lifesitenews--2020-04-02--Maryland gov. no longer calls churches ‘non-essential,’ still prohibits Sacraments

ANNAPOLIS , Maryland , April 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Maryland Governor Larry Hogan has issued new “ interpretive guidelines ” revising former official directives which had deemed clergy and churches as “ non-essential ” due to the coronavirus pandemic .
The state has relaxed restrictions on certain activities , but continues to prohibit Sacraments such as Baptisms and the Anointing of the Sick .
On Monday , Maryland ’ s Office of Legal Counsel ( OLC ) published guidance on Hogan ’ s order to state residents to “ shelter in place , ” which had decreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other similar religious facilities are considered ‘ Non-Essential Businesses.
’ ” Clergy were essentially limited to “ facilitating remote worship , ” virtually reducing religious services to those conducted via the Internet .
The OLC has now walked back that stance , allowing for parking lot services but forbidding direct physical contact between clergy and the faithful .
The revised interpretive guidelines , while now permitting “ Limited in-person services , ” requires that “ Participants , clergy , and staff must be at least six feet apart from one another at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Sacraments impossible .
LifeSiteNews has reached out to the Archdiocese of Washington , D.C. ( ADW ) , which encompasses five Maryland counties , to see if “ drive-in Masses ” might now be permitted by Archbishop Wilton Gregory .
The ADW ’ s online coronavirus statement has not been updated since March 12 , 2020 .
The Archdiocese of Baltimore , which lies fully within the state of Maryland , has not posted new guidelines following the recent relaxing of Governor Hogan ’ s shelter-in-place directive , and was last updated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has reached out to the Baltimore Archdiocese to see if the guidelines will be changed as a result of the new interpretive guidance from the Maryland OLC , and will update this article if new information becomes available .
Here are the Archdiocese of Baltimore ’ s current guidelines due to the coronavirus : Gov .
Larry Hogan announced March 30 that the State of Maryland is implementing a shelter-in-place policy for all Marylanders .
This standard will be applied in the Archdiocese of Baltimore .
Archbishop William E. Lori has instructed churches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will no longer be open for private prayer , confession or adoration of the Blessed Sacrament .
“ Like Governor Hogan , I want to take every precaution and every step necessary to ensure the health of the people we serve , ” Archbishop Lori said .
“ While no bishop wants to ever close a church to one seeking closeness to God , I pray that in doing so we prevent further suffering , further death and will be closer to the day when we can reopen our church doors to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ALL MASSES are to be offered without the physical presence of the faithful until further notice .
There are no exceptions .
Masses may not be celebrated for small groups of the faithful in chapels or homes .
For a list of parishes that livestream their Masses via radio , television or the Internet , visit www.archbalt.org/online-mass .
No formal Stations of the Cross services may be scheduled .
Archbishop Lori conducted a livestreamed Stations of the Cross from the Cathedral of Mary Our Queen March 20 .
The recording may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
BAPTISM , WEDDINGS and FUNERALS- No baptisms or weddings will be offered while Gov .
Hogan ’ s shelter-in-place restrictions are in effect .
No funerals will be offered ; only graveside services with a limit of no more than 10 people present .
CONFIRMATION- All Confirmation Masses are suspended until further notice , and will be rescheduled once restrictions are lifted .
RECONCILIATION- The Archdiocesan-wide “ Day of Reconciliation ” has been canceled .
While Gov .
Larry Hogan ’ s shelter-in-place policy is in effect , churches will not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The archbishop has instructed priests not to offer the Sacrament of Reconciliation in parishes and to only perform the sacraments in cases where the individual is in danger of dying .
ANOINTING OF THE SICK- The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick will only be administered in cases when death is imminent .
Here are the revised interpretive guidelines issued by the State of Maryland ’ s Office of Legal Counsel issued April 1 , 2020 : • Drive-In Religious Services .
Churches , synagogues , mosques , temples , and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Religious Facilities ” ) may conduct “ drive-in ” services , where participants gather in their vehicles near the Religious Facility and participate in the service together by remote means , subject to the following requirements , which are intended to protect public health , safety , and welfare : • Participants may leave their Homes to travel by vehicle to and from the Religious Facility , and must remain in their vehicle at all times .
• No vehicle may contain more than 10 persons , in accordance with paragraph III @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not interact physically with clergy , staff , or participants in other vehicles .
This includes , but is not limited to , collecting donations by basket or plate .
• Limited In-Person Services .
Clergy may conduct limited in-person services at their respective Religious Facilities , and participants may leave their Homes to travel to and from the Religious Facility for such services , subject to the following requirements , which are intended to protect public health , safety , and welfare : • No more than 10 persons , including clergy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present inside the Religious Facility during the service .
• Participants may not interact physically with clergy , staff , or participants .
This includes , but is not limited to , collecting donations by basket or plate .
• Participants , clergy , and staff must ( i ) be at least six feet apart from one another at all times , except for participants that are part of the same household ; and ( ii ) comply with all applicable guidance from the CDC and MDH regarding social distancing .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hour gap between the end of one in-person service and the beginning of the next in-person service .
The Religious Facility should be cleaned between services , in accordance with CDC cleaning and disinfection guidance .
• Minimal Operations at Religious Facilities .
Clergy and other staff of Religious Facilities are permitted to continue conducting Minimal Operations under paragraph IV.c of the Order , provided that they comply with all applicable guidance from the CDC and MDH regarding social distancing .
In the case of religious facilities , the term “ Minimal Operations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited to , facilitating remote services .
• Effect on Prior Interpretive Guidance .
Paragraph 6 of Interpretive Guidance COVID19-08 is rescinded and superseded by this document .

Clergy are banned from going within six feet of parishioners, making it impossible to baptize them or give them Holy Communion.
Urgent appeal to bishops: Fight to make sacraments more available to your faithful Sign the petition here.
ANNAPOLIS, Maryland, April 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Maryland Governor Larry Hogan has issued new “interpretive guidelines” revising former official directives which had deemed clergy and churches as “non-essential” due to the coronavirus pandemic. The state has relaxed restrictions on certain activities, but continues to prohibit Sacraments such as Baptisms and the Anointing of the Sick.
On Monday, Maryland’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) published guidance on Hogan’s order to state residents to “shelter in place,” which had decreed “Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other similar religious facilities are considered ‘Non-Essential Businesses.’” Clergy were essentially limited to “facilitating remote worship,” virtually reducing religious services to those conducted via the Internet.
The OLC has now walked back that stance, allowing for parking lot services but forbidding direct physical contact between clergy and the faithful.
The revised interpretive guidelines, while now permitting “Limited in-person services,” requires that “Participants, clergy, and staff must be at least six feet apart from one another at all times,” rendering the administration of Sacraments impossible.
LifeSiteNews has reached out to the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. (ADW), which encompasses five Maryland counties, to see if “drive-in Masses” might now be permitted by Archbishop Wilton Gregory. The ADW’s online coronavirus statement has not been updated since March 12, 2020.
The Archdiocese of Baltimore, which lies fully within the state of Maryland, has not posted new guidelines following the recent relaxing of Governor Hogan’s shelter-in-place directive, and was last updated on March 31, 2020.
LifeSiteNews has reached out to the Baltimore Archdiocese to see if the guidelines will be changed as a result of the new interpretive guidance from the Maryland OLC, and will update this article if new information becomes available. Here are the Archdiocese of Baltimore’s current guidelines due to the coronavirus:
Archdiocese of Baltimore Guidelines
Gov. Larry Hogan announced March 30 that the State of Maryland is implementing a shelter-in-place policy for all Marylanders. This standard will be applied in the Archdiocese of Baltimore. Archbishop William E. Lori has instructed churches throughout the archdiocese to close. Churches will no longer be open for private prayer, confession or adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.
“Like Governor Hogan, I want to take every precaution and every step necessary to ensure the health of the people we serve,” Archbishop Lori said. “While no bishop wants to ever close a church to one seeking closeness to God, I pray that in doing so we prevent further suffering, further death and will be closer to the day when we can reopen our church doors to the people we so deeply love and miss.”
Liturgical
Masses
ALL MASSES are to be offered without the physical presence of the faithful until further notice. There are no exceptions. Masses may not be celebrated for small groups of the faithful in chapels or homes. For a list of parishes that livestream their Masses via radio, television or the Internet, visit www.archbalt.org/online-mass.
Stations of the Cross
No formal Stations of the Cross services may be scheduled. Archbishop Lori conducted a livestreamed Stations of the Cross from the Cathedral of Mary Our Queen March 20. The recording may be viewed on the Cathedral’s website.
Sacraments/Liturgical Events
BAPTISM, WEDDINGS and FUNERALS- No baptisms or weddings will be offered while Gov. Hogan’s shelter-in-place restrictions are in effect. No funerals will be offered; only graveside services with a limit of no more than 10 people present.
CONFIRMATION– All Confirmation Masses are suspended until further notice, and will be rescheduled once restrictions are lifted.
RECONCILIATION– The Archdiocesan-wide “Day of Reconciliation” has been canceled. While Gov. Larry Hogan’s shelter-in-place policy is in effect, churches will not be open for the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The archbishop has instructed priests not to offer the Sacrament of Reconciliation in parishes and to only perform the sacraments in cases where the individual is in danger of dying.
ANOINTING OF THE SICK– The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick will only be administered in cases when death is imminent.
Here are the revised interpretive guidelines issued by the State of Maryland’s Office of Legal Counsel issued April 1, 2020:
Drive-In Religious Services. Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other similar religious facilities of any faith (“Religious Facilities”) may conduct “drive-in” services, where participants gather in their vehicles near the Religious Facility and participate in the service together by remote means, subject to the following requirements, which are intended to protect public health, safety, and welfare:
Participants may leave their Homes to travel by vehicle to and from the Religious Facility, and must remain in their vehicle at all times.
No vehicle may contain more than 10 persons, in accordance with paragraph III of the Order.
Participants may not interact physically with clergy, staff, or participants in other vehicles. This includes, but is not limited to, collecting donations by basket or plate.
Limited In-Person Services. Clergy may conduct limited in-person services at their respective Religious Facilities, and participants may leave their Homes to travel to and from the Religious Facility for such services, subject to the following requirements, which are intended to protect public health, safety, and welfare:
No more than 10 persons, including clergy, staff and participants, may be present inside the Religious Facility during the service.
Participants may not interact physically with clergy, staff, or participants. This includes, but is not limited to, collecting donations by basket or plate.
Participants, clergy, and staff must (i) be at least six feet apart from one another at all times, except for participants that are part of the same household; and (ii) comply with all applicable guidance from the CDC and MDH regarding social distancing.
There must be at least a four hour gap between the end of one in-person service and the beginning of the next in-person service. The Religious Facility should be cleaned between services, in accordance with CDC cleaning and disinfection guidance.
Minimal Operations at Religious Facilities. Clergy and other staff of Religious Facilities are permitted to continue conducting Minimal Operations under paragraph IV.c of the Order, provided that they comply with all applicable guidance from the CDC and MDH regarding social distancing. In the case of religious facilities, the term “Minimal Operations” includes, but is not necessarily limited to, facilitating remote services. Effect on Prior Interpretive Guidance. Paragraph 6 of Interpretive Guidance COVID19-08 is rescinded and superseded by this document.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-02--Almost half of Americans see coronavirus as ‘wake-up call’ from God: poll

WASHINGTON , D.C. , April 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Almost half of Americans see the coronavirus pandemic as a “ wake-up call ” from God “ to turn back to faith , ” and one third see it as the “ last days ” as foretold in the Bible , according to a national poll .
Moreover , Christians and non-Christians alike are turning to the Bible and religion as the crisis continues , it found .
“ That may be the most important silver lining in this crisis so far , ” says Joel Rosenberg , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commissioned the survey .
“ Americans in near full lockdown are anxious , and understandably so .
Yet millions are turning to God , the Bible , and Christian sermons for answers , some of them for the first time , ” he told the Washington Examiner .
The Joshua Fund is an Israel-based evangelical Christian charitable and educational organization Rosenberg and his wife Lynn created to “ mobilize Christians to bless Israel and her neighbors in the name of Jesus.
” Their survey , conducted by McLaughlin & Associates , was part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ likely ” American voters with a diversity of religious beliefs , according to a Joshua Fund report .
It found that 44.3 percent of respondents said the coronavirus crisis is a “ wake-up call for us to turn back to faith in God ” and a “ sign of coming judgment , ” or both .
According to Joshua Fund posted results , those who agreed : • 39.3 % of single people ( compared to 49 % of married people ) Moreover , 29 percent of respondents “ said they believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are living in what the Bible calls the ‘ last days.
’ ” According to the Washington Examiner , those who agreed with the “ last days ” prediction were : One fifth , or 22 percent , of respondents who self-identified as non-Christian said they have more interest in God and spiritual matters because of the crisis .
That figure rose to 40 percent for respondents who identified as Christian .
The coronavirus pandemic and attendant massive societal upheaval and uncertainty , as well as threat of imminent death , are “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and listen to Bible teaching and Christian sermons online even though they usually don ’ t , search online to learn more about Bible prophecy and God ’ s plan for the future of mankind , and have more spiritual conversations with family and friends , ” the Joshua Fund reported .
Rosenberg is a bestselling author of fiction and nonfiction books that center on Middle East politics and is described by the Washington Examiner as “ best known for writing about worst-case scenarios and pandemics.
” Echoing the findings of the Joshua @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll of 11,537 U.S. adults conducted between March 19 and 24 , 2020 also found that Americans say they are turning to God in the face of the Wuhan flu pandemic .
“ More than half of all U.S. adults ( 55 % ) say they have prayed for an end to the spread of coronavirus , ” reported Pew Research .
“ Large majorities of Americans who pray daily ( 86 % ) and of U.S. Christians ( 73 % ) have taken to prayer during the outbreak — but so have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pray and people who say they do not belong to any religion ( 15 % and 24 % , respectively ) , ” it reported .
Pew Research found that 59 percent of Americans who normally attend religious services at least once or twice a month have “ scaled back their attendance most ( 59 % ) now say they have scaled back their attendance because of the coronavirus — in many cases , presumably because churches and other houses of worship have canceled services.
” However , “ this does not mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : A similar share ( 57 % ) reports having watched religious services online or on TV instead of attending in person .
Together , four-in-ten regular worshippers appear to have replaced in-person attendance with virtual worship ( saying that they have been attending less often but watching online instead ) , ” Pew Research stated .
Meanwhile , prominent Catholic clergy have stated they believe that the Wuhan flu is a “ wake-up ” from God .
Notably , German cardinal Paul Josef Cordes and Bishop Athanasius Schneider described the pandemic as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum , wrote in an article in the German-language edition of Catholic News Agency March 20 that “ God ’ s Word also clearly states that life contrary to God can lead to illness , ” as reported by LifeSite ’ s Martin Bürger .
Schneider , auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Mary Most Holy in Astana , Kazakhstan , called the coronavirus pandemic “ a divine intervention to chastise and purify the sinful world and also the Church .
”

The same poll found that a third of Americans consider the coronavirus panic a sign of 'the last days.'
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Almost half of Americans see the coronavirus pandemic as a “wake-up call” from God “to turn back to faith,” and one third see it as the “last days” as foretold in the Bible, according to a national poll.
Moreover, Christians and non-Christians alike are turning to the Bible and religion as the crisis continues, it found.
“That may be the most important silver lining in this crisis so far,” says Joel Rosenberg, whose organization, the Joshua Fund, commissioned the survey.
“Americans in near full lockdown are anxious, and understandably so. Yet millions are turning to God, the Bible, and Christian sermons for answers, some of them for the first time,” he told the Washington Examiner.
The Joshua Fund is an Israel-based evangelical Christian charitable and educational organization Rosenberg and his wife Lynn created to “mobilize Christians to bless Israel and her neighbors in the name of Jesus.”
Their survey, conducted by McLaughlin & Associates, was part of a larger national poll of 1,000 “likely” American voters with a diversity of religious beliefs, according to a Joshua Fund report.
It found that 44.3 percent of respondents said the coronavirus crisis is a “wake-up call for us to turn back to faith in God” and a “sign of coming judgment,” or both.
According to Joshua Fund posted results, those who agreed:
42% of Jewish Americans
25.4% of self-identified “secular” Americans
39.3% of single people (compared to 49% of married people)
54% of military household
51.7% of Hispanic-Americans
63.6% of African-Americans
40.3% of whites
26.3% of Asian-Americans
41.8% of young people, age 18–29
46.6% of people age 30–40
42.8% of people age 41–55
50.9% of people age 56–65
39.6% of people over 65
Moreover, 29 percent of respondents “said they believe that this crisis indicates that ‘We are living in what the Bible calls the ‘last days.’”
According to the Washington Examiner, those who agreed with the “last days” prediction were:
30% of Jewish Americans
30% of Democrats
39% of Republicans
40% of African-Americans
50% of Hispanics
One fifth, or 22 percent, of respondents who self-identified as non-Christian said they have more interest in God and spiritual matters because of the crisis. That figure rose to 40 percent for respondents who identified as Christian.
The coronavirus pandemic and attendant massive societal upheaval and uncertainty, as well as threat of imminent death, are “causing them to start reading the Bible and listen to Bible teaching and Christian sermons online even though they usually don’t, search online to learn more about Bible prophecy and God’s plan for the future of mankind, and have more spiritual conversations with family and friends,” the Joshua Fund reported.
Rosenberg is a bestselling author of fiction and nonfiction books that center on Middle East politics and is described by the Washington Examiner as “best known for writing about worst-case scenarios and pandemics.”
Echoing the findings of the Joshua Fund survey, a Pew Research Center poll of 11,537 U.S. adults conducted between March 19 and 24, 2020 also found that Americans say they are turning to God in the face of the Wuhan flu pandemic.
“More than half of all U.S. adults (55%) say they have prayed for an end to the spread of coronavirus,” reported Pew Research.
“Large majorities of Americans who pray daily (86%) and of U.S. Christians (73%) have taken to prayer during the outbreak — but so have some who say they seldom or never pray and people who say they do not belong to any religion (15% and 24%, respectively),” it reported.
Pew Research found that 59 percent of Americans who normally attend religious services at least once or twice a month have “scaled back their attendance most (59%) now say they have scaled back their attendance because of the coronavirus — in many cases, presumably because churches and other houses of worship have canceled services.”
However, “this does not mean they have disengaged from collective worship entirely: A similar share (57%) reports having watched religious services online or on TV instead of attending in person. Together, four-in-ten regular worshippers appear to have replaced in-person attendance with virtual worship (saying that they have been attending less often but watching online instead),” Pew Research stated.
Meanwhile, prominent Catholic clergy have stated they believe that the Wuhan flu is a “wake-up” from God.
Notably, German cardinal Paul Josef Cordes and Bishop Athanasius Schneider described the pandemic as a chastisement.
Cordes, former president of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, wrote in an article in the German-language edition of Catholic News Agency March 20 that “God’s Word also clearly states that life contrary to God can lead to illness,” as reported by LifeSite’s Martin Bürger.
Schneider, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Mary Most Holy in Astana, Kazakhstan, called the coronavirus pandemic “a divine intervention to chastise and purify the sinful world and also the Church.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-02--LGBT activists slam New York COVID-19 field hospital – because it’s run by Christians

April 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – As New York City becomes the epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States , the city is going into lockdown .
Frontline healthcare workers are preparing for shortages of beds and equipment , and the USNS Comfort , a massive hospital ship , has arrived to help deal with the influx of patients .
Samaritan ’ s Purse , a Christian humanitarian organization that , among other things , brings medical professionals and supplies to war zones and disaster hotspots around the world , has set up a 68-bed field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 70 medical staff to treat coronavirus patients .
The arrival of Samaritan ’ s Purse was heartily welcomed , especially as they managed to set up an overflow hospital to relieve the strain on packed Manhattan hospitals .
Solidarity is essential , and in the face of the pandemic , differences have been put aside in order to save lives and assist exhausted frontline workers .
Mt .
Sinai Hospital has stated that these extra beds are desperately needed .
At least , that is what you would hope .
Almost immediately after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Purse was setting up a field hospital , LGBT activists and progressive journalists began to condemn the humanitarian organization for being based on the very Biblical principles that spur their life-saving work .
Judah Robinson , a reporter and producer with Now This News , tweeted out a photo of volunteers setting up a huge tent with the caption : “ The makeshift hospital in Central Park is being built and run by Samaritan ’ s Purse , the relief organization run by the notoriously anti-LGBTQ+ minister Franklin Graham.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with NBC running the headline “ Group behind Central Park ’ s COVID-19 field hospital run by antigay evangelist.
” The field hospital , NBC reported , “ has raised eyebrows because of a request for ‘ Christian ’ volunteers and a policy that volunteers adhere to its 11-point Statement of Faith .
Ten of the 11 items pertain broadly to doctrinal issues , including one that ‘ human life is sacred from conception to its natural end.
’ ” Predictably , it wasn ’ t the pro-life position of Samaritan ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to those complaining about a relief organization that set up a field hospital in a handful of days .
It is the fact that Samaritan ’ s Purse is a Christian organization , and thus has a Christian position on sexuality : “ We believe God ’ s plan for human sexuality to be expressed only within the context of marriage , that God created man and woman as unique biological persons made to complete each other…God instituted monogamous marriage between male and female as the foundation of the family and the basic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason , we believe that marriage is exclusively the union of one genetic male and one genetic female.
” A few years ago , this would not have been remotely controversial .
In 2020 , however , with New York City facing a massive health crisis , New York state Senator Brad Hoylman put out a statement calling on Rev .
Franklin Graham to “ publicly assure LGBTQ New Yorkers that they will receive the same treatment as anyone else at the Central Park field hospital.
” This statement was a vile attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everybody is fully aware of the fact that the medical professionals with Samaritan ’ s Purse treat everybody they can , and that there is no religious test to determine who gets treatment .
In an emailed statement to NBC News , Graham showed remarkable restrain in his response : “ Samaritan ’ s Purse treats everyone we help the same .
We do not make distinctions about an individual ’ s religion , race , sexual orientation , or economic status .
We certainly do not discriminate , and we have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is a time for all of us to unite and work together , regardless of our political views .
Let ’ s support one another during this crisis , and we pray that God will bless the efforts of all those battling this vicious virus.
” Hoylman , who is gay , responded by telling NBC News that it is “ a shame that the federal government has left us in the position of having to accept charity from such bigots .
This health crisis is too delicate to leave to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handle our medical needs.
” City Council Speaker Corey Johnson joined Hoylman ’ s condemnation , stating that it is “ extremely disturbing ” that Samaritan ’ s Purse has been permitted to set up a field hospital and warning that he will be “ monitoring the situation closely and making sure our city ’ s values are being represented at all times.
” Mayor Bill de Blasio told the media that he was “ very concerned ” about the values of Samaritan ’ s Purse .
These New York politicians , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that medical professionals will be treating the pandemic patients , not Graham personally .
They also appear to miss the irony of the fact that Samaritan ’ s Purse is necessary because of the failure of local politicians like themselves ( who conveniently blame the federal government in order to deflect responsibility . )
And in all of this , they reveal once again that they are small-minded , bigoted , and silly men : So ignorant that they do not understand the Christian faith that has animated charity work and transformed societies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they find it “ disturbing ” that Christian volunteers are permitted to step in and save lives .
They point to Franklin Graham ’ s defense of the human family as it has been defined throughout the history of Western Civilization , and they call him a vicious bigot .
But who , really , are the hateful ones here ?
The values of Franklin Graham and Samaritan ’ s Purse drive life-saving charitable work around the world , from Burma to Iraq to New York City .
The values of Hoylman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would rather see medical professionals saving lives during a pandemic told to stand down rather than risk having a life saved by doctors and nurses who are insufficiently enthusiastic about the sex acts they happen to like .
It is not about love or compassion for these people .
It is about forcing people to support their lifestyles—no matter what .
After all , it was people of this ilk who attacked the Salvation Army for much the same reason .
But these New York politicians and their LGBT activist allies are fortunate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contract COVID-19 and need medical attention , the Christian medical professionals of Samaritan ’ s Purse will be happy to treat them and restore them to health .
If they knew understood anything about Christianity , they ’ d know that already .

April 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – As New York City becomes the epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States, the city is going into lockdown. Frontline healthcare workers are preparing for shortages of beds and equipment, and the USNS Comfort, a massive hospital ship, has arrived to help deal with the influx of patients.
Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian humanitarian organization that, among other things, brings medical professionals and supplies to war zones and disaster hotspots around the world, has set up a 68-bed field hospital in Central Park with 60 to 70 medical staff to treat coronavirus patients.
The arrival of Samaritan’s Purse was heartily welcomed, especially as they managed to set up an overflow hospital to relieve the strain on packed Manhattan hospitals. Solidarity is essential, and in the face of the pandemic, differences have been put aside in order to save lives and assist exhausted frontline workers. Mt. Sinai Hospital has stated that these extra beds are desperately needed.
At least, that is what you would hope.
Almost immediately after the news began to spread that Samaritan’s Purse was setting up a field hospital, LGBT activists and progressive journalists began to condemn the humanitarian organization for being based on the very Biblical principles that spur their life-saving work. Judah Robinson, a reporter and producer with Now This News, tweeted out a photo of volunteers setting up a huge tent with the caption: “The makeshift hospital in Central Park is being built and run by Samaritan’s Purse, the relief organization run by the notoriously anti-LGBTQ+ minister Franklin Graham.”
The mainstream media soon picked up the story, with NBC running the headline “Group behind Central Park’s COVID-19 field hospital run by antigay evangelist.” The field hospital, NBC reported, “has raised eyebrows because of a request for ‘Christian’ volunteers and a policy that volunteers adhere to its 11-point Statement of Faith. Ten of the 11 items pertain broadly to doctrinal issues, including one that ‘human life is sacred from conception to its natural end.’”
Predictably, it wasn’t the pro-life position of Samaritan’s Purse that was the most offensive to those complaining about a relief organization that set up a field hospital in a handful of days.
It is the fact that Samaritan’s Purse is a Christian organization, and thus has a Christian position on sexuality: “We believe God’s plan for human sexuality to be expressed only within the context of marriage, that God created man and woman as unique biological persons made to complete each other…God instituted monogamous marriage between male and female as the foundation of the family and the basic structure of human society. For this reason, we believe that marriage is exclusively the union of one genetic male and one genetic female.”
A few years ago, this would not have been remotely controversial.
In 2020, however, with New York City facing a massive health crisis, New York state Senator Brad Hoylman put out a statement calling on Rev. Franklin Graham to “publicly assure LGBTQ New Yorkers that they will receive the same treatment as anyone else at the Central Park field hospital.” This statement was a vile attempt to simultaneously smear and virtue-signal, as everybody is fully aware of the fact that the medical professionals with Samaritan’s Purse treat everybody they can, and that there is no religious test to determine who gets treatment.
Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook
In an emailed statement to NBC News, Graham showed remarkable restrain in his response: “Samaritan’s Purse treats everyone we help the same. We do not make distinctions about an individual’s religion, race, sexual orientation, or economic status. We certainly do not discriminate, and we have a decades-long track record that confirms just that. This is a time for all of us to unite and work together, regardless of our political views. Let’s support one another during this crisis, and we pray that God will bless the efforts of all those battling this vicious virus.”
Hoylman, who is gay, responded by telling NBC News that it is “a shame that the federal government has left us in the position of having to accept charity from such bigots. This health crisis is too delicate to leave to televangelists, purveyors of faith, to handle our medical needs.” City Council Speaker Corey Johnson joined Hoylman’s condemnation, stating that it is “extremely disturbing” that Samaritan’s Purse has been permitted to set up a field hospital and warning that he will be “monitoring the situation closely and making sure our city’s values are being represented at all times.” Mayor Bill de Blasio told the media that he was “very concerned” about the values of Samaritan’s Purse.
These New York politicians, it seems, are too ignorant to understand that medical professionals will be treating the pandemic patients, not Graham personally. They also appear to miss the irony of the fact that Samaritan’s Purse is necessary because of the failure of local politicians like themselves (who conveniently blame the federal government in order to deflect responsibility.) And in all of this, they reveal once again that they are small-minded, bigoted, and silly men: So ignorant that they do not understand the Christian faith that has animated charity work and transformed societies for 2,000 years, and so hate-filled that they find it “disturbing” that Christian volunteers are permitted to step in and save lives.
They point to Franklin Graham’s defense of the human family as it has been defined throughout the history of Western Civilization, and they call him a vicious bigot.
But who, really, are the hateful ones here?
The values of Franklin Graham and Samaritan’s Purse drive life-saving charitable work around the world, from Burma to Iraq to New York City. The values of Hoylman and Johnson are so bigoted that they would rather see medical professionals saving lives during a pandemic told to stand down rather than risk having a life saved by doctors and nurses who are insufficiently enthusiastic about the sex acts they happen to like. It is not about love or compassion for these people. It is about forcing people to support their lifestyles—no matter what. After all, it was people of this ilk who attacked the Salvation Army for much the same reason.
But these New York politicians and their LGBT activist allies are fortunate. If, God forbid, they contract COVID-19 and need medical attention, the Christian medical professionals of Samaritan’s Purse will be happy to treat them and restore them to health. If they knew understood anything about Christianity, they’d know that already.
Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he speaks with William Gairdner, author of The Trouble with Canada and a Canadian political philosopher, businessman, and former Olympian. The discussion centers on how socialism has taken such a strong hold in Canada and the impacts it has had on the country, plus what Canadians can do in the here and now to restore their country and the warnings Canada offers other nations, like the United States, considering going down the same path. You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below:
Follow Jonathon Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States. He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-02--Pope Francis drops ‘Vicar of Christ’ title in Vatican yearbook

April 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In a surprise move , Pope Francis has dropped the historic and essential title “ Vicar of Christ ” from the 2020 Pontifical Yearbook , the Holy See ’ s annual directory , relegating the title to a footnote , calling it a “ historical title.
” While previous yearbooks listed the title “ Vicar of Christ ” and the name of the reigning Pope under that title , this year ’ s annual directory simply lists the name “ Jorge Mario Bergoglio , ” the name of the man who became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Müller , former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith , called the change “ theological barbarism.
” As the German Rome Correspondent , Guido Horst , reported today for the newspaper Die Tagespost , this new entry has astonished well-informed Vatican experts .
He writes that this year 's Annuario Pontificio has “ banned ” the Pope 's title 'Vicar of Christ , ' making it a “ historical title ” that now belongs to a footnote .
The Annuario Pontificio is published every year .
It updates statistical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the presentation of the members of the Church 's hierarchy – College of Cardinals , bishops of the world and the Vatican 's dicasteries – starts with the Roman Pontiff , under the title “ Vicar of Jesus Christ ” ( “ Vicario di Gesù Cristo ” ) .
Then follow the additional titles of the Pope , all of which carry a “ different or even no dogmatic significance ” as does the first title , according to Horst .
These are : Successor of the Prince of the Apostles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Primate of Italy , Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province , Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City , and Servant of the Servants of God .
The title “ Vicar of Jesus Christ , ” however , “ stems from Holy Scripture , in which Jesus has granted St. Peter the power of the keys in the Church , ” Horst explains .
After these additional titles , there usually then would come the name of the current pontiff , a short biography of him , as well as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , the new entry about the Pope starts now – instead of the title “ Vicar of Jesus Christ ” – with the following title : “ Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
” This title is followed by a short biography and the dates of his election and inauguration .
Finally – and this after a line indicating that the “ footnotes ” ( in the words of Guido Horst ) are now coming – there come , under the subtitle “ historical titles ” : Vicar of Jesus Christ , Successor of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Universal Church , Primate of Italy , Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province , Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City , and Servant of the Servants of God .
According to Horst , such a change of the presentation of the Roman Pontiff in the Annuario Pontificio “ could only have happened upon request by Francis himself.
” In comments to the Tagespost , Cardinal Gerhard Müller points out that in the new presentations of the titles of the Pope , there are mixed together titles with dogmatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such weight and who have a historical background ( such as “ Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City ” ) .
The German cardinal goes on to speak about the “ embarrassment ” that the Annuario Pontificio has “ demeaned essential elements of the Catholic teaching on the primacy [ of the Pope ] as mere historical appendix.
” He insisted that it is “ a theological barbarism to demean as historical burden the titles of the Pope 'Successor of Peter , Representative of Christ , and visible head of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bishops , as successors of the Apostles , “ together with the 'Successor of Peter , Representative of Christ , and visible head of the entire Church , rule the house of the Living God.
” ( Lumen gentium 18 ) “ No Pope or Ecumenical Council , ” the German prelate continued , “ could , with reference to their highest authority over the Church , do away with the primacy , the episcopacy , or the Sacraments , or to re-interpret them in their essence.
” A commentator quoted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the yearbook denotes a “ defective understanding of the office , ” pointing out that important titles such as “ Successor of the Prince of the Apostles ” have also been downgraded as mere historical titles .
Professor Armin Schwibach , the Rome Correspondent for the Austrian website Kath.net , commented on Twitter : “ It seems that they continue to dismantle everything.
” In 2006 , Pope Benedict made a change to the usual presentation of the Roman Pontiff in the Annuario Pontificio when removing altogether the papal title “ Patriarch of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this decision was interpreted as an act of “ evidently hoping to eliminate one possible obstacle to ecumenical progress with the Orthodox world .
”

The title 'Vicar of Jesus Christ' stems from Holy Scripture where Jesus grants St. Peter the power of the keys in the Church
April 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In a surprise move, Pope Francis has dropped the historic and essential title “Vicar of Christ” from the 2020 Pontifical Yearbook, the Holy See’s annual directory, relegating the title to a footnote, calling it a “historical title.”
While previous yearbooks listed the title “Vicar of Christ” and the name of the reigning Pope under that title, this year’s annual directory simply lists the name “Jorge Mario Bergoglio,” the name of the man who became Pope Francis in 2013. A photo of this year’s yearbook was published by Rome-based journalist Marco Tosatti.
Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, called the change “theological barbarism.”
As the German Rome Correspondent, Guido Horst, reported today for the newspaper Die Tagespost, this new entry has astonished well-informed Vatican experts. He writes that this year's Annuario Pontificio has “banned” the Pope's title 'Vicar of Christ,' making it a “historical title” that now belongs to a footnote.
The Annuario Pontificio is published every year. It updates statistical data concerning the Catholic Church. Usually, the presentation of the members of the Church's hierarchy – College of Cardinals, bishops of the world and the Vatican's dicasteries – starts with the Roman Pontiff, under the title “Vicar of Jesus Christ” (“Vicario di Gesù Cristo”). Then follow the additional titles of the Pope, all of which carry a “different or even no dogmatic significance” as does the first title, according to Horst. These are: Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, and Servant of the Servants of God.
The title “Vicar of Jesus Christ,” however, “stems from Holy Scripture, in which Jesus has granted St. Peter the power of the keys in the Church,” Horst explains.
After these additional titles, there usually then would come the name of the current pontiff, a short biography of him, as well as the dates of his election and inauguration.
However, the new entry about the Pope starts now – instead of the title “Vicar of Jesus Christ” – with the following title: “Jorge Mario Bergoglio.” This title is followed by a short biography and the dates of his election and inauguration. Finally – and this after a line indicating that the “footnotes” (in the words of Guido Horst) are now coming – there come, under the subtitle “historical titles”: Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, and Servant of the Servants of God.
According to Horst, such a change of the presentation of the Roman Pontiff in the Annuario Pontificio “could only have happened upon request by Francis himself.”
In comments to the Tagespost, Cardinal Gerhard Müller points out that in the new presentations of the titles of the Pope, there are mixed together titles with dogmatic significance with those that do not bear such weight and who have a historical background (such as “Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City”).
The German cardinal goes on to speak about the “embarrassment” that the Annuario Pontificio has “demeaned essential elements of the Catholic teaching on the primacy [of the Pope] as mere historical appendix.” He insisted that it is “a theological barbarism to demean as historical burden the titles of the Pope 'Successor of Peter, Representative of Christ, and visible head of the entire Church.’” He stated that the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, “together with the 'Successor of Peter, Representative of Christ, and visible head of the entire Church, rule the house of the Living God.” (Lumen gentium 18)
“No Pope or Ecumenical Council,” the German prelate continued, “could, with reference to their highest authority over the Church, do away with the primacy, the episcopacy, or the Sacraments, or to re-interpret them in their essence.”
A commentator quoted by Guido Horst noted that the change in the yearbook denotes a “defective understanding of the office,” pointing out that important titles such as “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles” have also been downgraded as mere historical titles.
Professor Armin Schwibach, the Rome Correspondent for the Austrian website Kath.net, commented on Twitter: “It seems that they continue to dismantle everything.”
In 2006, Pope Benedict made a change to the usual presentation of the Roman Pontiff in the Annuario Pontificio when removing altogether the papal title “Patriarch of the West.” At the time, this decision was interpreted as an act of “evidently hoping to eliminate one possible obstacle to ecumenical progress with the Orthodox world.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-02--Follow LifeSite’s new Twitter accounts for top pro-life, pro-family news

PETITION : Tell Twitter to unlock LifeSite account now !
Sign the petition here .
April 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In December 2019 , LifeSiteNews ’ official Twitter account @ lifesitenews was blocked for tweeting about transgender activist Jonathon Yaniv .
The specific reason for the block was not stated by Twitter , just that the tweet violated Twitter rules .
LifeSiteNews is continuing to work with Media Research Council to have our account reactivated .
Read more about that here .
In the meantime , we have created two new Twitter accounts : We Can End @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Can Defend Marriage ( @ WCDM_LSN ) .
The We Can End Abortion account will focus on pro-life news and will mirror our We Can End Abortion page , which you can “ like ” by clicking here .
The WCDM_LSN account will focus on pro-family and traditional marriage news , mirroring our We Can Defend Marriage Facebook page , which you can “ like ” by clicking here .
We need to show Twitter that there are millions of people across the world that support conservative and traditional values .
Help us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Be sure to head over to Twitter and follow @ WCEA_LSN and @ WCDM_LSN !

Since our @lifesitenews Twitter account is still blocked, enjoy our new issue specific Twitter accounts.
PETITION: Tell Twitter to unlock LifeSite account now! Sign the petition here.
April 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In December 2019, LifeSiteNews’ official Twitter account @lifesitenews was blocked for tweeting about transgender activist Jonathon Yaniv. The specific reason for the block was not stated by Twitter, just that the tweet violated Twitter rules.
LifeSiteNews is continuing to work with Media Research Council to have our account reactivated. Read more about that here.
In the meantime, we have created two new Twitter accounts: We Can End Abortion (@WCEA_LSN) and We Can Defend Marriage (@WCDM_LSN).
The We Can End Abortion account will focus on pro-life news and will mirror our We Can End Abortion page, which you can “like” by clicking here.
The WCDM_LSN account will focus on pro-family and traditional marriage news, mirroring our We Can Defend Marriage Facebook page, which you can “like” by clicking here.
We need to show Twitter that there are millions of people across the world that support conservative and traditional values. Help us make these accounts explode with new followers.
Be sure to head over to Twitter and follow @WCEA_LSN and @WCDM_LSN!
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-02--Watch Trump’s coronavirus daily briefing for April 2 here

WASHINGTON , D.C. , April 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – LifeSite has begun streaming President Donald Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus crisis .
Here we present his April 2 briefing .
Follow LifeSiteNews for future @ @ @ @ @ s live updates on the coronavirus crisis and how it relates to issues our readers @ @ @ @

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – LifeSite has begun streaming President Donald Trump’s daily briefings about the coronavirus crisis. Here we present his April 2 briefing. Follow LifeSiteNews for future briefings.
Read LifeSite’s live updates on the coronavirus crisis and how it relates to issues our readers care about here.


lifesitenews--2020-04-02--US bishop forbids priests to say Mass facing with people, bans communion rails

BOISE , Idaho , April 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) ― An Idaho bishop has prohibited priests in his diocese from saying the Mass facing with the people ( ad orientem ) and from using communion rails for Catholics who prefer to kneel to receive the Eucharist .
In addition , the bishop wants to be informed of every traditional Latin Mass that takes place in his diocese .
Bishop Peter Christensen , 67 , of the Diocese of Boise , issued a memo to the priests of his diocese to enforce his liturgical preferences on February 28 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic Register in late March .
In the memo , Christensen underscored that priests are not to “ imply a particular superiority or greater holiness of approach amongst the valid forms of worship in the Roman Catholic Church ” before aiming at priests ’ worship ad orientem .
“ Priests in the Diocese of Boise will face the people when presiding at the Ordinary Form of the Mass , ” he instructed and cited 1970 ’ s General Instruction to the Roman Missal , saying that Paragraph 299 “ makes it plain that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Mass facing the people.
” “ This is unambivalent , and I am instructing priests in the diocese to preside facing the people at every celebration of the Ordinary Form of the Mass , ” Christensen wrote .
However , author Dr. Peter Kwasniewski told LifeSIteNews that the bishop is “ factually wrong ” about what GIRM Paragraph 299 says about facing the people .
“ And he should know better as this has been discussed extensively , ” the scholar added .
But Bishop Christensen also believes that the priest celebrating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their “ sanctification.
” “ There are priests who prefer ad orientem , ” he acknowledged .
“ I am convinced that they mean well and find it a devout way to pray .
But the overwhelming experience worldwide after Vatican II is that the priest faces the people for the Mass and that this has contributed to the sanctification of the people.
” Christensen rejected “ attempts to justify ” priests facing the east with their people , saying it was “ clearly in the mind of the Council that the priest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was contradicted by expert Gregory Di Pippo , editor of The New Liturgical Movement online magazine , who pointed out that the Council Fathers had no explicit plans to radically transform the Mass .
`` Dietrich von Hildebrand once joked that in the case of Vatican II , it is the spirit that killeth , and the letter that giveth life.
” Di Pippo told LifeSiteNews from Rome .
“ Bishop Christensen is entirely wrong to say 'It was clearly the mind of the Council that the priest should face the people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council 's declaration on the Sacred Liturgy , Sacrosanctum Concilium , mentions ‘ the people ’ more than 40 times , and not once does it suggest in any way that the altars should be turned around , or that celebrant of the Mass should be looking at them while addressing God . ''
Boise ’ s Ordinary also took aim at the practise of receiving Holy Communion while kneeling .
While acknowledging that the faithful have the right to receive the Eucharist in this way and may not be refused Communion because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be assisted in doing so .
“ While it is the right of the faithful to kneel to receive , nor may any communicant be denied Communion based on posture , given that the established norm in this country is standing , I am instructing that priests do not use furniture or such items as prie dieus or communion rails , as these may seem to undermine the norm or to imply a preference for kneeling to receive , ” he wrote .
Peter Kwasniewski told LifeSiteNews that “ it is always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to discourage the faithful from kneeling before their Lord and God.
” In an article he prepared for the Remnant newspaper , Kwasniewski stated that the ban on prie dieus is “ vindictive.
” “ It amounts to saying : ‘ You knuckleheads can get down on your knees if you really want to—but not if you ’ re elderly .
Tough luck for you cronies .
No help from the church , ’ ” he wrote .
“ Isn ’ t it surprising , too , just how rigidly some bishops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OF GOD ?
‘ Hey you—cut it out—no kneeling around here to the Word made flesh !
We don ’ t do that anymore .
It ’ s okay for the three kings and medieval peasants and what not , but not in this democratic age .
Besides , the USCCB has spoken , and it has more authority than a millennium of Catholic practice ’ .
” Christensen 's focus on traditional elements was not confined to the Mass of Paul VI , however .
In his memo he also indicated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a matter of courtesy ” when the Mass of John XXIII , otherwise known as the Extraordinary Form of the Mass , or the Traditional Latin Mass , is celebrated in his diocese .
While acknowledging that Benedict XVI ’ s motu proprio Summorum pontificum freed priests from the obligation of seeking episcopal permission to celebrate the ancient rite , Christensen wrote “ I request that you report the practise to me , along with frequency and attendance.
” He explained that this was for “ accurate record-keeping ” as the Holy See @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It ’ s almost like he ’ s asking for a confession of mortal sins in kind and number , ” he wrote .
“ And as for his barb that the TLM should not be anything other than extraordinary in its occurrence—one wonders when he will issue the next memo stating that extraordinary ministers should also be of rare occurrence , since the priests and deacons are the ordinary ministers of the Holy Eucharist .
It ’ ll be a long time before that buskin drops.
” Christensen cited “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for vetoing the traditional elements .
“ In order to reduce the confusion among the faithful and the increasing disinformation regarding liturgical matters in the Diocese , and to promote harmony and unity that is strengthened in our Eucharistic celebrations , I am promulgating this Instruction , ” he wrote .
Subsequently the bishop suspended all public masses in his diocese as a response to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic .
Christensen ’ s approach is contrary to that of the Prefect for the Divine Worship , Cardinal Robert Sarah , who in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ towards the east , which represents Christ ’ s return .
In an interview earlier that year , Sarah , now 74 , said that one way to return God to the center of divine worship would be for priests and people “ to turn together in the same direction.
” “ To convert is to turn towards God .
I am profoundly convinced that our bodies must participate in this conversion , ” the cardinal said .
“ The best way is certainly to celebrate — priests and faithful — turned together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lord who comes .
It isn ’ t , as one hears sometimes , to celebrate with the back turned toward the faithful or facing them .
That isn ’ t the problem .
It ’ s to turn together toward the apse , which symbolizes the East , where the cross of the risen Lord is enthroned , ” he continued .
“ By this manner of celebrating , we experience , even in our bodies , the primacy of God and of adoration .
We understand that the liturgy is first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cross .
I have personally had this experience : In celebrating thus , with the priest at its head , the assembly is almost physically drawn up by the mystery of the cross at the moment of the elevation.
” Sarah also asked the faithful to kneel to receive Holy Communion .
The “ Complicit Clergy ” website has offered a means to Catholics to voice their disapproval of Christensen 's prohibitions here .

In addition, the bishop wants to be informed of every traditional Latin Mass that takes place in his diocese.
Urgent appeal to bishops: Fight to make sacraments more available to your faithful Sign the petition here.
BOISE, Idaho, April 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― An Idaho bishop has prohibited priests in his diocese from saying the Mass facing toward the tabernacle (ad orientem) and from using communion rails for Catholics who prefer to kneel to receive the Eucharist. In addition, the bishop wants to be informed of every traditional Latin Mass that takes place in his diocese.
Bishop Peter Christensen, 67, of the Diocese of Boise, issued a memo to the priests of his diocese to enforce his liturgical preferences on February 28. It was subsequently published in the Idaho Catholic Register in late March.
In the memo, Christensen underscored that priests are not to “imply a particular superiority or greater holiness of approach amongst the valid forms of worship in the Roman Catholic Church” before aiming at priests’ worship ad orientem.
“Priests in the Diocese of Boise will face the people when presiding at the Ordinary Form of the Mass,” he instructed and cited 1970’s General Instruction to the Roman Missal, saying that Paragraph 299 “makes it plain that the universal Church envisions the priest presiding at Mass facing the people.”
“This is unambivalent, and I am instructing priests in the diocese to preside facing the people at every celebration of the Ordinary Form of the Mass,” Christensen wrote.
However, author Dr. Peter Kwasniewski told LifeSIteNews that the bishop is “factually wrong” about what GIRM Paragraph 299 says about facing the people.
“And he should know better as this has been discussed extensively,” the scholar added.
But Bishop Christensen also believes that the priest celebrating Mass facing the people has contributed to their “sanctification.”
“There are priests who prefer ad orientem,” he acknowledged.
“I am convinced that they mean well and find it a devout way to pray. But the overwhelming experience worldwide after Vatican II is that the priest faces the people for the Mass and that this has contributed to the sanctification of the people.”
Christensen rejected “attempts to justify” priests facing the east with their people, saying it was “clearly in the mind of the Council that the priest should face the people.”
This statement was contradicted by expert Gregory Di Pippo, editor of The New Liturgical Movement online magazine, who pointed out that the Council Fathers had no explicit plans to radically transform the Mass.
“Dietrich von Hildebrand once joked that in the case of Vatican II, it is the spirit that killeth, and the letter that giveth life.” Di Pippo told LifeSiteNews from Rome.
“Bishop Christensen is entirely wrong to say 'It was clearly the mind of the Council that the priest should face the people,'” he continued.
“The Council's declaration on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, mentions ‘the people’ more than 40 times, and not once does it suggest in any way that the altars should be turned around, or that celebrant of the Mass should be looking at them while addressing God.”
Boise’s Ordinary also took aim at the practise of receiving Holy Communion while kneeling. While acknowledging that the faithful have the right to receive the Eucharist in this way and may not be refused Communion because they kneel, he ordered that they not be assisted in doing so.
“While it is the right of the faithful to kneel to receive, nor may any communicant be denied Communion based on posture, given that the established norm in this country is standing, I am instructing that priests do not use furniture or such items as prie dieus or communion rails, as these may seem to undermine the norm or to imply a preference for kneeling to receive,” he wrote.
Peter Kwasniewski told LifeSiteNews that “it is always a bad sign for a bishop to want to discourage the faithful from kneeling before their Lord and God.”
In an article he prepared for the Remnant newspaper, Kwasniewski stated that the ban on prie dieus is “vindictive.”
“It amounts to saying: ‘You knuckleheads can get down on your knees if you really want to—but not if you’re elderly. Tough luck for you cronies. No help from the church,’” he wrote.
“Isn’t it surprising, too, just how rigidly some bishops want to exclude kneeling before the SON OF GOD? ‘Hey you—cut it out—no kneeling around here to the Word made flesh! We don’t do that anymore. It’s okay for the three kings and medieval peasants and what not, but not in this democratic age. Besides, the USCCB has spoken, and it has more authority than a millennium of Catholic practice’.”
Christensen's focus on traditional elements was not confined to the Mass of Paul VI, however. In his memo he also indicated that he wants to be informed “as a matter of courtesy” when the Mass of John XXIII, otherwise known as the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, or the Traditional Latin Mass, is celebrated in his diocese.
While acknowledging that Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum pontificum freed priests from the obligation of seeking episcopal permission to celebrate the ancient rite, Christensen wrote “I request that you report the practise to me, along with frequency and attendance.” He explained that this was for “accurate record-keeping” as the Holy See demands such information during ad limina visits.
Kwasniewski found the bishop’s tone here “sinister.”
“It’s almost like he’s asking for a confession of mortal sins in kind and number,” he wrote.
“And as for his barb that the TLM should not be anything other than extraordinary in its occurrence—one wonders when he will issue the next memo stating that extraordinary ministers should also be of rare occurrence, since the priests and deacons are the ordinary ministers of the Holy Eucharist. It’ll be a long time before that buskin drops.”
Christensen cited “confusion” among Catholics as his reason for vetoing the traditional elements.
“In order to reduce the confusion among the faithful and the increasing disinformation regarding liturgical matters in the Diocese, and to promote harmony and unity that is strengthened in our Eucharistic celebrations, I am promulgating this Instruction,” he wrote.
Subsequently the bishop suspended all public masses in his diocese as a response to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic.
Christensen’s approach is contrary to that of the Prefect for the Divine Worship, Cardinal Robert Sarah, who in 2016 asked priests to pray with their people towards the east, which represents Christ’s return.
In an interview earlier that year, Sarah, now 74, said that one way to return God to the center of divine worship would be for priests and people “to turn together in the same direction.”
“To convert is to turn towards God. I am profoundly convinced that our bodies must participate in this conversion,” the cardinal said.
“The best way is certainly to celebrate — priests and faithful — turned together in the same direction: toward the Lord who comes. It isn’t, as one hears sometimes, to celebrate with the back turned toward the faithful or facing them. That isn’t the problem. It’s to turn together toward the apse, which symbolizes the East, where the cross of the risen Lord is enthroned,” he continued.
“By this manner of celebrating, we experience, even in our bodies, the primacy of God and of adoration. We understand that the liturgy is first our participation at the perfect sacrifice of the cross. I have personally had this experience: In celebrating thus, with the priest at its head, the assembly is almost physically drawn up by the mystery of the cross at the moment of the elevation.”
Sarah also asked the faithful to kneel to receive Holy Communion.
The “Complicit Clergy” website has offered a means to Catholics to voice their disapproval of Christensen's prohibitions here.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-02--World Health Organization exposes extreme pro-abortion bias in coronavirus crisis

April 2 , 2020 ( Society for the Protection of Unborn Children ) — “ The pro-abortion World Health Organization ( WHO ) has been preparing for years to exploit a pandemic ” , says John Smeaton , SPUC Chief Executive , responding to a WHO spokesperson labelling abortion an “ essential service ” even when COVID-19 is claiming thousands of lives .
Speaking to 5,000 people online on 27 March , Dr Antonella Lavalanet , Medical Officer in the WHO ’ s “ Maternal and Perinatal Health & Preventing Unsafe Abortion Team ” , said , in accordance with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s choices and rights to sexual reproductive health care should be respected irrespective of COVID-19 status ” .
Drugs used in medical abortions were already listed as “ essential medications ” by WHO in 2017 .
During the webinar hosted by Sexual Reproductive Health Matters , a pro-abortion journal , Dr Lavalanet said that WHO was working with the UN to form guidance underlining abortion as “ essential ” , even during a pandemic .
It was also made clear that these instructions are aimed primarily at governments that “ are trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the WHO officer asserted that , in response to COVID-19 and under-pressure health services , the WHO was advising that women should be able to “ manage their own safe abortions ” at home , “ using mifepristone and misoprostol up until 12 weeks ” .
Moreover , the WHO is prepared to forego safeguards and certain treatments , such as antibiotics , in order to allow abortions to continue .
Dr Lavalanet also said that human resource workers should be redirected to abortion administration services .
The WHO has clearly anticipated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to further its pro-abortion agenda .
The 2012 WHO publication “ Safe Abortion : Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems ” repeatedly presented abortion as an integral part of so-called “ reproductive health services ” — from children at school to women in “ emergency ” situations .
In this document , the WHO linked abortion with “ human rights ” and “ medical procedures ” , emphasising that laws “ that criminalize medical procedures , including abortion , needed only by women and/or that punish women ” , should be repealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published a policy brief titled “ Integrating sexual and reproductive health into health emergency and disaster risk management ” , which foresaw a Coronavirus-type crisis .
Mr Smeaton said : “ The World Health Organization has a long anti-family and anti-life history — indeed its first director , Dr Brock Chisholm , wrote in 1948 : ‘ Children have to be freed from… religious and other cultural “ prejudices ” forced upon them by parents and religious authorities ’ .
“ I am praying that the Coronavirus crisis will have good consequences in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are witnessing , and that we see a counter-revolution led by families .
“ After all , it is individual families worldwide on which Governments worldwide have to rely , calling on them to care for themselves and their children , and to stay in the privacy of their own homes , in order to save the world from disaster .
Now is the right time , therefore , for individual families worldwide to start work on building a counter-revolution to rid themselves from pro-abortion and anti-family legislation being imposed by governments and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Organization.
” Published with permission from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children .

'Women's choices and rights to sexual reproductive health care should be respected irrespective of COVID-19 status,' a WHO medical officer insisted to 5,000 people.
April 2, 2020 (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) — “The pro-abortion World Health Organization (WHO) has been preparing for years to exploit a pandemic”, says John Smeaton, SPUC Chief Executive, responding to a WHO spokesperson labelling abortion an “essential service” even when COVID-19 is claiming thousands of lives.
Speaking to 5,000 people online on 27 March, Dr Antonella Lavalanet, Medical Officer in the WHO’s “Maternal and Perinatal Health & Preventing Unsafe Abortion Team”, said, in accordance with new WHO guidelines, that “women’s choices and rights to sexual reproductive health care should be respected irrespective of COVID-19 status”.
Drugs used in medical abortions were already listed as “essential medications” by WHO in 2017.
Exploiting the Coronavirus pandemic
During the webinar hosted by Sexual Reproductive Health Matters, a pro-abortion journal, Dr Lavalanet said that WHO was working with the UN to form guidance underlining abortion as “essential”, even during a pandemic.
It was also made clear that these instructions are aimed primarily at governments that “are trying to deprioritize these services”.
Significantly, the WHO officer asserted that, in response to COVID-19 and under-pressure health services, the WHO was advising that women should be able to “manage their own safe abortions” at home, “using mifepristone and misoprostol up until 12 weeks”.
Moreover, the WHO is prepared to forego safeguards and certain treatments, such as antibiotics, in order to allow abortions to continue. Dr Lavalanet also said that human resource workers should be redirected to abortion administration services.
WHO’s anti-life, anti-family history
The WHO has clearly anticipated such a crisis that could be exploited to further its pro-abortion agenda.
The 2012 WHO publication “Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems” repeatedly presented abortion as an integral part of so-called “reproductive health services” — from children at school to women in “emergency” situations.
In this document, the WHO linked abortion with “human rights” and “medical procedures”, emphasising that laws “that criminalize medical procedures, including abortion, needed only by women and/or that punish women”, should be repealed.
In 2012, the WHO also published a policy brief titled “Integrating sexual and reproductive health into health emergency and disaster risk management”, which foresaw a Coronavirus-type crisis.
Mr Smeaton said: “The World Health Organization has a long anti-family and anti-life history — indeed its first director, Dr Brock Chisholm, wrote in 1948: ‘Children have to be freed from… religious and other cultural “prejudices” forced upon them by parents and religious authorities’.
“I am praying that the Coronavirus crisis will have good consequences in addition to the obvious tragic consequences we are witnessing, and that we see a counter-revolution led by families.
“After all, it is individual families worldwide on which Governments worldwide have to rely, calling on them to care for themselves and their children, and to stay in the privacy of their own homes, in order to save the world from disaster.
Now is the right time, therefore, for individual families worldwide to start work on building a counter-revolution to rid themselves from pro-abortion and anti-family legislation being imposed by governments and international authorities such as the World Health Organization.”
Published with permission from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-02--Democrat AGs demand FDA approve at-home abortion pills during COVID-19 crisis

April 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – As abortions are suspended in numerous states by leaders hoping to conserve medical supplies to focus on the coronavirus , the Democrat attorneys general of 20 states plus the nation ’ s capital are calling on the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to waive ordinary reegulations on abortion pills so women can kill their babies at home .
The office of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra took the lead on the group ’ s letter , which calls for waiving the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy ( REMS ) governing the dispensement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certified prescribers to use telehealth for Mifepristone.
” “ The REMS create unnecessary delays for women who need access to time-sensitive health care , ” the letter argues , endangering women by “ forcing ” them to travel to a state where abortions have not been suspended .
“ These women are putting themselves and their families at risk when they seek out the health care that they need , and the federal government must act to ensure that no matter where they live , they can continue to receive necessary , safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter was signed by the attorneys general of California , Colorado , Connecticut , Delaware , the District of Columbia , Hawaii , Illinois , Iowa , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts , Minnesota , Nevada , New Mexico , New York , North Carolina , Oregon , Pennsylvania , Rhode Island , Vermont , and Virginia .
The Trump administration , which is pro-life and has gone after online sellers of abortion pills for trying to circumvent doctor ’ s visits , is unlikely to act on the AGs ’ recommendations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ FDA ) has already rejected calls to relax the conditions on accessing abortion pills due to the coronavirus .
The FDA maintains that REMS must be applied to abortion pills so providers can “ assess the duration of the pregnancy accurately , diagnose ectopic pregnancies , and provide surgical intervention in cases of incomplete abortion or severe bleeding , or to have made arrangements for others to provide such care ” ; and give women “ access to medical facilities for emergency care.
” U.S .
Surgeon General Jerome Adams and the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have advised healthcare facilities to reschedule non-urgent appointments and elective procedures , both to limit the spread of the coronavirus and to free up time and resources to focus on patients afflicted by COVID-19 ( the illness caused by the coronavirus ) .
Compliance with this guidance has been mixed , leading numerous states to mandate that facilities temporarily halt “ non-essential ” medical procedures .
Several of them have clarified that elective abortions will be held to the same standards as all other procedures during this time , leading to several lawsuits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion centers .

April 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – As abortions are suspended in numerous states by leaders hoping to conserve medical supplies to focus on the coronavirus, the Democrat attorneys general of 20 states plus the nation’s capital are calling on the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to waive ordinary reegulations on abortion pills so women can kill their babies at home.
The office of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra took the lead on the group’s letter, which calls for waiving the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) governing the dispensement of abortion pill, “to allow certified prescribers to use telehealth for Mifepristone.”
“The REMS create unnecessary delays for women who need access to time-sensitive health care,” the letter argues, endangering women by “forcing” them to travel to a state where abortions have not been suspended. “These women are putting themselves and their families at risk when they seek out the health care that they need, and the federal government must act to ensure that no matter where they live, they can continue to receive necessary, safe, and legal abortion care.”
The letter was signed by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia.
The Trump administration, which is pro-life and has gone after online sellers of abortion pills for trying to circumvent doctor’s visits, is unlikely to act on the AGs’ recommendations. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has already rejected calls to relax the conditions on accessing abortion pills due to the coronavirus.
The FDA maintains that REMS must be applied to abortion pills so providers can “assess the duration of the pregnancy accurately, diagnose ectopic pregnancies, and provide surgical intervention in cases of incomplete abortion or severe bleeding, or to have made arrangements for others to provide such care”; and give women “access to medical facilities for emergency care.”
U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams and the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have advised healthcare facilities to reschedule non-urgent appointments and elective procedures, both to limit the spread of the coronavirus and to free up time and resources to focus on patients afflicted by COVID-19 (the illness caused by the coronavirus).
Compliance with this guidance has been mixed, leading numerous states to mandate that facilities temporarily halt “non-essential” medical procedures. Several of them have clarified that elective abortions will be held to the same standards as all other procedures during this time, leading to several lawsuits demanding exemptions for Planned Parenthood and other abortion centers.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-02--Sorry, Cdl Cupich, you can’t insist that private baptisms require episcopal approval

Urgent appeal to bishops : Fight to make sacraments more available to your faithful Sign the petition here .
April 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Much has been written about the lack of Holy Communion and the Sacrament of Penance ( Confession ) in the current public health situation , but I ’ d like to say something about the Sacrament of Baptism .
This will only affect a small number of people , but it has a particular interest because in principle , as we are all taught in Catechism , anyone having the use of reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ baptise yourself , but if you ’ ve not been baptised you can get your atheist cell mate to baptise you before you are thrown to the lions or whatever , if he follows the correct procedure .
The response of many priests and others will be that ‘ private baptism ’ , without the full ceremonies , whether carried out by a priest or a lay person ( and obviously only a priest can do the full ceremonies , with the anointing , blessings and so on ) , is only to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of death ’ .
This is clearly not the full story , however , since Catholics have found themselves in situations of persecution where priests were simply not available , sometimes for decades , like Japanese Catholics in 17th century .
Readers may remember the classic film The Magnificent Seven : one of the features of the Mexican village that the seven gunmen go to protect was that the priest only visited them once a year .
This was indeed the situation for many remote Mexican communities in that era , and historical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic Highlands and Islands of Scotland , for example , for much of its history priestly visits were not as frequent , or predictable , as that .
How long should one be prepared to wait , as a parent , before private baptism is the best option ?
The question is made pressing by the Code of Canon Law , which informs parents that they have an obligation—not just an option—to have their children baptised in the ‘ first few weeks ’ ( Canon 867 §1 ) .
This flows from Divine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ Go and make disciples of all nations , baptising in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost ’ ( Matthew 28:19 ) .
The canonist Dr Edward Peters in a recent blog post noted the advice of commentaries on Canon law on this point , one of which specified that parents should not be waiting more than month for a priest to baptise their infant .
If it ’ s going to take longer than that , they should arrange a private baptism by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cardinal Cupich , you can ’ t insist that private baptisms , even in the case of “ emergency , ” require episcopal approval .
It is often said that the emphasis on quick baptisms for infants was coloured , in the old days , but the high rates of infant mortality , and of course this was a relevant consideration .
Infant mortality is not , however , entirely a thing of the past , and the new Code of Canon law , promulgated in 1983 , still insists on the ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Middle Ages babies were typically baptised two days after birth ; standard advice before the Second Vatican Council was that baptism be done within two weeks .
On the other side , it is even more often said that the ‘ old days ’ were characterised by an excessive emphasis on the prerogatives of the clergy , and there is some truth in this as well .
It is therefore all the more striking that Dr Peters ’ commentary say that parents should not wait too long for a priest .
If we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the laity are now to be regarded as ‘ adults ’ when they used to be regarded as ‘ children ’ , what excuse do we have for insisting that priests perform our baptisms when this would necessitate a long delay ?
I fancy resistance to this idea comes from two directions , one reasonable and the other less so .
The reasonable cause for hesitation derives from the fear that private baptisms by lay people may not be done correctly or recorded as they should be .
Were this to happen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down the line , for example when the child is to be Confirmed .
This is fair enough , but the solution is to get people to do it properly , with witnesses if possible , and to register it immediately with the local parish , as is explained here .
The less reasonable source of resistance is the idea that baptism just isn ’ t very important , and that it essentially makes no difference if an infant is unbaptised for a year or so after birth , and indeed what difference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God if an infant dies without baptism ?
This comes down to a denial of the supernatural reality of the Sacrament .
Of course baptism makes a difference : it washes away Original Sin .
This means that it raises the child to spiritual life , the life of grace .
No Catholic should brook unreasonable delay in arranging this for their children .

Urgent appeal to bishops: Fight to make sacraments more available to your faithful Sign the petition here.
April 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Much has been written about the lack of Holy Communion and the Sacrament of Penance (Confession) in the current public health situation, but I’d like to say something about the Sacrament of Baptism. This will only affect a small number of people, but it has a particular interest because in principle, as we are all taught in Catechism, anyone having the use of reason can baptise. You can’t baptise yourself, but if you’ve not been baptised you can get your atheist cell mate to baptise you before you are thrown to the lions or whatever, if he follows the correct procedure.
The response of many priests and others will be that ‘private baptism’, without the full ceremonies, whether carried out by a priest or a lay person (and obviously only a priest can do the full ceremonies, with the anointing, blessings and so on), is only to be contemplated where there is ‘danger of death’.
This is clearly not the full story, however, since Catholics have found themselves in situations of persecution where priests were simply not available, sometimes for decades, like Japanese Catholics in 17th century. Readers may remember the classic film The Magnificent Seven: one of the features of the Mexican village that the seven gunmen go to protect was that the priest only visited them once a year. This was indeed the situation for many remote Mexican communities in that era, and historical parallels are not lacking. In the Catholic Highlands and Islands of Scotland, for example, for much of its history priestly visits were not as frequent, or predictable, as that.
How long should one be prepared to wait, as a parent, before private baptism is the best option? The question is made pressing by the Code of Canon Law, which informs parents that they have an obligation—not just an option—to have their children baptised in the ‘first few weeks’ (Canon 867 §1). This flows from Divine Law, expressed by Our Lord Himself, ‘Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matthew 28:19).
The canonist Dr Edward Peters in a recent blog post noted the advice of commentaries on Canon law on this point, one of which specified that parents should not be waiting more than month for a priest to baptise their infant. If it’s going to take longer than that, they should arrange a private baptism by a lay person. So sorry, Cardinal Cupich, you can’t insist that private baptisms, even in the case of “emergency,” require episcopal approval.
It is often said that the emphasis on quick baptisms for infants was coloured, in the old days, but the high rates of infant mortality, and of course this was a relevant consideration. Infant mortality is not, however, entirely a thing of the past, and the new Code of Canon law, promulgated in 1983, still insists on the ‘first few weeks’. In the Middle Ages babies were typically baptised two days after birth; standard advice before the Second Vatican Council was that baptism be done within two weeks.
On the other side, it is even more often said that the ‘old days’ were characterised by an excessive emphasis on the prerogatives of the clergy, and there is some truth in this as well. It is therefore all the more striking that Dr Peters’ commentary say that parents should not wait too long for a priest. If we have freed ourselves from clericalism, if the laity are now to be regarded as ‘adults’ when they used to be regarded as ‘children’, what excuse do we have for insisting that priests perform our baptisms when this would necessitate a long delay?
I fancy resistance to this idea comes from two directions, one reasonable and the other less so. The reasonable cause for hesitation derives from the fear that private baptisms by lay people may not be done correctly or recorded as they should be. Were this to happen, there will be confusion and bother further down the line, for example when the child is to be Confirmed. This is fair enough, but the solution is to get people to do it properly, with witnesses if possible, and to register it immediately with the local parish, as is explained here.
The less reasonable source of resistance is the idea that baptism just isn’t very important, and that it essentially makes no difference if an infant is unbaptised for a year or so after birth, and indeed what difference could it possibly make to a merciful God if an infant dies without baptism? This comes down to a denial of the supernatural reality of the Sacrament. Of course baptism makes a difference: it washes away Original Sin. This means that it raises the child to spiritual life, the life of grace. No Catholic should brook unreasonable delay in arranging this for their children.
Follow Joseph Dr Joseph Shaw has a Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford University, where he also gained a first degree in Politics and Philosophy and a graduate Diploma in Theology. He has published on Ethics and Philosophy of Religion and is the editor of The Case for Liturgical Restoration: Una Voce Position Papers on the Extraordinary Form (Angelico Press). He is the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales and Secretary of Una Voce International. He teaches Philosophy in Oxford University and lives nearby with his wife and nine children.
Share