A day after meeting with Vice President JD Vance and making a public appearance delivering the benediction on Easter Sunday, Pope Francis passed away at the age of 88 on Monday, April 21, 2025, 7:35 AM. He had been hospitalized for five weeks with life-threatening pneumonia before being released four weeks ago to recover in his own residence.
An update to the candidates emerging in the race to replace Francis will follow here.
Pope Francis dies aged 88 after overseeing one of the Catholic Church’s most tumultuous periods – Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Source Link
Excerpt:
The first Jesuit and Latin American pontiff Pope Francis — born Jorge Mario Bergoglio — has died, aged 88.
From the moment he stepped onto the Vatican balcony in his fresh white robes on March 13, 2013, Pope Francis established himself as a very different kind of pontiff.
“Good evening!” he bellowed to the crowd of 150,000 people packed into St Peter’s Square to witness this historic moment.
Dr. Ramona Coelho, a committee member on Ontario’s MAiD Death Review Committee, is accusing doctors of pushing patients aggressively towards suicide in increasingly questionable situations. She accused the institution itself of “rushing to death” through quick approvals to Canadia’s euthanasia program, called MAiD (Medical Aid in Dying).
She said, “These cases highlight how vulnerable individuals, having lost the capacity to consent, may be coerced or unduly influenced to die — whether through financial abuse, caregiver burnout, or other pressures — reminding us that the stakes are high — life and death, no less.”
Doctor Warns That Canadian Patients are Being “Rushed” to Suicide– www.lifenews.com
Source Link
Excerpt:
Canada is “rushing to death” through quick approvals for its euthanasia program Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD), according to a member of Ontario’s MAiD Death Review Committee.
Dr. Ramona Coehlo, a committee member and a family physician, made the warning after the committee released two reports, “Waivers of Final Consent,” and “Navigating Complex Issues within Same Day and Next Day MAiD Provisions,” that share case studies of people who have died by euthanasia through the MAiD regime….
One of the cases is of a woman in her 80s, “Mrs. B,” who was receiving palliative care after surgery complications. She underwent a MAiD assessment because she reportedly requested it, but the first MAiD assessor did not end up “prescribing” euthanasia because Mrs. B later said she wanted to withdraw that request.
The next day, her spouse, experiencing caregiver burnout, brought her to the emergency room while she was in stable condition. She was discharged again.
A new study from Michigan State University claims that the percentage of “childless adults” who say they are committed to never having children has risen from 14% in 2002 to 29% in 2022. The percentage of childless adults who said they plan on having children in the future fell in that same time gap from 79% to 56%.
Percentage of Childless Adults Who Don’t Want Kids Has Doubled in 20 Years– www.lifenews.com
Source Link
Excerpt:
The percentage of childless U.S. adults who say they never want children has doubled over the span of 20 years, rising from 14% in 2002 to 29% in 2023, a new study discovered.
The research, performed by a team at Michigan State University, used data from the National Survey of Family Growth to analyze 80,000 adults’ attitudes toward having children, MSUToday reported. In addition to fewer people desiring children, the percentage of childless adults who plan to have children in the future also fell, going from 79% to 59% across the same time frame.
On May 1, foreigners in China can expect greater scrutiny on whatever religious expression they choose. This follows the passage of legislation by the CCP that has the goal of assuring all religious practices align with Communist values. The bill states foreigners are banned from practicing any religious belief the determines is done “to damage China’s national interests, social public interests, and citizens’ legitimate rights and interests, and must not violate China’s public order and customs”
Communist China tightens grip on religion with sweeping new laws– www.lifesitenews.com
Source Link
Excerpt:
New legislation from the Chinese Communist Party will take effect next month, ushering in fresh restrictions on the practice of religion in the country.
Under laws set to take effect May 1, foreigners in China will be subject to increased control on the exercise of their religion. In 38 Articles, the new laws further promote the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) goal of sinicization, namely the practice of enforcing all religions to adhere to communist beliefs and practice.
Foreigners are banned from using religion “to damage China’s national interests, social public interests, and citizens’ legitimate rights and interests, and must not violate China’s public order and customs” – a decree which seems perhaps benign until one realizes that this entails only worshipping at CCP-approved locations, and in a CCP-approved manner. (Article 5)
The CCP’s aim, as already highlighted by numerous China experts, is to promote communism through all means possible, including religion.
Certainly, any attempt to contact or worship with, for example, the Underground Church in China is now de facto banned by virtue of the new laws.
FINAL THOUGHT, April 28, 2025
Originally published April 28, 2025 for our End-of-Month Issue of Mindful Intelligence Advisor. Subscribe to get semi-monthly issues.
By Bill Collier, Publisher
“Free speech is my right to say what you don’t want to hear.” –George Orwell
“The right to free speech is more important than the content of the speech.” –Voltaire
“Freedom of speech doesn’t protect speech you like; it protects speech you don’t like.” –Larry Flynt
“If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all.” –Noam Chomsky
The pursuit of “alternative pronouns” may have begun, in part, as a pushback against intolerance, the intolerance of non-conformity to orthodox expectations regarding sex and gender, but it has since become another spearpoint aimed at the Bill of Rights.
Still, if we live out our Americanism, the idea that individuals can define their own happiness and pursuit of that happiness for themselves, should we YET THEN be tolerant and respectful of those who choose to express themselves through “alternative pronouns?”
The whole pronouns thing may seem wacko, and I can’t argue it can get strange; the positive in the movement is the idea of being your authentic self.
I might argue that changing your pronouns to fit your perception of your gender or for other reasons isn’t the path to authenticity, but I appreciate that it has become visible because I think it does, in part, affirm that people should be free to be their authentic selves and not be FORCED to follow “expected” social norms.
If using alt pronouns is what you need to do to be authentic to your true self as you see yourself, especially if this takes you to a place of seeing that this only scratches the surface, then so be it. I do not judge the heart; I do, however, have a right to my own morals and to define truth, justice, and authenticity according to my beliefs, values, and convictions.
Instead of being easily offended about pronouns, whether you use alt pronouns or choose not to participate, I believe it would be more consistent with our Americanism to have a more live and let live attitude.
You have no right to demand people recognize your gender as being a social construct; you also have no right to tell people they cannot express themselves in this manner.
Being true to your authentic self goes both ways.
Do you believe alt pronoun usage reflects your authentic self, or is part of that? So be it. Associate with people, or prefer people, who agree and will acknowledge that, but don’t become hostile to people who cannot agree on their own grounds (they do not owe anyone an explanation) and who feel strongly that gender is what you are born with, period.
While alt pronouns may be losing some popularity, mostly because some loud people are insufferable about demanding the world change to suit their preferences, I’m concerned the idea behind it, being your authentic self, may also suffer.
For some, using alt gender pronouns is a pathway to finding who they truly are. I think it’s a dead end to stay there, and I also think you can pursue and explore this idea of authenticity without resorting to alt pronouns usage.
I may not agree with the alt pronoun usage, but where the subject is finding your authentic self, we are, to that degree, the same. We just go about it differently.
I do not view using people’s alt pronouns, if they ask with respect (demanding me anything will get resistance!), as an agreement that sex or gender can be a social construct, but if I care for someone and this is their journey, even though I think this is objectively not an effective path to true authenticity, I will respect THEIR worldview and probably use whatever they want me to use.
It is hard to use they/them, however, because it is a total disruption of language, but sometimes I think those using such pronouns are symbolizing a resistance against the soft tyranny of FORCING societal norms, something I cannot not only understand but also agree with.
In other words, I agree with upsetting social norms that go against individual authenticity and that don’t benefit everyone the same, I just think alt pronouns are more surface and shallower and don’t get to the right conclusion in the end. They also disrupt far more than “social norms,” they disrupt efficient human value exchange, existentially, when forced on society as a whole.
It may be that someone using those alt pronouns is on a journey. They know (or think they know) that they do not fit the orthodox categories or roles society assigns them without their foreknowledge or consent.
This writer is also not naïve enough to see that some, especially the late joiners, are playing language games intended to disarm their opposition. They’re not pursuing authentic understanding; they’re using the divisive language of trans and non-binary to isolate, attack, and destroy their competition.
We have limited means to break the mold in terms of our work, how we make a living, and manage other factors in life where we are forced into roles and submission to rules that actually defy our own inner convictions.
I feel this pressure a lot. I also see how limiting and controlling most institutions in our society are today, and I understand why someone would perhaps even subconsciously resort to alt pronouns to try and take back some of their sovereignty.
I know that God has had a lot of grace on me for things I later realized were not His will or plan for my life, so I choose to show grace both because the wrong person may one day see the light and because the wrong person may be me (a general axiom it would be wise to follow).
Ultimately, I think, for many who use alt pronouns it is rebellion and reaction against the stultifying tendencies of societal norms that go beyond civility into outright control of your person, in violation of your individual sovereignty and authenticity.
Rebellion against top-down control like that can often be haphazard, inconsistent, reactionary, and weird, but one must look beyond the pathways people choose to understand a more common goal: the inherent rights of sovereign beings, us, being true to who we are in an authentic way, while being limited only by reasonable rules of civility and mutual tolerance and respect, outside of our preferred associations that follow the same way of life that we do.
Civility doesn’t mean people OWE YOU usage of your alt pronouns; some will simply use the standard norms of addressing you by your visible gender. You are out of the norm here, and if people break the norm for you, it is a privilege and not a right.
What people DO owe you is decency and respect as a human being. For example, they can be civil and kind despite not agreeing to use your pronouns because, for them, using alt pronouns isn’t perceptively being true to their authentic self.
Too often, however, people who believe in things that are harmless to society are treated as if they are a menace, perhaps because of the loud insufferables in their ranks but also due to the inherent tendency in humans towards bigotry.
If someone who is born a guy thinks they are a girl, and if they then choose to live as a girl in their own life and with their own people, they are no DIRECT threat to you. While you don’t owe them usage of alt pronouns, you owe them respect and decency, if not merely for the sake of preserving and advocating for Americanism (the right to self-stewardship, even when you’re “wrong”) as a civic standard.
For instance, you may just avoid pronouns with them as much as possible, and you may explain that you cannot in good conscience use alt pronouns, but you respect their humanity and treat them well regardless.
For me, when a loved one asked me to use they/them pronouns, despite my philosophical and religious beliefs about the permanence of gender from birth, I chose to use the alt pronouns to show them that no matter what “alternatives” from the “orthodox” they choose, even when I oppose it, my love for them will not end.
My usage of their terms is not an affirmation of those terms, but an affirmation of my love for them. To confirm a lie is not loving.
In closing, I suspect the reason the whole alt pronouns thing emerged was a rebellion against artificial societal norms that go beyond a peaceful and tolerant society to become a society that controls and limits the human spirit.
That probably happened because the non-binary “cause” was then picked up by authoritarian, anti-American social engineers who exploited the plea of the needy to trick people into surrendering “rights” for “protection.”
Not so surprisingly, though no less ironically, that “tolerance” has led to “intolerance” of countervailing views.
