A Case of Calumny

Marya Farah, legal research consultant with a human rights organization in the West Bank, was a visiting speaker at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) School of Law, on October 11.  The event was held in the Moot Court, yet “moot” or “debate” was discreetly discouraged.  We learned that the woman with the mic was told not to extend it to those whose opinions might prove inconsistent with the speaker’s narrative.

Professor of Law Avi Cover invited Farah to address students seeking Continuing Legal Education (CLE) and aptly served as her “cover” when she would decline to address certain issues.  A self-described Palestinian, she has come to delegitimize and denigrate Israel and the international Jewish community; this is stealth jihad.  She repeatedly spoke of Israel as the occupiers of areas she referenced as “occupied Palestinian territories” (OPT), and supports boycott-divestment-sanctions, BDS, against the Jewish state, ignoring the 4,000-year history of Jewish presence, preceding Christianity and Islam by more than two millennia.  Clearly not expansionist, Israel’s legality stems from the historic, indigenous and legal rights granted pursuant to valid and binding international legal instruments accepted by the international community.  Her boundaries have changed only as a result of her winning a defensive war against the armed aggression of five Arab countries.

Here it should be noted that the Palestinian nomenclature designation is the largest hoax of the Twentieth Century, and it continues today as part of the plan to eradicate the Jewish State, taking control of small parts at a time.  The territories are neither “occupied” nor Palestinian; there is no Palestinian sovereignty.

One slide was described as a section of the wall that separates Israel from “Palestine,” and its serious inconvenience to the Palestinians.  Farah did not say why the wall exists; it was begun in 2002 to protect Israel’s citizens when Arab terror attacks had reached unprecedented levels.  Neither did she mention the considerable expense to Israelis to fund the barriers, bomb shelters, and all manner of security measures, so this wall is no frivolous undertaking.  Of course, despite the protective barrier, Palestinians have killed or maimed many thousands of Israelis through suicide bombings, stabbings, explosives, rocket fire and mortar shells, and most recently the use of incendiary balloons and fire kites that have destroyed more than 3,000 acres of forestry and agricultural land, livestock, wild animals, homes and industry – not to mention lung ailments from the smoke and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder.

The speaker also criticized the color-coded license plates on cars that made it difficult for friends from different city sections to meet but failed to explain that the color-coding is necessary to distinguish the vehicle of a potential terrorist.  She spoke of the inconvenient road system, but not that they were designed to ensure safe access by Arabs and Israelis alike, and thwart Arab rock throwers from hitting passing Israeli cars and causing damage and deaths.  Another gripe was the tiresome checkpoints, again without clarifying their purpose of preventing armed terrorists from entering crowded places.

Another slide was one of bulldozer moving earth on a deep embankment, which she identified as the destruction of homes.  Houses are destroyed if built illegally, and when they are the homes of the families of martyred killers of Israelis. Israel has learned that this destruction is the greatest deterrent to terrorism because families will actually report a potential terrorist in order to avoid losing their home.  The excavator might also have been demolishing a terror tunnel, through which terrorists gain underground access into Israel proper, to kill Jewish children and families.

Farah lamented the assault and war (Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, attacked Israel) that immediately followed Israel’s Independence in 1948 – and the 462,000 to 750,000 Arabs who remained homeless.  However, they had been commanded to leave by the Arab military leaders, with a promise of return upon the Arab victory.  Another 160,000 Arabs accepted Israel’s invitation to stay and live as Israeli citizens.  It is the subsequent generations of those who fled that are now hostages for negotiation.  No one cited the 850,000 Jews who were expelled from Arab lands around the same time.  They were absorbed by Israel and some European countries, not held as displaced pawns.  The war of 1967 was yet another attack by five Arab countries (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq) on Israel, yet Marya Farah said this was a war over water rights!  Absolutely not.

We spoke to Professor Cover after the event and Q&A.  He posited that he wants no barriers around Israel and that it was unjust that the many were inconvenienced because of the actions of the few. The Koran still commands death to Jews, and weaponizes their children to kill Jews. If, indeed, only 10 percent of the Palestinians were overcoming the border wall with firebombs and explosive devices, launching thousands of arson kites and booby-trapped incendiary balloons into Israeli communities, they are still killing indispensable people and wild-life.  Would the American citizens accept being blown up in coffee houses, pizzarias and schools by the 10 percent, or would they demand that their government protect them?

I am most dismayed at the American professor who identifies with a people who yell, “Death to Israel,” and “Death to America,” while expressing no sympathy for America’s steadfast ally, Israel, whose people are consistently attacked and slaughtered.

Finally, I also had a moment to ask Farah where, exactly, was her country of Palestine and when was it established.  She hesitated only momentarily and said she would not deal with a challenging question, and that I was denying her identity as a human being.  No, but the land is not “occupied” by Israelis.  Israel’s legal presence has been accepted by virtue of her history, documentation, and that the Jews’ built a thriving nation out of desert and malarial swampland; the only illegality is the “Palestinian” presence.  By this time, she had backed away so much, that she was against a wall, inviting others to queue up to her new position.

In summation, we heard not one iota of truth during the entire session.  I fault the school’s programming director, Professor Avi Cover, and his choice of speaker, who together altered the facts of every sub-topic raised.  This was no impartial criticism of a country or its policies, but anti-Zionist revisionism.  How is it that pure propaganda is acceptable for a CLE class?  How are the students perceived to benefit?  How did this activity qualify for law credit?  The majority of the attendees seemed either to not understand or not care to question the allegations, but surely they would remember some of the misinformation; a seed of hate has been sown, and there was no debate from anyone prepared to counter the fallacies.

In addition to current rules by the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), and the commitment to ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, I recommend that CWRU review the Trump administration’s new definition of antisemitism in schools, which includes the demonization or delegitimization of Israel.  For the sake of academic and intellectual honesty, CWRU is obligated to hold a CLE that presents and defends Israel’s position.

I herewith expressed my indignation at what transpired and asked that the department be called to account.  I look forward to a reply and explanation of how this may be avoided in the future.

(SENT TO:  Sent to: Barbara Snyder, President, CWRU; Barbara.snyder@case.edu; and Jessica Berg, Dean of the School of Law; Jessica.berg@case.edu)

VIDEO: Three Million Florida Christians Do NOT Vote

Tom Trento reveals shocking information, at least three million serious, Evangelical Christians in Florida, do NOT Vote. Watch this important video and send it to all your friends, neighbors and relatives in the state of Florida!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by James Coleman on Unsplash.

VIDEOS: Fresno Catholics Outraged at Diocesan LGBT Workshop

FRESNO, Calif. (ChurchMilitant.com) – Local Catholics in the diocese of Fresno, California are outraged over a workshop on homosexual inclusion during the 2018 Fresno Diocesan Congress. In a letter to Bp. Armando X. Ochoa, Fresno Catholics expressed “disappointment and dismay” that a workshop titled “Becoming a Welcoming Parish to LGBTQ Persons” would be included in the conference. The letter further stated that Catholics are:

mad and upset and cannot believe that this is going to be presented as something good for the church. I hope you reconsider and think about what the damage will be. Catechism teachers, Confirmation, RCIA instructors and many others are going to attend and then take it to their parishes, thinking that, that is the teachings of the Catholic Church.

In response, a representative of the diocese stated, “The content of the workshop will be taken under review, and the Director of the Office of Formation and Evangelization, Rosie Hernandez, will be speaking with the presenter about your concerns.”

A link to the conference program indicates that the 2018 Fresno Diocesan Congress begins Oct. 12 at 9 a.m. and ends on Oct. 13 at 5 p.m. A page describing the workshop, “Becoming a Welcoming Parish to LGBTQ Persons,” explains that the presenter is John Prandini, director of ministries for the St. Paul Catholic Newman Center in Fresno.

Prandini’s bio indicates that he “established the first diocesan LGBTQ Catholic Ministry in 2015 at St. Paul Catholic Newman Center.” According to the description of the workshop, the session is intended to integrate self-identified lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer individuals and their self-expressed sexuality into parish life. The program description reads:

This session will explore ways that we can invite, encounter, and accompany our LGBTQ sisters and brothers in Christ on their journey to integrate their Christian spirituality together with their sexuality as beloved children of God and as members of Christ’s mystical body — the Church. (emphasis added)

The St. Paul Catholic Newman Center says on its website that it has the full support of Bp. Ochoa “for the formation of a LGBT Catholic Ministry.” In light of this, the same page maintains that the ministry is directed at altering the environment within the Church so that sexual deviants will be able to openly express their sexual identity:

Our ministry envisions creating an environment of acceptance where lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons are able to be open about their identity, and where their human dignity is affirmed and experienced through pastoral support for the integration of their spirituality with their sexuality as beloved children of God and as members of Christ’s mystical body — the Church. (emphasis added)

The concerns of Catholics who wrote to Bp. Ochoa to urge him to cancel this workshop appear to have been well founded. In addition to the upcoming workshop, Prandini is preparing to participate in an event sponsored by the Center for LGBTQ and Gender Studies in Religion (CLGS), titled “Queer Faith: An Open Discussion about Religion and Sexuality.”

The mission of CLGS is very closely aligned to the mission of the St. Paul Center Prandini works for:

Our mission is to advance the well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer and transgender people and to transform faith communities and the wider society by taking a leading role in shaping a new public discourse on religion, gender identity and sexuality through education, research, community building and advocacy. (emphasis added)

This promotion of deviant sexual identities seems to be par for the course, however, as LGBT Fresno announced at the beginning of May 2017 that the St. Paul Catholic Newman Center was scheduled to participate in the Fresno Rainbow Pride Parade. After plugging the event as for “all ages” and advertising a “bounce house and kid’s area,” LGBT Fresno points out that the St. Paul Center will be in attendance along with Planned Parenthood.

Just a few weeks later, the St. Paul Center announced through its own bulletin that it would be participating in the Fresno Rainbow Pride Parade, inviting family and friends to join them in the march.

Video of the Fresno Rainbow Pride Parade reveals that the St. Paul Catholic Newman Center did indeed participate in the parade, and the banner was carried by none other than John Prandini, the same man slated to talk to CCD teachers, confirmation instructors and RCIA instructors at the 2018 Fresno Diocesan Congress on welcoming homosexuals into Catholic parishes. The center and its marchers appear at the 35-minute mark and walk off at 36:20.

This image from the march shows John Prandini holding the St. Paul Catholic Newman Center banner while wearing a rainbow colored flower necklace.

Other images from the parade reveal that the parade was in no way family friendly.

As advertised, Planned Parenthood had a strong showing at the event as well.

Unsurprisingly, Prandini and the St. Paul Center again participated in the Fresno Rainbow Pride Parade this year.

The Center is announced at the 54:55 mark in the video, and they walk off camera at 55:38.

Such staunch promotion of homosexuality is not new to the St. Paul Catholic Newman Center. In October of 2008, Fr. Geoff Farrow (then pastor of the St. Paul Catholic Newman Center) announced that he, himself, was a homosexual and subsequently became a self-proclaimed “marriage equality activist.”

Concerned Catholics can contact Bp. Ochoa, respectfully asking him to withdraw his support from the St. Paul Catholic Newman Center and to remove John Prandini’s presentation with the following contact information:

Main phone number: (559) 488-7400

Office of the Bishop Most Reverend Armando X. Ochoa, D.D.

Executive Assistant: Mary Cardona
mcardona@dioceseoffresno.org

Vicar General/Moderator of the Curia: Rev. Msgr. Raymond C. Dreiling, V.G.

Executive Assistant: Cheryl Sarkisian
csarkisian@dioceseoffresno.org

Chancellor: Teresa Dominguez
tdominguez@dioceseoffresno.org

EDITORS NOTE: This column with all images and videos was originally published on ChurchMilitant.com. It is republished with permission.

Two New Statements and the Church’s Trust Deficit by Robert Royal

Two statements came out from the Vatican over the weekend, basically during the pause in the Synod for the Sunday observances. Both dealt with the McCarrick case, and were partly a reaction to the constant presence of that case and – indirectly – other abuse cases in synodal conversations about the Church and young people. That’s become a necessity because, as Sydney Archbishop Anthony Fisher put it last week, many people were harmed and lost trust when they were young; and “The Church has to be the safest possible place for a person.”

The two new documents, however, still leave room for doubt whether Rome understands what it would take for many people to trust that the Church will take the steps needed to make that really happen. (In addition, Cardinal DiNardo and Archbishop Gomez, president and vice-president of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference meet with the pope today. The new documents also seem timed to put that meeting into a certain context.)

The first text came Saturday as a brief, official Communication from the Holy See, saying that Pope Francis was aware of the confusion among the faithful since the revelations about McCarrick and wanted them to know about several phases in the investigation. As mounting evidence arrived from the Archdiocese of New York, the Holy Father accepted McCarrick’s resignation from the College of Cardinals, “prohibiting him by order from exercising public ministry, and obliging him to lead a life of prayer and penance.” This most Catholics already knew.

It continued: “the Holy Father has decided that information gathered during the preliminary investigation be combined with a further thorough study of the entire documentation present in the Archives of the Dicasteries and Offices of the Holy See regarding the former Cardinal McCarrick, in order to ascertain all the relevant facts, to place them in their historical context and to evaluate them objectively.” The pope admitted that this investigation may discover that decisions were made in the past in ways that we would not choose today, but that “We will follow the path of truth wherever it may lead.” [Italics in the original]

This is all basically as it should be – except for one thing. Has the pope only now decided that the “entire documentation” in the files needs to be studied along with recent accusations? We know that the Vatican is maddeningly slow in such matters. But McCarrick resigned in late July. We are now well into October. Does it take that long for a modern pope to decide – or announce the decision – that the files will actually be examined? And we are still five months away from the February meeting of presidents of national bishops conferences, which Pope Francis has called to address the abuse crisis globally. There seems to be, to put it mildly, no sense of urgency in the Vatican about this case and others.

This is not mere nitpicking. We live in the age of instant communication. For a long time, it’s looked as if Rome was not going to do very much more than it usually has – which, to the eye, seems woefully inadequate – even after the August bombshell Testimony of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. That Testimony claimed that the pope has known about McCarrick since early after his election in 2013. Therefore, “In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church. . . .Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up [Cardinal Theodore] McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with the rest of them.”

Which brings us to the second document, released yesterday, by Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. Ouellet published a letter addressed to Viganò; it looks as if the pope himself will not reply.

Calling Viganò’s charges “incomprehensible and extremely reprehensible,” Ouellet bluntly said, “I tell you frankly that to accuse Pope Francis of having covered-up knowingly the case of an alleged sexual predator and, therefore, of being an accomplice of the corruption that is spreading in the Church, to the point of considering him unworthy of continuing his reform as the first pastor of the Church, is incredible and unlikely from all points of view.”

Ouellet has himself been accused by Viganò of knowing and not really saying anything about McCarrick. So his claims cannot be entirely unbiased. And he seems to weaken his own defense by admitting that he knew of Pope Benedict’s restrictions on McCarrick, but that these were not formal “sanctions” that Pope Francis then lifted, as Viganò has characterized them.

That has been a serious bone of contention from the very beginning and some – the present writer included – have wondered about the status of those restrictions and any relaxing of them that may have occurred. Pope Emeritus Benedict himself has publicly said that he does not remember their exact nature.

Nevertheless, all this does confirm that Viganò is entirely correct about at least one large point: many people, including the pope, knew that McCarrick’s misbehavior was grave enough that he was strongly told to stay in retirement in Washington and not to appear in public. He disregarded those restrictions, of course; even more blatantly – as many observers remarked – after Jorge Bergoglio’s election.

Ouellet says there are no documents in the files of the Congregation for Bishops formally sanctioning McCarrick because they did not then have as much evidence as they have now. But this in itself speaks of a serious breakdown: did no one care enough about past and potential future victims that they didn’t take the initiative to look further?

Even Ouellet, in the heat of his rebuke of Viganò, says he is surprised how McCarrick was able to become cardinal-archbishop of an important city like Washington given what was already in his file. And, he says, that’s worthy of investigation.

But here, too, the loss of trust in the system raises some doubts. We know that McCarrick was not high on the list of candidates to become archbishop of Washington. Is there nothing in the McCarrick file at the Congregation for Bishops about how he leapt over a dozen better candidates? Viganò suggests that two homosexual advisers have been bypassing the usual process for bishops’ appointments in recent years. Certainly, if decades ago, McCarrick had similarly powerful patrons in the Vatican, there must be some record of when and where they intervened. And how doubts were circumvented. You can’t help but feel that Ouellet has given an incomplete account of the files and what they suggest. And that only a more open and independent review of the whole matter will resolve various questions and – let’s hope – restore trust.

The Holy See is suffering under a severe trust deficit at the moment, partly deserved, partly not. But it exists and must be dealt with, lest it became even worse. We’ve just seen sharp criticism of the Vatican-China agreement by many observers – so sharp that Cardinal Zen has called on Cardinal Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State (and the person responsible for the details of the agreement), to resign for his betrayal of the underground Church in China.

So in a short period, an archbishop (Viganò) has called on a pope (Francis) to resign, and a cardinal (Zen) has called on another cardinal (Parolin) to resign. There’s been nothing like this in modern times. Is it any wonder young people are often confused and uncertain whether the Church is worthy of their trust?

This column is by Robert Royal.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with image originally appeared in The Catholic Thing. It is republished with permission. © 2018 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. The featured image is of McCarrick with cardinals: happier times [Photo: Paul Haring/CNS]

Trump Administration: Favoring Freedom, Not Faiths

After eight years of Barack Obama, it must come as a shock to a lot of people that Christians are finally getting a fair shake from the White House. The country’s largest faith group spent the better part of a decade dodging blows – not just in speeches (like this doozy equating Christians to terrorists) – but in policies designed to drive them out of the public square. It’s no wonder Americans feel a little disoriented under an administration that shows Christianity more respect than reproach.

And while a lot of people would argue that President Trump’s tolerance was a long time coming, others aren’t so happy. In today’s Politico, a few human rights groups grumble that the administration is showing favoritism to Christians by trying to free Pastor Andrew Brunson or moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Even the idea that the president would make international religious freedom a priority has rankled some – despite the fact that the State Department has poured as much energy into protecting Muslim minorities like the Rohingya as anyone. “The sense that human rights apply universally doesn’t carry weight with most people in this administration,” said Sarah Margon of Human Rights Watch.

This Christians-first bias, as Politico called it, is ridiculous, fired back White House officials. “Helping persecuted religious minorities abroad is a top priority of the Trump administration,” one said, before calling the allegation “demonstrably false.” Maybe people are getting that perception because the Obama administration – and others – so rarely talked about the plight of Christians. It feels different because it is. It’s never been done with this level of openness and intentionality.

But just because the administration is focusing on Christians doesn’t mean it’s ignoring other faiths. The president’s policies have been incredibly even-handed. Obviously, such a dramatic course-correction from the Obama years doesn’t feel that way, but the truth is, Trump’s work on religious groups is more diverse than any administration before it.

FRC’s Travis Weber made that same point earlier today. “As one who has attended both the State Department’s Ministerial, and the DOJ Religious Freedom Task Force announcement, I can attest to the variety of faith backgrounds present – and to the fact that the policy and advocacy this administration presented advanced protections for all faiths equally. The only way one could come away with a different conclusion is if they simply had no interest in actually assessing the truth about the administration’s policies. If one was present at those events, and examines the policies behind them – such as that contained in the Potomac Declaration — the only reasonable conclusion is that the Trump administration is seeking to advance religious freedom around the world for all people — regardless of their faith.”

Just yesterday, Vice President Mike Pence took the opportunity to fire back at China for its crackdown on religion. “For a time, Beijing inched toward greater liberty and respect for human rights, but in recent years, it has taken a sharp U-turn toward control and oppression…” There was a time, he pointed out, when we “hope[d] that freedom in China would expand in all forms – not just economically, but politically, with a newfound respect for classical liberal principles, private property, religious freedom, and the entire family of human rights… but that hope has gone unfulfilled.”

Obviously, the Chinese government can’t stand the idea of a power to which its people owe a higher allegiance, and thus it severely represses religious freedom. But as Christians, we’re called to honor God above men. That’s why we advocate for the freedom of everyone to worship God as they see fit, and to freely live out their beliefs. I applaud the Trump administration for calling out the threat China poses for religious liberty. Whether they’re tearing apart Uighur families and indoctrinating them in internment camps, or its prosecuting Christians like Pastor John Cao, China needs to be taken to task. Thank goodness we finally have a president up to that challenge.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLE: Bus Tour Drives Home The Importance of November

VIDEO: Moms for Kavanaugh

The below video was published by CatholicVote.org:

This says it all.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Zach Lucero on Unsplash.

Pray. Vote. Stand.

Starting September 23, FRC launched seven weeks of focused prayer for the family, church, business, government, media, education, and entertainment. We’re inviting people across America to join us in taking the pledge to pray, vote, and stand. Have you signed up? If you haven’t, I encourage you to visit PrayVoteStand.com and add your name to the thousands committed to lifting up our nation in prayer, committing to vote in the midterm elections, and stand for our biblical values.

Each week, we’re offering a special prayer guide, tailored to each area. This week’s focus is the church. Won’t you join us in seeking God’s face in this critical time?


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

GOP Picks Cotton to Lead Justice Fight

State Dept. Charges ahead with Visa Policy

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Tony Perkins Washington Update. It is republished with permission.

The Alternative Two-State Solution

President Trump at his most recent press conference was asked if he favored a two-state or a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. He was open, he said, to what the parties agree to, but then said, “I like the two-state solution. That’s what I think works best.”

But where would the so-called Palestinian state be located? To create yet another Arab state, this one torn out of Judea and Samaria – the tiny Biblical and ancestral Jewish heartland west of the River Jordan (known also as the West Bank) – would be a monumental travesty of both Biblical and post-Biblical reality and history. It would also be an existential threat to Israel’s very survival.

But if Jordan, which is populated by two thirds Arabs who call themselves Palestinians, becomes the Palestinian state then I say yes to a two-state solution, but only if that Arab state is located east of Israel, the Jewish state, which retains full sovereignty from the Mediterranean Sea to the River Jordan, (still a miniscule state stretching a mere 40 miles at its widest). The far larger PalestinianArab state would be east of the Jordan River. With this in mind, I deeply respect the work of Ted Bellman who has been advocating for a Jordan is Palestine solution, and whose highlighted article I urge folks to read.

Jordan constitutes nearly 80 percent of the old British Mandate, or what was known then as geographical Palestine. This region never included an independent or sovereign Palestinian Arab state throughout all of recorded history, nor was there ever an independent Arab Palestinian people. Geographical Palestine was simply a territory, for example as is Siberia or Patagonia today. But there was one people in the Land since time immemorial; the Jewish people. It’s all in the Bible.

To fully understand the origins of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, we must go back to the early years of the 20th century. In 1920, Great Britain was given the responsibility by the League of Nations to oversee the Palestine Mandate with the express intention of reconstituting within its territory a Jewish National Home based upon the original intent of the Balfour Declaration of November 29, 1917.

But Great Britain in 1922 arbitrarily tore away all the vast territory east of the River Jordan and gave it away to the Arab Hashemite tribe as a compensation for giving up the throne of Arabia to the Saud family. The territory and entity became Trans-Jordan and British officials claimed that the gift of Mandatory Palestine east of the Jordan River was also in gratitude to the Hashemites for helping defeat the Turks. However, Lawrence of Arabia described in derisory terms this Hashemite role as “a side show of a side show.”

Ironically, Britain was aided far more by the Jewish Nili underground movement in defeating the Ottoman Turkish Empire which had ruled geographical Palestine for 400 years. This then was the first partition of Mandatory Palestine – the first two-state solution. Trans-Jordan, as it was then known, covered some 35,000 square miles, or nearly four fifths of the erstwhile Palestine Mandate. Immediately, Jewish residence in this new Arab territory was forbidden, and it is thus historically and unequivocally correct to state that Jordan is Palestine.

During its administration of the remaining Palestine Mandate, west of the River Jordan and until 1947, Britain severely restricted Jewish immigration and purchases of land while turning a blind eye to massive illegal Arab migration into the territory from neighboring stagnant Arab states. The descendants of those illegal migrants make up most of the Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians.

The British Foreign Office’s sorry record of appeasement of the Arabs and bias against the Jewish people, at the expense of Jewish destiny in the remaining tiny territory, culminated in the infamous 1939 White Paper, which limited Jewish immigration to just 75,000 souls for the next five years. This draconian policy, coming as it did on the eve of the outbreak of World War 2, dealt a deathblow to millions of Jews attempting to flee to safety from extermination by Nazi Germany and its European supporters.

Britain’s mismanagement of the Mandate finally led to the United Nations’ Partition Plan of 1947. The Jewish Agency reluctantly accepted this additional dismemberment of what was left of the promised Jewish national home in Mandatory Palestine. They did this to provide a refuge for the surviving Jewish remnants of the Holocaust and for the 800,000 plus desperate Jewish refugees who were driven penniless out of their homes throughout the Arab world. In contrast, the Arab regimes rejected the Partition Plan even though a Palestinian state would have come into existence at that time. Then, as now, the Arabs plotted and warred against the existence of an independent Jewish state.

Israel was officially reborn as a sovereign nation in 1948, and its 600,000 Jews fought to survive the massive Arab onslaught, which was intended to exterminate the Jewish homeland.

Trans-Jordan, renamed the Kingdom of Jordan in 1946, joined the other Arab nations in invading the newly reconstituted Jewish state, driving out the Jewish inhabitants from the eastern part of Jerusalem and the Old City, annexing the Biblical and ancestral Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria and renaming it the West Bank. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized this illegal annexation.

In the June 1967 Six-Day War, Israel defeated the combined Arab armies and liberated Jewish and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria from the Jordanian occupation. But in return for Israeli offers to help create a Palestinian state, the Arab League, meeting in Khartoum in August 1967, delivered the infamous three Nos: No peace with Israel, No negotiations with Israel, No recognition of Israel.

It is within the narrow 40-mile-wide territory remaining for the Jewish state, if one includes Judea and Samaria, that the world now demands the establishment of a fraudulent Arab state to be called Palestine – a state that has never existed in all of recorded history.

Here then is the present unworkable and so-called two-state solution, which would dismember what is left of Israel and drive hundreds of thousands of Jewish residents from their homes, villages, and farms in Judea and Samaria. The searing tragedy is that such a two-state solution would presage for the Jewish people yet another Final Solution – the German Nazi regime’s euphemism for the Holocaust.

The empirical fact is that this is not a dispute over borders. This is a religious war and the Arabs, overwhelmingly Muslim, can never accept the existence of any non-Muslim state in territory previously conquered by them in the name of Allah and will relentlessly war against it. Hopefully President Trump and his top advisers, Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt, can all be made aware of this fundamental Islamic fact before yet another terrible injustice is once again perpetrated.

A two-state solution must be between Israel, with full sovereignty west of the Jordan River, and Jordan having full sovereignty east of the River Jordan, but which – if the Arabs in Jordan so choose – could be renamed Palestine; an idea for which Ted Bellman and others, including myself, have consistently advocated.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Renew America. The featured photo is by Yosef Pregadio on Unsplash.

Where Else Shall We Go?

Randall Smith: Many Catholics who decry sex-abuse cover-ups were fine with bishops who looked the other way with regard to their own sexual sins.


Some say that people are leaving the Catholic Church over the current scandals.  This confuses me. In whom did you have faith?  The priest?  The bishop?  Or God?  If your faith was in a priest, a bishop, or even the pope, then what you professed was idolatry, not Christian faith.

Am I downplaying the seriousness of the scandal or the damage it has done?  No, but let’s put things into perspective.  If you ask, “How can I continue to have faith in the Catholic Church considering all these horrible acts?” you might put yourself in the place of the Jewish community after the Holocaust. They had to ask themselves: “How can I continue to have faith in God considering all these horrible acts?”

How can we continue to dedicate ourselves to a community so unfaithful to God?  Moses asked the same question when he saw the infidelity of his fellow Jews in the desert. The prophets asked the same question when they saw the injustices of the people in the Promised Land.  The early apostles must have asked themselves the same question when they saw that it was one of their own company who handed Jesus over to His enemies.  And Peter himself, the “rock” on which the Church was to be built, denied he even knew the Lord in His most desperate hour of need.  What could anyone do to compete with that?

How hard would it have been to stay in the Church when one’s friends, neighbors, and family members were being martyred, torn to shred by animals or burned alive, for refusing to deny their faith? How hard would it have been to stay in the Church when so many of one’s other friends, neighbors, and family members had given in and denied Christ in the face of the threats of the Roman authorities.  Life in the Church has rarely been simple.

The Apostle Peter by Anton Raphael Mengs, c. 1775 [Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna]

What would you have done when the Arian crisis split the Church in two, with the supposedly “Christian” emperor Constantine and most of the empire siding with the Arians?  How about when three men all claimed to be pope in the fourteenth century? Or when the Protestant Revolt split Christendom and much of the Church hierarchy was corrupt and moribund?  The Council of Trent was a great gift of the Spirit, but it didn’t commence until 1545 (Martin Luther authored the 95 theses in 1517), and it didn’t wrap up until 1563, nearly twenty years later.

Imagine being a Catholic in the midst of these scandals. What would you have done?  Would you have been one of those who stayed and fought the good fight in faith?  Or would you have been one of the many who said, “That’s it. I’m out”?

But then where would you have gone?  That’s the question Peter asks Christ.  “Lord, where else shall we go?” Who else has the words of everlasting life?

I’m sorry, but did I miss something?  Did Christ found some other Church – the Church with the good people?  The Church with the perfect liturgies?  The Church in which all the clergy and laity are doctrinally correct and without sin? Because I’ve never seen it.  I’ve never read about it in the Scriptures, nor did the Fathers and Doctors of the Church mention it.  Quite the contrary; they repeatedly talk about the human element of the Church being sinful and in need of Christ’s redemption.

Are these scandals keeping people away from the Church?  Please.  People are staying away from the Church because the Church makes uncomfortable moral claims and because Catholics aren’t a living witness in society to the truth of that teaching.  Surveys have repeatedly shown Catholics to be little different from the general public in their opinions on fundamental moral issues.  Catholics in San Francisco threatened to sue their own bishop when he tried to enforce basic moral principles on the Catholic schools. Archbishop Chaput is held at arms’ length by many Catholic universities, while Cardinal Mahoney, supposedly under penance the way ex-Cardinal McCarrick was, travels freely.

Ask priests and editors of “conservative” Catholic websites what kind of blowback they get when they try to tell the laity they should pay a living wage, be fair and honest in their business practices, or exercise a preferential option for the poor.   What kind of priests and bishops would you expect to get when large portions of the laity revolt if they hear anything from the pulpit about abortion, contraception, fornication, and same-sex sexual activity?

Large proportions of American Catholics wanted bishops who would look the other way as they openly violated fundamental Catholic teaching.  Why are they surprised now to discover that some of these men “bent the rules” in their personal lives as well?  Was fidelity what people were looking for?  Or a winning personality and the ability to raise money?  Wasn’t the latter the reason why so many institutions now so self-righteously condemning McCarrick earlier lavished him with honors and praise?

C.S. Lewis once complained about a culture that produces “men without chests” and then expects of them virtue.“We laugh at honor,” wrote Lewis, “and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.  We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”  An American Catholic Church that laughed at Catholic social teaching and Catholic sexual morality should not be shocked to find doctrinal and moral traitors in its midst.

What do we do now?  Demand the truth?  Certainly. But as the Czech dissident Vaclav Havel insisted, you demand truth by living in the truth.  We should say of authentic Church teaching what St. Augustine said about the Gospel: “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”

Are you a Catholic?  Then stop worrying – and act like one.

Randall Smith

Randall Smith

Randall B. Smith is the Scanlan Professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. His most recent book, Reading the Sermons of Thomas Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide, is now available at Amazon and from Emmaus Academic Press.

RELATED ARTICLE: Vatican Accused of ‘Selling Out’ China’s Catholics

EDITORS NOTE: © 2018 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. The feature photo is by Nils on Unsplash.

Viganò Breaks Silence

by Church Militant

‘I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true’

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the whistleblower who accused Pope Francis of elevating known homosexual predator Theodore McCarrick, is breaking his silence. Speaking on the reasons why he published his testimony, which exposed a number of high-ranking cardinals and bishops as part of the “homosexual current” in the Church, the former papal nuncio said he did so “during a crescendo of continual news of terrible events, with thousands of innocent victims destroyed and the vocations and lives of young priests and religious disturbed.”

Viganò notes that neither the pope nor cardinals in Rome have denied his testimony, which he asserts before God is true. He also makes a special appeal to Cdl. Marc Ouellet, whom he says has at his “complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups.”

Since publication of his original testimony on August 25, Viganò has gone into hiding, his whereabouts unknown. Sources have confirmed the Vatican is using its intelligence network to seek him out in order to haul him to Rome for canonical prosecution.

LifeSiteNews offered the official English translation, republished in full below.

Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio

Scio Cui credidi
(2 Tim 1:12)
Before starting my writing, I would first of all like to give thanks and glory to God the Father for every situation and trial that He has prepared and will prepare for me during my life. As a priest and bishop of the holy Church, spouse of Christ, I am called like every baptized person to bear witness to the truth. By the gift of the Spirit who sustains me with joy on the path that I am called to travel, I intend to do so until the end of my days. Our only Lord has addressed also to me the invitation, “Follow me!”, and I intend to follow him with the help of his grace until the end of my days.

“As long as I have life, I will sing to the Lord, I will sing praise to my God while I have being. May my song be pleasing to him; For I rejoice in the Lord.” (Psalm 103:33-34)

It has been a month since I offered my testimony, solely for the good of the Church, regarding what occurred at the audience with Pope Francis on June 23, 2013 and regarding certain matters I was given to know in the assignments entrusted to me at the Secretariat of State and in Washington, in relation to those who bear responsibility for covering up the crimes committed by the former archbishop of that capital.

My decision to reveal those grave facts was for me the most painful and serious decision that I have ever made in my life. I made it after long reflection and prayer, during months of profound suffering and anguish, during a crescendo of continual news of terrible events, with thousands of innocent victims destroyed and the vocations and lives of young priests and religious disturbed. The silence of the pastors who could have provided a remedy and prevented new victims became increasingly indefensible, a devastating crime for the Church. Well aware of the enormous consequences that my testimony could have, because what I was about to reveal involved the successor of Peter himself, I nonetheless chose to speak in order to protect the Church, and I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true. Christ died for the Church, and Peter, Servus servorum Dei, is the first one called to serve the spouse of Christ.

I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true. Tweet

Certainly, some of the facts that I was to reveal were covered by the pontifical secret that I had promised to observe and that I had faithfully observed from the beginning of my service to the Holy See. But the purpose of any secret, including the pontifical secret, is to protect the Church from her enemies, not to cover up and become complicit in crimes committed by some of her members. I was a witness, not by my choice, of shocking facts and, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states (par. 2491), the seal of secrecy is not binding when very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Only the seal of confession could have justified my silence.

Neither the pope, nor any of the cardinals in Rome have denied the facts I asserted in my testimony. “Qui tacet consentit” surely applies here, for if they deny my testimony, they have only to say so, and provide documentation to support that denial. How can one avoid concluding that the reason they do not provide the documentation is that they know it confirms my testimony?

The center of my testimony was that since at least June 23, 2013, the pope knew from me how perverse and evil McCarrick was in his intentions and actions, and instead of taking the measures that every good pastor would have taken, the pope made McCarrick one of his principal agents in governing the Church, in regard to the United States, the Curia, and even China, as we are seeing these days with great concern and anxiety for that martyr Church.

Now, the pope’s reply to my testimony was: “I will not say a word!” But then, contradicting himself, he has compared his silence to that of Jesus in Nazareth and before Pilate, and compared me to the great accuser, Satan, who sows scandal and division in the Church — though without ever uttering my name. If he had said: “Viganò lied,” he would have challenged my credibility while trying to affirm his own. In so doing he would have intensified the demand of the people of God and the world for the documentation needed to determine who has told the truth. Instead, he put in place a subtle slander against me — slander being an offense he has often compared to the gravity of murder. Indeed, he did it repeatedly, in the context of the celebration of the most Holy Sacrament, the Eucharist, where he runs no risk of being challenged by journalists. When he did speak to journalists, he asked them to exercise their professional maturity and draw their own conclusions. But how can journalists discover and know the truth if those directly involved with a matter refuse to answer any questions or to release any documents? The pope’s unwillingness to respond to my charges and his deafness to the appeals by the faithful for accountability are hardly consistent with his calls for transparency and bridge building.

Moreover, the pope’s cover-up of McCarrick was clearly not an isolated mistake. Many more instances have recently been documented in the press, showing that Pope Francis has defended homosexual clergy who committed serious sexual abuses against minors or adults. These include his role in the case of Fr. Julio Grassi in Buenos Aires, his reinstatement of Fr. Mauro Inzoli after Pope Benedict had removed him from ministry (until he went to prison, at which point Pope Francis laicized him), and his halting of the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.

In the meantime, a delegation of the USCCB, headed by its president Cardinal DiNardo, went to Rome asking for a Vatican investigation into McCarrick. Cardinal DiNardo and the other prelates should tell the Church in America and in the world: did the pope refuse to carry out a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s crimes and of those responsible for covering them up? The faithful deserve to know.

Did the pope refuse to carry out a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s crimes and of those responsible for covering them up? Tweet

I would like to make a special appeal to Cardinal Ouellet, because as nuncio I always worked in great harmony with him, and I have always had great esteem and affection towards him. He will remember when, at the end of my mission in Washington, he received me at his apartment in Rome in the evening for a long conversation. At the beginning of Pope Francis’ pontificate, he had maintained his dignity, as he had shown with courage when he was Archbishop of Québec. Later, however, when his work as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was being undermined because recommendations for episcopal appointments were being passed directly to Pope Francis by two homosexual “friends” of his dicastery, bypassing the Cardinal, he gave up. His long article in L’Osservatore Romano, in which he came out in favor of the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, represents his surrender. Your Eminence, before I left for Washington, you were the one who told me of Pope Benedict’s sanctions on McCarrick. You have at your complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups. Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth.

Finally, I wish to encourage you, dear faithful, my brothers and sisters in Christ: never be despondent! Make your own the act of faith and complete confidence in Christ Jesus, our Savior, of Saint Paul in his second Letter to Timothy, Scio cui credidi, which I choose as my episcopal motto. This is a time of repentance, of conversion, of prayers, of grace, to prepare the Church, the bride of the Lamb, ready to fight and win with Mary the battle against the old dragon.

Scio Cui credidi” (2 Tim 1:12)
In you, Jesus, my only Lord, I place all my trust.
“Diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum” (Rom 8:28)

Image

To commemorate my episcopal ordination on April 26, 1992, conferred on me by St. John Paul II, I chose this image taken from a mosaic of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice. It represents the miracle of the calming of the storm. I was struck by the fact that in the boat of Peter, tossed by the water, the figure of Jesus is portrayed twice. Jesus is sound asleep in the bow, while Peter tries to wake him up: “Master, do you not care that we are about to die?” Meanwhile the apostles, terrified, look each in a different direction and do not realize that Jesus is standing behind them, blessing them and assuredly in command of the boat: “He awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Quiet! Be still,’ … then he said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?'” (Mk 4:38–40).

The scene is very timely in portraying the tremendous storm the Church is passing through in this moment, but with a substantial difference: the successor of Peter not only fails to see the Lord in full control of the boat, it seems he does not even intend to awaken Jesus asleep in the bow.

Has Christ perhaps become invisible to his vicar? Perhaps is he being tempted to try to act as a substitute of our only Master and Lord?

The Lord is in full control of the boat!

May Christ, the Truth, always be the light on our way!

+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio

September 29, 2018
Feast of St. Michael, Archangel

U.N. Bears the Blunt of Trump

Candidate Donald Trump said he wanted to “Make America Great Again.” Twenty-one months into his first term, it’s obvious that President Trump wants to make every nation great. And while some members of the U.N. General Assembly may find that funny, I assure you that people in the darkest corners of the world do not.

“In less than two years, my administration has accomplished almost more than any other administration in the history of our country,” the president said to unexpected laughter in the room. He paused for a minute and then went on. “I didn’t expect that reaction,” he told them, “but that’s okay… We are standing up for America and the American people, and we are also standing up for the world. This is great news for our citizens and for peace-loving people everywhere.” For the millions of Christians trapped in hopeless situations around the globe, the Trump administration has been the answer to their desperate prayers. Trapped in torture factories in Iran or tied up with ropes and beaten in India, believers don’t have to worry about being forgotten anymore. After eight years of Barack Obama, they finally have an American leader who cares.

That’s good news for Pastor Andrew Brunson, who’s two weeks away from another trial in Turkey that could decide his fate. No one has been a bigger advocate of his release than Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who told reporters in New York yesterday that the drumbeat for his freedom goes on. “He could be released this month,” he explained. “He should have been released last month. And he should be released today, in fact. We have talked to the Turks. They know the expectations.”

Pastor Brunson’s daughter, Jacqueline Furnari, can only hope the nation holding her father captive is finally listening. At this weekend’s Values Voter Summit, she talked about what a strain the ordeal has been on her dad — and the entire family.

“It’s a sham trial and my dad is being used as a bargaining chip and suffering for Jesus Christ… Throughout this entire time, my dad has been unable to be with his family,” she said. “It’s what has hurt him the most, is having that time stolen from him — watching his children grow up, helping my brothers make their decisions as they go on in life. It’s been a painful time and we’re just ready for it all to be over.”

Through it all, though, she couldn’t be more inspired by his courage. “It is an incredible testimony and I cannot be more grateful for his example,” she said to overwhelming applause. “And at this point, all that we can do is just continue praying. I ask that all of you pray for my dad’s release and pray for others who are persecuted for their faith.”

Minutes before, Pompeo had waited through deafening applause when he said the greatest highlight of his job so far was “bringing home three Americans from captivity in North Korea.” “On the day Pastor Brunson returns, just like the men I spoke of…” he promised, “they also will be able to say that the Lord has done great things for us, and again, our hearts will be filled with joy.”

But it isn’t just what the administration is saying that’s giving people hope. It’s what they’re doing. When you see men and women like President Trump, Secretary Pompeo, Ambassador Sam Brownback, and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley taking these stories so seriously, it gives Christians everywhere the boldness to speak up. That’s why pastors in China are taking such an unprecedented stand against the communist party. They know that when it comes to religious liberty, America has their back. Even ChinaAid’s Bob Fu is astounded at the number of Chinese pastors — 344 — who’ve signed a public statement defying the government’s order on faith. In all of his years fighting the Chinese regime, he’s never seen anything like it. It seems the tougher the crackdown gets, the more resolved Christians are to risk everything. “For the sake of the gospel,” they vow, “we are prepared to bear all losses — even the loss of our freedom and our lives.”

This is just another example of how the administration’s support for religious liberty gives hope and help to believers around the globe. It’s also another reminder of what’s at stake this November — not just for America, but the world.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

FDA: Not Cleared for Contract

Values Bus Rediscovers America’s Routes!

DePaul Professor Defended by University for Speech on Wealthy People being Unqualified for God’s Kingdom

Who is Sarasota County Commission District 2 Candidate Ruta Maria Jouniari?

It is important to understand who one is voting for, especially when it comes to local government offices. Let’s take a look at Ruta Maria Jouniari the Democratic Party candidate for Sarasota County Commission in District 2.

BACKGROUND

Ruta converted to Islam and in 1999 was married to Moroccan Noureddine Jouniari. Both Ruta and Noureddine are active members of the Islamic Society of Sarasota-Bradenton. Ruta’s campaign Facebook page has links to her being endorsed by Florida LGBT Democratic Caucus, an article about Canada’s legalizing recreational marijuana (a campaign promise of Andrew Gillum), believes in global warming, is anti-Charter Schools and has links to various negative articles about Florida Governor Rick Scott and Republican Congressman Ron DeSantis. The words racist and white supremacist appear in articles Ruta links to. Links to the Islamic Society of Sarasota-Bradenton and anything about her being a Muslim convert are missing from her Facebook biography.

In contrast, Ruta is prominently named in an article on the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) website dated October 8, 2007 “FL: Muslim Women Aim To Dispel Stereotypes.” The CAIR news article reported:

Sarah Zaouzal of Sarasota is one of the leaders of the new Women’s Committee at the Islamic Society of Sarasota & Bradenton, whose stated goal is, among others, to dispel myths about women in Islam.

[ … ]

Ruta Jouniari, a member of the new group, said television is partially to blame for the misunderstandings.

“The only view many Westerners have is that of a black-clad, covered woman who seemingly has no rights,” Jouniari said. “Our group is needed to procure the truth about women Muslims. They are educated, not submissive to anyone, except God, and that they are as human as anyone else.”

Read more.

WHO IS CAIR?

Discover the Networks profiles CAIR. Discover the networks describes CAIR as a “Civil rights group partially funded by the Saudi Wahhabi establishment. Has numerous ties to extremist Islamic organizations.” Discover the Networks goes on to state:

CAIR was co-founded in 1994 by Nihad AwadOmar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber, all of whom had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and functioned as Hamas’ public relations and recruitment arm in the United States. Awad and Ahmad previously had served, respectively, as IAP’s Public Relations Director and President. Thus it can be said that CAIR was an outgrowth of IAP.

CAIR opened its first office in Washington, DC, with the help of a $5,000 donation from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a self-described charity founded by Mousa Abu Marzook. In May 1996, CAIR coordinated a press conference to protest the decision of the U.S. government to extradite Marzook for his connection to terrorist acts performed by Hamas. CAIR characterized the extradition as “anti-Islamic” and “anti-American.” When President Bush closed HLF in December 2001 for collecting money “to support the Hamas terror organization,” CAIR decried his action as “unjust” and “disturbing.”

WHAT IS THE ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF SARASOTA-BRADENTON (ISSB)?

In a FrontPage Magazine article Joe Kaufman noted this about the Islamic Society of Sarasota-Bradenton:

Another of the mosques receiving the [weapons] training, the Islamic Society of Sarasota and Bradenton (ISSB), has also had a terror-related history and its own imam with involvement in a terrorist organization. And like CAIR, it has been Palestinian terrorism and worse.

According to the ISSB newsletter The Faith, in May 2001, the mosque’s children’s school, Dar al-Iman, was visited by then-professor at the University of South Florida (USF), Sami al-Arian, to discuss with the school’s parents “the opportunity for [their] children to attend a fulltime Islamic school in Tampa.” The school is presumably the Islamic Academy of Florida (IAF), an institution founded by al-Arian in 1992 and which is still in existence under a new name.

At the time of his visit, Al-Arian was also the North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). In April 2006, al-Arian pled guilty to conspiracy to provide services to PIJ. Between 1986 and 1992, al-Arian helped found a charity, a think tank, and the IAF school, all of which, according to the indictment against him, were actively used “to raise funds and provide support for the PIJ and their operatives in the Middle East, in order to assist its engagement in, and promotion of, violent attacks…”

As well, according to The Faith, from the beginning of 2000 through the end of 2001, Friday prayers at ISSB were led by al-Arian colleagues Mazen al-Najjar and Hussam Jubara on at least eight separate occasions each.

According to the US Justice Department, Al-Najjar, the brother-in-law of al-Arian, “had established ties to terrorist organizations and held leadership positions” within groups that raised funds for PIJ and Hamas. Those groups included al-Arian’s founded charity, Islamic Concern Project (ICP), and al-Arian’s founded think tank, World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE). Following his imprisonment, in August 2002, al-Najjar was deported from the US.

Jubara, then-professor at the University of Central Florida (UCF), co-founded the Islamic Concern Project (originally Islamic Committee for Palestine) with al-Arian. Jubara was arrested in March 2003 and charged and convicted of felony immigration fraud. Later, he too would be deported.

In January 2001, under the banner of ‘Aqsa Victims,’ The Faith announced that the mosque’s “community members” had raised $4000 to be sent to the family of Palestinian “martyrs.” The newsletter read, “The second payment of donations for Aqsa victims were sent the martyrs families and needy in the West Bank in Palestine.” With regard to Palestinians, the term ‘martyrs’ denotes either terrorists (general) or suicide bombers (specific).

ISSB’S TIES TO TERRORISM

Joe Kaufman reported:

In January 2002, a decision was made by ISSB to hire as its full-time imam Muneer Arafat and have Arafat relocate from New York, where he had a residence at the time. In 2001, Arafat had already been leading mosque prayers and teaching Islamic classes to the mosque congregation.

[ … ]

While residing in Saint Louis, Arafat also came into contact with al-Qaeda and Hamas operative Ziyad Khaleel. The two became roommates.

In May 1998, at the behest of a senior al-Qaeda lieutenant, Khaleel delivered a satellite phone and battery pack he had purchased to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, which was later used to plan the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. As well, Khaleel was a webmaster for the official website of Hamas and lectured at the University of Missouri on behalf of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a now-defunct Hamas propaganda group co-founded by al-Arian and Hamas global leader Mousa Abu Marzook.

Florida investigator Bill Warner reported in August of 2011:

[T]he Sarasota Fl area was the base of operations for 9/11 Al-Qaeda Hijack Pilots Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah, they had a support network entrenched in the area when Al-Qaeda linked Imam Muneer Arafat shows up at the Sarasota-Bradenton Islamic Center (Mosque) in March 2000 just 3 months before the Hijackers show up in the Sarasota area in June of 2000.

See Jan 20, 2003 article about Sarasota Imam Muneer Arafat in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, below, just after he was arrested on Immigration charges by ICE agents in November 2002. Sarasota Imam Muneer Arafat had been the roommate of Al-Qaeda procurement terrorist Ziyad Sadaqa aka Ziyad Khaleel.

2003-1-23-muneer-arafat-sarasota-iman-terrorist-ties2

Fast forward to today and we find sheikh Monzer Taleb, someone with links to the terrorist group HAMAS, sitting with Islamic Society of Sarasota and Bradenton mosque leaders for a fundraiser in support of the organization Helping Hand for Relief and Development (HHRD). The Islamic Society of Sarasota published the attendees list for the event. The list included: Speaker Ali Syed, Speaker Monzer Talilb, Speaker Suleiman Salem, Speaker Tariq AbuKhdeir and Poetry by Remi Kanazi.

Watch the video, below, and you will see Taleb sitting to the left of the imam giving the Eid prayer at the HHRD orphan aide event in Sarasota:

According to the Counter Jihad Report:

Monzer Taleb was an unindicted Co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial, identified by Federal prosecutors as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, a covert U.S. MB organization with a responsibility for supporting and financing Hamas. Taleb was identified in a captured Palestine Committee document as a member of organization.As a member of the Al Sakhra Band, Taleb helped to raise funds for Hamas at fundraisers thrown by the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) and the Islamic Association for Palestine. (IAP), two organizations created by the Palestine Committee to support Hamas, according to evidence provided by the federal government.

[ … ]

Monzer Taleb appears to remain active in the fundraising business, raising funds for Helping Hands for Relief and Development (HHRD), a charity accused of having close ties to a Pakistani organization known to have financed Hamas. Taleb is additionally listed as a member of HHRD-Jordan. Taleb also fundraises for the Islamic Association of North Texas (IANT), which runs Dallas Central Mosque, which was closely associated with the Holy Land Foundation, and has long been identified as having ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. [Emphasis added]

Read the full article.

Ruta would have voters believe that she is an all American girl and that Islam does not impede her in any way. The New Muslim Guide has a section titled “The Conditions Islam Stipulates Regarding the Wife” which states:

  1. The wife must be Muslim, Jewish or Christian, believing in her religion. However, Islam encourages Muslim men to choose devout Muslim women for this purpose because a practising Muslim will be a good mother who will give her children the best possible upbringing and help her husband adhere to the teachings of Islam. As the Prophet ﷺ said, “Marry a devout Muslim woman and you will prosper.” (Saheeh Al-Bukhaaree: 4802; Saheeh Muslim: 1466)
  2. She must be a chaste woman, as it is forbidden to marry a woman known for her lewdness and immorality. As the Qur’an states, “It is lawful for you to marry the chaste believing women and the chaste women of the people who were given the Book before you.” (Soorat Al-Maa’idah, 5:5)
  3. She must not be one of those women whom he is never permitted to marry at any time in his life whatsoever (mahram) (See page 206), nor must he marry two sisters at the same time or a woman and her aunt at the same time.

Ruta was a Catholic before converting to Islam.

EDITORS NOTE: The photo of Ruta Maria Jouniari is from Twitter.

Light Shining on Hidden Things

Carlos Caso-Rosendi on accusations of sex-abuse coverups made against Pope Francis while Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The Enemy is in the Church.


In the last month or so, various Catholic news outlets have asked me to research the veracity of various accusations made against Pope Francis while he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Did he cover up wrongdoing? Was he involved in financial scandals? What was his level of collaboration, if any, with the corrupt Kirchner administration?

The German magazine Der Spiegel, one of Europe’s most prestigious publications and generally supportive of liberal positions, found reasons to believe that scores of abuse victims may have been kept from speaking with Cardinal Bergoglio. In addition, he seems to have taken a central role in defending at least one abuser, and perhaps others.

Der Spiegel made this claim – and several sharp complaints about ways that Pope Francis had divided the Church – in this week’s cover story, under the titleDu sollst nicht lügen, Der Papst und die Kirche in ihrer größten Krise (“Thou shalt not lie: The pope and the Church in their greatest crisis”).

If true, these charges could provoke a greater explosion than the 11-page Testimony by the former nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.

Many uncertainties, of course, surround such charges. Given the present state of affairs in Argentina, it is hard to find unbiased answers to questions. But one thing is certain: “there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.” (Luke 8:17)

In fact, light is now shining on many once-hidden things.

The lack of official response and the vicious attacks on the reputation of Viganò have had a clarifying effect. (Just this week Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández, a figure very close to the pope and his sometimes ghostwriter, described Viganò as suffering from a delusional mental illness “marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur.”) He did not seem to care whether Viganò’s allegations, even if the ravings of a madman, are true.

I have the impression that we are living days like those described by St Paul in 2Timothy. The Church – infiltrated by her enemies – is now being shaken in her very structure.

Pope Paul VI said in 1972: “the smoke of Satan has entered the Temple of God through some crack in the wall.” Through years of surreptitious action, seducers “made their way into the household” of God and began to hold sway over the weak. Homosexuality among the clergy has now “become plain to everyone,” as honest prelates, the media, and government investigators uncover the ugly truth.

As undeniable evidence piles up, it should not surprise us if evil is exposed even in the highest echelons of the hierarchy. We should not be confounded if “wicked people and impostors . . . go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived.” We’re at a point of no return.

Last Judgment by Giotto (di Bondone), c. 1305 [Scrovegni Chapel, Padua]

Not content with having introduced false pastors among the clergy, the enemy is now trying to introduce a false religion. He wants to destroy the Church by destroying the faith. He needs to replace the Catholic religion with a counterfeit version.

The false spirit of that “counterfeit faith” produces many pseudo-commandments, interfaith gestures, ceremonies, and liturgical shows of unity. There’s plenty of praise for the disobedient and the heretic “holding to the outward form of godliness” but rejecting the doctrinal truth and the sacramental integrity of the true faith.

Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture, the Catechism, and even Natural Law are attacked:

You must understand this, that in the last days distressing times will come. For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid them! (2 Timothy 3:1-9)

This is a very dangerous time because many souls may be lost. Many may walk away, disgusted by all that filth. That is why we have to reflect on the causes of the crisis, so we can counter that evil effectively. All the lies and half-truths taught to the faithful in this age of darkness are the result of bad Catholic formation.

The first part of the devil’s attack consisted in eliminating good catechesis. For the near future, the teaching of the true faith may have to rest with a handful of people remaining loyal to God. That is why we must be busy creating ways to develop a rapid, deep, and precise knowledge of the faith.

False pastors will not deceive well-formed Catholics. In fact, the folly of those false pastors will become evident as the light of the true faith shines on their wicked ways. It is true that “they will not make much progress” because they are the “wicked servants” of Jesus’ prophetic parable.

It is up to us to keep the faith by being “good servants” minding the counsel of Christ:

Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. . . .But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, “My master is staying away a long time,” and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 24:45-51)

Are the accusations against Pope Francis while he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires true? All I can say is that no one can stop God from revealing the truth. Wise men will work with God, lest they end up working for the father of lies.

Carlos Caso-Rosendi

Carlos Caso-Rosendi

Carlos Caso-Rosendi is an Argentine-American writer. A convert, he was received in the Catholic Church in 2001. He is the founder of the Spanish website Primera Luz and his own blog in English, Carlos Caso-Rosendi. His books include Guadalupe: A River of LightArk of Grace – Our Blessed Mother in Holy Scripture, and A Vademecum of Catholic Apologetics. He lives in Buenos Aires.

RELATED ARTICLE: Der Spiegel heavily criticises Francis’s papacy in 19-page report: The German magazine says the Pope ignored abuse survivors in Argentina

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of the cover of Der Spiegel appeared in Catholic Herald magazine.Photographer unknown.

Disgraced Cardinal Praised ISNA and ‘True Islam’ by Andrew Harrod

“We know what Islam is and we know what lessons Islam is going to teach all of us,” former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick declared reassuringly  on May 31, 2015, at Crystal City, Virginia’s Hyatt Regency Hotel. McCarrick’s comments before an Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) interfaith conference recall how this now disgraced Catholic clergyman led for many years the Catholic Church’s often horribly misguided dealings with Islam.

McCarrick offered dubious adulation for his ISNA hosts. “I have been privileged to know ISNA for 20 years and to see the growth and development of this extraordinary instrument of understanding, instrument of cooperation, and instrument of beauty.” Yet federal courts judged this Muslim Brotherhood (MB)-derived organization as an unindicted co-conspirator in 2007 in American history’s largest terrorism financing trial, given ISNA’s links to the MB terrorist organization Hamas.

McCarrick specifically praised ISNA leaders such as Mohamed Magid, Sayyid Syeed, Muzammil Siddiqi, and Azhar Azeez as “so much a part of America and the ummah is growing.” Their radical backgrounds notwithstanding, McCarrick stated that “here it is thoroughly American, here it is thoroughly patriotic,” and that ISNA fulfilled a national need for an “important, clear patriotic American voice from the Muslim community.” “ISNA is very important to me, because it is very important to my country, your country, our country,” he stated, yet ISNA’s latest 2018 conference featured a rogue’s gallery of anti-Western, anti-Israel speakers.

At the 2015 conference McCarrick expressed a questionable certainty that atrocities by jihadist groups like the Islamic State distorted Islamic doctrine. ISNA must be a “strong, and a clear, and a courageous voice” and declare for Muslims that “that’s not really us, that’s not what the Quran says, that’s not what the Prophet, peace be upon him, is teaching,” he stated. As is ubiquitous for Islam apologists, he distorted Quran 5:32 to claim that “these are the quotations that we need to underline, because these are the quotations which define ISNA today. Not the misquotations, not the bad translations.”

By contrast, McCarrick noted how he has talked around the world about a 2005 fatwa from ISNA’s Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) against terrorism, notwithstanding FCNA’s radical ties. This fatwa “was one of the high moments in the life of American Muslims” and was “such a courageous thing” that showed the “ummah in America standing firmly, standing together and saying, this is what we believe and it is true Islam.” Meanwhile, the

other things are fake. When you go to kill innocent people, that’s not true Islam; when you go to destroy things that are beautiful, that’s not true Islam. The true Islam for me…is what you are living and you are preaching and you are giving to the American society.

McCarrick worried that this fatwa “has really never received the publicity it deserves.” Yet analysts such as Judea Pearl have noted the loopholes in this weak document that could allow for jihadist killings, including the murder of his son Daniel Pearl in Pakistan. As Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer has noted, phrases such as “civilians” and “innocent lives” in the fatwa “are in fact hotly debated terms in the Islamic world.”

Nonetheless, McCarrick before ISNA remained unshaken that “who you are and what you believe are very beautiful things.” He lauded past “great Muslim leaders who fearlessly and graciously and wisely defended their people, defended ISNA” against “Islamophobia.” He hoped that young American Muslims would “take their definition of Islam from ISNA, and not from ISIS,” as ISNA had the “true vision of your community, the true vision of your religion.”

McCarrick’s 2015 ISNA appearance was merely one manifestation of this fixture at Islam-pandering activities in Washington, DC, and beyond. He was a prominent ally of Georgetown University’s Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU). There he associated with ACMCU Islam-apologists including Professor John Esposito and Jordan Denari DuffnerAlong with the ACMCU, he promoted the Islamophile propaganda films of Unity Productions Foundation, including The Sultan and the Saint.

McCarrick was also involved in the 2016 Marrakesh Declaration. He described this as a “truly a great document” for its religious freedom appeal on the basis of the seventh-century Medina Charter from Islam’s founding period. Yet more critical observers such as the Iraqi-American analyst Nibraz Kazimi have dissected the multiple problems with McCarrick’s reliance upon this historically questionable charter as a source of Islamic tolerance.

Beyond the Marrakesh Declaration, McCarrick has affiliated with multiple initiatives led by the Mauritanian-born Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah, such as the 2018 Alliance of Virtue. Bin Bayyah’s multiple radical pronouncements in favor of jihadists fighting Israel or American troops in Iraq belie recurring efforts to present him as a Muslim “moderate.” Yet McCarrick in 2016 praised Bin Bayyah as the “prophet of light and the prophet of reason” with the “correct understanding of Islam,” while others in America want to “canonize an Islamophobia.”

McCarrick accordingly epitomized the benign outlook on Islam embraced by Pope Francis’ papacy to the concern of so many. McCarrick himself praised Pope Francis during a panel at the 2015 Reviving the Islamic Spirit conference in Toronto, Canada, an annual event that has a long history of radicalism. As a counter to “stupid Islamophobia,” McCarrick recommended that Muslims “listen to Pope Francis and feel better about yourselves.” With the scandals of McCarrick and others embroiling Pope Francis, it is questionable just who is listening to the Catholic Church now.

RELATED ARTICLE: Rome Failed on McCarrick – and Needs to Change

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch. The featured image of former Cardinal McCarrick is from Church Militant.

Rome Failed on McCarrick – and Needs to Change

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek: If the Vatican previously investigated abuse, those results must be shared; if Rome didn’t investigate, we need to know why not.


Representatives of the American bishops have now met with Pope Francis to discuss the much-needed investigation of the McCarrick Affair. This is understandable since any process involving the ex-cardinal and other prelates requires papal permission. It’s one thing to ask the pope’s support for an investigation, however, and quite another to trust Vatican officials to run it, given what we now know.

Because we now know – from former Metuchen Bishop P.G. Bootkoski and from Cardinal Leonardo Sandri – that the Vatican Secretariat of State received credible allegations against McCarrick over a decade ago. Yet the Vatican did not deprive him of access to seminarians and priests. Therefore, an investigation focused on McCarrick and the American bishops risks ignoring the pivotal role of higher-ranking officials in Rome.

Bootkoski recently acknowledged that in December 2005 he informed then U.S. nuncio, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, of three complaints against McCarrick. The accusations involved inappropriate physical contact with a priest as well as sexually touching seminarians. Two of these allegations resulted in financial settlements.

An October 2006 letter has come to light in which Sandri, who worked directly under the Cardinal Secretary of State, referred to “serious matters” involving seminarians at Seton Hall, which had been reported to Montalvo by Fr. Boniface Ramsey in 2000. Ramsey has repeatedly claimed he informed the nuncio of allegations that McCarrick harassed seminarians and shared a bed with them at his beach house.

The Secretariat of State, therefore, received credible allegations in 2000 and 2005 that McCarrick harassed and “groomed” priests and seminarians, sexually exploiting the latter. If Rome investigated, they should now share the results and save us the trouble of repeating their work. If they didn’t investigate, they need to account for their failure to protect seminarians and priests.

Even if Rome did investigate, another crucial question arises: were dioceses notified of the allegations and the possibility their seminarians and priests had been exploited? That would include any diocese that used seminaries frequented by McCarrick, especially the seminaries where he resided after 2005. Minors might have been at risk since incoming college seminarians can be under 18.

The Penitent Saint Jerome by Lorenzo Lotto, c. 1514 [National Museum of Art, Bucharest]

Cardinal Wuerl insists that neither he nor the Archdiocese of Washington knew of the allegations. This would mean Rome said nothing. To confirm Rome’s silence, Catholics and journalists should ask Cardinal Dolan whether he or the Archdiocese of New York were notified.

Note that Bootkoski’s statement and Sandri’s letter were not written to support the recent testimony of Archbishop Viganò. In fact, he accused both of cover-ups. Unlike Viganò, their testimonies to Rome’s knowledge of the allegations were not meant to suggest Vatican complicity in the McCarrick Affair.

Whatever the original intention, however, Sandri’s letter now constitutes documentary evidence that Ramsey spoke to Montalvo in 2000. The letter also implies that the Secretariat of State deemed those concerns credible no later than 2006.

Furthermore, Bootkoski’s statement proves that allegations were judged credible since payments were made based on them. Unfortunately, his statement provides only a summary of the memo he sent to the nuncio in 2005, which was presumably forwarded to the Secretariat of State.

The reason offered for presenting a summary is that “the claimants have not given the diocese permission” to publish the detailed allegations. Perhaps the diocese or journalists could ask the claimants to allow the memo to be published, redacting any portions the claimants wished to keep confidential. That way, the public could see documentary evidence of Bootkoski’s report to the Vatican.

Unless Sandri had been protecting McCarrick, he would have promptly notified the Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, of the allegations forwarded by the nuncio from Ramsey and Bootkoski. By the time Sandri wrote the 2006 letter, he would have informed the new Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone.

We don’t have evidence that the allegations in 2000 or 2005 reached St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, or – prior to recent revelations – Francis. Yet if the popes were not informed, Vatican officials obviously cannot be now relied on to oversee the upcoming investigation.

The Secretariat’s failure to investigate the matter or to report the allegations to affected dioceses as part of an investigation would demonstrate a reckless disregard for the safety and well-being of priests and seminarians, including minors.

A bishop exploiting seminarians and priests for his own gratification is an outrage that cries to heaven. How could the Secretariat of State have turned away? And did no other Vatican offices receive reports? Were there legitimate reasons an investigation was not initiated or proved inconclusive?  After decades of abuse scandals, how could officials not have recognized the gravity of the accusations? Or were some officials willing to tolerate these monstrous evils?

Answers and accountability are vital for Catholics everywhere, not only in America. In Chile, cries of Catholics were repeatedly ignored or denounced by Rome. Eventually, Chile’s bishops offered to resign, but no Vatican officials followed their example. That scenario must not be repeated.

These circumstances make it impossible for the Vatican to act as a credible guarantor of the forthcoming review of the McCarrick Affair. The pope’s approval and cooperation are necessary, but since American bishops and Vatican officials are under scrutiny now, the investigative process must be independent of both. For the investigation to be effective the pope will need to cooperate by freeing Church officials from the Pontifical Secret and directing them to answer legitimate questions from investigators.

The review should be transparent and overseen by a board comprised of laity, religious, deacons, priests, and bishops. That way the entire Church would be represented in assessing and remedying the problemsThat should involve exonerating the innocent, punishing the guilty, repairing the harm, and changing administrative structures and policies. A board like this could become a model for dealing with other failures by bishops and the Vatican.

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek, STD has been a priest of the Diocese of Austin since 1985 and is currently the administrator of St. Mary’s in the city of West. His studies were in Dogmatics with a focus on Ecclesiology, Apostolic Ministry, Newman, and Ecumenism.

EDITORS NOTE: © 2018 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. The featured image is by Unsplash?Nacho Arteaga@nachoarteaga.