IT COSTS THE CHURCH A LOT OF MONEY TO DEFEND THE FAITH AGAINST THE DELIBERATE/PLANNED ATTACKS ON THE CHURCH’S REFUSAL TO GO ALONG WITH THE LIBERAL AGENDA ON SEX



CATHOLIC LEAGUE
FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS
Sue-Happy Gays Target Catholic Entities
March 26, 2019Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest attacks on Catholic organizations:
 
We were told that once the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed marriage between two people of the same sex that it wouldn’t create new problems for religious institutions. It was a lie. In its wake has come a rash of lawsuits aimed at Catholic organizations. To be specific, agenda-ridden homosexuals have joined with the sexually confused to wreak havoc.
 
Shelly Fitzgerald, a guidance counselor at an Indiana Catholic high school, was dismissed after it was learned that she was “married” to another woman. She then did the media lap, parading her victimhood on Ellen Degeneres’ TV show. She took her complaint to the authorities.
 
Now Fitzgerald has been joined by another “victim” at the same school: Guidance counselor Lynn Starkey has been told her contract will not be renewed because she is “married” to her girlfriend. She plans to sue the Archdiocese of Indiana.
 
Oliver Knight is a sexually confused woman who thinks she is a man. She was denied a hysterectomy at a California Catholic hospital after her status was identified. She is now suing five Catholic hospitals because one of them denied her the operation.
 
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a lesbian activist, has decided to deny state funds to Catholic adoption agencies because they will not place children with same-sex couples. She made this move by reaching a settlement with the ACLU by refusing to enforce a religious liberty law that insulated religious institutions from state encroachment in these matters.
 
None of these decisions were made by happenstance.
 
The guidance counselors knew what the house rules were of the Catholic school they worked for yet decided to violate them and then claim victim status. The sexually confused woman knew that Catholic hospitals will not sanction her new status by performing the operation. And Nessel’s hostility to religious rights could not be more clear.
 
Religious rights have indeed been imperiled by the high court recognition of homosexual marriages. The decision has emboldened a new wave of lawsuits by sue-happy gays seeking to deny long-standing religious exemptions to Catholic institutions.
 
The collision between the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty and homosexual rights must be addressed by the Supreme Court again. People of faith should not be subject to unnecessary state coercion; their autonomy is paramount.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

BISHOP BARRON IS NO FULTON SHEEN, HIS PREACHING STYLE MAY REMIND LISTENERS OF SHEEN, BUT THE CONTENT OF HIS MESSAGE IS PAP COMPARED TO THE HARD TRUTHS THAT SHEEN PREACHED

MARCH 26, 2019

What Should We Make of Bishop Barron?

JONATHAN B. COE

In a recent essay in this magazine, I gave a basic, and somewhat oversimplified, taxonomy of priests and prelates in the Church. In this article, that has been slightly revised and expanded:

Type A are the Zeitgeist Puppets. In America, Cupich and Martin come to mind; across the Atlantic on the continent, no one fit the bill like the recently deceased Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium, who put Cupich and Martin to shame and never met a tenet of Modernism he didn’t like.

He encouraged King Bauddouin of Belgium to sign a bill legalizing abortion in 1990 and refused to remove sexually explicit materials related to sex education in Belgium Catholic schools. He also said that the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in his native country was a “positive development.”

After his retirement, he was entangled in a major scandal in which he covered up for a protégé bishop, who admitted sexually abusing a minor (his own nephew). This was all caught on an audio recording where Danneels told the victim to keep quiet and not create trouble for his uncle, Bishop Roger Vanheluwe, who was soon to retire. Taking a page from the “blaming the victim” manual, Danneels told the victim to “ask forgiveness.”

Type B are the hit-and-miss prelates and priests. Cardinal Timothy Dolan is a good example.

When I came into the Church fifteen years ago, a priest friend let me borrow Dolan’s fine book that came out in 2000: Priests For The Third Millennium. I was impressed by both his insights and orthodoxy.

However, Dolan’s batting average has plummeted in recent years. He served in as Grand Marshal for Manhattan’s St. Patrick Day’s Parade that allowed an openly homosexual activist group to march in it.

He also appeared at and supported the blasphemous, “Catholic”-themed fashion show sponsored by New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. More egregiously, he got canon law completely wrong in the wake of the unspeakably evil New York abortion bill.

Type C are the good, orthodox prelates and priests who remain silent. The faithful laity long to hear their voices in protest against, for example, the almost untethered ministry of the homosexualist Fr. James Martin, the weaponized ambiguity of Amoris Laetitia, and, in recent days, all the priests and prelates dancing around the Golden Calf of Modernism at the 2019 Los Angeles Religious Education Conference (REC).

Type D are the rarest of all priests and prelates: those who are both orthodox andcourageous. A good man really isn’t hard to find, but one who is both submitted to the Magisterium and willing to speak out against heterodoxy and ecclesial malfeasance is.

The recent sex abuse summit in Rome was a dog and pony show where the root causes of the scandal were denied. The prelates not only wouldn’t talk about the elephant in the room; no, they averted their eyes from an entire herd. 

Athanasius Schneider, O.R.C., auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, one of the truly great prelates of our troubled era, in an interview with Life Site News, identified those root causes with great precision. Don’t expect him to move up the ecclesial ladder under this pontificate.

Bishop Barron: The Hit-And-Miss Prelate
Years ago, I was first introduced to the ministry of Bishop Barron through two DVD series of his that were offered through the Adult Education department of my parish: Catholicism (2011) and Seven Deadly Sins, Seven Lively Virtues. The DVDs were excellent in every way and I found Barron to be an affable and articulate communicator who wisely eschewed canned and ham-fisted approaches in reaching the Catholic, non-Catholic, and those outside the Church.

It’s therefore no surprise to me that Bishop Barron is one of the most popular Catholics in the world on social media with over 1.5 million Facebook fans, 168,000+ YouTube subscribers, and 100,000+ Twitter followers. And, if you peruse his archives on YouTube through Word on Fire and what he has written through print media, most of it holds up under the scrutiny of Scripture and Tradition.

However, there are significant departures and missteps that render Barron a hit-and-miss prelate and sometimes make him an apologist for the status quo created by the present pontiff and carried out by many in the American episcopate. He is adept at packaging his message but sometimes his content departs from the sacred deposit of the faith or fails to call out the heterodox.

His response to the slaughter of 12 people in Paris in 2015 by Islamo-fascists, in an interview with EWTN, was telling. He described it as “poignant,” not monstrous, and though he did make a passing reference to Just War Theory, his primary emphasis was responding to violence with love.

He exhorted Catholics to take a “non-violent stance.” There wasn’t much here about bringing perpetrators to justice and using lethal force if required.

It left you wondering if he would’ve advised Jews in the Warsaw ghetto in the early 1940s to be non-violent all the way to the gas chambers. Someone needs to tell Bishop Barron that, in a situation like this, we’re not in Selma 1965 anymore.

When the McCarrick scandal initially came to light, I was heartened by Bishop Barron’s response. He was noticeably angry and had the zeal of a reformer in talking about the necessity of a thorough, mostly lay-led, forensic investigation into the scandal.

This zeal dissipated quite a bit when the same issue came up in an interview with Ben Shapiro a few months later. He still was genuinely concerned about the issue, but, at the same time, trotted out the 4 percent statistic in saying that the rates of abuse are no worse in the Church than other institutions.

I doubt the victims of abuse found much comfort in such a debatable assertion. “Everybody else is doing it too” is not much of a plan for reform and renewal.

On Father Martin and Pope Francis
James Martin regards Barron as a “friend” though he admits they have some disagreements. They both were featured speakers in the recent (appropriately named) Los Angeles REC.

Because he has such a large public platform and is not afraid to speak out on controversial issues (e.g., Amoris Laetitia, universal salvation), I’m a bit surprised that the prelate hasn’t had much to say about the controversial priest, who has been given almost carte blanche by his overseers in spreading his lavender gospel. Though he tries to adhere to Church teaching in his recent book, it’s instructive to recall some of Father Martin’s public statements:

This is not an exhaustive list, but just a beginning: (1) the affirmation to LGBTQ people that “God made them [wonderfully] that way”; (2) that “The Church needs to rethink its teachings about homosexuality—Its dogmatic teaching. Instead of saying it’s objectively disordered, it should say it’s just differently ordered”; (3) that same-sex couples should be able to kiss during Mass: “What’s the terrible thing?”; (4) that the Church should reverence homosexual unions; and (5) that being against same-sex “marriage” is like being racist.

In contrast, Type D prelates, such as Bishop Joseph Strickland and Cardinal Robert Sarah, have not been afraid to speak out against Martin. Though Barron holds the traditional Catholic view on homosexual behavior and same-sex “marriage,” his silence can easily be interpreted as tacit approval of Martin’s outreach.

Also, in his recent interview with Ben Shapiro, Barron was asked his thoughts on Pope Francis. His past public statements in video and print have always given the Holy Father glowing reviews regarding his emphasis on mercy, the Church being a “field hospital,” and the central message of Amoris Laetitia.

This laudatory tone was somewhat diminished in the Shapiro interview but there was nary a word of criticism. The good bishop commented that every pope has a different emphasis and Francis has a more of a mantle of a prophet than a philosopher, theologian, or biblical scholar like the previous two.

He was from Latin America and therefore suspicious of capitalism. His prophetic edge meant that, like Jeremiah, he would often not govern in a constructive manner but more in uprooting (“make a mess”) which is redemptive in its own way.

Bishop Barron would be well-served to ask himself, among others things, one question: Who gets promoted under Francis? Answering this question honestly provides a clear window into the Francis papacy.

Indeed, when you look at the careers of such prelates and priests as McCarrick, Monsignor Battista Ricca, Bishop Gustavo Oscar Zanchetta, and the defrocked Mauro Inzoli, homosexual activity and predation seem to be a resume-enhancer for the pontiff leading to promotion.

William Kilpatrick writes: “A recent article by journalist Marco Tosatti provides a list of prelates who have been favored, protected, promoted or rehabilitated by Pope Francis despite their record of covering up for abusers. The list includes: Cardinal Godfried Danneels, Cardinal Roger Mahony, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Cardinal Errazuriz Ossa, Bishop Juan Barros, Bishop Juan Jose Pineda, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, and Archbishop Kevin Farrell.”

The bottom-line is this: if you’re a priest or prelate in America and have not yet been red-pilled on Father Martin and Pope Francis, you’ve either been living in a hermetically-sealed cave for the last six years or something is wrong with your heart. They are both like ecclesial Rorschach Tests: there’s enough information out there about them that is common knowledge, a matter of public record, that to live in denial and conduct business-as-usual, is very damaging to the Church, and, like a sword, pierces Christ and his Mother again.

Amoris Laetitia and Universal Salvation
Bishop Barron was positively giddy with the publication of Amoris Laetitia, saying that Pope Francis maintained a beautiful balance between the high, objective moral demands of the Church while extending great mercy to those who find themselves in “irregular situations.” He praised the Holy Father’s insights about how moral culpability can be mitigated in someone’s life, who is committing sin, when they lack knowledge, freedom, or are dealing with certain extenuating circumstances.

Thus, over two millennia of Church tradition is swept away as Francis gives people permission to do something that our Lord didn’t. Some things in the New Testament are culturally-relative (i.e., they evolve) and some things are not.

Five times in the New Testament we are told to greet each other with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16). This command is obviously not relevant for today but Christ’s directive about marriage, divorce, and adultery are absolutely binding because our Lord has anchored his teaching in our primordial beginning: “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8; emphasis mine).

It’s also interesting to note that, while Jesus clashed with the Pharisees about their view of divorce, the people today, who hold to Christ’s view, are accused of being heartless Pharisees. “Mercy” is defined as dismantling one of the seven sacraments.

Bishop Barron’s view of universal salvation is well-known and is influenced by Balthasar who was, in turn, influenced by Karl Barth. Though he is not sure that all will be saved, he thinks that we can have a reasonable hope of an empty hell. Once again, over two millennia of Church tradition gets deep-sixed.

Bishop Barron needs to listen to the words of Jesus and his Mother. If everyone is going to heaven, then why would Christ say that it would have been better if Judas was never born?

It doesn’t sound like Judas is going to the “good place,” but is, instead, going to the “bad place.” Ditto for the goats in Matthew 25:31-46 who are placed on the Son of Man’s left side and are sent away to everlasting punishment.

Everlasting means … well … everlasting. These are the same people who take the wide, easy way to destruction and their number is great (Matt. 7: 13-14) while few find the path to eternal life.

We do well to recall the vision of hell Our Lady gave to the children at Fatima. Here is how Sr. Lúcia described the vision in her Fourth Memoir:

When the Lady spoke these words she opened her hands as she had in the two months before. The radiance seemed to penetrate the ground and we saw something like a sea of fire. Plunged in this fire were the demons and the souls, as if they were red-hot coals, transparent and black or bronze-colored, with human forms, which floated about in the conflagration, borne by the flames which issued from it with clouds of smoke falling on all sides as sparks fall in great conflagrations without weight or equilibrium, among shrieks and groans of sorrow and despair that horrify and cause people to shudder with fear….

The devils were distinguished by horrible and loathsome forms of animals, frightful and unknown, but transparent like black coals that have turned red-hot. Frightened and as if we were appealing for help, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said with tenderness and sadness:

“You saw hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them God wishes to establish in the world the devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If they do what I will tell you, many souls will be saved, and there will be peace… (Memórias e Cartas de Irmã Lúcia [Porto: 1973], 340-341).

(Photo credit: Daniel Ibáñez / CNA)

Tagged as Bishop Robert BarronCardinal Godfried DanneelsChurch hierarchyFr. James Martin S.J.lavender / gay mafialeadership93

Jonathan B. Coe

By Jonathan B. Coe

Jonathan B. Coe is a graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. Before being received into the Catholic Church in 2004, he served in pastoral ministry in rural Alaska, and in campus ministry at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. He has written for Catholic Exchange and The Imaginative Conservative. He is the author of Letters from Fawn Creek, a volume of spiritual direction, and lives in the Pacific Northwest.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

NARCICISSM IN A PRIEST, PART THREE

Why does a narcissist go no contact?

Why does a narcissist go no contact?

Tom Ewall

Tom Ewall, M.S. Mathematics, University of Iowa (1984)Answered Jan 16, 2018Originally Answered: Why does the narcissist go no contact?

They don’t. They will give you the “the silent treatment.” It might appear to be the same thing, but the motivation is very different.

Going “no contact” is something a neurotypical does to protect against narcissistic abuse. Because of being mentally ill, those with narcissistic personality disorder often do horrible things to those who care for them, with no remorse, or even the least clue they’re doing anything wrong. Often they’ll never change, and unfortunately the best option is to cut off all contact with the abuser.

Narcissists will give you the silent treatment for the same reason they do everything they do, which is to prop up their idealized false self. They have a high sense of entitlement, and certain ideas, delusions, as to who they are and what they deserve. They use different psychological tactics to provoke responses from their victims to give them feedback that they are who they think they are.

If they’re giving you the silent treatment, it’s because they’re trying to exert control over you and provoke some response (anger, frustration, anxiety) which will make them feel special.

Feeling special is paramount to the narcissist.145.7k Views · View Upvoters · View SharersUpvote· 584Share· 46

Rene Henry Gracida

RecommendedAll

Lynda Brown

Lynda BrownJan 24, 2018 · 32 upvotes including Tom Ewall

Very well said, Tom; however, I have to humbly disagree that the narcissist/narcopath doesn’t have a clue that they are doing anything wrong. They absolutely do know that they are doing something wrong…it’s just that they DON’T CARE and feel ENTITLED to break the law, rules, or just being that me…(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· Report

Tom Ewall

Tom EwallOriginal Author · Feb 3 · 8 upvotes

One of the aspects of narcissism is an inability to feel guilt (i.e. “doing something wrong”). Instead they have the concept of being caught.

For a neurotypical, if you’re afraid of getting caught, that means you know you’ve done something wrong, but that’s not the way narcissists perceive it. For…(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· Report

April Rindfleisch

April RindfleischJan 28 · 9 upvotes including Lynda Brown

You are correct about the knowing. I was frequently told matter of factly they knew “exactly what they’re doing”. Actually TOLD me, while they displayed the behaviour TOWARD me. By the time I had figured out how in trouble I was with this person, I had been worn down to a nub. Somehow, I held it …(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· ReportView More Replies

Tom Ewall

Tom Ewall, M.S. Mathematics, University of Iowa (1984)Answered Jan 16, 2018Originally Answered: Why does the narcissist go no contact?

They don’t. They will give you the “the silent treatment.” It might appear to be the same thing, but the motivation is very different.

Going “no contact” is something a neurotypical does to protect against narcissistic abuse. Because of being mentally ill, those with narcissistic personality disorder often do horrible things to those who care for them, with no remorse, or even the least clue they’re doing anything wrong. Often they’ll never change, and unfortunately the best option is to cut off all contact with the abuser.

Narcissists will give you the silent treatment for the same reason they do everything they do, which is to prop up their idealized false self. They have a high sense of entitlement, and certain ideas, delusions, as to who they are and what they deserve. They use different psychological tactics to provoke responses from their victims to give them feedback that they are who they think they are.

If they’re giving you the silent treatment, it’s because they’re trying to exert control over you and provoke some response (anger, frustration, anxiety) which will make them feel special.

Feeling special is paramount to the narcissist.145.7k Views · View Upvoters · View SharersUpvote· 584Share· 46

Rene Henry Gracida

RecommendedAll

Lynda Brown

Lynda BrownJan 24, 2018 · 32 upvotes including Tom Ewall

Very well said, Tom; however, I have to humbly disagree that the narcissist/narcopath doesn’t have a clue that they are doing anything wrong. They absolutely do know that they are doing something wrong…it’s just that they DON’T CARE and feel ENTITLED to break the law, rules, or just being that me…(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· Report

Tom Ewall

Tom EwallOriginal Author · Feb 3 · 8 upvotes

One of the aspects of narcissism is an inability to feel guilt (i.e. “doing something wrong”). Instead they have the concept of being caught.

For a neurotypical, if you’re afraid of getting caught, that means you know you’ve done something wrong, but that’s not the way narcissists perceive it. For…(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· Report

April Rindfleisch
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

NARCISSIM IN PRIESTS, PART TWO


What embarrasses narcissists?

Why does a narcissist go no contact?


Quora Digest
 <digest-noreply@quora.com

Why does a narcissist go no contact?

Tom Ewall

Tom Ewall, M.S. Mathematics, University of Iowa (1984)Answered Jan 16, 2018Originally Answered: Why does the narcissist go no contact?

They don’t. They will give you the “the silent treatment.” It might appear to be the same thing, but the motivation is very different.

Going “no contact” is something a neurotypical does to protect against narcissistic abuse. Because of being mentally ill, those with narcissistic personality disorder often do horrible things to those who care for them, with no remorse, or even the least clue they’re doing anything wrong. Often they’ll never change, and unfortunately the best option is to cut off all contact with the abuser.

Narcissists will give you the silent treatment for the same reason they do everything they do, which is to prop up their idealized false self. They have a high sense of entitlement, and certain ideas, delusions, as to who they are and what they deserve. They use different psychological tactics to provoke responses from their victims to give them feedback that they are who they think they are.

If they’re giving you the silent treatment, it’s because they’re trying to exert control over you and provoke some response (anger, frustration, anxiety) which will make them feel special.

Feeling special is paramount to the narcissist.145.7k Views · View Upvoters · View SharersUpvote· 584Share· 46

Rene Henry Gracida

RecommendedAll

Lynda Brown

Lynda BrownJan 24, 2018 · 32 upvotes including Tom Ewall

Very well said, Tom; however, I have to humbly disagree that the narcissist/narcopath doesn’t have a clue that they are doing anything wrong. They absolutely do know that they are doing something wrong…it’s just that they DON’T CARE and feel ENTITLED to break the law, rules, or just being that me…(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· Report

Tom Ewall

Tom EwallOriginal Author · Feb 3 · 8 upvotes

One of the aspects of narcissism is an inability to feel guilt (i.e. “doing something wrong”). Instead they have the concept of being caught.

For a neurotypical, if you’re afraid of getting caught, that means you know you’ve done something wrong, but that’s not the way narcissists perceive it. For…(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· Report

April Rindfleisch

April RindfleischJan 28 · 9 upvotes including Lynda Brown

You are correct about the knowing. I was frequently told matter of factly they knew “exactly what they’re doing”. Actually TOLD me, while they displayed the behaviour TOWARD me. By the time I had figured out how in trouble I was with this person, I had been worn down to a nub. Somehow, I held it …(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· ReportView More Replies

Tom Ewall

Tom Ewall, M.S. Mathematics, University of Iowa (1984)Answered Jan 16, 2018Originally Answered: Why does the narcissist go no contact?

They don’t. They will give you the “the silent treatment.” It might appear to be the same thing, but the motivation is very different.

Going “no contact” is something a neurotypical does to protect against narcissistic abuse. Because of being mentally ill, those with narcissistic personality disorder often do horrible things to those who care for them, with no remorse, or even the least clue they’re doing anything wrong. Often they’ll never change, and unfortunately the best option is to cut off all contact with the abuser.

Narcissists will give you the silent treatment for the same reason they do everything they do, which is to prop up their idealized false self. They have a high sense of entitlement, and certain ideas, delusions, as to who they are and what they deserve. They use different psychological tactics to provoke responses from their victims to give them feedback that they are who they think they are.

If they’re giving you the silent treatment, it’s because they’re trying to exert control over you and provoke some response (anger, frustration, anxiety) which will make them feel special.

Feeling special is paramount to the narcissist.145.7k Views · View Upvoters · View SharersUpvote· 584Share· 46

Rene Henry Gracida

RecommendedAll

Lynda Brown

Lynda BrownJan 24, 2018 · 32 upvotes including Tom Ewall

Very well said, Tom; however, I have to humbly disagree that the narcissist/narcopath doesn’t have a clue that they are doing anything wrong. They absolutely do know that they are doing something wrong…it’s just that they DON’T CARE and feel ENTITLED to break the law, rules, or just being that me…(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· Report

Tom Ewall

Tom EwallOriginal Author · Feb 3 · 8 upvotes

One of the aspects of narcissism is an inability to feel guilt (i.e. “doing something wrong”). Instead they have the concept of being caught.

For a neurotypical, if you’re afraid of getting caught, that means you know you’ve done something wrong, but that’s not the way narcissists perceive it. For…(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· Report

April Rindfleisch

April RindfleischJan 28 · 9 upvotes including Lynda Brown

You are correct about the knowing. I was frequently told matter of factly they knew “exactly what they’re doing”. Actually TOLD me, while they displayed the behaviour TOWARD me. By the time I had figured out how in trouble I was with this person, I had been worn down to a nub. Somehow, I held it …(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· ReportView More Replies

Ritamarie Cavicchio

Ritamarie Cavicchio, Aspie, proud parent of a 13 year old kid with autismAnswered Dec 21

Lots of good answers here about what embarrasses narcissists.

My experience has been that narcissists hate to be ignored. No emotion or energy can be expended toward them. You have to starve them out.

Ignoring a narcissist is difficult and they will work like heck to get attention any way they can. Starving them of attention can take several tries, so don’t be sad when you give in to them. Just try again.

My experience with this happened over three years with the worst narcissists I’ve encountered. He would come and go, make promises, start fights and then leave. After a few days or a week, I would miss him and reach out to him and then he would start the cycle all over again.

I don’t know how many times I fell into this trap—-probably a dozen or more times—before I finally just stopped engaging with him. When he left once again in late September—-after a pleasant weekend together—I just decided to stop calling, stop texting, stop engaging.

It was very difficult!! About a month after I stopped calling him, he called—acting all nice and charming—and asked why I stopped calling him. He wanted to know if I missed him. I feigned lack of interest and I think he finally got the message that I didn’t want him around anymore.

That was over two years ago and he has been gone completely. That doesn’t mean I still don’t have urges to send him a nasty message or even miss him, but I’ve stayed firm. I figured out that he thrived on the chaos, but when I starved him out completely, he realized he couldn’t take from me anymore and moved on to someone else.

By the way, don’t think you are going to change a narcissist! It will never happen and it will just make your life unbelievably crazy. Establish and reestablish boundaries with him and be happy when he finally leaves. Go on with your life—even if it is difficult at first. Don’t think of revenge either, because they are masters at that. Just starve them out!

You’ve got to look out for yourself, because they sure as heck aren’t looking out for you! Good luck!190.1k Views · View Upvoters · View SharersUpvote· 434Share· 29

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

NARCISSISM IS MORE COMMON THAN YOU MIGHT THINK, OUR CULTURE FOSTERS ITS DEVELOPMENT. NARCISSISM IN A PRIEST IS A FATAL AFFLICTION SINCE THE PRIEST IS IN COMPETITION WITH Jesus Christ AS THE CENTER OF HIS WORLD, PART ONE

Main article: History of narcissism from Wikipedia





Narcissus (1590s) by Caravaggio(Galleria Nazionale d’Arte AnticaRome)
Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one’s idealised self image and attributes. The term originated from Greek mythology, where the young Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water. Narcissism is a concept in psychoanalytic theory, which was popularly introduced in Sigmund Freud‘s essay On Narcissism (1914). The American Psychiatric Associationhas listed the classification narcissistic personality disorder in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since 1968, drawing on the historical concept of megalomania.
Narcissism is also considered a social or cultural problem. It is a factor in trait theory used in various self-report inventories of personality such as the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory. It is one of the three dark triadic personality traits (the others being psychopathy and Machiavellianism). Except in the sense of primary narcissism or healthy self-love, narcissism is usually considered a problem in a person’s or group’s relationships with self and others. Narcissism is not the same as egocentrism.



















A

Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one’s idealised self image and attributes. The term originated from Greek mythology, where the young Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water. Narcissism is a concept in psychoanalytic theory, which was popularly introduced in Sigmund Freud‘s essay On Narcissism (1914). The American Psychiatric Associationhas listed the classification narcissistic personality disorder in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since 1968, drawing on the historical concept of megalomania.

Narcissism is also considered a social or cultural problem. It is a factor in trait theory used in various self-report inventories of personality such as the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory. It is one of the three dark triadic personality traits (the others being psychopathy and Machiavellianism). Except in the sense of primary narcissism or healthy self-love, narcissism is usually considered a problem in a person’s or group’s relationships with self and others. Narcissism is not the same as egocentrism.


The myth of Sisyphus tells about a man punished for his  hubristicbelief that his cleverness surpassed that of Zeus himself. He has to push a stone up a mountain each day, only to have to recommence the task on the next day.

The term “narcissism” comes from the Greek myth about Narcissus (Greek: Νάρκισσος, Narkissos), a handsome Greek youth who, according to Ovid, rejected the desperate advances of the nymph Echo. This caused Narcissus to fall in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. Unable to consummate his love, Narcissus “lay gazing enraptured into the pool, hour after hour,” and finally changed into a flower that bears his name, the narcissus.[1][not in citation given] The concept of excessive selfishness has been recognized throughout history. In ancient Greece the concept was understood as hubris. It is only more recently that narcissism has been defined in psychological terms.[citation needed]

  • In 1752 Jean-Jacques Rousseau‘s play Narcissus: or the Self-Admirer was performed in Paris.[citation needed]
  • In 1898 Havelock Ellis, an English psychologist, used the term “Narcissus-like” in reference to excessive masturbation, whereby the person becomes his or her own sex object[2]
  • In 1899, Paul Näcke was the first person to use the term “narcissism” in a study of sexual perversions.[citation needed]
  • Otto Rank in 1911 published the first psychoanalytical paper specifically concerned with narcissism, linking it to vanity and self-admiration.[2]
  • Sigmund Freud published a paper on narcissism in 1914 called “On Narcissism: An Introduction”.[3]
  • In 1923, Martin Buber published an essay “Ich und Du” (I and You), in which he pointed out that our narcissism often leads us to relate to others as objects instead of as equals.[citation needed]


Four dimensions of narcissism as a personality variable have been delineated: leadership/authority, superiority/arrogance, self-absorption/self-admiration, and exploitativeness/entitlement.[5]

These criteria have been criticized because they presume a knowledge of intention (for example, the phrase “pretending to be”).[6] Behavior is observable, but intention is not. Thus classification requires assumptions which need to be tested before they can be asserted as fact, especially considering multiple explanations could be made as to why a person exhibits these behaviors.

Psychiatrists Hotchkiss and James F. Masterson identified what they called the seven deadly sins of narcissism:[7]

  1. Shamelessness: Narcissists are often proudly and openly shameless; they are not bound by the needs and wishes of others. Narcissists hate shame[clarification needed], and consider it “toxic”[citation needed], as shame implies they are not perfect and need to change. Narcissists prefer guilt over shame, as guilt allows them to dissociate their actions from themselves – it’s only their actions that are wrong, while they themselves remain perfect.
  2. Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect, using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to “dump” shame onto others.
  3. Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may “reinflate” their sense of self-importance by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.
  4. Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person’s ability by using contempt to minimize the other person or their achievements.
  5. Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an “awkward” or “difficult” person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.
  6. Exploitation: Can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other person is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed. This exploitation may result in many brief, short-lived relationships.
  7. Bad boundaries: Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist, there is no boundary between self and other.

Main article: Narcissistic personality disorder

Narcissistic personality disorder affects an estimated 1% of the general population.[8][9] Although most individuals have some narcissistic traits, high levels of narcissism can manifest themselves in a pathological form as narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), whereby the individual overestimates his or her abilities and has an excessive need for admiration and affirmation. NPD was revised in the DSM-5. The general move towards a dimensional (personality trait-based) view of the Personality Disorders has been maintained. Some narcissists may have a limited or minimal capability to experience emotions.[10]

The Cochrane Collaboration has commissioned two reviews of the evidence for psychological and medical treatments for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).[11] In both cases, they suspended their initiatives after the authors had made no progress in over a year. There are no clear treatment strategies for NPD,[12] neither medication, nor Psychotherapy.[13] There is evidence that therapies effective in the treatment of other personality disorders do not generalise to NPD.[14] Psychiatric diagnoses are not formulated for stability over time.[clarification needed] Spontaneous recovery from mental ill-health does sometime occur and many comorbid conditions (e.g. anxiety) can be treated.[citation needed]

Karen Horney saw the narcissistic personality as a temperament trait molded by a certain kind of early environment. She did not see narcissistic needs and tendencies as inherent in human nature.[15]

Craig Malkin called a lack of healthy narcissism “echoism” after the nymph Echo in the mythology of Narcissus.[16] Healthy narcissism might exist in all individuals.

Freud said that narcissism was an original state from which the individual develops the love object.[17][qualify evidence] He argued that healthy narcissism is an essential part of normal development.[3] According to Freud, the love of the parents for their child and their attitude toward their child could be seen as a revival and reproduction of their own narcissism.[3] The child has a megalomaniac omnipotence of thought;[17] the parents stimulate that feeling because in their child they see the things that they have never reached themselves. Compared to neutral observers, parents tend to overvalue the qualities of their child. When parents act in an extreme opposite style and the child is rejected or inconsistently reinforced depending on the mood of the parent, the self-needs of the child are not met.[citation needed]

Freud contrasted the natural development of active-egoistic and passive-altruistic tendencies in the individual with narcissism, in the former, and what Trevor Pederson referred to as echoism, in the latter.[18]

Where the egoist can give up love in narcissism, the altruist can give up on competition, or “the will,” in echoism. The individual first has a non-ambivalent relations of fusion with authority or love figures, which are characterized by the egoistic or altruistic drives. Second, the individual can move to defusion from authority or love figures which leads to repetitions of ambivalent, narcissistic or echoistic relations. In the third movement the individual becomes the dead or absent parental figure that never returned love to the echoist, or the perfect, grandiose parental figure in narcissism.[18] While egoism and narcissism concern dynamics of power and inferiority/superiority, Pederson argues that altruism and echoism concern dynamics of belonging and inclusion/exclusion. Pederson has two types of echoists: the “subject altruist” and the “object altruist”, with the former being concerned with the belonging of others and loving them, and the latter being concerned with their own belonging and being loved. The subject altruist is self-effacing, a people pleaser, and sacrifices her desire to help others who are outsiders become insiders, or to be the submissive helper of an insider. The object altruist is gregarious, a people person, and wants to be interesting which is based on wanting to fit in and not be an outsider or wanting to be unique as an insider. Both types of echoists show issues with being submissive, having problems saying no, and avoiding conflict.[18]

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

THERE IS A BASIS FOR THE SPECULATION OF SOME WRITERS THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS IN REALITY AN ANTIPOPE

Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claims he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be a antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope?

The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is a antipope.

In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope.

In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II.

How is this possible?

St. Bernard said “the ‘sanior pars’ (the wiser portion)… declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops.”

(St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72)

Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for Anacletus?

Historian Warren Carroll explains:

“[C]anon law does not bind a Pope arranging for his successor… [Papal Chancellor] Haimeric proposed that… a commission of eight cardinals should be selected to choose the next Pope… strong evidence [shows] that the Pope [Honorius] endorsed what Haimeric was doing, including the establishment of the electoral commission [of eight cardinals].”

(The Glory of Christendom, Pages 36-37)

The majority or “sanior pars,” five cardinals out of eight of “the electoral commission,” elected Pope Innocent II as St. Bernard said and as evidence shows was the will of the previous pope in what we can call a constitution for the election of his successor.
In the same way, is it possible that Francis was not elected pope even though he received a absolute majority of cardinals votes and is now as in the case of Anacletus proclaimed pope by the same absolute majority?

As with the case of Anacletus, it is possible Francis is a antipope if his election contradicted or violated the constitution promulgated by Pope John Paul II for electing his successor.The award-winning Mexican journalist and President of Vida para Nacer Jose Munguia who studied theology at the Gregorian University in Rome brings forward evidence that there were “serious irregularities” against John Paul II’s constitution that governed the 2013 conclave that could invalidate the conclave which elected Francis:

“Article 79 of the Constitution Universi Domenici Gregis, which establishes the details of how the conclave must be celebrated, says the following: ‘Confirming the prescriptions of my predecessors, I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a cardinal, during the Pope’s lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings’.”

“And in article 81 it is established that these agreements are punished with excommunication latae sententiae (i.e. automatic, without the need of a declaration by anybody, ipso facto and eo ipsa).”

“The information revealed by Cardinal Daneels days before the Synod, coincides with that published by Austin Ivereigh, in his book “The Great Reformer” in which he reveals how, during the 2013 conclave, four cardinals from the Mafioso Saint Galen group (Kasper, Lehman, Danneels and Murphy O’Connor) came together to illicitly orchestrate a campaign in favour of the election of Bergoglio, after the latter had agreed to be the beneficiary of this scheming.”

“… After the election came the two books which revealed the serious irregularities committed within the conclave that elected Bergoglio. The first is the [Spanish language] book by Elisabbeta Piqué (Bergoglio’s authorised biographer from Argentina) entitled ‘Francisco, Vida y Revolución’ (Francisco, Life and Revolution). Piqué knew, through Francis himself, what happened inside the conclave. The other book is by the famous vaticanologist Antonio Socci ‘Non é Francesco’ (Francis is not the Pope).”

“The revelations of [Spanish speaking] Piqué [which are almost unknown to the English speaking world] are so well believed as coming from Francis that the Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, published the chapter that deals with how the conclave developed. Vatican Radio and Television did likewise. What happened is that Bergoglio, on being elected Pope, felt that the threat of excommunication – which falls on any cardinal for revealing what happened in the conclave – no longer affected him and related to the journalist the things that happened within the Sistine Chapel.”

“The narration: In the conclave, in the evening of the 13th of March, in the fourth vote count of the day, there were 116 votes when there were only 115 cardinals in the hall. One cardinal put in one paper too many. This fourth vote was won by Cardinal Angelo Scola of Milan (The Italian Episcopal Conference itself released a bulletin congratulating Scola for having been elected Pope). This vote count was improperly annulled. Angelo Scola’s website published that the recently elected Pope had taken the name of John XXIV. Wikipedia also published it. A few minutes later both sites took down this result. What happened is that when the recently elected Pope was on his way to the balcony of Saint Peter’s, a group of cardinals, mostly Germans and Americans, approached him to tell him that he had to return to the Sistine Chapel because the vote count had to be annulled.”

“Now, the Apostolic Constitution Universi Domenici Gregis (Art 69) establishes that if two folded papers came from the same cardinal with the same name or if one was blank, they must be counted as a single vote. If, on the other hand, there were two different names, both papers are annulled and none of the two votes is valid. But it clearly establishes: “In none of the two cases must the election be annulled”. In this case there was an extra white paper. The established procedure was not followed but rather the election was annulled, which was expressly prohibited.”

“Contravening the dispositions of the Constitution, the fourth vote count was declared null, they forced Cardinal Angelo Scola, recently elected and having taken the name of John XXIV, to resign and return to the Sistine Chapel, and they proceeded with a fifth vote in which Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected.”

“This was the second irregularity of the conclave, because the Constitution establishes (Art 63) that there must only be four voting sessions per day, two in the morning and two in the evening.”

“The case for saying that the designation of Bergoglio is effectively invalid is clear, according to canon lawyers, who refer us to article 76 which states: ‘Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected’.”

“This pile of evidence led Cardinal George Pell to declare that Francis could well be the 38th antipope in the history of the church, and not the 266th Pope as the vast majority believe.”

“Finally, it is worth pointing out here, that even if all the aforementioned be cast in doubt or discredited, all opposing arguments collapse with Cardinal Danneels’s admission in his biography, that he and a group of cardinals, the “Mafia Club”, plotted to force Benedict XVI to resign. When you have a confession, proof is not necessary.”[https://www.ultimostiempos.org/en/blog-en/item/81-antipopes-conclave.html]Bishop Rene Gracida, also, brings forward evidence that the conclave that elected Francis was invalid because there were “serious irregularities” against John Paul II’s constitution that governed the 2013 conclave.

However, the popular and respected traditional Catholic commentator Steve Skojec on May 7, 2018 apparently rejected Bishop Gracida’s call for the cardinals to judge if Francis’s election to the papacy was valid calling the validity question itself a “potentially dangerous rabbit hole.”
(Onepeterfive, “Cardinal Eijk References End Times Prophecy in Intercommunion,” May 7, 2018)

At the time, Skojec referred back to his September 26, 2017 post where he said:

“JPII has removed the election-nullifying consequences of simony… nowhere else in the following paragraphs is nullity of the election even implied.”
(Onepeterfive, “A Brief note on the Question of a Legally Valid Election,” September 26, 2017)

Bishop Gracida shows that Skojec is wrong in his Open Letter quoting Pope John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis’ introductory perambulary and paragraph 76:

– “I further confirm, by my Apostlic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process” [the above which Gracida clearly shows in his Open Letter was not maintained thus making the conclave and Francis’s papacy invalid according to the Bishop].
(Introductory perambulary)

– “Should the election take place in a way other than laid down here not to be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void.”
(Paragraph 76)

Gracida’s Open Letter, moreover, shows that Skojec is wrong above:

“The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave.”

On top of all that, Skojec ignores paragraph 5 and contrary to what conservative canon lawyer Edward Peters has said about Universi Dominici Gregis when he suggests canon lawyers have a role in interpreting the John Paul II Constitution, the document says:

“Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect. I [Pope John Paul II] Decree that all power of issuing a judgment of this in this regard to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points.”
(Universi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 5)

Later in the paragraph it says “except the act of the election,” which can be interpreted in a number of ways.

The point is, as Bishop Gracida says and Universi Dominici Gregis said, only the cardinals can interpret its meaning, not Skojec, not canon lawyers or anyone else.

The Bishop is saying what the document says: only the cardinals can interpret it.

He, also, says put pressure on the cardinals to act and interpret it which both Skojec and Peters appear to prefer to ignore.

Moreover, Bishop Gracida’s Open Letter and Pope John Paul II’s document make a number of points which neither Skojec, Peters or anyone else to my knowledge have even brought up or offered any counter argument against.

I have great respect for both Skojec and Peters, but unless Gracida’s Open Letter is squarely responded to my respect for them will greatly diminish for they will be neglecting their responsibility to God and His Church.

They are both wrong if they ignore this important Open Letter of Bishop Gracida.

If Peters and Skojec as well as the conservative and traditional Catholic media are ignoring Bishop Gracida because he isn’t a cardinal and retired, remember that St. Athanasius wasn’t a cardinal (that is involved in the selection or election process of the pope of the time) and was retired.

During the Arian heresy crisis, Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius. You don’t get any more retired than being excommunicated.

Skojec gave blogger Ann Barnhardt’s analysis of the papal validity a long article and podcast. The only bishop in the world contesting Francis in a meaningful way deserves as much. Why is he apparently so afraid of Bishop Gracida?

Skojec and Peters need to answer Gracida’s theologically clear and precise arguments and either clearly and precisely counter them or put pressure on the cardinals to put into action the needed canonical procedures to remove Francis if he was “never validly elected” the pope or else remove him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy.

Francis is not orthodox so there are only two things he could be:

1. A validly elected pope who is a material heretic until cardinals correct him and then canonically proclaim he is a formal heretic if he doesn’t recant thus deposing him (See: “Unambiguously Pope Francis Materially Professes Death Penalty Heresy: Cd. Burke: ‘If a Pope would Formally Profess Heresy he would Cease, by that Act, to be the Pope'”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2018/08/unambiguously-pope-francis-materially.html?m=1) or

2. a invalidly elected antipope who is a heretic.

The point is whether you think using all the information available 1. is the objective truth or 2. is the objective truth you must act.

You must as the Bishop says put: “pressure on the cardinals to act” whichever you think. 

There are many ways to put pressure such as pray and offer Masses for this intention, send the Gracida link to priests, bishops and cardinals, make signs and pray the rosary in front of their offices as we do in front of abortion clinics. Use your imagination to come up with other ideas.

Gracida is calling the cardinals to “[a]ddress… [the] probable invalidity” before they attempt to depose him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy. But, just as importantly he is calling all faithful Catholics to act and not just bemoan Francis’s heresy. 

Bishop Gracida in a email to me and through the Catholic Monitor to all faithful Catholics said:

“ONE CAN SAY THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A HERETIC UNTIL ONE DIES BUT IT CHANGES NOTHING. WHAT IS NEEDED IS ACTION… WE MUST PRESSURE THE CARDINALS TOACT. SEND THAT LINK TO EVERY PRIEST AND BISHOP YOU KNOW”: 
https://wp.me/px5Zw-95e.

Remember that many who are calling those like Bishop Gracida, journalist Munguia  and others “schismatics” for calling for a cardinal investigation are following in the footsteps of the real schismatics who promoted and followed Antipope Anacletus II. 
Renown Catholic historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the “election procedures… [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope”:

“Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope).” 

“During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals.”

“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”

“Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims.” 
[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt

The schismatic followers of  Antipope Anacletus II didn’t want St. Bernard to investigate who was the real pope. It was the followers of the real pontiff Pope Innocent II who asked Bernard to investigate. 

Why are so many traditional and conservative Catholics afraid of a cardinal investigation of the apparent “serious irregularities” against John Paul II’s constitution that governed the 2013 conclave that could invalidate the conclave which elected Francis?

March 18, 2019 Note:

I have gotten some push back from someone about a bishop who attacked Bishop Gracida apparently using Robert Siscoe’s claim that it is an infallible dogma that a man is infallibly a pope if there is “peaceful and universal acceptance” by the Church.

Was there peaceful and universal  acceptance?

In Siscoe’s own book “True or False Pope,”  he mentions the following scholars who questioned the validity of Francis’s election: Vatican expert Antonio Socci and “Stefano Violin, esteemed Professor of Canon Law” (Page 390). And there is a bishop and many other scholars who question the validity not mentioned by him.

Apparently, Siscoe didn’t get his “peaceful and universal” dogma from a dogmatic statement from a pope or council, but from a good, but a not necessarily infallible theologian John of St. Thomas.  Here is his quote from John of St. Thomas:

“[T]his man in particular, lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff.”
(Trueorfalsepope.com, “Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope,” 2-28-19 and 3-13-19)

This bring us back to the renown historian Carroll statement: “A Papal claimant not following these methods [which is the conclave constitution of a previous pope] is also an Antipope.”

Even John of St. Thomas agrees with Carroll when he said as quoted by Siscoe:

Besides “acceptance” a valid pope needs to be “lawfully elected.”

Again, Bishop Gracida is saying what John Paul II’s conclave constitution says about the question of if Francis was “lawfully elected” or not: only the cardinals can interpret it, not Siscoe, Skojec, canon lawyers or John of St. Thomas.


Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and for Catholics to not just bemoan heresy, but put pressure on the cardinals to act as well as for the grace for a cardinal to stand up and investigate and to be the St. Bernard of our time. 

In fact, please offer Masses, fast and pray the rosary for these intentions during Lent and after the Lenten season.

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html?m=1

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IN THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA THE LIVES OF KILLERS, EVEN SERIAL KILLERS, ARE MORE PRECIOUS THAN THE LIVES OF INNOCENT VICTIMS EVEN INNOCENT VICTIMS THAT ARE NEWLY BORN INFANTS

Jeff Jacoby
Gavin Newsom’s death-row betrayal

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
March 20, 2019

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/22484/gavin-newsom-death-row-betrayal
  

      ON JUNE 15, 1990, Rosie Alfaro went to the house of a friend in Anaheim, Calif. She thought no one would be home, and planned to break in and steal valuables to sell for drug money.Nine-year-old Autumn Wallace bled to death after being stabbed 57 times in what the judge called the most “senseless, brutal, vicious, and callous” killing he had ever encountered. The killer was sentenced to death, but remains alive on California’s death row.But the house wasn’t empty. The door was opened by 9-year-old Autumn Wallace, who recognized her older sister’s friend, and let her in when she said she needed to use the bathroom. As Autumn returned to what she had been doing — coloring paper dolls with crayons — Alfaro took a knife from the kitchen. Then, pretending she needed help with an eyelash curler, she coaxed Autumn into the bathroom and stabbed the little girl 57 times. Autumn bled to death on the bathroom floor, and Alfaro stole household items that she later sold for less than $300.At trial two years later, Alfaro was sentenced to death. Superior Court Judge Theodore Millard called the murder of Autumn Wallace the most “senseless, brutal, vicious, and callous” killing he had ever encountered. After 15 years of delays and appeals, the California Supreme Court unanimously upheld the lawfulness of Alfaro’s punishment.That punishment has never been imposed. Though California has the largest death row in the nation, it hasn’t executed a murderer since 2006. If the state’s new Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, gets his way, that won’t change: Newsom last week announced a unilateral reprieve for all 737 capital murderers on California’s death row. In effect, he declared that should any execution be scheduled while he is in office, he will use his authority to grant temporary reprieves to block it. Newsom made it one of his first priorities to ensure that neither Alfaro nor any other killer awaiting punishment in California is ever put to death.At Alfaro’s trial, her defense lawyer urged the jury to reject the death penalty, which he said should be reserved for serial killers. There are plenty of them on Death Row, too — monsters like Chester Turner, who murdered 14 women, one of them pregnant, between 1987 and 1998, and Eric Leonard, who in 1991 gunned down three people in a Sacramento market for kicks, then a week later killed three more in a pizza parlor. Indeed, among the inmates Newsom has pledged to keep alive are 160 murderers each of whom was convicted of killing at least three victims. There are 25 prisoners on Death Row who slaughtered six or more human beings apiece.Capital punishment is a controversial subject in California. Through ballot propositions, voters have repeatedly been asked to abolish the death penalty — and have repeatedly upheld it instead. During Newsom’s tenure as lieutenant governor and campaign for governor, the subject came up often. In 2012, he vigorously supported Proposition 34, a well-funded initiative to replace capital punishment with life imprisonment. After that attempt failed, he just as vigorously supported Proposition 62, another initiative to end the death penalty. It too was defeated.California voters have repeated chosen to retain the death penalty, and as a candidate for governor, Gavin Newsom pledged to honor their decision. But his word was not to be trusted.As a gubernatorial candidate, Newsom solemnly pledged to abide by the voters’ death-penalty decisions, despite disagreeing with them. He promised to be “accountable to the will of the voters” and not let his “personal opinions” interfere with “the public’s right to make a determination” about capital punishment. His spokesman last year told the San Francisco Chronicle that Newsom “recognizes that California voters have spoken on the issue and [would] respect the will of the electorate.” In editorial-board meetings, Newsom agreed that “it would be an affront for a governor to say ‘Here’s what I’m going to do by fiat.'”His word was not to be trusted.Newsom plainly believes his betrayal will benefit him politically. He is being cheered by many on the left — including, it should be said, many liberals appalled by President Trump’s unilateral declaration of a “national emergency” at the border. Rachel Maddow hailed him on her MSNBC show the other night as “a potential vice presidential choice.”Double-dealing politicians are not a new phenomenon; neither is Newsom’s reputation for deceit. And in practical terms, the governor’s reprieve for everyone on death row changes little: Executions weren’t being carried out in California anyway. Newsom’s decree means only that the justice long ago promised to Autumn Wallace, and to so many hundreds of other murder victims, will go on being denied. The depraved killers who sent them to early graves will never pay the penalty that judges, juries, and appellate courts — and voters — all agreed they should pay. California’s worst murderers can look forward to living to a ripe old age, adding pitiless insult to unspeakable injury, as a smug and preening governor does his best to make sure that murder in his state will not be taken too seriously.(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

OPPOSITION TO THE FICTION OF BRAIN DEATH CONTINUES TO GROW

Featured Image
Stephen Kokx

Stephen KokxF

NEWSBIOETHICSEND OF LIFEFAITHFREEDOMWed Mar 20, 2019 – 11:22 am EST

‘Brain death’ is a medical fiction invented to harvest organs from living people: expert

 Brain DeadBrain DeathDoyen NguyenEnd Of LifeJohn Paul Ii Academy For Human Life And The FamilyOrgan DonationOrgan Harvesting

ROME, March 20, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Is it morally permissible to harvest the organs of a person in a coma declared “brain dead” by doctors? Why and when did organ transplantation first come about? And what is the Church’s teaching on using organs from a person deemed to be “brain dead”?

These questions and more are answered by Doyen Nguyen during an in-depth interview with the Italian magazine Radici Cristiane (read full interview below), where she blames a “consumerist culture” for causing many to accept the idea of “brain death,” a term she refers to as an incoherent, “medical fiction.”  

Nguyen is a lay Dominican and professor at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) in Rome. She will be presenting on the topic of “brain death” at the A Medicolegal Construct: Scientific & Philosophical Evidence conference hosted by the John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family in Rome May 20-21.

Professor Josef Seifert, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and Fr. Edmund Waldstein, among others, will present to the gathering as well, which will be held at the Hotel Massimo D’Azeglio. Click here to register. 

In the far-reaching interview, Nguyen says that an Ad Hoc Harvard Committee in 1968 redefined the term “brain death” to mean someone in an irreversible coma. Nguyen says this was done in order to serve the interests of the organ transplantation industry and to avoid public outcry that would have viewed transplant surgeons as organ-stealing killers.

Nguyen refutes the invention of the term “brain death” to describe someone in an “irreversible coma” by arguing that the term “irreversible coma” itself “indicates that the patient is alive, for the simple reason that only a living person can become comatose or remain comatose. In other words, it would be an oxymoron to say that a corpse is in coma!”

When a doctor declares a comatose patient to be dead, that patient does not thereby become dead, she said.  

Nguyen criticized John Paul II’s 2000 Address to the 18th International Congress of the Transplantation Society for its shortsightedness. Nguyen says John Paul’s remarks, which suggest “brain death” in certain cases “does not seem to conflict with the essential elements of a sound anthropology,” did not take into consideration all the literature available on the topic at the time. Nguyen says that the address should be “amended, or better yet, retracted.” Nguyen proceeds to explain how the Church should understand “brain death.”

***

Radici Cristiane’s full interview with Doyen Nguyen

Radici Cristiane (RC): There are people who think that “brain death” is a great deception. Do you agree?

Doyen Nguyen (Nguyen): Yes. “Brain death” has been a medical fiction from its very inception. The evidence for this can be found in the manuscript-drafts of the Ad Hoc Harvard Committee report which introduced “brain death” on August 5, 1968. The Committee, headed by its chairman, Dr. Beecher, worked swiftly on this report from March through June 25, 1968. In the first manuscript-draft, Beecher wrote: 

The question before this committee cannot be simply to define brain death. This would not advance the cause of organ transplantation since it would not cope with the essential issue of when the surgical team is authorized—legally, morally, and medically—in removing a vital organ.

In the penultimate manuscript-draft on June 3, 1968, Beecher wrote:

With increased experience and knowledge and development in the field of transplantation, there is great need for the tissues and organs of the hopelessly comatose in order to restore to health those who are still salvageable. (1)

The language in the manuscript-drafts of the Harvard report is thus overtly explicit with regard to the connection between organ donation and the “birth” of “brain death.” In other words, the real reason why the Harvard Committee redefined irreversible coma as death (and gave it a new name, “brain death”) is for a two-fold purpose: (i) to have fresh, viable organs more readily available for the transplantation enterprise, and (ii) at the same time, to avoid any public outcry that transplant surgeons were organ-stealing killers.

In the final draft which became the Harvard report, the explicitly utilitarian language in the earlier drafts was toned down by Ebert (then the dean of the Harvard Medical School), in order to make it seem that transplantation was not the primary cause of the “birth” of “brain death.”

So, in a nutshell, “brain death” is a construct to serve the interest of organ transplantation. 

RC: What is the scientific/medical evidence showing that “brain death” is not true human death?

Nguyen: Here I will answer you with a long quote taken from a peer-reviewed article written by Kompanje and De Groot. They are supporters of organ transplantation and therefore, of “brain death.” Yet, because of academic honesty, they have to admit that “brain death” is a construct for the purpose of organ transplantation. They wrote:

Suppose one of your loved ones is admitted to an ICU with a subarachnoid hemorrhage and you are sitting next to her bed, overwhelmed by emotions and holding her hand. She is deeply comatose, connected to a ventilator; intravenous vasopressors are needed to keep her blood pressure stable. You are hoping for the best, but fear the worst. And the worst comes. The intensivist tells you her brain is dead. Then he asks you for permission to take out her organs. You, and your loved one, had never thought about this scenario of dying. You had heard about brain death, but you don’t have a picture of it in your head. You ask the doctor: “when will she die”? He answers: “she is already dead.” You don’t believe him because there are so many signs of life. Her skin is warm, her heart is beating. […] Taking out her organs while her heart is still beating seems like a scene from a cheap horror film. […] We are, as most intensivists, greatly in favor of organ donation for transplantation. The whole concept of organ donation is founded on the concept that the potential organ donor is really dead at the moment that brain death is declared. This is pivotal in order to gain even remote public acceptance of organ donation. They have to be ensured that their loved one is dead before the organs are taken out. But, the bare fact that many brain-dead patients can continue to perform a variety of integrative functions over indefinite time periods, including maintaining body temperature, persistent and adequate hypothalamic hormonal function, regulating salt and water homoeostasis, digesting administered food, healing wounds, increase of infection markers and healing infections, stress responses to bodily interventions such as surgery and gestating fetuses in pregnant brain-dead women, makes some wonder whether a brain-dead patient is as ‘dead’ as the doctors say. Or they mistrust the statement that the patient has been pronounced ‘dead.’ For example, it is very difficult to see a ‘brain-dead’ pregnant woman, in whose womb a fetus grows over a time period for 2–3 months after the determination of brain death, as ‘a cadaver.’ There are just too many signs of life. Declaring these patients ‘dead’ solely on the basis of ‘a definition’ seems to contradict our common sense of what it is to be alive. Brain death is, since the first definitions in the scientific literature in 1968, closely related to organ donation. This is why, some scholars considers equating brain death to death as a moral and legal fiction. […] Without the needs of transplantation medicine, ‘brain death as death’ would not exist at all, but would be seen as […] irreversible […] coma (le coma dépassé). (2)

In fact, the above quote should remind us of the opening statement in the Harvard report which states: “Our primary purpose is to define irreversible coma as a new criterion for death.” Note however, the term “irreversible coma” itself indicates that the patient is alive, for the simple reason that only a living person can become comatose or remain comatose. In other words, it would be an oxymoron to say that a corpse is in coma! 

Moreover, both life and death are realities the nature of which is mind-independent. The world is what it is regardless of what anyone says or thinks about it, and that world includes phenomena such as life, death, diseases, and all natural things from inorganic matter to human persons. Such natural entities are not open to revision or stipulation. In other words, death (understood as a biological phenomenon) is not the kind of thing that occurs by fiat like in the case of marriage. When a doctor declares a comatose patient (whose heart is beating, and whose skin is warm and pink) to be dead, that patient does not thereby become dead.

RC: A threefold question regarding John Paul II’s 2000 Address to the 18th International Congress of the Transplantation Society, the problem which this Address has caused, and what should the Catholic faithful do?

Nguyen: For a detailed answer to this question please read my article: Doyen Nguyen, “Pope John Paul II and the Neurological Standard for the Determination of Death: A Critical Analysis of His Address to the Transplantation Society,” Linacre Quarterly 84, no. 2 (2017): 155–186. A more expanded treatment of the topic can be found in my book: Doyen Nguyen, The New Definitions of Death for Organ Donation: A Multidisciplinary Analysis from the Perspective of Christian Ethics (Bern: Peter Lang, 2018) on pages 457-483.

In this interview, I can only give you a brief synoptic answer to this very complex question. The bulk of my answer is found in sections 3.2 and 3.3.

3.1 First point: About the hierarchy of the different types of Magisterial teaching

The ordinary teaching of the Church’s Magisterium includes several gradations, from the higher end (e.g., the teaching of an encyclical such as Veritatis Splendor) to the lower end which consist of interventions in the prudential order, in which some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies since they might not have taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a particular issue (see Donum Veritatis, no. 24). In addition, the importance of a particular Church’s teaching can also be inferred from the insistence with which it has been repeated. 

In this regard, John Paul II’s address to the Transplantation Society in 2000 belongs to the category of interventions of the prudential order. Moreover, the Pope’s statement (contained in that address) with regard to “brain death” has occurred once and only once in the whole of the teaching of the Magisterium. In particular, John Paul II did not even make a reference to that statement in his 2005 address to the participants of the conference “the Signs of Death” (February 2005) sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

3.2 Second point: John Paul II’s statement in his 2000 address

John Paul II’s statement in his 2000 address is as follows: 

Vital organs which occur singly in the body can be removed only after death, that is from the body of someone who is certainly dead. […] The death of the person is a single event, consisting in the total disintegration of that unitary and integrated whole that is the personal self. It results from the separation of the life-principle (or soul) from the corporal reality of the person. […] For some time certain scientific approaches to ascertaining death have shifted the emphasis from the traditional cardio-respiratory signs to the so-called ‘neurological’ criterion. Specifically, this consists in establishing, according to clearly determined parameters commonly held by the international scientific community, the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity. […] It can be said that the criterion adopted in more recent times for ascertaining the fact of death, namely the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity, if rigorously applied, does not seem to conflict with the essential elements of a sound anthropology.

There are several key points in the Pope’s statement: 

(a) Death is the separation of the soul from the body. In other words, the Pope’s teaching on death is grounded in Christian anthropology, according to which: (a) man is the substantial unity of body and soul and, (b) the soul is the life principle of the body. In medical/scientific terms, the separation of the soul from the body manifests itself as the loss of somatic integration, i.e., the process of corruption of the material constituents which once composed the living body.

(b) Vital organs can only be removed after death. In this regard, it is necessary to understand that because human beings belong to the same genus of warm blood mammals, the biological manifestations of the death phenomenon in a human being are no different from that observed in other mammals such as a pet dog or a pet cat – no heartbeat, no respiration, no movements, no responses to any stimulation. The temperature of the dead body quickly drops to the same level as the ambient temperature; and livor mortis and rigor mortis set in within a few hours.

(c) The Pope’s endorsement of the neurological criterion for the determination of death (i.e., “brain death”) is a conditional endorsement, clearly indicated by the conjunction “if” and the verb “does not seem.” According to the Pope’s statement, in order to be acceptable, the “brain death” criterion must fulfill three requirements: 

(i) the loss of somatic integration, i.e., the physical evidence that the soul has left the body;

(ii) a consensus of the parameters that constitute the “brain death” criterion (i.e., in the Pope’s words: “clearly determined parameters commonly held by the international scientific community”). The parameters here refer to the clinical tests used for determining “brain death;” and

(iii) the rigorous application of these parameters.

3.3 Confronting John Paul II’s 2000 statement and the reality of “brain death”

3.3.1 Without going into details, suffice it to mention that even brain-death advocates have to acknowledge that there is no global consensus on the parameters of the “brain death” paradigm, but rather a confusion of practice. For instance, in a well-known study by Greer and colleagues, within the United States alone, there is wide variability in the practice and determination of “brain death” among the top 50 institutions for neurology and neurosurgery. The most worrisome aspect of this wide variability is the variability in apnea testing, recognized by Greer and colleagues as “an area with the greatest possibility for inaccuracies.” (3)

Moreover, the parameters can only be clearly determined if they have undergone rigorous validation prior to being introduced into clinical practice. Such a validation process was never done prior to the introduction of “brain death” by the Harvard Committee. No validation study has been performed since that time either.

3.3.2 Perhaps the most grievous aspect regarding John Paul II’s 2000 Address is the fact that it did not take into account the wealth of peer-reviewed literature, published prior to 2000, which clearly provided the evidence that “brain death” is not death. Examples of such literature include: 

(i) Shewmon’s 1998 report of a series of chronic “brain death” survivors; 

(ii) many reports since the 1980s on brain-dead pregnant mothers who, with aggressive life support, were able to carry their pregnancy until the time when their babies could be safely delivered by Cesarean section; 

(iii) many critiques of “brain death” authored by scholars who supported organ transplantation, but who, in conformity to academic honesty and scientific realism, publicly acknowledged that “brain death is a social construct created for utilitarian purposes, primarily to permit organ transplantation.” (4)

(iv) The most important publication which the Pope’s 2000 Address should have known about and should have taken into account is the document of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology published in 1995 to provide the guidelines for determining “brain death.” According to the guidelines, the presence of – “spontaneous movements of the limbs and reflexes of the limbs (e.g., rapid flexion in arms, raising of all limbs off the bed, grasping movements, spontaneous jerking of one leg, etc.) as well as responses such as profuse sweating, blushing, tachycardia, and sudden increases in blood pressure” – is compatible with the diagnosis of brain death.” (5)

A review done by Saposnik in 2009 shows that up to 80% of brain-dead patients can manifest such movements. Although movements in any particular brain-dead patient may be very infrequent, they nevertheless occur.

Put simply, according to the guidelines for the determination of “brain death,” the brain-dead patient can be declared dead even though he or she may have movements from the arms and legs. The obvious question that any average person should ask is: how is it that a corpse can move? And the obvious question which every Christian should ask is: if the soul has left the body, then what is the principle which accounts for the spontaneous movements and reflexes of the arms and legs in the brain-dead patient? According to the sound tenets of the Church’s anthropology, the soul is the principle by which the body lives, and the principle of our nourishment, sensation, and local movement; and likewise of our understanding. (6)

There, without the soul, there can be no movements, no sweating, no blood flow, no heartbeat, etc.

In a nutshell, given that the brain death criterion admits the presence of spontaneous movements and reflexes, then in what way can it be claimed that “the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity, if rigorously applied, does not seem to conflict with the essential elements of a sound anthropology”? (7)

Such a statement can only reflect a gross oversight of the medical, scientific, and bioethical literature publicly available before 2000. For this very reason, such a statement needs to be seriously amended, or better yet, retracted – for the good of the Church and her children, the faithful.

Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality (veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus). Given that (i) John Paul II’s 2000 address ranks at the lower end of ordinary Magisterial teaching (the kind which may contain inaccuracies), (ii) the teaching was mentioned once and only once in the entire Magisterial teaching of the Church, (iii) John Paul II himself did not even allude to it in his subsequent address in 2005, and (iv) the statement itself contradicts the medical reality of brain-dead patients, then indeed it cannot be said that the teaching in the 2000 address has any binding force on Catholic believers.

RC: About the interests and pressures on the Church and society in general, such “brain death” is universally accepted?

Nguyen: It should be evident to readers by now that “brain death” is a medico-legal fiction, a social construct for utilitarian purposes. It does not take much imagination to figure out that the transplantation enterprise is a multi-billion dollar (or Euro) business. Even the most staunched defender of “brain death,” Bernat, had to admit (albeit very reluctantly) that the concept of “brain death” is incoherent; but, according to him, in the real world of public law and policy, we must compromise so that death can be declared and organs procured. (8)

It is not correct to say that “brain death” is universally accepted. As Brugger points out, doubt about “brain death” has become an international consensus, in the sense that quite a number scholars in medicine, philosophy, and bioethics from countries worldwide have recognized that the “brain death” paradigm is unsound. (9)

It would be more correct to say that “brain death” has been universally imposed by legislation in different countries. The materialistic, utilitarian mindset of a consumerist culture has led to the so-called worldwide acceptance of “brain death.” It is part and parcel with the culture of death. Surprisingly, somehow this mentality has also penetrated into the Church, probably under the guise of charity and solidarity, especially since in the writings of John Paul II, organ donation has been exalted as a new way for man to make a sincere gift of himself and fulfill his constitutive calling to love and communion and, moreover, the gift of vital organs donated after death gives the donors the possibility to project beyond death their vocation to love. (10)

Certainly, as taught in the Catechism no. 2296, the Church encourages organ donation, because it is a noble act of charity and solidarity. But, it is not morally admissible to bring about the death of a human being, not even in order to delay the death of other persons. In a nutshell, it is not morally permissible to do evil to achieve a good. “Brain death” does exactly that: the deeply comatose patient (usually a young patient who has suffered a traumatic brain injury) is declared dead, so that his or her organs can be removed for transplantation purposes.

Notes:

(1) the drafts of the Harvard report are part of what is known as the “Beecher manuscripts,” preserved at the Francis Countway Library of Medicine at Harvard. They are not accessible to the public, they are made available only to some selected scholars.

(2) the quote is taken from: Erwin J.O. Kompanje and Yorik J. de Groot, Sounding board: is mandatory recovery of organs for transplantation acceptable? Intensive Care Medicine (2015) 41:1836–1837.

(3) data taken from David M. Greer, Panayiotis N. Varelas, Shamael Haque, Eelco F.M. Wijdicks, Variability of brain death determination guidelines in leading US neurologic institutions. Neurology 70, no. 4 (2008): 284–89]. Ironically, the apnea test is a cornerstone bedside clinical test for making the declaration of “brain death.”

(4) quoted from Robert Taylor, “Reexamining the Definition and Criteria of Death,” Seminars in Neurology 17, no. 3 (1997): 265. 

(5) this quote is derived from Eelco F. M. Wijdicks, “Determining Brain Death in Adults,” Neurology 45, no. 5 (1995): 1007. 

(6) see Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q.76, a.1.

(7) this is the statement taken from the 2000 Address.

(8) see James L. Bernat, “The Whole-Brain Concept of Death Remains Optimum Public Policy,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34, no. 1 (2006): 41

(9) see E. Christian Brugger, “Are Brain Dead Individuals Dead? Grounds for Reasonable Doubt,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 41, no. 3 (2016): 355

(10) see John Paul II, “To Participants of the First International Congress of the Society for Organ Sharing (20 June 1991)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

APRIL 22, 1519 IS A SIGNIFICANT DATE (500 YEARS IS A SIGNIFICANT PERIOR OF TIME) FOR ALL OF US HERE IN THE ‘NEW WORLD’

    The first baby step of the so-called “modern” North America occurred on April 22, 1519. See page 24 of Dr. Warren H. Carroll’s famous book, Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Conquest of Darkness. He was one of a handful of the men who founded Christendom College in Virginia.


      On April 22, 1519 less than 1,000 men disembarked and most began the long march to Mexico City. A handful stayed behind and started the FIRST European-based city in North America: Veracruz, i.e., the True Cross. It was Good Friday.


      If we live in “modern” North America then there had to be a point in time when that began. That date is April 22, 1519. If that is not the date, then when?


       In reading books on the subject I’ve never seen it addressed in these terms. However I believe that many, perhaps most Americans would find that an interesting way to phrase it.


       AFTER 1519 and the beginning of the conquest, twelve years passed then God sent Our Lady of Guadalupe to Mexico, i.e., North America in 1531.  Just as “2” follows “1” these two events are sequential – they are indeed connected. As far as I know that was the FIRST and only time God gave us Our Lady’s image, i.e., not made by human hands.

by PW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THE SCANDALOUS TREATMENT OF FATHER RODRIGUEZ BY BETO O’ROURKE

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment