This edition of CF NEWS No.2276 posted at 12.35 pm on Sunday, April 14th, 2019. . . . . PLEASE TELL OTHERS ABOUT THIS FREE SERVICE . . .


Vatican watch

Cardinal Sarah: Christians have 'duty' to evangelize   read more >>>
Pope Benedict breaks his 'silence' to say not very much  read more >>>
Vatican Bank feared Curia could order his assassination
  read more >>>
Widow details 'betrayal' by Pope Francis and chief cardinal advisor
  read more >>>
The Church Unmanned  read more >>> 3a

Parents as primary educators, protectors

Parents are the primary educators   read more >>>
Parents cannot veto children out of LGBT lessons, says Education Secretary   read more >>>

Humanae Vitae

The war on parents and Humanae Vitae   read more >>>

Sanctifying sodomy

Homosexual priest says he's 'on a mission' from Pope Francis  read more >>>
The Hive - This is how it works
  read more >>>

United Nations

UN official says “f-you” to Trump and pro-life delegations   read more >>>
African pro-lifer threatened by abortion groups, fears for her safety
read more >>>

China supplement

The Bulldozer of Qianyang       VIDEO   read more >>>

News from around the world

CANADA The chilling evidence that Jordan Peterson was right   read more >>>
FRANCE A public Amoris Laetitia celebration of getting around adultery read more >>>
SPAIN Diocese investigated for counselling man away from gay lifestyle
      VIDEO   read more >>>
UGANDA Outrage over 'Catholics for Choice' enticing abortion   read more >>>
UK No-fault divorce, a marriage wreckers' charter
  read more >>>
UK Out-of-context remarks frame Sir Roger Scruton as 'racist' read more >>>
UK Man argues he's really a dog
      VIDEO   read more >>>
UK Life-changing medical intervention on children
  read more >>>
USA Male and female brains are different, even in the womb: new study
  read more >>>
USA President of Franciscan University of Steubenville resigns
  read more >>>
      VIDEO   read more >>>
INTERNATIONAL gloria.tv.news
      VIDEO   read more >>>
INTERNATIONAL Some jihad headlines of the week
  read more >>>
INTERNATIONAL The World Over with Raymond Arroyo
      VIDEO   read more >>>


Lead kindly light       VIDEO   read more >>>


Brain Dead    VIDEO    read more >>>
Peter Kwasniewski compositions' world premiere in London this Triduum read more >>>
Sacred Liturgy Conference read more >>>


The fix read more >>>


Vatican PR office accused of censoring Pope Francis read more >>>

Comment from the internet

There’s ‘diabolical intelligence’ behind global LGBT revolution VIDEO   read more >>>
The consequences of belief in Jesus Christ
  read more >>>
The coarseness of modern manners
  read more >>>
Lessons from Dante; Not even the pope can change basic Catholic truths
  read more >>>
Alpha   read more >>>
Civilized man is reverting to barbarism; Catholic leaders not calling him back read more >>>

Our Catholic Heritage

Site of the day, Temple Newsam       VIDEO   read more >>>
Wir danken dir, Gott, wir danken dir
      VIDEO   read more >>>


Palm Sunday   read more >>>

By courtesy of LifeSiteNews




To TRANSLATE this bulletin,Click here and then enter the URL
http://www.cfnews.org.uk/CF_News 2276.htm

Recent editions

For last edition of CF News click here

EWTN live television coverage

For UK / Ireland click here
For Asia / Pacific click here
For Africa / Asia click here











































Vatican watch




Cardinal Sarah: Christians have 'duty' to evangelize since Jesus is 'only way' to heaven

MAIKE HICKSON reports for LifeSiteNews - Cardinal Robert Sarah said that Catholics have a "duty" to evangelize and that bringing the unbaptized to Christ is an "urgent task" for the Church. The prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments made these comments when asked how Catholics should convert others without resorting to "proselytism as denounced just recently by Pope Francis."

Last week, Pope Francis asked Christians in Morocco not to actively seek converts to their faith, saying that the "paths of mission are not those of proselytism." The Pope did not explain what he meant by "proselytism."

Cardinal Sarah was asked by Aleteia in an April 5 interview, "How can we convert without resorting to proselytism as denounced just recently by Pope Francis during his trip to Morocco?" He responded that the Church has been given a "mandate from Jesus: 'All power has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe what I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you until the end of time.'"

"The Church cannot avoid this urgent task," he added.

The African prelate went on to quote St. Paul on the subject: "'Woe to me,' said Saint Paul, 'if I do not evangelize.' This is what missionaries did in Africa, and on other continents. In their first contact with people, they immediately presented the Gospel and its demands, without ever forcing anyone. I do not know of any missionary who has forced a people to become Christian. But evangelizing is a duty."

Cardinal Sarah stated that Jesus is the "only way to salvation."

"Whether it is Muslims, Buddhists or animists, we must evangelize everyone by proclaiming Jesus Christ, because he is the only way to salvation, so it is not proselytism, because we do not force pagans or Muslims with weapons, but offer them the way to salvation. Our religion is based on love and banishes violence," he said.

In Morocco, it is forbidden for a Muslim to become Christian, and this is what is often referred to as proselytism. As the New York Times explains, the Moroccan authorities "do not recognize Moroccan converts to Christianity and many of those worship secretly in homes. Conversion from Islam to Christianity is banned - as it is in many Muslim countries - and proselytizing is punishable by up to three years in prison." According to this, Pope Francis rejecting proselytism could be interpreted as not encouraging Catholics to evangelize - a word he did not even use in his March 31 speech. His concept of the Church's mission, as it seems, means being friendly to one's neighbors and being a good example and thus - like the yeast - indirectly inviting people to join the Catholic Church. Thus he also ambiguously stated: "For Jesus did not choose us and send us forth to become more numerous! He called us to a mission."

Some observers try to explain that Pope Francis rejects with his words against proselytism the idea of forcing people to convert or to impose one's own power. Cardinal Sarah, however, responds to this claim when he says that "I do not know of any missionary who has forced a people to become Christian. But evangelizing is a duty."

In light of the confusing message Pope Francis has sent out into the world with his March 31 speech, Cardinal Sarah's words on the internal "division" in the Church may be helpful, as well. He states in his new Aleteia interview that "what is tragic is the division within the Church. A division that manifests itself mainly on doctrinal, moral, and disciplinary levels. Everyone now says and thinks what they [sic] want. How could we not be concerned if it seems that the Church no longer has doctrine or clear moral teaching?"

In light of this current confusion, the prelate recommends that Catholics "hold on to the boat [the Church] firmly, and pray. In other words, it is our responsibility to stand firmly by the Doctrine, the teaching of the Church, and to pray."

"The Church does not belong to the pseudo-reformers. I cannot change what I have not built myself and which, therefore, does not belong to me. No one can change the Church of Jesus. Those who want to change it need a mandate from Jesus," he adds.

[LSN] 2276.1























Pope Benedict breaks his "silence" to say not very much

BXVISTEVE SKOJEC comments for OnePeterFive -- Yesterday, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI broke his post-pontificate “silence” yet again in a 6,000-word essay about the crisis of clerical sex abuse in the Church, and his perspective on its origins. The letter was, he says, written in response to the February summit in Rome in which the heads of the world’s episcopal conferences came together to discuss this troubling topic.

I had considered writing an in-depth summary of the text, but others have already done so, so rather than duplicate efforts, I’d like to move briefly through some key highlights and offer my own thoughts on the essay.

The former pope points the finger at the 1960s as a departure point for the problem of clerical abuse, citing both the sexual revolution and its impact on public mores — including a movement to de-stigmatize pedophilia — and the revolution in moral theology that came as a result of the Second Vatican Council’s focus on Divine Revelation, which he says led to an abandonment of a natural law approach to morality. In Benedict’s mind, a Bible-based moral theology was incapable of being presented systematically, and so, without falling back on the natural law, a pragmatic moral theology began to emerge. This led, in his view, to an emergent consequentialism in moral theology — the idea that the ends justify the means.

“Consequently,” he writes, “there could no longer be anything that constituted an absolute good, any more than anything fundamentally evil; (there could be) only relative value judgments. There no longer was the (absolute) good, but only the relatively better, contingent on the moment and on circumstances.”

He argues that this trend continued into the 1980s, culminating in the Cologne Declaration in 1989.

And what was the Cologne Declaration?

According to a 1999 editorial in the National Catholic Reporter — the kind of publication that would celebrate such an event — it was nothing less than a “shot across the bow of the Barque of Peter.” Signed by a group of “eminent European theologians,” the document “was a wake-up call for the church,” arguing that “certain church policies were frustrating the task of carrying the gospel to the world.”

According to the Reporter, these included things like the pope choosing bishops “without respecting the suggestions of local churches”; the Vatican’s “refusal to grant official license to theologians with whom it disagrees”; and “[t]he pope’s ‘overstepping and enforcing in an inadmissible way’ his proper doctrinal competence, insisting that every pronouncement of the magisterium be treated as ipso facto infallible.”

“The declaration,” the Reporter practically gasps, “called special attention to the ban on birth control.”

The Reporter also gleefully noted that the declaration laid out a defiant challenge: “If the pope undertakes things that are not part of his role, then he cannot demand obedience in the name of Catholicism. He must expect dissent.”

Benedict notes that Pope John Paul II issued Veritatis Splendor as a response to this revolution against objective truth and the growing rejection among theologians of the idea of intrinsic evil. He says the encyclical thus “triggered vehement backlashes on the part of moral theologians.”

He goes on to make a rather strange observation (emphasis added):

'In moral theology, however, another question had meanwhile become pressing: The hypothesis that the Magisterium of the Church should have final competence [infallibility] only in matters concerning the faith itself gained widespread acceptance; (in this view) questions concerning morality should not fall within the scope of infallible decisions of the Magisterium of the Church. There is probably something right about this hypothesis that warrants further discussion. But there is a minimum set of morals which is indissolubly linked to the foundational principle of faith and which must be defended if faith is not to be reduced to a theory but rather to be recognized in its claim to concrete life.

I am uncertain what to make of his assertion that “there is probably something right about this hypothesis” — namely, that infallibility applies only to faith and not to morals. Though he finishes the paragraph with a caveat about a “minimum set of morals” that are “indissolubly linked to the foundational principle of faith,” it sounds dangerously like a quasi-rejection of the dogma of papal infallibility as laid out in Pastor Aeternus, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ from Vatican I, which defined that both faith and morals are protected by infallibility.

In any case, Benedict says the “dissolution of the moral teaching authority of the Church necessarily had to have an effect on the diverse areas of the Church.” He then pivots to the effects of these changes on seminary formation.

On the matter of homosexuality in the priesthood, strikingly little attention is paid. There is only one mention of this affliction in the entire document: “In various seminaries homosexual cliques were established, which acted more or less openly and significantly changed the climate in the seminaries.”

The issue is never explored any further.

The former pope focuses instead on the problem of paedophilia, despite the fact that research has long pointed to a preponderance of abuse taking place with adolescent boys. He says the issue of pedophilia “did not become acute until the second half of the 1980s,” and that Rome failed to grapple correctly with how to handle such cases, reaching an opinion that “the temporary suspension from priestly office had to be sufficient to bring about purification and clarification.”

In several instances throughout the text, he speaks about “conciliar” attitudes being part of the problem, though he makes an effort to distance these attitudes from the council itself through the use of scare quotes and other semantic devices, implying that they were misinterpretations and not true conciliarism.

There is a particularly interesting moment, about midway through the document, where Benedict says (emphasis added):

'Allow me a brief excursus at this point. In light of the scale of paedophilic misconduct, a word of Jesus has again come to attention which says: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea” (Mark 9:42).

The phrase “the little ones” in the language of Jesus means the common believers who can be confounded in their faith by the intellectual arrogance of those who think they are clever. So here Jesus protects the deposit of the faith with an emphatic threat of punishment to those who do it harm.

If anyone is looking for a veiled barb at Francis, this is the one possible instance I could find in the entire text. But it is far from certain that this is what he means, and context indicates he may in fact be addressing those who used the “conciliar” attitude of “so-called guarantorism” “to such an extent that convictions [for sexual crimes] were hardly possible.”

Benedict goes on to raise questions reminiscent to those in his Introduction to Christianity, asking what the world would be like without God. He says it would, of course, be meaningless, and that it is the very absence of God that has given rise to the crisis:

'A world without God can only be a world without meaning. For where, then, does everything that is come from? In any case, it has no spiritual purpose. It is somehow simply there and has neither any goal nor any sense. Then there are no standards of good or evil. Then only what is stronger than the other can assert itself. Power is then the only principle'.

He also asks:

'What must be done? Perhaps we should create another Church for things to work out? Well, that experiment has already been undertaken and has already failed. Only obedience and love for our Lord Jesus Christ can point the way. So let us first try to understand anew and from within [ourselves] what the Lord wants, and has wanted with us'.

I’m not sure what this means. Another Church? Already undertaken? I wish I understood what he is trying to say here, but to me, at least, it’s anything but clear.

He then touches on the need to regain respect for the Eucharist — noting that some abusers use Eucharistic language when perpetrating their crimes — and says that ultimately, the crisis has culminated in an “accusation against God”:

'[T]he accusation against God is, above all, about characterizing His Church as entirely bad, and thus dissuading us from it. The idea of a better Church, created by ourselves, is in fact a proposal of the devil, with which he wants to lead us away from the living God, through a deceitful logic by which we are too easily duped. No, even today the Church is not just made up of bad fish and weeds. The Church of God also exists today, and today it is the very instrument through which God saves us'.

He concludes his essay with what I can only describe as a love note to Pope Francis:

'At the end of my reflections I would like to thank Pope Francis for everything he does to show us, again and again, the light of God, which has not disappeared, even today. Thank you, Holy Father'!

What are we to make of all this?

It’s difficult to identify exactly what the point of this document is. It tells us nothing new. It proposes no solutions. It is, as one friend put it, very much “the work of a German theology professor.” It looks backward, not forward. It seeks, in a sense, to set the record straight — except that it fails to do so.

Obviously, the sexual revolution played a role in the abuse crisis, as did the collapse of moral theology. But a number of abuse cases stem back to at least the 1950s, so there’s more to that story. And if someone wants to complain about 1960s radicals, Hans Urs von Balthasar is quoted favorably in this text. Also, remember these guys?


Rahner & Ratzinger

Karl Rahner & Joseph Ratzinger

As I mentioned, homosexuality in the priesthood and in the seminaries is given only the briefest mention, setting aside one of the primary issues that requires further examination about how we arrived at the present moment. He mentions, at one point, that a bishop and former seminary rector showed pornographic films to seminarians, “allegedly with the intention of thus making them resistant to behavior contrary to the faith.” He does not specify if these were homosexual in nature or whether they were used to groom potential victims, as happened in the case of the late Fr. Donald McGuire.

There are also some pretty gratuitous moments in the text — such as when the former pope laments that his own books were not allowed to be read by seminarians, or when he says the dissenting Swiss-German moral theologian Franz Böckle was “spared” by “God, the Merciful” from his commitment to “challenge … with all the resources at his disposal” any assertion in the forthcoming Veritatis Splendor that intrinsic evil existed when he died in July of 1991 — two years before the encyclical was released. (At the time, Ratzinger was prefect of the CDF, so dealing with Böckle’s promised dissent would have fallen under his purview.) Also somewhat self-serving are Benedict’s attempts to disambiguate problems that resulted from “conciliarism” from his own pet project: the Second Vatican Council. He appears to labor even now to promote, if not in so many words, the fantastic notion of a “hermeneutic of continuity,’ even while granting that “in many parts of the Church, conciliar attitudes were understood to mean having a critical or negative attitude towards the hitherto existing tradition, which was now to be replaced by a new, radically open relationship with the world.”

In all, this text from Benedict offers only a few very basic and obvious observations about why we’re in such a Mess: the West has abandoned God, we are insufficiently respectful to the Eucharist, we’re way too enamored with sex, and radicals have been running the show for half a century. It comes across, in many respects, as little more than the musings of a 92-year-old man who is looking back on all that has transpired during his ecclesiastical career and trying to make some sense of it.

But I think the important takeaway from the document is what it doesn’t tackle.

First of all, it is becoming rather silly to describe statements from Benedict as “breaking silence.” There have now been so many interruptions of that alleged silence that they could almost be described as commonplace.

This is, however, the most lengthy and significant breaking of that “silence.” And yet, this was not the kind of bold statement the faithful have been waiting for from the pope emeritus. Rather than address the crisis that was left to us by his abdication — the crisis of faith that has unfolded because of the man who was chosen to succeed him, or even the confusion created by his retention of certain symbols and titles of office — Benedict has instead issued a superfluous and meandering retrospective on a crisis that was in play long before he was elected to the papacy. To pour salt in the wound, he caps it off with effusive praise for Pope Francis, reminding us once again that he’s very much on board with the new program.

Of course, by Benedict’s own admission, the document was issued with the consultation of Pope Francis and Cardinal Parolin, so its content had to be judged sufficiently innocuous for them to have given their blessing. And yet, irritatingly, that’s exactly what it was. If the old adage, “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything,” still stands, wouldn’t silence have been preferable if Benedict was really concerned about what we’re facing?

Instead, this missive has stoked the fires of nostalgia in some of the leadership-starved conservatives pining to go back to the days of a Benedictine papacy. It has prompted those who believe he is still the pope to question whether he wrote the document at all. (Archbishop Gänswein insists that he did; Eduard Habsburg, Hungarian ambassador to the Holy See, tweeted this morning that he read the document in its original German and that “it is his style down to punctuation and even expressions from 30 years ago. So rest calm: it’s him.”) It has dredged up new feelings of confusion and loss in many who see in it, at the very least, a return to the greater clarity of insight and dedication to (even obvious) truth possessed by the most recent successor to St. Peter before our current chastisement of a pope.

At the Catholic Herald, the subheading on an article by Professor Chad Pecknold of Catholic University of America breathlessly claims, “After all the studies are done, after new protocols and safeguards are in place, Benedict’s answer will be the one which endures.”

Endures how? Endures why? What answer was even offered? Pecknold says this letter “is the voice of a father.” But if so, he is a father who abandoned his children, who sits idly by while they are abused by the new stepdad, and goes so far as to talk about anything and everything else, all while praising and thanking the cruel man who took his place.

Maybe that’s what some people want in a father, but you can count me out.


Dr. Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon examine and
analyze all the important passages in the 6,000-word document




[1P5 / taylormarshall.com] 2276.1a























Vatican Bank ex-chief: I feared Curia could order my assassination while I cleaned up corruption

DOROTHY CUMMINGS McLEAN reports for LifeSiteNews - The former president of the Vatican Bank says that he almost lost his faith and feared he could be assassinated at the instigation of some members of the Roman Curia, the Church's administrative body, as he attempted to tackle corruption within the banking organization.

Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, a banker, economist, and theologian, headed the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR), popularly known as the Vatican Bank, from 2009 until he was forced out by its board in 2012. He gave an interview to the Le Iene news company in March in which he said that he believed members of the Roman Curia, the governing body of the Vatican, were capable of murdering him.

When asked whether the curia could commission an assassination, Tedeschi laughed and replied:

'There were people inside about whom I wouldn't be surprised at anything they would do,' he said. 'Things that one couldn't imagine are perpetrated within the Church.'

The interview took place as part of a series of stories Le Iene produced about the mysterious death of David Rossi, the communications chief of Siena-based bank Monte dei Paschi (MDP) who fell from a window in 2013.

When questioned about the Vatican Bank's ties with MDP, Gotti Tedeschi told journalists that he believed four accounts at the Vatican Bank were held by key players of the Sienese bank. He believes, too, that the accounts contained bribes, 'dirty money', from politicians to be laundered, and that the Curia knew about it.

'But nobody will confirm the existence of those accounts because everything was there,' Gotti Tedeschi said.

'It's about the Vatican Curia. There is everything that you can imagine inside it. There were people who were changing in a second the names on all the accounts. A system that didn't allow anyone, if not of the 'Cupola', to get back into the accounts,' he continued

'It's very probable that the accounts were there. I was losing my faith.'

'When you say the Vatican Curia was making you lose your faith,' interjected his interviewer before Gotti Tedeschi, interrupting, said: 'And my life!'

Gotti Tedeschi explained that he never wanted to know who the account-holders were because the knowledge would put both him and his family in danger.

'I always refused to see the accounts so as not to find myself one day ashamed before a judge who asked me, 'Did you know about these accounts?'' Gotti Tedeschi said.

'If you had seen the accounts and you tell the judge whose accounts they are, the real [owners], where would you put your family?' he asked.

'To protect them you need the greatest security system imaginable.'

Tedeschi reminded his interviewer of the journalist Carmine 'Mino' Percorelli, who was gunned down in the streets of Rome forty years before.

'Remember why he's dead? He put his hand on what? On names. I'd be dead,' he stated.

According to Edward Pentin, now of the National Catholic Register, Gotti Tedeschi was hired by Benedict XVI to reform the Vatican Bank by 'implementing an international anti-money laundering law.' After his 2012 dismissal, the Vatican said that the economist had 'failed to fulfill the primary functions of his office.'

Gotti Tedeschi denied this and said that the real reason the board of the Vatican Bank dismissed him was because the anti-money laundering policy would involve shutting down non-religious accounts.

Accused himself of money-laundering, Gotti Tedeschi was both acquitted by Roman judges and given credit for his attempts to help the Church.

[LSN] 2276.2























Widow details "betrayal" by Pope Francis and chief cardinal advisor in damning new book

PF & MaradiagaDIANE MONTAGNA reports from Rome for LifeSiteNews - The Vatican manoeuvred to ensure that Honduran Cardinal Óscar Rodriguez Maradiaga would not be implicated in concealing the sexual and financial misdeeds of his auxiliary bishop, the widow of a former dean of the Vatican diplomatic corps has written in a damning new exposé.

Such machinations, she says, allowed Maradiaga (one of Pope Francis's closest advisors), to maintain his position on the C-9 Council of Cardinals, which advises the Holy Father on Church reform. The C-9 is meeting with the Pope this week in Rome.

Martha Alegria Reichmann, whose late husband, Alejandro Valladares, served as the Honduran ambassador to the Holy See for 22 years, calls such manoeuvring 'a grotesque action and a mockery of honesty' because it gave Cardinal Maradiaga 'impunity.'

In her new book, titled Sacred Betrayal, Alegria says that she and her husband were long-time friends of the archbishop of Tegucigalpa. She details how, while her husband was still alive, Maradiaga pushed them to invest a large sum of money into a London investment fund managed by a friend of his, which led the couple to lose their life savings. She also exposes how Cardinal Maradiaga covered for his auxiliary, Bishop Juan José Pineda, who resigned last year after allegations came to light that he had sexually abused seminarians, had a string of homosexual lovers, and had engaged in financial misconduct.

In an explosive interview with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register, Alegria explains why she chose Sacred Betrayal as the title for the new book. 'I have been betrayed by people who carry a sacred investiture: former Bishop Juan Josè Pineda, Cardinal Oscar Andrès Rodrìguez Maradiaga and Pope Francis - three people I trusted blindly,' she says.

'In my book, everything is very well explained and demonstrated. There's no doubt that's how it was,' the Honduran widow and mother adds.

Mrs. Alegria said she wrote the book after discovering 'a dark side' of Cardinal Maradiaga through the events surrounding his betrayal of her family. She says she could not live in 'peace and serenity' unless she went public, adding that her 'Christian, ethical and moral principles' did not allow her to 'keep quiet about such terrible things.'

'That would have made me responsible for a cover-up,' she says. 'To declare what I know and what they have done to me is not only a right that I have, but a duty; because I am a victim of the corrupt system that reigns in the current papacy.'

She says that, in the new book, she goes much further than just recalling her own 'painful experiences,' because there are 'things that many people don't know.'

Alegria says she wrote the book because 'the wicked triumph when the righteous are silent; and because God himself is being mocked.'

Asked why she believes Cardinal Maradiaga is still archbishop of Tegucigalpa, as well as coordinator of the Council of Cardinals, Alegria says the Vatican 'maneuvered' so that Maradiaga would not be implicated as Pineda's concealer. She added that the Pope has acted against coverups 'on very few occasions' and 'only when the external pressure is very strong.'

'I am just a widow to whom neither Maradiaga nor Francis have given importance because they do not practice the Gospel as it should be,' she says. 'It seems that the teachings of Christ have gone out of fashion and the devil reigns. The reasons for this terrible situation are revealed in my book, and it's something frightening.'

She says she finds Maradiaga's 'extreme protection' of Pineda over 20 years 'incomprehensible,' but adds that it has caused the cardinals to lose credibility with the Honduran people.

Nor does she understand why the Pope keeps Maradiaga by his side. 'Perhaps he needs his bad advice,' she said. Alegria then contrasted the Pope's keeping Maradiaga in position with those who have given him good advice, such as Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy, who was removed from his post in the USCCB after writing an open letter to Pope Francis.

She continued by saying that Maradiaga 'is very powerful because he has the absolute support of someone much more powerful, who is Pope Francis.' And she added this is why it's been easy for him to dismiss accusations as 'slanders' or those accusing him as 'attacking' him 'so as to attack the Pope.'

Alegria went on to say that she hopes that Maradiaga will be replaced, and that there can be a 'fresh start' with a shepherd who is 'humble of heart, energetic, transparent, kind and just.'

She said that things won't be cleaned up possibly until there's another Pope, or 'maybe if Pope Francis put into practice all those beautiful phrases that he knows how to say and that are blown away like clouds that disappear into nothingness.'

She also said she placed her hope and trust only in God. 'God is merciful. God is just. God works miracles. ... 'God alone is enough,'' she said, quoting the mystic and doctor of the Church, St. Teresa of Avila.

It was put to her whether she had written the book, exaggerating some of the content, so that it would become a best-seller, and thereby recoup some of her financial losses. She welcomed the question, saying it was 'easy' to answer it, because the facts can be backed up with evidence.

'Everything that is written is not exaggerated. I just narrated the facts exactly as they are, and those that needed to be proved are proved,' she says

'What is more,' she adds, 'there are cases that are terrible and I did not include them because I do not have the evidence.'

She also showed how the revenue from the book will be relatively little and added that its success 'depends only on God.'

She also indicated that Maradiaga offered her a large amount of money, but she didn't accept it because she believes 'the money of the Church is for the poor.'

'I did it with my conscience; I did it with the truth in my hand; I did it for dignity, for conviction and for love of God. I started with a sentence by Edmund Burke that says: 'Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.''

[LSN Editor's note: Sacred Betrayal is currently available only in Spanish, under the title Traiciones Sacradas].

[LSN] 2276.3























The Church Unmanned
CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA writes for Fatima Perspectives -- I have no intention of wading through the 67 pages of Christus Vivit, the post-synodal “Apostolic Exhortation” produced by Pope Francis’ scribes in the aftermath of the worse-than-useless “Synod on Young People, Faith and Vocational Discernment.” The commentaries already published, even by “mainstream” sources little inclined to criticism of this pontificate, reveal a familiar pattern: a mixture of pious sentiment and neo-modernist shibboleths, the latter being the real intendment of the document. A few drops of strychnine in the bouillabaisse render the whole farrago fatal to sound orthodoxy.

Do I exaggerate? The following passage alone proves the point:

“Although many young people are happy to see a Church that is humble yet confident in her gifts and capable of offering fair and fraternal criticism, others want a Church that listens more, that does more than simply condemn the world. They do not want to see a Church that is silent and afraid to speak, but neither one that is always battling obsessively over two or three issues. To be credible to young people, there are times when she needs to regain her humility and simply listen, recognizing that what others have to say can provide some light to help her better understand the Gospel. A Church always on the defensive, which loses her humility and stops listening to others, which leaves no room for questions, loses her youth and turns into a museum. How, then, will she be able to respond to the dreams of young people? Even if she possesses the truth of the Gospel, this does not mean that she has completely understood it; rather, she is called to keep growing in her grasp of that inexhaustible treasure.

“For example, a Church that is overly fearful and tied to its structures can be invariably critical of efforts to defend the rights of women, and constantly point out the risks and the potential errors of those demands. Instead, a living Church can react by being attentive to the legitimate claims of those women who seek greater justice and equality. A living Church can look back on history and acknowledge a fair share of male authoritarianism, domination, various forms of enslavement, abuse and sexist violence. With this outlook, she can support the call to respect women’s rights, and offer convinced support for greater reciprocity between males and females, while not agreeing with everything some feminist groups propose. Along these lines, the Synod sought to renew the Church’s commitment ‘against all discrimination and violence on sexual grounds’. That is the response of a Church that stays young and lets herself be challenged and spurred on by the sensitivities of young people. (Christus Vivit, nn. 41-42)”

There we have it all: The Mystical Body of Christ is depicted as a narrow-minded, vain, fearful, insecure, condemnatory, defensive and even violently “sexist” male authority figure who “obsesses” over moral issues, clings to “structures,” does not fully understand the Gospel and must, in order to regain humility, listen to young people, “respond to their dreams” and follow their “light.”

Why on earth would anyone feel compelled to belong to a Church thus depicted? Especially when the remedy for its enumerated deficiencies is not to teach the truth but rather to absorb the ill-defined counsel of “young people,” who are placed on a higher moral plane than the defective institution that has failed to listen to them.

What we have here is an absurd anthropomorphizing of the Church, reduced to a bundle of projections reflecting the insecure manhood of the authors of this effete diatribe. The divine Founder of the Holy Catholic Church, which is His Mystical Body, is a man par excellence who, to quote Pope Saint Pius X:

“‘[L]aid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue’ and who, while ‘kind to sinners and to those who went astray… did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them…. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body.’”

This Christ, Pius X concluded, represents “something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism.”

But what the authors of Christus Vivit present in place of Christ and His Gospel is a congress of sissies fretting over how they can make their teaching even more irrelevant to the salvation of souls. The Church has endured many a crisis in her long history, but never — absolutely never — has she suffered the crisis of being so humiliatingly unmanned by her own leaders.

It will be the most exquisite of heavenly ironies that the “woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars (Rev 12:1)” — Mary, Queen of Heaven — will usher in a restoration of manhood in the Church’s human element in the name of Christ the King.

[FP] 2276.3a

























Parents as primary
educators, protectors



EDMUND ADAMUS writes in "What are they teaching the Children" * -- What do we mean when we say that parents are the primary educators of their children? We mean everything!

• We mean that parents begin to teach their children from the moment their children are conceived and born.

• We mean that parents teach their children during the children's infancy and childhood.

• We mean that parents are the first, and most important and

indispensable, teachers of their children.

• We mean that unless the children are taught and primarily formed by the parents, the children will be getting only a substitute education.

We mean all of this when we say that parents are the primary educators. But we mean much more. After all, there is a primacy in what the children are taught. They can be taught how to walk and to talk. They can be taught how to read and write. They can be taught how to eat and drink and take care of their things. They can be taught arithmetic and spelling, and history and geography. All of those things they can be taught and should be taught. But what they mainly need is to know why God made them; why they are on earth at all; why they are in this world; and that they are here in this life in order to prepare and train themselves for the world to come.

In a word, children are to be taught that their short stay here in time is only a preparation for the world that will never end. They are to be trained for heaven. That is why the subtitle of this article is: 'Parents for Eternal Life'.

Having said this, we are now in a position to get to the principal

message. It can be explained in a single all important statement: 'Under God, parents are the first in time, first in authority, first in responsibility, first in ability, and first in dignity to educate their children for eternal life.'

How are parents to become primary educators?

Needless to say, the vision we are describing can remain just that, a vision. It can be an ideal or even only a dream. But God intends it to be a reality. This, I am convinced, is the providential reason that God has allowed so many forces of error and evil to plague the modern world - and with emphasis in our own Western society.

'Where sin abounds,' St. Paul tells us, 'there grace even more abounds.'21 In His providence, God wants to wake parents up from their lethargy. He wants them to open their eyes to failures and see what is going on. He wants them to come out of the dream that so many parents are still sleeping in - and arouse them to the gravest, and I mean gravest duty they have before God. What is this? To pay whatever price they have to, in order to educate their children for eternal life.

Of course, this will not be easy. Of course, parents with this faith- vision will be criticised, even ostracised. Of course, parents will have to give up many things that the modern world has provided in such profusion, for their own and their families' enjoyment here on earth. But the price is worth it. When Christ told us: 'Take up your cross daily and follow me,' this has a specific poignancy for those to whom God has granted parenthood.

To be the primary educators of their children for eternal life is not easy for parents. It never has been since the dawn of Christianity. But in today's world, intoxicated with its own pride, addicted to its own pleasures, indoctrinated in its own propaganda that only temporal life exists and eternal life is a mirage - to become parents of eternal life demands heroism.

[Reprinted from "What are they teaching the Children", Wilberforce Publications 2016, by kind permission of the author]

[CF News] 2276.4























Parents cannot veto children out of LGBT lessons, says Education Secretary

D HindsDAMIAN HINDS, the Education Secretary, has said that parents should not be allowed to dictate what is taught in schools and they cannot veto children taking part in LGBT lessons.

His intervention comes amid a row over relationship and sex education classes (RSE), with several primary schools in Birmingham having suspended the lessons after protests and petitions from Muslim parents.

Mr Hinds told head teachers that while they should listen to parents' views, they should not allow them to dictate what was taught at school.

Writing to the National Association of Head Teachers, Mr Hinds said: "I want to reassure you and the members you represent that consultation does not provide a parental veto on curriculum content'.

While parents are allowed to withdraw their children from RSE lessons, they are only permitted to do so for the sex education sections and not for relationship education. Learning about same sex couples would be part of the latter section, meaning parents who disagree with this are not able to remove their children from classes.


JOHN SMEATON, Director of SPUC, writes - Damian Hinds MP, Secretary of State for Education (in England) makes it crystal clear, in his letter (9th April 2019) to the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), that, in his view, the government, not parents, are responsible for the moral formation of children, not least in matters relating to relationships education to be made compulsory in schools in September 2020 (Relationships Education in primary schools and Relationships and Sex Education in secondary schools).

When I was a teacher in the early 70s, my colleagues and I understood very clearly that we acted in loco parentis [in the place of a parent]. According to Damian Hinds, this is no longer the case. Head teachers, firmly guided by government policy, and with the full force of the law, are to lead in the formation of children on the most fundamental moral issues – and parents will be relegated to second place.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) states, Article 26, section 3, “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”.

Nodding in the direction of the UNDHR, Mr Hinds’ letter to the NAHT refers to parents as the “primary educators” of their children. However, it quickly becomes overwhelmingly clear that this reference is PR of the worst kind. It’s a lie.

It’s a lie because the one means through which parents can exercise their role as the “primary educators” of their children – to withdraw them from Relationships Education or Relationships and Sex Education classes – is either being completely denied to them (at primary school) or partly denied at secondary school where parents can “request” that their child be withdrawn from sex education lessons only, and with the final decision remaining firmly with the head teacher.

And it’s a lie as the following extract from Mr Hinds’ letter makes perfectly clear:
“Parents and carers are the primary educators of their children, and it is right that they are involved in developing how schools deliver relationships education. Key to an effective consultation is space and time for parents to input, ask questions and share concerns, and for the school to decide the way forward. What is taught, and how, is ultimately a decision for the school.”

With or without my emphases in bold, above, the meaning of Damian Hinds’ words is as plain as a pikestaff: It’s the government’s job, according to Damian Hinds, to decide the policy which dictates the formation for children on the most fundamental moral and ethical issues.

In his letter Mr Hinds clearly explains how the Government’s policy will succeed in enforcing its policy in schools [my emphases added]:

• “In 2014, we introduced a requirement for all schools to promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.” ?

• “In addition, schools are required to comply with relevant requirements of the Equality Act 2010 … They must comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty, which means, in making decisions, having due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and people who do not share it.” ?

• “Our policies on fundamental British values and relationships education, as well as the Public Sector Equalities Duty, complement and build on one another.” ?

The Government’s policies, to which Mr Hinds refers, are set out in its latest Guidance and Regulations regarding the proposed content and delivery of compulsory Relationships and Sex Education in schools. These policies include encouraging secondary school children to “explore” their developing “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”. They include dangerous and immoral lifestyle choices being presented as equally valid as marriage. And they include abortion being presented simply as one of the available options during pregnancy and pupils being signposted to contraceptive and abortion services, without any parental knowledge or consent.?

In his letter Damian Hinds stresses “his strong belief in school autonomy” and “allowing head teachers’ discretion” which responsible parents will rightly seize on in order to engage robustly with schools on what their children are being taught. The head teacher’s “discretion” provides a small opening for parents whose children attend schools where head teachers are unhappy themselves about the government’s policies. But the head teacher’s “discretion” is very much a double-edged sword, with head teachers allowed to introduce an LGBT agenda into the school if they are so minded. In such cases, parents’ wishes would be cast aside as head teachers have the full backing of the law to veto the outcome of any consultation with parents.

“In modern diverse Britain”, to coin a phrase in his letter, it is very clear that parents are to raise their children in loco Rei Republicae. Sir Edward Leigh rightly warned, in 2017, in the House of Commons that parents would view these new compulsory school subjects as “a State take-over bid for parenting”

Mr Hinds has gone far too far and he will continue to be strongly resisted by parents throughout England.
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

[CF News]2276.4a
























Humanae Vitae


The war on parents and Humanae Vitae

This talk by Dr Thomas Ward, President of our National Association of Catholic Families, was , delivered at “Humanae Vitae at 50: Setting the Context”, Pontifical University of St Thomas Aquinas, Rome, 28 Oct 2017

T WardFROM the early 70s it had become evident to me as a Family Doctor, from speaking to many young girls, that they were being indoctrinated into early contraceptive sex.

In 1975 we gave a pregnant fifteen-year-old Catholic girl a home. My wife, also a doctor, spoke to the girl at length in an effort to identify her experience of this indoctrination. It came from teenage magazines and sex education, often emanating from the Family Planning Association under its many masks. The most interesting influence was the priest school chaplain who had written all of the contraceptive methods on the blackboard. When asked, “was contraception wrong?”, he replied that he did not know. Sadly, the children were less indecisive. Many of the fifteen-year-olds were already contracepting.

I turned for help for these young Catholics to the priest with the diocesan responsibility for youth. He promised he would consult the Bishop and get back to me. Having heard nothing I phoned him. He asked dismissively, “was I surprised at immorality amongst young people?”, I replied this was not immorality but rather an orchestrated massacre. He did not care. Nor did others I consulted. That was forty years ago. Something had to be done.

I approached our Anglican vicar, an Anglican headmaster and an Anglican nurse. They were horrified at the plight of young Catholics. We decided to write a pamphlet on the sexual pressures on young people. In classical English tradition we became pamphleteers!

Providentially our little group made contact with a Mrs Valerie Riches, the Secretary of an academic think tank studying the agencies promoting the sexualisation of young people. She told us of her investigations into the vast network of national and international agencies, ideological, commercial and political, working together to promote this sexualisation and its necessary prerequisite, the removal of parent’s rights.

To learn that the worldwide assault on young people on an industrial scale was fully calculated caused us as parents of two little girls many sleepless nights. Helpfully Valerie organised a press conference at which the Queen’s Gynaecologist press-released our pamphlet. Our mouse had roared!

Later Valerie Riches, her husband, the headmaster and his family became Catholics.

But back to the big picture.

In 1973 the State, under the influence of the birth control lobby, provided contraception to all irrespective of age. A year later the government enforced this in a legal Memorandum of Guidance which forbade doctors from telling parents when a child of whatever age asked for contraceptives and subsequently abortion.

We fine-tuned our resistance, targeting this Memorandum. With the support of millions parents we fought a campaign, achieving huge media coverage. It involved the Queen, the Prime-minister and leaders of major religions (Cardinal Hume was the least enthusiastic). Whilst many priests individually gave us support the dominant section of the English Catholic Establishment episcopal, lay and medical were unsupportive.

We opposed the Medical Defense Union, which legally underpinned the Memorandum. We opposed our local Area Health Authority which was putting the Memorandum into effect. When the democratically elected local Community Health Council seemed sympathetic to parents it was subjected to threats from the Family Planning Association.


When local action failed we went to law. In what was to become the most important socio-legal case of the 80s a heroic Catholic mother of ten, Mrs. Victoria Gillick sought a legal ruling declarig the Memorandum unlawful. In 1983 in the High Court she lost.

Just prior to her then going to the Court of Appeal in 1984 I mobilised over two thousand doctors, including some of the most eminent in the land. With huge media coverage we rebelled against the General Medical Council’s similar diktat that doctors might speak to parents on any health matters without the child’s permission — any that is except contraception and abortion.

In the Court of Appeal Victoria Gillick won and for the following 10 months doctors were prohibited from providing contraceptives or abortion to underage girls without parental knowledge or consent.

During these 10 months the attendance at contraceptive clinics fell dramatically. The abortion and illegitimacy figures fell. They did not rise.


Ward family


So we decided to tell Pope John Paul of the restoration of the primary educator in England. We bought a Peugeot Familiale, a trailer tent and all eight of us drove to Rome. Divine Providence arranged that having briefed his secretary we all met the Pope.

I knelt and kissed his ring and standing said “Holy Father, thank you for defending our families.” “He looked profoundly sad for about fifteen seconds and then his look changed to granite and with rage he said “God bless your activities”. We had a very happy time with him and as he was leaving the library he suddenly wheeled round came back to me and again with a look of rage repeated “God bless your activities”.

But sadly in 1985 our government appealed against the judgement to the House of Lords and the hugely courageous Mrs Gillick lost. Today at this historic conference I pay tribute to these two great Catholic ladies – Valerie Riches and Victoria Gillick.

After the Law Lord’s ruling a number of us concluded that if the choice were between civil rights and the survival of Catholic families we must choose survival.

So we started the National Association of Catholic Families, a living catechesis of Familiaris Consortio and Humanae Vitae based on mutual support of families for families. It has been blessed. Families have become Catholics, others have returned to the Faith, yet others have found their Catholic identity. There has been a considerable number of vocations to the priesthood and religious life. We have lots of large happy families who trust in God. Our association has spread to Australia, Ireland and Albania.


In 2012 we undertook the English and Scottish leg of the ‘From Ocean to Ocean’ pilgrimage of the icon of Our Lady of Czestochowa from Vladivostok to Fatima. This was very beautiful. Our Lady filled five cathedrals and people heard Catholic moral teaching for the first time in decades.

But most important of all the great majority of our young people keep the faith.

However, it had become tragically clear to us as Catholic parents that many clergy who had given up on the evil of contraception in general had then given up on contraception for children.

Many clergy had accepted the replacement of parents by the State.

But Paul VI in Humanae Vitae had warned them both that it was an evil thing to make it easy for young people to break the moral law and he had specifically warned of State control.

Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country [teenage pregnancy] resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people…” (No. 17 Humanae Vitae)

Contraception, which separates the procreative from the unitive, also separates the procreated, the children, from their parents.

In the interests of our children I thought it important to find out how all this had come about in the Church.

I spoke to Father Paul Marx Founder of Human Life International. He told me that the delay over the publication of Humanae Vitae had been rapidly ended in 1968 when four theologians convinced Pope Paul VI that the oral contraceptive had an abortifacient mode of action.

But we as medical students knew this from lectures in the early sixties. By 1935 Pincus, the Pill’s inventor, believed that oral progesterone had possible effects on implantation. Indeed, the interruption of pregnancy by administration of oestrogen was first reported in 1926.

Accompanied by two eminent medical colleagues I spoke to the bishop for the family, now deceased, asking him for help for our young people. Each doctor wept on realising the bishop already knew a great deal about the attack on the family and that he was not interested. I pointed to the copper on the end of an intrauterine contraceptive device which I had brought for the purpose saying that this abortifacient kills human beings, that it is a killing machine. Again no interest.

I then consulted the editor of L’Osservatore Romano, Fr. Lambert Greenan who had written the statement on conscience in the Washington Case. He told me that in 1968 Cardinal Patrick O’Boyle, Archbishop of Washington disciplined a number of his priests who had publicly dissented from the encyclical Humanae Vitae. The case went to Rome. The Congregation for the Clergy decreed that if these priests accepted that Humanae Vitae was the teaching of the Church and also accepted Father Greenan’s statement that conscience must always be followed then the Cardinal must welcome them back. There was no third conclusion, urging that conscience be formed in the light of the teaching of the Church.

Later Cardinal O’Connor of New York commented that ‘Conscience’ had previously taken to refer to the Ten Commandments but was now taken to mean “what you will”. This watershed case was pivotal in the collapse of episcopal defense of Humanae Vitae. And Rome knew of the Pill’s abortifacient mode of action!

I sought the advice of a fine Scottish parish priest. He told me that in 1969 his diocese had instructed priests not to ask a penitent about contraception in confession and on a later occasion that if the penitent did mention contraception he or she was to be told neither to mention it again nor to seek the advice of another confessor.

In 1984 still seeking support for parents I spoke to Cardinal Eduard Gagnon of the Pontifical Council for the Family. He told me that on the very day the Charter of the Rights of the Family was to go to press he found that the section on the Parent the Primary Educator had been removed by a Western European hierarchy, and that the section stating that aid to Third World countries must not be contingent on population control had been removed by “IPPF’s friends in the Vatican”.

He immediately informed Pope John Paul, who ordered that they be restored.

In 1980 I spoke to Professor Winter, who had been the three permanent ecologists at the UN about the attack on the parent the Primary Educator. He was a Catholic with seven children. He said the attack on parents was totally organised. He told me his story.

He had been offered the job of contraceptive and abortion motivation for the Third World by the UN and he said that after the armaments industry the contraceptive and abortion industry was the second largest multi-national industry in the world. He had persistently put off accepting the job in order to find out who was behind the agenda. He was repeatedly and lavishly entertained by some of the most senior people in American industry who encouraged him to accept the job. All Masons and all multi-millionaires. Finally he was invited to Rockefeller’s house and offered a very generous inducement to accept the job. He turned it down. He was fired and on the aeroplane back to Vienna within two weeks without a pension.

In 2005 our bishops agreed to voluntarily welcome and monitor the equal employment rights of male and female homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders in our schools.

Six years later with little resistance our Bishops abandoned their moral duty to our 250 most vulnerable Catholic children for whom they were in loco parentis by closing down our adoption agencies leaving the children to possibly be adopted by homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders. Happily, we now have some much better bishops.

In 2015 in the Final Report on the Synod on the Family 257 (94%) of bishops voted that:

“The family, while maintaining its primary space in education (cf. Gravissimum Educationis, 3), cannot be the only place for teaching sexuality.”

With this doublespeak they obscured that they had in practice abandoned millions of Catholic families to indoctrination by the birth control and homosexual lobby.

Contrast their words with-

“Let your Yes for Yes,and No for No .

Whatever goes beyond this, comes of evil”. -- Matthew 5:37


T Ward & PF

So with even greater urgency I continued searching for support for parents. I spoke to … Pope Francis saying in Italian: “Your Holiness, may I say something.” He replied pleasantly, “Certainly”. I continued, “Our families have a great and urgent need for you to defend the Primary Right of parents as Educators of their children.” He replied “D’accordo” I agree.

But what followed did not quite confirm this.

In Amoris Laetitia (March 2016), Chapter 1, Pope Francis in a general sense supports the Primary Right of Parents as educators saying, “it is essential, inalienable , indeclinable, most serious duty which parents are called to defend”

However a hundred pages later on sex education, where it really counts, he gives the clarion call “Sì alla educazione sessuale” in the Italian edition. And the more restrained “The Need for Sex Education” in the English. But on the “great and urgent need” to defend parent’s rights as Primary Educators, silence!

And on chastity – silence. However, in 2014 he did speak of this virtue in the European Parliament.

“Keeping democracy alive in Europe requires avoiding the many globalizing tendencies to dilute reality: namely, angelic forms of purity, dictatorships of relativism…

What do you, a Catholic parent who wishes to withdraw a reluctant child from sex classes do, when the child tells you the teacher says that the Pope wants me to have sex education?

In July 2016 the Pontifical Council for the Family released The Meeting Point, the Vatican’s new sexual education program prepared under the leadership of Archbishop Paglia. My distinguished colleague, Dr Richard Fitzgibbons states that this program is the most dangerous threat to Catholic youth that he has seen over the past 40 years. He describes it as sexual abuse of Catholic adolescents worldwide. He might have added:

“But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.” - Matthew 18:6

On the Primary Educator in the Meeting Point -silence. “In the 518 pages of the program, parental involvement happens on one occasion, namely, when students are told to ‘ask your parents and grandparents to show you photographs of when they were children and young adults, and look at the changes together. It can be a really nice experience.”

In his Encyclical Laudato Si (May 2015), Pope Francis deals with sustainable development, an issue very closely aligned to the population lobby. Again on the parent, the primary educator – silence. During his address to the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2015, shortly before the Sustainable Development Goals were formally adopted Pope Francis said:

“The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the World Summit, which opens today, is an important sign of hope”.

One year later the Vatican hosted a workshop on using children in schools to promote the Sustainable Development Goals which include compulsory sex education and the universal provision of contraception and abortion.

On this occasion the silence on parents was finally broken. The briefing paper for this workshop warned against the opposition of religious parents.

I am reminded of a comment of a family planning spokesman: “Parents – they’re the most dangerous people of all”.

All of this becomes more frightening when one remembers that Pope Francis has led 300,000 young people in repeatedly chanting “It takes a village to raise a child”, the title of Hillary Clinton’s book on her vision of the state rather than parents looking after their children.

Ladies and gentlemen, the removal of parents’ rights as Primary Educators started with contraception and its indoctrination in sex education. It has now metastasised to include underage abortion, general medical services, school homosexual and gender theory indoctrination and in Germany even imprisonment of parents who exercised their Primary right as educators.

But the teaching of the Church is that:

“Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centres chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit that animates the parents”. (Saint John Paul Familiaris Consortio N37)


“Parents have the right to ensure that their children are not compelled to attend classes which are not in agreement with their own moral and religious convictions. In particular, sex education is a basic right of the parents…” (The Charter of the Rights of the Family, Article 5)

Since they have conferred life on their children, parents have the original, primary and inalienable right to educate them; hence they must be acknowledged as the first and foremost educators of their children.

Ladies and gentlemen, because of Amoris Laetitia and the sinister possibility of a revision of Humanae Vitae these questions must now be asked:

• Has, in the field of sexuality, the teaching of the Church on the right of the Parent, the Primary Educator been revoked in this Pontificate?

• And, if so, who will protect millions of Catholic children from indoctrination by the wolves in the population and homosexualist lobbies and their powerful allies in the Vatican?

Where will our children hide?


[VOTF] 2276.5
























Sanctifying sodomy


Homosexual priest says he's 'on a mission' from Pope Francis to reach out to homosexuals

Fr ValkeringJEANNE SMITS reports for LifeSiteNews - Pierre Valkering, the Dutch priest who publicly revealed his homosexuality at the end of Sunday Mass on March 31, has given multiple interviews to the media in which he said he is 'on a mission' after Pope Francis himself told him to reach out to the gay community.

'I pay attention to those people. I carry them with me in my heart. I want to tell them that and greet them,' he quotes Pope Francis as having said to him in Rome in 2016.

That was when he presented to the Pope a collection of funeral homilies for deceased homosexuals in the 1980s and 90s of another gay-friendly Dutch priest, Jan van Kilsdonk, that Valkering had compiled during a sabbatical in Rome.

Valkering says that at first Bishop Jozef Punt of Haarlem-Amsterdam was not happy about the theme of his study, but Punt did end up permitting him to leave his Amsterdam parish. While 'not amused' by Valkering's book, the priest says he did receive the bishop's blessing on his return.

Encouraged by Pope Francis' words (as he reported them), Valkering decided to accept an invitation to join the 'interreligious boat' at the LGBT 'Canal Parade' in Amsterdam - the special European edition of the Gay Pride parade in 2016.

'I thought: a field day! I had to do it,' he said. 'This way, I could implement exactly what the Pope asked me to do: to greet gay people. So I said 'yes.''

He talked about it with the auxiliary bishop of Haarlem-Amsterdam, even inviting him to join. The answer was 'no.' And Bishop Punt ordered Valkering to stay away from the interreligious float, which boasted about the presence of Protestant pastors, both gay and lesbian, Buddhists, Jews and even a gay French imam.

A news report in August 2018 showed Valkering hesitating during the Parade: Would he join the 'World Religion Boat?' Would he enter into 'resistance' and go on board? Would he just wave them off? Valkering made his irritation clear against his bishop. He explained that he would decide at the last minute: 'I'll leave it to the Holy Spirit,' he said. He finally stayed on land, having abundantly embraced the gay (friendly) religious before they boarded the float.

Such wavering appears to be a part of his character. He says he hesitated until the last minute about publishing his latest book in which he unwraps his dissolute life. Why did he go forward?

'Because I felt called to do it? My existence is about God and Jesus Christ, I live with Him, He speaks in me. I wanted to listen to that deepest voice,' he said. 'That which I want to promote with this book is my own healing and that of the Church. The Church is being wrecked by inauthenticity. The Church is acting fake.'

Days before the 2016 parade, Valkering fixed a poster image of his meeting with Pope Francis holding the Van Kilsdonk book and the visible rainbow on it cover, over the main entrance of his parish church, the Vredeskerk in Amsterdam. The word 'Welcome' clearly invited LGBT visitors to the Dutch capital to enter the church. At the time, the gay press in the Netherlands explained that the poster was an answer to Pope Francis positive message' that Valkering was supposed to transmit to homosexuals.

'The Pope asked Pierre Valkering (…) to bring over this message and to greet the people concerned. Father Valkering promised to do so. That is why there is a large banner with a picture of the meeting on the Vredeskerk since Wednesday,' wrote rozegolf.net.

While the banner was still up in November 2016, parts of the church tower's roof crashed to the ground during a storm and the building was temporarily closed.

It seems incredible that no one in the diocese should have known about Valkering's active homosexuality. A close look at the diocese's statement about Valkering's coming out gives a clue:

'In the public news, it's usually forgotten that Fr. Valkering, on the grounds of previous declarations and publications, had been having talks with the diocese for a longer time. During these talks the bishop explicitly indicated that he didn't intend to get rid of him because of his orientation, but he did ask him to stick to his promise of celibacy that he made when he was ordained.

'The pastor could also have chosen to talk openly and honestly about his struggles with sexuality and celibacy with the bishop. Such honesty would certainly not have been punished. On the contrary, ways could have been explored with Fr. Valkering to reflect on this and to get help. This has happened in the past with a few other priests.

'However, Fr. Valkering chose for sudden public action, of which the bishop received no prior knowledge at all. Also, in that action, he did not make at all clear whether he would in the future be prepared to remain celibate.'

The diocese added that Valkering's action had been experienced as a 'holdup,' and that it had been 'publicly forced into a corner' by the priest's admittance that he had 'often not respected celibacy, had varying sexual contacts and also struggled with porn addiction.' It was also the reason Bishop Punt decided to ask Valkering temporarily to suspend his priestly activities.

In an August 2018 interview with the director of Paul Hofman of gay media DeGayKrant - who is Valkering's official spokesman - Valkering criticized Cardinal Raymond Burke's statements about the link between homosexuality and sexual abuse in the Church. Valkering is presented in the article as 'also a homosexual.'

In his interview with De Tijd, he explained that he fulfilled his promise of celibacy 'in his own way.' He sees priestly celibacy as a 'religious ideal, a motivator, not an aim in itself.'

'For me it was a positive choice. The choice for Jesus Christ. He is central to my life,' he said. 'Every afternoon, I celebrate the Eucharist and every day I make a lot of time for prayer. During discussions, it's always about celibacy, never about prayer. That alone is already a formidable … distorsion.'

He also complained that the Church favors an 'iron discipline.'

'No relationship, no intimate relationship, no sex with other people, not even with yourself. Blood crawls where it cannot flow,' he said, claiming that the Church's forbidding stance is at the root of sexual abuse on minors.

Using gay activist Frédéric Martel's technique of insinuation, he described an afternoon at the pool at a religious congregation where he stayed in Rome as a gay event because seminarists were lying about in the sun in shorts: 'It was all very innocent, but well, you feel 'it.' The famous gaydar.'

During his coming-out speech after Mass in his own parish church, Valkering brandished Martel's book, Sodoma - In the Closet of the Vatican.

He has admitted to having a long-lasting relationship of 17 years with a gay man named Jasper, whom he sees every Friday evening. For several years, he also spent the night with him, 'but that was quite some years ago and it stopped, also because I wanted to pray in church on Saturday mornings.'

Having acknowledged frequent visits to gay saunas, darkrooms and the like, until about 15 years ago, Valkering also admitted to a porn addiction that locked him to his computer until the small hours of the morning. He says his coming out (last Sunday) has made this addiction disappear.

Interestingly, in 2013, Valkering wrote a letter to Dutch Cardinal Wim Eijk, who would join the conclave in Rome to elect the new Pope after Benedict XVI. At the time, just after Pope Francis' election, Valkering talked about his initiative in a TV show, disparaging Pope Benedict's style and saying it was time for a new kind of Pope - one who would allow people to be 'honest with each other' and to 'tell each other about the way they live, both within the Church and outside.'

He was enthusiastic about Pope Francis and his words: 'Who am I to judge?'

About his letter to Cardinal Eijk, Valkering said, 'The cardinal didn't react, but the Holy Spirit did. We have a fantastic Pope.'

[LSN] 2276.6























The Hive - This is how it works

MICHAEL VORIS reports in The Vortex - When Archbishop Viganò released his first testimony last summer pointing at the rampant homosexuality and its acceptance by so many senior clergy in the hierarchy, he called it 'a homosexual current.' He meant by that a trend, a certain flow, a general direction, like a current in the ocean.

For that reason, we propose beginning to think of this as a beehive, a homosexual hive in the Church hierarchy where each member of the hive is involved in the same general work, but may not necessarily be directly connected to every other member of the hive - just like a beehive.

Every little bee is busy with his individual task, but through instinct, is engaged in the same type of work, with the same goal, even if there doesn't exist an actual working together directly.

They are each doing the same thing - as in the mission, which is to reinforce the hive and protect the queen, but in different ways, and again, not always in direct concert.

Such is the same with the homosexual hive in the Church hierarchy. Sometimes, you have activists trying to push the agenda directly. Other times, you have some bishops who give the whole thing cover.

Other times, there are extortionists and blackmailers among them who seek to hold on to power. Some are motivated simply by sex, others strictly by power, and still others who want some measure of luxury on other people's money.

Often times, these categories overlap, both in an individual homosexualist bishop and, other times, within the hive itself. There are different men, operating at different levels of motive, intelligence, cunning, skill, etc.

They don't all like each other. Often times, in fact, many of them despise each other personally - a common trait in the homosexual community at large.

Some of them live in a world of cognitive dissonance, presenting themselves as orthodox, and in some cases even actually being orthodox to a point. But at the same time, they are still part of the hive.

Even well-regarded religious communities like Opus Dei have bees from the homosexual hive in them, as recent press reports are now revealing. Others are open dissenters and are very clear about wanting to overturn Church teaching on this topic, as well as most other topics.

Then there are the middle-of-the-road bees who believe the Church is wrong on this, but are much more careful in how they go about making the case.

They don't directly attack the teaching; they simply allow groups or speakers or whatever who want the teaching destroyed to roam about their diocese and do their damage, maintaining a 'safe' distance so as to not have it pinned to them.

Faithful Catholics and anyone looking at this horror needs to understand this is how the hive works. There are different bees with different tasks, different talents, different views on how to increase the hive.

As stated, often times, they don't agree or even like each other. But what they do have in common is this one thing: the preservation of the hive at all costs. The queen or, in this case, the goal must be protected - whatever needs to be done.

All of this has brought about a destruction of the religious orders, seminaries, young lives, vocations, parishes, catechesis, education, evangelization, consecration of bishops, liturgy, devotions.

There is not one corner of the Church which has not been swarmed by the homosexual hive and been corrupted. Until faithful Catholics begin to understand this - that there is a hive - and how it operates, this evil will continue.

Speaking naturally, the hive is in control. It has exercised operational control of the Church for decades, slowly growing the hive until it is so big that it would appear impossible to attack.

On a natural level, that's probably true. As long as there exist bees that will attack - and right now, there are many - it will be difficult to get at the actual hive itself.

It will have to be confronted - again, in the natural order - by faithful Catholics who will go after individual bees or small groups of bees.

On the supernatural level, Our Blessed Lord and Our Blessed Mother will have to intervene. They can do that, of course, through either natural agency - like a RICO investigation, for example - or they can do it through direct supernatural agency, as in the fulfillment of the prophecies of Akita.

In the meantime, each one of us must do whatever we can do to sting the hive in our way, within our own orbit, within our own circumstances.

Break out your can of Catholic Raid and start spraying.

[CMTV] 2276.7
























United Nations

UN logo


UN official says “f-you” to Trump and pro-life elegations
SUSAN YOSHIHARA, Ph.D., reports for the Friday Fax - Spokespersons for two UN agencies outlined a plan to counter the U.S. pro-life position by seeking a new international consensus on sexual rights without the consent of sovereign states.

At a meeting in Washington, D.C., Carmen Barroso referred to the Trump administration as “the egregious power next door.” Barroso is co-chair, Gender and Rights Advocacy Group, at the Special Program of Research, Development, and Training in Human Reproduction at the World Health Organization.

“We are facing fierce opposition as Carmen was saying,” UNFPA spokesman Arthur Erken added. “So we have two choices: either you stay silent because you’re too afraid to rock the boat, or you say—F-You—we are actually going to go out [of UN premises] and fight for this right because we really believe that this is the right thing to do.”

Erken was referring to a plan to hold a major conference in Nairobi later this year to “bring everyone together because we want everyone to show their colors” on the divisive issues. The conference is to take place near the 25thanniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo.

In defiance of current U.S. policy which emphasizes sexual risk avoidance for young people rather than sexual rights, Erken said comprehensive sexuality education, which the U.S. opposes, “needs to be coming out very very strong in Nairobi.” Sexual rights, which the U.S. also opposes, is “the other battleground that we are facing.”

Erken, who was a young staffer at the Cairo conference, complained that the consensus from Cairo included protection for national sovereignty and religion. “The one sentence that is there was that everything in the Program of Action is subject to national laws and religious beliefs.” That must now be reversed, he said, in a return to the “spirit” of Cairo and not the actual text.

“We now have many more potential allies than we had in Cairo,” Barroso said, “but one important ally was the U.S. government, and of course it’s in the other camp. Hopefully 2020 will change that.” Barroso said of the “masses of disenfranchised people” in the U.S., Brazil and elsewhere, “They’re electing fascists!”

The UN senior staffers made it clear that the plan was a resistance to U.S. voters who put Republicans in office. “ICPD could not take place if let’s say Bill Clinton wasn’t president in the U.S.,” Erken said. “The MDGs that followed,” when George W. Bush was in office, “were not a very progressive agenda…The SDGs is [sic] far more progressive,” he went on, “at a time when we had Barak Obama as president. And I can guarantee you we would have had a different conversation if the SDGs were happening to be discussed today.”

Erken said that the direction at Nairobi will not come from nations so much as from special interest activists “plowing ahead because you’re on the right side of history.” He said, “Laws in the country don’t change because politicians think it’s a good idea…please use your social media capacity to organize and bring these forces out.”

Even without the consent of the U.S., a donor nation, or from traditional, recipient nations, Erken said “Nairobi is about commitments,” and that “some kind of consensus will come out of Nairobi” that will last for another decade: “I don’t foresee another population conference such as this in the next ten years.”

[C-FAM] 2276.UN1
























African pro-fifer threatened by abortion groups, fears for her safety

STEFANO GENNARINI, J.D. reports for the Friday Fax -- A pro-life leader who shut down abortion giant Marie Stopes in Kenya fears for her life. She says abortion groups backed by the United Nations, powerful countries, and foundations have put a target on her back.

Anne Kioko has become a thorn in the side of powerful internationally backed abortion groups in Kenya by running successful campaigns against abortion, comprehensive sexuality education, and the homosexual/transgender agenda. Kioko, who is the campaign director for CitizenGo in Kenya, says the group most directly opposed to her is the Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Alliance.

“These people are very well-funded, and they have developed real hate against me,” she said during a telephone interview.

The Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Alliance is a pro-abortion lobbying coalition backed by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Clinton Health Access Initiative, and groups funded by the U.S. government.

Last Fall, Kioko became the face of the pro-life movement in Kenya when she presented a petition to the government denouncing Marie Stopes for performing abortions on minors and giving them contraception without parental consent. The abortion giant was temporarily prohibited from carrying out abortions in Kenya as a result. Marie Stopes is the largest single abortion group in the world. It set itself the target of performing 6 million abortions globally each year in 2017, according to a reportfiled with the UN Secretary General.

The abortion ban was covered in African and international radio and television outlets, including Reuters and the BBC.

Now Kioko fears for her safety.

An insider warned Kioko that a leader of the Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Alliance, Mwikali Kivuvani, has threatened violence against her. “She said that she can’t wait to meet me personally. And that she is going to confront me,” Kioko said.

Kioko has also been subject to threats and harassment on social media.

“Here in Kenya I have to be careful on how I operate. You can be killed, and it appears like an accident,” Kioko said.

The same insider told Kioko that abortion groups are tracking her movements.

“I only turn my phone on when I need it. I have to turn it off when I am moving from one place to another,” she said. She fears being targeted when traveling in rural areas.

Kioko denounced the global abortion industry at UN headquarters during an event sponsored by the Holy See and the Center for Family and Human Rights, publisher of the Friday Fax, on the margins of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

Kioko felt very strongly about the need to tell diplomats and UN officials her experience.

“A young girl in a village like mine does not need contraception to feel empowered, she does not need policies that prioritize abortion, she does not need destructive curricula like comprehensive sexuality education,” Kioko said.

The Kenyan chair of the commission, Ms. Koki Muli Grignon, accused pro-life groups of harassing her. It is thought she was referring to petitions she received from CitizenGo. At the same commission, a delegate of the Holy See accused pro-abortion nations of threatening and bullying pro-life delegates.

Kioko told the Friday Fax that Grignon has long held ties to the abortion industry in Kenya.

[C-FAM] 2276.UN2

























China supplement


New Icon for the Catholic Church in China: The Bulldozer of Qianyang



CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA writes for Fatima Perspectives - This video depicts a bulldozer in the process of demolishing the parish building of the "underground" Catholic Church in Qianyang, China, which housed a church on the second floor and a free medical clinic for the poor on the first.

This, writes Sandro Magister, is how "[t]he Chinese regime is… applying its agreement with the Holy See…" That is, its secret agreement with the communist dictators in Beijing, whose pseudo-church, the Patriotic Catholic Association (PCA), the wizards of Vatican diplomacy have now legitimated, thus betraying the fidelity of China's underground Catholics while signing (in secret) the death warrant for the true Church in China.

The exquisite tragedy of this particular demolition of a Catholic edifice by the butchers of Beijing - the latest in a series of demolitions - is that, as Magister notes, this parish, with its two thousand faithful, is part of the Diocese of Fengxiang, in Shaanxi. Fengxiang is "the only diocese in all of China in which none of the baptized, from the bishop to the last of the faithful, has yet agreed to enroll in the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, the main instrument with which the regime subjects the Church to itself in the name of its 'independence' from Rome that Benedict XVI defined as 'irreconcilable' with Catholic doctrine, in the 2007 letter to Chinese Catholics still declared valid by his successor."

Note that Pope Francis, according to Magister, has indicated that Benedict's 2007 letter condemning the PCA's "independence from Rome" as "irreconcilable" with Catholic doctrine is still valid. Yet Francis has approved an accord which facilitates Beijing's brutal imposition of precisely that "independence." Francis says one thing but does the opposite. At this point, only the willfully obtuse could be surprised.

Nor should anyone be surprised that it was Francis who had already overseen the demotion of Vincent Guo Xijin, the actual bishop of another diocese, that of Mindong, to the status of a mere auxiliary to Vincent Zhan Silu, "the excommunicated government-appointed bishop, installed by the communist regime in his same diocese." This required considerable arm-twisting before Guo would "consent" to this obscene arrangement, prior to which, as Magister reports, he had been "blocked from celebrating the Paschal rites," which he had refused to concelebrate with the impostor Zhan, and was "arrested by the police, to reappear twenty days later." Into the bargain, Francis has lifted Zhan's excommunication in the process of subjugating the true Catholic bishop to the schismatic one, whose primary loyalty is to Beijing.

This betrayal wasn't easy for Francis to pull off. The first time he was asked to step down in favor of Zhan, "Guo resisted, but the second time he said yes. To obtain his obedience, Celli [the Vatican envoy sent to arrange the betrayal] told him that it was Pope Francis himself who was asking him for this 'sacrifice for the unity of the Chinese Church.'"

How many more examples are needed to demonstrate the immense destructive power of an "obedience" no longer connected to truth and justice in the Church and which in fact operates consistently to undermine the cause of the Gospel? And now Guo, deposed by order of the Pope himself, lives "at the mercy of the regime, which at any moment can arrest him, confine him, block him from celebrating." Finding themselves in the same situation, to which they have been abandoned by the Pope, are "dozens of 'clandestine' priests of his diocese. None of them so far has agreed to sign a document in which it is demanded that they switch to the service of the new bishop Zhan, obey the laws of the state, enroll in the official organizations, support the principle of the Church's 'independence.'"

Zhan, meanwhile, has declared publicly that the only way to "the unity of the Chinese Church" is "to do away with the 'clandestine' Church" altogether by compelling all the Catholic faithful to join Beijing's monstrous creation. Francis appears to be on board with this proposal.

Likewise in the Diocese of Xuanhua, the true Catholic bishop, Augustine Cui Tai, was arrested and taken to an unknown location after "one of his priests, named Zhang Li… reported him to the authorities and accused him of not obeying the new norms of the Vatican, which according to him require all the 'clandestine' to return to the 'official' Church and to submit to its conditions."

And from the Vatican, not a word to the contrary.

During a recent visit to San Giulio Papa parish in Rome, Francis reportedly "confessed about himself, 'I've had many doubts, many'" about the Faith he is charged to defend and protect, and he advised that young people should be taught to "doubt well" - whatever on earth that might mean. And this from a Pope who constantly derides orthodox Catholics for being hung up on doctrine while lacking a personal relationship with Jesus such as the one he evidently believes he possesses.

What sort of relationship with the divine Founder of the Catholic Church would lead a Pope to lend the authority of his office to the subjugation of faithful Catholics by a communist regime, and the bulldozing of their churches while the Vatican observes a studious silence? The sort of Pope, no doubt, whose calamitous reign must figure prominently in the Third Secret of Fatima.

[FP] 2276.8

























News from around the world


Canada The chilling evidence that Jordan Peterson was right: transgender ideology is 'totalitarian'

FR. SHENAN BOQUET reports for Human Life International - A so-called 'human rights tribunal' in Canada has just ruled that a Christian activist must pay $55,000 to a provincial politician because he referred to this politician as a 'biological male' in a political pamphlet. The politician in question, Morgane Oger (born Ronan Oger), is a biological male. However, he has since 'transitioned,' and is living his life as a 'transgender woman.' According to the decision, Bill Whatcott must compensate Oger for injuring the latter's 'dignity, feelings and self-respect.'

The terrifying precedent set by this case can be illustrated by one, flabbergasting fact: The judge in the case refused to allow Whatcott's lawyer to offer testimony showing that, in point of fact, Oger is a biological male. According to the judge, 'the 'truth' of [Whatcott's] statements in the flyer is not a defense.' As such, said the judge, 'evidence is simply not relevant to the legal issue...'

Read that again. Let it sink in. Truth is not a defense. Evidence doesn't matter. What matters - it would seem - is whether someone's feelings were hurt. And thus, with a stroke of the pen, the rule of law is replaced with the rule of feelings. But as Whatcott has just learned, and I suspect many more are about to learn, feelings can be far more ruthless and unyielding taskmasters than laws.

Back in 2016, University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson was roundly mocked by so-called progressives for warning that gender ideology is 'totalitarian.' Peterson, who has made a career of studying totalitarian regimes, above all the Soviet Union, was accused of seeing bogey-men under every rock, and of projecting his paranoia onto a movement that was only seeking basic human rights for a marginalized group.

And yet, with every passing day more and more stories are emerging showing that, if anything, Peterson's dire warnings weren't dire enough. In many cases, gender ideologues (who, I should note, are not the same as transgender individuals, many of whom are suffering profoundly and deserve our compassion, even if we do not necessarily agree with the methods they choose to deal with their pain) are no longer bothering to even try to maintain the façade of humanistic reasonableness, showing themselves willing to bulldoze the basic rights of anyone who gets in their way. Disturbingly, this even includes even people belonging to categories that until recently were understood to be themselves in need of special protections.

Two Disturbing Stories

You'd think, for instance, that the right of a woman who has been raped to feel completely safe while seeking treatment is about as sacrosanct as a right can possibly be. Recently, however, the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter lost over $30,000 in city funding. The city's decision to pull the funding came after a fierce campaign against the shelter spearheaded by Morgane Oger - yes, that's the same politician named above - and other totalitarian transgender ideology activists, who are furious that the center refuses to offer its services to 'transgender women,' i.e. biological men who now claim to be women.

The center, reasonably enough, believes that the last thing biological women who have been raped need is to be forced into close quarters with strange men. Oger disagrees. By restricting a women-only rape shelter to biological women, says Oger, the center is engaging in 'systematic, consistent misbehaviour.' The women's shelter shot back, pithily, that Oger and other city officials are effectively perpetrating 'discrimination against women in the name of inclusion.'

To understand how grotesque this decision is, it's necessary to remember that according to gender ideology, all that is needed for a born man to become a woman is for him to claim that he is a woman. In other words, included among 'transgender women' can be men who look like men in every way, including possessing male genitalia. Now, imagine being a woman who has been raped, who goes into the bathroom or joins a group therapy session at the rape shelter, expecting to find the security of a women-only environment. Instead she finds that she has to use the facilities or expose the raw wounds of her trauma - trauma inflicted by a man - in the presence of a man. Thanks to gender ideology, such a woman has no right to complain. If she's truly 'woke,' she will swallow her own trauma, subjugating her right to heal in a safe environment to the latest dogmas of progressive equity.

Another story: Recently, it was discovered that a man who was reading to children at Freed-Montrose Public Library in Houston was a convicted pedophile. Thirty-two-year-old Albert Garza was convicted of assaulting an eight-year-old boy in 2008. But when he applied to read stories to children while dressed as a woman as part of 'Drag Queen Storytime' - a truly bizarre indoctrination program which libraries across the nation are falling over themselves to host these days - the library didn't think it necessary to perform even a basic background check.

Now, you'd think that if there's any place in the world where children should expect to feel absolutely safe, it would be during children's story-time at a public library. At a bare minimum, you'd think that adults who are arranging for a man who spends his waking hours sexually titillating people for a living to have access to children would ensure that such a man is not a convicted pedophile. But then again, in our topsy-turvy world, gender ideologues are falling over themselves to encourage young children to become drag queens, and even (and it's enough to make one shudder) applaud when those children perform sexually provocative drag shows in a gay bar. (Yes, this actually happened.)


Transgenderism and Totalitarianism

Stories like this, and worse, keep coming, faster than I can possibly write about them.

This month, for instance, we heard about the Catholic mom of five in the UK who is being investigated by police for 'misgendering' the son of a transgender activist (a transgender activist, it should be noted, who arranged for her 15-year-old son to be castrated in Thailand, because the procedure was illegal for a child of that age in the UK). Also this month, we heard about the parents in the UK who objected when their autistic teenage son was prescribed hormone therapy. After their son told his school that his parents wouldn't allow him to undergo the so-called treatment, the school reported the parents to child services for being 'emotionally abusive.' The parents were then warned that if they didn't support their child, he could be taken away from them and put into foster care. According to The Daily Mail, last year at least three children were taken away from their parents and put into foster care, because their parents objected to their gender transition.

Clearly, Peterson was right. There is an increasingly naked totalitarian aspect to gender ideology. Anyone who will force raped women to share living quarters with biological men, who will seize children from their parents because the parents express concern about treatments that will render their child permanently sterile, who will pump children full of artificial hormones and mutilate their genitals after the barest pretense of a clinical investigation, who will shrug at throwing a mom of five children into jail for the crime of stating biological facts, and who declare that truth is not a defense and evidence is unwelcome in a trial, all in the name of a recently concocted, scientifically unproven (in many cases disproven) set of dogmas, shares certain obvious commonalities with the perpetrators of some of the worst human rights violations of the 20th century. I see every reason to expect that the more power such people accrue, the more brazen and unjust their exercise of that power will become.

Peterson's warnings were recently repeated and expanded upon by Nancy Pearcey, an academic who has been focusing on the issue of transgenderism. 'Anyone who's read Solzhenitsyn and his Gulag Archipelago or any book like that knows that totalitarian systems often begin by compelling speech, by telling people what they may and may not say,' Pearcey noted in a recent interview. 'And if you can tell or coerce people's speech, you can eventually control their thoughts.'

'If you've robbed [people] of the language to express their true belief, and you've required them to give voice to convictions that they do not hold, that eventually messes with your mind,' she continued. 'It eventually often changes people's minds.' In other words, totalitarian transgender ideologues are engaging in what is known as 'gaslighting,' a kind of psychological manipulation in which the manipulator seeks to cause the victim to question his or her sanity. By demanding that we change the way we speak - and, indeed, think - about one of the core, and most self-evident categories of reality - biological sex - gender ideologues are undermining the very foundations of reason.

In the interview, Pearcey contrasted totalitarianism with authoritarianism. Whereas authoritarian states want power, 'they don't care much what you do in your private life.' A totalitarian state, on the other hand, 'is one that wants to control your thoughts. They want to control your inner life.' This totalitarianism is already present in countries like Canada, she warned, and is 'right on our doorstep here in the States.' Given the stories related above - and some of the stories I recounted a few weeks ago - I don't see how we can possibly argue that Pearcey isn't right.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Many people who come face-to-face with transgender extremism are tempted to kowtow, because they know that transgender ideologues will not hesitate to make their lives miserable. However, every act of capitulation emboldens the gender ideologues. Caroline Farrow - the mother of five mentioned above - has said that she is willing to go to prison to protect her free speech rights. So has Jordan Peterson. Are we similarly prepared to stand up for the truth?

[Listen to an interview with Walt Heyer, a former 'transgender woman,' who has since de-transitioned and is living his life according to his biological sex. Heyer has dedicated his life to raising the alarm about the inherent dangers of transgender ideology, as well as treating those, like himself, who have come to regret their sex change. Heyer was interviewed on The Van Maren Show, LifeSite's new weekly podcast. To subscribe to The Van Maren Show, or to listen to other episodes, click here].

[LSN] 2276.9























France A public Amoris Laetitia celebration of getting around adultery

FR. JOHN ZUHLSDORF blogs - It has been some time since we’ve looked into issues arising from the ambiguity laden Ch. 8 of Amoris laetitia. Remember that those who wish to distort the words of the Lord and Catholic moral theology will read it one way, while those who want to be true to the same will read it another way. I suspect very few people changed positions.

I read at the ultra-liberal La Croix edited by the ultra-lib Robert Mickens, about now “happy” divorced and remarried couple joyously receiving Communion after some “accompaniment” by a French priests. The piece was originally from a French outlet, Le Pèlerin.

Divorced and remarried, they receive communion once again This is one of the first concrete outcomes of the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia

“This couple, deprived of the sacraments for many years, will receive communion once again today,” proclaimed the priest at the beginning of the celebration.

On Pentecost 2018, Benoît and Chantal walked down the nave alongside other members of the congregation in their Church in Eu, Normandy to receive the Eucharist. Neither of them made a “great fuss,” but all were well aware of the day’s significance.

This is one of the first concrete outcomes of the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia, published three years ago. In Chapter 8 there is a footnote (no. 351) that encourages pastors to accompany divorced and remarried couples if they want to return to the sacraments.

Benoît was a widower and Chantal a divorcee when they married in a civil ceremony seventeen years ago. As members of the Church, they knew that this meant renouncing the sacraments.

In the eyes of the Church, the indissoluble marriage bond between man and woman is a reflection of the union between Christ and the Church. It therefore does not recognize Chantal Vivant’s second marriage with another man, which left her and Benoît in an “irregular situation.”

With the publication of Amoris laetitia in 2016, the Church’s approach shifted, placing greater emphasis on the notion of mercy.

It didn’t go as far as fully reinstating the right to communion or reconciliation, but as Pope Francis noted, encouraged us to remember that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

It is up to priests to interpret the text as they see fit, and so far, most have been reluctant to champion it. But Chantal and Benoît live in the diocese of Rouen, which is particularly keen to explore the topic, as are those of Lyon, Évreux and Annecy.


This is the definition of scandal, by the way. The priest even announced it.

A public celebration of getting around adultery.

Nobody wants people to be perpetually sad and cast down. However, false mercy is not the way to avoid sadness.

[wdtprs.com] 2276.9a























Spain Government to investigate diocese for counselling man away from gay lifestyle

MARTIN M. BARILLAS reports for LifeSiteNews - A Spanish diocese is being investigated by a regional government after being accused by an undercover journalist of engaging in 'conversion therapy' for a homosexual man.

Pedro Rollán, the vice president of Madrid's regional government, has called upon the government's Council on Social Policy for an investigation into the Diocese of Alcalá de Henares after a journalist posed as a homosexual man earnestly seeking help at a parish family counseling center. For an article published April 1 by El Diario, the journalist attended a session at the Regina Familiae family counseling center on March 21.

On April 7, citizens assembled outside the cathedral of Alcala de Henares to show support for their bishop and to demand an end to government 'lynching' of the Catholic Church.

The journalist claimed that he was told during a counseling session that homosexuality may be caused by sexual abuse or other childhood trauma. A therapist at the counseling center told the journalist, according to the report in El Diario, that he must stop watching pornography and cease masturbating. The therapist recommended prayer, psychiatric counseling, and reading so that the journalist could learn to 'govern his will.'

Rollán wants the government's Council on Social Policy to determine whether there has been 'any kind of infraction' of a law passed by the regional government of Madrid concerning supposed homophobic therapy. The law prescribes fines of as much as 45,000 euros for those convicting of disobeying laws on transgenderism and homosexual identity. However, only a court can levy fines in such cases.

A communique from the Catholic diocese attested that counseling is available there to provide 'help and guidance' to inquirers.

'This integral, pastoral and spiritual accompaniment in this as in all matters is always done, from the standpoint of faith and reason, with love and truth, in the light of the Word of God and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church,' the statement declared.

The diocese also called on Catholics to pray for the freedom of the Church in Spain. By sending a journalist to the diocese under false pretenses, read the statement, is the 'very sort of disinformation of which Pope Francis has spoken.' It said that 'we are witnessing the fabrication of fake news.'

On April 2, protesters draped with the rainbow colors of gay liberation protested inside the cathedral at Alcala de Henares just before an evening Mass. Denouncing Bishop Juan Antonio Reig Pla, they shouted 'Leave Alcala' and 'Love doesn't have a cure, hate does.' Police soon arrived and dispersed the protesters.

Bishop Reig Pla has frequently been targeted because of his outspoken opposition to the LGBTQ agenda. Leftists and LGBTQ campaigners, for instance, filed a lawsuit against him, claiming he incited hatred with a Good Friday sermon that touched upon the homosexual lifestyle. The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed by a local judge.

[LSN] 2276.10























Uganda Medical students' outrage over U.S. based organisation enticing them to become abortionists

DOUG MAINWARING reports for LifeSiteNews - A U.S. based pro-abortion group that misleadingly calls itself “Catholics for Choice” is enticing unsuspecting medical students in Africa’s most vibrant Catholic countries to become not only abortion promoters but even abortionists, according to medical students who attended a workshop hosted by the organization.

Ugandan medical students recently became troubled when they realized too late that a seminar about “reproductive health” offered by Catholics for Choice (CFC) was really about ending the lives of children in their mothers’ wombs.

They felt they were deceived by the euphemistic terminology employed by the CFC. The seminar, titled “Values Clarification Workshop,” turned out to be what they said was abortion "indoctrination" that perverted Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life.

CFC wooed students to the abortion propaganda event by bringing them free of charge to Kampala’s most lavish resort, The Lake Victoria Serena Golf Resort & Spa—the country’s only five-star hotel—for a luxury weekend.

Catholics for Choice, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. with an annual budget of $3,000,000, states on its website that it "helps people and organizations confidently challenge the power of the Catholic hierarchy." The group promotes contraception, abortion, and sex education. LifeSiteNews reached out to Catholics for Choice several times for comment during the writing of this report but received no response.

The Lake Victoria Serena Golf Resort & Spa verified that Catholics for Choice hosted the event, with representatives staying at the resort beginning February 27.

Some students were horrified upon perceiving that the seminar was neither “Catholic” nor about “women’s health.”

“They are manipulating us. They are not allowing dialogue; This is not a seminar for discussion,” said one.

“The methodology is not a good way of proceeding,” said the student. “It is a method of indoctrination.”

The presenters offered statistics showing that many Catholic women do abort their children in various countries throughout the world in an attempt to normalize the procedure, according to the students.

The printed material given to attendees—and forwarded to LifeSiteNews from Uganda via smartphone snapshots—opens with a series of questions and misleading answers on page one:

Do Catholic women have abortions?

Yes. Catholic women have abortions. In fact, Catholic women have abortions in many countries at about the same rate as other women.

What do Catholics believe about abortion?

Catholics the world over support the right to legal abortion and believe it can be a moral option.

What is the church’s teaching on abortion?

Catholic teachings on abortion have changed over time. Many past and present Catholic theologians have said abortion can be a moral choice. Others disagree.

The presenters also spoke about Humanae Vitae being “disastrous,” and that it has “enslaved women.”

The presenters mentioned that they had offered a similar seminar in the Congo in December, and that later this spring they will be in Malawi. In this way they are targeting Africa’s most dynamic, faithful, growing Catholic populations.

An attendee who wishes to remain anonymous said, “So you can see that the way they select the countries to visit: They are the ones that when you hear about Catholicism growing in Africa, these are the countries.”

Students said they were troubled when, according to one, a speaker stated, “The Prime Minister of Ethiopia has asked us to do some work for him, and he has asked us to ask you if Ethiopia can introduce abortion as a way of enhancing the productivity of women.”

“They are approaching the whole thing around religion, culture and conscience,” said one attendee in reaction to the event. “So they begin to peel people away from their religious and cultural beliefs, and also from reasoning through their consciences.”

After the weekend abortion seminar, attendees received an email from one of the two CFC presenters, Elyce Nollette, who serves as an International Program Senior Associate. The email was viewed by LifeSiteNews.

Nollette referred to the seminar as a “Values Clarification Workshop” and directed attendees to CFC’s website where among other things, they could find “resources for values-based support for women’s choices and their moral autonomy and the real story of Catholics and conscience when it comes to issues of sex and reproduction.”

According to the CFC website, seminar presenter Elyce Nollette “coordinates CFC’s international program activities with overseas policymakers, health providers, advocates, activists and collegial organizations to diminish the influence of religious extremism on public policy and advance sexual and reproductive rights.”

Amanda Ussak, the second presenter at the Values Clarification Workshop, “implements and manages CFC’s international activities including initiatives with global advocates, policymakers and reproductive health providers and other influencers to advance sexual and reproductive health and rights worldwide. Ms. Ussak’s leadership helps CFC influence and build a stronger community of advocates working around the globe to diminish the influence of religious extremism on women’s health policies.”

The group condemns African Catholic bishops because it sees them as “a vociferous opponent of modern contraception on the African continent, which has the world’s lowest rate of contraceptive use.”

A CFC online publication titled Humanae Vitae at 50: The Damage Done, starts out lamenting that Pope John Paul II declared the promotion of contraceptives in developing countries is an attack on the family, part of a “culture of death.”

CFC is especially concerned because “Catholicism is growing fastest in Africa—the Catholic population on the continent has increased by 238 percent since 1980 and Catholics are predicted to account for nearly 25 percent of the population by 2040,” according to their Humanae Vitae report.

























United Kingdom No-fault divorce is a marriage wreckers' charter: speak out today

THE COALITION FOR MARRIAGE (C4M) writes -- Today the Government is trumpeting its 'no-fault' divorce plan - and keeping quiet about the overwhelming opposition in its own consultation.

The plans may be well intentioned. They are loved by lawyers whose workload will be cut, but they are a marriage wreckers' charter.

Inevitably the number of divorces will rocket. The cost to society will be enormous.

No-fault divorce on demand means spouses will be unable to contest a divorce and the whole process could be speeded up to as little as six months. Philanderers will be delighted.

A husband or wife whose spouse has been unfaithful - will no longer be able to get a divorce on the grounds of adultery. Only 'no-fault' divorce will be available to them, and to victims of domestic violence. This is plain wrong.

The Coalition for Marriage is at the forefront of opposition to the plans. Thank you to everyone who responded to the consultation. With the publication of responses today we know that 83 per cent of respondents oppose unilateral no-fault divorce.

It's important to speak out as the plans are talked about. You might want to raise some of the points below in conversation or in a letter to a newspaper or on one of the many radio phone-ins that are taking place.

Here are some talking points:

• Marriage vows matter. These plans trivialise marriage promises. They also create instability and uncertainty in marriage.

• Cheating spouses can much more easily walk away from their solemn, lifelong commitment whenever they choose. Aided and abetted by the state.

• Research overwhelmingly shows that children normally fare better in married households compared to those in broken homes. Easy divorce is not in the interests of children.

• Divorce proceedings are dropped every year as couples decide to stick together - no-fault divorce makes the chance of reconciliation much harder.

These plans are not yet law. Parliament will have to scrutinise and debate them. Before then, we must speak out. The state should be doing what it can to help married couples stay together, not helping them break up.

[C4M] 2276.10a























United Kingdom Out-of-context remarks frame Sir Roger Scruton as 'racist'

R ScrutonBRADLEY ELI reports for ChurchMilitant.com -- The U.K. government fired Sir Roger Scruton from his advisory position on Wednesday following the publication of an interview Scruton gave to the left-wing publication New Statesman. Scruton called the article featuring parts of his interview "an unscrupulous collection of out of context remarks, some of them merely words designed to accuse me of thought-crimes, and to persuade the government that I am not fit to be chairman of the commission recently entrusted to me."

When interviewer George Eaton acknowledged that Scruton's sacking had followed his interview he was questioned by conservative commentator Paul Joseph Watson as to why he took certain statements by Scruton out of context.

"Why did you strip out the context of his full statement to unjustly make it appear racist? This isn't journalism," Watson tweeted.

During the interview, Scruton referred to the Chinese government forcing conformity on its own people.

"They're creating robots out of their own people by so constraining what can be done. Each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one and that is a very frightening thing," Scruton said.

But Eaton edited the phrase to say, "They're creating robots out of their own people … each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one and that is a very frightening thing." This made the remark appear racist toward the Chinese people when in fact Scruton was being critical of the totalitarian government restricting the freedom of its people.

During the interview, Scruton did make the factual claim in a recent interview that the term "Islamophobia" was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Watson marshals the testimony of American journalist Claire Berlinski to back up Scruton's statement.

As Claire Berlinski writes, "The neologism 'Islamophobia' did not simply emerge ex nihilo. It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia."

Finally, Scruton was accused of being anti-semitic for criticizing atheist and Jewish billionaire George Soros.

During the interview, Scruton said, "Anybody who doesn't think that there's a Soros empire in Hungary has not observed the facts." In his article on the interview Eaton followed this quote with his own remarks, "He said, heedless of the anti-Semitic portrayal of the philanthropist George Soros as a Jewish puppet-master."

Because Soros is of Jewish background, the statement was taken to be antisemitic and led to Scruton's sacking. On Thursday, Scruton replied to the slanted reporting of his interview and the ensuing firing by the U.K. government. In the statement, he lamented such leftist tactics in journalism and warned against the increasing censorship by the government of free thought:

We in Britain are entering a dangerous social condition in which the direct expression of opinions that conflict — or merely seem to conflict — with a narrow set of orthodoxies is instantly punished by a band of self-appointed vigilantes. We are being cowed into abject conformity around a dubious set of official doctrines and told to adopt a world view that we cannot examine for fear of being publicly humiliated by the censors. This world view might lead to a new and liberated social order; or it might lead to the social and spiritual destruction of our country. How shall we know, if we are too afraid to discuss it?

[CMTV] 2276.SU1
























United Kingdom Man argues he's really a dog using transgender talking points

JONATHON VAN MARON reports for LifeSiteNews - As a columnist reporting on the latest news from the culture wars in 2019, I often find it difficult to know which stories I should write about, and which stories I should pass by. Because the Sexual Revolution inflicted on the West over the past half-century appears to have metastasized and entered Stage Four, we are now forced to grapple with and discuss concepts and behaviors that would have made our grandparents flush in shame, recoil in disgust, or despair over the state of our culture-and very likely all three. But despite that fact, dealing with the moral confusion and transgender totalitarianism and mangled state of marriage is unfortunately essential.

The reason it is important to follow these stories is that if the last two decades have taught us anything, it is that things that are considered the far edge of the crazy fringe one day are immutable human rights the next. Ideas that we once laughed off as utterly unbelievable to any common-sense, thinking person have been embraced by the elites, who then promptly inform the rest of us that we are required to play along with the trendy new insanities. And if the progressives get their way, our entire society will be restructured according to their revolutionary (and mandatory) relativism. We cannot afford to ignore them, because they do not plan to ignore us.

So with those provisos planted firmly in place, consider the latest insanity in the United Kingdom, reported on by the Daily Mail. Kaz James, a 37-year-old store manager from Salford, Greater Manchester, told the media that he has always felt 'weird' and 'never felt like a human,' and then realized in his teens that he is a puppy. That is, a young dog, in case that wasn't clear. He eats his meals from a dog bowl, frequently barks at his friends, snacks on dog biscuits, carries things around in his mouth, and has thousands of pounds worth of rubber outfits, dog leashes, and other paraphernalia to assist in his transformation. He even wrote a book, How to Train a Human Pup, and strives to 'be dog' in his whole life.



That being said, James says, 'I go about and live my day-to-day life relatively normally. That includes things like putting collars on and barking at people I know in the street.' The word 'normal,' it seems, is being forced to work rather hard here. James gets strange reactions too, but he says that his weird behaviour is important to 'express his inner animal.' He is, after all, a 'human pup,' he says. Being a 'normal person' is very difficult, he added: 'I'm trained and can deal with humans, but I don't like it, it makes me feel uncomfortable.' This is despite the quite obvious fact that James is not a dog. (Having to write the preceding sentence is a perfect illustration of how absurd we have become.)

He has connected with other like-minded people who feel like he does: 'I didn't ever feel right as a human, I always felt like a dog that was really out of place. I never really had a name for it, being a pup wasn't a thing I knew about.' He and his other delusional friends get together and do the sorts of things they imagine dogs would enjoy doing if they could think and get together for recreation, which of course they cannot know because, again, they are not dogs. James himself decided he must be a dog at age 17 when 'the internet arrived in our house…I realised that my behaviours were quite dog-like in childhood, probably from the age of six. No-one ever talked about it, it was never mentioned.'

Notice the language that James is using here. Just like with the transgender movement, he talks about having feelings of disorientation early in life, and then describes finding his true identity. It might seem crazy, but our society has already accepted the basic premise of James's argument: That biological reality doesn't determine your identity, but how you feel. It doesn't matter that it is nuts for James to say he knows what a dog feels like. It is also nuts for a man to pretend he is a woman because he has always felt like a woman, despite the fact that he by definition cannot know that because he is not a woman. Trans activists might be offended by the comparison, but they can't be. After all, even the 'transabled' are pointing to the fact that the premises of the transgender movement in law allow for their own amputations of healthy limbs.

There are also the 'otherkin,' who, like James, decide to live as other species. Then there are the 'trans-aged,' who claim to be younger-it is always younger-than their actual age. There is one middle-aged father of a large family in Toronto, for example, who has decided to abandon his wife and children and live as a little girl with an equally delusional couple caring for him. There was also an enterprising Dutch fellow who discovered that the dating scene was getting tougher and asked the courts to allow him to legally change his age from 69 to 49 (they refused.) And of course, there are now any number of different genders you can identify as-or you can identify as no gender at all. Delusion is mainstream, and you can be who you want to be regardless of reality. Carpe diem (seize the day), and all that.

So it may be mildly humorous to read about some clearly unstable person deciding that he is a dog, and then deciding to live as one. But keep in mind that people who share the foundation of his worldview are now in charge. There is a reason that BBC's Channel 4 ran an entire documentary on these 'human pups,' and that each new bizarre manifestation of radical autonomy and revolutionary relativism receives sympathetic media coverage: The elites are tearing down the structures of Western civilization in the name of compassion, tolerance, and diversity.

We should be watching very carefully, because it may soon be illegal to point out the obvious fact that they are all barking mad.

[LSN] 2276.11























United States Male and female brains are different, even in the womb: new study

MARTIN M. BARILLAS reports for. LifeSiteNews - A new scientific study has found that pre-born babies' brains show significant differences between sexes and thus before any parental or societal conditioning.

In the April 2019 edition of Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, an article titled 'Sex differences in functional connectivity during fetal brain development' details the authors' study of 118 unborn babies (70 male, 48 female) between 25.9 and 39.6 weeks gestational age. By looking at 16 distinct networks of the brains, they found differences between male and female fetuses in functional connectivity across gestational age. They concluded, 'These observations confirm that sexual dimorphism in functional brain systems emerges during human gestation.'

'Specifically, female fetuses demonstrated long range gestational-age related changes in functional connectivity between subcortical and cortical regions,' the authors reported. 'The present study demonstrates for the first time that development of fetal brain FC [functional connectivity] varies with sex,' the researchers wrote. The networks they found in the unborn babies' brains reveal, they wrote, 'building blocks' for brain development later in life. Using MRI scans of unborn babies, the researchers examined the neural connections or F.C. in the various areas of the fetal brain. Connections they found in unborn girls were nearly absent among the boys.

The study concluded, 'The differential development of FC over gestation in male and female fetuses likely acts as a precursor to sex-related brain connectivity differences observed across the lifespan. Further, the fetal brain networks observed in the present study likely serve as the building blocks for nascent neonatal, toddler, and adult networks.'

Dr. Leonard Sax, a physician and psychologist, wrote in Psychology Today that the new study is in line with previous studies showing that female infants 'have significantly greater brain volume in the prefrontal cortex compared with males.' He wrote that some of the sex differences the researchers found are 'truly amazing.' Girls showed differences in the connections in the left cerebellum, for example, as well as other areas of the brain, when compared to boys. The cerebellum lies near the base of the skull and has an important role in motor control. It may also be involved in functions such as attention, language, and the regulation of fear and pleasure responses.

In an interview with CNA, Sax said the importance of the study is that it shows that sexual differences in brain development come before birth. 'Exactly what those differences signify is controversial,' he added.

Sax recalled in the Psychology Today article that Professor Judith Butler, a non-scientist, has been celebrated for her idea that 'male' and 'female' categories are social constructs. He quotes Butler, who says that 'because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender creates [sic] the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all.' Butler's book, Gender Trouble, has been influential for decades among transgenderism advocates, who have argued that sexual differences are conditioned by parents and societal norms. The new study throws the resultant gender theory into doubt, Sax writes, because it focuses on babies before birth and thus before any influence from parents or society.

While transgender advocates attribute gender differences to societal prejudices and norms, for Sax, 'girls and boys are different,' according to CNA. Sax believes that 'girl' and 'boy' are 'meaningful categories' that are not a performance or social construct.

[LSN] 2276.12























United Kingdom Life-changing medical intervention on children

THE TIMES reports - The only NHS gender clinic for children is risking a "live experiment" by sending hundreds for life-changing medical intervention without sufficient evidence of its long-term effects, experts have warned.

The Times has spoken to five clinicians who resigned from the service because of concerns over the treatment of vulnerable children who come to the clinic presenting as transgender.

They believe that some gay children struggling with their sexuality are being wrongly diagnosed as "transgender" by the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) clinic.

Transgendertrend comments "We are relieved to see the truth coming out about the experimental medicalisation of children's healthy bodies in the name of gender identity politics. Revelations from ex-clinicians at the Tavistock clinic come as no surprise to anyone who has had their eyes open over the past few years of increasingly toxic political transgender activism.

As a parent-led organisation we see the appalling damage being done to young people and their families by an ideology which cannot be questioned.

Transgender lobby groups have been allowed to dictate an unquestioning 'affirmation' approach towards children and young people through pressure applied to the NHS, Tavistock GIDS and professional bodies, along with schools throughout the UK. These same transgender organisations lobby the NHS for drastic medical interventions at ever earlier ages, leaving children sterilised and with compromised sexual function. Teenage girls are being encouraged to believe that having their breasts cut off is the path to becoming 'who they really are.'

When any debate or questioning is outlawed as 'bigotry,' children are put at risk. Any new clinical approach towards children and young people must be informed and developed through impartial research, robust evidence and clinical expertise. Medical treatment of children should not be influenced by the unevidenced ideological claims and bullying tactics of activists intent on silencing professionals through fear.

Children and young people are being failed by a system which has allowed politics and ideology to intrude into clinical and medical practice. In particular, at-risk groups including teenage girls, children who are lesbian or gay, those on the autism spectrum and those with pre-existing mental health disorders, troubled backgrounds or who have suffered previous trauma and abuse are being denied normal therapeutic duty of care.

We have been working to disseminate fact and research-based information for over three years. Our work, and that of the parents, academics and professionals who support us, has been vindicated. Now that the full horror of this medical experiment on children is being exposed, what action will be taken? The Tavistock's response to today's Times reports is wholly inadequate. The recent review by Dr Sinha in fact identified exactly the same issues as revealed in the claims made by clinicians interviewed for these reports, in particular the pressure from lobby groups and the failure to identify sexuality and homophobia as the real issue. Tavistock GIDS cannot continue to assert that these claims are baseless.

It is now time for an independent regulator to be appointed for gender identity services. We call for the puberty blockers trial at Tavistock GIDS to be halted and for all transgender schools guidance and training to be withdrawn pending a full independent inquiry into how lobby groups have been allowed to dictate their agenda to vulnerable children and professional bodies alike. The harms caused to children and young people already cannot be undone, but we have the chance to stop this experiment here. Ethically, as a society, we have no choice. This scandal cannot be allowed to continue.

[Times / Transgendertrend] 2276.13























United States President of Franciscan University of Steubenville resigns

CHRISTINE NILES, M.St. (Oxon.), J.D. reports for ChurchMilitant.com - The embattled president of Franciscan University of Steubenville is resigning.

In an email to students, Fr. Sean Sheridan announced that the university has accepted his resignation, which he submitted '[n]ot too long ago.'

'As you can imagine, this was a difficult letter for me to write and deliver to you as I have great affection for the entire Franciscan Family,' Sheridan wrote.

Sheridan came under fire after Church Militant reported the university's initial support for Dr. Stephen Lewis, who assigned a blasphemous and pornographic book in a graduate course during spring 2018.

In response to Church Militant's queries, the university initially defended Lewis' assignment, claiming among other things that such literature helps prepare students to grapple with the Faith by considering multiple sides of an issue.

The report on Lewis led to a flood of complaints from parents, alumni and donors, resulting in Lewis' removal as chair of the English faculty. Sheridan also issued a public apology within 24 hours of Church Militant's report.

But inside sources say Lewis remains in power, still an active professor of English, still editor of Franciscan University Press, and still very much supported by Sheridan and by the chief operating officer, William Gorman. Lewis has never apologized for assigning the book, instead publishing an article in First Things defending its use.

In addition to the pornographic and blasphemous reading assignment, Lewis controversially championed the cause of Rebecca Bratten Weiss, former adjunct professor of English, who supports radical feminism and witchcraft, and who, as editor of the Patheos Catholic blog, gives a willing platform to Melinda Selmys, a self-identified 'queer' who promotes transgenderism, rejects the Catholic faith and admits to being sexually involved with a man who is not her husband. Bratten Weiss also rejects pro-lifers' attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade or proposals to enact laws to directly restrict abortion.

After embarrassing media exposure, Franciscan failed to renew the contract for Bratten Weiss, although she continues her close relationship with Lewis and his wife, who works with Bratten Weiss to set up conferences and speaking events.

Remaining faculty also claim Sheridan shows favoritism and bias toward Lewis, while failing to respect or defend more conservative faculty.

Sheridan was criticized for cracking down on faculty in an attempt to silence them.Tweet

More recently, Sheridan was criticized for cracking down on faculty in an attempt to silence them, hoping to avoid any future media firestorms. New guidelines on academic freedom sent to faculty in March warned, 'Anonymous communication of facts or opinions about the University to media outlets or other external organizations is unprofessional and unethical, and may be grounds for disciplinary action.'

The document failed to clarify what was entailed by 'disciplinary action.'

The University expects a new president will be in place by the beginning of the fall semester

[CMTV] 2276.14
























International Michael Voris

Vade, propheta ad populum meum '. . flicking his whip at the Bishops, cutting them in tender places, throwing stones at Sacred Congregations, and discharging pea shooters at Cardinals' (Newman).



[CMTV] 2276.15























International gloria.tv.news


[gloria.tv] 2276.16























International A few headlines of the week

President warns ISIS could now 'come into Africa to set up their caliphate'

Germany: Muslims stab Christian homeless man while screaming about "your pig god"

Indonesia: Village orders Catholic family to leave because they are not Muslim

Indonesia: Muslim family targeted three churches for jihad suicide bombings

Indonesia: Crosses desecrated in a Christian cemetery in Yogyakarta

Italy: Crosses in cemetery covered to avoid offence to other religions

Kyrgyzstan: Muslims beat ex-Muslim almost to death for converting to Christianity

New Zealand: Muslim leader demands that Crusaders rugby team change its name

Uganda: Imam faces faces violence after putting faith in Christ

UK: Muslim migrant murders his wife for converting to Christianity

UK: 113 cases of female genital mutilation reported to police in Birmingham, no prosecutions

UK: New Sudents Union leader wanted to "oppress white people" and have "Islamic takeover"

USA: Teen plots jihad massacre at Texas mall; "We'll cast terror into your hearts as Allah commanded us"

USA: Muslim with 'hatred' for non-Muslims stole U-Haul to murder pedestrians in vehicular jihad attack

[CF News] 2276.17























International The World Over with Raymond Arroyo



[EWTN] 2276.18


























Lead kindly light



























Clock face Events


Brain Dead

JOHN PAUL II ACADEMY FOR HUMAN LIFE AND THE FAMILY: 'Brain Death ~ A Medicolegal Construct: Scientific & Philosophical Evidence'. Hotel Massimo D'Azeglio, Rome May 20th - 21st





[CF News] 2276.20

























The fix

New book on Pope Francis’ election reveals the main kingmakers

Election of PFMAIKE HICKSON and JOHN HENRY-WESTEN write for LifeSiteNews – Gerard O'Connell's new book The Election of Pope Francis, based on many sources, describes in detail the time from the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI up until shortly after the election of Pope Francis. This study also confirms the key role played by some “kingmakers,” especially Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, but also Walter Kasper and Oscar Maradiaga. Most importantly, O'Connell reveals for the first time that there was a private dinner on the eve before the conclave, at which the supporters of Bergoglio realized that he had a real chance of becoming the next Pope.

The Election of Pope Francis – which will be released on May 3 – is a detailed sort of diary, in which O'Connell describes the atmosphere of that 30-day period – 11 February-13 March 2013 – and how the cardinals, caught off guard by Benedict's unexpected resignation, tried to discern whom they could and should elect. The author adds information to this diary that he later learned from many different sources since that historic 13 March 2013, when the Argentine prelate Jorge Bergoglio was elected Pope. O'Connell, as the husband of the Argentine journalist Elisabetta Piqué and as a personal friend of the current Pope, has had an especially good access to sources. Bergoglio also baptized one of his children, and he met with the O'Connell family just ahead of the conclave. O'Connell is the Rome Correspondent for the Jesuit magazine America edited by Father James Martin, S.J.

Based on published and private sources, O'Connell describes how until the conclave, neither the cardinals themselves, nor the media and general public, saw one single candidate standing out, as had been the case in 2005 with Joseph Ratzinger. None of the more prominent candidates – Cardinals Angelo Scola, Odilo Scherer, and Marc Ouellet – seemed to have sufficient support.
While O'Connell insists, by quoting several sources – among them the involved cardinals themselves – that Jorge Bergoglio had not given his consent to the work of the group called “Team Bergoglio” (Cardinals Godfried Danneels, Walter Kasper, Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, and Karl Lehmann), he still describes their collaborative work in detail.

As can be seen, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor played one of the leading roles in promoting the election of Jorge Bergoglio ahead of the conclave. Murphy-O’Connor himself, having passed the age of 80, was not able to participate in the election itself, but in his last intervention during the General Congregations (secret pre-conclave assemblies of cardinals) in the days leading up to the conclave starting on 4 March he reminded the 115 electors that the next Pope could very well come from the Americas. He told his fellow cardinals: “We need a pope who goes out to the world, and not just one who is looking in on the situation in the Church,” adding that “if you don't see a candidate here in Europe, don't be afraid to go to another continent, to cross the Atlantic to the Americas […] and don't let age be a barrier to your choice.” As O'Connell puts it: “Many understood he was referring to Bergoglio.”

As the author explains, during this time period of thirty days, there took place “informal gatherings of cardinals” at different locations in Rome, “far from the public eye. Some of these gatherings proved decisive in moving the 115 cardinal electors in conclave to elect the first-ever Jesuit pope.” In the public discussions, however, Jorge Bergoglio did not play much of a role. Even though he had been one of the favorite candidates in 2005, he had turned already 76, was ready for retirement, and thus for many no longer a candidate. As O'Connell describes it, the so-called Sankt Gallen Group had “decided to support him in the [2005] election.” At that time, Cardinal Carlo Martini – who died in 2012 – led the group of progressivist cardinals, among them Godfried Danneels, Walter Kasper, Karl Lehmann, Murphy-O’Connor, Basil Hume and Achille Silvestrini. They had a final meeting at Silvestrini's apartment on the eve of the 2005 conclave that then proved to be unsuccessful for them. “This conclave tells us that the Church is not yet ready for a Latin American pope!” was then the comment of Cardinal Danneels.

In 2013, some of them tried it again. They again met on the eve of the conclave, on 11 March, this time in Cardinal Attilio Nicora's apartment. We shall later come back to this “crucial meeting of cardinals,” as O'Connell puts it.

However, O'Connell claims “there was not even the semblance of a campaign” – also due to the short period of time between the sudden resignation of Benedict and the new conclave – and he also calls “incredible” Austen Ivereigh's claim that the four Cardinals of the “Team Bergoglio” – Danneels, Murphy-O’Connor, Kasper, and Lehmann – “had obtained Bergoglio's prior consent” for such a campaign. Bergoglio did not give his consent, O'Connell says, nor did the four cardinals campaign for him. “There was no such campaign,” Murphy-O’Connor told him.

How this set of claims is to be reconciled with the other proposed facts that O'Connell now describes in his book in detail is left up to the reader's own final assessment.

As O'Connell says, Murphy-O’Connor had made up his mind on Bergoglio already in 2001, when the Argentine prelate played a significant role during the Synod of Bishops on the role of bishops. “Immediately after the conclusion of the synod, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor told me, 'You should watch this man!' It was clear that he had put the archbishop of Buenos Aires on his short list of papabili to succeed the Polish pope [John Paul II].”

Later in the book, O'Connell himself describes Murphy-O’Connor as a possible “kingmaker”: “Cardinal Cormac – as he is popularly known – may not be an elector at this conclave but, given his network of contacts in the Vatican and worldwide, he could be one of the kingmakers.”
Explaining the word “kingmaker,” O'Connell says later when describing private gatherings of cardinals ahead of the conclave: “It is in these small groups that certain cardinals, known as 'kingmakers', can play a highly important role in promoting or gathering support for a candidate.”

Such “kingmakers” were to be found in 2013, according to O'Connell. He makes out several of them, among them: Cardinals Sodano and Battista Re on the one side, and on the other Cardinals Maradiaga and Murphy-O’Connor, “who has many friends not only in the Roman Curia, but also in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and Africa.”

What the distinction is between “kingmakers” and a “campaign” might not be so clear, and most probably not even for many journalists in Rome. Because a campaign as such is forbidden by the Church's law. According to the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, “Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons.” Such conduct would bring down upon the violator the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae. The “exchange of views concerning the election,” however, is permitted.

As O'Connell explains to LifeSiteNews in an e-mail, “Such pre-conclave gatherings of like-minded cardinals have been a normal practice in all the 20th and 21st centuries, and I expect also of future conclaves.”

Such a meeting of cardinals took place, for example, when Cardinals Bergoglio and Murphy-O’Connor met on 1 March, three days ahead of the pre-conclave General Congregations. They both knew each other since February 2001, when they both were made cardinals by Pope John Paul II. During the 2005 conclave, they happened to sit together, along with three other cardinals, two of whom O'Connell identifies in an e-mail to LifeSiteNews as Policarpo da Cruz (Lisbon, also a member of the Sankt Gallen Group) and Severino Poletto (Turin). They called each other as “squadra,” and when the cardinals met Bergoglio in 2013 shortly after his papal election, he asked Murphy-O’Connor to gather the rest of the “squadra” for a picture.

In any event, Bergoglio and Murphy-O’Connor “have had meals together on previous occasions,” explains O'Connell in his book. At that 1 March 2013 dinner in a restaurant, they talked about “the sort of person we felt the cardinals should elect,” but they did not, according to Murphy-O’Connor's own account, then identify Bergoglio as the best candidate, and mostly so because of his advanced age. “Bergoglio never considered himself as a candidate to be pope,” the English cardinals explains three months later. However, he told O'Connell also that, after speaking with Bergoglio that night, he did come to the conclusion that “this man could be pope.” “He told me,” continues the author, “that subsequently, on occasions when he was with fellow cardinals discussing possible candidates to succeed Benedict, he introduced Bergoglio's name as a possibility, just as other cardinals suggested the names of different cardinals they thought could fill that role.”

Another person playing a somewhat important role in this time period ought to be mentioned here, as well. Andrea Tornielli – today the Pope's editorial communications director – met Bergoglio the day the prelate arrived in Rome – 27 February – for dinner at the house of some friends, as well as on the eve of the conclave, 11 March.

Tornielli also published, two days before the General Congregations an article in the Italian newspaper La Stampa. In that article, he quotes a friend of Bergoglio as saying that “Four years of Bergoglio would [have been] sufficient to change things.” As O'Connell later reveals, another friend of Bergoglio's, Cardinal Errazuriz, happened to say exactly the same words to Mathilde Burgos, a Chilean journalist. O'Connor quotes Errazuriz' words as told to him by Burgos: “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things!”

Pope Francis later called Errazuriz into the Council of Nine Cardinals (a position from which Errazuriz recently resigned due to accusations of his cover-up of sexual abuse.)

Tornielli, in his La Stampa article, predicted that Bergoglio would be “one of the key figures” during the upcoming conclave, even if he would not be a forerunner.

In that same article, Tornielli also quoted Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio – a friend and once a subordinate of the then-deceased Cardinal Martini – who said: “In my view the moment has come to look outside Italy and Europe and, in particular, to consider Latin America.”

Cardinal Coccopalmerio later related to O'Connor that Murphy-O’Connor himself hosted a gathering of about ten “like-minded” cardinals on 6 March at the Venerable English College in Rome. “This like-minded group”, he added, “expanded further and were maybe fifteen to twenty persons, I can't remember exactly, but there still wasn't a precise candidate.” The idea that Bergoglio would be a good candidate “was not there at the beginning but matured as the days went on,” he explained. At that gathering were also present Cardinal Kasper and another cardinal of the 2005 “squadra,” Cardinal Poletto.

Another of such gatherings was organized on behalf of Murphy-O’Connor by the British ambassador to the Holy See, Nigel Baker, on 7 March. Present were cardinals of the Commonwealth, among them Cardinals Turkson and Gracias. Bergoglio's name was mentioned, according to O'Connell, but in the end “there was still no clarity among them.”

On 5 March, during the General Congregations, it was Cardinal Walter Kasper who proposed in an interview with La Repubblica Communion for the “remarried” divorcees, and a more “horizontal” Church, adding that “the Curia must be revolutionized.” This prelate concluded with the words “nobody is to be excluded. We must be open to everyone, of whatever nationality or ecclesial geography.”

Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga is also described by O'Connell as someone “who played an important role in getting cardinals to opt for Bergoglio.”

Cardinal Karl Lehmann himself told O'Connell years later that “Bergoglio had not appeared on Lehmann's radar in the 2013 conclave until after the second ballot.”

Many of these early supporters of Bergoglio have been later called by Pope Francis to play important roles in his pontificate.

Murphy-O’Connor's further initiatives can be seen in the book's description of a meeting of sixteen English-speaking cardinals, among them also Theodore McCarrick. As Murphy-O’Connor later told O'Connell, he himself introduced the name of Bergoglio into the discussion, but the cardinals present merely “said he is a good man but there was no enthusiasm.” His advanced age was raised again.

Bergoglio's own short speech during the pre-conclave meetings made an impression upon the cardinals and seems to have increased his esteem among them. O'Connor calls this speech a “blueprint for his papacy.” Toward the end of these meetings, says the author, people started to think more seriously about electing Bergoglio.

But let us now also return to the above-mentioned “crucial meeting” at Cardinal Nicora's apartment on the eve of the conclave, on 11 March. Nicora himself had been for many years the auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Milan before coming to Rome, so he worked many years with Cardinal Martini. At this gathering, there were “around fifteen or more [cardinals] from many countries and different continents, including Roman Curia cardinals and Italians,” O'Connell explains. “All, it turned out, were supporting Bergoglio's candidacy,” he adds. Among them were Cardinals Coccopalmerio, Nicora, Kasper, Murphy-O’Connor, Maradiaga, Turkson, Gracias, and Tauran. The author continues saying: “During the meeting, each one confirmed or revealed that he had decided to support Bergoglio on the first ballot, and also mentioned other cardinals that he believed were thinking along the same lines and could vote for him then.” Coccopalmerio, keeping a tally of the promised votes, came up with “at least twenty-five votes” for Bergoglio.

As Murphy-O’Connor later told O'Connell: “It was crucial that he had that support in the first ballot.” Continues the author: “Indeed, no fewer than three participants confirmed to me that 'this was the decisive meeting.'” Cardinal Kasper, too, spoke with the book author about this crucial event, saying that only then he realized that Bergoglio had a chance: “two days before the conclave, there was a small group from different countries, not just Italians, but also some from the Vatican, and they said we should go for Bergoglio. Then it was clear for me. Beforehand it was very unsure, but his intervention in the pre-conclave meetings had been very important; his speech made a great impact.”

O'Connell relates that, according to his sources, Bergoglio was not informed about any of these pre-conclave gatherings here mentioned.

Murphy-O’Connor, who pulled many strings in the background, told O'Connor later: “The key was getting the Asians and Africans to support Bergoglio.” He added that “when the history of the conclave is written it will be shown that over the week of the General Congregations, a small minority helped lead the cardinals to understand that the front-runners (Scola, Scherrer, and Ouellet) were not the men to lead the Church at this time in history, and that the only candidate was Bergoglio.” Just before the conclave began, the English cardinal spoke with Bergoglio when coming out from St. Peter's after Mass, and after a small conversation, he told the Argentine prelate: “'Stai attento!' (Watch out!). He nodded, 'Capisco!' (I understand!).” But Murphy-O’Connor insists that nobody knew who would come out of the conclave as the new Pope. O'Connell later spoke with the English cardinal about this story as revealed by Murphy-O’Connor himself in his memoir, and the prelate then told the journalist his “impression that Bergoglio 'had accepted in his heart that he could be pope.' ” “Indeed,” the author continues, “he felt the Argentinian knew he could be elected. He revealed, moreover, that at one stage during the General Congregations, he went up to Bergoglio and said, 'I think we need this and this kind of pope.' When Bergoglio responded, 'I agree,' Murphy-O’Connor told him, “You are the man!”
Bergoglio is then quoted as saying to friends: “I never thought I would be elected.”

As it turned out, Bergoglio received 26 votes in the first ballot during that 2013 conclave, with Scola having merely four more votes. Due to the fact that the Italian episcopate – which had as a block the largest number of votes (28) – was divided over whom to elect, and due to other factors, Scola's chances were sinking. Bergoglio's candidacy, after the first encouraging ballot, kept getting stronger. By the second ballot, he had more votes than Scola (45 over 38), and then kept gaining votes until he was elected in the fifth ballot. (Please see here an excerpt of the book on the different ballots.) He received the support from a variety of countries and continents, such as Europe, Asia, and Africa. Additionally, Cardinals like Maradiaga, Gracias, Turkson, Tauran, and Kasper “did not disguise their backing for him.”

Pope Francis was later to say that his election was a “complete surprise” for him.

But when he met Murphy-O’Connor after his election, he told him: “You are the one to blame (Sei il colpevole): you told me I would be pope.”

[LSN] 2276.BK1


























Peter Kwasniewski compositions to have world premiere in London this Triduum

P KwasniewskiTHIS HOLY WEEK in the heart of London, a rare opportunity to experience one of the oldest services in the Catholic Church along with a feast of chant and polyphony including a Sacred Music World Premiere.

Beginning on ‘Spy Wednesday’ with the ancient office of Tenebrae, The Latin Mass Society will be celebrating Holy Week with a wealth of traditional Latin liturgy at St. Mary Moorfields in the heart of the City of London. This year’s Triduum celebration will be directed by the Latin Mass Society Director of Music for London, Matthew Schellhorn with his group ‘Cantus Magnus.’ Since his appointment as Director of Music, Matthew Schellhorn has involved more professional musicians, both singers, organists and composers, in the work of the Latin Mass Society.

In October 2018, Cantus Magnus gave the World Premiere of new commissions Missa Rex in Æternum and Ego mater along with UK Premieres of several other works by American composer Peter Kwasniewski (b. 1971).

The Latin Mass Society is pleased to announce that the renowned composer and theologian Peter Kwasniewski has been commissioned to write a Lamentations of Jeremiah for Cantus Magnus, which will be sung at the daily Tenebrae during the Sacred Triduum.

This new work, structured in three parts for each day, will allow the entire liturgical text to be sung by incorporating the original chant for the Lamentation narrative, preceded by polyphonic introductions and concluding with a haunting meditation on the text, ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, convertere ad Dominum Deum tuum’ (‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, return unto the Lord thy God’).

Matthew Schellhorn writes “I am immensely grateful to Dr Kwasniewski for writing this new set of Lamentations, and for his support of the Latin Mass Society’s work. I hope that this creative form of the Lamentation genre will enable more choral groups to celebrate the Sacred Triduum in a fittingly artistic way.”

Joseph Shaw, Chairman of the Latin Mass Society says '“I am delighted that the Latin Mass Society is able once again to make the older form of the services of the Easter Triduum available with fitting solemnity and with truly worthy musical accompaniment. We are particularly fortunate this year to have Professor Kwasniewski’s new compositons to perform, and I look forward very much to hearing them.”

The Holy Week services commence with Tenebrae at 18.00 on Wednesday 17th April and continue until the great celebration of the Easter Vigil at 18:00 on Saturday 20th April.

[LMS] 2276.20a























Beauty, Goodness, and Truth at the Sacred Liturgy Conference
LYNNE BISSONNETE PITRE writes for OnePeterFive - For the last seven years, I’ve been involved in the organization of conferences focusing on the importance of sacred liturgy and music in the life of the Church. This journey began with my own longing for the sacred, which led me to form Schola Cantus Angelorum in 2007 as a response to Pope Benedict XVI‘s request for liturgies to be celebrated with the beauty and solemnity of the traditional Gregorian chant.

From its modest beginnings in 2013 The Sacred Liturgy Conference has grown into a premiere annual event with participants coming from throughout the United States and beyond. The 2017 and 2018 conferences attracted nearly 400 participants and included bishops, archbishops, and a cardinal.

So how did this happen? As Cardinal Burke said: “The growth of this conference is evidence of a great thirst in the people for the Truth of the Sacred Liturgy and its beauty.” It was exactly this thirst that caused the Sacred Liturgy Conference to come into being. How is it possible to study the encyclicals and writings of popes and saints throughout Christian history and not thirst for the depth and breadth and beauty of the liturgy? How is it possible to read the declarations of Councils of the Church on the importance of sacred music in the liturgy and not ask the question: “All of these documents prescribe Gregorian chant as the preeminent choice for the sacred music of the liturgy; why do we not hear it in our local parishes?”



It was with these questions in mind that Schola Cantus Angelorum began sponsoring the first conferences on the sacred liturgy. From the beginning, they have been a combination of reverent Gregorian Masses, lectures focusing on liturgy and sacred music, and introductory workshops on how to chant. In the beginning, I gave most of the lectures and taught the workshops. As the conference progressed, we’ve added a continually evolving international faculty made up of biblical, philosophical, theological, and liturgical scholars. We now follow a protocol of 12 lectures following a theme for each year and hold