Pope's hands are stuck together

Remember this video where the Bishop of Rome insulted the altar boy for holding his hands together?

I guess things are different in Burma.

Ontario Court rules against parental rights - help with legal defense fund needed!

Whatever Vox Cantoris readers can do to assist with funds would be greatly appreciated.

http://www.defendingparents.com/index.php?p=Donate

Ontario Court of Appeal rules against parental rights.

http://everydayforlifecanada.blogspot.ca/2017/11/ontario-court-of-appeal-rules-against.html

Ontario Court of Appeal rules against parental rights. First a little background. Dr. Steve Tourloukis has been in a legal battle for over five years trying to defend parental rights in Ontario and Canada. Back in 2010, as the McGinty Liberal government tried to pass the radical sex-education curriculum, Tourloukis simply asked his children's school board to be notified of classes that contradicted his Greek-Orthodox faith. He could then choose to keep them at home when instruction was inappropriate. The lessons of concern included topics such as same-sex marriage, homosexuality, abortion and transgenderism. The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, HWDSB, refused his request for accommodation. So in 2012, given no other choice he took the school board to court.

The case was first heard last year in Hamilton, Ontario where Justice Robert Reid of the Ontario Superior Court made a terrible ruling against Tourloukis. The judge basically concluded that parents don't have the final authority over what their children learn. The idea that state has the "right" to overrule parental rights because of competing Charter rights is unjust and completely wrong. An appeal was launched.

Today the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled against Steve Tourloukis. This is another unjust decision that serves to further undermine parental rights. Tourloukis claims that his parental rights and religious freedom were violated under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The judges disagreed. This is a bad decision for Canadian parents, regardless of whether they're believers or agnostics.

Three judges Peter Lauwers, Robert Sharpe and Bradley Miller in rejecting Tourloukis's appeal argue that he failed to prove that there was "any interference with or violation of his religious freedom." Judge Lauwers did admit that: "Dismissing this appeal does not, however, give s.169.1 the program a clean constitutional bill of health. Were the evidence that the s.169.1 program undermined a parent's ability to transmit religious faith, together with a refusal to provide accommodation, the result might be well different." But "Equity Education" is precisely about changing (indoctrinating) students thinking about human sexuality, the person and marriage. Surely the judges have enough proof in the government and school board documents that the policy undermines a parent's ability to pass on the faith or other views.

A reasonable person (not Canadian judges in these days of political correctness) would say that forcing "diversity education" on all public students is a direct infringement on a parent's ability to teach the Christian faith and family values. The judges, with the red herring lack of evidence position, sided with the government, the school board and the teachers' union. "Equity Education" trumps every other view, especially the Christian one.

Lauwers refers to section s.169.1 of Ontario's Education Act which under duties and powers allows schools boards to "(a) promote student achievement and well-being; (a.1) promote a positive school climate that is inclusive and accepting of all pupils, including pupils of any race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability; (a.2) promote the prevention of bullying." The court acknowledges the importance of "inclusivity" in creating a positive school climate devoid of bullying. However, the idea that faith is also a central aspect to student's success, health and emotional well being can be excluded.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Lauwers, while asserting that the Education Act protects religious freedom and parental rights, then goes on to quote ministerial guidelines from the Ministry of Education regarding the importance of Equity Education:

The directive and policies are all designed to combat racism, religious intolerance and homophobia, and to ensure that all students feel welcomed and accepted in public schools.

Students are to be provided with learning materials that are bias-fee and that reflect the diversity of the school population, including diversity of sexual orientation and gender identity. A central feature of the Policy is that diversity, anti-discrimination and anti-homophobia are not taught in stand alone lessons but rather are fully integrated into the curriculum so that acceptance of difference becomes routine. For example, teaching materials for a lesson on mathematics might feature children with two mothers and two fathers. In this way, all courses are infused with equity principles and teachers are directed to ensure that all students-including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual and two-spirited, intersex, queer and questioning people - will, in the words of EIES (Equity and Inclusive Strategy), be 'engaged, included, and respected and ... see themselves reflected in their learning environment.

So Tourloukis, as do all parents in the province, has parental rights according to the court decision. However, given current government policies and without clear proof of harm, school boards are permitted to violate both parental rights and religious freedom because they have a mandate to not just promote "Equity Education," but to inculcate it as a "neutral" civic virtue. In short, transgendersim, secret school sex clubs and about a dozen sexual orientations are just fine for the court, but not the Christian faith and the right of parents and the freedom to say no to legislated "diversity education." Teaching about two mothers and two fathers in a mathematics class should not take precedence over parental rights.

The three justices know about the radical sexual indoctrination that children are being exposed today in schools. As specified in ministerial guidelines produced in court, students are being brainwashed across the curriculum, that is in every subject. This is clearly a contravention of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Education Act. Nevertheless, this is now legal because it's all part of "Equity Education."

This ruling was definitely a loss for the Hamilton father, and we won’t try to sugar coat that. The court refused to grant him any relief in the absence of “proof” that his children had been exposed to lessons which contradicted his religious beliefs, and that’s really bad for his family. Nonetheless, the ruling affirmed that parents do have primary authority over their children’s education and that the state’s authority is subordinate. Importantly, the ruling also laid out a path for a future legal challenge against the section 169 of the Education Act which is a sort of linchpin being used by the educrats to justify imposing their radical sexual agenda on other peoples’ children. Our thoughts and good wishes go out to Steve Tourloukis and his family. This must be another very difficult day. Our prayers and support are with them. And parents take note.

Readers, if you wish to help pay the legal cost and learn more about Steve Tourloukis' case, please go to the Parental Rights in Education Defense Fund.

https://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2017/11/ontario-court-rules-against-parental.html

It's okay, you can have a cow

I'll let me faithful readers comment on this blasphemy and the bishop who permits it.

https://whatisupwiththesynod.com/index.php/2017/11/24/crucified-cow-in-a-belgian-catholic-church-not-fake-news/

Is it Real or is it a Memory?

In his latest "catechesis" on the liturgy at the Wednesday audience of papal adulation and positivism, the Bishop of Rome has stated that 

"The Mass is the memorial of the Paschal Mystery of Christ. In order to comprehend the value of Mass we must first understand the biblical meaning of the “memorial.” It is not only the memory of past events, but it makes them in a certain way present and actual. That is exactly how Israel understands its release from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the events of the Exodus are brought to the memory of the believers in order to conform their lives to them.

This must explain why this priest and Bishop of Rome doesn't genuflect at Mass before the Blessed Sacrament and Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ after the elevations of what were once bread and wine - he doesn't believe it is necessary because he doesn't believe it is God! He belives that it is a "memorial." 

If the "Paschal Mystery of Christ," is understood as his suffering, death, resurrection and ascension into heaven, then this is not what is taking place at the Mass. The Mass is the re-presentation, not the representation, nor the memorial, but the re-presentation of the blood atonement of the Lamb of God at Calvary on the Cross brought forward in time to us for us to partake. 

I recommend a visit to Louie Verrecchio's AKACatholic for a full and rich re-presentation of the actual truth, not the pathetic codswallop that we are getting from the Bishop of Rome who failed his 1st grade catechism class all those many years ago in Argentina. 

It's a loaf of bread I tell you, really it is.

Okay, I get it, it's a loaf of bread symbolizing feeding the poor, but, really?

Are people just this stupid? 

It's supposed to be St. Martin de Porres. What a disgusting insult. More saintly pictures can be found here.

Or is it a subliminal clue about the intent of the artists and the people who commissioned it?

http://nationalpost.com/news/catholic-school-covers-up-potentially-suggestive-statue-of-priest

New Zealand's "Dew" is not that of the Holy Spirit but of Bergoglio's "god of surprises"

How can the "Reform of the Reform" be anything but dead with the likes of John Dew in the leadership of the Church. 

Bergoglio appointed "Cardinal" John Dew, an alleged priest of Jesus Christ, has declared that due to his inspiration by Pope Francis a "creative initiative" will take place in the Nervous Disordered liturgy - the laity will read the Gospel.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-zealand-cardinal-makes-pope-francis-inspired-change-to-mass 

Gosh, just imagine the captions that one could come up with for the look on George's face over this prize.

Give it a go.

If he smoked, is he a Saint?

Pope Francis has banned smoking in Vatican City.

Will he next ban cocaine, child pornography and sodomite orgies?

And to think, Amoris Letitia was all about Haiti and North Korea

In an interview with the Italian publication La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana and translated by LifeSiteNews, Cardinal Müller affirms the legitimacy of the Dubia of the four Cardinals, two of whom are now deceased. He also goes on to state that there are "no exceptions," to the ban on Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried. 

The issue that is jumped over here and in the two Synods is that of the Church's exercise within Marriage Tribunals of Decrees of Nullity. As one who was granted a Decree of Nullity which had numerous grounds aside from canonical irregularities, it always struck this writer as the misunderstood right of the Church and faithful in this whole discussion. Let us put aside the polemical debate of "abuse" of the process. If the parties are honest and tell the truth and the Church decrees nullity, then there is no sin, nor deception on the part of the faithful. If the Tribunal abused the process then it is the sin of those judges and the bishop. The fact is, if a Decree of Nullity is granted, it renders the fact that the first "marriage" was not valid, there was no marriage.

The process of "discernment" and "accompaniment" are the inherent issues of Eucharistic attack in Amoris Laetitia. Let the few, very few Catholics who care about practicing their faith seek decrees of nullity. Let the Church's age-old practice apply, streamlined if necessary. It is not a degrading process, nor is it overtly expensive, at least not from the experience of most.

But Müller's argument falls apart when he returns to the internal forum matter.  He confirms that Amoris Laetitia throws a battering ram through the traditional process of Decrees of Nullity for accompaniment, - accompaniment is the new annulment process. Why bother then for what is true and right, just make your own decision with a priest who is prepared to go along with it.

Of course, what we did not know, is that it is all for North Korea and Haiti.

And we thought selling ones soul for Wales was serious.

Cardinal Müller clarifies: There are ‘no exceptions’ to ban on Communion for ‘remarried’

Cascioli: And so we touch on the question of the indissolubility of marriage. In recent days, it’s been said that you are convinced there can be some exceptions. 

Cardinal Muller: No exceptions. This idea is false. I gave a clear theological explanation, which left no room for misunderstanding. I would like to bring peace to the situation and not fuel polemics between opposing groups. 

And so we need to be clear that when it comes to a legitimate sacramental marriage there can be no exceptions. The sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato. Just as there are no exceptions in the validity of baptism, or of the transubstantiation of the bread into the Body of Christ.” 

But in Buttiglione’s essay, he refers to several very particular situations in which there would be a venial sin, so that it should be possible to be absolved and to receive the sacraments while maintaining the state of the second union. 

In my introduction it is very clearly written that reconciliation is needed, and this is only possible if there is first contrition and a firm purpose not to commit the sin anymore. Certain people who address these issues do not understand that approaching the Sacrament of Reconciliation does not mean automatic absolution. There are essential elements without which reconciliation cannot be achieved. If there isn’t contrition there cannot be absolution and if there is no absolution, if one remains in the state of mortal sin, one cannot receive Communion. 

As for Buttiglione, he refers to situations where knowledge of the Catholic faith is a problem. These are cases of unconscious Christians, who are baptized but unbelieving, who may have gotten married in Church to please their grandmother, but without a real awareness. Here it becomes a problem when, after many years, they return to the faith and then question the marriage. There are many such cases. Benedict XVI also looked at the issue. So what’s to be done? In this sense we can say with the Pope that discernment is needed, but this does not mean that one can be granted access to the sacraments without the conditions mentioned above. The issue here is not about the indissolubility of sacramental marriage, but about the validity of many marriages that aren’t really valid. 

But in your essay you also refer to cases of people who convert or return to the faith after already having entered a second union, and regarding the sacraments you talk about a decision in the internal forum. What do you mean? 

While in Europe things are clear enough at least theoretically, in many countries there are many difficult situations to judge. In Latin America, for example, there are many marriages that are not celebrated according to the canonical form. There are couples who live together but one doesn’t know if there is an actual marriage consent. I was in Haiti recently and the situation there is disastrous; everyone is called a spouse. They live together but they aren’t formally married either in church or civilly. When some mature, they start going to church and then you have to determine who the true husband or wife is. And here it’s important for the person to be honest and say sincerely with whom they have expressed true consent, because it is the consent that makes a marriage, not only the canonical form. In any case, in order to be admitted to the sacraments, the parish priest or bishop must clarify the situation in cooperation with the freedom of the faithful. But there are also situations that are overturned. 

Can you say more? 

There are particular circumstances, for example under regimes that persecute the Church, where it isn’t possible to be married canonically. Let’s take the example of North Korea: the few Catholics who are present there still have the right to marry, and here a marriage is possible only through consent. But if in time something happens and the two separate, and they want to remarry, then everything depends on the internal forum, on their honesty in acknowledging if there was consent or not, and they have to express that to the priest or to the new husband or wife. 

This is where conscience comes into play. 

Yes, but conscience understood properly, not like certain journalists explain it who water down the truth. We are talking about a right conscience, one that cannot say “I don’t have to respect God’s law.” Conscience does not free us from God’s law but gives us the guidance to fulfill it. 

However, in your introduction to Buttiglione’s book, you shy away from casuistry and seem especially concerned with offering several clear criteria for understanding Amoris Laetitia so as to avoid what you explicitly call “heretical interpretations.” 

Exactly. Unfortunately, there are individual bishops and whole episcopal conferences that are proposing interpretations that contradict the previous Magisterium, admitting to the sacraments persons who persist in objective situations of grave sin. But this is not the criterion for applying Amoris Laetitia. Pope Francis himself spoke of a Thomist apostolic exhortation. And so it is right to read it in light of St. Thomas, and on admission to the Eucharist, St. Thomas is clear dogmatically and also has a pastoral sensitivity for individuals.

Poor widdle Jeffrey Sachs - did your widdle feelings get hurt when confronted with the truth?

The only thing more disgusting than this Antichrist at a Vatican conference are the Catholic prelates and Pope who permitted this monster to be there.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/world-renowned-economist-jeffrey-sachs-yells-at-vatican-reporter-youre-disg

BLOGSABORTION, CATHOLIC CHURCH Mon Nov 6, 2017 - 2:15 pm EST

World-renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs yells at Vatican reporter: ‘You’re disgusting’

 Abortion , Jeffrey Sachs , United Nations , Vatican

ROME, November 6, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – “You’re disgusting, you’re disgusting, disgusting,” yelled world-renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs in the hallowed halls of the Casina Pio IV in the heart of the Vatican Gardens. Sachs, the Columbia University professor whose monthly newspaper columns appear in more than 100 countries, was in a full rage, threateningly pointing his finger in the face of this reporter during his outburst. I sat there rather stunned but also, I must admit, somewhat intimidated since this man marches in echelons of power far above the top one percent he is so fond of disparaging.

A collaborator with George Soros, Sachs is known around the world as a guru on climate change, sustainable development -- and to pro-lifers -- population control and abortion. It is this pro-life concern that was the source of his rage. He was railing against me because of an article I wrote the previous day in which the headline referred to him as a “pro-abortion globalist.”

The Decentralised Church of Bergoglio - predicted by Malachi Martin in The Jesuits!

In 1986, Malachi Martin published, The Jesuits. I bought the book around that time, read it and put it away on a shelf. I just took it out to read it again. I mean, there it was, in the introduction called, "War" and on the third page:

The decentralised Church which Bergoglio and his minions are actively undertaking. We've seen it in the Synods, in comments by those of Kasper's ilk and in the recent liturgical motu proprio on translations.

That was only on the third page and not even the first formal Chapter! 

Then, he calls out Karl Rahner:

There you have it.