MxM News

Quick Hit:

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen unveiled an ambitious “Rearm Europe” plan on Tuesday, proposing up to 800 billion euros ($870 billion) in funding to bolster EU defense and provide emergency aid to Ukraine. The proposal comes ahead of a crucial European summit on security and military preparedness.

Key Details:

• Von der Leyen’s plan outlines five funding options, including budget flexibility for defense spending and redirected loans.
• 150 billion euros in loans would be used for missile defense, ammunition, and drone capabilities.
• The European Investment Bank and private capital mobilization are also proposed to finance the initiative.

Diving Deeper:

With Russia’s war on Ukraine dragging into its third year, Ursula von der Leyen is pushing to accelerate Europe’s military preparedness. On Tuesday, the European Commission president unveiled a massive “Rearm Europe” initiative, seeking to mobilize up to 800 billion euros to strengthen the continent’s defense capabilities. The plan is aimed not only at sending further aid to Ukraine but also at ensuring the long-term military resilience of EU nations.

The announcement comes just two days before a critical European summit on Ukraine and regional defense, where EU leaders will discuss security measures in the face of escalating threats. In a letter to EU heads of state, von der Leyen outlined five main funding options to finance the rearmament effort.

Von der Leyen’s first proposal calls for granting EU member states budgetary flexibility, ensuring that their military expenditures do not count towards the bloc’s excessive deficit rules for four years. This means countries could increase defense spending without violating EU budgetary constraints.

The plan includes reallocating 150 billion euros in existing EU loans to fund key military capabilities, such as air defense, missile systems, ammunition, and drones. This would boost interoperability across Europe’s armed forces and enhance collective security.

A controversial aspect of von der Leyen’s proposal involves allowing member states to redirect EU cohesion funds—originally meant for economic development in poorer regions—towards their defense policies. This could face pushback from countries that rely on those funds for infrastructure and social programs.

The fourth component seeks to leverage private investment by accelerating the formation of a European savings and investment union, encouraging private entities to fund defense projects.

Lastly, the Commission proposes using European Investment Bank (EIB) programs to help finance Europe’s defense sector, providing an additional stream of capital.

Von der Leyen’s proposal reflects a major shift in EU defense policy, as the bloc moves toward a more militarized and self-reliant security strategy. However, securing agreement from all 27 EU member states will be a challenge, particularly when it comes to redirecting economic funds toward military spending.

“Ursula von der Leyen 2022” by European Commission licensed under CC BY 4.0 DEED.

From LifeSiteNews

By Matt Lamb

Priests are automatically excommunicated if they break the Seal of Confession, according to canon law.

The Washington state Senate passed legislation to throw priests in jail for almost a full year for maintaining the Seal of Confession.

Senator Noel Frame, a Democrat, is on her third attempt to force priests to divulge what they hear during Confession if it concerns abuse. Last year, a bill backed by the Washington Catholic Conference, though not by all bishops in the state, died.

This year, Frame’s bill includes no exemptions at all for the religious liberties of priests. It passed the state senate 28 to 20 – all but two Democrats voted to violate the religious freedom of Catholics and remove the clergy-penitent privilege. All Republicans voted against the measure on February 28. A House version is now in committee waiting a further vote.

Senate Bill 5375 and House Bill 1211 in the state of Washington are “no exemption” bills that remove all protections for what priests hear in confession when it comes to alleged abuse. Frame said the bill will not compel priests to testify but only to report abuse.

However, that is not written in the text of the law. Furthermore, a priest would presumably have to reveal the name of a person admitting to the abuse in the confessional in order to alert authorities to what child allegedly might be at risk, as LifeSiteNews previously reported.

Frame’s office did not respond to an inquiry from LifeSiteNews on March 3. LifeSiteNews asked if an attorney had reviewed the legislation for potential religious freedom issues.

Frame previously dismissed religious freedom concerns during a hearing. “I have tried really hard over the last couple of years to find a balance and to strike a careful compromise,” she claiming before saying “sorry” for not being willing to “make a compromise anymore.” She criticized efforts to protect clergy-penitent privilege “in the name of religious freedom.”

Priests are automatically excommunicated if they break the Seal of Confession, according to canon law.

Canon 1386 states, “A confessor (priest) who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence.”

Efforts to force priests to do so, including Montana and Washington this year, have drawn condemnation from Catholic groups as well as several legal experts.

Catholic group calls bill ‘egregious violation’ of First Amendment

“This bill is an egregious violation of the First Amendment, and we can only hope that the courts will waste no time in striking it down,” the Catholic League told LifeSiteNews via email on Tuesday. “Given the political landscape of Washington State, it is, unfortunately, pretty much a done deal.”

Contra the Democrats claims about the bill being just about preventing child abuse, the Catholic League pointed out there are efforts to weaken protections for children, stating:

What is even more galling is that in Washington State they have steps to water down provisions on the public schools to report sexual abuse to parents. Washington State House Bill 1296 seeks to undo much a voter-backed (AND PASSED!) parental rights initiative. In the current legislation, there is a provision to allow public schools to take up to 48 hours before notifying parents if their child is sexually abused. When efforts were made to remove the language that gave schools this ridiculous leeway, the Democrats successfully blocked those efforts. A simple amendment that requires Washington State’s public schools to tell parents right away about crimes committed against their child is too much for the same people supporting an attempt to break the Seal of Confession.

Senators also killed an amendment brought by Republican Senator Phil Fortunato to require school districts to report sexual abuse allegations, and related actions taken, to the state.

“This is, simply, an effort to cause a chilling effect on people of faith,” the Catholic League told LifeSiteNews. “The rabid secularists in Washington State would love nothing more than to marginalize faithful voters who stand in the way of their revolution.”

The law is “impractical,” so the aim must be “to intimidate Catholics and other people of faith.”

“When they specifically take aim on one of the sacraments, they clearly are trying to cause a chilling effect on good Catholics and other people of faith who wish to see public policy that is ordered by traditional morals,” the Catholic League stated.

‘Blatantly unconstitutional,’ legal scholar says

A left-leaning legal expert called the bills in Washington and Montana “blatantly unconstitutional.”

“Putting aside the obvious violation of the sanctity of the confessional, it presents a novel problem for priests if they both encourage the faithful to unburden themselves while at the same time reminding them anything that they say can and will be used against them in a court of law,” Professor Jonathan Turley wrote on his commentary website.

“In my view, the Washington State law is a frontal attack on free exercise and would be struck down if enacted,” the George Washington University law professor wrote.

“The only question is why Democrats consider such legislation to be any more viable politically than it is constitutionally.”