All articles from February 08, 2018

Featured Image
Fr. James Martin James Martin / Twitter
Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa


Fr. James Martin: ‘People take the Bible…out of context’ on homosexuality

Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa

February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The Bible’s condemnation of homosexual acts should be taken in “context” with Biblical times, Jesuit Father James Martin told Georgetown University students recently.

Martin said as well that Catholics who support gay “marriage” should have no problem considering themselves Catholic, despite having chosen to reject Church teaching.

Martin inferred at his January 31 appearance at the Jesuit school that the Bible’s negative pronouncements on homosexual acts – which are grounded in natural law – are like other Biblical declarations on topics such as the practice of charging interest on a loan. These pronouncements being made during a particular epoch renders them applicable in that given historical context, he said.

Catholics should be invited to “understand the Bible,” he said, and to understand the Bible’s tradition of condemning homosexual acts “within the context of history.”

A young woman had asked Martin how, given the repeated negative scriptural treatment of homosexual activity – “the act of, you know, LGBTQ people,” she called it – Catholics who support gay marriage should reconcile that support when “the Church still isn’t there yet.”

“That’s a good question,” Martin told the young woman, “What do you do with your conscience?”

“I think one of the things to remember is that is one teaching of the Church,” Martin replied, “all right? So I don’t think, for example, that you should say, ‘I cannot be Catholic because I don’t follow that.’”

It seems the Jesuit only addressed the Old Testament’s condemnation of homosexuality. It is condemned in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 6:9, which says: “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Rejecting Church teaching on sexuality not the same as rejecting Church teaching on the Resurrection?

One might be able to say they can’t be Catholic if they don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead, Martin added, contrasting this with a Catholic who is in support of homosexual “marriage.”

Martin went on to say he thought Catholics and others use scripture out of context, especially regarding homosexual acts.

“People take the Bible often out of context, you know, when they’re talking about different teachings from the Bible,” he said. “And they do that in a way that they do for almost no other group.”

Usury, touted by Martin as a teaching that needs to be taken in “context,” was defined during Old Testament times as the simple charging of interest, and the meaning of which has changed throughout history. The Church’s condemnation of usury today pertains to an unethical or immoral loan that fails to recognize the humanity of the borrower.

“I mean, it’s pretty clear the Bible’s against usury,” Martin told the Georgetown audience. “But we’re okay with that now, because we say, “Well, we have to understand that in context.”

“So I think part of it is inviting Catholics to understand the Bible, uh, and to understand that tradition within the context of history,” he added.

Martin continued his response to the young woman by citing excerpts of an open letter written decades ago to marriage and family counselor and commentator Dr. Laura Schlessinger in answer to Schlessinger having cited Leviticus as condemning homosexuality.

The premise of the letter to Schlessinger – which Martin said he frequently uses – was to poke fun at literal interpretations of the Bible by attempting to equate homosexual acts with things prohibited by old Jewish law that are considered ordinary today. Martin listed things from the letter like working on the Sabbath or wearing garments containing different types of thread, and then read on as it proposes extreme Biblical responses to these now commonplace actions, including stoning or otherwise putting someone to death.

Martin’s presentation of the letter to Schlessinger successfully yielded amusement from his Georgetown audience.

“It’s good to laugh,” Martin stated, “because people use the homosexuality texts in that way, without any historical context.”

“So that’s context,” he continued. “I think we need context.”

Fr. Martin praises ‘very, very progressive and welcoming’ pro-gay parish group

Martin's appearance at Georgetown was the subject of a video commentary by Joseph Sciambra, a Catholic who after years of being immersed in the homosexual culture, left, returned to Christ and the Catholic Church, and now ministers to others in the areas of pornography, homosexuality, and the occult.

Sciambra conducts his ministry through writing and social media, and by personally performing regular outreach in the heart of the gay culture. His message to gays is that God loves them, and that they don’t have to remain in the culture.

Sciambra covered Martin’s Georgetown University appearance in a video titled, “James Martin – The Bible is okay with gay sex.”

Martin, well known for his homosexual-affirming LGBT outreach, is the editor-at-large for the Jesuit-run America magazine and a communications consultant to the Vatican.

He has a large social media following, where he frequently communicates his backing for LGBT issues. Critics say his statements in apparent support of normalizing homosexual activity put people with same-sex attraction at risk of losing salvation.

Martin has had a number of speaking engagements rescinded at Catholic venues in recent months over his troubling presentation of LGBT issues.

His presentation last month at Georgetown was titled, “Building a Bridge - Welcoming the LGBT Catholic With Justice.”

The title relates to that of his current book, Building a Bridge, which he has promoted since its release last June.

The book was based upon Martin’s acceptance speech for receiving an award in November 2016 from New Ways Ministry, a pro-gay group that has been condemned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the U.S. Catholic bishops.

During his Georgetown, talk Martin repeated his contention that the language in the Church’s catechism defining homosexual inclinations as “objectively disordered” and intrinsically disordered should be “updated.”

He cited opposition to the catechism’s language from a mother whose 14-year-old already self-identifies as gay and was worried the language could “destroy” him.

He also cited Cardinal Christophe Schonborn for having praised same-sex unions during the 2015 Ordinary Synod on the Family, and spoke admirably of Schonborn for overruling one his priests who had prohibited a man in a same-sex union from sitting on his parish council.    

Martin told his Georgetown audience that LGBT issues are pro-life issues.

“Guess what,” he said. “LGBT issues are life issues, right? They’re life issues that should matter to the Church, because the Church is pro-life.”

And, Martin commended the “flourishing” “Out at St. Paul” LGBT program at St. Paul the Apostle Parish in New York City, which he explained he lives next to, saying the parish “very, very progressive and very welcoming.”

The Out at St. Paul outreach affirms homosexual behavior, same-sex marriage, transgenderism, and gay activism.

In his video Sciambra countered Martin’s assertion regarding Biblical condemnation of homosexuality by quoting the 1986 Vatican document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons:

An essential dimension of authentic pastoral care is the identification of causes of confusion regarding the Church's teaching. One is a new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life. These views are gravely erroneous …

Featured Image
Donald Trump during a February 28, 2017 speech. White House / Flickr
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire

News, , , , ,

Trump: ‘Faith is central to American life,’ our rights ‘come from our Creator’

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – “When Americans are able to live by their convictions, to speak openly of their faith, and to teach their children what is right, our families thrive” and “our nation can achieve anything,” President Trump told the National Prayer Breakfast this morning.

“Each year, this event reminds us that faith is central to American life and to liberty,” he said. “Our founders invoked our Creator four times in the Declaration of Independence.”

“Our rights are not given to us by man; our rights come from our Creator,” Trump said to applause. “No matter what, no Earthly force can take those rights away. That is why the words ‘Praise be to God’ are etched atop the Washington Monument, and those same words are etched into the hearts of our people.”

Trump also discussed the power of prayer during his speech.

The National Prayer Breakfast is the event during which then-President Obama compared the Crusades to ISIS.

Trump discussed the role faith played in the life of North Korean defector Ji Seong-ho, whose triumphant story of freedom the president shared during his first State of the Union address.

“Before his escape, when Seong-ho was being tortured by North Korean officials, there was one thing that kept him from losing hope: Over and over again, he recited the Lord’s Prayer,” Trump explained. “He prayed for peace, and he prayed for freedom. And now, as you know, Seong-ho is free and a symbol of hope to millions of people all around the world.”

“America stands with all people suffering oppression and religious persecution,” he promised.

“As long as we open our eyes to God’s grace and open our hearts to God’s love, then America will forever be the land of the free, the home of the brave, and a light unto all nations,” said Trump.

He praised families who have adopted babies “orphaned by the opioid epidemic and given them loving homes” and talked about seeing “the Lord’s grace in the moms and dads who work two and three jobs to give their children the chance for a better and much more prosperous and happier life.”

“As the Bible tells us, for we are God’s handiwork, created in Jesus Christ to do good works,” he said.

Featured Image
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire

News, ,

‘It was incredible’: adult stem cells help paralyzed woman walk again

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
Laura and her son

February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Cutting-edge treatment with adult stem cells helped a paralyzed woman regain feeling in her body and start to walk again.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) released a new video of Laura Dominguez-Tauer, whose story they first told in 2011, showing the progress in her life since receiving ethical adult stem cell treatment.

Dominguez-Tauer was in a car accident when she was 16. It paralyzed her from the neck down. She underwent an experimental procedure using her own adult stem cells and is now able to walk with the help of a walker.

“The stem cell procedure made my upper body a lot stronger and I can feel my entire body now,” Dominguez-Tauer said in the new video. “It was pretty awesome – it was incredible.”

“I absolutely believe in the power of adult stem cells,” she said.

Since her accident and recovery, Dominguez-Tauer has gotten married, had a baby boy, and started a gym called Beyond the Chair. Beyond the Chair provides long-term assistance for people recovering from spinal cord injuries, traumatic brain injuries, and strokes so that they can “achieve their highest functional outcome.”

The video shows Dominguez-Tauer exercising, standing and moving her legs with assistance, and caring for her son, Joshua Michael. She called him a “blessing” and a “game-changer.”

“Laura rightly rejected the initial gloomy prognosis that could have robbed her of her future had she given up,” said Dr. David Prentice, Vice President and Research Director of CLI. “Adult stem cells have shown validated success in treating the most intractable conditions – not only spinal cord injury, but stroke, autoimmune disease, cancer, and more.”

“Sometimes exotic experiments make attractive headlines and raise people’s hopes, while ultimately going nowhere, but Laura’s ongoing improvement shows adult stem cells deliver immediate and lasting results that make a profound difference in patients’ lives,” he said. “Thanks to adult stem cell treatment and [Laura’s] spirit of determination, she has her mobility, her sensation, and her dreams back.”

“My hope is that I can help other people and encourage other people and spread the word about adult stem cells,” said Dominguez-Tauer.

The video is part of CLI’s initiative, which has published 16 video testimonials of patients who have undergone successful therapies for a variety of conditions using adult stem cells.

Featured Image
Tanya Granic Allen.
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne


BREAKING: Pro-family, sex-ed foe and mother of 4 runs for Ontario Conservative leadership

Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne

TORONTO, February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A pro-life and pro-family mother of four who is president of a highly active parents’ rights group announced Thursday she’s running for leadership of Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Party.

Tanya Granic Allen, the 37-year-old president of Parents as First Educators (PAFE), said in an email to supporters she decided to run to give social conservatives a voice in the PC Party.

Parents as First Educators has been foremost in leading the charge against the Liberal's sex-education program for children in schools, which was rammed through by the Wynne government in 2015 despite massive parental backlash.

Critics point out that the Liberal sex-ed curriculum was originally overseen by education guru and now-convicted child pornographer Ben Levin. They say it ignores marriage and love, normalizes teen sex while minimizing its risk to health and future relationships, and promotes LGBT sexual lifestyles. Some critics have warned the sex-ed program could be used to groom children for sexual abuse. 

 “We have to make sure that the protest of parents across this province isn’t falling upon deaf ears," wrote Granic-Allen.

"We have to make sure the social conservative voice is being respected. We need our message to be conveyed loudly and clearly,” she added.

“If the PC Party allows me, I promise I will stay in until the very end. I will not abandon this contest. I will not abandon you,” she stated.

Former PC Party leader Patrick Brown, 39, resigned in January amid allegations of sexual misconduct.

As is well known, Campaign Life Coalition endorsed Brown in his 2015 leadership bid on the basis of Brown’s perfect pro-life voting record as a federal MP for Barrie.

But once leader, Brown turned on social conservatives, infamously flip-flopping on a promise to repeal the sex-ed curriculum. He also marched in homosexual “Pride” parades, and announced he believed in a woman’s right to choose abortion.

“I’ve always said that we need to get rid of the Kathleen Wynne Liberals. And you will remember my constant refrain: that the PC Party is not Patrick Brown’s property, and that sooner or later he would be gone. Well he’s finally gone!” Granic Allen wrote.

“Now the PC Party needs a new leader - a leader who will STOP KATHLEEN WYNNE!” she wrote.

But time is running out.

With the province’s June 7 election just four months away, the party elected MPP Vic Fedeli as interim leader and hastily organized a leadership race, with voting to take place between March 2 to 8, and the announcement of a new leader on March 10.

Campaign Life Coalition is joining PAFE to urge all social conservatives to buy a PC Party membership before the February 16 deadline so they are eligible to vote. Click here to register.

Granic Allen is asking for donations.

“The entrance fee for this race is $100,000. Until I officially register as a candidate, these early donations are not tax-deductible, but I need early pre-registration donations in order to get into the race,” Granic Allen wrote. 

“If you want to make a donation, please email me at, and once the campaign account is set up, I will let you know.”

Campaign Life Coalition vice president Jeff Gunnarson says his association, Canada’s national pro-life, pro-family lobbying group, are behind Granic Allen all the way.

“We fully support her and we will do whatever we can to help her in her leadership bid,” Gunnarson said. “Tanya is a person of great integrity, and we’re overjoyed she’s decided to run. She can win this.”

Granic Allen is the fourth person to enter the race so far, and faces formidable opponents.

She is running against Caroline Mulroney Lapham, Christine Elliott, and Doug Ford.

Granic Allen is the only contestant with no family connections to well-known Canadian conservative politicians. She and Mulroney are the only two who have not previously held political office.

Mulroney, 43, is the daughter of former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, a mother of four, Harvard graduate, lawyer, and vice-president of an investment firm. She was acclaimed PC Party candidate for the Tory stronghold of York-Simcoe in August after longtime MPP Julia Munro announced she would not be running for re-election.

Elliott, 62, the widow of long-time Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty, was an MPP from 2006 to 2015. A mother of triplet sons, this will be her third run for the leadership. Elliott was beaten by Brown in May 2015.

Elliott resigned from her position as Ontario's first patient ombudsman last Thursday, and has the endorsement of nine MPPs so far, to Mulroney’s five and Ford’s one, the Toronto Star reported Wednesday. 

Ford, 53, is the brother of the late Rob Ford, onetime mayor of Toronto, the son of a former MPP and businessman Doug Ford Sr., a businessman, former city councilor, and father of four. 

In an earlier email to PAFE supporters, Granic Allen reported on the three candidates’ stance on the Liberal sex-ed curriculum.

Mulroney told the CBC she won’t re-open the divisive debate on sex ed, Granic Allen pointed out, which is “disappointing” but “not surprising.”

Elliott told the Toronto Sun she is “willing to revisit the Liberals’ controversial sex-ed curriculum” which Granic Allen described as “a tiny step in the right direction.”

Ford told AM640 he would review the Liberal sex-ed curriculum and “consult with parents,” which is also “a tiny step in the right direction,” Granic Allen wrote.

In Thursday’s email, Granic Allen says she decided to run in part because of the “shocker” that Tory MPP Monte McNaughton is endorsing Mulroney, “a supporter of the Wynne sex-ed program.”

PAFE endorsed McNaughton in the 2015 race before he dropped out and backed Brown.

“Since then, Monte has buckled and/or remained silent to each and every one of Brown's hideous demands,” Granic Allen wrote.

“The Monte McNaughton experience taught all of us a very hard and valuable lesson. When it comes to these leadership contests, we are far better off supporting candidates who we can trust and who will speak out on our issues,” she stated.

The deadline to buy online PC Party memberships to be eligible to vote in the leadership race is 11:59 p.m. February 16, 2018. Memberships can be purchased here.

Featured Image
Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire


German cardinal: liturgical ‘blessing’ for gay unions is ‘truly…sacrilegious’

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire

GERMANY, February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes criticized fellow German Cardinal Reinhard Marx’s suggestion that Catholic priests should consider “blessing” same-sex relationships liturgically.

Marx’s idea “truly seems sacrilegious” and “ignores the clear Revelation of God,” Cordes wrote in a response on Dr. Maike Hickson translated it at One Peter Five.

“The Church is in its pastoral care bound to Holy Scripture and to its interpretation through the Church’s Magisterium,” wrote Cordes. “Marx does not even mention that homosexuality always contradicts the Will of God,” citing church teaching through the centuries.

Rather than being about receiving “God’s assistance for themselves,” those engaging in sodomy and wishing to have it “blessed” by the Church “aim with their request at the recognition and acceptance of their homosexual way of life and its ecclesial valorization.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “under no circumstances” can homosexual activity “be approved” as it is “intrinsically disordered.” Such acts are “contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity” (CCC 2357).

However, Marx said on February 3 that homosexual couples need “closer pastoral care” and “one must also encourage priests and pastoral workers to give people in concrete situations [of homosexual unions] encouragement. I do not really see any problems there.”

Marx is the President of the German Bishops’ Conference.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, Marx also said “yes,” he could imagine the creation of a rite for homosexual couples to be blessed in the Church.

This “encouragement” from priests which he called for might include some sort of “liturgical” recognition of their union.

But “how this would be done publicly, in a liturgical form,” is “another question...that is where one has to be reticent and also reflect upon that in a good way.”

After Catholic News Agency’s initial report on Marx’s comments, his office contacted the outlet and said they had mistranslated part of what he said.

The cardinal’s office sent CNA “a request for correction of [its] translation of the interview in question, expressing concern that CNA's translation constitutes a false reference and does not properly reflect the position of Cardinal Marx.”

The cardinal’s office maintains that rather than saying “yes,” there is a possibility of liturgical “blessing” of gay unions, he answered the question in a more subtle way without giving an explicit “yes.” However, the German Bishops’ Conference doesn’t seem to deny the rest of his statements on how “one must encourage priests” to give encouragement to homosexual couples, which could include public blessings that would take a “liturgical” form.

The cardinal’s staff asked that CNA change his answer about liturgically “blessing” gay unions to: “There are no general solutions and I think that would not be right, because we are talking about pastoral care for individual cases, and that applies to other areas as well, which we cannot regulate, where we have no sets of rules.”

Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput has also spoken out against Marx’s proposal.

“Any such ‘blessing rite’ would cooperate in a morally forbidden act, no matter how sincere the persons seeking the blessing,” wrote Chaput. He explained such a “blessing” would encourage people to continue living in a way the Church considers gravely sinful and spiritually damaging, and therefore would be uncharitable.

“There is no love – no charity – without truth, just as there is no real mercy separated from a framework of justice informed and guided by truth,” he wrote. “Creating confusion around important truths of our faith, no matter how positive the intention, only makes a difficult task more difficult.”

“There are two principles we need to remember,” Chaput wrote. “First, we need to treat all people with the respect and pastoral concern they deserve as children of God with inherent dignity. This emphatically includes persons with same-sex attraction. Second, there is no truth, no real mercy, and no authentic compassion, in blessing a course of action that leads persons away from God.”

“This in no way is a rejection of the persons seeking such a blessing, but rather a refusal to ignore what we know to be true about the nature of marriage, the family, and the dignity of human sexuality,” he explained. “Jesus said the truth will make us free. Nowhere did he suggest it will make us comfortable.”

Cordes has a history of defending the Church’s moral teaching.

Marx, one of the pope’s nine main advisors, said in 2016 that same-sex relationships have “worth” which must be recognized by the Church.  

Featured Image
Cathy Miller of Tastries Bakery Cathy Miller / Gofundme page
Fr. Mark Hodges Fr. Mark Hodges


U.S. judge rules it would be ‘tyranny’ to force Christian to bake cake for lesbian ‘marriage’

Fr. Mark Hodges Fr. Mark Hodges

BAKERSFIELD, California, February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – It would be a violation of free speech for a Christian baker to be forced to make a same-sex "wedding" cake, a California judge ruled on Monday. 

Cathy Miller owns Tastries Bakery, where 40 percent of her business is wedding cakes, many of which she personally designs.  Last August two lesbians asked her to design a special cake to celebrate their “marriage,” and Miller politely redirected them to an accommodating competitor.  

Nevertheless, as is the well-established LGBT pattern, the lesbians sued Miller anyway. They filed a complaint with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, accusing Miller of violating California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which criminalizes denying service based on sexual orientation.  Oral arguments were heard Friday.

Judge Lampe said that to force a Christian to create a cake that celebrates something against their religion is "violence."

“The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids,” Judge Lampe’s ruling reads. “For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech.”

The judge issued his ruling Monday, stating it would only be discrimination if Miller refused to sell an existing product to the lesbians. He discerned that forcing a business owner to violate his/her beliefs is “the stuff of tyranny.”

“Cathy will gladly serve anyone, including same-sex couples,” Charles LiMandri of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund explained to the court. “But Cathy will not use her artistic talents to express messages that conflict with her sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage.”

“We knew the Lord was in control of this,” Miller stated. “We need to stand up for our religious freedom and for our freedom of speech ... If we’re not able to follow our conscience we’re no longer able to be who God created us to be,” she reasoned

LiMandri praised Judge Lampe’s decision, characterizing it as a “significant victory for faith and freedom.” It is unknown if the lesbians will appeal further.

Similar cases have risen across the nation, including one before the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) of the United States now.  Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips sells his products to anyone, but refuses to design and create products celebrating Halloween, homosexuality, or anything against his sincerely held beliefs. SCOTUS heard oral arguments in December, and a decision is expected early this summer.

Also, Sweet Cakes by Melissa was forced out of business when the state of Oregon fined Aaron and Melissa Klein $135,000 for refusing to make a homosexuality-affirming “wedding” cake. 

Cathy Miller's legal defense fundraising page can be found here

Featured Image
Moira Greyland
Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Follow Matthew


Daughter of famed sci-fi author reveals sexual horrors she suffered growing up in LGBT home

Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Follow Matthew

February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The daughter of famed science fiction author Marion Zimmer Bradley has written an autobiographical account revealing the horrors of growing up in a home raised by LGBT parents who repeatedly sexually abused her and her brothers.

“I have heard all the customary protestations. ‘Your parents were evil because they were evil, not because they were gay,’ but I disagree,” writes Moira Greyland in her new book, The Last Closet: The Dark Side of Avalon.

“The underlying problem is a philosophical one that is based on beliefs that are not only common to gay culture but to popular culture. And this is the central belief: All Sex is Always Right No Matter What,” she wrote.

“I had both biological parents in the home, but both refused to act like traditional parents,” writes Greyland. “I needed my father to protect me and to see me as a girl instead of refusing to protect me and seeing me as an amorphous nothing who competed with him for boys. I needed my mother to love me and hold me and comfort me instead of being a terrifying, angry dictator. Worse than that, I was expected to not want them to love me and protect me, or to act like normal parents. I was supposed to be happy that they were doing their own thing, no matter what they did to us.”

The Last Closet has been an Amazon bestseller for weeks as a Kindle e-book, and is scheduled to be published as a print book this month. Over one hundred readers have reviewed it, and virtually all have given it five stars.

The book recounts Greyland’s life with her mother, who was the author of The Mists of Avalon and many other famous works of science fiction and fantasy, and her father, Walter Breen, who was a world-renowned authority on numismatics. Both identified as “gay,” both abused drugs and were involved in occult practices, and both were pedophiles, Greyland says, a claim that has been confirmed by her only surviving brother. 

The couple’s LGBT ideology was constantly imposed on the children by both parents. Greyland says that Zimmer Bradley expected her to take on masculine mannerisms and to become a lesbian, and was disappointed in her attraction to the opposite sex, accusing her of being a “breeder.” Greyland also had to hide from her parents her conversion to Christianity which would have been received with terrible derision.

Alarmingly, Greyland reveals that her parents’ sympathetic views of pedophilia and pederasty had been a public fact for decades, one known particularly among science fiction and fantasy fans who attended fan conferences. Science fiction fans documented Breen's molestation of at least ten children by 1963, which had only resulted in his temporary exclusion from the largest science fiction fan convention, Worldcon, and was never reported to the police. Breen continued to attend conferences for many years afterward, baiting children he targeted with abuse with various science education gadgets that would attract their attention. 

Greyland writes that Breen was an open member of the “North American Man-Boy Love Association,” and he saw his pederastic proclivities as a natural consequence of his homosexuality. He and Zimmer Bradley jointly published a journal on pederasty and pedophilia, The International Journal of Greek Love, in 1965 and 1966, and Zimmer wrote an article for it treating lesbian pedophilia in a positive manner. 

As awareness grew of Breen’s molestation of children among Berkeley science fiction fans in 1963, a newsletter was published about the problem that came to be called the “Breendoggle,” which openly speculated that Zimmer Bradley was tolerant of Breen’s behavior. However, the truth about Zimmer Bradley’s own sexual abuse of her daughter did not come to light until 2014, when Greyland was asked about her parents’ connection to pedophilia by the blogger and science fiction writer Deirdre Saoirse Moen.

Greyland’s response, published in Moen’s blog, received heavy coverage by major media outlets worldwide, including The Washington Post, The Guardian, Die Welt, and Entertainment Weekly. Many fans and former acquaintances of Zimmer Bradley denounced her, and some even burned her books.

“The first time she molested me, I was three. The last time, I was twelve, and able to walk away,” wrote Moira Greyland of her mother.

“I put Walter in jail for molesting one boy. I had tried to intervene when I was 13 by telling Mother and [Zimmer Bradley’s girlfriend] Lisa, and they just moved him into his own apartment.”

“I had been living partially on couches since I was ten years old because of the out of control drugs, orgies, and constant flow of people in and out of our family 'home.'"

The family’s secrets began to unravel in the late 1980s, when Moira, now an adult, personally saw her father sexually abusing a boy and reported him to the police. Her testimony ensured a second conviction after an earlier arrest and conviction in the 1950s. Soon after, police uncovered the previous conviction as well as other accusations of sexual molestation, and prosecutors were able to send Walter Breen to prison for the rest of his life. Breen never repented of his acts, and always defended them, treating himself as a victim of an ignorant and backward society. He died of cancer while in jail awaiting transfer to long-term imprisonment.

Zimmer Bradley and her lesbian partner Elisabeth Walters went on the record in ensuing civil litigation admitting to knowing about Breen’s proclivities, and ultimately agreed to pay a civil settlement to Breen’s victims. However, their fans remained generally unaware of Zimmer Bradley’s own acts of sexual abuse until Moira and her brother Patrick began to speak publicly about it in 2014. 

The trauma suffered by Moira and Patrick was so great that both of them chose a new last name, “Greyland,” to repudiate their parents’ last names. The abuse was not only sexual, but also physical and psychological, and was so savage that both siblings continue to suffer from powerful symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Greyland says she has spoken to many others who were raised by LGBT parents and their stories are very similar to her own. 

“Every single child of gay parents with whom I spoke had certain things in common,” she writes in The Last Closet. “Those with only same-sex parents in the home ached for their missing parent and longed for a real father, and nearly all of us had been sexualized far too young.”

Click here to purchase The Last Closet: The Dark Side of Avalon

Featured Image
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire


John Paul II’s biographer: Calling China the ‘best’ at Catholic social doctrine is ‘psychotic’

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire

February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Claiming China is the “best” at implementing Catholic social doctrine “requires something approaching a psychotic detachment from reality” or “willful ignorance” that turns “a blind eye to repression and persecution in order to indulge” socialist “fantasies,” St. John Paul II’s biographer wrote in an article.

JPII’s biographer George Weigel wrote this in response to Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo’s claim that communist China is the best implementer of the Church’s social teaching. This claim is an embarrassment to the Church, Weigel wrote, a gross distortion of Catholic teaching, and a betrayal of the “persecuted Catholics of China.” The article, titled A Vatican-Based Bishop Extols China, was published in National Review February 7. 

Sorondo is “a small-bore bit player in the current drama of what friends and critics alike regard as an increasingly dysfunctional Vatican,” Weigel wrote, adding that Sorondo's comments, which demonstrate the current chaos in the Vatican, need to be corrected.

“Catholic social doctrine is built on four foundational principles: the inviolable dignity and value of every human person, the responsibility of all to exercise their rights in ways that contribute to the common good, the importance of social pluralism and civil society (and thus the rejection of totalitarianism), and the imperative of solidarity (the virtue of civic friendship that binds free societies together),” Weigel explained.

This is difficult to square with China’s laogai camps, “where slave labor is the rule and political prisoners are frequently murdered, so their transplantable organs can be harvested to benefit the more politically reliable members of the population,” Weigel wrote.

Similarly, its “two-child” policy and accompanying forced abortion regime, the lack of the Chinese having the “right of free movement within their own country,” and the state’s official atheism are incompatible with these principles of Catholic social doctrine.

“Religious persecution is a staple of the regime’s repressive apparatus,” he wrote.

Sorondo’s comments “inevitably implicate the pope he serves and cast doubt not only on the prudence of the Vatican’s current attempts at a démarche with [China]...but on the integrity of the Holy See,” Weigel cautioned.

Weigel argued that Sorondo’s “detachment from reality” also “informed” his remarks that China, by committing to the Paris Climate Agreement, is demonstrating “moral leadership.”

“What air, one wonders, did the bishop breathe in China, one of the most heavily polluted countries in the world?” he asked. “And does His Excellency imagine that a totalitarian regime, bent on asserting itself as a global power and unaccountable to its populace, is going to seriously address its problems of massive air, water, and soil pollution because it signed a piece of paper in the City of Light?”

Weigel also recently rebuffed Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin’s claim that the teaching of Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia is a “paradigm shift” in the Church.

“The Catholic Church doesn’t do ‘paradigm shifts,’” he responded.

St. John Paul II is credited with playing a major role in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe.

When he visited his native Poland – still under communist rule – shortly after becoming pope, he “changed the boundaries of the world,” Peggy Noonan wrote in John Paul the Great.

A million Poles gathered to hear the pope speak, chanting “We want God! We want God!”

As Jerzy Turowicz, a friend of St. John Paul’s and later a Polish public servant, put it: “Historians say World War II ended in 1945. Maybe in the rest of the world, but not in Poland. They say communism fell in 1989. Not in Poland. World War II and communism both ended in Poland at the same time: in 1979, when John Paul II came home.”

Featured Image
Rosary at the Borders in Poland. Facebook
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne


Catholics to pray rosary on U.K. coasts to end ‘scourge of abortion’ and other terrors

Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne

UNITED KINGDOM, February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Catholics in the United Kingdom are following Poland, Italy, and Ireland in holding a Rosary rally that they hope will stretch the length of the British coast to ask the Blessed Mother’s intercession to restore faith, life, and peace in the British Isles. 

The initiative of the lay faithful has the strong endorsement of Bishop John Keenan of Paisley, Scotland.

In a video posted about the event on the "Rosary on the Coast" Facebook page, Keenan urged Catholics to take part in “this big national event” for Scotland, England and Wales. The rally is scheduled to take place at 3:00 p.m. on April 29, 2018.

“It’s a call for all of you to make your way to some part of the coast and pray a Rosary, imploring Our Lady to now arouse a great renewal of our Christian faith in our country,” said Keenan.

The Mother of God will “bring about an end to the scourge of abortion in our land, and usher in a new era of peace for all our nations,” he said. 

“Our poor country is being tossed around in a dark and turbulent storm of aggressive secularism that’s threatening ever more the dignity of the human person, the sanctity of life, and the joy of authentic relationships,” said Keenan.

“All the while tensions are rising in our country, hope’s fading in Europe and it seems a new terror [is] rising across the world,” he noted.

The solution “will come only from a great renewal in the Church that’s strong again in faith. Our Gospel can dispel the present confusion and lead us into a welcome era of peace and light,” the bishop said.  

“When our world has no wine, He invites us to turn to Mary who draws down God’s great glory from heaven to earth,” he added.

“May God bless this important venture and begin the conversion and reconciliation of our Isles.”

Poland was the first to hold a Rosary on the Borders. It took place October 7, 2017, which is the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary and marks the victory of Christian forces over Ottoman Muslims at the naval Battle at Lepanto in 1571. 

When more than a million people lined Poland’s 2,000 mile border to pray, the media and critics warned the “controversial” event signaled a rise of xenophobia and Islamophobia.

But Polish organizers countered that the Rosary at the Borders was an expression of Catholic faith. 

“We desire to pray for the conversion of Poland, Europe and the whole world to Christ so that more souls will be saved from eternal damnation and find their path to God,” organizer Maciej Bodasiński told LifeSiteNews in an earlier interview.

“We entrust everything to Mary, and we leave up to her what the fruits of this prayer will be. We try to be more like children,” he said. 

“Mother has asked us to pray the rosary, so we pray the rosary. She asked for penance, so we do penance. We try to believe in her unreservedly, having absolute certainty that if we entrust the fate of Poland and the whole world to her, we will be saved.”

2017 was also the 100th anniversary of the Marian apparitions at Fatima, Portugal, where Our Lady exhorted people to pray the Rosary frequently for the conversion of sinners and for peace.

Italy followed suit with a day of fasting and praying the Rosary October 13, and on November 26, some 30,000 people lined the coast of Ireland for the Rosary on the Coasts for Life and Faith

The Irish prayed for a renewal of the Christian faith in their country, and that their laws protecting the child in the womb would be upheld.

Poland’s Rosary on the Borders also inspired a Rosary service across the United States December 12, 2017, and a spiritual event called the Rosary to the Interior on February 2, 2018, also in the United States.

Keenan hopes that all the sites of the Rosary on the Coast of the British Isles will “join up together, and form a ring of grace around our coast for faith, life, and peace, that God will see from heaven, as it were, and come down to bless forever.”

He urged Catholics to “prepare” for the Rosary on the Coast by joining in the 40 days of prayer, fasting and almsgiving before the event the organizers are calling for, and following “their daily intentions for the 40 days” on the Rosary on the Coast Facebook page.

“So this is an invitation to the whole people of God, to every Catholic,” Keenan said, “But also to all our Catholic societies and associations, and our many ethnic chaplaincies and groups up and down the country, to gather together as one, and call down for heaven a rebirth of faith, and of life, and of peace.”

For more information on the Rosary on the Coast, go here.


Massive turnout for rosary crusade in Poland. Liberals furious

Rosary crusade draws 30,000 to the coasts of Ireland to pray for God’s blessings

Featured Image
Ryan T. Anderson


The philosophical contradictions of the transgender worldview

Ryan T. Anderson

February 8, 2018 (Public Discourse) – People say that we live in a postmodern age that has rejected metaphysics. That’s not quite true. We live in a postmodern age that promotes an alternative metaphysics. As I explain in When Harry Became Sally, at the heart of the transgender moment are radical ideas about the human person—in particular, that people are what they claim to be, regardless of contrary evidence. A transgender boy is a boy, not merely a girl who identifies as a boy. It’s understandable why activists make these claims. An argument about transgender identities will be much more persuasive if it concerns who someone is, not merely how someone identifies. And so the rhetoric of the transgender moment drips with ontological assertions: people are the gender they prefer to be. That’s the claim.

Transgender activists don’t admit that this is a metaphysical claim. They don’t want to have the debate on the level of philosophy, so they dress it up as a scientific and medical claim. And they’ve co-opted many professional associations for their cause. Thus the American Psychological Association, in a pamphlet titled “Answers to Your Questions about Transgender People, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression,” tells us, “Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identitygender expression, or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.” Notice the politicized language: a person’s sex is “assigned at birth.” Back in 2005, even the Human Rights Campaign referred instead to “birth sex” and “physical sex.”

The phrase “sex assigned at birth” is now favored because it makes room for “gender identity” as the real basis of a person’s sex. In an expert declaration to a federal district court in North Carolina concerning H.B. 2, Dr. Deanna Adkins stated, “From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity.” Dr. Adkins is a professor at Duke University School of Medicine and the director of the Duke Center for Child and Adolescent Gender Care (which opened in 2015). Adkins argues that gender identity is not only the preferred basis for determining sex, but “the only medically supported determinant of sex.”  Every other method is bad science, she claims: “It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female.”

This is a remarkable claim, not least because the argument recently was that gender is only a social construct, while sex is a biological reality. Now, activists claim that gender identity is destiny, while biological sex is the social construct.

Adkins doesn’t say whether she would apply this rule to all mammalian species. But why should sex be determined differently in humans than in other mammals? And if medical science holds that gender identity determines sex in humans, what does this mean for the use of medicinal agents that have different effects on males and females? Does the proper dosage of medicine depend on the patient’s sex, or on his or her gender identity?

But what exactly is this “gender identity” that is supposed to be the true medical determinant of sex? Adkins defines it as “a person’s inner sense of belonging to a particular gender, such as male or female.” Note that little phrase “such as,” implying that the options are not necessarily limited to male or female. Other activists are more forthcoming in admitting that gender identity need not be restricted to the binary choice of male or female, but can include both or neither. The American Psychological Association, for example, defines “gender identity” as “a person’s internal sense of being male, female, or something else.”

Adkins asserts that being transgender is not a mental disorder, but simply “a normal developmental variation.” And she claims, further, that medical and mental health professionals who specialize in the treatment of gender dysphoria are in agreement with this view.

Transgender Catechism

These notions about sex and gender are now being taught to young children. Activists have created child-friendly graphics for this purpose, such as the “Genderbread Person.” The Genderbread Person teaches that when it comes to sexuality and gender, people have five different characteristics, each of them falling along a spectrum.

There’s “gender identity,” which is “how you, in your head, define your gender, based on how much you align (or don’t align) with what you understand to be the options for gender.” The graphic lists “4 (of infinite)” possibilities for gender identity: “woman-ness,” “man-ness,” “two-spirit,” or “genderqueer.”

The second characteristic is “gender expression,” which is “the way you present gender, through your actions, dress, and demeanor.” In addition to “feminine” or “masculine,” the options are “butch,” “femme,” “androgynous,” or “gender neutral.”

Third is “biological sex,” defined as “the physical sex characteristics you’re born with and develop, including genitalia, body shape, voice pitch, body hair; hormones, chromosomes, etc.”

The final two characteristics concern sexual orientation: “sexually attracted to” and “romantically attracted to.” The options include “Women/Females/Femininity” and “Men/Males/Masculinity.” Which seems rather binary.

The Genderbread Person tries to localize these five characteristics on the body: gender identity in the brain, sexual and romantic attraction in the heart, biological sex in the pelvis, and gender expression everywhere.

The Genderbread Person presented here is version 3.3, incorporating adjustments made in response to criticism of earlier versions. But even this one violates current dogma. Some activists have complained that the Genderbread Person looks overly male.

A more serious fault in the eyes of many activists is the use of the term “biological sex.” Time magazine drew criticism for the same transgression in 2014 after publishing a profile of Laverne Cox, the “first out trans person” to be featured on the cover. At least the folks at Time got credit for trying to be “good allies, explaining what many see as a complicated issue,” wrote Mey Rude in an article titled “It’s Time for People to Stop Using the Social Construct of ‘Biological Sex’ to Defend Their Transmisogyny.” (It’s hard to keep up with the transgender moment.) But Time was judged guilty of using “a simplistic and outdated understanding of biology to perpetuate some very dangerous ideas about trans women,” and failing to acknowledge that biological sex “isn’t something we’re actually born with, it’s something that doctors or our parents assign us at birth.”

Today, transgender “allies” in good standing don’t use the Genderbread Person in their classrooms, but opt for the “Gender Unicorn,” which was created by Trans Students Educational Resources (TSER). It has a body shape that doesn’t appear either male or female, and instead of a “biological sex” it has a “sex assigned at birth.” Those are the significant changes to the Genderbread Person, and they were made so that the new graphic would “more accurately portray the distinction between gender, sex assigned at birth, and sexuality.”

According to TSER, “Biological sex is an ambiguous word that has no scale and no meaning besides that it is related to some sex characteristics. It is also harmful to trans people. Instead, we prefer ‘sex assigned at birth’ which provides a more accurate description of what biological sex may be trying to communicate.” The Gender Unicorn is the graphic that children are likely to encounter in school. These are the dogmas they are likely to be catechized to profess.

While activists claim that the possibilities for gender identity are rather expansive—man, woman, both, neither—they also insist that gender identity is innate, or established at a very young age, and thereafter immutable. Dr. George Brown, a professor of psychiatry and a three-time board member of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), stated in his declaration to the federal court in North Carolina that gender identity “is usually established early in life, by the age of two to three years old.” Addressing the same court, Dr. Adkins asserted that “evidence strongly suggests that gender identity is innate or fixed at a young age and that gender identity has a strong biological basis.” (At no point in her expert declaration did she cite any sources for any of her claims.)

Transgender Contradictions

If the claims presented in this essay strike you as confusing, you’re not alone. The thinking of transgender activists is inherently confused and filled with internal contradictions. Activists never acknowledge those contradictions. Instead, they opportunistically rely on whichever claim is useful at any given moment.

Here I’m talking about transgender activists. Most people who suffer from gender dysphoria are not activists, and many of them reject the activists’ claims. Many of them may be regarded as victims of the activists, as I show in my book. Many of those who feel distress over their bodily sex know that they aren’t really the opposite sex, and do not wish to “transition.” They wish to receive help in coming to identify with and accept their bodily self. They don’t think their feelings of gender dysphoria define reality.

But transgender activists do. Regardless of whether they identify as “cisgender” or “transgender,” the activists promote a highly subjective and incoherent worldview.

On the one hand, they claim that the real self is something other than the physical body, in a new form of Gnostic dualism, yet at the same time they embrace a materialist philosophy in which only the material world exists. They say that gender is purely a social construct, while asserting that a person can be “trapped” in the wrong gender. They say that there are no meaningful differences between man and woman, yet they rely on rigid sex stereotypes to argue that “gender identity” is real, while human embodiment is not. They claim that truth is whatever a person says it is, yet they believe there’s a real self to be discovered inside that person. They promote a radical expressive individualism in which people are free to do whatever they want and define the truth however they wish, yet they try ruthlessly to enforce acceptance of transgender ideology.

It’s hard to see how these contradictory positions can be combined. If you pull too hard on any one thread of transgender ideology, the whole tapestry comes unraveled. But here are some questions we can pose:

If gender is a social construct, how can gender identity be innate and immutable? How can one’s identity with respect to a social construct be determined by biology in the womb? How can one’s identity be unchangeable (immutable) with respect to an ever-changing social construct? And if gender identity is innate, how can it be “fluid”? The challenge for activists is to offer a plausible definition of gender and gender identity that is independent of bodily sex.

Is there a gender binary or not? Somehow, it both does and does not exist, according to transgender activists. If the categories of “man” and “woman” are objective enough that people can identify as, and be, men and women, how can gender also be a spectrum, where people can identify as, and be, both, or neither, or somewhere in between?

What does it even mean to have an internal sense of gender? What does gender feel like? What meaning can we give to the concept of sex or gender—and thus what internal “sense” can we have of gender—apart from having a body of a particular sex? Apart from having a male body, what does it “feel like” to be a man? Apart from having a female body, what does it “feel like” to be a woman? What does it feel like to be both a man and a woman, or to be neither? The challenge for the transgender activist is to explain what these feelings are like, and how someone could know if he or she “feels like” the opposite sex, or neither, or both.

Even if trans activists could answer these questions about feelings, that still wouldn’t address the matter of reality. Why should feeling like a man—whatever that means—make someone a man? Why do our feelings determine reality on the question of sex, but on little else? Our feelings don’t determine our age or our height. And few people buy into Rachel Dolezal’s claim to identify as a black woman, since she is clearly not. If those who identify as transgender are the sex with which they identify, why doesn’t that apply to other attributes or categories of being? What about people who identify as animals, or able-bodied people who identify as disabled? Do all of these self-professed identities determine reality? If not, why not? And should these people receive medical treatment to transform their bodies to accord with their minds? Why accept transgender “reality,” but not trans-racial, trans-species, and trans-abled reality? The challenge for activists is to explain why a person’s “real” sex is determined by an inner “gender identity,” but age and height and race and species are not determined by an inner sense of identity.

Of course, a transgender activist could reply that an “identity” is, by definition, just an inner sense of self. But if that’s the case, gender identity is merely a disclosure of how one feels. Saying that someone is transgender, then, says only that the person has feelings that he or she is the opposite sex. Gender identity, so understood, has no bearing at all on the meaning of “sex” or anything else. But transgender activists claim that a person’s self-professed “gender identity” isthat person’s “sex.” The challenge for activists is to explain why the mere feeling of being male or female (or both or neither) makes someone male or female (or both or neither).

Gender identity can sound a lot like religious identity, which is determined by beliefs. But those beliefs don’t determine reality. Someone who identifies as a Christian believes that Jesus is the Christ. Someone who identifies as a Muslim believes that Muhammad is the Final Prophet. But Jesus either is or is not the Christ, and Muhammad either is or is not the Final Prophet, regardless of what anyone happens to believe. So, too, a person either is or is not a man, regardless of what anyone—including that person—happens to believe. The challenge for transgender activists is to present an argument for why transgender beliefs determine reality.

Determining reality is the heart of the matter, and here too we find contradictions. On the one hand, transgender activists want the authority of science as they make metaphysical claims, saying that science reveals gender identity to be innate and unchanging. On the other hand, they deny that biology is destiny, insisting that people are free to be who they want to be. Which is it? Is our gender identity biologically determined and immutable, or self-created and changeable? If the former, how do we account for people whose gender identity changes over time? Do these people have the wrong sense of gender at some time or other? And if gender identity is self-created, why must other people accept it as reality? If we should be free to choose our own gender reality, why can some people impose their idea of reality on others just because they identify as transgender? The challenge for the transgender activist is to articulate some conception of truth as the basis for how we understand the common good and how society should be ordered.

As I document in depth in When Harry Became Sally, the claims of transgender activists are confusing because they are philosophically incoherent. Activists rely on contradictory claims as needed to advance their position, but their ideology keeps evolving, so that even allies and LGBT organizations can get left behind as “progress” marches on. At the core of the ideology is the radical claim that feelings determine reality. From this idea come extreme demands for society to play along with subjective reality claims. Trans ideologues ignore contrary evidence and competing interests; they disparage alternative practices; and they aim to muffle skeptical voices and shut down any disagreement. The movement has to keep patching and shoring up its beliefs, policing the faithful, coercing the heretics, and punishing apostates, because as soon as its furious efforts flag for a moment or someone successfully stands up to it, the whole charade is exposed. That’s what happens when your dogmas are so contrary to obvious, basic, everyday truths. A transgender future is not the “right side of history,” yet activists have convinced the most powerful sectors of our society to acquiesce to their demands. While the claims they make are manifestly false, it will take real work to prevent the spread of these harmful ideas.

Ryan T. Anderson is the Founder and Editor of Public Discourse. He is the author of When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, from which this essay is adapted.

Reprinted with permission from Public Discourse.

Featured Image
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon


Unless you want them to be indoctrinated, take your kids out of public schools

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

February 8, 2018 (The Bridgehead) If the progressive Left can claim one cultural victory that is nearly total, it is their infiltration and conquest of the public education system. Public schools across the Western world—especially Canada, the United States, and Great Britain—now serve as purveyors of post-modern ideology, replete with “social justice” classes and sex education that is designed to mainstream a wide variety of alternative lifestyles. The latest news on this front is out of the UK.

From Breitbart:

Announcing an ‘LGBT-inclusive’ update to all of its products, education giant Pearson has launched a guide to pushing ‘social justice’ activism in every part of the school curriculum.

‘Creating an LGBT-Inclusive Curriculum’ was produced by LGBT activist group Stonewall and is sponsored by Pearson, which owns the exam board Edexcel and publishes thousands of school textbooks as one of the UK’s biggest education companies.

Claiming an inclusive curriculum is “a crucial part of tackling” homophobic bullying in schools, the handbook advises ways in which teachers can alter lessons across the syllabus so LGBT pupils “see themselves represented in what they’re learning”.

Writing about the need to stamp out anti-LGBT bullying in a foreword to the guide, the senior vice-president for schools at Pearson UK, Sharon Hague, said: “LGBT students will only feel comfortable to be themselves if they also get to see themselves in their classrooms.”

You’ll notice that nearly everywhere, the same script is being used: If children, even very young children, are not taught about gay marriage and transgenderism and a whole laundry list of sexual practices, bullying will inevitably result. In other words, if you oppose this new curriculum, and you object to the idea that your children will be taught things that conflict with the values you teach at home—then shut up, bigot. It’s people like you that make kids kill themselves. Bible-believing parents are not being told that there is a mere disagreement, they are being told that they are dangerous. And that’s how you end up with children’s storybooks about transgender crayons and gay penguins—and parents being told they have no right to pass their values on to their own children. More:

Organised by subject, the guide lists suggestions to ensure LGBT visibility across the curriculum, for example recommending teachers set questions which reference homosexual relationships in maths and science, and introduce terminology specific to the lifestyles of sexual minorities in foreign language lessons. One example given is to begin a question with: “Two women would like to have a baby together, and the doctor recommends they use In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF).”

The vast majority of suggestions go far beyond issues of visibility and representation, however, with most of the handbook’s tips for creating an LGBT-inclusive curriculum promoting hard-left ‘social justice’ activism and identity politics in the classroom. Advice on teaching maths includes an example lesson in which children learn about codebreaker Alan Turing. Teachers are instructed to “provide pupils with some information about Alan Turing’s life, including the arrest and trial for his relationship with another man”, and to introduce a discussion on “the historical treatment of gay people by the secret services”.

In history lessons, pupils should “study the links between different social justice movements”, while art teachers are urged to “explore the way that art has been, and is being, used to effect social and political change, including LGBT equality, race equality and tackling climate change”.

…Pearson’s president for core markets, Rod Bristow, said the company will use the handbook to “help update our own products and resources to ensure they are LGBT inclusive”.

There has been some backlash, of course—not that it will be heeded:

UKIP education spokesman David Kurten stated that the “despicable” move is bad news for children and parents, who he pointed out will “effectively have no choice but to be exposed” to politicised education material due to Pearson’s position as the largest supplier of textbooks for schools, and the owner of Britain’s largest exam board, Edexcel.

“Maths should be about maths, it should not be about sexualizing children,” he told Breitbart London, warning the new textbooks will make it significantly more difficult for parents “to protect their children from the malign influence of left-wing identity politics”.

What a quaint idea—that math should be about math, and that English should introduce children to great literature, and that history should introduce children to their heritage. But of course, education is not so much in vogue anymore. Re-education is all the rage, because fixed truths are being turfed, historical heroes pulled off their pedestals, and the literary giants replaced with post-modern pipsqueaks. Grammar, however, might still be necessary—as well as memorization skills. Consider this, from the Washington Times:

Some members of the gay-rights community are adding the letter ‘K,’ for “kink,” to the ever-expanding acronym of identities. The official acronym is now LGBTQQICAPF2K+ according to the magazine The Gay UK. That stands for “Lesbian,” “Gay,” “Bisexual,” “Transgender,” “Queer,” “Questioning,” “Intersex,” “Curious,” “Asexual,” “Agender,” “Ally,” “Pansexual,” “Polysexual,” “Friends and family,” “Two-spirit” and “Kink.” The Gay UK said the acronym has been growing since the 90s “out of a need to move away from the limiting ‘gay community’” and to “encompass any community that defines itself as anything but heterosexual or cisgender.”

“Anything but heterosexual or cisgender”—huh, so exclusionary. Someone tell Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that he has been uttering the very limited and obviously homophobic “LGBT” all of this time, which clearly discriminates against a whole bunch of letters and is an offence to peoplekind in general. We can all expect the curriculums of public schools to change and evolve as fast as the LGBT Alphabet Soup is—and we can all expect parental protestations to be ignored.

If you don’t want your children to be indoctrinated, take them out of the public school system. It’s the only choice you’ve got.

Reprinted with permission from

Featured Image
De Mattei at the 2016 Rome Life Forum Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Roberto de Mattei


Catholic historian: To be faithful sometimes means resisting those at the top who cause division

Roberto de Mattei

February 8, 2018 (Rorate Caeli) – As the fifth anniversary of Pope Francis’ election draws near, we hear repeatedly that we are facing a dramatic and absolutely unprecedented ‘page’ in the history of the Church. This is only partly true. The Church has always experienced tragic times which have seen the laceration of the Mystical Body since its very beginnings on Calvary right up to the present day.

The younger generations don’t know and the older generations have forgotten how terrible the years that followed the Second Vatican Council were, of which the present age is the result.

Forty years ago while the 1968 revolt was erupting, a group of cardinals and bishops, who were protagonists at the Council, sought to impose a radical change on the Catholic doctrine of marriage. The attempt was frustrated by way of Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae of July 25th 1968 which reaffirmed the prohibition of artificial contraception, restoring strength and hope to a disorientated flock. However, Paul VI of Humanae Vitae, was also the one who caused a deep rupture with Catholic Tradition in 1969 by imposing the new rite of the Mass which is at the origins of all contemporary liturgical devastations.

On November 18th 1973, the same Pope promoted Ostpolitik, by assuming the grave responsibility of removing Cardinal József Mindszenty (1892-1975) from his office as Archbishop of Esztergom, Primate of Hungary – and champion of Catholic opposition to Communism.  Pope Montini had hoped for the attainment of a historical compromise in Italy, based on the agreement between the Secretary of the Christian Democrats, Aldo Moro and the Secretary of the Communist Party Enrico Berlinguer.  The operation was abruptly interrupted by the kidnapping and killing of Moro in 1978, after which Pope Montini himself died the following August 6th. This 40th anniversary also falls this year.

During those years of betrayal and blood, courageous voices spoke out which we of necessity recall, not only for the record, but because they help us to orient ourselves in the darkness of the present time. We remember two, prior to the explosion of the so-called "Lefebvre Case", the French Archbishop Monsignor Athanasius Schneider highlighted in a recent interview on his "prophetic mission during an extraordinary dark time of general crisis in the Church."

The first voice belongs to a French Dominican priest, Father Roger Calmel, who right from the very beginning in 1969 had rejected Paul VI’s Novus Ordo and in June 1971 wrote in the magazineItinéraires:

Our Christian resistance of priests and laity [is] very painful resistance as it forces us to say no to the Pope himself about the modernist manifestation of the Catholic Mass; our respectful but unshakeable resistance is dictated by the principle of total fidelity to the living Church of all time; or, in other words, from the principle of living fidelity to the development of the Church. Never have we thought of holding back, or even less of impeding, what some, with very ambiguous words, for that matter, call "progress" in the Church; we’d call it rather the homogenous growth in doctrinal and liturgical matters, in continuation with Tradition, in sight of the "consummatio sanctorum."

As Our Lord has revealed to us in parables, and as St. Paul teaches us in his Epistles, we believe that the Church, over the course of the centuries, grows and develops in harmony through a thousand adversities, until the glorious return of Jesus Himself, Her Spouse and Our Lord. Since we are convinced that over the course of centuries a growth of the Church is occurring, and since we are resolute in becoming part of this mysterious and uninterrupted movement as honestly as possible, as far as it is up to us, we reject this supposed progress which refers to Vatican II and which in reality is mortal deviation. Going back to St. Vincent of Lerin’s classical distinction, the more we desire good growth – a splendid "profectus" - even more do we reject, uncompromisingly, a ruinous "pennutatio" and any radical and shameful alteration whatsoever; radical, since it comes from modernism and denies every faith; shameful, since the denial of the modernist sort is shifty and hidden.

The second voice is that of a Brazilian thinker and man of action, Plinio Correa de Oliveira, author of a leaflet of resistance to the Vatican Ostpolitik, which appeared on April 10th 1974 under the name of Tradition, Family and Property, with the title Vatican Politics of Distension towards Communist Governments. For TFP: not to intervene or resist?

Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira explained:

To resist means that we would advise Catholics to continue fighting against the Communist doctrine through all legitimate means, in defense of Country and Christian civilization under threat.

He added:

The lines of this declaration would not be sufficient to contain the list of all the Fathers of the Church, Doctors, moralists and canon lawyers – many of whom have been beatified or canonized – who sustain the legitimacy of resistance. A resistance which is not separation, nor revolt, nor acrimony, nor irreverence. On the contrary it is fidelity, union, love and submission. "Resistance" is the word we have chosen on purpose, as it has been used by St. Paul himself to describe his stance. Since the first Pope, St. Peter, had taken disciplinary measures to retain practices in the Catholic Faith which survived the ancient Synagogue, St. Paul saw in this a grave risk of doctrinal confusion and harm for the faithful. So he rose up and "resisted" St. Peter "to his face" who did not see an act of rebellion in this energetic and inspired action by the Apostle to the Gentiles, but [an act] of union and fraternal love. Furthermore, knowing well where he was infallible and where he wasn’t, he yielded to St Paul’s arguments. The saints are model Catholics. In the sense that St. Paul resisted, our position is resistance. In this, our conscience finds peace.

"Resistance" is not a purely verbal declaration of faith, but an act of love towards the Church, which leads to practical consequences. Those who resist are separated from the one who has caused the division in the Church, they criticize him openly, they correct him. In 2017, along these lines they expressed themselves with the Correctio filialis to Pope Francis and the leaflet of the pro-life movement appeared with the title: "Faithful to true doctrine, not to pastors who are in error."

Today, along these same lines lies Cardinal Zen’s stance of no compromise in regard to Pope Francis’ new Ostpolitik towards Communist China. To those who object, and [say] that it is necessary "to try to find common ground to bridge the decades-old division between the Vatican and China," Cardinal Zen replies:

But can there ever be anything in "common" with a totalitarian regime? Either you surrender or accept persecution, but remain faithful to yourself (can you imagine an agreement between St. Joseph and Herod?) 

To those who ask him whether he is convinced that the Vatican is selling out the Catholic Church in China, he says:

Decidedly, yes. If they are going in the direction that is obvious in everything they have done in recent months and years.

On April 7th a conference has been called, which many are still ignoring, but which ought to have as its object the present crisis in the Church. The participation of some cardinals and bishops, and above all Cardinal Zen, would give maximum importance to this conference. We must pray that from the meeting a voice will be raised, full of love for the Church and firm resistance to all the theological, moral and liturgical deviations of the present pontificate, without being under the illusion that the solution is that of insinuating the invalidity of Benedict XVI’s abdication or Pope Francis’ election.

Taking refuge in the canonical problem means avoiding debate of the doctrinal problem, which is at the root of the crisis we are experiencing.

Editor's note: This article was translated by Francesca Romana for Rorate Caeli. It is reprinted here by permission. 

Featured Image
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon


Jordan Peterson is helping disillusioned boys become men. Here’s why liberals hate that.

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Over the past several months, progressive columnists have decided that they have had quite enough of Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, the University of Toronto psychology professor who has ruffled post-modern sensibilities with his common-sense analysis and refusal to engage in the use of recently-invented transgender pronouns. Perhaps it is simply jealousy—Peterson has amassed an audience of millions—but the columns condemning him have been painful screeds to read, revealing the inability of their authors to understand either Peterson’s ideas or his motivations. A few of them take his work so out of context that they border on slander.

But a good question to ask Peterson’s detractors would be why? Why do they hate him so much? Why are so many liberals so determined to mock and malign him at every turn? Why do they see him as such a dangerous figure, when the impact of his work in the real world is so overwhelmingly positive?

I think, for example, that everyone would agree that there is a generation of young men in our society who are disillusioned, angry, and frustrated. Suicide, for example, is pandemic among young white men. Many of them are unemployed, most of them are hooked on pornography, and as a result their relationships are often toxic or dysfunctional. Nobody really seems to care, either—books like Hanna Rosin’s The End of Men even carry a hint of triumphalism. To even talk about “men’s issues” is to incur the rage of a thousand feminists.

But Jordan Peterson is a man who is brought to tears when discussing the plight of young men, and he desperately wants to change their lives for the better. They are flocking to him in their hundreds of thousands, seeking advice and the tools to change their lives. Thousands of them are now crediting Peterson with transforming them from angry and dysfunctional to ambitious and “getting it together.” He is swiftly becoming a father figure to a generation of men who often grew up without one.

Where is the harm in that? Don’t the snarky liberal columnists deriding Peterson and the audience he is seeking to help think that it’s a good thing that young men are finding inspiration in someone who is telling them to get off the couch, get a job, become useful, and treat people well? Isn’t the fact that Jordan Peterson is reducing the risk of suicide in many young men a good thing for us all? What these angry progressive hatchet-men flailing at Peterson’s accomplishments don’t realize is that to his audience, it rather looks like they don’t care about the fate of hundreds of thousands of young men as much as they care about winning an argument on transgender pronouns.

Taking it a step further, consider the proliferation of the #metoo movement across North America. At the root of the issue is the fact that many men, from the entertainment industries to politics, have been acting predatory, crude, disrespectful—and sometimes worse. Enter Jordan Peterson, who has been urging young men to harness their sexual instincts, to treat women with respect, and to delay sex until marriage. He’s even addressed pornography, which many believe is partially to blame for our toxic sexual culture—and many men have already decided to kick pornography and all of its ugly objectification and sexual violence out of their lives—simply because Peterson advised them to. Don’t Peterson’s attackers find that to be a positive development?

It’s even rather confusing to see how desperately progressives want inequality to exist. A prime example would be the now infamous Channel 4 interview with Cathy Newman, which has racked up more than six million views on YouTube. It is not that Newman believed that a wage gap between men and women existed that was unusual—this is part and parcel of liberal dogma. It is the fact that she so desperately wanted that to be the case. You’d think that a liberal, upon being presented with facts that indicated that a perceived inequality did not, in fact, exist, would be happy and relieved. Or at least, not offended that someone had interpreted the data differently. But no—it seems as if a wealthy television host actually wants there to be some inequality and wants to feel as if she is somehow a victim of a discriminatory system.

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s work and influence has, by any objective standard, been enormously beneficial. Thousands of young men are getting themselves figured out, and hundreds of thousands more are spending hours listening to complex academic lectures on how to become better people. Peterson is single-handedly robbing the alt-right of angry young white men by presenting them with the option of becoming better people rather than succumbing to identity politics. And he is championing loving, respectful relationships between men and women.

You’d think that was something that people could get on board with. You’d think that progressives would see Peterson’s work as a good thing. But instead, simply because he refuses to subscribe to the postmodernism that they hold so dear, because he refuses to be compelled into saying things he does not believe, the progressives attack and slander him with all they’ve got. After all, who cares about all the young men that find Peterson’s work transformative. The progressives had written them all off already, anyway.

Print All Articles
View specific date