| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Forum Statistics |
» Members: 329
» Latest member: Claudius
» Forum threads: 8,176
» Forum posts: 14,797
Full Statistics
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 591 online users.
» 1 Member(s) | 587 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Yandex, 70three
|
|
|
| Mgr. Louis de Ségur: Plain Talk about the Protestantism of Today [1868] |
|
Posted by: Stone - 3 hours ago - Forum: Resources Online
- Replies (1)
|
 |
[The translation from the French into English as found on the archive.org site appears imperfect at times. Imperfections can be noted in the formatting as well. - The Catacombs]
The Cheapest Book Ever Published!!!
Mr. Donahoe has endeavored for years to furnish books at as cheap rates as the Protestant booksellers, and much lower than the publications of the Catholic publishers. This he has been enabled to do, from the fact that his publications are manufactured in his own buildings, and receive his personal superintendence. It is a mistake, therefore, to say that "Catholics have not cheap books." It may be that other publishers do not issue cheap books, but the charge against our establishment is not correct. And if the "gropers after truth" will give us a call, or send by letter, they will find our books are cheaper than any in the country. We challenge comparison. Remember, we allude to OUR OWN PUBLICATIONS.
In order still further to afford to our Most Reverend Archbishops and Bishops, the Reverend Clergy, and all who are desirous of circulating our books gratuitously, we have concluded to issue a cheap edition of PLAIN TALK ABOUT THE PROTESTANTISM OF TO-DAY — From the French of Mgr. Ségur.
The book has had an immense sale in France.
The Catholic Telegraph thus alludes to the book: "This is one of the most practically useful publications lately made. Its style of composition and its arrangement are admirably adapted to the use and comprehension of everyone, young and old, learned and unlearned. The Catholic who will carefully read it will have no difficulty in answering any of the many seemingly difficult or silly questions usually propounded by Protestants. And Protestants sincerely disposed to search for the truth, will find in this little volume a good pioneer."
Many similar notices might be added, but the above will suffice.
Reverend Mr. Faye, a Protestant minister at Lyons, publicly complained of the evils caused by this little book. In 1859, before the Assembly of Protestant Bible-carriers held in Geneva, he solemnly avowed that "Protestants can never do any good (?) with those who have read this book." A parson of Poitiers acknowledged the same almost in the same terms; and we know of Catholics who, having incautiously admitted doubts about their faith, became reassured by reading this Plain Talk. The wife of a minister in Paris returned the book to a lady friend with the remark that, "after reading it she could remain a Protestant no longer; she must consult her husband about it."
Not long ago an estimable English lady learned the truth of the Church from this work, became a Catholic, and, on her death-bed, directed that this little book should be laid on her breast in her coffin.
Already two thousand copies of the book have been disposed of — in neat binding, at 60 cents, retail; at wholesale, 45 cents.
NOTE TO THE PUBLISHER
You ask me, dear sir, "what makes me so anxious to publish this work in America?" — Well! I wish to have it published for the sake of Catholic children attending common schools, — of Catholic girls living out in families, — of Catholic boys serving their time, — of all dear and poor friends so often wounded in the affections dearest to their hearts, and whose religion is so often attacked in rude words.
I herewith hope to place in their hands such arms as they can easily use, and will have a telling effect on the enemies of their faith.
Nineteen editions have been published in France, up to 1866, and six hundred thousand copies sold.
The original title of the book is Causeries, — a word of difficult translation; Conversations does not render its precise meaning. Should any of your friends think of a more appropriate title-page, I shall be most thankful for the suggestion.
Reverend Mr. Faye, a Protestant minister at Lyons, has publicly complained of the evils caused by this little book. In 1859, before the Assembly of Protestant Bible-carriers held in Geneva, he solemnly avowed that "Protestants can never do any good (?) with those who have read this book." A parson of Poitiers acknowledged the same almost in the same terms; and we know of Catholics who, having incautiously admitted doubts about their faith, became reassured by reading this plain talk. The wife of a minister in Paris returned the book to a lady friend with the remark that, "after reading it she could remain a Protestant no longer; she must consult her husband about it."
Not long ago an estimable English lady learned the truth of the Church from this work, became a Catholic, and, on her death-bed, directed that this little book should be laid on her breast in her coffin.
God bless the Author!
|
|
|
| English Translations Soften Their Originals [Liberalism is a Sin] |
|
Posted by: Stone - 06-22-2026, 04:50 PM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
- No Replies
|
|
English Translations Soften Their Originals
TIA | June 19, 2026
An inconvenient topic that I have not seen raised is that American translations of many Catholic works soften the original militancy in the text. There are many instances I could cite, but here I willl present the case of Fr. Sardá y Salvany’s Liberalism is a Sin.
Recently, I was reading the English edition of this work translated by Conde B. Pallen, an American, and published by TAN Books. I remembered that in the Spanish edition Fr. Salvany affirmed that Catholics can ridicule the enemies of the Church and make personal attacks against them. Reading the English, I had a strong suspicion that the text was softened. So, I went to the original Spanish text and found that actually that change had been made – and other large discrepancies.
I decided to compare the two texts: the published English translation and the original Spanish. The results were appalling.
![[Image: E096_Sar.jpg]](https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_A-E/E096_Sar.jpg)
Above, the intransigent Spanish anti-Liberal Felix Sardá y Salvany; below, translator Conde B. Pallen, a product of Georgetown Un. and American Liberalism
![[Image: E096_Pal.jpg]](https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_A-E/E096_Pal.jpg)
Examples of the softening & censorship
I compared the 1884 edition of El Liberalismo es Pecado to the 1899 English translation by Pallen, which by the way, is NOT titled Liberalism Is a Sin, which would be the literal translation. The new title of the American edition is simply What Is Liberalism? The difference speaks for itself. ...
Then, the entire Introduction was absent from the English translation. In that Introduction Fr. Salvany began with this radical challenge (my English translation from his Spanish original):
“Do not be alarmed, pious reader, or begin by casting a sour look upon this little book right from the very start. …
"I know … that you are not the only one who feels an invincible repulsion to and horror for such matters [condemning Liberalism]. I am all too well aware that this has become something of a mania, or an ailment that is all but universal.” [bold emphasis added throughout analysis]
Pallen’s translation skipped the Introduction, as well as Chapter I, and the first half of Chapter II of Fr. Salvany's book. He also made no mention in his text or footnotes of his subtractions and additions. Instead, Pallen simply inserted his own Chapter I, which he wrote and has nothing to do with Fr. Salvany’s original words. The actual translation of the book did not begin until page 18!
Is it not dishonest to present the work as authored by Fr. Salvany when its translation has so many blatant subtractions and additions?
Comparing translations
Now, I will present some texts comparing Pallen’s censored translation to the right of my own translation from the original Spanish. The sections that were softened are in red; the sections added by Pallen are in green; the sections of Fr. Salvany’s original text omitted by Pallen are in blue.
In Chapter 23 (Spanish here; Chapter 21 in the English here), Fr. Salvany refuted the liberal accusation that ultramontanes – the counter-revolutionaries of the 19th century – were offending charity in their polemics against the liberals. Below is a comparison of the two translations:
We can clearly see above that the translation by Pallen was much softer than the original Spanish.
Further, Pallen’s translation (on p. 117) of what Fr. Salvany actually said (on p. 90) about ridiculing the opponent is particularly striking. In one instance he omitted a paragraph of Fr. Salvany in which he qualified as scruples to consider lack of charity fight against the liberals:
In Chapter 15, Fr. Salvany strongly insinuated that there are very few – if any – well-intentioned liberals, which he called a "charitable softening of their ugly name." In Pallen's corresponding Chapter 14, that section was omitted, not surprisingly. Pallen also removed what Fr. Salvany said about the horror caused by the word "freethinker," omitted the words "intransigence" and "ultramontane," and added his own writing that again has nothing to do with the original text. The second time the term intransigent appeared, he changed it to irreconcilable. Below is the section in question:
Further on, Fr. Salvany titled his Chapter 21 “On Sound Catholic Intransigence in Opposition to False Liberal Charity,” while Pallen titled the corresponding Chapter 19 “Charity & Liberalism.” Pallen omitted two basic concepts: healthy intransigence, and false charity.
Fr. Salvany started this chapter with: “Intransigent! Intransigence!” Pallen’s version, however, replaced these words with three different words – “Narrow!” “Intolerant!” and “Uncompromising!” In fact, Pallen avoided using the word intransigence throughout his translation. Indeed, a word search for “intransigence” in Pallen’s translation rendered zero results; and yet, Fr. Salvany in the original Spanish used intransigencia 11 times and intransigente(s) four times, for a total of 15 times.
Why on earth, in a translation of a book about Liberalism, was the word intransigence omitted, when the author used the term 15 times? We cannot avoid thinking that Pallen wanted to soften Salvany’s message.
Pallen not only omitted the important word intransigence, but also omitted a section on just war – a weighty Catholic doctrine and a natural consequence of the principle of intransigence. This omission inevitably creates a more pacifist ambience in the text. Incidentally, Progressivism – which hates intransigence against error and evil – has always expressed its hatred of war.
Pallen omitted this radical section on just war, made his own softened summary, and pretended that was sufficient. He also conveniently removed Fr. Salvany’s statement that liberals are “cleverly using charity as a barricade against the truth.” See below:
In Fr. Salvany's Chapter 24, when refuting the liberal accusation that the Pope condemned Catholics who make personal attacks on the enemies of the Church, Pallen omitted this section. In the corresponding Chapter 22 he changed the words of Fr. Salvany, leaving out the section defending the legitimacy of using personal attacks to fight enemies of the Church.
Pallen’s translation of the first part of the phrase was so different from the original that it can no longer be considered a translation, Pallen's words were his own, not those of the Spanish author.
Further, Fr. Salvany’s explanation that the liberals “for their own personal convenience” left out important criterion for understanding the Pope’s words was also omitted by Pallen, and when Salvany insisted there is only one admissible conclusion, Pallen decided to leave that out too:
The last example I wanted to point out is the most shocking. After making an analogy about a captain in war who tells his soldiers not to hurt the enemy too much, Fr. Salvany concluded that this captain could be accused of being a traitor. Pallen omitted this radical statement, and others as well.
Fr. Salvany went on to quote anti-liberal statements by Pope Pius IX, and concluded that his statements “were etched on the brow of Liberalism like a stigma of eternal execration.” Again, this last phrase with the word execration was omitted by Pallen. Below, the comparison:
Reasons for the softening & censorship
Why would Pallen and his publisher make such blatant mistranslations, omissions and additions? My suspicion is that this was done to cater to a vice deeply ingrained in the United States, which is Liberalism or the hatred of militancy.
Protestantism and the errors of the French Revolution have always had a strong Influence in our country. The false principles of free-examination, tolerance toward moral evil, religious indifferentism and freedom of speech seems to have instilled a bad tendency in American Catholics. This tendency is to believe that deep down everyone is good, that error and evil are only caused by misunderstandings, and that therefore we should hate any kind of militancy against error and evil.
This mindset has inspired many American Catholic books, writings and talks that I regularly come across in my study and research. The word “charity” is always used to defend this position. Militancy against error and evil inevitably bursts the bubble of this optimistic ambience since Liberalism walks hand in hand with Progressivism in its insistence on tolerance.
So then, it is ironic that the principal book against Liberalism in the United States was translated by a person deeply influenced by Liberalism.
Posted June 19, 2026
|
|
|
|
| Traditionis Custodes strikes again: Kentucky bishop bans Traditional Latin Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 06-22-2026, 04:34 PM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
Traditionis Custodes strikes again: Kentucky bishop bans Traditional Latin Mass
The Bishop of Owensboro, Kentucky, William F. Medley, directed Father David Kennedy to cease celebrating Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal.
![[Image: shutterstock_507227950.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/shutterstock_507227950.jpg)
Catholic priest celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass
Thoom/Shutterstock
Jun 22, 2026
OWENSBORO, Kentucky (LifeSiteNews) — The Bishop of Owensboro has ordered a priest to stop celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass, citing instructions previously received from the Holy See.
On May 18, the Bishop of Owensboro, Kentucky, William F. Medley, directed Father David Kennedy, priest of the Immaculate Conception Parish in Earlington, Kentucky, to cease celebrating Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal after June 30, 2026, stating that he cannot satisfy conditions established by the Holy See for the continuation of that permission.
“I have reviewed my correspondence with the Holy See from 2023,” the letter reads. “[That correspondence] indicated: ‘If after this period of time, you wish to renew this permission you will need to send us a further relatio along with your request.”
“This relatio should contain details of the number of participants at these Masses, and it should recount the steps which have been taken to lead the faithful who are attached to the antecedent liturgy towards the celebration of the liturgy according to the liturgical books reformed by decree of the Second Vatican Council and which form the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.’”
“As I am unable to demonstrate that this condition has been met, I have no standing to request an extension of the Holy See’s instruction, and I am directing you to not celebrate the Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962 after June 30, 2026,” Bishop Medley wrote.
“I know that in some dioceses the faithful who have shown a preference for the Mass celebrated in Latin have accepted the Novus Ordo Mass celebrated in the Latin language,” he continued.
For this reason, Medley also indicated that Fr. Kennedy would be permitted to continue celebrating Mass in the Latin language, but only to according to the new Missal of St. Paul VI. In the same letter, he stated that he would grant the priest “singular permission to offer this Mass ad orientem.”
“As we discussed, I have permitted nearly a year to pass beyond reception of this consent from the Holy See,” he wrote. “I did this in recognition of the death of Pope Francis. I allowed the continuation of the traditional Latin Mass after the election of Pope Leo XIV to see if he would reconsider the matter of the Mass offered in parish churches.”
Bishop Medley added that he ultimately decided to act after what he described as a decision reached during the January Consistory of the College of Cardinals.
“After more than a year, and the January Consistory of the College of Cardinals in which they specifically chose not to review Traditionis custodes, I feel obligated as bishop to act in accord with the direction of the Holy See,” he wrote.
The bishop also addressed potential objections from members of the faithful affected by the decision. He instructed Fr. Kennedy that concerns could be referred directly to him and emphasized that his actions were being taken in obedience to Rome.
“For the faithful who may object to this directive you may certainly refer them to me, but please make clear that I am acting in accord with my promise to the Pope, the Bishop of Rome,” the letter states.
The letter concludes by thanking Fr. Kennedy for his ministry to Catholics who adhere to the traditional liturgy, whom Midley calls a “small and unique community.”
The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, issued by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007, recognized the 1962 Roman Missal as the “extraordinary form” of the Roman Rite and granted every priest the freedom to celebrate it without needing special permission from his bishop. The document framed the traditional liturgy not as a relic of the past but as a living expression of the Church’s worship, capable of enriching the entire Catholic world.
The motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, promulgated by Pope Francis in 2021, reversed this approach. It declared the reformed liturgy of Paul VI to be the “unique expression” of the Roman Rite and placed the celebration of the older form under strict episcopal control, requiring explicit authorization and often restricting its use to non‑parish settings. In practice, the two documents represent opposite ecclesiological visions: one of liturgical pluralism within unity, and one of liturgical uniformity as a condition for ecclesial communion.
The extraordinary consistory held on January 7–8 had included, among the four topics to be addressed, the question of the liturgy. However, during the cardinals’ meeting with the Pope, the topic was not taken up. Instead, Cardinal Arthur Roche — Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the mastermind behind Traditionis Custodes — circulated among the senior prelates a report on the implementation of Francis’ motu proprio.
The distinction between the Traditional Roman Mass and the post‑conciliar Novus Ordo is far deeper than the use of Latin versus the vernacular. The two forms embody different theological emphases, ritual structures, and liturgical doctrines.
The older rite highlights sacrifice, transcendence, and ritual fixity, expressed through a stable offertory, a single Roman Canon, a predominantly silent and priest‑centered action, and a dense symbolic language. The Novus Ordo, by contrast, reflects a pastoral and didactic orientation: multiple Eucharistic prayers to chose from, expanded lay participation, audible prayers, and a flexibility that allows for significant variation in tone and style. To reduce the contrast to Latin versus the local language is therefore to mislead.
The community of Catholics attached to the traditional liturgy is neither an eccentric minority nor a sociological anomaly. Over the past two decades, it has grown steadily across continents, attracting young families, converts, and vocations at rates disproportionate to its size. Its demographic profile—high Mass attendance, strong catechetical commitment, and above‑average fertility—makes it one of the most dynamic segments of Western Catholicism.
|
|
|
|
| A Worker Woman’s Cure by the Holy Face |
|
Posted by: Stone - 06-22-2026, 12:11 PM - Forum: In Honor of Our Lord
- No Replies
|
|
A Worker Woman’s Cure by the Holy Face
From The Month of the Holy Face, by Fr. Fourault, S. Rue Bernard-Palissy, 1891, pp. 288-292a,
TIA | June 20, 2026
Ven. Leo Dupont, also known as "The Holy Man of Tours," was a French aristocrat and layman who was instrumental in spreading the devotion of the Holy Face of Jesus. Thousands of miracles were worked by God before the Holy Face image in his parlor after being he anointed the visitor with holy oil that burned in a lamp before the image.
This testimony comes from the Memoires of Ven. Dupont, and records a letter received from the widow of M. d’Avrainville that was addressed to him on April 25, 1884.
The letter of Madame d'Arainville
I believe it to be my duty to inform you of a miracle of which I was witness in the month of August 1860, during the week or ten days which my husband and I spent with the servant of God Leo Dupont.
![[Image: H295_Face.jpg]](https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/H295_Face.jpg)
The Holy Face in the parlor of Ven. Leo Dupont
A workwoman, whose name and address are given in the certificate which M. d’Avrainville drew up in her presence and which was added to the already numerous testimonies of graces received, came to offer thanks to the Holy Face for the cure of a dreadful internal complaint which caused a fetid odor to exhale from her body, an odor which obliged her friends and acquaintances to keep aloof from her.
One only of them remained faithful to her, and giving her a bottle containing oil from the lamp burning before the Holy Face, begged her to turn to the Face of Jesus, since her friends were turning their faces away from her. A novena was commenced, and at the end of nine days, she began to be much better; her pains diminished, and the dreadful smell disappeared.
She was so happy, that she promised the Holy Face to give thanks for her cure in its sanctuary, in the presence of M. Dupont, a thing she found herself unable to do until after the lapse of seven years, when she had saved enough money for the journey [to the house of Ven. Dupont on Rue Saint-Étienne in Tours].
![[Image: H295_rooo.jpg]](https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/H295_rooo.jpg)
Leo Dupont’s upstair drawing room
She was about to retire from his parlor, when M. Dupont, who had noticed that she had her arm in a sling, asked her what it was she was suffering from. She answered that it was a panaris, which caused her great pain and which deprived her of sleep, but that she could easily bear the suffering out of gratitude for the wonderful cure the Holy Face had granted to her seven years before, and that she did not dare to ask for a second cure.
“‘Madame, you have nothing to do with that,” replied M. Dupont, “if God wills to cure you, He is the Master.’ My husband, M. d’Avrainville, on hearing these words, left M. Dupont’s drawing-room, rapidly mounted the stairs and entered the room where I was, telling me to come down at once, for M. Dupont seemed to foresee a miracle.
Animated with this presentiment, we carefully examined the woman’s finger: it was very much swollen, and the last joint was full of matter.
After a short prayer offered by M. Dupont and a first anointing made upon the finger, we immediately perceived a change; after the second prayer and the second unction, the swelling had disappeared; lastly after the third prayer also offered before the Holy Face, M. Dupont, whilst making the third anointing, slightly pressed the finger between his fingers, at the place where the panaris was, and at the same moment, all had disappeared, pain, swelling and matter. The finger and the nail had become healthy and of a good color, the nail perfectly adhering to the flesh.
![[Image: H295_Oro.jpg]](https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/H295_Oro.jpg)
The oratory made after M. Dupont’s death; the crutches testify to the many complete cures
The woman, overcome with joy, said to me, “Madame, my finger is so entirely cured, that I beg you to permit me to give you several blows on the palm of your hand with it; I could even hurt you, if I tried.” She struck me in fact several times with this same finger which, five minutes before, had been so sad a sight to look at.
I was so touched and impressed by this miraculous change that I was seized with a trembling of the jaw which affected my speech, but which happily lasted only three minutes. I had felt and invisibly touched the power of God, manifested in the hands of his faithful servant M. Louis Dupont.
Quote:Prayer of Ven. Leo Dupont
Lord Jesus, in presenting myself before thy adorable Face to beg of Thee the graces we are in need of, we entreat of Thee, above all things, to give us an interior disposition never to refuse Thee anything which Thou may daily ask of us, by means of Thy holy commandments and Thy divine inspirations. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| Baseball team forfeits game after most players refuse to wear ‘Pride’ jerseys |
|
Posted by: Stone - 06-20-2026, 12:26 PM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
Baseball team forfeits game after most players refuse to wear ‘Pride’ jerseys
Fewer than nine players on the 28-man roster were willing to play in the 'Pride' uniforms.
![[Image: shutterstock_2432338421-e1781875149707.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/shutterstock_2432338421-e1781875149707.jpg)
Dan Thornberg/Shutterstock.com
Jun 19, 2026
(LifeSiteNews) — A professional baseball team in Pennsylvania was forced to forfeit its “Pride Night” game on Thursday after the majority of its players refused to wear rainbow “Pride” jerseys.
The York Revolution team threw its players who declined to wear the LGBTQ-themed jerseys under the bus in a searing public statement condemning the brave, principled team members’ actions.
“It is with great disappointment that the York Revolution have issued important changes to our 11th Annual Pride Night on Thursday, June 18th,” began the team’s statement. “Unfortunately, several of our players have refused to wear the scheduled Pride Night jersey.”
“As a result, and out of respect for the Pride Community and the York community as a whole, the York Revolution has decided that the game on Thursday, June 18 will be forfeited and that Pride Night will continue on as the feature element of the evening at WellSpan Park,” continued the team’s statement.
“To be clear; this action by the players is completely inconsistent with our vision as the Most Welcoming Place in York. As a small token of our regret for the last-minute change of plans and support for our LGBTQIA+ representing partners we are making a $10,000 donation to the Rainbow Rose Center to support and further their work in making sure the York community is as inclusive as we strive to make WellSpan Park in York, Pennsylvania.”
According to an NBC News report, “fewer than nine players” on the Revolution’s roster were willing to play in the Pride-themed jerseys.
At an “unprecedented” team meeting, the team manager was “unable to talk players into wearing the rainbow sleeves,” noted the NBC report.
The Atlantic League team had been scheduled to host the Southern Maryland Blue Crabs on its 11th annual “Pride” night.
The move by the York Revolution is part of a recent cascade of professional baseball players refusing to kowtow to LGBTQ-themed Pride events.
Last week, three Christian players for the San Francisco Giants cited verses from Genesis chapter 9 on their team’s specially issued “Pride Night” ball caps. Earlier, one Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher refused to wear his team’s “Pride Night” cap.
|
|
|
|
| Conservatives blast passage of Canada’s Bill C-9: ‘Today is a dark day’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 06-20-2026, 12:21 PM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
|
Conservatives blast passage of Canada’s Bill C-9: ‘Today is a dark day’
Bill C-9 is an ‘assault on religious freedom’ and a ‘serious threat’ to the ‘fundamental rights of Canadians,’
Conservative MPs warned.
![[Image: GettyImages-2204533533.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/GettyImages-2204533533.jpg)
Mark Carney
Minas Panagiotakis/Getty Images
Jun 18, 2026
OTTAWA (LifeSiteNews) — Conservative MPs quickly blasted the official passage of the Liberal government’s Bill C-9, or the “Bible Ban” bill, as some have dubbed it, saying that it’s a “dark day” for Canadians of faith and that the new law will be used as “a tool to enforce Liberal DEI ideology.”
“Sadly, Bill C-9 has passed. The only amendment was to add the noose as a hate symbol. Nothing was added to protect freedom of religion or good-faith religious expression,” wrote Conservative MP Brad Redekopp.
“Bill C-9 is not a serious effort to combat hate. It is a tool to enforce Liberal DEI ideology while leaving fundamental freedoms dangerously exposed.”
Redekopp, in a video message he posted on X, noted that it is a shame that “not one amendment” to protect religious freedom was put in the bill to “protect pastors, priests” and others of faith who “refuse to bow to Liberal ideology.”
He had earlier, in another post, called the official passage of Bill C-9 a “dark day” for Canada and religious freedom and an “assault” on faith.
On Wednesday, a majority of MPs passed Bill C-9, or “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime, and access to religious or cultural places).” The bill is awaiting Royal Assent, a formality, before it is in the books.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, a final attempt to stop Bill C-9 was defeated on Wednesday, meaning that the bill, which threatens to criminalize quoting parts of the Bible, including on homosexuality, has officially passed Canada’s Parliament and will soon become law.
Constitutional experts have blasted the bill, saying that it will allow empowered police and the government to go after those deemed to have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way. The bill was introduced by Justice Minister Sean Fraser last year.
Specifically, Bill C-9 will remove Section 319(3)(b) of Canada’s Criminal Code.
This section protects the good-faith expression of a person’s religious views based on religious texts such as the Holy Bible.
Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) previously blasted the passage of Bill C-9 in the Senate, saying that “God will not be mocked.”
Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis said she was “proud” to vote against Bill C-9 and now worries that the new law will set a “precedent” to attack religious “freedoms.”
“I remain concerned about the precedent this legislation sets and the potential consequences for fundamental freedoms in Canada,” she wrote in an X post.
“Canadians deserve laws that do not undermine the rights and freedoms that form the foundation of our democracy.”
Conservative MP Rachael Thomas called Bill C-9’s passing a “sad day for Canada.”
“Despite the pleas of Canadians to stop Bill C-9, the Liberals have passed it. This is a serious threat to religious freedom and the fundamental rights of Canadians,” she wrote.
“Conservatives will continue standing up to defend religious freedom and the rights and liberties that define our country.”
Conservative MP Shuv Majumdar said that the Liberals used their “stolen majority” to “strip away longstanding protection for good faith religious expression and conscience rights.”
Canadian pro-life and faith groups, as well as a Catholic cardinal, had sounded the alarm over the legislation. Indeed, in a recent letter to Canadian senators, Cardinal Frank Leo, the metropolitan archbishop of Toronto, said that while the Catholic Church recognizes “the importance of addressing hatred and protecting individuals and communities from violence,” changes are needed to the bill.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canadian senators did at least vote down a proposed amendment to Bill C-9 that would have criminalized “residential school denialism.”
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fblogger.googleuserconte...d21cee6725]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fblogger.googleusercontent.com%2Fimg%2Fb%2FR29vZ2xl%2FAVvXsEgqkbKm3kVMDopHuiMav_SnYPOyZmBV_Ys-RncJVPWKfn8uYTH8K5xZq6rFN0bO1ItR76vg1r37uz1UUaPUO7aICexT25TjA0CDNf5bbczRAC4A-fqJuXgGIWVfVc9aVrbmorRCNRDGZTwv6re7_Iv4PC5XSnViUBbz-mY8dGEHHj5QniA6yaQlN6DVYvY%2Fs535%2FMatthew%25205%252020-26.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=39cf9f0ed30ded3fe183c7a3a4298b819c5531c72f2a9db3b0f736d21cee6725)
![[Image: E096_Lib-1.png]](https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_A-E/E096_Lib-1.png)
![[Image: E096_Lib-2.png]](https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_A-E/E096_Lib-2.png)
![[Image: E096_Lib-3.png]](https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_A-E/E096_Lib-3.png)
![[Image: E096_Lib-4.png]](https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_A-E/E096_Lib-4.png)
![[Image: E096_Lib-5.png]](https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_A-E/E096_Lib-5.png)
![[Image: E096_Lib-6.png]](https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_A-E/E096_Lib-6.png)
![[Image: 67628993-2da7-d5dd-b9e7-a72885979ab0.jpg]](https://mcusercontent.com/76ce784d87af5db75a3164d6a/images/67628993-2da7-d5dd-b9e7-a72885979ab0.jpg)
