Sunday, December 18, 2022

Vatican dismisses Father Frank Pavone from priesthood

By Shannon MullenJoe Bukuras – Catholic News Agency (CNA)

Father Frank Pavone, a well-known pro-life activist and national director of the organization Priests for Life, has been dismissed from the clerical state for “blasphemous communications on social media” and “persistent disobedience of the lawful instructions of his diocesan bishop,” CNA has learned.

In a Dec. 13 letter to U.S. bishops obtained by CNA and confirmed by multiple sources as authentic, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, wrote that the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Clergy issued the decision on Nov. 9, adding that there was “no possibility of appeal.”

“Father Pavone was given ample opportunity to defend himself in the canonical proceedings, and he was also given multiple opportunities to submit himself to the authority of his diocesan bishop,” explains a separate statement attached to Pierre’s letter. “It was determined that Father Pavone had no reasonable justification for his actions.”

Fr. Frank Pavone

Pavone, however, told CNA Saturday that he had not been notified about the Vatican's judgment.

The communication from Pierre does not specify the actions that led to Pavone’s dismissal or name the bishop he disobeyed.

The statement refers to Pavone as “Mr. Pavone” and calls him “a lay person,” underscoring the dramatic and immediate nature of the Vatican’s action. 

“Since Priests for Life, Inc. is not a Catholic organization, Mr. Pavone's continuing role in it as a lay person would be entirely up to the leadership of that organization,” the statement says.

Pavone is still saying Masses, including one streamed online Saturday. The Priests for Life website states that Pavone "is a Catholic priest in good standing, and exercises his ministry in full communion with the Catholic Church."

In an email to CNA on Saturday, Pavone said that he was not aware of the Vatican’s action.

“How did CNA learn about this before I did?” he asked. In a subsequent email he added that CNA's inquiry was “the very first communication that came to me about this.”

It is not clear in what diocese Pavone, 63, is incardinated as a priest. On the Priests for Life website, it says he received permission from the Vatican in 2019 to transfer from the Diocese of Amarillo, Texas, where he was incardinated in 2005, to another, unnamed diocese.

Pavone hosted the show “Defending Life” on EWTN for many years until the Bishop of Amarillo, Texas, revoked Pavone’s permission to appear on the Network. EWTN is the parent organization of CNA.

A history of clashes with hierarchy

Originally based in Staten Island, New York, Priests for Life is now headquartered in Titusville, Florida, within the Diocese of Orlando. That diocese, also, did not respond to CNA’s request for comment Saturday.

Pavone has served as the pro-life organization’s national director since 1993.

In that role he has a long history of conflicts with bishops, beginning more than 20 years ago with the late Cardinal Edward Egan of the Archdiocese of New York. Egan succeeded the late Cardinal John J. O’Connor, who ordained Pavone in 1988 and encouraged his pro-life work.

In his email, Pavone directed CNA to a document posted on his personal website titled “Summary of How Fr. Frank and Priests for Life Have Been Treated by Some in the Hierarchy.”

 “We all expect that the pro-abortion groups, like Planned Parenthood, will target, harass and try to intimidate us. And they do try,” he wrote.

“But when such treatment comes from bishops and other Church authorities — which it increasingly does — it’s particularly deplorable," he added. "Instead of supporting and encouraging the pro-life work of the Church, some of these men try to obstruct and hinder it, and abuse their authority to try to intimidate priests and laity who make ending abortion the top priority of our lives.”

Pavone has been at odds with Bishop Patrick J. Zurek in Amarillo since the latter became bishop there in 2008. In 2011, Zurek publicly suspended Pavone, though Pavone later had the suspension overruled by the Vatican. The Amarillo Diocese did not respond to CNA's requests for comment prior to publication.

Pavone’s political activism played a role in his problems in Amarillo.

An outspoken supporter of former president Donald Trump, Pavone served on official Trump campaign outreach positions in 2016, and was originally a co-chair of Trump's 2020 pro-life coalition, as well as an advisory board member of Catholics for Trump. Canon law forbids clerics from having an active role in political parties unless they receive the permission of their bishop. 

In November 2016, Pavone filmed a video at the Priests for Life headquarters, urging support for Trump. The video was staged with the body of an aborted baby laid before Pavone on what appeared to be an altar. 

Zurek said soon after the video’s release that he would open an investigation into the incident, calling it “against the dignity of human life” and “a desecration of the altar,” adding that “the action and presentation of Father Pavone in this video is not consistent with the beliefs of the Catholic Church.”

Bottom of Form

On his website, Pavone details his version of what happened in the video. He also has posted a transcript of what he said on the video.

“Much of the criticism revolved around my having placed the baby on an "altar" and some started getting into technical complaints about what should or should not be done with an altar. But to the extent that they want to get technical, so can I, and I pointed out that this was a table in our office, not a consecrated altar in a chapel,” he wrote.

“That table, sometimes used for Mass, was also the place where all my videos in this educational series of election broadcasts were made,” he continued. “In retrospect, I should have made the baby video in a different location so as to avoid any confusion to begin with.”

Pavone wrote in his account that the baby’s remains were given to him so he conduct a proper burial, which he said he did after making the video.

Pavone stepped down from the two positions with Trump’s re-election campaign in 2020 at the request of what he called “the competent ecclesiastical authority.” But he continued to use his social media platforms to advocate for Trump and denounce the Democratic Party.

Those posts led to another confrontation with Zurek shortly before the 2020 election.

In tweets that were subsequently deleted, Pavone reportedly called then Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “[expletive] loser” and said the Democratic party was “God-hating” and “America-hating” and that Biden’s supporters “can’t say a [expletive] thing in support of their loser candidate without using the word Trump.”

“What the hell do you have to say for yourselves, losers?” Pavone asked.

Pavone also reportedly tweeted that he would hear the confession of a Catholic who votes Democrat, “but we are trained that in the absence of repentance, absolution has to be withheld.”

In response, the Amarillo Diocese issued a statement disavowing Pavone’s comments, saying he used “scandalous words not becoming of a Catholic priest.”

“These postings are not consistent with Catholic Church Teachings,” the diocese said in its statement. “Please disregard them and pray for Father Pavone.”

Friday, December 16, 2022

Nurse Practitioner Files Suit Challenging VA Abortion Rule

 By Jorge Gomez 

This week, First Liberty filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) new rule titled “Reproductive Health Services” that immediately allowed elective abortions at VA medical clinics.

We filed suit on behalf of nurse practitioner Stephanie Carter whoworks at the Olin E. Teague Veterans’ Center in Temple, Texas. She has religious objections to performing, prescribing, or counseling for abortions and working in a facility that engages in such activity for reasons other than to save the life of the mother. She twice requested a religious accommodation, but was told that no process exists to review such requests.

The VA announced the rule in September, claiming it was necessary “because it has determined that providing access to abortion-related medical services is needed to protect the lives and health of veterans.” There is no mention of gestational age limits. The rule allows for abortions whenever they can be justified as “needed to promote…the health of the (mother).” The rule received more than 50,000 public comments, many of which opposed the VA’s decision.

Our lawsuit explains that this new rule is illegal because it disregards longstanding federal law prohibiting VA clinics from performing abortions and fails to account for the sincerely held religious beliefs of medical providers who are impacted by the rule. But in its zealous pursuit of radical policy, the Biden administration appears willing to violate the law.

The 1992 Veterans Health Act explicitly prohibits VA clinics from performing abortion services. By enacting and now enforcing the rule, the VA is far outside its scope of authority. First Liberty attorneys Danielle Runyan and Christine Pratt explained in a recent op-ed for Stars and Stripes:

“Once again, the Biden administration seems ignorant of the law, or just doesn’t care. The new VA rule disregards longstanding federal law that prohibits VA clinics from performing abortions. Since 1992, Congress has prohibited abortions at VA clinics in Section 106(a) of the Veterans Health Care Act, which provides that ‘the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may provide to women…general reproductive health care…but not including under this section…abortions.’”

Runyan and Pratt further point out that “while federal law protects the rights of VA staff who don’t want to perform or assist with abortions…there is no provision within the VA rule explaining how religious accommodations will be processed.” The VA’s enforcement of its invalid rule could have devastating consequences for our client, as well as all employees at VA clinics who have a religious objection to participating in providing abortion services.

In Carter’s case, she is also now at risk of violating the Texas Human Life Protection Act that expressly prohibits abortions. Because the facility where she works is under concurrent jurisdiction with the State of Texas, medical providers there are required to comply with Texas law. While the administration maintains that the rule takes priority over state laws prohibiting abortion, the Supremacy Clause does not apply because the rule is invalid as a matter of law. So, under Texas law, Carter could face a felony conviction with no less than $100,000 in civil penalties for each violation and the loss of her nursing license.

The VA abortion rule and the lack of a religious accommodation process is only the latest in the administration’s terrible track record on religious liberty.

The Department of Defense vaccine mandate has forced thousands of service members to choose between their religious faith or serving their country. First Liberty continues to fight on behalf of U.S. Navy and Air Force service members whose religious accommodation requests have been denied. As one federal court pointed out when it granted protection to our clients, the Navy’s religious accommodation process is, “by all accounts … theater. The Navy has not granted a religious exemption to any vaccine in recent memory. It merely rubber stamps each denial.”

Not only has the administration shown a particular disdain for service members who want to serve in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs, it has repeatedly pushed policies that would harm the rights of religious Americans in the health industry. For example:

  • In October, First Liberty delivered a compelling 42-page public comment to another proposed rule, commonly known as the “transgender mandate,” which would roll back extensive civil rights protections for Americans of faith in healthcare.
  • The Department of Health and Human Services revoked several important religious liberty protections and pursued regulations that could harm faith-based foster-care and adoption agencies, religious employers, charities, universities, schools, hospitals and healthcare professionals.

The Biden administration has wielded and abused the power of the federal government to put religious Americans in the crosshairs. What hope is there that it will not use this VA abortion rule to do the same?

Given this pattern of hostility and violations, people of faith need to remain vigilant. The Biden administration has constantly used the alphabet soup of federal agencies to target and harass religious Americans. It’s increasingly clear that these policies are aimed at trampling the rights of religious healthcare professionals and making them conform to extreme ideology.



DOJ Official Admits Targeting Pro-Lifers Is Response to Overturn of Roe

The Justice Department has been targeting pro-life activists through the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act as a response to the overturn of Roe v. Wade, according to Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta.

Gupta delivered remarks at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division’s 65th Anniversary earlier this month. The associate attorney general described the overturn of Roe v. Wade as a “devastating blow to women throughout the country” that took away “the constitutional right to abortion” and increased “the urgency” of the DOJ’s work—including the “enforcement of the FACE Act, to ensure continued lawful access to reproductive services.”

She did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Daily Signal.

Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta looks on as U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks during a news conference at the Department of Justice Aug. 2. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division enforces the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which “prohibits threats of force, obstruction and property damage intended to interfere with reproductive health care services.”

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

It protects both pro-life pregnancy centers and abortion clinics, as a DOJ official noted to Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, last week.

At least 98 Catholic churches and 77 pregnancy resource centers and other pro-life organizations have been attacked since May, but the DOJ has apparently not charged a single person in connection with these attacks. Meanwhile, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has charged 26 pro-life individuals with FACE Act violations this year.

The DOJ has not responded to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment on this point.

Pregnancy resource centers are typically run by pro-life women who seek to offer expectant mothers alternatives to abortion. Such centers provide diapers, baby clothes, and resources for both mothers and fathers, empowering them to care for their child, overcome addictions, build community, and find jobs.

 

World Health Organization publishes video calling COVID jab skeptics a ‘major killing force’

(LifeSiteNews) — The World Health Organization has published a video claiming that people opposed to the COVID jabs are “anti-science” and a “major killing force.” 

In a recently published video on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Twitter page, Dr. Peter Hotez said that “anti-vaccine activism” is “anti-science aggression” and links people who refused the COVID injections to the “far right.”

The WHO has made this wholesale condemnation of “anti-vaccine activists” despite the fact that many people have been seriously injured or even died after receiving the experimental COVID jabs. A Swiss study for instance found elevated troponin levels – indicating heart injury – across all vaccinated people, with 2.8 percent showing levels associated with subclinical myocarditis.

Furthermore, a group of scientists recently conducted a risk-benefit analysis which showed that getting a COVID-19 “booster shot” is at least 18 times more dangerous than catching the virus itself for young people under the age of 30. 

However, the WHO’s showcased physician did not acknowledge these facts in his rant. 

“We have to recognize that anti-vaccine activism, which I actually call anti-science aggression, has now become a major killing force globally,” Hotez said in the video, using a backdrop of photos of protestors against the COVID shots. 

The University Professor of Biology at Baylor College of Medicine claimed that “during the COVID pandemic in the United States, 200,000 Americans needlessly lost their lives because they refused a COVID vaccine, even after vaccines became widely available.” 

“And now the anti-vaccine activism is expanding across the world […].” 

“It’s a killing force,” Hotez proclaimed. “Anti-science now kills more people than things like gun violence, global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, or cyber-attacks.” 

The scientist did not provide evidence for this dramatic claim. 

“And now it’s become a political movement,” he continued. “In the U.S. it’s linked to far [sic] extremism on the far right, same in Germany.” 

“So this is a new face of anti-science aggression. And so we need political solutions to address this.’ 

The doctor did not provide evidence in the video that opposition to the dangerous, experimental COVID jabs is linked to extremists. 

Hotez is a pediatrician who works in the field of vaccine research and development and, in addition to his post at Baylor College of Medicine, is the Chair of Tropical Pediatrics at Texas Children’s Hospital.  

The WHO is known for its radical pro-abortion stance and promotion of “abortion access” all around the world. 

 Its current director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, was a member of the Ethiopia’s communist Tigray People’s Liberation Front and served its Minister of Health when it was in power. The party was declared a terrorist organization by the Ethiopian government in 2021. 

Hotez appears to be very close to Ghebreyesus, as he recently described him as “my brother and mentor Dr. Tedros,” in a Tweet responding to the murder of the WHO director’s uncle.

Thursday, December 15, 2022

University of Washington forced to turn over aborted baby parts documents in victory for David Daleiden

SEATTLE (LifeSiteNews) – Attorneys with the pro-life legal nonprofit Thomas More Society have delivered a victory for pro-life investigative journalist David Daleiden in his ongoing battle with the University of Washington, reaching a settlement that will shed even more light on the university’s ongoing sale of and experimentation on fetal tissue derived from abortions.

Under the settlement, UW agreed to hand over “significant” documents pertaining to its acquisition and sale of human body parts from aborted babies (with unredacted job titles) and subsequent research and to agreements with Planned Parenthood or other abortion providers, as well as communications and manuals pertaining to related policies, reports, research, financial records, contracts, and grant applications. UW will also pay Thomas More $30,000 in legal fees.

 “There’s no ‘abortion exception’ to our nation’s public records laws, and the People have a right to know how their government is run,” said Thomas More’s vice president and senior counsel Peter Breen. “We are pleased at the successful resolution of this lawsuit by settlement. That settlement secured attorney’s fees from the UW and nearly everything that David Daleiden was seeking from the UW: thousands of pages of new documents on the buying and selling of aborted fetal tissue trafficking, including job titles and all non-personal information. These are public records of a taxpayer-funded program, and this settlement secures Mr. Daleiden’s rights to the documents he needs as a citizen journalist.”

As previously covered by LifeSiteNews, the University of Washington has for years fought in court to keep the details of its fetal tissue activities out of the public eye.

The legal battle began when Daleiden requested documents from the school’s taxpayer-funded Birth Defects Research Laboratory about trafficking in aborted fetal parts and organs. The public information request was met with a lawsuit from staff of Planned Parenthood and other abortion centers, along with researchers and others, to force heavy redaction of these government documents.

In March, the groups Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, Pro-Life San Francisco, and Rehumanize International located and photographed a freezer at the University of Washington’s Seattle campus containing rows of bags containing aborted fetal bodies and body parts.

The sale of aborted fetal remains for research and experimentation first came to the political forefront in 2015, when Daleiden’s group Center for Medical Progress (CMP) began releasing undercover videos of meetings with Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation personnel detailing the practice, which set off a firestorm of controversy and a string of revelations about the abortion industry breaking multiple federal laws against profiting off human tissue, altering abortion procedures for the sake of procuring better tissue samples, and potentially even committing partial-birth abortions or infanticide; as well as video examples of abortion workers displaying callousness toward the humanity of the children their work killed.

Corporate censorship/wokeness on Faith On Trial

This week on FOT we dealt with how major U.S. corporations are restricting free speech and religious freedom https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/. Our guest was Jeremy Tedesco, senior vice president for corporate engagement with the Alliance Defending Freedom. In addition we discussed Black Rock and ESG (Environment/Social/Government) the influence of these woke agents have on the business climate, and how to check the “wokeness” of companies in which you are interested: viewpointdiversityscore.com.

NY Gov. And AG Downplay Sexual Abuse

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

When Kathy Hochul succeeded Andrew Cuomo as governor of New York (she was his lieutenant governor), she was asked about the culture of sexual abuse that had arisen under her boss. “Anyone who crosses the line will be addressed by me.” Not true.

Hochul is giving a pass to an accused sexual abuser in her administration, Ibrahim Khan, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Letitia James: he is accused of sexually harassing a former AG employee, Sofia Quintanar. Hochul said last week that she does not support an investigation of this matter. But when it came to probes of accused priests, she supported all of them.

Attorney General Letitia James was also tough on Cuomo. “Allegations of sexual harassment should always be taken seriously. There must be a truly independent investigation to thoroughly review these troubling allegations against the governor, and I stand ready to oversee that investigation and make any appointments necessary.” Not true.

Now that allegations are being made about her chief of staff, James changed her tune. Indeed, she is accused of covering up for Khan for two months as she ran for reelection. Why didn’t she call the cops—the bishops are supposed to call the cops when they learn of accusations against one of their priests—and let them handle the matter?

Here’s the answer. James discovered the due process rights of Khan, rights that she never insisted on when priests were being charged. “We’re protecting the rights of individuals and it’s important to understand this was a private investigation….” She added that “it’s important we protect the privacy of individuals.” Are not priests individuals?

The next time an accusation is made against a priest in New York State, the bishops should refuse to cooperate with the authorities. They should publicly state that they are taking a page out of the Hochul-James book and conduct their own private investigation, asserting the due process rights of priests.

This is beyond hypocrisy—the governor and attorney general are playing us, making a mockery of justice. Elected officials in both parties need to demand equal justice and demand a probe of why Hochul and James are treating the alleged victim of sexual misconduct—a woman in their employ—with such casualness.

Whatever happened to the #MeToo movement? And weren’t women supposed to be treated better when their boss was a woman?

Wednesday, December 14, 2022

Dems’ War On Religion

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – I’ve mentioned in this column before that I was at one time a respected member of the Democratic Party. I held party and political office in and through that organization.

Of course we’ve long since parted ways. Originally it was over the issue of abortion, which at the time the party defended as needing to be “safe, legal, and rare.” While a mild statement compared to today’s party agenda, it was enough to cause me to rethink my loyalties.

But after watching how my former party has knitted together its electoral vision for the nation I have come to the sad conclusion that the Democratic Party stands for more than just abortion on demand. It stands for immorality at its core, and not only fosters those beliefs, but actively tries to impose that immorality on the nation while at the same time trying desperately to silence the Church, its adherents, and those who dare to speak the truth of God.

This is not a partisan statement; this is the result of those who have decided to seek secular glory rather than following the teachings of Jesus Christ. In short, the political battle has turned into a war between the forces of Hell and the forces of God.

Now I don’t mean to describe all Democrats or paint with too broad a brush. It is the demonic leadership that is leading many of their God-fearing members to the brink of perdition. This is also a cautionary tale warning those “low information” types to wake up and see what is being done with their support, for as Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said:

“It is a characteristic of any decaying civilization that the great masses of the people are unconscious of the tragedy. Humanity in a crisis is generally insensitive to the gravity of the times in which it lives. Men do not want to believe their own times are wicked, partly because it involves too much self-accusation and principally because they have no standards outside of themselves by which to measure their times.”

I mentioned abortion above. There is probably not much more I can say to a Christian audience that it does not know already. What I want to emphasize, however, is exactly what the party and its officeholders have done. Abortion is now a tenet of their faith and nothing should be allowed to interfere with it. Thus it is allowed up to and including the day of a child’s birth, and some states, such as California, are expanding it beyond birth by prohibiting any investigation into the death of a newborn — even to call for legal action against anyone opening such an investigation.

In addition, crisis pregnancy centers have been targeted and there is legislation being proposed in several venues that would outlaw theses centers of compassion altogether. And who are standing with and leading this pro-death parade: the leaders of the Democratic Party, many of whom claim to be devout Catholics.

Promoting infanticide and stopping those trying to stop it is not a partisan activity. It is activity dictated by, as Screwtape would tell his nephew Wormwood, Our Father Below.

Crisis pregnancy centers are not the only targets of this demonic activity. In the name of gender and sexual “equality” Catholic and Christian organizations who wish to promote the faith in schools, colleges, adoption agencies, and other venues are increasingly facing the wrath of Democratic and liberal officeholders who are trying to force them to “accommodate” those who not only violate the tenets of Christianity, but who seek to erase them from our culture.

For example, a suit has just been filed in Michigan by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which is trying to protect a Catholic parish from being forced to hire teachers who do not subscribe to the Church’s beliefs on marriage and gender identity. If the defense fails, the parish will be prohibited from requiring dogmatic conformity in its hiring practices, especially for school teachers, and if it sticks to its guns, be disqualified from participating in civic activities, such as athletic associations.

And if you are a regular reader here you know that although this lawsuit is new, the issue is not. For years officeholders have tried to use antidiscrimination laws to force compliance with their version of social dogma. Christian schools, churches, and adoption agencies have been attacked by blue-state officials, challenging their right to follow their biblical beliefs in the public square.

It is only by the grace of God that these entities have been saved from this onslaught by judges who believe in the constitutional protection of religious liberty. But don’t make any mistakes here. New laws and court cases are piling up that deliberately either do not provide a religious exceptions or specifically deny it.

As I write my column, a current example of this will be making its way to the president’s desk shortly, something called the Respect for Marriage Act. Sounds nice, doesn’t it? It passed the Senate with scant support from the GOP, many of whom are regular RINOs and a few just stupid or ignorant, and the House with a solid “all Democrats on board” partisan vote.

Here is what the bill does, besides recognizing the legality of same-sex and inter-racial marriage:

According to the Heritage Foundation, schools or adoption agencies that try to live by their biblical view of marriage would be subject to loss of tax-exempt status and their licenses to operate, thus rendering them unable to continue their activities.

Now the Democrats claim that the bill “respects” the sincerely held biblical belief of one man-one woman marriage. However, it does nothing to allow those with that respected belief to live out that belief. There is no religious liberty provision to protect those who wish to live by those beliefs. Thus Christian adoption agencies will not be able to prefer a traditionally married couple over transgender persons, those in irregular marriages, and single applicants.

The claim is that this is just a civil rights act. It creates a national policy that the rights of those non-biblical marriages are fundamental. Go back to the 1983 Bob Jones University case in which the Supreme Court held that violators of “national” and “fundamental” policies could have their tax status revoked.

And just recently a story came across my desk that 18 Democratic attorneys general are joining in an appellate brief against a Catholic high school in North Carolina that terminated a teacher in a homosexual marriage.

So whom are they fooling here?

And, of course, I don’t have time or space to get into the whole matter of transgender rights and how public schools are actually grooming young children to question their sexual identity — as if I haven’t written enough about that already. This is being done behind the backs of parents who are oft stymied to get answers from officials who are supported by the Democrats’ chief fundraisers, the teachers unions.

I don’t believe that the average Democrat really knows the depth of their involvement with the insidious activities promoted in their name. I think it is time to wake them up. If our bishops and pastors will not do it, then it must to be up to us.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday on Faith On Trial at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial)

Tuesday, December 13, 2022

Why Invite A Drag Queen To The White House?

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue 

President Biden will sign the Respect for Marriage Act today, codifying gay marriage. Among the guests will be Marti Gould Cummings. “To be a non binary drag queen artist invited to the White House is something I never imagined would happen.” 

Cummings is not who he says he is. There is no such thing as a “non-binary” person—such creatures are a figment of his imagination. In 2019, he was more honest when he said, “I’m a gay man in dress.” 

Why was a drag queen invited to a White House ceremony heralding same-sex marriage? It is telling that it did. 

Drag queens have nothing to do with the lives of most homosexuals, but they are integral to the radical LGBT agenda. And what is that agenda? To normalize homosexuality, beginning with two-year olds. This is not an exaggeration. Here’s the proof. 

Cummings is known to partake in Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH), seizing the opportunity provided by libraries to “entertain” little kids. But to what end? Clowns entertain kids, too, but there is nothing sexual about their performance. 

Michelle Tomasik, who goes by the name Michelle Tea, founded DQSH in San Francisco in 2015. She told a gay media outlet that the goal was to introduce kids to the “LGBTQ+ culture.” And what might that be? 

The American Library Association (ALA) is responsible for the spread of DQSH across the country; local libraries pay homosexuals to run the events. A blog post to the ALA a few years ago encouraged librarians to promote the LGBT agenda by “sneakily fit[ting] stuff in current programs.” Sneaking it by parents, of course. 

One of the most popular books stocked by libraries is The Gender Fairy. It is meant for infants. It tells them “only you know whether you are a boy to girl. No one can tell you.” Again, this is aimed at subverting parental rights. Similarly, a teacher was caught on video telling her class, “It’s OK to be different. There is no such thing as ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ things.” The students were first graders. 

It’s all about “gender fluidity,” the intentional warping of children’s minds, beckoning them to question whether they are really happy being a boy or a girl. This is called grooming. It is also child abuse. 

So what has any of this to do with an event that purports to celebrate gay marriage? The White House knows the answer, otherwise Cummings would not have been invited. The purpose is to demonstrate that drag queens are integral to LGBT culture. 

No one epitomizes the link between drag queens and the LGBT culture better than Ru Paul. Not only is he the most famous drag queen of all time, he boasts of his relationship with Georges LeBar, calling it an “open marriage.” It would be astonishing to learn that he was monogamous. 

In other words, the link between “gender fluidity” and promiscuity is tight: both are an assault on the Judeo-Christian understanding of sex—God created male and female—and a sexual ethic that stresses the virtue of restraint. Libertinism—the absence of sexual strictures—is what defines the radical LGBT agenda. 

Cummings says he began his role as a drag queen as a testimony to “genderf***ing.” What does this mean? According to its adherents, it is “a form of gender expression that seeks to subvert the traditional gender binary or gender roles by mixing traditionally masculine (such as a beard) and traditionally feminine (such as a dress) components.” 

In short, the goal of drag queens is “to intentionally confuse the audience.” The target audience, remember, is children. Drag queens want to get to the kids because children are formative, and they resent the fact that they are denied by nature from having children of their own. Hence, the impulse to groom. 

I mentioned how the LGBT agenda is to normalize homosexuality, beginning with two-year olds. According to Billboard, in 2019, Cummings posted a video on Twitter and Instagram of him singing “Baby Shark” to “a 2-year-old boy.” 

There is something very sick going on in the White House. Even more perverse, it is being championed by our “devout Catholic” president.

Monday, December 12, 2022

Heart-Stopper: Why Are So Many Young, Healthy Male Athletes Collapsing Worldwide? - The Stream

Heart-Stopper: Why Are So Many Young, Healthy Male Athletes Collapsing Worldwide? - The Stream: With much of the pandemic in the rearview mirror, it’s time to find answers to hard questions about deaths among healthy male athletes.

... No, it’s not normal for this many young, healthy male athletes to collapse on the field, in the gym, on the court or in the ring. It’s not normal for a population so often admired as the gold standard for optimal health to drop dead on the spot when exercising. In fact, there’s nothing “normal” about it. ...

Friday, December 9, 2022

What Democrats Are Trying to Pass Before Their House Majority Ends

By Jarrett Stepman@JarrettStepman

Jarrett Stepman is a columnist for The Daily Signal. He is also the author of the book "The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America's Past." Send an email to Jarrett

Democrats are in a mad scramble to push through unpopular legislation before the clock strikes midnight on the 117th Congress.

The lame-duck session is the period between November’s congressional elections and the convening of the new 118th Congress on Jan. 3.

With some Republican help, Democrats in the Senate passed the so-called Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and orders the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages. 

But that’s not all.

The legislation has significant implications for religious freedom. It awaits passage in the House, where Democrats still have a slim majority until the new session. Republicans will hold a similarly narrow majority in the House next year.

Jamming through controversial legislation through Congress during a lame-duck session is a troubling practice to begin with. It’s becoming increasingly common to bring up more hotly contested legislation that didn’t have a chance of passing when vulnerable legislators had to face an election—and the voters.

Democrats are so concerned with “democracy” that they are scrambling to head off the results of last month’s elections, it seems. As is often the case, the Left cares little about the proper functioning of government when its priorities are at stake.

The Washington Post editorial board called on Democrats in Congress to make this lame-duck session a “mighty one.” Imagine how The Post would describe the situation if it were Republicans seeking to push a conservative agenda through.

In addition to “the Respect for Marriage Act,” here are four more of the most controversial pieces of legislation being considered by the current lame-duck Congress:

‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

On Thanksgiving, President Joe Biden said that he wanted Congress to pass an “assault weapons” ban during the lame-duck session.

“The idea we still allow semiautomatic weapons to be purchased is sick,” Biden said at a Thanksgiving Day press event in Nantucket, Mass. “Just sick. It has no socially redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single, solitary rationale for it, except profit for the gun manufacturers.”

He then said that he would try to “get rid of assault weapons.”

What exactly Biden means there is a bit hard to decipher. If the aim is truly to ban “semiautomatic” weapons, that would include many rifles and handguns. As Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., noted on Twitter, semiautomatic weapons comprise about half of all gun sales in the U.S.

There are many, many reasons to have semiautomatic weapons. Not that Biden or his fellow Democrats want to acknowledge that.

Despite Biden’s call for an “assault weapons” ban, it seems top Democrats in the Senate aren’t sure they have the votes to pass the legislation. The House of Representatives, controlled for a few more weeks by Democrats, passed gun control legislation in July, but the bill stalled in the Senate.

“I’m glad that President Biden is going to be pushing us to take a vote on an assault weapons ban,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said on CNN. “The House has already passed it. It’s sitting in front of the Senate. Does it have 60 votes in the Senate right now? Probably not, but let’s see if we can try to get that number as close to 60 as possible.”

Even if Democrats in the Senate all vote in favor of the legislation, they would still need at least 10 Republican votes to overcome a certain GOP filibuster.

Electoral Count Act

Democrats are looking to change the Electoral Count Act. This 1887 law laid out the procedure for counting Electoral College votes following a presidential election. It became a hotly contested issue following the 2020 presidential vote.

The law was the result of the 1876 presidential election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden, in which four states sent Congress competing sets of Electoral College votes. 

Here’s how my colleague Fred Lucas described the Electoral College Act, which was meant to clarify the process:

To give Congress a means for settling the matter, the 1887 law required a joint session of Congress to count the Electoral College votes from each state and stipulated that the vice president, as presiding officer, would certify the results.

However, if an objection to the count is declared in writing by a House member and signed by at least one senator, the joint session would temporarily adjourn, and both the House and the Senate would be required to debate the objection for two hours. The chambers would vote on the lawmakers’ objection before reconvening in the joint session.

There have been bipartisan talks to remove that power from Congress. Some Democrats, however, want to see more widespread changes to the U.S. voting system to effectively federalize the process.

“The bare minimum, absolutely; but we need to go further than that,” Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said of reforming the Electoral Count Act. “We need to look at the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act.”

The John R. Lewis Advancement Act would, among other things, increase federal veto power over state election laws through the Justice Department.

Omnibus Spending Bill

The Biden administration is looking to drastically increase federal spending through a massive omnibus bill during the lame-duck period. The administration asked for more than $47 billion to be spent on aid to Ukraine, COVID-19, and other projects.

As Matthew Dickerson, federal budget expert at The Heritage Foundation, explained in The Daily Signal, that level of spending in the lame-duck period is irresponsible at a time when the U.S. economy is experiencing the highest inflation rate in decades. (The Daily Signal is the media outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)

“This supplemental spending request for Ukraine aid and COVID-19 funding is more than an entire year’s worth of regular appropriations for the departments of Agriculture and Interior combined,” he wrote.

Dickerson wrote that the Ukraine spending—which already exceeds the spending on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security this year—deserves a thorough debate and examination by the new Congress.

Passing such a major piece of spending legislation in a lame-duck session preceding a shift in partisan control of the House in January would be an unprecedented move, according to Eric Teetsel, Heritage’s vice president of government relations.

“Since 1994, control of the House has changed hands in four midterm election cycles (1994, 2006, 2010, and 2018). Never before has the outgoing House majority passed an omnibus appropriations bill during the lame-duck session following the election,” he wrote.

Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants

Congressional Democrats are seeking to codify the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which would provide amnesty for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. when they were children.

DACA was originally enacted in 2012 under President Barack Obama by executive fiat—the “pen and phone” presidency at work. It was struck down by a federal judge in 2021 and could be blocked by the Supreme Court, too. Democrats are now back to pursuing a more traditional path of passing a bill through Congress. (You know, that quaint process once described in “Schoolhouse Rock!”)

At a Nov. 16 event on Capitol Hill with a group of Senate Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called for passing an amnesty program for illegal immigrants.

“I call on my Republican colleagues to join Democrats and help us protect our Dreamers,” Schumer said. “It is cruel and inhumane to keep millions in limbo. Senate Republicans need to work with us on this widely supported policy so we can reach an agreement that will protect families and strengthen our economy.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. and House Judiciary Committee chairman, has also been working on DACA legislation.

Here’s how Dan Stein, the president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, described the Nadler initiative to double down on DACA:

Nadler’s plan is not only to codify DACA, which has about 600,000 enrollees, but also to extend that amnesty to an estimated 4.4 million illegal aliens. In other words, what is being sold as a small fix would actually become the largest amnesty in history—far exceeding the number of people who were legalized as a result of legislation passed in 1986.

Libraries hosting Drag Queen Story Hour reject Kirk Cameron’s religious event because of ‘diversity’

(LifeSiteNews) – Christian actor Kirk Cameron’s efforts to hold faith-based story presentations in public libraries across the country have been rejected more than 50 times, according to his publisher, in a sharp contrast to the ongoing controversy over Drag Queen Story Hour.

Fox News reports that Cameron, the Growing Pains star who in recent years has become known for more religious works, is currently promoting his new children’s book As You Grow, which uses the development of a massive tree as a tool to teach about “love, joy, and gentleness.” But publisher Brave Books’ outreach efforts to local educational institutions have so far been rebuked.

“No, we will pass on having you run a program in our space,” the Rochambeau Public Library in Providence, Rhode Island reportedly said. “We are a very queer-friendly library. Our messaging does not align.”

“I don’t think that’s something that we would do,” echoed the City Heights/Weingart Branch Library in San Diego, California. “Because of how diverse our community is, I don’t know how many people you would get.”

“Generally when we have author visits, those are coordinated through our departments. We really have a push,” said a representative of the Indianapolis Public Library’s central location. “We have a strategic plan in place, so we are really looking at authors who are diverse. Authors of color. That’s really been our focus.” When Brave noted that Cameron’s book would contribute to ideological diversity, the employee reportedly clarified, “well, we are focusing on racial equity.”

All told, Brave says more than 50 libraries either outright rejected them or failed to respond, yet many of those same libraries host Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) sessions, in which cross-dressers read to children, and openly advertise a variety of other LGBT-themed events.

DQSH organizers admit that one of these events’ central purposes is to indoctrinate children about “learn[ing] to see beyond the pink and blue gender binary.” Many have exposed children to sexually-charged performances as well as performers who range from x-rated performers in their day jobs to convicted pedophiles and prostitutes.

That so many libraries exercise discretion in allowing DQSH while rejecting Cameron’s Christian-themed presentation undermines a key legal argument made in defense of libraries by voices such as former conservative pundit David French: that localities have no choice but to allow the former in the name of “viewpoint neutrality.” This belief has created a dilemma for more conservative jurisdictions, forcing some to stop renting public spaces to outside groups entirely.

In 2019, Amherst College political scientist and Born-Alive Infant Protection Act architect Hadley Arkes argued that the U.S. Supreme Court precedents Widmar v. Vincent and Cohen v. California created this problem at the expense of the U.S. Constitution’s actual meaning by adopting a form of relativism in which “there was no principled ground for recognizing a class of obscene or assaulting speech, and no grounds of truth in testing political speech.”

In the meantime, Cameron tells Fox that his experience is “proof that more than ever, we are getting destroyed in the battle for the hearts and minds of our children. Publicly funded libraries are green-lighting ‘gender marker and name change clinics’ while denying a story time that would involve the reading of a book that teaches biblical wisdom. How much more clear can it get?”

“We have to start fighting back, or we will lose our kids and this country,” he warns.

Thursday, December 8, 2022

The Respect for Marriage Act Explained

Does the 'Respect for Marriage Act' harm religious freedom? This week on FOT

“Yes,” says this week’s guest, Emma Waters of the Heritage Foundation. She explains how the act will perpetuate anti-religious litigation against those who believe in the biblical view of marriage https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/. After the Act’s passage, Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel for First Liberty Institute, issued a statement which was also critical of the legislation: 

Congress just passed a law that punishes the free exercise of religion. The so-called “Respect for Marriage Act” lets radical activists harass faith-based institutions in court because of their religious beliefs about marriage.  No American should be punished for holding a faith-based view on marriage, even if that view conflicts with the government’s current preferred definition.  And, no American should change their religious convictions about marriage just because a few politicians changed theirs.

Click the link above and listen to the entire interview with Emma Waters.

Libraries reject wholesome story hours

Fifty public libraries have rejected a wholesome “story hour” with Christian actor Kirk Cameron, whose team reached out to dozens of libraries to book him for a reading of his new book “As We Grow.” Not one library has agreed to have him. “Publicly funded libraries are green-lighting ‘gender marker and name change clinics’ while denying a story time that would involve the reading of a book that teaches biblical wisdom,” Cameron said. “We have to start fighting back, or we will lose our kids and this country.”  READ