lifesitenews--2020-06-16--Black Lives Matter doesn’t believe all black lives matter

June 16 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Do all black lives matter or do just some black lives matter ?
I believe that all black lives matter .
The pro-life movement believes that all black lives matter .
But the organization Black Lives Matter doesn ’ t .
Likely realizing it was strategic suicide to continue blatantly advertising their great love for abortion on a website called Black Lives Matter , the team removed the previously stated euphemistic platitudes of “ reproductive healthcare ” and “ reproductive justice.
” However , any google search on the three Black Lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their individual loyalty to killing children in the womb , including launching an organization with the former president of Planned Parenthood , and insisting that “ reproductive justice is very much situated within the Black Lives Matter movement.
” The irony is not lost on anyone with a semi-functioning pre-frontal cortex .
Racism certainly still exists today , but nowhere is it more apparent and pervasive than the abortion industry .
While systemic racism in the police force or America writ large has been thoroughly debunked , the only system it seems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lives Matter is the most intent on defending and celebrating .
Largely responsible for flat-lining the black birth rate in America , Planned Parenthood has naturally leapt at the opportunity to take the focus off themselves by declaring that Black Lives Matter ; at least the lives of born black Americans who escaped the profiteering death camps strategically placed in minority communities .
The willingness of Black Lives Matter to overlook racism that doesn ’ t serve them to condemn is shocking .
The governor of Virginia , who also previously dressed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently being celebrated by Black Lives Matter for his announcement that four statues depicting confederate figures in Richmond will be removed due to their troubling racist history .
Meanwhile , Black Lives Matter continues their affair with an organization whose founder created the Negro Project , a eugenics “ project ” so controversial that Margaret Sanger enlisted the help of black ministers to pitch it because she did “ not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any more rebellious members.
” Planned Parenthood even had the guts to acknowledge their racist history in a recent tweet , and promise to publicly reckon with it .
Only an organization that calls killing babies “ reproductive justice ” could get away with promising to “ reckon with their racist history ” while it currently murders upwards of 247 black lives every single day !
This means that Planned Parenthood kills more black lives in two weeks than the KKK lynched in a century .
As a pro-life speaker , I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointing out the inherent double standards of Black Lives Matter .
I ’ ve been told that each movement is entitled to its outrage and I shouldn ’ t so harshly criticize BLM .
These critics , some of whom are pro-life , say that while BLM isn ’ t perfect , their focus and goals are good .
Putting aside the debate over whether BLM ’ s goals are good or not ( the goals on their website are quite horrible ) , these critics are now questioning a rule whose truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law of non-contradiction .
Two opposing ideas can not both be true at the same time and in the same way .
You can not be both racist and anti-racist .
You can not both oppose killing unarmed black lives and support killing unarmed black lives .
You can not tell your black neighbor you love them while also telling them you think it should be legal to kill them , provided that they ’ re still small and dependent .
It doesn ’ t work that way .
How is black America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its name publicly celebrates and defends the homicides of 1,000 black lives every single day by the abortion industry ?
Can black America escape the sins of our country , that dehumanized and denied rights of personhood to their ancestors if the very organization and movement that promises to usher them into a new tomorrow is willing to repeat those sins by dehumanizing and denying rights of personhood to the most defenseless black lives among us ?
How is racism defeated if black America continues to vote disproportionately for the political party that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to die today to protect abortion , the number one killer of the black community ?
Many BLM supporters will disagree with this critique and find offense at my suggestion that abortion is evil for the same reason that slavery and racism is evil , namely that it treats actual human beings with inherent dignity as sub-human .
But offense alone is not sufficient to dismiss my critique .
Racists and slave-owners during the 1800s were equally offended by the idea that those they considered property were indeed fully equal in value and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the organization that exists to correct the ways in which black America was mistreated has forgotten the lesson of one of their greatest defenders .
Abraham Lincoln eloquently articulated the truth that every human being is a person .
He did this by illustrating that there is nothing you could cite to justify slavery that would not apply to many white people as well .
In other words , when human value is grounded in accidental properties like skin color or intellect rather than a human nature , it is not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but all human beings since no one shares those properties equally .
If human beings begin at the moment of conception , which the science of embryology has long-established they do , then there is nothing you could cite to justify killing the unborn that would not also apply to a born person .
The very ideology that justified slavery is the same ideology that Black Lives Matter has so zealously embraced , namely that not all humans are persons .
Black Lives Matter and their majority Left-wing base stand in stark opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican party .
However , as in 1860 , it is again the abolitionists and the Republican party who provide the best hope for black America .
Today ’ s abolitionists seek the nearly identical goal of their Republican forebears : to grant all black human beings rights of personhood ( i.e .
preborn ) and end the legalized violence against people of color ( abortion ) .
Contrary to how the Left portrays these modern abolitionists , the pro-life movement is the biggest defender of black lives because the largest slaughter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ironically , the very premise that is embraced by Black Lives Matter in their protests and activism following the murder of George Floyd is treated as a stranger when it comes to abortion : it is always wrong to intentionally harm or kill innocent human beings .
The killing of George Floyd was evil because , regardless of whether he innocently used a counterfeit bill or not , the actions of Derek Chauvin were completely unjustified .
When pro-lifers cite that same premise to explain their opposition to abortion , Black Lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that black lives matter ; not because they 're black but because they 're human beings with intrinsic dignity .
But if black lives matter because they 're human beings , then they matter from the moment they are human beings .
Until Black Lives Matter abandons the fantasy that you can secure equity for black Americans by also championing the slaughter of small black Americans , they will secure neither equity nor justice .
They will only succeed in cutting off the branch they ’ re standing on .
Seth Gruber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Training Institute .
He is also the host of `` UnAborted with Seth Gruber.
” Visit his website here .

PETITION: Yes to reform. No to riots & revolution! Sign the petition here.
June 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Do all black lives matter or do just some black lives matter? I believe that all black lives matter. The pro-life movement believes that all black lives matter. But the organization Black Lives Matter doesn’t.
Likely realizing it was strategic suicide to continue blatantly advertising their great love for abortion on a website called Black Lives Matter, the team removed the previously stated euphemistic platitudes of “reproductive healthcare” and “reproductive justice.” However, any google search on the three Black Lives Matter (BLM) co-founders will reveal their individual loyalty to killing children in the womb, including launching an organization with the former president of Planned Parenthood, and insisting that “reproductive justice is very much situated within the Black Lives Matter movement.”
The irony is not lost on anyone with a semi-functioning pre-frontal cortex. Racism certainly still exists today, but nowhere is it more apparent and pervasive than the abortion industry. While systemic racism in the police force or America writ large has been thoroughly debunked, the only system it seems to have fully infected is the one Black Lives Matter is the most intent on defending and celebrating.
Largely responsible for flat-lining the black birth rate in America, Planned Parenthood has naturally leapt at the opportunity to take the focus off themselves by declaring that Black Lives Matter; at least the lives of born black Americans who escaped the profiteering death camps strategically placed in minority communities.
The willingness of Black Lives Matter to overlook racism that doesn’t serve them to condemn is shocking. The governor of Virginia, who also previously dressed in either blackface or a KKK costume is currently being celebrated by Black Lives Matter for his announcement that four statues depicting confederate figures in Richmond will be removed due to their troubling racist history. Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter continues their affair with an organization whose founder created the Negro Project, a eugenics “project” so controversial that Margaret Sanger enlisted the help of black ministers to pitch it because she did “not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any more rebellious members.”
Planned Parenthood even had the guts to acknowledge their racist history in a recent tweet, and promise to publicly reckon with it. Only an organization that calls killing babies “reproductive justice” could get away with promising to “reckon with their racist history” while it currently murders upwards of 247 black lives every single day! This means that Planned Parenthood kills more black lives in two weeks than the KKK lynched in a century.
As a pro-life speaker, I have been ripped up and down online for pointing out the inherent double standards of Black Lives Matter. I’ve been told that each movement is entitled to its outrage and I shouldn’t so harshly criticize BLM. These critics, some of whom are pro-life, say that while BLM isn’t perfect, their focus and goals are good. Putting aside the debate over whether BLM’s goals are good or not (the goals on their website are quite horrible), these critics are now questioning a rule whose truth is as axiomatic as gravity: the law of non-contradiction.
Two opposing ideas cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way. You cannot be both racist and anti-racist. You cannot both oppose killing unarmed black lives and support killing unarmed black lives. You cannot tell your black neighbor you love them while also telling them you think it should be legal to kill them, provided that they’re still small and dependent. It doesn’t work that way. How is black America served by BLM if the organization bearing its name publicly celebrates and defends the homicides of 1,000 black lives every single day by the abortion industry as a whole?
Can black America escape the sins of our country, that dehumanized and denied rights of personhood to their ancestors if the very organization and movement that promises to usher them into a new tomorrow is willing to repeat those sins by dehumanizing and denying rights of personhood to the most defenseless black lives among us? How is racism defeated if black America continues to vote disproportionately for the political party that bled to protect slavery and is willing to die today to protect abortion, the number one killer of the black community?
Many BLM supporters will disagree with this critique and find offense at my suggestion that abortion is evil for the same reason that slavery and racism is evil, namely that it treats actual human beings with inherent dignity as sub-human. But offense alone is not sufficient to dismiss my critique. Racists and slave-owners during the 1800s were equally offended by the idea that those they considered property were indeed fully equal in value and worth to any white person.
Tragically, the organization that exists to correct the ways in which black America was mistreated has forgotten the lesson of one of their greatest defenders. Abraham Lincoln eloquently articulated the truth that every human being is a person. He did this by illustrating that there is nothing you could cite to justify slavery that would not apply to many white people as well. In other words, when human value is grounded in accidental properties like skin color or intellect rather than a human nature, it is not only the victim class that is dehumanized, but all human beings since no one shares those properties equally.
If human beings begin at the moment of conception, which the science of embryology has long-established they do, then there is nothing you could cite to justify killing the unborn that would not also apply to a born person. The very ideology that justified slavery is the same ideology that Black Lives Matter has so zealously embraced, namely that not all humans are persons.
Black Lives Matter and their majority Left-wing base stand in stark opposition to the pro-life movement and certainly the Republican party. However, as in 1860, it is again the abolitionists and the Republican party who provide the best hope for black America. Today’s abolitionists seek the nearly identical goal of their Republican forebears: to grant all black human beings rights of personhood (i.e. preborn) and end the legalized violence against people of color (abortion). Contrary to how the Left portrays these modern abolitionists, the pro-life movement is the biggest defender of black lives because the largest slaughter of black lives is happening in the womb.
Ironically, the very premise that is embraced by Black Lives Matter in their protests and activism following the murder of George Floyd is treated as a stranger when it comes to abortion: it is always wrong to intentionally harm or kill innocent human beings. The killing of George Floyd was evil because, regardless of whether he innocently used a counterfeit bill or not, the actions of Derek Chauvin were completely unjustified. When pro-lifers cite that same premise to explain their opposition to abortion, Black Lives Matter draws a blank.
We all believe that black lives matter; not because they're black but because they're human beings with intrinsic dignity. But if black lives matter because they're human beings, then they matter from the moment they are human beings. Until Black Lives Matter abandons the fantasy that you can secure equity for black Americans by also championing the slaughter of small black Americans, they will secure neither equity nor justice. They will only succeed in cutting off the branch they’re standing on.
Seth Gruber is the West Coast Director for Life Training Institute. He is also the host of “UnAborted with Seth Gruber.” Visit his website here.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-16--54 NIH scientists resign or fired over secret foreign ties, 93% connected to China (live updates)

LifeSite ’ s previous ( and future ) live updates on the coronavirus crisis and how it relates to issues our readers care about can be viewed HERE .
“ An ongoing inquiry by the National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) into grantees ’ failures to disclose foreign ties has resulted in the firings and resignations of 54 scientists , ” according to The Epoch Times .
“ The NIH investigation has investigated 189 scientists for undisclosed foreign ties , with 93 percent of the hidden funding coming from China .
Some 77 grantees have been removed from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probe ” ( emphasis added ) .
“ The NIH effort is part of a larger U.S. government campaign to counter the Chinese Communist Party ’ s ( CCP ) infiltration of American academia .
The Department of Justice ( DOJ ) and the FBI have made arrests and reached settlements in several cases involving researchers as part of its broader China Initiative launched in November 2018.
” June 16 , 2020 , 1:35 p.m. EST : The Guardian published an article yesterday on Ukraine ’ s predatory surrogacy industry , which caters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dozens of newborns who are stranded in that country : They are the children of foreign couples born to Ukrainian surrogate mothers at the Kyiv-based BioTexCom Centre for Human Reproduction , the largest surrogacy clinic in the world .
They ’ re stranded in the hotel because their biological parents have not been able to travel in or out of Ukraine since borders closed in March because of the Covid-19 pandemic .
…some 50 babies remain in the hotel and the saga is casting a harsh spotlight on the ethics and scale of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
...
In Vinnytsia , a city south-west of Kyiv , Liudmyla is still waiting to receive the balance of her fee for giving birth to a baby girl for a German couple in February .
She regularly texts her surrogacy agency ( not BioTexCom ) , which she says owes her €6,000 .
“ They keep telling me they can ’ t send the entire sum because of the lockdown , ” she says .
Citing “ individual privacy , ” New York officials instructed coronavirus “ contact tracers ” not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part in left-wing Black Lives Matter protests .
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Governor Andrew Cuomo have been criticized for their strict restrictions of religious gatherings by Orthodox Jews and Christians .
June 15 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) today revoked the emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine to be used to treat certain hospitalized coronavirus patients .
The emergency use authorization had allowed for coronavirus patients to receive the drug , which President Donald Trump has been taking as a prophylactic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unavailable , or participation in a clinical trial was not feasible , ” according to the FDA .
The World Health Organization has said that “ breastfeeding mothers do not seem to be passing on the new coronavirus to their infants ” and that the live virus has not been detected in breastmilk .
This is consistent with advice from the breastfeeding group La Leche League , which says that “ there is a growing body of research showing babies benefit from multiple and diverse immunologic proteins , including antibodies , provided in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ Those who become infected shortly before giving birth and then begin breastfeeding , and those who become infected while breastfeeding , will produce specific secretory IgA antibodies and many other critical immune factors in their milk to protect their nursing infants and enhance their infants ’ own immune responses.
” The global overreaction to the coronavirus has been compared to the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq .
Today it ’ s generally accepted that the presence of WMD [ weapons of mass destruction ] was the primary basis for the Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such weapons shook the world .
The media blamed the politicians , the politicians blamed US intel , and the intelligence actors involved mostly defended their work .
The Iraq War WMD debacle is arguably the greatest expert “ fail ” in generations .
The holy triumvirate—lawmakers , bureaucrats , and media—all failed to sniff out the truth .
If any of them had , a war that cost trillions of dollars and claimed the lives of 100,000-200,000 people likely could have been avoided .
It would be difficult to surpass the Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests the experts—again : lawmakers , bureaucrats , and media—may have subjected us to a blunder of equally disastrous proportions .
Globalist elites will gather in a Swiss resort town to plan the post-coronavirus “ Great Reset , ” which is not expected to be friendly toward the pro-life or pro-family cause .

Live updates on the coronavirus crisis and how it relates to pro-life issues, faith, and freedom.
LifeSite’s previous (and future) live updates on the coronavirus crisis and how it relates to issues our readers care about can be viewed HERE.
“An ongoing inquiry by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) into grantees’ failures to disclose foreign ties has resulted in the firings and resignations of 54 scientists,” according to The Epoch Times. “The NIH investigation has investigated 189 scientists for undisclosed foreign ties, with 93 percent of the hidden funding coming from China. Some 77 grantees have been removed from the NIH system as a result of the probe” (emphasis added).
“The NIH effort is part of a larger U.S. government campaign to counter the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) infiltration of American academia. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI have made arrests and reached settlements in several cases involving researchers as part of its broader China Initiative launched in November 2018.”
June 17, 2020, 6:38 p.m. EST: An award-winning Chinese scientist expelled from Canada’s most secure microbiology lab sent several vials containing dangerous viruses from the lab to China last year. The CBC obtained documents showing the scientist sent 15 different strains of Ebola and Henipah viruses to Wuhan, China at the end of March 2019.
June 16, 2020, 1:35 p.m. EST: The Guardian published an article yesterday on Ukraine’s predatory surrogacy industry, which caters to wealthy foreign couples, and the dozens of newborns who are stranded in that country:
They are the children of foreign couples born to Ukrainian surrogate mothers at the Kyiv-based BioTexCom Centre for Human Reproduction, the largest surrogacy clinic in the world. They’re stranded in the hotel because their biological parents have not been able to travel in or out of Ukraine since borders closed in March because of the Covid-19 pandemic. …some 50 babies remain in the hotel and the saga is casting a harsh spotlight on the ethics and scale of the booming commercial child-bearing industry in Ukraine. …In Vinnytsia, a city south-west of Kyiv, Liudmyla is still waiting to receive the balance of her fee for giving birth to a baby girl for a German couple in February. She regularly texts her surrogacy agency (not BioTexCom), which she says owes her €6,000. “They keep telling me they can’t send the entire sum because of the lockdown,” she says.
Citing “individual privacy,” New York officials instructed coronavirus “contact tracers” not to ask people if they’ve taken part in left-wing Black Lives Matter protests. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Governor Andrew Cuomo have been criticized for their strict restrictions of religious gatherings by Orthodox Jews and Christians.
June 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today revoked the emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine to be used to treat certain hospitalized coronavirus patients. The emergency use authorization had allowed for coronavirus patients to receive the drug, which President Donald Trump has been taking as a prophylactic, “when a clinical trial was unavailable, or participation in a clinical trial was not feasible,” according to the FDA.
The World Health Organization has said that “breastfeeding mothers do not seem to be passing on the new coronavirus to their infants” and that the live virus has not been detected in breastmilk. This is consistent with advice from the breastfeeding group La Leche League, which says that “there is a growing body of research showing babies benefit from multiple and diverse immunologic proteins, including antibodies, provided in human milk, particularly through direct breastfeeding.”
“Those who become infected shortly before giving birth and then begin breastfeeding, and those who become infected while breastfeeding, will produce specific secretory IgA antibodies and many other critical immune factors in their milk to protect their nursing infants and enhance their infants’ own immune responses.”
The global overreaction to the coronavirus has been compared to the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The Foundation for Economic Education wrote Friday:
Today it’s generally accepted that the presence of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] was the primary basis for the Iraq War. Naturally, the absence of such weapons shook the world. The media blamed the politicians, the politicians blamed US intel, and the intelligence actors involved mostly defended their work. … The Iraq War WMD debacle is arguably the greatest expert “fail” in generations. The holy triumvirate—lawmakers, bureaucrats, and media—all failed to sniff out the truth. If any of them had, a war that cost trillions of dollars and claimed the lives of 100,000-200,000 people likely could have been avoided. It would be difficult to surpass the Iraq blunder, but emerging evidence on COVID-19 suggests the experts—again: lawmakers, bureaucrats, and media—may have subjected us to a blunder of equally disastrous proportions.
Globalist elites will gather in a Swiss resort town to plan the post-coronavirus “Great Reset,” which is not expected to be friendly toward the pro-life or pro-family cause.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-16--German theologian calls for female cardinals and preachers – based on Pope Francis’ teaching

June 16 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Thomas Schüller , a well-known Catholic German theologian , claims that Pope Francis ' post-synodal exhortation Querida Amazonia shows that the Pope wants to give women real “ leadership positions ” in the Church , and he proposes that “ one should seriously reflect in a courageous manner about the cardinalate.
” In addition , this theologian even sees in this papal text the idea that there was a sort of “ two-fold divine incarnational event , a male one in Jesus Christ [ ... ] , and a female one in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be witnesses of the Gospel.
” This papal document is about limiting clerical power and empowering lay women , he explains .
Or , quoting another Catholic theologian , Michael Böhnke , this document , according to Schüller , is about the “ end of a clerical monopoly.
” First acknowledging that Pope Francis has disappointed many by not explicitly endorsing the married priesthood and the female diaconate , Professor Schüller then quotes in his essay — published by the German Catholic journal Herder Korrespondenz ( 5/2020 ) a close collaborator and long-term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monsignor Oliver Lahl , who finds in Querida Amazonia a “ hidden hint.
” Let us quote here Schüller 's words : “ Oliver Lahl , the wise Spiritual Counsellor [ at the German Embassy ] in Rome , who has loyally served the Roman Curia a long time on the side of the bishop of his home diocese , Cardinal Walter Kasper , thinks that one can read in these contradictions [ on the one part , the rejection of clericalism , on the other part the description of the role of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hint that Pope Francis wishes to de-power male clergymen whom he wishes to limit to leading roles only with regard to the Holy Eucharist and to Penance , together with Extreme Unction , in order to endow women with leadership authority without ordination , and this in a very different , but canonically familiar , manner .
Pope Francis [ according to Lahl ] aims at removing power from the priests and at democratizing different leadership offices which are also open to women.
” LifeSiteNews reached out to Monsignor Lahl who confirmed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that he had originally posted such comments on Facebook .
It is worth quoting these words at length because they very well might reflect Pope Francis ' agenda for the Church since Cardinal Kasper himself has been a close counselor of this Pope .
Kasper – whose close collaborator was just presenting here the papal program – himself had told LifeSiteNews in July of 2019 that women do not necessarily need to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders in order to fulfill new leadership roles also with regard to the liturgy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ today do much more than any female deacon would have done in the past .
He mentions here “ extraordinary Eucharistic ministers , lectors at the celebration of the Holy Eucharist , leaders and presiders of Liturgies of the Word , next to often important leading functions in the Church 's charitable works and administration , as well as those offices in dioceses and in the Roman Curia which are not bound to sacramental ordination.
” They can be Eucharistic ministers , they can be lectors , and , as the current development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give homilies .
“ The Church is free to carry out the vocation of women to these offices with the help of a non-sacramental , liturgical blessing ; ” Kasper told LifeSite , and this could be done “ in the presence of the whole congregation and within the celebration of the Holy Eucharist ( for example in the context of the Prayers of the Faithful ) ” In a sense , one could say that Querida Amazonia ( QA ) seems to have incorporated yet another Kasper proposal , similar to Amoris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that Cardinal Kasper did participate at one of the preparatory meetings of the Amazon Synod in June of 2019 .
Thomas Schüller seems to move in this same direction when he calls women “ the true prophets ” and demands that women should give “ the homilies during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist.
” As he explains earlier on in his essay , Pope Francis sees himself bound by Pope John Paul II 's ban on female priests , and thus is looking for alternative ways to promote women 's leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ German theologian says , “ the Church , as a price for excluding women from ordination , endows them indeed with real leadership authority – and with it , with authority to make decisions.
” “ Pope Francis takes this path very clearly , ” the theologian continues and points to the fact that this pope has already named several female under-secretaries in the Roman Curia .
In addition , Professor Schüller predicts that curial policy will one day soon contain the sentence “ that , in principle , all offices of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , except in those cases , where they are linked with the exercise of the ordained authority.
” With regard to Querida Amazonia , this German theologian and canon lawyer refers to passages in this document where the Pope encourages those female and male Christians who already have roles of responsibility , and with the support of their local bishops , “ to continue to proclaim the Word of God , to administer certain sacraments – here might be meant baptism , assistance at marriage ceremonies , and at sacramental Church burials – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make use of their individual charisms for the promotion of popular piety ( see QA 89 ) .
Before we enter into the discussion of certain canonical aspects , let us first consider what Schüller states about Pope Francis ' words on the “ two faces of God , ” which , he says , could “ take one 's breath.
” They are to be found in Querida Amazonia 's paragraph 101 , where it says : “ The Lord chose to reveal his power and his love through two human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Son made man and the face of a creature , a woman , Mary .
Women make their contribution to the Church in a way that is properly theirs , by making present the tender strength of Mary , the Mother.
” Comments Schüller : “ This sentence nearly seems to indicate as if there had taken place a two-fold divine incarnational event , a male one in Jesus Christ with its continuation in those men who work as clergymen , and a female one in Mary which empowers women to be tender @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both are said to be faces of God.
” Moreover , the theologian adds the question as to whether “ the ordained men – excluding the deacons according to a decision by Pope Benedict XVI – are acting in persona Christi capitis , while the women are acting in persona Mariae , in order to rule with tenderness and proclaim the Gospel in an inspired manner.
” The theologian admits , however , that this sentence goes far beyond the concept of “ Mary as Co-Redemptrix , ” since here it “ seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” that is to say , she herself becomes a sort of savior .
It is in this light that Schüller thinks that , in continuing the theological reflection as initiated by these papal words , “ women should be in the future the primary and initial proclaimers of the Gospel .
They are the true prophets.
” If one were to follow these ideas , the Church might wind up having priests as mere “ administers of three Sacraments ” that are necessarily linked to the Sacrament of Holy Orders – Holy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – while women are prominent figures even on the altar during the Holy Mass by giving the homilies and by other prophetic roles of proclamation .
Since these are revolutionary proposals , let us also now consider Schüller 's canonical comments , also for the sake of those who might wish to counter them .
The theologian points to footnote 136 of Querida Amazonia , in which Pope Francis refers to canon 517 §2 CIC .
This canon provides for bishops to appoint laypeople for certain functions in the parish who represent a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officially supervises them .
As Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes has pointed out , the papal document quotes this canon in a defective way , since it omits the point that priests are still the authoritative supervisors .
Thus , in QA , this canon turns into a possible way of letting laypeople run a parish .
As Schüller puts it , Pope Francis insists on the “ inculturated and pneumatological ” importance of the role of lay pastoral assistants who have received authorization from the bishop , and , at the same time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in spite of their prominent role with regard to the Eucharist ” – of the abuse of power .
Thereby , the author adds , the Pope “ expands – on the level of the theology of office , but also ecclesiologically – those fitting pastoral offices which are independent [ i.e.
, not dependent upon a priest ] and which are open to men and women without ordination.
” That is to say , Schüller claims that Pope Francis wishes to depart from canon 517§2 in a sense that the supervision by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandatory .
The governance of the Church would thus be cut off from the ordained office , something that Cardinal Cordes says is impossible .
Schüller refers here to QA 103 , where Pope Francis speaks of laypeople with “ real authority ” who have been commissioned “ by the bishop.
” Following his logic , the German professor consequently says that here canon 145 CIC applies which speaks about the nature of an “ ecclesiastical office ” which is defined as “ any function constituted in a stable manner by divine or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this German theologian that Pope Francis believes that “ women , without doubt , are already and continue to be able to be bearers of authority of jurisdiction , that is to say of real authority of governance.
” But most importantly , the German theologian proposes that the Church do away with canon 274 CIC which states that only ( “ soli ” ) clergymen may take offices of governance .
The canon states in §1 : “ Only clerics can obtain offices for whose exercise the power of orders or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or , to quote Schüller , this theologian claims that Pope Francis “ leads ad absurdum ” this canon , which , according to this theologian , is anyway not tenable because there has been an area in Germany in the 19th century – Herford – where the abbesses were able to install priests in their realm , as well as dispense authorizations , i.e.
, they were fulfilling governing roles .
Schüller also insists that the Church herself , in her 1983 Code of Canon Law has already shown her inconsistency by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that lay men and lay women may be judges on ecclesial tribunals , something which has now been even further liberalized by Pope Francis .
Today it is possible that two judges may be laypeople on an ecclesiastical tribunal of three judges , and thus it is possible that laypersons can – and may – outvote one clergyman .
“ He who acts like this , ” comments the theologian , “ is the carrier of judicial authority with regard to the fields of legislation , of the executive , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this reporting , news has come in that Pope Francis has named Dr. Raffaella Vincenti as head of the Vatican Apostolic Library , and Prof. Antonella Sciarrone Alibrandi as a member of the Financial Information Authority board , thus increasing the number of women in leadership roles in the Roman Curia , and thus lending weight to some of the interpretations as set forth by Professor Schüller .

Well-known German Catholic theologian Thomas Schüller says that 'women should be in the future the primary and initial proclaimers of the Gospel. They are the true prophets'
PETITION: Join faithful German Catholics in resisting bishops’ plan to ‘Protestantize’ Church! Sign the petition here.
June 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Thomas Schüller, a well-known Catholic German theologian, claims that Pope Francis' post-synodal exhortation Querida Amazonia shows that the Pope wants to give women real “leadership positions” in the Church, and he proposes that “one should seriously reflect in a courageous manner about the cardinalate.”
In addition, this theologian even sees in this papal text the idea that there was a sort of “two-fold divine incarnational event, a male one in Jesus Christ […], and a female one in Mary” which empowers women “to be witnesses of the Gospel.”
This papal document is about limiting clerical power and empowering lay women, he explains. Or, quoting another Catholic theologian, Michael Böhnke, this document, according to Schüller, is about the “end of a clerical monopoly.”
First acknowledging that Pope Francis has disappointed many by not explicitly endorsing the married priesthood and the female diaconate, Professor Schüller then quotes in his essay — published by the German Catholic journal Herder Korrespondenz (5/2020) a close collaborator and long-term personal secretary of Cardinal Walter Kasper — Monsignor Oliver Lahl, who finds in Querida Amazonia a “hidden hint.” Let us quote here Schüller's words:
“Oliver Lahl, the wise Spiritual Counsellor [at the German Embassy] in Rome, who has loyally served the Roman Curia a long time on the side of the bishop of his home diocese, Cardinal Walter Kasper, thinks that one can read in these contradictions [on the one part, the rejection of clericalism, on the other part the description of the role of women according to Mary] the hidden hint that Pope Francis wishes to de-power male clergymen whom he wishes to limit to leading roles only with regard to the Holy Eucharist and to Penance, together with Extreme Unction, in order to endow women with leadership authority without ordination, and this in a very different, but canonically familiar, manner. Pope Francis [according to Lahl] aims at removing power from the priests and at democratizing different leadership offices which are also open to women.”
LifeSiteNews reached out to Monsignor Lahl who confirmed that his position was correctly presented by Schüller and that he had originally posted such comments on Facebook. It is worth quoting these words at length because they very well might reflect Pope Francis' agenda for the Church since Cardinal Kasper himself has been a close counselor of this Pope. Kasper – whose close collaborator was just presenting here the papal program – himself had told LifeSiteNews in July of 2019 that women do not necessarily need to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders in order to fulfill new leadership roles also with regard to the liturgy. As Kasper told LifeSite, women can today do much more than any female deacon would have done in the past. He mentions here “extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, lectors at the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, leaders and presiders of Liturgies of the Word, next to often important leading functions in the Church's charitable works and administration, as well as those offices in dioceses and in the Roman Curia which are not bound to sacramental ordination.” They can be Eucharistic ministers, they can be lectors, and, as the current development indicates, they might soon officially even give homilies.
“The Church is free to carry out the vocation of women to these offices with the help of a non-sacramental, liturgical blessing;” Kasper told LifeSite, and this could be done “in the presence of the whole congregation and within the celebration of the Holy Eucharist (for example in the context of the Prayers of the Faithful)”
In a sense, one could say that Querida Amazonia (QA) seems to have incorporated yet another Kasper proposal, similar to Amoris Laetitia, also in light of the fact that Cardinal Kasper did participate at one of the preparatory meetings of the Amazon Synod in June of 2019.
Thomas Schüller seems to move in this same direction when he calls women “the true prophets” and demands that women should give “the homilies during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist.”
As he explains earlier on in his essay, Pope Francis sees himself bound by Pope John Paul II's ban on female priests, and thus is looking for alternative ways to promote women's leadership roles in the Church. As the German theologian says, “the Church, as a price for excluding women from ordination, endows them indeed with real leadership authority – and with it, with authority to make decisions.”
“Pope Francis takes this path very clearly,” the theologian continues and points to the fact that this pope has already named several female under-secretaries in the Roman Curia.
In addition, Professor Schüller predicts that curial policy will one day soon contain the sentence “that, in principle, all offices of the Curia are open to women and men, except in those cases, where they are linked with the exercise of the ordained authority.”
With regard to Querida Amazonia, this German theologian and canon lawyer refers to passages in this document where the Pope encourages those female and male Christians who already have roles of responsibility, and with the support of their local bishops, “to continue to proclaim the Word of God, to administer certain sacraments – here might be meant baptism, assistance at marriage ceremonies, and at sacramental Church burials – to teach,” as well as to make use of their individual charisms for the promotion of popular piety (see QA 89).
Before we enter into the discussion of certain canonical aspects, let us first consider what Schüller states about Pope Francis' words on the “two faces of God,” which, he says, could “take one's breath.” They are to be found in Querida Amazonia's paragraph 101, where it says: “The Lord chose to reveal his power and his love through two human faces: the face of his divine Son made man and the face of a creature, a woman, Mary. Women make their contribution to the Church in a way that is properly theirs, by making present the tender strength of Mary, the Mother.” Comments Schüller:
“This sentence nearly seems to indicate as if there had taken place a two-fold divine incarnational event, a male one in Jesus Christ with its continuation in those men who work as clergymen, and a female one in Mary which empowers women to be tender and powerful witnesses of the Gospel. Both are said to be faces of God.”
Moreover, the theologian adds the question as to whether “the ordained men – excluding the deacons according to a decision by Pope Benedict XVI – are acting in persona Christi capitis, while the women are acting in persona Mariae, in order to rule with tenderness and proclaim the Gospel in an inspired manner.”
The theologian admits, however, that this sentence goes far beyond the concept of “Mary as Co-Redemptrix,” since here it “seems to give Mary a soteriological quality,” that is to say, she herself becomes a sort of savior. It is in this light that Schüller thinks that, in continuing the theological reflection as initiated by these papal words, “women should be in the future the primary and initial proclaimers of the Gospel. They are the true prophets.”
If one were to follow these ideas, the Church might wind up having priests as mere “administers of three Sacraments” that are necessarily linked to the Sacrament of Holy Orders – Holy Eucharist, Penance, and Extreme Unction – while women are prominent figures even on the altar during the Holy Mass by giving the homilies and by other prophetic roles of proclamation.
Since these are revolutionary proposals, let us also now consider Schüller's canonical comments, also for the sake of those who might wish to counter them.
The theologian points to footnote 136 of Querida Amazonia, in which Pope Francis refers to canon 517 §2 CIC. This canon provides for bishops to appoint laypeople for certain functions in the parish who represent a priest who is absent but who still officially supervises them. As Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes has pointed out, the papal document quotes this canon in a defective way, since it omits the point that priests are still the authoritative supervisors. Thus, in QA, this canon turns into a possible way of letting laypeople run a parish. As Schüller puts it, Pope Francis insists on the “inculturated and pneumatological” importance of the role of lay pastoral assistants who have received authorization from the bishop, and, at the same time, the Pope reminds priests – “in spite of their prominent role with regard to the Eucharist” – of the abuse of power. Thereby, the author adds, the Pope “expands – on the level of the theology of office, but also ecclesiologically – those fitting pastoral offices which are independent [i.e., not dependent upon a priest] and which are open to men and women without ordination.”
That is to say, Schüller claims that Pope Francis wishes to depart from canon 517§2 in a sense that the supervision by a priest is not anymore to be mandatory. The governance of the Church would thus be cut off from the ordained office, something that Cardinal Cordes says is impossible. Schüller refers here to QA 103, where Pope Francis speaks of laypeople with “real authority” who have been commissioned “by the bishop.” Following his logic, the German professor consequently says that here canon 145 CIC applies which speaks about the nature of an “ecclesiastical office” which is defined as “any function constituted in a stable manner by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance.”
It is clear to this German theologian that Pope Francis believes that “women, without doubt, are already and continue to be able to be bearers of authority of jurisdiction, that is to say of real authority of governance.”
But most importantly, the German theologian proposes that the Church do away with canon 274 CIC which states that only (“soli”) clergymen may take offices of governance. The canon states in §1: “Only clerics can obtain offices for whose exercise the power of orders or the power of ecclesiastical governance is required.” Or, to quote Schüller, this theologian claims that Pope Francis “leads ad absurdum” this canon, which, according to this theologian, is anyway not tenable because there has been an area in Germany in the 19th century – Herford – where the abbesses were able to install priests in their realm, as well as dispense authorizations, i.e., they were fulfilling governing roles.
Schüller also insists that the Church herself, in her 1983 Code of Canon Law has already shown her inconsistency by allowing, in canon 1421 CIC, that lay men and lay women may be judges on ecclesial tribunals, something which has now been even further liberalized by Pope Francis. Today it is possible that two judges may be laypeople on an ecclesiastical tribunal of three judges, and thus it is possible that laypersons can – and may – outvote one clergyman. “He who acts like this,” comments the theologian, “is the carrier of judicial authority with regard to the fields of legislation, of the executive, as well as of jurisdiction.”
At the time of this reporting, news has come in that Pope Francis has named Dr. Raffaella Vincenti as head of the Vatican Apostolic Library, and Prof. Antonella Sciarrone Alibrandi as a member of the Financial Information Authority board, thus increasing the number of women in leadership roles in the Roman Curia, and thus lending weight to some of the interpretations as set forth by Professor Schüller.
Follow Maike Dr. Maike Hickson was born and raised in Germany. She holds a PhD from the University of Hannover, Germany, after having written in Switzerland her doctoral dissertation on the history of Swiss intellectuals before and during World War II. She now lives in the U.S. and is married to Dr. Robert Hickson, and they have been blessed with two beautiful children. She is a happy housewife who likes to write articles when time permits. Dr. Hickson published in 2014 a Festschrift, a collection of some thirty essays written by thoughtful authors in honor of her husband upon his 70th birthday, which is entitled A Catholic Witness in Our Time. Hickson has closely followed the papacy of Pope Francis and the developments in the Catholic Church in Germany, and she has been writing articles on religion and politics for U.S. and European publications and websites such as LifeSiteNews, OnePeterFive, The Wanderer, Rorate Caeli, Catholicism.org, Catholic Family News, Christian Order, Notizie Pro-Vita, Corrispondenza Romana, Katholisches.info, Der Dreizehnte, Zeit-Fragen, and Westfalen-Blatt.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-16--Democrat senators rebuke Trump’s USAID head for opposing abortion abroad

WASHINGTON , D.C. , June 16 , 2020 ( C-Fam ) — A group of pro-abortion U.S. senators have released a letter condemning the Trump administration for trying to exclude abortion from the UN ’ s COVID-19 aid appeal .
Senate Democrats reacted to the unprecedented letter from the head of the United States Agency for International Development ( USAID ) , John Barsa , in which he strongly opposed the UN ’ s use of the coronavirus pandemic to promote abortion around the world .
Barsa ’ s letter states that the phrase “ sexual and reproductive health ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inclusion is proposed in negotiated documents at the UN , and member states are “ deeply divided ” over its use .
He urges the use of “ clear language ” and “ clear action to address the real needs of vulnerable people around the world without promoting abortion , ” especially given the urgency of the COVID-19 response .
The senators argue that removing references to SRH would jeopardize the U.S. ’ s commitments to “ women ’ s economic empowerment , reducing maternal and infant mortality and morbidity , and advancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts.
” However , the U.S. could request explicit references to those aims without using the term with clear ties to abortion .
Senator Bob Menendez , the lead author of the letter rebuking Barsa , was strongly endorsed by Planned Parenthood in his 2018 campaign for reelection , and the vice president of their political action fund , Dawn Laguens , wrote , “ Menendez knows that every woman should have the right to access safe and legal abortion.
” The other signatories have similar records on the issue .
The Senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They accused Barsa of erroneously defining SRH “ to only mean abortion.
” In fact , he made no such claim , arguing only that SRH is controversial because it is closely linked with abortion .
It was defined in 1994 in the Program of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development ( ICPD ) as including abortion where legal , leaving the question of its legality for countries to determine .
But as Barsa noted , the UN has repeatedly pressured countries to change their laws and expand provision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with human rights treaties have issued hundreds of nonbinding observations urging countries to liberalize their abortion laws .
Another misleading aspect of the Senators ’ letter was their accusation that Barsa “ falsely assert [ ed ] that the United Nations supports and promotes abortion as a method of family planning , ” and requesting proof of the same .
However , Barsa made no reference to family planning in his letter .
The consensus at ICPD was that “ in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ contradicting that standard , it does promote abortion in a variety of ways , particularly as an aspect of humanitarian assistance .
For example , in 2014 , the previous Secretary-General issued a guidance note calling for legislation “ to provide women and girls , who become pregnant as a result of rape , with the choice of safe and legal abortion.
” But even the consensus against abortion as a method of family planning is being eroded by UN agencies , such as the World Health Organization , which says “ access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” for women to decide “ the number , spacing and timing of their children ” — the same words used to define family planning at ICPD .

All of the senators who signed the letter have robust pro-abortion records.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 16, 2020 (C-Fam) — A group of pro-abortion U.S. senators have released a letter condemning the Trump administration for trying to exclude abortion from the UN’s COVID-19 aid appeal.
Senate Democrats reacted to the unprecedented letter from the head of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), John Barsa, in which he strongly opposed the UN’s use of the coronavirus pandemic to promote abortion around the world.
Barsa’s letter states that the phrase “sexual and reproductive health” (SRH) is controversial when its inclusion is proposed in negotiated documents at the UN, and member states are “deeply divided” over its use. He urges the use of “clear language” and “clear action to address the real needs of vulnerable people around the world without promoting abortion,” especially given the urgency of the COVID-19 response.
The senators argue that removing references to SRH would jeopardize the U.S.’s commitments to “women’s economic empowerment, reducing maternal and infant mortality and morbidity, and advancing HIV prevention, care, and treatment efforts.” However, the U.S. could request explicit references to those aims without using the term with clear ties to abortion.
Senator Bob Menendez, the lead author of the letter rebuking Barsa, was strongly endorsed by Planned Parenthood in his 2018 campaign for reelection, and the vice president of their political action fund, Dawn Laguens, wrote, “Menendez knows that every woman should have the right to access safe and legal abortion.” The other signatories have similar records on the issue.
The Senators made several misleading claims in their letter. They accused Barsa of erroneously defining SRH “to only mean abortion.” In fact, he made no such claim, arguing only that SRH is controversial because it is closely linked with abortion. It was defined in 1994 in the Program of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) as including abortion where legal, leaving the question of its legality for countries to determine.
But as Barsa noted, the UN has repeatedly pressured countries to change their laws and expand provision of abortion. Expert committees monitoring compliance with human rights treaties have issued hundreds of nonbinding observations urging countries to liberalize their abortion laws.
Another misleading aspect of the Senators’ letter was their accusation that Barsa “falsely assert[ed] that the United Nations supports and promotes abortion as a method of family planning,” and requesting proof of the same.
However, Barsa made no reference to family planning in his letter.
The consensus at ICPD was that “in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.” But while the UN avoids explicitly contradicting that standard, it does promote abortion in a variety of ways, particularly as an aspect of humanitarian assistance.
For example, in 2014, the previous Secretary-General issued a guidance note calling for legislation “to provide women and girls, who become pregnant as a result of rape, with the choice of safe and legal abortion.”
But even the consensus against abortion as a method of family planning is being eroded by UN agencies, such as the World Health Organization, which says “access to legal and safe abortion is essential” for women to decide “the number, spacing and timing of their children” — the same words used to define family planning at ICPD.
Published with permission from C-Fam.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-16--SCOTUS writing transgenderism into law the ‘Roe v. Wade of religious liberty’

PETITION : Tell Trump Christians can ’ t accept SCOTUS ruling imposing LGBT ideology Sign the petition here .
June 16 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Staunch conservatives have slammed yesterday ’ s Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County , which redefined the term “ sex ” in the 1964 Civil Rights Act to mean not simply “ male ” and “ female ” as biological facts , but also “ sexual orientation ” and “ gender identity.
” Josh Hammer of First Liberty Institute called the decision by six justices , including Trump-nominee Neil Gorsuch , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberty.
” “ Bostock is no joke , and it lays bare the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the conservative legal movement , ” he added .
Hammer demanded “ a more forceful conservative legal movement , just as willing as the left to make moral arguments in court , based on principles of justice , natural law ( the rules embedded in our very nature as human beings ) , the common good and the religious and moral traditions underlying Anglo-American constitutional order.
” Speaking of Gorsuch ’ s majority opinion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ qualify as textualism , a legal philosophy according to which a law needs to be interpreted based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text .
“ It ’ s ivory-tower liberalism , ” Hammer wrote .
“ And it ’ s completely at odds with the Supreme Court ’ s longstanding dictum that Congress , in drafting statutes , won ’ t inscribe a hidden meaning in otherwise plain language : As Justice Samuel Alito sharply noted in dissent , ‘ sex , ’ in 1964 , meant biological sex — man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not subjective gender identity.
” Following Bostock v. Clayton , he asked , “ can a Catholic school deny employment to a teacher whose sexual lifestyle blatantly flouts millennia of Catholic moral teaching ?
Can an Orthodox Jewish day school refuse to hire a male teacher who self-identifies as a woman , contravening traditional teaching rooted in Genesis ?
” Princeton University legal scholar Robert P. George referred to the ruling as “ legislation , ” predicting it to have “ far-reaching consequences , including the eventual destruction of all-women ’ s sports.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) politicizes the judiciary and undermines the very thing courts exist to uphold : the Rule of Law .
It will destroy what faith remains in the moral and intellectual integrity of our courts , ” George was convinced .
“ It also vindicates Adrian Vermeule ’ s warning to conservatives that trying to combat the longstanding ‘ progressive ’ strategy of imposing a substantive moral-political agenda through the courts by appointing ‘ originalist ’ and ‘ textualist ’ judges is hopeless , ” he emphasized .
“ Conservatives , Professor Vermeule famously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own version of liberal legal theorist Ronald Dworkin ’ s ‘ moral reading ’ of the Constitution and laws to advance a socially conservative moral and political vision.
” Author of The Benedict Option and conservative columnist Rod Dreher blamed President Trump for pushing Gorsuch ’ s nomination through the Senate .
“ The last reason , though , why religious conservatives should grit their teeth and vote for Trump anyway has now been blasted to smithereens by this decision written by a Trump justice , ” Dreher commented .
“ And not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paradigmatic Trump justice , the man whose place on the Supreme Court was meant to justify religious conservatives turning a blind eye to Trump ’ s many other failures .
This is what ‘ but Gorsuch ’ means .
Those words are like ashes in the mouth today.
” Hans von Spakovsky and Ryan T. Anderson , who are both part of the Heritage Foundation , described the Supreme Court ruling as “ an act of judicial activism , ” with the majority having “ simply legislated from the bench and amended the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislated such an outcome , and it was wrong for the court to usurp lawmakers ’ authority by imposing such an extreme policy on our nation without the consent of the governed , ” they pointed out , echoing the dissent written by Justice Samuel Alito .
Michael Farris , the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association , assured his readers that Bostock v. Clayton County “ does not decide issues of religious exemptions .
The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act , which I helped write , is fully applicable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Court also said that it was not deciding privacy matters such as bathrooms , locker rooms , and women ’ s sports.
” At the same time , Farris spoke of “ an enormous loss ” for people with a biblical worldview .
“ People who legitimately believe that God created us male and female are going to face increased efforts to silence , marginalize , and penalize any dissent , ” he predicted .
John Bursch , Alliance Defending Freedom ’ s Vice President of Appellate Advocacy , commented , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word ‘ sex ’ were put in place to protect equal opportunities for women .
Allowing a court or government bureaucrats to redefine a term with such a clear and important meaning undermines those very opportunities—the ones the law was designed to protect.
” Popular Protestant preacher Franklin Graham , son of the late Billy Graham , said “ this decision erodes religious freedoms across this country .
People of sincere faith who stand on God ’ s Word as their foundation for life should never be forced by the government to compromise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christian organizations “ should never be forced to hire people who do not align with their biblical beliefs and should not be prevented from terminating a person whose lifestyle and beliefs undermine the ministry ’ s purpose and goals.
” “ As a Bible-believing follower of Jesus Christ , my rights should be protected , ” Graham continued .
“ The Supreme Court does not override and will never overturn the Word of God .
One day we will all have to stand before God , the Righteous Judge , whose decisions are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of culture .
His laws are true and are the same yesterday , today , and forever.
” Similarly , Catholic Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler , Texas , tweeted , “ Lord forgive our arrogance !
The highest court of our land May be called Supreme but woe unto us if we ignore GOD ’ S SUPREME TRUTH .
Every person is beloved of God & must be treated accordingly but giving sin a seal of approval is not charity or love !
” Catholic priest and canon lawyer Father Gerald Murray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entered the nightmare world in which each person can not only define for himself the meaning of life , but also deny the reality of his own body , now counting on the federal government to force the rest to buy into that delusion or face the coercive power of the state.
” It appears Murray was referencing retired Justice Anthony Kennedy ’ s infamous treatise in Planned Parenthood v. Casey , which said in part : “ At the heart of liberty is the right to define one 's own concept of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ universe , and of the mystery of human life.
” “ This is what happens when metaphysical realism is abandoned and the will to power takes over as the guiding principle of judicial analysis , ” Murray added in a brief philosophical analysis .
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ( USCCB ) , meanwhile , issued only a very careful statement following Bostock v. Clayton County .
“ I am deeply concerned that the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively redefined the legal meaning of ‘ sex ’ in our nation ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an injustice that will have implications in many areas of life , ” wrote USCCB president Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles .
“ Protecting our neighbors from unjust discrimination does not require redefining human nature , ” Gomez argued , without going into any detail .
Senate Republicans , who voted almost unanimously to confirm Gorsuch to the Supreme Court Justice in 2017 , largely appeared to be fine with Gorsuch ’ s opinion dealing a significant blow to social conservatives .
According to Politico , “ the Republican Party seemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process by which the Supreme Court extended Civil Rights Act protections to gay , lesbian and transgender workers .
President Donald Trump declined to trash the decision , calling it ‘ powerful ’ — and his party largely agreed with the Supreme Court ’ s surprising ruling.
” Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley simply said , “ It ’ s the law of the land .
And it probably makes uniform what a lot of states have already done .
And probably negates Congress ’ s necessity for acting.
” On the other hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process of bringing about the fundamental change to anti-discrimination legislation .
“ This judicial rewriting of our laws short-circuited the legislative process and the authority of the electorate .
Six un-elected and unaccountable judges instead took it upon themselves to act as legislators , and that undermines our democratic process.
” Cruz did not criticize the undermining of natural law and traditional biblical morality .
Already during his confirmation hearings in 2017 , Gorsuch was attacked by some conservatives for his positions and legal philosophy that were seen as too weak .
LifeSiteNews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lengthy February 2017 analysis , “ Neil Gorsuch is a complicated , nuanced , and philosophical thinker rather than a formulaic or ideological jurist who votes along party lines , and it is therefore difficult to reduce his views to a series of public policy stances.
” “ On homosexual non-discrimination and other gay agenda issues : ambiguous , but likely weak , ” he concluded .

'Bostock is no joke, and it lays bare the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the conservative legal movement.'
PETITION: Tell Trump Christians can’t accept SCOTUS ruling imposing LGBT ideology Sign the petition here.
June 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Staunch conservatives have slammed yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which redefined the term “sex” in the 1964 Civil Rights Act to mean not simply “male” and “female” as biological facts, but also “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”
Josh Hammer of First Liberty Institute called the decision by six justices, including Trump-nominee Neil Gorsuch, the “Roe v. Wade of religious liberty.”
“Bostock is no joke, and it lays bare the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the conservative legal movement,” he added.
Hammer demanded “a more forceful conservative legal movement, just as willing as the left to make moral arguments in court, based on principles of justice, natural law (the rules embedded in our very nature as human beings), the common good and the religious and moral traditions underlying Anglo-American constitutional order.”
Speaking of Gorsuch’s majority opinion, he said it did not at all qualify as textualism, a legal philosophy according to which a law needs to be interpreted based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text.
“It’s ivory-tower liberalism,” Hammer wrote. “And it’s completely at odds with the Supreme Court’s longstanding dictum that Congress, in drafting statutes, won’t inscribe a hidden meaning in otherwise plain language: As Justice Samuel Alito sharply noted in dissent, ‘sex,’ in 1964, meant biological sex — man and woman — not orientation and certainly not subjective gender identity.”
Following Bostock v. Clayton, he asked, “can a Catholic school deny employment to a teacher whose sexual lifestyle blatantly flouts millennia of Catholic moral teaching? Can an Orthodox Jewish day school refuse to hire a male teacher who self-identifies as a woman, contravening traditional teaching rooted in Genesis?”
Princeton University legal scholar Robert P. George referred to the ruling as “legislation,” predicting it to have “far-reaching consequences, including the eventual destruction of all-women’s sports.”
“The Bostock ruling (further) politicizes the judiciary and undermines the very thing courts exist to uphold: the Rule of Law. It will destroy what faith remains in the moral and intellectual integrity of our courts,” George was convinced.
“It also vindicates Adrian Vermeule’s warning to conservatives that trying to combat the longstanding ‘progressive’ strategy of imposing a substantive moral-political agenda through the courts by appointing ‘originalist’ and ‘textualist’ judges is hopeless,” he emphasized.
“Conservatives, Professor Vermeule famously argued, need to shift to their own version of liberal legal theorist Ronald Dworkin’s ‘moral reading’ of the Constitution and laws to advance a socially conservative moral and political vision.”
Author of The Benedict Option and conservative columnist Rod Dreher blamed President Trump for pushing Gorsuch’s nomination through the Senate.
“The last reason, though, why religious conservatives should grit their teeth and vote for Trump anyway has now been blasted to smithereens by this decision written by a Trump justice,” Dreher commented.
“And not just a Trump justice, but the paradigmatic Trump justice, the man whose place on the Supreme Court was meant to justify religious conservatives turning a blind eye to Trump’s many other failures. This is what ‘but Gorsuch’ means. Those words are like ashes in the mouth today.”
Hans von Spakovsky and Ryan T. Anderson, who are both part of the Heritage Foundation, described the Supreme Court ruling as “an act of judicial activism,” with the majority having “simply legislated from the bench and amended the statute itself.”
“Congress has not legislated such an outcome, and it was wrong for the court to usurp lawmakers’ authority by imposing such an extreme policy on our nation without the consent of the governed,” they pointed out, echoing the dissent written by Justice Samuel Alito.
Michael Farris, the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, assured his readers that Bostock v. Clayton County “does not decide issues of religious exemptions. The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which I helped write, is fully applicable to all federal claims arising under this decision. The Court also said that it was not deciding privacy matters such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and women’s sports.”
At the same time, Farris spoke of “an enormous loss” for people with a biblical worldview. “People who legitimately believe that God created us male and female are going to face increased efforts to silence, marginalize, and penalize any dissent,” he predicted.
John Bursch, Alliance Defending Freedom’s Vice President of Appellate Advocacy, commented, “Civil rights laws that use the word ‘sex’ were put in place to protect equal opportunities for women. Allowing a court or government bureaucrats to redefine a term with such a clear and important meaning undermines those very opportunities—the ones the law was designed to protect.”
Popular Protestant preacher Franklin Graham, son of the late Billy Graham, said “this decision erodes religious freedoms across this country. People of sincere faith who stand on God’s Word as their foundation for life should never be forced by the government to compromise their religious beliefs.”
He stressed that Christian organizations “should never be forced to hire people who do not align with their biblical beliefs and should not be prevented from terminating a person whose lifestyle and beliefs undermine the ministry’s purpose and goals.”
“As a Bible-believing follower of Jesus Christ, my rights should be protected,” Graham continued. “The Supreme Court does not override and will never overturn the Word of God. One day we will all have to stand before God, the Righteous Judge, whose decisions are not based on politics or the whims of culture. His laws are true and are the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
Similarly, Catholic Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, tweeted, “Lord forgive our arrogance! The highest court of our land May be called Supreme but woe unto us if we ignore GOD’S SUPREME TRUTH. Every person is beloved of God & must be treated accordingly but giving sin a seal of approval is not charity or love!”
Lord forgive our arrogance! The highest court of our land May be called Supreme but woe unto us if we ignore GOD’S SUPREME TRUTH. Every person is beloved of God & must be treated accordingly but giving sin a seal of approval is not charity or love! ������ https://t.co/Eqo7jdLCPf — Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler) June 16, 2020
Catholic priest and canon lawyer Father Gerald Murray summarized on Twitter, “We have entered the nightmare world in which each person can not only define for himself the meaning of life, but also deny the reality of his own body, now counting on the federal government to force the rest to buy into that delusion or face the coercive power of the state.”
It appears Murray was referencing retired Justice Anthony Kennedy’s infamous treatise in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which said in part: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
“This is what happens when metaphysical realism is abandoned and the will to power takes over as the guiding principle of judicial analysis,” Murray added in a brief philosophical analysis.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), meanwhile, issued only a very careful statement following Bostock v. Clayton County.
“I am deeply concerned that the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively redefined the legal meaning of ‘sex’ in our nation’s civil rights law. This is an injustice that will have implications in many areas of life,” wrote USCCB president Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles.
“Protecting our neighbors from unjust discrimination does not require redefining human nature,” Gomez argued, without going into any detail.
Senate Republicans, who voted almost unanimously to confirm Gorsuch to the Supreme Court Justice in 2017, largely appeared to be fine with Gorsuch’s opinion dealing a significant blow to social conservatives.
According to Politico, “the Republican Party seemed generally supportive of both the substance and process by which the Supreme Court extended Civil Rights Act protections to gay, lesbian and transgender workers. President Donald Trump declined to trash the decision, calling it ‘powerful’ — and his party largely agreed with the Supreme Court’s surprising ruling.”
Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley simply said, “It’s the law of the land. And it probably makes uniform what a lot of states have already done. And probably negates Congress’s necessity for acting.”
On the other hand, Texas Senator Ted Cruz criticized the process of bringing about the fundamental change to anti-discrimination legislation.
“This judicial rewriting of our laws short-circuited the legislative process and the authority of the electorate. Six un-elected and unaccountable judges instead took it upon themselves to act as legislators, and that undermines our democratic process.”
Cruz did not criticize the undermining of natural law and traditional biblical morality.
Already during his confirmation hearings in 2017, Gorsuch was attacked by some conservatives for his positions and legal philosophy that were seen as too weak.
LifeSiteNews’ Matthew Cullinan Hoffman stated in a lengthy February 2017 analysis, “Neil Gorsuch is a complicated, nuanced, and philosophical thinker rather than a formulaic or ideological jurist who votes along party lines, and it is therefore difficult to reduce his views to a series of public policy stances.”
“On homosexual non-discrimination and other gay agenda issues: ambiguous, but likely weak,” he concluded.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-16--UN Population Fund officially adopts pro-abortion mandate despite US objections

NEW YORK , June 16 , 2020 ( C-Fam ) — The Executive Board of the UN Population Fund approved a change to the agency ’ s strategy that will allow the agency to promote abortion as a humanitarian right .
Despite ongoing efforts of Trump administration officials to stop UN abortion advocacy , the U.S. delegation at the United Nations was unable to prevent pro-abortion changes to the strategic plan of the UN Population Fund during a virtual meeting of the Executive Board of the agency on Friday , June 5 .
The strategy now includes a pro-abortion manifesto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Nairobi Summit Statement includes “ access to abortion to the full extent of the law ” as part of the “ the right to sexual and reproductive health services in humanitarian and fragile contexts.
” It also expanded the definition of “ sexual and reproductive health ” to include homosexual and transgender rights as requested by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute and the Lancet medical journal .
The Nairobi Summit Statement was not negotiated or backed by the UN General Assembly , where such notions are often rejected .
Pro-life and pro-family organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hosted by UN Population Fund and the governments of Denmark and Kenya .
Many countries chose not to participate due to the agency ’ s disregard for multilateralism .
The Trump administration opposed the Nairobi Summit commitments in a strongly worded statement in November 2019 .
But at the June 5 meeting of the UNFPA Executive Board the U.S. and other like-minded countries were unable to block the Summit commitments from being added to the agency strategic plan .
Last week as negotiations came to an impasse the chair offered a compromise draft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries with pro-life concerns accepted .
The compromise was to include a reference to a 2017 decision of the Executive Board of the UN Population Fund that says the agency ’ s strategic plan can only be implemented in line with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development ( ICPD ) and “ in conformity with internationally recognized human rights.
” The 1994 agreement adopted by the General Assembly provides UNFPA their mandate and strictly rules out abortion advocacy .
Member states with pro-life concerns hope the caveat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s abortion promotion .
However , in a just issued report on the Nairobi Summit , the UN Population Fund claims that the countries who attended the Nairobi Summit “ all agreed ” to an “ essential package of sexual and reproductive health and rights interventions , ” including “ access to safe abortion.
” Yet , in Nairobi several countries joined the United States in objecting to the notion of abortion as a right , and only one country made a statement explicitly committing itself to providing abortions .
The change to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency may prove a watershed moment in UN abortion advocacy .
Until now everything the UN Population Fund has done to promote abortion has been illegal .
The UN agreements that govern the work of the agency prohibit abortion advocacy from international organizations .
UN agreements touching on abortion expressly reserve decisions about the legality of abortion to national debates .
And they only allow international agencies to address the health impacts of abortion and to help women avoid abortion .
Now , the June 5 decision could give the UN Population Fund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right .

The change to the strategic plan of the UN Population agency may prove a watershed moment in UN abortion advocacy.
NEW YORK, June 16, 2020 (C-Fam) — The Executive Board of the UN Population Fund approved a change to the agency’s strategy that will allow the agency to promote abortion as a humanitarian right.
Despite ongoing efforts of Trump administration officials to stop UN abortion advocacy, the U.S. delegation at the United Nations was unable to prevent pro-abortion changes to the strategic plan of the UN Population Fund during a virtual meeting of the Executive Board of the agency on Friday, June 5. The strategy now includes a pro-abortion manifesto called the “Nairobi Summit Statement.”
The Nairobi Summit Statement includes “access to abortion to the full extent of the law” as part of the “the right to sexual and reproductive health services in humanitarian and fragile contexts.”
It also expanded the definition of “sexual and reproductive health” to include homosexual and transgender rights as requested by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute and the Lancet medical journal.
The Nairobi Summit Statement was not negotiated or backed by the UN General Assembly, where such notions are often rejected. Pro-life and pro-family organizations were not permitted to attend the conference hosted by UN Population Fund and the governments of Denmark and Kenya. Many countries chose not to participate due to the agency’s disregard for multilateralism.
The Trump administration opposed the Nairobi Summit commitments in a strongly worded statement in November 2019. But at the June 5 meeting of the UNFPA Executive Board the U.S. and other like-minded countries were unable to block the Summit commitments from being added to the agency strategic plan.
Last week as negotiations came to an impasse the chair offered a compromise draft decision that the U.S. delegation and like-minded countries with pro-life concerns accepted.
The compromise was to include a reference to a 2017 decision of the Executive Board of the UN Population Fund that says the agency’s strategic plan can only be implemented in line with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) and “in conformity with internationally recognized human rights.” The 1994 agreement adopted by the General Assembly provides UNFPA their mandate and strictly rules out abortion advocacy.
Member states with pro-life concerns hope the caveat will slow the UN Population Fund’s abortion promotion.
However, in a just issued report on the Nairobi Summit, the UN Population Fund claims that the countries who attended the Nairobi Summit “all agreed” to an “essential package of sexual and reproductive health and rights interventions,” including “access to safe abortion.”
Yet, in Nairobi several countries joined the United States in objecting to the notion of abortion as a right, and only one country made a statement explicitly committing itself to providing abortions.
The change to the strategic plan of the UN Population agency may prove a watershed moment in UN abortion advocacy. Until now everything the UN Population Fund has done to promote abortion has been illegal.
The UN agreements that govern the work of the agency prohibit abortion advocacy from international organizations. UN agreements touching on abortion expressly reserve decisions about the legality of abortion to national debates. And they only allow international agencies to address the health impacts of abortion and to help women avoid abortion.
Now, the June 5 decision could give the UN Population Fund cover to promote abortion as a humanitarian right.
Published with permission from C-Fam.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-16--Join our daily worldwide rosary HERE

Join our daily worldwide rosary HERE

June 16 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In response to the coronavirus crisis , LifeSite is offering Catholics throughout the world a chance to be united in praying the rosary together , at the same time , every day at 12:00 noon EST .
The rosary is led by Father Anthony Pillari , an American priest currently in Italy .
To date , Catholics from Israel , Uganda , Italy , France , Germany , Ireland , the United Kingdom , the U.S. , Canada , Mexico , Chile , Brazil , Australia , New Zealand , the Philippines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well as other countries , have been joining in .
The whole world – including the Church – has been thrown into chaos because of the coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) .
Thousands of people have passed away as a result of the viral outbreak , while thousands more have been sickened .
And , across the world , business has come to a grinding halt , resulting in sudden job loss and threatening economic recession .
If there ever was a time for prayer , this is it .
Catholics around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Sacraments , but in many places are unable to access them because of bishops ’ orders or government restrictions .
We know that community with other believers is vital all the time , but especially during this time of global calls for “ sheltering-in-place ” and quarantine .
“ The rosary is the weapon for these times , ” St. Padre Pio said .
Through prayer , we can shape history , change the world , and bring this painful crisis to an end .
Join us today !
Send photos or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rosary with Father Pillari to [ email protected ]

(LifeSiteNews) — In response to the crisis unfolding in our world and in the Church, LifeSite is happy to promote Regina Angelorum Press’s Daily Rosary, which is offering Catholics throughout the world the chance to be united daily in prayer, in the Our Lady of Fatima Rosary Crusade.
Catholics from all over the world — from Israel, Uganda, Italy, France, Germany, Ireland, Pakistan, Singapore, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and other countries — are gathering daily to pray the Rosary, led by Father Pillari, JCL, MCL, STL, an American priest currently studying in Italy.
The Daily Rosary is being offered each day at 12noon EST through Regina Angelorum Press’ YouTube Channel to which you can subscribe HERE.
The goal is, by means of this Daily Rosary and by embracing and living out the message given by the Virgin Mary at Fatima, the triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.
To help obtain that goal, Bishop Athanasius Schneider graciously composed the following prayer for this worldwide Rosary crusade:
O Immaculate Heart of Mary, you are the holy Mother of God and our tender Mother. Look upon the distress in which the Church and the whole of humanity are living because of the spread of materialism and the persecution of the Church. In Fatima you warned against these errors, as you spoke about the errors of Russia. You are the Mediatrix of all graces. Implore your Divine Son to grant this special grace for the Pope: that he might consecrate Russia to your Immaculate Heart, so that Russia will be converted, a period of peace will be granted to the world, and your Immaculate Heart will triumph, through an authentic renewal of the Church in the splendor of the purity of the Catholic Faith, of the sacredness of Divine worship and of the holiness of the Christian life. O Queen of the holy Rosary and our sweet Mother, turn your merciful eyes to us and graciously hear this our trusting prayer. Amen. + Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
To learn more about the urgency of responding to Our Lady’s message at Fatima, and about what you can do, please read Cardinal Burke’s 2017 address at the Rome Life Forum.
As St. Padre Pio once said, “The Rosary is the weapon for these times.” Through prayer, God can shape history, change the world, and bring about a great time of renewal and peace for the Church and for the world, through the triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. Join us today!
If you would like to follow along with the prayers said during this Rosary, you can access them HERE. The document also includes a brief F.A.Q. pertaining to the daily Rosary.
You can send your prayer requests to https://reginangelorumpress.com/prayer-intentions/
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-16--Petition asking DC’s Archbishop Gregory to apologize to President Trump hits 33,800

PETITION : Ask Archbishop Gregory to apologize to President Trump and the Knights of Columbus !
Sign the petition here .
June 16 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — After less than only two weeks , LifeSite ’ s petition asking Washington ’ s Archbishop Wilton Gregory to apologize to President Trump and the Knights of Columbus has already attracted nearly 35,000 signatures .
“ Catholics are disappointed in their leadership , ” said Scott Schittl , one of LifeSite ’ s campaign coordinators .
“ They are calling on Archbishop Gregory to encourage prayer , not with divisive remarks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gestures.
” The petition asks Archbishop Gregory to offer President Trump and the Knights of Columbus an apology for , and withdraw , the remarks he made about a pre-arranged presidential visit to the National Shrine of Pope St. John Paul II , which is maintained by the Knights of Columbus .
Using unusually caustic and unwelcoming remarks , Gregory called the president ’ s visit “ baffling and reprehensible.
” He went on to suggest that the Shrine and the Knights of Columbus allowed themselves to be “ egregiously misused and manipulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dispel some of the archbishop ’ s misapprehension of events , the Knights released their own statement about the presidential visit , which was far more gracious in tone : Indeed , it was especially fitting , given that President Trump had just signed a new executive order on religious freedom just a few days before his visit to the Shrine .
In the current atmosphere , where tensions are running high , the need for reconciliation and unity on the matter of prayer and the benefit to be gained from visiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virtues of Pope St. John Paul II , who was a strong defender of human rights , should be encouraged .
“ Catholics and Christians are clamoring for our spiritual leaders to lead , and not resort to the same type of political point-scoring as our secular politicians , ” said Schittl .
“ Catholics are calling on the archbishop to extend the hand of friendship and seek recourse in prayer , wishing the best for the president and the first lady.
” As no words of reconciliation are yet forthcoming from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you haven ’ t yet signed , please consider signing and sharing with your like-minded family , friends , and colleagues .
Please CLICK HERE to read and sign the petition .
Thank you !

Using unusually caustic and unwelcoming remarks, Gregory called the president’s visit to a Catholic shrine in D.C. 'baffling and reprehensible.'
PETITION: Ask Archbishop Gregory to apologize to President Trump and the Knights of Columbus! Sign the petition here.
June 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — After less than only two weeks, LifeSite’s petition asking Washington’s Archbishop Wilton Gregory to apologize to President Trump and the Knights of Columbus has already attracted nearly 35,000 signatures.
“Catholics are disappointed in their leadership,” said Scott Schittl, one of LifeSite’s campaign coordinators. “They are calling on Archbishop Gregory to encourage prayer, not with divisive remarks but with welcoming, inclusive statements and gestures.”
The petition asks Archbishop Gregory to offer President Trump and the Knights of Columbus an apology for, and withdraw, the remarks he made about a pre-arranged presidential visit to the National Shrine of Pope St. John Paul II, which is maintained by the Knights of Columbus.
Using unusually caustic and unwelcoming remarks, Gregory called the president’s visit “baffling and reprehensible.”
He went on to suggest that the Shrine and the Knights of Columbus allowed themselves to be “egregiously misused and manipulated” by the president.
But, to dispel some of the archbishop’s misapprehension of events, the Knights released their own statement about the presidential visit, which was far more gracious in tone:
This [President Trump’s visit] was fitting given St. John Paul II was a tireless advocate of religious liberty throughout his pontificate. International religious freedom receives widespread bipartisan support, including unanimous passage of legislation in defense of persecuted Christians and religious minorities around the world.
Indeed, it was especially fitting, given that President Trump had just signed a new executive order on religious freedom just a few days before his visit to the Shrine.
In the current atmosphere, where tensions are running high, the need for reconciliation and unity on the matter of prayer and the benefit to be gained from visiting holy sites, as well as extolling the virtues of Pope St. John Paul II, who was a strong defender of human rights, should be encouraged.
“Catholics and Christians are clamoring for our spiritual leaders to lead, and not resort to the same type of political point-scoring as our secular politicians,” said Schittl. “Catholics are calling on the archbishop to extend the hand of friendship and seek recourse in prayer, wishing the best for the president and the first lady.”
As no words of reconciliation are yet forthcoming from Archbishop Gregory, this petition remains active. If you haven’t yet signed, please consider signing and sharing with your like-minded family, friends, and colleagues.
Please CLICK HERE to read and sign the petition. Thank you!
Share