lifesitenews--2020-06-25--Bishop Schneider: We shouldn’t reject Vatican II, but save what is ‘truly good’

June 25 , 2020 ( The Remnant ) – In recent decades , not only declared modernists , but also theologians and faithful who love the Church , have displayed an attitude that resembles a kind of blind defense of everything said by the Second Vatican Council .
Such an attitude seemed sometimes to require real mental acrobatics and a “ squaring of the circle.
” Even now , the general mentality of good Catholics corresponds with a de facto total infallibilization of everything that the Second Vatican Council said , or that the current Pontiff says or does .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ been present for several generations in Catholics over the last two centuries .
And yet respectful criticism and serene theological debate have always been present and allowed within the Church ’ s great tradition , since it is truth and faithfulness to divine revelation and to the constant tradition of the Church that we should seek , which in itself implies the use of reason and rationality , and avoiding mental acrobatics .
Some explanations of certain obviously ambiguous and misleading expressions contained in the Council ’ s texts seem artificial and unconvincing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a more intellectually honest manner , in the light of the unbroken and constant doctrine of the Church .
Instinctively , every reasonable argument has been repressed which could , even in the slightest , call into question any expression or word in the Council texts .
However , such an attitude is not healthy and contradicts the great tradition of the Church , as we observe in the Fathers , the Doctors , and great theologians of the Church over the course of two thousand years .
An opinion different from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the matter of the Sacrament of Orders , i.e .
the traditio instrumentorum , was allowed in the centuries following this Council , and led to Pope Pius XII ’ s pronouncement in the 1947 Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis , whereby he corrected the non-infallible teaching of the Council of Florence , by stating that the only matter strictly necessary for the validity of the Sacrament of Orders is the imposition of hands by the bishop .
By this act , Pius XII did not implement a hermeneutic of continuity but , indeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Florence ’ s doctrine in this matter did not reflect the constant liturgical doctrine and practice of the universal Church .
Already in the year 1914 , Cardinal W.M .
van Rossum wrote concerning the Council of Florence ’ s affirmation on the matter of the Sacrament of Orders , that this doctrine of the Council is reformable and must even be abandoned ( cf .
De essentia sacramenti ordinis , Freiburg 1914 , p. 186 ) .
And so , there was no room for a hermeneutic of continuity in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or an ecumenical Council has corrected non-infallible doctrines of previous ecumenical Councils ( this has rarely happened ) , they did not undermine the foundations of the Catholic faith by this act , nor did they set the magisterium of tomorrow against that of today , as history has proven .
With a Bull in 1425 , Martin V approved the decrees of the Council of Constance and even the decree “ Frequens ” — from the 39th session of the Council ( in 1417 ) .
This decree affirmed the error of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Council is superior to a Pope .
However , in 1446 , his successor , Pope Eugene IV , declared that he accepted the decrees of the Ecumenical Council of Constance , except those ( of sessions 3 - 5 and 39 ) which “ prejudice the rights and primacy of the Apostolic See ” ( absque tamen praeiudicio iuris , dignitatis et praeeminentiae Sedis Apostolicae ) .
Vatican I ’ s dogma on papal primacy then definitively rejected the conciliarist error of the Ecumenical Council of Constance .
As already mentioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Ecumenical Council of Florence regarding the matter of the Sacrament of Orders .
The foundations of the faith were not undermined by these rare acts to correct previous affirmations of the non-infallible Magisterium , precisely because these concrete affirmations ( e.g .
of the Councils of Constance and Florence ) were not infallible .
Several expressions in the texts of the Second Vatican Council can not be so easily reconciled with the Church ’ s constant doctrinal tradition .
Examples include certain expressions of the Council on the topic of religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and therefore positively willed by God , to practice and spread a false religion , which may also include idolatry or even worse ) ; its distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church ( the problem of “ subsistit in ” gives the impression that two realities exist : on the one side , the Church of Christ , and on the other , the Catholic Church ) ; and its stance towards non-Christian religions and the contemporary world .
Although the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church ( 29 June 2007 ) , offered an explanation of the expression “ subsistit in , ” it unfortunately avoided saying clearly that the Church of Christ is truly the Catholic Church .
That is , it avoided explicitly declaring the identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church .
Indeed , there remains a nuance of vagueness .
There is also an attitude that rejects a priori all possible objections to the aforementioned questionable statements in the Council texts .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ method called “ hermeneutic of continuity.
” Unfortunately , doubts about the theological problems inherent in these Council statements are not taken seriously .
We have to always bear in mind the fact that the chief end of the Council was pastoral in character , and that the Council did not intend to propose its own definitive teachings .
The pronouncements of the popes before the Council , even those of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries , faithfully reflect their predecessors and the constant tradition of the Church in an unbroken manner .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ centuries , that is , after the French Revolution , do not represent an “ exotic ” period compared to the two-thousand-year tradition of the Church .
One could not claim any rupture in the teachings of those popes regarding the previous Magisterium .
For example , concerning the theme of the social kingship of Christ and of the objective falsehood of non-Christian religions , one can not find a perceivable rupture between the teachings of the Popes Gregory XVI and Pius XII on the one side , and the teaching of Pope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his predecessors and successors on the other .
One can really see a continuous line without any rupture from the time of the Church Fathers to Pius XII , especially on such topics as the social kingship of Christ , religious liberty , and ecumenism in the sense that there is a natural right , positively willed by God , to practice only the one true religion which is the Catholic faith .
Before the Second Vatican Council there was no need to make a colossal effort to present voluminous studies showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council and another , between a pope and his predecessors , because the continuity was evident .
For example , the very fact that a “ nota explicativa previa ” to the document Lumen Gentium was needed shows that the text of Lumen Gentium , in n. 22 , is ambiguous with regard to the topic of the relationship between papal primacy and episcopal collegiality .
Documents clarifying the Magisterium in post-conciliar times , such as the encyclicals Mysterium Fidei , Humanae Vitae , and Pope Paul VI ’ s Creed of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value and help , but they did not clarify the aforementioned ambiguous statements of the Second Vatican Council .
Perhaps today ’ s crisis with Amoris Laetitia and the Abu Dhabi document forces us to deepen this consideration on the need to clarify or correct some of the aforementioned Council statements .
In the Summa Theologiae , St. Thomas Aquinas always presented objections ( “ videtur quod ” ) and counterarguments ( “ sed contra ” ) .
St. Thomas was intellectually very honest ; you have to allow for objections and take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ method on some of the controversial points of the Council texts that have been under discussion for almost sixty years .
Most of the Council texts are in organic continuity with the previous Magisterium .
Ultimately , the papal magisterium has to clarify in a convincing manner the controversial points of some of the expressions in the Council texts .
Until now , this has not always been done in an intellectually honest and convincing way .
Were it necessary , a pope or future ecumenical Council would have to add explanations ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ) or even amendments and corrections of those controversial expressions , since they were not presented by the Council as an infallible and definitive teaching .
As Paul VI stated , the Council “ avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions , engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium ” ( General Audience , January 12 , 1966 ) .
History will tell us this from a distance .
We are only fifty years out from the Council .
Maybe we will see this more clearly in another fifty years .
However , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of the evidence , from a global perspective , Vatican II did not bring a real spiritual flowering in the life of the Church .
And even if there were already problems in the clergy before the Council , for the sake of honesty and justice , we have to acknowledge that the moral , spiritual and doctrinal problems of the clergy prior to the Council were not as widespread , or so vast in scale and present with such intensity , as they have been in post-conciliar times until today .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems before the Council , the first aim of the Second Vatican Council should have been precisely to issue the clearest possible , even demanding , norms and doctrines that were free of any ambiguity , as all the reform Councils did in the past .
The plan and intentions of the Second Vatican Council were primarily pastoral , yet , despite its pastoral aim , there followed disastrous consequences that we still see today .
Of course , the Council had many beautiful and valuable texts .
But the negative consequences and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Council were so strong that they overshadowed the positive elements which are there .
There were positive elements in Vatican II : it was the first time that an ecumenical Council made a solemn appeal to the laity to take seriously their baptismal vows to strive for holiness .
The chapter in Lumen Gentium about the laity is beautiful and profound .
The faithful are called to live out their baptism and confirmation as courageous witnesses of the faith in secular society .
This appeal was prophetic .
However , since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was often abused by the progressive establishment in the Church , and also by many functionaries and bureaucrats who worked in Church offices and chanceries .
Oftentimes the new lay bureaucrats ( in certain European countries ) were not themselves witnesses but helped to destroy the faith in parish and diocesan councils and in other official committees .
Unfortunately , these lay bureaucrats were oftentimes misled by clergy and bishops .
The time after the Council left one with the impression that one of the main fruits of the Council was bureaucratization .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Council paralyzed spiritual and supernatural fervor to a considerable extent , and instead of the announced springtime , there came a spiritual winter .
Well known and unforgettable remain the words with which Paul VI honestly diagnosed the Church ’ s state of spiritual health after the Council : “ We thought that after the Council there would come a day of sunshine for the history of the Church .
Instead , there has come a day of clouds , of storms , of darkness , of searching and of uncertainty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more and more from others .
We seek to dig abysses instead of filling them ” ( Sermon on June 29 , 1972 ) .
Within this context , it was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in particular ( although he was not the only one to do so ) who began , on a larger scale and with a frankness similar to that of some of the great Church Fathers , to protest the watering down and dilution of the Catholic faith , especially regarding the sacrificial and sublime character of the rite of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Church , and being supported or at least tolerated , even by the high-ranking authorities in the Holy See .
In a letter addressed to Pope John Paul II at the beginning of his pontificate , Archbishop Lefebvre realistically and aptly described in a brief synopsis the true extent of the crisis in the Church .
I am continually impressed by the clear-sightedness and prophetic character of the following affirmations : We are now witnessing the climax of the spiritual disaster in the life of the Church to which Archbishop Lefebvre pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In approaching matters related to the Second Vatican Council and its documents , one has to avoid forced interpretations and the method of “ squaring the circle , ” while of course keeping all due respect and the ecclesiastical sense ( sentire cum ecclesia ) .
The application of the principle of the “ hermeneutic of continuity ” can not be used blindly in order to eliminate unquestioningly any evidently existing problems , or to create an image of harmony , while there remain shadows of vagueness in the hermeneutic of continuity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ artificially and unconvincingly the message that every word of the Second Vatican Council is inspired by God , infallible and in perfect doctrinal continuity with the previous magisterium .
Such a method would violate reason , evidence , and honesty , and would not do honor to the Church , for sooner or later ( maybe after a hundred years ) the truth will be stated as it really is .
There are books with documented and reproducible sources , which provide historically more realistic and true insights into the facts and consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the editing of its documents , and the process of the interpretation and application of its reforms in the last five decades .
I recommend , for instance , the following books which could be read with profit : Romano Amerio , Iota Unum : A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th century ( 1996 ) ; Roberto de Mattei , The Second Vatican Council : An Unwritten Story ( 2010 ) ; Alfonso Gálvez , Ecclesiastical Winter ( 2011 ) .
These points — the universal call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laity in defending and witnessing to the faith , the family as a domestic church and the teaching about Our Lady — are what can be considered the truly positive and lasting contributions of the Second Vatican Council .
The Magisterium has been so overloaded in the last 150 years with an insane papolatry that there emerged an atmosphere in which a central role is attributed to the men of the Church instead of Christ and His Mystical Body , which in turn is a hidden anthropocentrism .
According to the vision of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only the moon ( mysterium lunae ) , and Christ is the sun .
The Council was unfortunately a demonstration of a very rare “ Magisteriocentrism , ” since by the sheer volume of its long-winded documents it far surpassed all other Councils .
However , the Council gave a beautiful description of what the Magisterium is , which had never before been given in the history of the Church .
It is found in Dei Verbum , n. 10 , where it is written : “ The Magisterium is not above the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” By “ Magisteriocentrism , ” I mean the human and administrative elements — especially the excessive and continuous production of documents and frequent discussion forums ( under the motto of “ synodality ” ) — were put at the center of the life of the Church .
Although the Shepherds of the Church must always zealously exercise the munus docendi , the inflation of documents , and oftentimes of long-winded documents , has proved suffocating .
Less numerous , shorter and more concise documents would have had a better effect .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” where representatives from the Magisterium behave not as servants but as masters of tradition , is the liturgical reform of Pope Paul VI .
In some ways , Paul VI put himself above Tradition — not the dogmatic Tradition ( lex credendi ) , but the great liturgical Tradition ( lex orandi ) .
Paul VI dared to begin a true revolution in the lex orandi .
And to some extent , he acted contrary to the affirmation of the Second Vatican Council in Dei Verbum , n. 10 , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ servant of Tradition .
We have to put Christ at the center , He is the sun : the supernatural , the constancy of doctrine and of the liturgy , and all the truths of the Gospel which Christ taught us .
Through the Second Vatican Council , and already with Pope John XXIII , the Church began to present herself to the world , to flirt with the world , and to manifest an inferiority complex towards the world .
Yet clerics , especially the bishops and the Holy See , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — not themselves .
Vatican II gave the impression that the Catholic Church has started begging sympathy from the world .
This continued in the postconciliar pontificates .
The Church is begging for the sympathy and recognition of the world ; this is unworthy of her and will not earn the respect of those who truly seek God .
We have to beg sympathy from Christ , from God , from heaven .
Some who criticize the Second Vatican Council say that , although there are good aspects to it , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit of poison in it , and so the whole cake needs to be thrown out .
I do not think we can follow this method , nor the method of “ throwing the baby out with the bath water.
” With regard to a legitimate ecumenical Council , even if there were negative points , we have to maintain an overall attitude of respect .
We have to evaluate and esteem all that is really and truly good in the Council texts , without irrationally and dishonestly closing the eyes of reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and even erroneous in some of the texts .
One has always to remember that the texts of the Second Vatican Council are not the inspired Word of God , nor are they definitive dogmatic judgments or infallible pronouncements of the Magisterium , because the Council itself did not have this intention .
Another example is Amoris Laetitia .
There are certainly many points we need to criticize objectively and doctrinally .
But there are some sections which are very helpful , really good for family life , e.g.
, about elderly people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are very good .
One should not reject the entire document but receive from it what is good .
The same with the Council texts .
Even though , before the Council , they all had to take the Anti-Modernist Oath issued by Pope Pius X , some theologians , priests , bishops and even cardinals did it with mental reservations , as subsequent historical events have proven .
With the pontificate of Benedict XV , there began a slow and careful infiltration of ecclesiastics with a worldly and somewhat Modernist spirit into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infiltration grew particularly among theologians , so that later Pope Pius XII had to intervene by condemning well-known theologians of the so-called “ nouvelle théologie ” ( Chenu , Congar , De Lubac , etc . )
, and by publishing in 1950 the encyclical Humani generis .
Nonetheless , from the pontificate of Benedict XV onwards , the Modernist movement was latent and continually growing .
And so , on the eve of the Second Vatican Council , a considerable part of the episcopacy and professors in the theological faculties and seminaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is essentially doctrinal and moral relativism and worldliness , love for the world .
On the eve of the Council , these cardinals , bishops and theologians loved the “ form ” — the thought pattern — of the world ( cf .
Rom 12:2 ) and wanted to please the world ( cf .
Gal 1:10 ) .
They showed a clear inferiority complex towards the world .
Pope John XXIII also demonstrated a kind of inferiority complex towards the world .
He was not a modernist in his mind , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of looking at the world and strangely begged sympathy from the world .
He surely had good intentions .
He convoked the Council , which then opened the floodgate for the Modernist , Protestantizing and worldly-minded movement inside the Church .
Very significant is the following acute observation , made by Charles de Gaulle , President of France from 1959 to 1969 , regarding Pope John XXIII and the process of reforms started with the Second Vatican Council : “ John XXIII opened the floodgates and could not close them again .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John XXIII was overcome by what he triggered ” ( see Alain Peyrefitte , C ’ était de Gaulle , Paris 1997 , 2 , 19 ) .
The talk of “ opening the windows ” before and during the Council was a misleading illusion and a cause of confusion .
From these words , people got the impression that the spirit of an unbelieving and materialistic world , which was plainly evident in those times , could transmit some positive values for the Christian life .
Instead , the authorities of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared the true meaning of the words “ opening the windows , ” which consists in opening the life of the Church to the fresh air of the beauty of divine truth , to the treasures of ever-youthful holiness , to the supernatural lights of the Holy Spirit and the saints , to a liturgy celebrated and lived with an ever more supernatural , sacred and reverent sense .
Over time , during the postconciliar era , the partly opened floodgate gave way to a disastrous flood which caused enormous damage in doctrine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the flood waters that entered are reaching dangerous levels .
We are now experiencing the peak of the flood disaster .
Today the veil has been lifted and Modernism has revealed its true face , which consists in the betrayal of Christ and becoming a friend of the world by adopting its way of thinking .
Once the crisis in the Church is over , the Magisterium of the Church will have the task of rejecting all the negative phenomena which have been present in the life of the Church in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , because she is divine .
She will do it precisely and will correct all of the errors which have accumulated , beginning with several ambiguous expressions in the Council texts .
Modernism is like a hidden virus , hidden in part in several affirmations of the Council , but that has now manifested itself .
After the crisis , after the serious spiritual viral infection , the clarity and preciseness of doctrine , the sacredness of the liturgy , and the holiness of priestly life , will shine more brightly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ unambiguous manner , as she did in times of serious doctrinal and moral crises over the past two thousand years .
To teach clearly the truths of the divine deposit of faith , to defend the faithful from the poison of error , and to lead them in a sure way to eternal life belongs to the very essence of the divinely appointed task of the pope and bishops .
The Constitution of the Second Vatican Council , Sacrosanctum Concilium , reminds us of the real nature of the true Church , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her , the human is directed and subordinated to the divine , the visible to the invisible , action to contemplation and this present world to that city yet to come , which we seek ” ( n. 2 ) .
June 24 , 2020 Liturgical Feast of the Birth of St. John the Baptist Editor ’ s note : This essay first appeared on The Remnant here .
It is republished on LifeSiteNews with permission .

'We have to evaluate and esteem all that is really and truly good in the Council texts, without irrationally and dishonestly closing the eyes of reason to what is objectively and evidently ambiguous and even erroneous in some of the texts'
PETITION: Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues! Sign the petition here.
On June 24, 2020, Bishop Athanasius Schneider issued the following text titled “55 YEARS LATER: Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s Appraisal of Vatican II” to clarify his stance on the Council, and to dispel any confusion among the faithful. Bishop Schneider’s reflections, based in great part on his book-length interview Christus Vincit: Christ’s Triumph Over the Darkness of the Age (All rights reserved), expand on certain points of its discussion of Vatican II, in light of recent debate.
June 25, 2020 (The Remnant) – In recent decades, not only declared modernists, but also theologians and faithful who love the Church, have displayed an attitude that resembles a kind of blind defense of everything said by the Second Vatican Council. Such an attitude seemed sometimes to require real mental acrobatics and a “squaring of the circle.” Even now, the general mentality of good Catholics corresponds with a de facto total infallibilization of everything that the Second Vatican Council said, or that the current Pontiff says or does. This kind of unhealthy papal-centralism had already been present for several generations in Catholics over the last two centuries. And yet respectful criticism and serene theological debate have always been present and allowed within the Church’s great tradition, since it is truth and faithfulness to divine revelation and to the constant tradition of the Church that we should seek, which in itself implies the use of reason and rationality, and avoiding mental acrobatics. Some explanations of certain obviously ambiguous and misleading expressions contained in the Council’s texts seem artificial and unconvincing, especially when one reflects upon them in a more intellectually honest manner, in the light of the unbroken and constant doctrine of the Church.
Instinctively, every reasonable argument has been repressed which could, even in the slightest, call into question any expression or word in the Council texts. However, such an attitude is not healthy and contradicts the great tradition of the Church, as we observe in the Fathers, the Doctors, and great theologians of the Church over the course of two thousand years. An opinion different from what the Council of Florence taught on the matter of the Sacrament of Orders, i.e. the traditio instrumentorum, was allowed in the centuries following this Council, and led to Pope Pius XII’s pronouncement in the 1947 Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, whereby he corrected the non-infallible teaching of the Council of Florence, by stating that the only matter strictly necessary for the validity of the Sacrament of Orders is the imposition of hands by the bishop. By this act, Pius XII did not implement a hermeneutic of continuity but, indeed, a correction, because the Council of Florence’s doctrine in this matter did not reflect the constant liturgical doctrine and practice of the universal Church. Already in the year 1914, Cardinal W.M. van Rossum wrote concerning the Council of Florence’s affirmation on the matter of the Sacrament of Orders, that this doctrine of the Council is reformable and must even be abandoned (cf. De essentia sacramenti ordinis, Freiburg 1914, p. 186). And so, there was no room for a hermeneutic of continuity in this concrete case.
When the papal magisterium or an ecumenical Council has corrected non-infallible doctrines of previous ecumenical Councils (this has rarely happened), they did not undermine the foundations of the Catholic faith by this act, nor did they set the magisterium of tomorrow against that of today, as history has proven. With a Bull in 1425, Martin V approved the decrees of the Council of Constance and even the decree “Frequens” — from the 39th session of the Council (in 1417). This decree affirmed the error of conciliarism, i.e., the error that a Council is superior to a Pope. However, in 1446, his successor, Pope Eugene IV, declared that he accepted the decrees of the Ecumenical Council of Constance, except those (of sessions 3 – 5 and 39) which “prejudice the rights and primacy of the Apostolic See” (absque tamen praeiudicio iuris, dignitatis et praeeminentiae Sedis Apostolicae). Vatican I’s dogma on papal primacy then definitively rejected the conciliarist error of the Ecumenical Council of Constance. As already mentioned, Pope Pius XII corrected the error of the Ecumenical Council of Florence regarding the matter of the Sacrament of Orders. The foundations of the faith were not undermined by these rare acts to correct previous affirmations of the non-infallible Magisterium, precisely because these concrete affirmations (e.g. of the Councils of Constance and Florence) were not infallible.
Several expressions in the texts of the Second Vatican Council cannot be so easily reconciled with the Church’s constant doctrinal tradition. Examples include certain expressions of the Council on the topic of religious freedom (understood as a natural right, and therefore positively willed by God, to practice and spread a false religion, which may also include idolatry or even worse); its distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church (the problem of “subsistit in” gives the impression that two realities exist: on the one side, the Church of Christ, and on the other, the Catholic Church); and its stance towards non-Christian religions and the contemporary world. Although the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church (29 June 2007), offered an explanation of the expression “subsistit in,” it unfortunately avoided saying clearly that the Church of Christ is truly the Catholic Church. That is, it avoided explicitly declaring the identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. Indeed, there remains a nuance of vagueness.
There is also an attitude that rejects a priori all possible objections to the aforementioned questionable statements in the Council texts. Instead, the only solution presented is the method called “hermeneutic of continuity.” Unfortunately, doubts about the theological problems inherent in these Council statements are not taken seriously. We have to always bear in mind the fact that the chief end of the Council was pastoral in character, and that the Council did not intend to propose its own definitive teachings.
The pronouncements of the popes before the Council, even those of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, faithfully reflect their predecessors and the constant tradition of the Church in an unbroken manner. The popes of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, that is, after the French Revolution, do not represent an “exotic” period compared to the two-thousand-year tradition of the Church. One could not claim any rupture in the teachings of those popes regarding the previous Magisterium. For example, concerning the theme of the social kingship of Christ and of the objective falsehood of non-Christian religions, one cannot find a perceivable rupture between the teachings of the Popes Gregory XVI and Pius XII on the one side, and the teaching of Pope Gregory the Great (sixth century) and his predecessors and successors on the other. One can really see a continuous line without any rupture from the time of the Church Fathers to Pius XII, especially on such topics as the social kingship of Christ, religious liberty, and ecumenism in the sense that there is a natural right, positively willed by God, to practice only the one true religion which is the Catholic faith.
Before the Second Vatican Council there was no need to make a colossal effort to present voluminous studies showing the perfect continuity of doctrine between one Council and another, between a pope and his predecessors, because the continuity was evident. For example, the very fact that a “nota explicativa previa” to the document Lumen Gentium was needed shows that the text of Lumen Gentium, in n. 22, is ambiguous with regard to the topic of the relationship between papal primacy and episcopal collegiality. Documents clarifying the Magisterium in post-conciliar times, such as the encyclicals Mysterium Fidei, Humanae Vitae, and Pope Paul VI’s Creed of the People of God, were of great value and help, but they did not clarify the aforementioned ambiguous statements of the Second Vatican Council.
Perhaps today’s crisis with Amoris Laetitia and the Abu Dhabi document forces us to deepen this consideration on the need to clarify or correct some of the aforementioned Council statements. In the Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas always presented objections (“videtur quod”) and counterarguments (“sed contra”). St. Thomas was intellectually very honest; you have to allow for objections and take them seriously. We should use his method on some of the controversial points of the Council texts that have been under discussion for almost sixty years. Most of the Council texts are in organic continuity with the previous Magisterium. Ultimately, the papal magisterium has to clarify in a convincing manner the controversial points of some of the expressions in the Council texts. Until now, this has not always been done in an intellectually honest and convincing way. Were it necessary, a pope or future ecumenical Council would have to add explanations (a kind of “notae explicativae posteriors”) or even amendments and corrections of those controversial expressions, since they were not presented by the Council as an infallible and definitive teaching. As Paul VI stated, the Council “avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium” (General Audience, January 12, 1966).
History will tell us this from a distance. We are only fifty years out from the Council. Maybe we will see this more clearly in another fifty years. However, from the point of view of the facts, of the evidence, from a global perspective, Vatican II did not bring a real spiritual flowering in the life of the Church. And even if there were already problems in the clergy before the Council, for the sake of honesty and justice, we have to acknowledge that the moral, spiritual and doctrinal problems of the clergy prior to the Council were not as widespread, or so vast in scale and present with such intensity, as they have been in post-conciliar times until today. Bearing in mind that there were already problems before the Council, the first aim of the Second Vatican Council should have been precisely to issue the clearest possible, even demanding, norms and doctrines that were free of any ambiguity, as all the reform Councils did in the past. The plan and intentions of the Second Vatican Council were primarily pastoral, yet, despite its pastoral aim, there followed disastrous consequences that we still see today. Of course, the Council had many beautiful and valuable texts. But the negative consequences and the abuses committed in the name of the Council were so strong that they overshadowed the positive elements which are there.
There were positive elements in Vatican II: it was the first time that an ecumenical Council made a solemn appeal to the laity to take seriously their baptismal vows to strive for holiness. The chapter in Lumen Gentium about the laity is beautiful and profound. The faithful are called to live out their baptism and confirmation as courageous witnesses of the faith in secular society. This appeal was prophetic. However, since the Council, this appeal to the laity was often abused by the progressive establishment in the Church, and also by many functionaries and bureaucrats who worked in Church offices and chanceries. Oftentimes the new lay bureaucrats (in certain European countries) were not themselves witnesses but helped to destroy the faith in parish and diocesan councils and in other official committees. Unfortunately, these lay bureaucrats were oftentimes misled by clergy and bishops.
The time after the Council left one with the impression that one of the main fruits of the Council was bureaucratization. This worldly bureaucratization in the decades since the Council paralyzed spiritual and supernatural fervor to a considerable extent, and instead of the announced springtime, there came a spiritual winter. Well known and unforgettable remain the words with which Paul VI honestly diagnosed the Church’s state of spiritual health after the Council: “We thought that after the Council there would come a day of sunshine for the history of the Church. Instead, there has come a day of clouds, of storms, of darkness, of searching and of uncertainty. We preach ecumenism and we distance ourselves more and more from others. We seek to dig abysses instead of filling them” (Sermon on June 29, 1972).
Within this context, it was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in particular (although he was not the only one to do so) who began, on a larger scale and with a frankness similar to that of some of the great Church Fathers, to protest the watering down and dilution of the Catholic faith, especially regarding the sacrificial and sublime character of the rite of Holy Mass, that was occurring in the Church, and being supported or at least tolerated, even by the high-ranking authorities in the Holy See. In a letter addressed to Pope John Paul II at the beginning of his pontificate, Archbishop Lefebvre realistically and aptly described in a brief synopsis the true extent of the crisis in the Church. I am continually impressed by the clear-sightedness and prophetic character of the following affirmations:
The flood of novelties in the Church, accepted and encouraged by the Episcopate, a flood that ravages everything on its path — faith, morals, the Church’s institutions — could not tolerate the presence of an obstacle, a resistance. We then had the choice of letting ourselves be carried away by the devastating current and adding to the disaster, or of resisting wind and wave to safeguard our Catholic faith and the Catholic priesthood. We could not hesitate. The ruins of the Church are mounting: atheism, immorality, the abandonment of churches, the disappearance of religious and priestly vocations are such that the bishops are beginning to be roused” (Letter from December 24, 1978).
We are now witnessing the climax of the spiritual disaster in the life of the Church to which Archbishop Lefebvre pointed so vigorously already forty years ago.
In approaching matters related to the Second Vatican Council and its documents, one has to avoid forced interpretations and the method of “squaring the circle,” while of course keeping all due respect and the ecclesiastical sense (sentire cum ecclesia). The application of the principle of the “hermeneutic of continuity” cannot be used blindly in order to eliminate unquestioningly any evidently existing problems, or to create an image of harmony, while there remain shadows of vagueness in the hermeneutic of continuity. Indeed, such an approach would transmit artificially and unconvincingly the message that every word of the Second Vatican Council is inspired by God, infallible and in perfect doctrinal continuity with the previous magisterium. Such a method would violate reason, evidence, and honesty, and would not do honor to the Church, for sooner or later (maybe after a hundred years) the truth will be stated as it really is. There are books with documented and reproducible sources, which provide historically more realistic and true insights into the facts and consequences regarding the event of Vatican II itself, the editing of its documents, and the process of the interpretation and application of its reforms in the last five decades. I recommend, for instance, the following books which could be read with profit: Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th century (1996); Roberto de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story (2010); Alfonso Gálvez, Ecclesiastical Winter (2011).
These points — the universal call to holiness, the role of the laity in defending and witnessing to the faith, the family as a domestic church and the teaching about Our Lady — are what can be considered the truly positive and lasting contributions of the Second Vatican Council.
The Magisterium has been so overloaded in the last 150 years with an insane papolatry that there emerged an atmosphere in which a central role is attributed to the men of the Church instead of Christ and His Mystical Body, which in turn is a hidden anthropocentrism. According to the vision of the Church Fathers, the Church is only the moon (mysterium lunae), and Christ is the sun. The Council was unfortunately a demonstration of a very rare “Magisteriocentrism,” since by the sheer volume of its long-winded documents it far surpassed all other Councils. However, the Council gave a beautiful description of what the Magisterium is, which had never before been given in the history of the Church. It is found in Dei Verbum, n. 10, where it is written: “The Magisterium is not above the Word of God, but serves it.”
By “Magisteriocentrism,” I mean the human and administrative elements — especially the excessive and continuous production of documents and frequent discussion forums (under the motto of “synodality”) — were put at the center of the life of the Church. Although the Shepherds of the Church must always zealously exercise the munus docendi, the inflation of documents, and oftentimes of long-winded documents, has proved suffocating. Less numerous, shorter and more concise documents would have had a better effect.
A striking example of the unhealthy “Magisteriocentrism,” where representatives from the Magisterium behave not as servants but as masters of tradition, is the liturgical reform of Pope Paul VI. In some ways, Paul VI put himself above Tradition — not the dogmatic Tradition (lex credendi), but the great liturgical Tradition (lex orandi). Paul VI dared to begin a true revolution in the lex orandi. And to some extent, he acted contrary to the affirmation of the Second Vatican Council in Dei Verbum, n. 10, which states that the Magisterium is only the servant of Tradition. We have to put Christ at the center, He is the sun: the supernatural, the constancy of doctrine and of the liturgy, and all the truths of the Gospel which Christ taught us.
Through the Second Vatican Council, and already with Pope John XXIII, the Church began to present herself to the world, to flirt with the world, and to manifest an inferiority complex towards the world. Yet clerics, especially the bishops and the Holy See, are tasked with showing Christ to the world — not themselves. Vatican II gave the impression that the Catholic Church has started begging sympathy from the world. This continued in the postconciliar pontificates. The Church is begging for the sympathy and recognition of the world; this is unworthy of her and will not earn the respect of those who truly seek God. We have to beg sympathy from Christ, from God, from heaven.
Some who criticize the Second Vatican Council say that, although there are good aspects to it, it’s somewhat like a cake with a bit of poison in it, and so the whole cake needs to be thrown out. I do not think we can follow this method, nor the method of “throwing the baby out with the bath water.” With regard to a legitimate ecumenical Council, even if there were negative points, we have to maintain an overall attitude of respect. We have to evaluate and esteem all that is really and truly good in the Council texts, without irrationally and dishonestly closing the eyes of reason to what is objectively and evidently ambiguous and even erroneous in some of the texts. One has always to remember that the texts of the Second Vatican Council are not the inspired Word of God, nor are they definitive dogmatic judgments or infallible pronouncements of the Magisterium, because the Council itself did not have this intention.
Another example is Amoris Laetitia. There are certainly many points we need to criticize objectively and doctrinally. But there are some sections which are very helpful, really good for family life, e.g., about elderly people in the family: in se they are very good. One should not reject the entire document but receive from it what is good. The same with the Council texts.
Even though, before the Council, they all had to take the Anti-Modernist Oath issued by Pope Pius X, some theologians, priests, bishops and even cardinals did it with mental reservations, as subsequent historical events have proven. With the pontificate of Benedict XV, there began a slow and careful infiltration of ecclesiastics with a worldly and somewhat Modernist spirit into high positions in the Church. This infiltration grew particularly among theologians, so that later Pope Pius XII had to intervene by condemning well-known theologians of the so-called “nouvelle théologie” (Chenu, Congar, De Lubac, etc.), and by publishing in 1950 the encyclical Humani generis. Nonetheless, from the pontificate of Benedict XV onwards, the Modernist movement was latent and continually growing. And so, on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, a considerable part of the episcopacy and professors in the theological faculties and seminaries were imbued with a Modernist mentality, which is essentially doctrinal and moral relativism and worldliness, love for the world. On the eve of the Council, these cardinals, bishops and theologians loved the “form” — the thought pattern — of the world (cf. Rom 12:2) and wanted to please the world (cf. Gal 1:10). They showed a clear inferiority complex towards the world.
Pope John XXIII also demonstrated a kind of inferiority complex towards the world. He was not a modernist in his mind, but he did have a political way of looking at the world and strangely begged sympathy from the world. He surely had good intentions. He convoked the Council, which then opened the floodgate for the Modernist, Protestantizing and worldly-minded movement inside the Church. Very significant is the following acute observation, made by Charles de Gaulle, President of France from 1959 to 1969, regarding Pope John XXIII and the process of reforms started with the Second Vatican Council: “John XXIII opened the floodgates and could not close them again. It was as if a dam collapsed. John XXIII was overcome by what he triggered” (see Alain Peyrefitte, C’était de Gaulle, Paris 1997, 2, 19).
The talk of “opening the windows” before and during the Council was a misleading illusion and a cause of confusion. From these words, people got the impression that the spirit of an unbelieving and materialistic world, which was plainly evident in those times, could transmit some positive values for the Christian life. Instead, the authorities of the Church in those times should have expressly declared the true meaning of the words “opening the windows,” which consists in opening the life of the Church to the fresh air of the beauty of divine truth, to the treasures of ever-youthful holiness, to the supernatural lights of the Holy Spirit and the saints, to a liturgy celebrated and lived with an ever more supernatural, sacred and reverent sense. Over time, during the postconciliar era, the partly opened floodgate gave way to a disastrous flood which caused enormous damage in doctrine, morals, and liturgy. Today, the flood waters that entered are reaching dangerous levels. We are now experiencing the peak of the flood disaster.
Today the veil has been lifted and Modernism has revealed its true face, which consists in the betrayal of Christ and becoming a friend of the world by adopting its way of thinking. Once the crisis in the Church is over, the Magisterium of the Church will have the task of rejecting all the negative phenomena which have been present in the life of the Church in recent decades. And the Church will do this, because she is divine. She will do it precisely and will correct all of the errors which have accumulated, beginning with several ambiguous expressions in the Council texts.
Modernism is like a hidden virus, hidden in part in several affirmations of the Council, but that has now manifested itself. After the crisis, after the serious spiritual viral infection, the clarity and preciseness of doctrine, the sacredness of the liturgy, and the holiness of priestly life, will shine more brightly.
The Church will do this in an unambiguous manner, as she did in times of serious doctrinal and moral crises over the past two thousand years. To teach clearly the truths of the divine deposit of faith, to defend the faithful from the poison of error, and to lead them in a sure way to eternal life belongs to the very essence of the divinely appointed task of the pope and bishops.
The Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, reminds us of the real nature of the true Church, which is “in such wise that in her, the human is directed and subordinated to the divine, the visible to the invisible, action to contemplation and this present world to that city yet to come, which we seek” (n. 2).
June 24, 2020
Liturgical Feast of the Birth of St. John the Baptist
Editor’s note: This essay first appeared on The Remnant here. It is republished on LifeSiteNews with permission.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-26--Alberta govt about to pass ‘draconian…dangerous’ power grab bill, pro-freedom lawyers’ group warns

CALGARY , Alberta , June 25 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is issuing a warning to the Alberta government and an alert to the public regarding Bill 24 : COVID-19 Pandemic Response Amendment Act , 2020 .
Bill 24 was introduced on June 18 , 2020 and has now passed first and second readings .
It is a large and complex omnibus Bill that amends 15 different laws at once .
This would usually be the object of intense debate in the Legislature , because one Bill is revamping so many laws at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Hansard debates thus far shows that Opposition MLAs have had insufficient time to understand the impact of Bill 24 and its far-reaching implications .
Buried in Bill 24 , in very complicated legal language , is another UCP power grab that circumvents democracy and gives the Minister of Health and the Alberta government alarming new powers .
Premier Jason Kenney previously acknowledged public concern regarding Bill 10 , and promised revisions to amend it .
But instead of undoing Bill 10 ’ s unconstitutional delegation of power from the Legislature to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these powers further .
There are at least three significant areas of concern with Bill 24 that impact constitutional freedoms and our democracy .
First , Bill 24 takes the extraordinary temporary powers ( section 52.6 of the Public Health Act ) , which are available only in the exceptional circumstances of a public health emergency , and makes some use of those powers available to the Alberta government permanently , even when no public health emergency exists .
Bill 24 would give the government a regular ( non-emergency ) power to enter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for homeless persons in Calgary , and all airports ( including private boarding areas ) without a warrant , and take possession of these facilities , and personal property within them .
Bill 24 would also give the government permanent power to conscript people or require people to render aid , and authorize the distribution of health services in these facilities , even when Alberta is no longer in a state of public health emergency .
“ While perhaps well-intended , this extension of draconian emergency powers , for use at any time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step down a slippery and dangerous slope , ” stated Jay Cameron , litigation manager for the Justice Centre .
The Justice Centre has already taken the Alberta government to court over Bill 10 , which gave cabinet ministers new powers to write new laws and create new offences without any input from Members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta .
“ The United Conservative Party government has already shown its willingness to bypass democratic safeguards to enact authoritarian provisions , as in the broad release of private and personal health records to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a unilateral Ministerial Order .
Citizens ought to be wary of a government which continues to break down safeguards to increase its power , ” continued Cameron .
Second , Bill 24 gives power to Health Minister Tyler Shandro to make regulations based on the Health Orders that were issued by Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Deena Hinshaw during the public health emergency , even though the public health emergency no longer exists .
Dr. Hinshaw currently can not issue new orders under section 29 ( 2.1 ) of the Public Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer in effect .
If passed , Minister Shandro has said that Bill 24 would change this , restoring Dr. Hinshaw ’ s law-making powers even though a state of public health emergency has not been declared , and would also give Minister Shandro the unfettered opportunity to create special Regulations for Health Orders .
Dr. Hinshaw ’ s Health Orders during the public health emergency bypassed the Legislature , avoiding all questions and debate about the devastating impact of her lockdown of society .
After the fact analysis of the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one doctor in charge of millions of people for months on end .
Dr. Hinshaw is not equipped to consider the social and economic harms that occur as a result of the prevention of commerce and the violation of Charter freedoms to move , travel , assemble , associate and worship .
Further , she is not required by the Public Health Act to consult with other medical experts .
Bill 24 would give Minister Shandro the power to make Regulations regarding Dr. Hinshaw ’ s Health Orders , as though they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fact they are laws created unilaterally by one doctor .
The public should expect that these Health Orders , which existed only because of the public health emergency , should be discarded now that the emergency is over .
“ It ’ s time for the regular operation of governance by and through and with the elected Members of the Legislative Assembly , ” stated Cameron .
“ Instead , under Bill 24 , Dr. Hinshaw will be re-empowered to make Health Orders indefinitely , and her Orders will be expanded upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of which will once again happen without the active involvement of the Legislature , ” explained Cameron .
The Justice Centre previously warned against the unilateral law-making powers of the Health Minister pursuant to Bill 10 .
Third and finally , Bill 24 extends Minister Shandro ’ s release of private medical information to the police from August 14 , 2020 , when it would have lapsed , to December 31 , 2021 , for an additional 16 months .
Minister Shandro unilaterally created this new law to violate patient privacy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adding sections 53 ( 4.2 ) and ( 4.3 ) to the Public Health Act .
Minister Shandro ’ s new law contains no safeguards outlining the use , storage and retention of the personal data by police .
No safeguards exist to clarify how long this information will remain in the police ’ s possession .
There are no limitations on how the police may use this private and personal information .
There is no clause that mandates that the information will be destroyed at a later date .
“ Providing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it can be accessed at the police ’ s discretion is the authorization of a warrantless search without judicial checks and balances , and it is a dangerous breach of privacy rights .
Instead of reversing the unconstitutional release of patient records , or at least attempting to fix the deficiencies of Shandro ’ s new law , Bill 24 extends the ability to breach personal privacy for another year and a half , ” stated Cameron .
Premier Kenney and Minister Shandro have both publicly stated that the circumstances of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Alberta .
Minister Shandro informed the Legislature on June 23 during debate on Bill 24 that the initial COVID-19 risk was “ hard to scope ” , and that he thought the worst case scenario was “ severe , ” but that “ the risk as we know it today , based on our actual experience , is very different.
” “ Shandro ’ s statements indicate awareness , if not admission , that the wholesale lockdown of Alberta was an overreaction , ” commented Cameron .
Minister Shandro also stated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency powers should only last as long as they are needed ” and that the extraordinary powers in section 52.6 are “ no longer needed at this time in this province.
” “ Given these statements , the Alberta government ought to be moving to protect constitutional rights and safeguards to win back public trust .
Instead , it is increasing its capacity to sidestep Legislative oversight and public accountability , ” stated Cameron .
“ There appears to be a dangerous trend towards authoritarianism in Canada , both federally and in some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the detriment of democracy and the rule of law , and the lawful and democratic rights of citizens .
If Bill 24 passes in its current form we will commence litigation to challenge its constitutionality , ” stated lawyer John Carpay , president of the Justice Centre .

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms warns that the Minister of Health and the provincial government are about to be granted alarming new powers.
CALGARY, Alberta, June 25, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is issuing a warning to the Alberta government and an alert to the public regarding Bill 24: COVID-19 Pandemic Response Amendment Act, 2020. Bill 24 was introduced on June 18, 2020 and has now passed first and second readings. It is a large and complex omnibus Bill that amends 15 different laws at once. This would usually be the object of intense debate in the Legislature, because one Bill is revamping so many laws at once, so quickly. A review of the Hansard debates thus far shows that Opposition MLAs have had insufficient time to understand the impact of Bill 24 and its far-reaching implications.
Buried in Bill 24, in very complicated legal language, is another UCP power grab that circumvents democracy and gives the Minister of Health and the Alberta government alarming new powers. Premier Jason Kenney previously acknowledged public concern regarding Bill 10, and promised revisions to amend it. But instead of undoing Bill 10’s unconstitutional delegation of power from the Legislature to single cabinet ministers, Bill 24 extends these powers further. There are at least three significant areas of concern with Bill 24 that impact constitutional freedoms and our democracy.
First, Bill 24 takes the extraordinary temporary powers (section 52.6 of the Public Health Act), which are available only in the exceptional circumstances of a public health emergency, and makes some use of those powers available to the Alberta government permanently, even when no public health emergency exists.
Bill 24 would give the government a regular (non-emergency) power to enter long-term care homes, an isolation area for homeless persons in Calgary, and all airports (including private boarding areas) without a warrant, and take possession of these facilities, and personal property within them. Bill 24 would also give the government permanent power to conscript people or require people to render aid, and authorize the distribution of health services in these facilities, even when Alberta is no longer in a state of public health emergency.
“While perhaps well-intended, this extension of draconian emergency powers, for use at any time without notice during non-emergencies, is a step down a slippery and dangerous slope,” stated Jay Cameron, litigation manager for the Justice Centre.
The Justice Centre has already taken the Alberta government to court over Bill 10, which gave cabinet ministers new powers to write new laws and create new offences without any input from Members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta.
“The United Conservative Party government has already shown its willingness to bypass democratic safeguards to enact authoritarian provisions, as in the broad release of private and personal health records to police services effected via Bill 10 and a unilateral Ministerial Order. Citizens ought to be wary of a government which continues to break down safeguards to increase its power,” continued Cameron.
Second, Bill 24 gives power to Health Minister Tyler Shandro to make regulations based on the Health Orders that were issued by Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Deena Hinshaw during the public health emergency, even though the public health emergency no longer exists. Dr. Hinshaw currently cannot issue new orders under section 29(2.1) of the Public Health Act because the state of emergency is no longer in effect. If passed, Minister Shandro has said that Bill 24 would change this, restoring Dr. Hinshaw’s law-making powers even though a state of public health emergency has not been declared, and would also give Minister Shandro the unfettered opportunity to create special Regulations for Health Orders.
Dr. Hinshaw’s Health Orders during the public health emergency bypassed the Legislature, avoiding all questions and debate about the devastating impact of her lockdown of society. After the fact analysis of the last few months evidences the dangers of putting one doctor in charge of millions of people for months on end. Dr. Hinshaw is not equipped to consider the social and economic harms that occur as a result of the prevention of commerce and the violation of Charter freedoms to move, travel, assemble, associate and worship. Further, she is not required by the Public Health Act to consult with other medical experts.
Bill 24 would give Minister Shandro the power to make Regulations regarding Dr. Hinshaw’s Health Orders, as though they were laws passed through the Legislature, when in fact they are laws created unilaterally by one doctor. The public should expect that these Health Orders, which existed only because of the public health emergency, should be discarded now that the emergency is over.
“It’s time for the regular operation of governance by and through and with the elected Members of the Legislative Assembly,” stated Cameron.
“Instead, under Bill 24, Dr. Hinshaw will be re-empowered to make Health Orders indefinitely, and her Orders will be expanded upon through Regulations created by Minister Shandro, all of which will once again happen without the active involvement of the Legislature,” explained Cameron.
The Justice Centre previously warned against the unilateral law-making powers of the Health Minister pursuant to Bill 10.
Third and finally, Bill 24 extends Minister Shandro’s release of private medical information to the police from August 14, 2020, when it would have lapsed, to December 31, 2021, for an additional 16 months. Minister Shandro unilaterally created this new law to violate patient privacy and confidentiality on May 14, 2020 by adding sections 53(4.2) and (4.3) to the Public Health Act. Minister Shandro’s new law contains no safeguards outlining the use, storage and retention of the personal data by police. No safeguards exist to clarify how long this information will remain in the police’s possession. There are no limitations on how the police may use this private and personal information. There is no clause that mandates that the information will be destroyed at a later date.
“Providing the personal information of patients to police so that it can be accessed at the police’s discretion is the authorization of a warrantless search without judicial checks and balances, and it is a dangerous breach of privacy rights. Instead of reversing the unconstitutional release of patient records, or at least attempting to fix the deficiencies of Shandro’s new law, Bill 24 extends the ability to breach personal privacy for another year and a half,” stated Cameron.
Premier Kenney and Minister Shandro have both publicly stated that the circumstances of a public health emergency are no longer present in Alberta. Minister Shandro informed the Legislature on June 23 during debate on Bill 24 that the initial COVID-19 risk was “hard to scope”, and that he thought the worst case scenario was “severe,” but that “the risk as we know it today, based on our actual experience, is very different.”
“Shandro’s statements indicate awareness, if not admission, that the wholesale lockdown of Alberta was an overreaction,” commented Cameron.
Minister Shandro also stated in the Legislature on June 23 that “emergency powers should only last as long as they are needed” and that the extraordinary powers in section 52.6 are “no longer needed at this time in this province.”
“Given these statements, the Alberta government ought to be moving to protect constitutional rights and safeguards to win back public trust. Instead, it is increasing its capacity to sidestep Legislative oversight and public accountability,” stated Cameron.
“There appears to be a dangerous trend towards authoritarianism in Canada, both federally and in some provinces. Governments are exploiting COVID-19 to the detriment of democracy and the rule of law, and the lawful and democratic rights of citizens. If Bill 24 passes in its current form we will commence litigation to challenge its constitutionality,” stated lawyer John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-25--Pope Francis bashes ‘adolescent’ priests who defied COVID lockdowns to give faithful sacraments

PETITION : Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues !
Sign the petition here .
VATICAN CITY , June 25 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Pope Francis has indicated that he was not impressed with priests who violated coronavirus lockdown rules to minister to the laity .
In a speech he delivered Saturday to primarily bishops , doctors , nurses , and other healthcare workers from the Italian region of Lombardy , Pope Francis contrasted priests who violated the ban on public worship with priests who ministered to their flock in “ creative ” ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The pastoral zeal and creative solicitude of priests helped people to follow the way of faith and not to remain alone before sorrow and fear , ” he said .
“ This priestly creativity ... overcame ... a few , ‘ adolescent ’ expressions against the measures of the authority having the duty of protecting the health of the people.
” Francis said most priests were “ obedient and creative.
” “ I admired the apostolic spirit of many priests who visited by telephone , knocked on doors , called by homes ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something ?
I will do your shopping , ’ ” he added .
“ A thousand things .
Closeness , creativity , without shame .
...
They were a sign of the consoling presence of God.
” He said these priests were “ fathers , not adolescents.
” The pontiff said Italian Catholics were able to feel like a community even without public worship .
“ These past months , the people could not participate personally at the liturgical celebrations , but they didn ’ t miss the feeling of community , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or with their families , even through means of social communication , spiritually united , and perceiving that the embrace of the Lord goes beyond the limits of space.
” Pope Francis praised doctors and nurses and other people in secular life who brought healing and comfort to the sick during the bleakest days of Italy ’ s early experience of the coronavirus pandemic .
He asked his audience not to forget the “ positive energy ” generated at that time and said individualism as a guiding principle for society has been , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be illusory .
“ God has created us for communion , for fraternity , ” he said .
Among those present at the lecture were the Archbishop of Milan and the bishops of Bergamo , Brescia , Cremona , Crema , Lodì and Padua .
The coronavirus pandemic hit Lombardy early and hard before spreading throughout the rest of Italy , Europe and the United Kingdom .
The first known Italian COVID-19 patient in the region fell ill in mid-February .
On March 8 , as the virus spread rapidly through northern Italy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and central areas under quarantine .
This was only partially effective .
As of today , there have been more than 93,000 cases reported for the Lombardy region , and the deaths of more than 16,500 residents have been blamed on the virus .
The quarantine , which included a ban on public worship and most travel outside the home , extended to the entire country on March 10 .
This left many priests uncertain as to how to minister to the spiritual needs of their people .
In some places , authorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other devotional processions ; in others , police fined priests for appearing outdoors without sufficient cause or even interrupted Mass .
One aspect of the coronavirus measures that troubled faithful Catholics in northern Italy was that churches were singled out for closure weeks before restaurants , swimming pools and other public venues were made to close their doors .
On March 8 , shortly after the nationwide ban on public gatherings , even private prayer in the churches of Rome was suspended .
This decision was overturned on March 13 after Papal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the doors to his titular church and displayed the Blessed Sacrament for adoration .
“ It is the act of disobedience , yes , I myself put the Blessed Sacrament out and opened my church , ” Krajewski said .
“ It did not happen under Fascism , it did not happen under the Russian or Soviet rule in Poland — the churches were not closed , ” he explained .
“ This is an act that should bring courage to other priests .
”

'I admired the apostolic spirit of many priests who visited by telephone, knocked on doors, called by homes (saying): 'Do you need something? I will do your shopping.''
PETITION: Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues! Sign the petition here.
VATICAN CITY, June 25, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis has indicated that he was not impressed with priests who violated coronavirus lockdown rules to minister to the laity.
In a speech he delivered Saturday to primarily bishops, doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers from the Italian region of Lombardy, Pope Francis contrasted priests who violated the ban on public worship with priests who ministered to their flock in “creative” ways, like buying their shopping.
“The pastoral zeal and creative solicitude of priests helped people to follow the way of faith and not to remain alone before sorrow and fear,” he said.
“This priestly creativity … overcame … a few, ‘adolescent’ expressions against the measures of the authority having the duty of protecting the health of the people.”
Francis said most priests were “obedient and creative.”
“I admired the apostolic spirit of many priests who visited by telephone, knocked on doors, called by homes (saying): ‘Do you need something? I will do your shopping,’” he added.
“A thousand things. Closeness, creativity, without shame. … They were a sign of the consoling presence of God.”
He said these priests were “fathers, not adolescents.”
The pontiff said Italian Catholics were able to feel like a community even without public worship.
“These past months, the people could not participate personally at the liturgical celebrations, but they didn’t miss the feeling of community,” he said.
“They prayed alone or with their families, even through means of social communication, spiritually united, and perceiving that the embrace of the Lord goes beyond the limits of space.”
Pope Francis praised doctors and nurses and other people in secular life who brought healing and comfort to the sick during the bleakest days of Italy’s early experience of the coronavirus pandemic. He asked his audience not to forget the “positive energy” generated at that time and said individualism as a guiding principle for society has been, more now than ever, shown to be illusory.
“God has created us for communion, for fraternity,” he said.
Among those present at the lecture were the Archbishop of Milan and the bishops of Bergamo, Brescia, Cremona, Crema, Lodì and Padua.
The coronavirus pandemic hit Lombardy early and hard before spreading throughout the rest of Italy, Europe and the United Kingdom. The first known Italian COVID-19 patient in the region fell ill in mid-February. On March 8, as the virus spread rapidly through northern Italy, Lombardy was placed with other northern and central areas under quarantine. This was only partially effective. As of today, there have been more than 93,000 cases reported for the Lombardy region, and the deaths of more than 16,500 residents have been blamed on the virus.
The quarantine, which included a ban on public worship and most travel outside the home, extended to the entire country on March 10. This left many priests uncertain as to how to minister to the spiritual needs of their people. In some places, authorities turned a blind eye to cautious Eucharistic and other devotional processions; in others, police fined priests for appearing outdoors without sufficient cause or even interrupted Mass.
One aspect of the coronavirus measures that troubled faithful Catholics in northern Italy was that churches were singled out for closure weeks before restaurants, swimming pools and other public venues were made to close their doors. On March 8, shortly after the nationwide ban on public gatherings, even private prayer in the churches of Rome was suspended. This decision was overturned on March 13 after Papal Almoner Cardinal Konrad Krajewski refused to close the doors to his titular church and displayed the Blessed Sacrament for adoration.
“It is the act of disobedience, yes, I myself put the Blessed Sacrament out and opened my church,” Krajewski said.
“It did not happen under Fascism, it did not happen under the Russian or Soviet rule in Poland — the churches were not closed,” he explained.
“This is an act that should bring courage to other priests.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-25--Trump signs law to hold China accountable for its human rights abuses

WASHINGTON , D.C. , June 25 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — President Donald Trump has signed into law the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act aimed at curtailing human rights abuses in China 's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous region .
More than a million Uyghurs , most of whom are Muslim , are believed to be held in concentration camps by the Chinese governemnt .
A 2018 UN report found that human rights abuses in such camps include brainwashing , beatings , torture , rape , forced abortions , forced sterilizations , and summary executions .
The new law , signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will place property-blocking sanctions and visa-blocking sanctions on foreign individuals and groups identified as having committed human rights abuses .
“ The Act holds accountable perpetrators of human rights violations and abuses such as the systematic use of indoctrination camps , forced labor , and intrusive surveillance to eradicate the ethnic identity and religious beliefs of Uyghurs and other minorities in China , ” Trump said in a statement about the law .
“ I note , however , that section 6 ( g ) of the Act purports to limit my discretion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In some circumstances , this limitation could be inconsistent with my constitutional authorities to receive as diplomatic representatives certain foreign officials under Article II , Section 3 of the Constitution .
Accordingly , my Administration will treat section 6 ( g ) of the Act as advisory and non‑binding .
My Administration will make appropriate efforts to comply with section 6 ( g ) of the Act by notifying the relevant congressional committees before terminating sanctions with respect to a person under the Act , but it will not treat the provision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ binding to the extent that it interferes with the President ’ s conduct of diplomacy , ” he added .
“ This is a very strong statement to the totalitarians in Beijing , ” Reggie Littlejohn , an attorney and founder of Women ’ s Rights Without Frontiers , told The Stream .
“ It ’ s saying the U.S. is willing to challenge them on their human rights abuses , ” she continued .
“ These are not just crimes against the Uyghurs on Chinese soil .
They ’ re crimes against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies to report to Congress on human rights abuses in Xinjiang and to take efforts “ to protect U.S. citizens and residents , including ethnic Uyghurs and Chinese nationals studying or working in the United States , from harassment and intimidation by the Chinese government.
” The World Uyghur Congress ( WUC ) , one of the world ’ s largest organizations advocating for the human rights of the Uyghur people – said in a press release that the law is “ the first legislative initiative to take concrete action to end the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ atrocities accountable.
” “ Despite admonishments and expressions of concern , the CCP has continued to disappear more and more Uyghurs into internment camps and forced labour facilities , to strip away the very last of their rights and to undermine Uyghur culture , language , religion and identity without any material consequences , ” the WUC state .
“ Moving beyond rhetoric to taking real and meaningful action is essential to bringing an end to the Uyghur crisis.
” When the bill passed through the U.S. House of Representatives late last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told listeners on `` Washington Watch '' that it was an example of the United States finally beginning to “ show some strength ” in the face of the global threat from China .
`` ( I ) t 's vital to say to Beijing that oppressing your own people , that stamping out faith , that going after ( religious ) people and ethnic minorities is not permissible .
We wo n't allow it ... And China 's desire to dominate the world is not something we 're going to stand by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said last year after the bill passed the House of Representatives by indicating that the Chinese government would take action in response to the bill .
“ Do you think if America takes actions to hurt China ’ s interests , we won ’ t take any action ?
” she said .
“ I think any wrong words and deeds must pay the due price , ” Chunying added .
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom ( USCIRF ) , an independent human rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for passing the law and called for the “ swift implementation ” of sanctions against Chinese government officials known to have committed human rights abuses .
Earlier this year , Chinese exile and human rights activist Chen Guangcheng called on world leaders to “ recognize the threat the Chinese Communist Party poses to all humanity .
”

'The Act holds accountable perpetrators of ... indoctrination camps, forced labor, and intrusive surveillance to eradicate the ethnic identity and religious beliefs.'
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 25, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — President Donald Trump has signed into law the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act aimed at curtailing human rights abuses in China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous region.
More than a million Uyghurs, most of whom are Muslim, are believed to be held in concentration camps by the Chinese governemnt. A 2018 UN report found that human rights abuses in such camps include brainwashing, beatings, torture, rape, forced abortions, forced sterilizations, and summary executions.
The new law, signed June 17, stipulates that the president will place property-blocking sanctions and visa-blocking sanctions on foreign individuals and groups identified as having committed human rights abuses.
“The Act holds accountable perpetrators of human rights violations and abuses such as the systematic use of indoctrination camps, forced labor, and intrusive surveillance to eradicate the ethnic identity and religious beliefs of Uyghurs and other minorities in China,” Trump said in a statement about the law.
“I note, however, that section 6(g) of the Act purports to limit my discretion to terminate inadmissibility sanctions under the Act. In some circumstances, this limitation could be inconsistent with my constitutional authorities to receive as diplomatic representatives certain foreign officials under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. Accordingly, my Administration will treat section 6(g) of the Act as advisory and non‑binding. My Administration will make appropriate efforts to comply with section 6(g) of the Act by notifying the relevant congressional committees before terminating sanctions with respect to a person under the Act, but it will not treat the provision’s requirement for advance notice as binding to the extent that it interferes with the President’s conduct of diplomacy,” he added.
“This is a very strong statement to the totalitarians in Beijing,” Reggie Littlejohn, an attorney and founder of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, told The Stream.
“It’s saying the U.S. is willing to challenge them on their human rights abuses,” she continued. “These are not just crimes against the Uyghurs on Chinese soil. They’re crimes against humanity.”
The law also requires U.S. agencies to report to Congress on human rights abuses in Xinjiang and to take efforts “to protect U.S. citizens and residents, including ethnic Uyghurs and Chinese nationals studying or working in the United States, from harassment and intimidation by the Chinese government.”
The World Uyghur Congress (WUC), one of the world’s largest organizations advocating for the human rights of the Uyghur people – said in a press release that the law is “the first legislative initiative to take concrete action to end the Uyghur crisis and hold those responsible for atrocities accountable.”
“Despite admonishments and expressions of concern, the CCP has continued to disappear more and more Uyghurs into internment camps and forced labour facilities, to strip away the very last of their rights and to undermine Uyghur culture, language, religion and identity without any material consequences,” the WUC state.
“Moving beyond rhetoric to taking real and meaningful action is essential to bringing an end to the Uyghur crisis.”
When the bill passed through the U.S. House of Representatives late last year, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, told listeners on “Washington Watch” that it was an example of the United States finally beginning to “show some strength” in the face of the global threat from China.
“(I)t's vital to say to Beijing that oppressing your own people, that stamping out faith, that going after (religious) people and ethnic minorities is not permissible. We won't allow it … And China's desire to dominate the world is not something we're going to stand by and watch happen,” Hawley said.
Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said last year after the bill passed the House of Representatives by indicating that the Chinese government would take action in response to the bill.
“Do you think if America takes actions to hurt China’s interests, we won’t take any action?” she said.
“I think any wrong words and deeds must pay the due price,” Chunying added.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent human rights watchdog group, thanked the Trump administration for passing the law and called for the “swift implementation” of sanctions against Chinese government officials known to have committed human rights abuses.
Earlier this year, Chinese exile and human rights activist Chen Guangcheng called on world leaders to “recognize the threat the Chinese Communist Party poses to all humanity.”
Share