quality of life and usefulness , until natural death .
Not only does life not lose its dignity when it is nearing its end , but the particular vulnerability that it suffers at this stage is , rather , a mark of special dignity that calls for closeness and care , ” the Catholic patriarch of Lisbon , Cardinal Manuel Clemente , affirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The religious leaders pointed out that suffering is a challenge that needs to be met by giving the proper care , not by legalizing assisted suicide .
“ What is asked of us is not that we give up those who live the terminal period of life , offering them the legal possibility of choosing death , which can lead to the experience of suffering without proper care .
This is true intolerable suffering , which creates conditions for the desire to die .
It is born of a society that abandons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” they wrote .
The group of religious leaders , including Jewish , Muslim , Buddhist , and Hindu , as well as Catholics and various Protestant communities , added , “ This experience confirms to us the knowledge that whoever is accompanied does not despair in the face of death and does not ask to die.
” They challenged Portuguese society “ to meet the requirement , which can not be postponed any longer , to extend access to palliative care to everyone , and we pledge to be available and willing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this true national purpose.
” As of today , the petition for a referendum on euthanasia has been signed by roughly 18,000 people online .
Simultaneously , there are efforts on the streets of Portugal to collect signatures .
Only citizens are able to sign the petition .

Members of the parliament 'are in an incredible hurry' to allow euthanasia after the first attempt in 2018 failed.
February 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The pro-life movement in Portugal is fighting back against an attempt by the government to quickly legalize euthanasia in the country and are calling for a referendum to be held that would allow citizens themselves to decide if doctors should be killers of sick patients.
The Portuguese parliament is pushing a bill that, if signed into law, would allow euthanasia and assisted suicide for various motives.
“They are in an incredible hurry and would want the final vote to take place before summer,” Antonio Pinheiro Torres, vice president of the Portuguese Pro-Life Federation, told LifeSiteNews.
In order for a referendum to take place, however, the campaign first has to collect 60,000 signatures. Then Parliament has to approve the proposal for a referendum.
At the current stage, the proposed question all Portuguese citizens would be asked is, “Do you agree that killing someone at his or her demand or helping someone to commit suicide should continue to be punishable by the penal law under every circumstance?”
Torres explained that the deadline for collecting signatures would be the day of the final vote on the bill. Given that the first debate and vote in parliament will be held only this Thursday, February 20, no date for the final vote has been announced yet.
After the first debate, the bill will be sent to a specialized commission, where hearings and additional work on it are supposed to take place. Following a vote by the commission, all members of Parliament will vote again on the bill before it would be signed into law.
“The proposition is the classic one, as it began in Belgium and the Netherlands: euthanasia and assisted suicide for various and very vague motives,” said Torres of the bill, with the procedure itself being “full of legal loopholes. If approved, we would certainly have a slippery slope.”
The process of moving the bill through the different stages foreseen by the legislative process in Portugal would be interrupted as soon as a referendum is approved by parliament. At that point, the elected officials would have to wait for the results of the referendum.
In his remarks to LifeSiteNews, Torres pointed out that the collection of signatures is going well, with a noticeable uprising against the push for euthanasia.
He estimated that of the numerous newspaper articles being written on the subject, for every ten pieces against euthanasia, there is only one in favor. In fact, he said, “they are very few people,” but they have a majority in Parliament.
As a matter of fact, the Portuguese parliament had already voted against euthanasia in 2018.
“Drafted by the ruling Socialists, the bill garnered 110 votes in the 230-seat parliament but was stymied by 115 opponents, with 4 abstentions, after a heated debate and a vote that required each lawmaker to declare his or her stance,” Reuters reported at the time.
After the election of 2019, “the Socialist Party, the Left Bloc and PAN, an animal rights party, all increased their presence in parliament, at the expense of the Social Democrats, the Christian Democrats and the Portuguese Communist Party,” according to the Catholic Herald.
Both Christian Democrats and communists had voted against euthanasia. In the 2019 election, those two parties lost a combined 18 seats. This development would lead to a majority for the parties supporting euthanasia, if it comes to a final vote on the bill.
Religious communities in Portugal support the campaign for a referendum. Already in 2018, religious leaders had published a joint declaration titled “Caring with Compassion until the End.”
In the wake of the new bill following the 2019 election, the declaration was affirmed.
“We believe that each human being is unique and, as such, irreplaceable and necessary to the society of which he or she is a part, subject to an intrinsic dignity prior to any and all criteria of quality of life and usefulness, until natural death. Not only does life not lose its dignity when it is nearing its end, but the particular vulnerability that it suffers at this stage is, rather, a mark of special dignity that calls for closeness and care,” the Catholic patriarch of Lisbon, Cardinal Manuel Clemente, affirmed with representatives of several other religions.
The religious leaders pointed out that suffering is a challenge that needs to be met by giving the proper care, not by legalizing assisted suicide.
“What is asked of us is not that we give up those who live the terminal period of life, offering them the legal possibility of choosing death, which can lead to the experience of suffering without proper care. This is true intolerable suffering, which creates conditions for the desire to die. It is born of a society that abandons, that dehumanizes, that becomes indifferent,” they wrote.
The group of religious leaders, including Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu, as well as Catholics and various Protestant communities, added, “This experience confirms to us the knowledge that whoever is accompanied does not despair in the face of death and does not ask to die.”
They challenged Portuguese society “to meet the requirement, which cannot be postponed any longer, to extend access to palliative care to everyone, and we pledge to be available and willing to do everything we can to participate in this true national purpose.”
As of today, the petition for a referendum on euthanasia has been signed by roughly 18,000 people online. Simultaneously, there are efforts on the streets of Portugal to collect signatures. Only citizens are able to sign the petition.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-17--Dutch mental patient ‘angry’ doctors proposed euthanasia to her

February 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – “ What about asking for euthanasia ?
” When Manon , a Dutch patient , heard those words six or seven years ago coming from the mouth of her umpteenth new psychiatrist , she couldn ’ t believe her ears .
It was her first consultation with a new doctor .
She was hoping to find help for post-traumatic stress disorder , a condition she has been fighting for years .
She certainly didn ’ t expect to be encouraged to end her life .
“ I was tired of living and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local media in Zwolle , in northern Netherlands .
What she wanted was treatment , help and , if possible , healing .
What the doctor said to her was quite the opposite .
He even gave her what he considered to be good reasons for giving up .
“ The arguments were that he could see I was tired out , that I had gone through too much to go on like I was , that I had done everything humanly possible to treat my condition .
‘ I can write out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like that .
You meet the criteria , ’ ” Manon said he told her , according to an article published last week by zwolle.nieuws.nl .
“ I was overwhelmed and angry .
I couldn ’ t believe it .
I had come to see this man to get help , ” she explained .
“ I was suicidal , but I was looking for the help that I had actually never obtained – help for the core of my deepest pain and sorrow , my trauma , my post-traumatic stress disorder .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that I wanted that back.
” Manon still recalls how she felt at the time .
The psychiatrist ’ s words made her ask herself if she didn ’ t “ deserve ” to go on living .
“ Is he giving up on me , just like that ?
” she thought : “ Yes , I ’ m broken , but I want to become whole again .
I ’ m asking for help to get better , not for death !
” This was six or seven years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it was not yet so obvious in the medical profession that mental disorders should be “ treated ” by euthanasia – even though unbearable mental suffering without hope of improvement is one of the accepted conditions for legal euthanasia .
Apparently , at least one psychiatrist at the time – hers – was prepared to anticipate a euthanasia request that didn ’ t even exist .
Or to put it more precisely , he was willing , even eager to create that demand and to present a suicidal woman with all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choose that final solution .
Manon ’ s story is one of despair over the Dutch medical system ’ s incapacity to offer therapeutic options .
Some three years later , she told her local newspaper , she was “ all but dead.
” Her post-traumatic stress disorder was not responding to standard treatment .
Her psychiatrist wanted her to try ECT ( electroconvulsive therapy , administered under anesthesia ) , something she had refused six years before because she didn ’ t “ dare ” face this quite invasive method .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no-choice situation by her psychiatrist , who was also the head of the clinic where she was being treated .
She would receive ECT .
And if that didn ’ t help ?
Then “ you may/will go into a euthanasia trajectory , ” she was told .
Manon received 80 ECTs .
It did not put an end to her problem and eventually had to be stopped because of digestive and liver problems linked to frequent sedation .
Her depression only got marginally better .
“ Not all that strange .
ECT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it certainly won ’ t help you tackle the core problem , ” she said .
What Manon wanted above all was healing , and despite her profound depression , she was prepared to go on fighting .
She started a writing therapy course , and that helped .
Unfortunately , her therapist left town , and for the last 16 months , she has received no therapy at all .
Now , Manon is desperately “ shopping around , ” trying to find someone who will take her case .
The answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ too complex ; ” she has “ gone through too much.
” Now , this sad and suffering woman who doesn ’ t “ want to die for the moment ” has decided to keep the euthanasia option in the back of her mind .
She is personally “ for ” euthanasia in a general way , she told zwolle.nieuws.nl , but it needs to be “ well-informed , ” which means not pushed on people when they are down , as happened to her .
“ My last hope is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slightly different approach , ” she said .
“ If that doesn ’ t work , ( euthanasia ) will be my choice .
“ Especially as in the last 15 years I ’ ve lost about 40 people through suicide , eating disorders and a few to euthanasia .
Insanely many .
For a few , that last option was luckily available .
But it ’ s a long trajectory .
Mental suffering is extremely heavy to bear and lonely , and I hope that these waiting lists will also get shorter.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ live , ” she repeated .
“ How crooked the world seems to be.
” Her story is somewhat of a cautionary tale .
It shows how the seeds of euthanasia were planted in her mind at a time when she hadn ’ t even thought of it .
Her death wish seems anything but authentic .
On the contrary , Manon seems to have shown a rare fighting spirit amid all of her problems .
Perhaps the psychiatrists were tired of her , instead of her being tired of living .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative sides of euthanasia .
It is killing , but it also marks the death of compassion and inventiveness where the worst affected patients are concerned .
In the Netherlands and Belgium , where euthanasia for psychiatric reasons is deemed legal , the list is slowly growing long of otherwise healthy men and women – especially women – who are given a fatal shot as an easy way out .

‘I was overwhelmed and angry. I couldn’t believe it. I had come to see this man to get help.’
February 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – “What about asking for euthanasia?”
When Manon, a Dutch patient, heard those words six or seven years ago coming from the mouth of her umpteenth new psychiatrist, she couldn’t believe her ears. It was her first consultation with a new doctor.
She was hoping to find help for post-traumatic stress disorder, a condition she has been fighting for years. She certainly didn’t expect to be encouraged to end her life.
“I was tired of living and tired of fighting,” she told local media in Zwolle, in northern Netherlands.
What she wanted was treatment, help and, if possible, healing. What the doctor said to her was quite the opposite. He even gave her what he considered to be good reasons for giving up.
“The arguments were that he could see I was tired out, that I had gone through too much to go on like I was, that I had done everything humanly possible to treat my condition. ‘I can write out a referral (for euthanasia) just like that. You meet the criteria,’” Manon said he told her, according to an article published last week by zwolle.nieuws.nl.
“I was overwhelmed and angry. I couldn’t believe it. I had come to see this man to get help,” she explained. “I was suicidal, but I was looking for the help that I had actually never obtained – help for the core of my deepest pain and sorrow, my trauma, my post-traumatic stress disorder. I had lost all belief in myself, that I wanted that back.”
Manon still recalls how she felt at the time. The psychiatrist’s words made her ask herself if she didn’t “deserve” to go on living.
“Is he giving up on me, just like that?” she thought: “Yes, I’m broken, but I want to become whole again. I’m asking for help to get better, not for death!”
This was six or seven years ago, at a time in the Netherlands when it was not yet so obvious in the medical profession that mental disorders should be “treated” by euthanasia – even though unbearable mental suffering without hope of improvement is one of the accepted conditions for legal euthanasia.
Apparently, at least one psychiatrist at the time – hers – was prepared to anticipate a euthanasia request that didn’t even exist. Or to put it more precisely, he was willing, even eager to create that demand and to present a suicidal woman with all the “good” reasons for her to choose that final solution.
Manon’s story is one of despair over the Dutch medical system’s incapacity to offer therapeutic options.
Some three years later, she told her local newspaper, she was “all but dead.” Her post-traumatic stress disorder was not responding to standard treatment. Her psychiatrist wanted her to try ECT (electroconvulsive therapy, administered under anesthesia), something she had refused six years before because she didn’t “dare” face this quite invasive method.
This time, she was placed in a no-choice situation by her psychiatrist, who was also the head of the clinic where she was being treated. She would receive ECT. And if that didn’t help? Then “you may/will go into a euthanasia trajectory,” she was told.
Manon received 80 ECTs. It did not put an end to her problem and eventually had to be stopped because of digestive and liver problems linked to frequent sedation. Her depression only got marginally better.
“Not all that strange. ECT does no more than combat symptoms; it certainly won’t help you tackle the core problem,” she said.
What Manon wanted above all was healing, and despite her profound depression, she was prepared to go on fighting. She started a writing therapy course, and that helped. Unfortunately, her therapist left town, and for the last 16 months, she has received no therapy at all.
Now, Manon is desperately “shopping around,” trying to find someone who will take her case. The answer is always the same. Her problem is “too complex;” she has “gone through too much.”
“It’s inhuman,” she says.
Now, this sad and suffering woman who doesn’t “want to die for the moment” has decided to keep the euthanasia option in the back of her mind. She is personally “for” euthanasia in a general way, she told zwolle.nieuws.nl, but it needs to be “well-informed,” which means not pushed on people when they are down, as happened to her.
“My last hope is pinned on a trauma center with a slightly different approach,” she said. “If that doesn’t work, (euthanasia) will be my choice.
“Especially as in the last 15 years I’ve lost about 40 people through suicide, eating disorders and a few to euthanasia. Insanely many. For a few, that last option was luckily available. But it’s a long trajectory. Mental suffering is extremely heavy to bear and lonely, and I hope that these waiting lists will also get shorter.”
“But I really want to live,” she repeated. “How crooked the world seems to be.”
Her story is somewhat of a cautionary tale. It shows how the seeds of euthanasia were planted in her mind at a time when she hadn’t even thought of it.
Her death wish seems anything but authentic. On the contrary, Manon seems to have shown a rare fighting spirit amid all of her problems. Perhaps the psychiatrists were tired of her, instead of her being tired of living.
And that is also one of the many negative sides of euthanasia. It is killing, but it also marks the death of compassion and inventiveness where the worst affected patients are concerned.
In the Netherlands and Belgium, where euthanasia for psychiatric reasons is deemed legal, the list is slowly growing long of otherwise healthy men and women – especially women – who are given a fatal shot as an easy way out.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-17--Rabbis defy education authorities, won’t teach LGBT lifestyles in UK Jewish schools

February 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Jewish leaders in the U.K. have stated that they will oppose educational authorities and not allow their schools to teach about homosexual and other “ lifestyles ” that are “ prohibited by the Torah.
” Chinuch U.K. , an organization that represents Britain ’ s main strictly Orthodox Jewish communities , has “ issued a defiant challenge to the government by insisting their schools can not discuss LGBT-related issues with pupils , ” according to The Jewish Chronicle .
The statement was reportedly prompted by recent visits to Jewish schools by government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary schools have to teach children about LGBT “ equality.
” In 2018 , Rabbi Mordechai Rose , who is affiliated with Chinuch U.K. , wrote an article explaining his concern that Orthodox Jewish schools would be closed down after having their status downgraded by government inspectors from “ outstanding ” to “ inadequate ” because “ they did not prepare the students for life in secular modern Britain but for life in the Orthodox Jewish community.
” Earlier in 2018 , almost 7,000 Orthodox Jews had gathered in communal prayer in opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them teach values contrary to the Torah in their schools .
The statement released by the Jewish group last week says schools should “ not describe to pupils lifestyles prohibited by the Torah ” and should “ ensure that inspectors do not speak to pupils about these matters at all.
” It says schools , when asked by inspectors , should “ state clearly and respectfully that they do not cover these subjects.
” The statement did encourage schools “ to demonstrate that pupils are taught to act respectfully to all people regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condemns homosexual practices , stating that “ you shall not lie with a male as with a woman ; it is an abomination.
” The book of Genesis also relates how the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire and brimstone on account of their great wickedness , which has traditionally been interpreted as the sin of homosexuality .
Antonia Tully of the U.K. pro-life and pro-family group Society for the Protection of Unborn Children told LifeSiteNews that `` Orthodox Jewish schools should be applauded for taking a stand against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standard for others to follow , ” she said .
“ The government should respect faith schools which chose not to teach pupils about LGBT relationships .
“ In fact , the government is not mandating any primary school in England to teach children about LGBT relationships .
The Department for Education has said that primary schools are ‘ encouraged and enabled to cover LGBT content ’ , falling short of saying that there is a legal obligation to do this.
” The Jewish Chronicle reports that Chinuch U.K. believe that it had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which would at least protect schools from threats of closure or other sanctions .
However , recent inspections and correspondence to some schools from the Department for Education have led to fresh alarm , which prompted this statement .
Last year , the Government Equalities Office sponsored guidelines produced by Stonewall , a U.K. LGBT activist group roughly equivalent to the Human Rights Campaign ( HRC ) in the United States , which encouraged British primary schools to embed gay , lesbian , and transgender themes and examples into every subject area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past September , new relationships and sex education ( RSE ) courses are scheduled to take effect in the U.K .
The government has made it clear that pupils must receive teaching about LGBT relationships at some point while they are at school .
For schools that adopt these guidelines , this would mean that children as young as five would be reading about families with two lesbian moms and two homosexual dads in subjects such as math , science , and geography .
In his 2018 article , Rabbi Mordechai Rose said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would “ force Jewish schools to teach about same-sex relationships and other immoral subjects which are totally unacceptable for our community .
”

The rabbis told Jewish school leaders to tell inspectors ‘clearly and respectfully that they do not cover these subjects.’
February 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Jewish leaders in the U.K. have stated that they will oppose educational authorities and not allow their schools to teach about homosexual and other “lifestyles” that are “prohibited by the Torah.”
Chinuch U.K., an organization that represents Britain’s main strictly Orthodox Jewish communities, has “issued a defiant challenge to the government by insisting their schools cannot discuss LGBT-related issues with pupils,” according to The Jewish Chronicle.
The statement was reportedly prompted by recent visits to Jewish schools by government inspectors, who made it clear that primary schools have to teach children about LGBT “equality.”
In 2018, Rabbi Mordechai Rose, who is affiliated with Chinuch U.K., wrote an article explaining his concern that Orthodox Jewish schools would be closed down after having their status downgraded by government inspectors from “outstanding” to “inadequate” because “they did not prepare the students for life in secular modern Britain but for life in the Orthodox Jewish community.” Earlier in 2018, almost 7,000 Orthodox Jews had gathered in communal prayer in opposition to attempts by educational authorities to make them teach values contrary to the Torah in their schools.
The statement released by the Jewish group last week says schools should “not describe to pupils lifestyles prohibited by the Torah” and should “ensure that inspectors do not speak to pupils about these matters at all.”
It says schools, when asked by inspectors, should “state clearly and respectfully that they do not cover these subjects.”
The statement did encourage schools “to demonstrate that pupils are taught to act respectfully to all people regardless of difference.”
The book of Leviticus condemns homosexual practices, stating that “you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The book of Genesis also relates how the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire and brimstone on account of their great wickedness, which has traditionally been interpreted as the sin of homosexual acts.
Antonia Tully of the U.K. pro-life and pro-family group Society for the Protection of Unborn Children told LifeSiteNews that “Orthodox Jewish schools should be applauded for taking a stand against the government.”
“They are setting a standard for others to follow,” she said. “The government should respect faith schools which chose not to teach pupils about LGBT relationships.
“In fact, the government is not mandating any primary school in England to teach children about LGBT relationships. The Department for Education has said that primary schools are ‘encouraged and enabled to cover LGBT content’, falling short of saying that there is a legal obligation to do this.”
The Jewish Chronicle reports that Chinuch U.K. believe that it had reached an understanding with the educational authorities, which would at least protect schools from threats of closure or other sanctions. However, recent inspections and correspondence to some schools from the Department for Education have led to fresh alarm, which prompted this statement.
Last year, the Government Equalities Office sponsored guidelines produced by Stonewall, a U.K. LGBT activist group roughly equivalent to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) in the United States, which encouraged British primary schools to embed gay, lesbian, and transgender themes and examples into every subject area and every grade level.
From this past September, new relationships and sex education (RSE) courses are scheduled to take effect in the U.K. The government has made it clear that pupils must receive teaching about LGBT relationships at some point while they are at school. For schools that adopt these guidelines, this would mean that children as young as five would be reading about families with two lesbian moms and two homosexual dads in subjects such as math, science, and geography.
In his 2018 article, Rabbi Mordechai Rose said in response to the new courses that they would “force Jewish schools to teach about same-sex relationships and other immoral subjects which are totally unacceptable for our community.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-18--Judge defies Trump admin rule, allows taxpayer money to fund abortions in Maryland

February 18 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Calling it “ objectively unreasonable , ” a judge has sided with the state of Maryland against a Trump administration rule that effectively partially defunded Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry .
The Protect Life Rule requires facilities providing “ family planning ” services under the federal Title X program to be physically and financially separate from those that commit or refer for abortions .
The Protect Life Rule has been widely hailed as a massive pro-life victory that has taken $ 60 million away from Planned Parenthood , which refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its abortions from the rest of its operations .
U.S. district judge Richard Bennett , a George W. Bush appointee , issued the ruling Friday , right before Presidents ’ Day weekend .
He said the pro-life policy is “ arbitrary and capricious , being inadequately justified and objectively unreasonable , ” and cited opposition from liberal medical groups .
“ The administrative record reflects that literally every major medical organization in the United States has opposed implementation of this rule , ” he wrote .
“ There is almost no professional support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maryland CEO Karen J. Nelson praised the ruling to Courthouse News on Tuesday .
“ What the abortion lobby is unable to achieve through popular opinion , they run to friendly courts to impose , ” Marjorie Dannenfelser , president of the Susan B. Anthony List , told LifeSiteNews .
“ Abortion is not ‘ family planning , ’ and a strong majority of Americans — including 42 percent of independents and more than one third of Democrats — oppose taxpayer funding of abortion.
” “ President Trump ’ s Protect Life Rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Title X statute by stopping the funneling of Title X taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry , without reducing family planning funding by a dime , ” she continued .
“ Not only were similar regulations upheld by the Supreme Court nearly three decades ago , but the Trump administration has won victories in both the 4th and 9th Circuits .
We thank President Trump and Secretary Azar [ of the Department of Health and Human Services ] for their pro-life leadership and are confident the Trump administration will prevail.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hawkins , meanwhile , blasted Bennett as a “ rogue judge ” and suggested that abortion advocates are mad about the policy simply because Trump enacted it .
Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia are suing over the rule , which is one of many pro-life policies implemented under the Trump administration .
Others include the president signing laws allowing states to defund Planned Parenthood , expanding religious liberty and conscience protections , defunding the United Nations Population Fund , and stopping most U.S. tax dollars from funding abortion abroad .

The Protect Life Rule has been hailed as one of the Trump administration's pro-life victories.
February 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Calling it “objectively unreasonable,” a judge has sided with the state of Maryland against a Trump administration rule that effectively partially defunded Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry.
The Protect Life Rule requires facilities providing “family planning” services under the federal Title X program to be physically and financially separate from those that commit or refer for abortions.
The Protect Life Rule has been widely hailed as a massive pro-life victory that has taken $60 million away from Planned Parenthood, which refused to comply with the requirement that it separate its abortions from the rest of its operations.
U.S. district judge Richard Bennett, a George W. Bush appointee, issued the ruling Friday, right before Presidents’ Day weekend. He said the pro-life policy is “arbitrary and capricious, being inadequately justified and objectively unreasonable,” and cited opposition from liberal medical groups.
“The administrative record reflects that literally every major medical organization in the United States has opposed implementation of this rule,” he wrote. “There is almost no professional support for its implementation.”
Planned Parenthood of Maryland CEO Karen J. Nelson praised the ruling to Courthouse News on Tuesday.
“What the abortion lobby is unable to achieve through popular opinion, they run to friendly courts to impose,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, told LifeSiteNews. “Abortion is not ‘family planning,’ and a strong majority of Americans — including 42 percent of independents and more than one third of Democrats — oppose taxpayer funding of abortion.” “President Trump’s Protect Life Rule honors their will and the plain language of the Title X statute by stopping the funneling of Title X taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry, without reducing family planning funding by a dime,” she continued. “Not only were similar regulations upheld by the Supreme Court nearly three decades ago, but the Trump administration has won victories in both the 4th and 9th Circuits. We thank President Trump and Secretary Azar [of the Department of Health and Human Services] for their pro-life leadership and are confident the Trump administration will prevail.”
Students for Life of America president Kristan Hawkins, meanwhile, blasted Bennett as a “rogue judge” and suggested that abortion advocates are mad about the policy simply because Trump enacted it.
A rogue judge has blocked a “Pro-life rule” in Maryland that would require Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities to separate their abortion business from their tax-funded services. Why is this bad? Because President Trump created it. RT to appeal this decision! — Kristan Hawkins (@KristanHawkins) February 18, 2020
Friday’s ruling applies only to Maryland.
Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia are suing over the rule, which is one of many pro-life policies implemented under the Trump administration. Others include the president signing laws allowing states to defund Planned Parenthood, expanding religious liberty and conscience protections, defunding the United Nations Population Fund, and stopping most U.S. tax dollars from funding abortion abroad.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-18--Crying baby born alive after failed abortion left to die in mom’s arms in UK hospital

February 18 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A UK hospital appears to have left a child born after a failed late-term abortion to die in the arms of their mother , according to a report in The Sun .
The mother of the baby , Sofia Khan , says she held her baby in her arms for about an hour before he died .
Medics refused to help the baby after he was born alive despite a lethal abortion injection having been administered .
The report explains that Khan and her husband decided to abort their baby boy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learning that he had spina bifida .
Medics informed Khan that her baby was unlikely to survive the duration of the pregnancy .
“ We were heartbroken , but we made the decision to terminate .
We felt it was best for the baby but even so I had moments of doubt and guilt , ” Khan said .
Medics at St. Mary ’ s Hospital in Manchester delivered a lethal injection to the baby through Khan ’ s stomach at 25 weeks into the pregnancy .
But unknown to the medical staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injection .
According to the report , doctors did two scans that confirmed that the baby no longer had a heartbeat .
Khan was then transferred to her local hospital in Bolton to give birth to her dead baby .
But while waiting to give birth to a baby that she believed to be dead , Khan says she felt him kick .
“ I told the midwife , but she said it was impossible , ” Khan said .
“ I asked her to put the monitor on to be sure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Khan gave birth 10 hours later – and was stunned when she heard her baby crying .
“ I thought I was going mad , ” she said .
“ I thought I was hearing the cry because that ’ s what I wanted – my baby to be alive.
” Khan says the midwife “ went into shock .
She was screaming for help ; she ran with the baby into the corridor.
” “ They brought him back and said , ‘ What do you want us to do ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they meant , ” she said .
“ I held him and cuddled him and told him how much I loved him.
” “ He was such a fighter .
He had a huge hole in his spine and he was very disabled , and yet he hung on to life for an hour .
“ I can ’ t help thinking that he was determined to have one cuddle with his mummy.
” Khan says she is “ still grieving ” and that she thinks about her little boy every day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-life group the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children ( SPUC ) told LifeSiteNews that the story told “ the shocking truth ” about abortion in today ’ s Britain .
“ This excellently written story in The Sun is truly heartbreaking , ” the SPUC spokesman said .
“ It tells the shocking truth about abortion in today ’ s Britain , where it is considered ‘ right ’ as one of the doctors in this story put it , to kill a disabled baby , ” he said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is grieving .
Of course she is .
She heard her baby crying and held him in her arms until he died an hour later .
This is new ‘ normal ’ in modern Britain , where the value of human lives are routinely weighed up by medics and disposed of if they are found wanting , ” the spokesman added .
According to the report , the coroner recorded the death from natural causes due to “ extreme prematurity brought about by compassionate termination of pregnancy , with a secondary cause of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reportedly named their son Mohammed Rehman , gave him a full funeral and buried him near their home .
Dr. Dinakar Seshadri , a neonatal consultant who was called in after Mohammed was born , said that he believed that the decision to abort the baby was “ brave ” and “ the right decision ” due to his disabilities .
The UK Abortion Act of 1967 exempts all abortions of unborn children done up to 24 weeks if two doctors agree that ongoing pregnancy or childbirth endangers the health of the woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to birth if the child is disabled or in certain other circumstances .

The newborn with spina bifida stunned his parents by living for about an hour after the failed attempt in the UK.
February 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A UK hospital appears to have left a child born after a failed late-term abortion to die in the arms of their mother, according to a report in The Sun.
The mother of the baby, Sofia Khan, says she held her baby in her arms for about an hour before he died. Medics refused to help the baby after he was born alive despite a lethal abortion injection having been administered.
The report explains that Khan and her husband decided to abort their baby boy, who they had named Mohammed, after learning that he had spina bifida. Medics informed Khan that her baby was unlikely to survive the duration of the pregnancy.
“We were heartbroken, but we made the decision to terminate. We felt it was best for the baby but even so I had moments of doubt and guilt,” Khan said.
Medics at St. Mary’s Hospital in Manchester delivered a lethal injection to the baby through Khan’s stomach at 25 weeks into the pregnancy. But unknown to the medical staff, her baby survived the attempted abortion injection.
According to the report, doctors did two scans that confirmed that the baby no longer had a heartbeat.
Khan was then transferred to her local hospital in Bolton to give birth to her dead baby. But while waiting to give birth to a baby that she believed to be dead, Khan says she felt him kick.
“I told the midwife, but she said it was impossible,” Khan said. “I asked her to put the monitor on to be sure, but she said there was no need.”
Khan gave birth 10 hours later – and was stunned when she heard her baby crying.
“I thought I was going mad,” she said. “I thought I was hearing the cry because that’s what I wanted – my baby to be alive.”
Khan says the midwife “went into shock. She was screaming for help; she ran with the baby into the corridor.”
“They brought him back and said, ‘What do you want us to do?’ and I didn’t know what they meant,” she said. “I held him and cuddled him and told him how much I loved him.”
“He was such a fighter. He had a huge hole in his spine and he was very disabled, and yet he hung on to life for an hour.
“I can’t help thinking that he was determined to have one cuddle with his mummy.”
Khan says she is “still grieving” and that she thinks about her little boy every day.
A national spokesman for the UK pro-life group the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) told LifeSiteNews that the story told “the shocking truth” about abortion in today’s Britain.
“This excellently written story in The Sun is truly heartbreaking,” the SPUC spokesman said.
“It tells the shocking truth about abortion in today’s Britain, where it is considered ‘right’ as one of the doctors in this story put it, to kill a disabled baby,” he said.
“The baby’s mother says she is grieving. Of course she is. She heard her baby crying and held him in her arms until he died an hour later. This is new ‘normal’ in modern Britain, where the value of human lives are routinely weighed up by medics and disposed of if they are found wanting,” the spokesman added.
According to the report, the coroner recorded the death from natural causes due to “extreme prematurity brought about by compassionate termination of pregnancy, with a secondary cause of congenital malformations.”
Khan and her husband reportedly named their son Mohammed Rehman, gave him a full funeral and buried him near their home.
Dr. Dinakar Seshadri, a neonatal consultant who was called in after Mohammed was born, said that he believed that the decision to abort the baby was “brave” and “the right decision” due to his disabilities.
The UK Abortion Act of 1967 exempts all abortions of unborn children done up to 24 weeks if two doctors agree that ongoing pregnancy or childbirth endangers the health of the woman. But abortions may also be done up to birth if the child is disabled or in certain other circumstances.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-18--‘Burn it down’: 4 Republican women run for Congress to counter socialist Dems

February 18 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Four women are running for Congress as the “ conservative squad , ” hoping to be a foil to the four left-wing Democrats who are collectively known as the “ squad ” or sometimes the “ socialist squad.
” The conservative women are Jessica Taylor , who is running for retiring Rep. Martha Robey ’ s seat in Alabama ’ s second district ; former Minnesota Lt. Gov .
Michelle Fischbach , seeking to represent the North Star State ’ s 7th district ; Nancy Mace , the first woman to graduate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cadets , of South Carolina ’ s first district ; and the first female mayor of Irving , Texas , Beth Van Duyne , now hoping to represent the Lone Star State ’ s 24th district .
“ I won ’ t just drain the swamp – I ’ ll burn it down , ” Taylor says in one of her viral campaign ads .
She is featured torching the “ sham articles of impeachment ” with a ( presumably theatrical ) flame-thrower that says “ TRUMP.
” “ We need a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radical socialism , ” Taylor said when she launched the “ conservative squad.
” “ Young people are embracing socialism and they need to know that conservative ideals lead to freedom and prosperity and that socialism is not the answer .
Socialism leads to less freedom and oppressive government .
It has failed in every country it has been tried.
” Fischbach ’ s campaign site touts her 100 percent rating from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life , which she earned during her time in the state legislature .
“ We must protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to life , and defend the sanctity of innocent human life at all stages , ” she says .
“ I will stand up to efforts by the radical left to promote infanticide and taxpayer-funded abortions for illegal immigrants .
I am proudly pro-life and will always support legislation that protects innocent human life and defends the sanctity of life at all stages.
” “ I ’ m pro-life and believe we should defend life and liberty from conception to natural death , ” Mace ’ s website says .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lobbied to add a rape exception to South Carolina ’ s heartbeat bill .
She has publicly spoken about being sexually assaulted at age 14 and raped at age 16 .
Rebecca Kiessling , a pro-life attorney who was conceived in rape , testified before the South Carolina Senate as it was considering the bill .
She ’ s still working to have the rape exceptions removed .
She commented that Mace “ isn ’ t advocating that rape victims should be able to pay someone to kill their rapists , just their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the conservative women offer a stark contrast to the left-wing , pro-abortion , anti-Trump positions of Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , D-New York ; Ilhan Omar , D-Minnesota ; Ayanna Pressley , D-Massachusetts ; and Rashida Tlaib , D-Michigan .
Ocasio-Cortez has made a name for herself championing socialism .
In February 2019 while speaking about environmentalism , she said , “ Our planet is going to face disaster if we don ’ t turn this ship around .
And so it ’ s basically like , there ’ s scientific consensus that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be very difficult , and it does lead , I think , young people to have a legitimate question : should – is it OK to still have children ?
” Omar has tweeted her support of taxpayer-funded abortions for illegal immigrants and has said those who are against killing preborn humans in the womb “ criminalize women for existing .
”

'We need a new generation of conservatives to push back against radical socialism.'
February 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Four women are running for Congress as the “conservative squad,” hoping to be a foil to the four left-wing Democrats who are collectively known as the “squad” or sometimes the “socialist squad.”
The conservative women are Jessica Taylor, who is running for retiring Rep. Martha Robey’s seat in Alabama’s second district; former Minnesota Lt. Gov. Michelle Fischbach, seeking to represent the North Star State’s 7th district; Nancy Mace, the first woman to graduate from The Citadel’s Corps of Cadets, of South Carolina’s first district; and the first female mayor of Irving, Texas, Beth Van Duyne, now hoping to represent the Lone Star State’s 24th district.
“I won’t just drain the swamp – I’ll burn it down,” Taylor says in one of her viral campaign ads. She is featured torching the “sham articles of impeachment” with a (presumably theatrical) flame-thrower that says “TRUMP.”
“We need a new generation of conservatives to push back against radical socialism,” Taylor said when she launched the “conservative squad.”
“Young people are embracing socialism and they need to know that conservative ideals lead to freedom and prosperity and that socialism is not the answer. Socialism leads to less freedom and oppressive government. It has failed in every country it has been tried.”
Who's ��'d up about the do-nothing Democrats wasting so much time on this sham impeachment? Want to know how I really feel about all this time we've wasted? Want to see how ��'d up I can get? Watch here. ������https://t.co/qUvE1YRueG pic.twitter.com/NkUSy6dqYW — Jessica Taylor (@JessicaTaylorAL) February 6, 2020
Van Duyne’s website announces her as a “Christian. Conservative. Mother.”
Fischbach’s campaign site touts her 100 percent rating from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, which she earned during her time in the state legislature.
“We must protect the unborn, who have the fundamental right to life, and defend the sanctity of innocent human life at all stages,” she says. “I will stand up to efforts by the radical left to promote infanticide and taxpayer-funded abortions for illegal immigrants. I am proudly pro-life and will always support legislation that protects innocent human life and defends the sanctity of life at all stages.”
“I’m pro-life and believe we should defend life and liberty from conception to natural death,” Mace’s website says. However, as a state representative, Mace successfully lobbied to add a rape exception to South Carolina’s heartbeat bill. She has publicly spoken about being sexually assaulted at age 14 and raped at age 16.
Rebecca Kiessling, a pro-life attorney who was conceived in rape, testified before the South Carolina Senate as it was considering the bill. She’s still working to have the rape exceptions removed. She commented that Mace “isn’t advocating that rape victims should be able to pay someone to kill their rapists, just their innocent children.”
Nevertheless, all four of the conservative women offer a stark contrast to the left-wing, pro-abortion, anti-Trump positions of Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York; Ilhan Omar, D-Minnesota; Ayanna Pressley, D-Massachusetts; and Rashida Tlaib, D-Michigan. Ocasio-Cortez has made a name for herself championing socialism.
In February 2019 while speaking about environmentalism, she said, “Our planet is going to face disaster if we don’t turn this ship around. And so it’s basically like, there’s scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult, and it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question: should – is it OK to still have children?”
Omar has tweeted her support of taxpayer-funded abortions for illegal immigrants and has said those who are against killing preborn humans in the womb “criminalize women for existing.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-18--Papal nuncio to speak at meeting of US priests who back homosexuality, female ordination

February 18 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The Apostolic Nuncio to the United States , Archbishop Christophe Pierre , will be speaking at the meeting of a dissident priest group , the Association of US Catholic Priests ( AUSCP ) , in June of this year .
The group openly promotes homosexuality and female ordination .
The archbishop has refused to comment on his presence at the meeting .
Among other things , the AUSCP is in favor of married priests and women ’ s ordination .
In the past , the AUSCP has hosted progressive members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego .
Michael Hichborn , president of the Lepanto Institute , asked the nuncio in December 2019 for comment on his scheduled presence at the assembly of the AUSCP , but never received a reply .
“ You may not be aware , but the AUSCP is a gravely dissident organization which promotes homosexuality , associates with organizations that promote same-sex ‘ marriage , ’ supports open homosexuality in the priesthood , has undermined the authority and decisions made by bishops , and has endorsed the ordination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hichborn pointed out in his letter to the Apostolic Nuncio , who acts as the ambassador of the Vatican to the government of the United States of America .
Hichborn included some of his research on the AUSCP in his letter .
He has a receipt showing that the nunciature received his letter .
“ I am providing this information to you in the hope that you will reconsider your participation in the AUSCP ’ s assembly next spring , as your participation would not only raise the profile of this organization , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one which bears the support and approval of the Holy See .
I can not stress enough how confusing and damaging to the souls of the faithful such an impression could be , ” the president of the Lepanto Institute argued .
He encouraged the nuncio to refuse attending the AUSCP event in Maryland .
“ If I do not hear from you in sixty days , I will assume that your response to my plea is in the negative , ” Hichborn added in his letter .
After 60 days had passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuncio .
LifeSiteNews reached out for comment to the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington , DC , but did not receive an answer .
Founded in 2011 , the AUSCP advances a number of controversial positions .
On its website , the organization states its goal of encouraging “ the American bishops to petition the Pope to change the present law requiring celibacy of all Roman Catholic priests by opening ordination to married men of proven quality ( viri probati ) .
” Only recently , Cardinal Robert Sarah , prefect of the Congregation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Sacraments , explained that allowing married priests would be a mistake .
“ We are often victims of a profound historical ignorance on this subject .
The Church had married priests during the first centuries .
But as soon as they were ordained , they were required to abstain completely from sexual relations with their wives , ” Sarah told the National Catholic Register .
“ If a priest is married , then he has a private life , a conjugal and family life .
He must make time for his wife @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show , by his whole life , that he is totally and absolutely given to God and the Church , ” the cardinal cautioned .
In 2013 , the AUSCP passed a resolution to promote the ongoing discussion of the ordination of women as permanent deacons and “ agreed to ask the US bishops to give public support to the restoration of the first millennium practice of ordaining women as permanent deacons.
” Last October , Cardinal Gerhard Müller , former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith , affirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the door to women ’ s ordination in his 1994 Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis .
“ The impossibility that a woman validly receives the Sacrament of Holy Orders in each of the three degrees is a truth contained in Revelation and it is thus infallibly confirmed by the Church 's Magisterium and presented as to be believed , ” Müller argued .
The three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders refer to deacon , priest , and bishop .
If women can not validly receive the sacrament , they can not validly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the diaconate .
In its declaration on the status of women in the Church , published in 2019 , the AUSCP accused the Church of keeping “ ecclesial structures that maintain outmoded philosophical notions of nature , gender , and personhood .
Rules , fixed order , dogmatic formulas , unyielding laws , patriarchy , authority , and obedience have rendered the Church resistant to the radical interconnectivity that marks all levels of nature .
The Church is bound to die out unless the system undergoes radical transformation .
Thus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolving insights of science and the universe .
”

Archbishop Christophe Pierre is set to attend the meeting of the dissident Association of US Catholic Priests in June.
February 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, will be speaking at the meeting of a dissident priest group, the Association of US Catholic Priests (AUSCP), in June of this year. The group openly promotes homosexuality and female ordination. The archbishop has refused to comment on his presence at the meeting.
Among other things, the AUSCP is in favor of married priests and women’s ordination. In the past, the AUSCP has hosted progressive members of the hierarchy like Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago and Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego.
Michael Hichborn, president of the Lepanto Institute, asked the nuncio in December 2019 for comment on his scheduled presence at the assembly of the AUSCP, but never received a reply.
“You may not be aware, but the AUSCP is a gravely dissident organization which promotes homosexuality, associates with organizations that promote same-sex ‘marriage,’ supports open homosexuality in the priesthood, has undermined the authority and decisions made by bishops, and has endorsed the ordination of women to the priesthood,” Hichborn pointed out in his letter to the Apostolic Nuncio, who acts as the ambassador of the Vatican to the government of the United States of America.
Hichborn included some of his research on the AUSCP in his letter. He has a receipt showing that the nunciature received his letter.
“I am providing this information to you in the hope that you will reconsider your participation in the AUSCP’s assembly next spring, as your participation would not only raise the profile of this organization, but give the impression that it was one which bears the support and approval of the Holy See. I cannot stress enough how confusing and damaging to the souls of the faithful such an impression could be,” the president of the Lepanto Institute argued.
He encouraged the nuncio to refuse attending the AUSCP event in Maryland. “If I do not hear from you in sixty days, I will assume that your response to my plea is in the negative,” Hichborn added in his letter.
After 60 days had passed, Hichborn published his letter to the nuncio. LifeSiteNews reached out for comment to the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, DC, but did not receive an answer.
Founded in 2011, the AUSCP advances a number of controversial positions. On its website, the organization states its goal of encouraging “the American bishops to petition the Pope to change the present law requiring celibacy of all Roman Catholic priests by opening ordination to married men of proven quality (viri probati).”
Only recently, Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, explained that allowing married priests would be a mistake.
“We are often victims of a profound historical ignorance on this subject. The Church had married priests during the first centuries. But as soon as they were ordained, they were required to abstain completely from sexual relations with their wives,” Sarah told the National Catholic Register.
“If a priest is married, then he has a private life, a conjugal and family life. He must make time for his wife and children. He is unable to show, by his whole life, that he is totally and absolutely given to God and the Church,” the cardinal cautioned.
In 2013, the AUSCP passed a resolution to promote the ongoing discussion of the ordination of women as permanent deacons and “agreed to ask the US bishops to give public support to the restoration of the first millennium practice of ordaining women as permanent deacons.”
Last October, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, affirmed that Pope John Paul II had closed the door to women’s ordination in his 1994 Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
“The impossibility that a woman validly receives the Sacrament of Holy Orders in each of the three degrees is a truth contained in Revelation and it is thus infallibly confirmed by the Church's Magisterium and presented as to be believed,” Müller argued.
The three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders refer to deacon, priest, and bishop. If women cannot validly receive the sacrament, they cannot validly be ordained to any of its degrees, including the diaconate.
In its declaration on the status of women in the Church, published in 2019, the AUSCP accused the Church of keeping “ecclesial structures that maintain outmoded philosophical notions of nature, gender, and personhood. Rules, fixed order, dogmatic formulas, unyielding laws, patriarchy, authority, and obedience have rendered the Church resistant to the radical interconnectivity that marks all levels of nature. The Church is bound to die out unless the system undergoes radical transformation. Thus, the institutional Church needs to consider the evolving insights of science and the universe.”
Contact information:
Archbishop Christophe Pierre
Apostolic Nunciature
3339 Massachusetts Ave NW
Washington, DC 20008-3610
Phone: 202-333-7121
Fax: 202-337-4036
Email: [email protected]
Share