THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Do the Nuremberg Laws & the Teachings of Aquinas on “Case of Necessity” apply to the Francis Crisis for Cardinal Burke? 

February 06, 2022

Nuremberg Code Article 1:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

Go back and read that again, and JUST. THINK. ABOUT. IT.

And we wonder how the Church could be cleansed and purified?  Oh, I can brainstorm ALL KINDS of possibilities, many of which involve a relatively small amount of lumber and sturdy rope.

How could ANYONE at this point not clearly see that there is an Antichurch which has invaded, usurped and now occupies the same Juridical, Liturgical, and Sacramental space as the True Church – BUT THAT THE CLEAVAGE AND TOTAL RUPTURE BETWEEN THE TWO IS NEARLY COMPLETE, HOLDING ON BY ONLY THE WORDS OF CONSECRATION OF THE EUCHARIST at the Mass? -Catholic Pundit Ann Barnhardt [https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/02/06/from-the-what-is-it-going-to-take-files-ed-pentin-calls-out-antipope-bergoglio-as-complicit-in-crimes-against-humanity/]

mRNA inventor stands with Abp. Viganò’s call for alliance against ‘fundamentally evil’ COVID tyranny 

Abp. Vigano attacks Pope Francis over vaccine mandate 

In a 2020 interview with Ed Pentin published at the National Catholic Register, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke went into greater detail than before, regarding the mysterious disappearance of the promised “formal correction” upon which so many had pinned their hopes. 

Why has no group of Cardinals challenged the openly heretical, openly abusive, and questionably legitimate Bergoglio? Pentin and a growing number of faithful demand to know.  The stance adopted by His Eminence, if reported accurately by the utterly reliable Pentin is to be believed, is positively mind-boggling for an attitude which can only be characterized as elective futility.

“Is there such a group?” Cardinal Burke is said to have responded, as though this rhetorical question of his might substitute for vindication of Christ’s truth against the assaults of Amoris and the Amazonian Synod.  A shrug at the crack of a gun; a sigh at the sight of a rape.  It is being reported elsewhere that–to his credit, as far as it goes–His Eminence did attempt to assemble such a group, to no avail.  In which case, why not act alone?

Two reasons, apparently: one, that throughout the history of the Church, only groups and not individuals like himself have approached an errant Pope in this way, and secondly, that he himself, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, is not “the savior of the Church.”

Here His Eminence echoes a mentality if not peculiar to modern man, then certainly showcased by him. Showcased, in particular, by a man noted in history as “Henry Q.,” who offered as justification of his conduct and that of his confreres, to researcher Robert Jay Lifton, that:

we suffered and acted within the limits of the possible.1

They did what they could, in other words, and what they could not do they did not attempt.  They had not the position nor the numbers to make any real difference–or so they judged, regarding as meaningless or (far worse) as misguided any gesture through which the less prudent might be tempted to catch sight of a glimmer of the one real fault a person can commit in their sight; namely, heroism itself.  Theirs is a colorless cosmos in the last analysis, these calculating moderns.  It isn’t as though Henry Q. wasn’t a good man, in his heart.  It’s just that the term “good German” has come to mean something very evil indeed.  The ones who “suffered and acted within the limits of the possible” were, of course, those who collaborated in the National Socialist program of the destruction of life devoid of value—in the euthanasia program which led up to the Holocaust, in other words, and generally speaking in the Holocaust itself.

Anyone who has read through the transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials is very familiar with the particular excuse which Cardinal Burke has so staggeringly, so stereotypically proffered.  War criminal after war criminal advert to it repeatedly throughout the transcripts—how they were only “doing their duty,” how nothing else was to be attempted against a system so omnipotent and perverse.  The same mentality crops up in our own culture when someone proclaims, always hollowly, “It’s above my pay grade!”  Another form of the stance of assumed powerlessness is the “Catholic” politician who rather conveniently claims to be “personally opposed to abortion, but . . . “

Neither Cardinal Burke nor any one of us has any right to be “personally opposed to Bergoglio, but . . .”  It is profoundly anti-Christian to “suffer and act within the limits of the possible,” when the Sacred Scriptures assure us that through Our Blessed Mother, “nothing shall be impossible with God” (Lk. 1:37).  Do you think it is humble of Cardinal Burke, to assert that he himself is “not the savior of the Church”?  What if God Almighty both wants and intends him to be (in an instrumental but providential sense), as was Saint Athanasius during the Arian Crisis, as were Saints John Fisher and Thomas More in the days of Henry VIII?  It is as though the child from whom Our Lord once asked for some loaves and fishes (Jn. 6:9) should have refused Him instead, declaring, “I’ll keep what I have, which is little enough, thank-you-very-much.  Can’t you count?  Who do you think I am, anyway–the savior of this hungry crowd?”

(In Lifton, Robert Jay.  The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide (New York: Basic, 1986), p. 238.)

Is the Francis crisis a state of emergency comparable to the Arian crisis of St. Athanasius? 

Scholar Michael Davies said that “Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre has been compared rightly to St.Athanasius”:

He is the Athanasius of our times. Like St.Athanasius and like St. Eusebius of Samosata, he went into the dioceses of bishops who were not acting as good shepherds, to give the people the instruction, the sacramental grace, and the pastors that they needed. For one bishop to intrude into the diocese of another is a very serious matter. It can only be justified if there is a state of necessity. A state of emergency, urgency, or necessity occurs in the Church when its continuation, order, or activity are threatened or harmed in an important way, and the emergency cannot be overcome by observing the normal positive laws. The emergency would relate principally to teaching, the liturgy, and ecclesiastical discipline. An interesting reference to such a situation occurs in a study of the Church’s divine constitution by Dom Adrien Grea, OSB, in his examination of the extraordinary powers of the episcopate:

“In the fourth century St. Eusebius of Samosata traveled thorough Eastern dioceses devastated by the Arians and ordained orthodox pastors for them, without having particular jurisdiction over them. These are evidently extraordinary actions, as were the Circumstances that gave rise to them.”[http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/sdavies.htm]

Wikipedia explains that Archbishop Lefebvre’s “Operation Survival” was “due to necessity”:

Lefebvre argued that his actions had been necessary because the traditional form of the Catholic faith and sacraments would become extinct without Traditionalist clergy to pass them on to the next generation. He called the ordinations “opération survie” (“Operation Survival”), citing in his defense canons 1323 and 1324 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the first of which says that “a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls” is not subject to penalty for violating a law or precept, while the other says “the perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed … by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned in can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present.”^[34][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X]

Scholars Alon Harel and Assaf Sharon show how St. Thomas Aquinas sees the “state of exception” or “Case of Necessity”:

In the Summa Theologica Aquinas addresses the case of necessity by focusing on the limits of legislation. Aquinas asserts that: The lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens more frequently by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore, if a case arises wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed.11Furthermore, Aquinas recognizes that cases falling into this category are not  “legislatable” and adds that:

He who in a case of necessity acts besides the letter of the law does not judge of the law but of a particular case in which he sees that the letter of the law is not to be observed. 

Last, Aquinas stresses that agents operating under these exceptional circumstances are  not accountable to the law as in ordinary cases. In his view: “The mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.” 11 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part II, 1st part, que. 96, art 6. See also II, II, que. 110 art.1. [https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/conferences2/Constitutionalism09-Harel.pdf]

Do the teachings of Aquinas on “necessity knows no law” or “case of necessity” apply to the Francis crisis? 

Note: Part of this article is written by a Catholic Monitor contributor.

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia. 

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html 

 –  LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”

–  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”

– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes: 

– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html

– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1

– A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020: 
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1

What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: 
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1] 

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

“The Carnage Has Begun”

February 2nd, 2022, Promulgated by Diane Harris 

Wednesday, February 2, 2022

“The Carnage Has Begun”: British Priest Rebukes Pope, Calls on Bishops to Openly Resist Suppression of Latin Mass

Written by  Diane Montagna | Vatican Journalist

BOMBSHELL NEW VIDEO — Priest Once Imprisoned in Burma Decries Francis’ Suppression of the Old Mass

“Sit back and consider it: the highest power on earth is attacking the greatest good on earth, precisely when it’s his job to defend and preserve tradition and to pass it on to the next generation.” – Fr. James Mawdsley

A British traditional Catholic priest who was once imprisoned and tortured in a Burmese jail is openly challenging Pope Francis’ efforts to suppress the Church’s ancient Roman liturgy.

In a 9-minute video titled “Why withstand Pope Francis publicly?” [watch it below] Father James Mawdsley, formerly a priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), asserts that in his letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes, Francis “declared his intention to eradicate the traditional liturgy” and “impossibly claimed that the Novus Ordo constitutes the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”

“Caiaphas was High Priest of the Old Covenant when he arranged for Jesus’ execution. Now shall the Vicar of Christ try to have Christ’s memorial destroyed?” he asks.

“What is happening is evil beyond description,” Father Mawdsley says. “Sit back and consider it: the highest power on earth is attacking the greatest good on earth, precisely when it’s his job to defend and preserve tradition and to pass it on to the next generation.”

Fr. Mawdsley is no stranger to challenging oppression. At the age of 27, he spent 14 months in solitary confinement in Burma’s infamous Kengtung prison and was brutally beaten for challenging the country’s regime for its human rights violations.

He also challenges Congregation for Divine Worship Prefect Archbishop Arthur Roche’s claim in a recent interview with Catholic News Service that “the negative reaction to Traditionis Custodes has been very little,” saying to the archbishop, “What do you expect when a reign of terror is unleashed?

“Of course, people are keeping their heads down,” he continues. “Many clerics do not say openly what they think because they are afraid of vicious reprisals” such as confirmations or baptisms being “banned” in the Old Rite, or being told they can no longer celebrate the traditional Mass.

“The carnage,” he says, “has begun.”

No Stranger to Oppression

Fr. Mawdsley is no stranger to challenging oppression. At the age of 27, he spent 14 months in solitary confinement in Burma’s infamous Kengtung prison and was brutally beaten for challenging the country’s regime for its human rights violations, particularly those committed against ethnic minorities. It was also in the solitude of his prison cell that he experienced a deep conversion to Christ that would eventually culminate in a vocation to the priesthood.

Years later, reflecting on his imprisonment, Fr. Mawdsley would say: “Primarily, it was to show solidarity with the Burmese people, and particularly with the prisoners. It’s very clear when you’re willing to be alongside people in prison for their political rights, they realize they’re not forgotten by the world.”

In the new video, published on Jan. 28, Father Mawdsley says: “Truth is needed for spiritual health … It’s not enough to know it in our hearts. We need to hear it said by men in authority, from bishops and cardinals, that nobody has the right to attack tradition.”

Prelates such as Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago are “willing for the war and the slaughter to continue,” Fr. Mawdsley observes.

Addressing himself to those shepherds who wish to suppress the traditional liturgy, he says: “You may personally hate the Old Mass, but you can see that Christians love it. They love to encounter Christ there. They pray there more deeply than anywhere. Why would you take this away?”

Prelates such as Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago are “willing for the war and the slaughter to continue,” Fr. Mawdsley observes, in a reference to the cardinal’s brutal new policy for implementing Traditionis Custodes in the archdiocese. “Of all the days of the year, he chose Christmas Day to drop the axe. Who does that? Is that not sick? … He’s like another Herod.”

The former FSSP priest, who left the fraternity with the intention of speaking out, also called Archbishop Roche’s claim that most of the episcopate support efforts to suppress the traditional liturgy “unbelievable” given the reactions of bishops to Traditionis Custodes and the Responsa. “But this is precisely, bishops, why we need to hear in public what the truth is. Otherwise, the propaganda from Archbishop Roche will stand. And it’s so depressing to think that the Shepherds can’t find it in them to defend Christ, to defend the flock, to defend the faithful and to defend tradition.”

The Remnant spoke with Fr. Mawdsley about his new video:

(Diane Montagna) Fr. Mawdsley, why did you make this video?

(Fr. Mawdsley) Because if we do not speak the obvious truth then truth will die in us. Pope Francis, Archbishop Roche, Cardinal Cupich, and many other bishops are acting illegally in attempting to suffocate tradition. They are betraying the mission which Jesus gave to the Church. It would be wonderful if they were so surprised by the strength of resistance that they reconsidered and repented. But their reaction is not the priority. More important is that priests speak the truth without fear, otherwise we have nothing left. The flock is starving. And as all generations before us have passed on the Deposit of Faith, so for the sake of future generations we must not drop the ball. Or we must recover it. Without Tradition there is no future. And most importantly, for God’s glory. Those who had Tradition robbed from them in the 1950-70s did not know where it was leading. We have seen the horror, the indignity, the weakness, and inappropriateness of the Novus Ordo. In essence it is still Christ’s awesome Holy Sacrifice of Calvary; but what man has done to His Memorial is a faithless insult to God.

Let us defend the flock, let us break the jaws of the wicked and rescue the prey from their teeth.

(DM) You were ordained a priest of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. What is your relationship to the FSSP now?

(Fr. M) The FSSP is, I think, one of the best bodies of priests in the world. They are a great treasure in the Church. But I informed the superiors that I would leave and did not seek permission. It followed that I have been suspended a divinis for illegitimate absence. Obviously, I do not hold this against the Fraternity. They are definitively not the problem. But I will keep a distance, for there are vicious men in the hierarchy who will want to meet [mete] out reprisals on the innocent, in order to paralyze resistance.

Traditionis Custodes is built on lies, its content is incoherent, and it is aimed at the destruction of the greatest good on earth.

(DM) Did this video have anything to do with your leaving the FSSP?

(Fr. M) The videos were made after I left the Fraternity, after I was suspended. I left the Fraternity with the intention of speaking out. The reason I did not seek permission was precisely to get a distance from the Fraternity, to be suspended, so that they can in truth say they are not responsible or accountable for the things I am saying. For the same reason, after some thought, I have not approached any other order or sought to be incardinated in a diocese. It would only bring trouble to them under the current oppression. There really are vicious men in the hierarchy who will unleash reprisals if they can find a target.

The Responsa are its vomit. It is better to be suspended than to pretend this wickedness has legal value.

(DM) What message would you like to send to your brother priests in light of Pope Francis’ Traditionis Custodes and the Responsa ad dubia issued by CDW Prefect Archbishop Roche just days before Christmas?

(Fr. M) God is mighty. We only need to follow Him, no matter what cost. He does not want us to support the destruction of Judas and Caiaphas, I mean with those like Archbishop Roche and Pope Francis who are savaging the Church and casting the faithful out. We can recognize their authority without complying with abuses of it. It really does not matter what price we pay on earth, only let us live in truth, let us defend the flock, let us break the jaws of the wicked and rescue the prey from their teeth. Traditionis Custodes is built on lies, its content is incoherent, and it is aimed at the destruction of the greatest good on earth. The Responsa are its vomit. It is better to be suspended than to pretend this wickedness has legal value.

https://remnant-tv.com/videoEmbed/538/withstand-francis-publicly-catholic-priest-calls-bishops-to-resist-pope-?channelName=RemnantTV

Note from Michael J. Matt

Please consider sharing this vital video message with your priest, bishop, friends, family, and social media contacts. This is no longer a question of Traditionalism vs. Modernism or Neo-Catholicism. This has become a matter of life vs. death, freedom vs. tyranny, patriotism vs. globalism, and Christianity vs. atheism.

Every priest in the world, diocesan, FSSP, SSPX, ICK, etc: Please find a way to undermine the anti-Tradition agenda of this pontificate as Father Mawdsley has done so courageously. 

You bishops who have kept the Faith: For God’s sake and the sake our nation and our children, please find a way to circumvent the evil orders coming down from the Vatican. We beg you, Your Excellencies, resist this globalist pope of the New World Order.

To the “clans” the world over: Share this urgent video message, which is also available at The Remnant’s YouTube and Rumble channels, as well as Fr. Mawdsley’s YouTube channel. Holy Mother Church needs all of her sons and daughters to stand with her as she undergoes this horrific persecution at the hands of human hirelings who have abandoned the Cross in pursuit of human respect.

Published in Remnant Articles

1

 | 

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 2nd, 2022 at 8:10 PM . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

New post on A Sign of Hope

Prepare for the Accountingby charliej373By Charlie JohnstonWe had no new podcast this week because of sickness and administrative issues. Next week we will cover some commonly asked questions that new people have about me.*********I was deeply saddened to hear that one of our key CORAC members – and host of a presentation in eastern Iowa from a few years back passed over the weekend. Charles Vaske of Epworth, Iowa near Dubuque was a wonderful salt of the earth man. He took me to see the “Field of Dreams,” just a few miles from where he lived and we had one of the most fun, pre-presentation dinners ever, at kind of a Chuck Wagon Restaurant. Charles was a thoughtful man and an old school patriotic American. I pray that, already, he is interceding for us all from above.*********My talk Saturday will be at 3:30 p.m., Central Time, at JoJo’s Coffee and Goodness, 4652 E. Hwy. 20, Niceville, Florida. Click here for information and to sign up ahead of time.*********Back when I was doing radio in the 90’s. one of the themes I often went to was the paucity of consequences when liberals were caught red-handed in corrupt, dishonest schemes. I maintained that, tactically, if the worst liberals faced over such was some criticism, then letting everything get back to normal, we were heading for a crisis of major proportions. After all, if the stakes when you mount a corrupt gambit to seize power are that, if you succeed you have the power and if you fail, you are told not to do it again and everything returns to default, there is no incentive for you to stop. Human nature being what it is, the boundaries will keep being pushed until you are ultimately in full crisis. We are there.As a general rule (and it certainly does not always apply), conservatives long for normalcy while leftists yearn for power. Conservatives (and most normal people) mistakenly think that if they respond to provocations by always adopting a forgive and forget stance it will facility normalcy. They are wrong.I am not given to vengeance for vengeance’ sake. Oh, I indulge in fantasies about it sometimes, but it is not my nature. When I sued the newspaper group that spent nearly a year libeling me, my attorney encouraged me to add as co-defendants about five people who had eagerly taken up the cause against me, as we could recover damages from them in addition to those from the newspapers. I considered it, but ultimately chose not to, reasoning that these people were only useful idiots, perhaps intentionally malicious and perhaps just caught up in the feeding frenzy. It seemed to me that if we succeeded in the very rare result of beating a newspaper company, it would be an object lesson to all – and lead to a more just public discourse for all, if only because the malicious would be cowed that there was accountability for outright lies. None of the people involved as potential defendants knew that they were ever in the crosshairs. Most of them, after it was all said and done, apologized in some form over the next few years, anyway. But there HAD to be a reckoning.Most of the leadership of the left have become power-mad obsessives. They are not just wrong; they have given themselves over to evil.Right now, the leftist narrative is visibly crumbling. There is increasing evidence that, with new variants, you are MORE likely to get Covid if you have gotten the shot than if you haven’t. A Scottish study ominously suggests that the more shots you have had, the more likely you are to get Covid. Frighteningly, serious scientists have been arguing that creating a “leaky” vaccine actually drives the formation of new variants – and the original gene therapy shot offers only limited protection from the original variant while degrading your immune system, thus making you more vulnerable to future variants (along with a host of other ailments). A leaky vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission, but reduces symptoms in those who have gotten the shot. Sadly, what the authors in this last link do NOT note is that ALL the chickens involved in the Marek test died. The intentional obfuscation of critical negative information in many of these “scientific” journals has become more visible to all who are paying attention. Yet despite burgeoning evidence that the Covid shots actually make the situation worse and ultimately make you more vulnerable (I am talking here only of the medical data, not the mountain of ancillary damage cause by shutdowns, suppression of effective therapies, and mandates), US officials and many other western countries are doubling down on the mandates – demonstrating conclusively that this is about power and compliance rather than any concern about public health.Fortunately, some western countries have outright ended Covid restrictions, while others have gingerly started scaling them back. Even more fortunately, massive protests by ordinary citizens, such as the Canadian Truckers Convoy, have put officials’ backs to the wall. Ah, but that is not the end of the story. In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has responded to the massive protest by suggesting he will enact mandates to cross provincial borders as well. Officials there are talking ominously about sending in the military to whip the protestors back into line. Meantime both the establishment media and social media are working all the harder to censor solid evidence. The wheels are falling off the truck on the massive fraud in the 2020 election as well – and more candidates are emboldened to say it bluntly, even as establishment Republican hacks like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger join Democrats in desperately trying to peddle dissent as “insurrection.”Some might be tempted to dismiss as comical the visibly collapsing superstructure of leftist dreams of supremacy. Don’t. These people have given themselves over to evil. They were willing to consign hundreds of thousands of people to miserable deaths by suppressing effective therapies, threatening doctors’ licenses for dissenting from the party line, and defunding hospitals that dared to give life-saving treatments that defied government mandates. By early May of 2020, our primary scientific consultant at CORAC, Steve Baker, was furious. Initially alarmed at Covid, after only two months of research he said the death rate should be near zero – because we had the means to handle this, but the government would not allow it – and the invincibly ignorant media only parroted the leftist’s lines. If you look closely even at early CDC documents on the death toll from Covid, an obscure footnote said that only 6% of listed deaths were from Covid alone. That does not mean that Covid was only fatal to six percent of those who got it: a common cold can kill someone with an already seriously weakened immune system. It is fair to say, I think, that somewhere between 10-15% of those who died were primarily taken by Covid or that it was a significantly complicating factor. So, even going with the most generous extrapolation, that means that 126,000 have died of Covid – or with it as a significant contributing factor – in the last two years. That is 63,000 per year by the government’s own reckoning – which is a moderately bad flu season. Most of those people would NOT have died if the government had made known effective therapies available – and if the establishment media had not done everything in their power to scare people to death. All of this was done (and continues to try to be done) in order to secure power. These are evil people.I think that a fellow such as Lindsey Graham genuinely hopes that, with submission, congeniality and normalcy can return. I respect that a fellow like Mitch McConnell is genuinely a gifted tactician who has done his party a lot of good – especially at managing federal court confirmations. But both of these gentlemen, however well they might be intended, are unwilling to defend the basic liberty of people who are not them. They want to negotiate with terrorists (which is what the Democratic leadership has become) – with your life and liberty.This time, there must be severe and draconian consequences when this all lifts. How do you handle people who willingly decimate an economy, destroy millions of lives and livelihoods, and literally kill hundreds of thousands to secure and advance their own power? Some have obliquely suggested yardarms and firing squads. I am not a fan of that. Besides having moral qualms, it would be a tactical mistake – inflaming many when we will be in need of major reconstruction and reconciliation. But they cannot just be retired to enjoy their pensions. If so,  a few years down the line we will have a new generation of ambitious men think it a good gambit to sell their soul for a little transitory temporal power and be back in crisis.I think we had best plan to reopen Alcatraz after the reckoning comes and start working to set up large prison colonies in remote areas of Alaska. The worst offenders can be housed in Alcatraz until the prison colonies start to come online. And yes, I am talking about banishing Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, AOC and the rest of her squad, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and every single official who actively targeted Americans’ liberty. It will be sufficient, to me, to ban the useful idiots such as McConnell and Lindsey for life from any position of public trust. We have to handle this in a way that does not descend into an orgy of violence but makes clear to generations to come that targeting people’s lives and liberty is a deadly dangerous way to secure fleeting power.Make no mistake: the heart of the battle is still ahead. Yes, the narrative is collapsing but remember, the bulk of our “ruling” class consists of evil people who did not bat an eye in destroying our livelihoods and lives to secure their aims. Do you think people like this would quail at releasing a genuinely deadly new disease to stoke panic and justify new authoritarian measures? These people are the moral equivalents of Saddam Hussein and Haffez Assad who released poison gas on their own nation’s people to secure their own power. Nothing is off limits to them. It will not be sufficient to imitate the early Gideon, who was willing to do God’s will in a hostile climate so long as God was willing to keep his name out of it. Those terms were not acceptable to God. The Lord demanded that Gideon boldly and publicly declare himself – and then granted the victory. Dov Fischer, of the American Spectator, wrote a marvelous piece showing great insight into the psychology of the “Good German,” and why we are all ever in danger of becoming the same. The only thing that will do is to do whatever you do in front of God and everybody.For young people who might read this, understand that leftist politics is incapable of building anything. It pretends to virtue in what it opposes and what it wants to destroy. In the end, just like the satan himself, all it is capable of is wanton destruction. If you want meaning in your life, if you want to find joy and real fellowship (rather than the fellowship of mere con-conspirators) you have to do the much more mundane work of building and doing kindnesses to others. If you see an old lady struggling in her home and think to demonstrate your moral superiority by decrying the lack of government services for the elderly, you are probably just a pretentious, lazy jerk. If you actually go and help her, you accomplish real good and likely make a friend along the way. I do not pretend there are no abuses that must be conquered. Shoot, I outlined a bunch just above. But if you spend more than, maybe, 30 percent of your time decrying abuses rather than offering humble help, you are part of the problem. Worse yet, you will never find joy or meaning in your life.As my friend, Jim Graham likes to say, we need to pray up, git up, and saddle up if we would change the world from the dystopian nightmare it is becoming – and has already become in many quarters of the world. The ice of the nightmarish rule of the left is cracking – but as the cracks reveal themselves the left will fight all the more frantically to hold onto the power they have stolen from you. Joan up!*********We are near the end of the second week of our winter fundraising campaign for CORAC. My thanks to all of you who have already generously donated. This is the way we here focus on building the world anew – by working with each other and training each other in skills that are useful in good times and absolutely vital in bad times. Won’t you send a contribution today if you can?Find me on Gab at Charliej373 or at the CORAC group.Donate to CORAC!Join the Conversation!The Corps of Renewal and Charity (CORAC)18208 Preston Rd., Ste. D9-552Dallas, Texas 75252charliej373 | February 3, 2022 at 5:01 pm | Categories: Announcement, CORAC, Culture, Discernment, The Storm, Travels with Charlie | URL: https://wp.me/p9wpk6-16c

Barnhardt

Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta.

Skip to content

• HOME
• PODCAST
• ABOUT
• BUY ANN’S CATTLE MARKETING DVD SET
• CONTACT
• DIABOLICAL NARCISSISM
• FAQ’S
• LATIN ROSARY
• THE ONE ABOUT…
• THE BERGOGLIAN ANTIPAPACY
• DONATE TO ANN
• BUY ANN’S PAPERBACK BOOKS
• WHAT IN THE WORLD DOES “ARSH” STAND FOR??
• IVERMECTIN

BOMBSHELL! Bergoglio’s Jewish Rabbi Mini-Me Is … WAIT FOR IT… a PACHAMAMA worshipper!!

You COULD NOT make this crap up.

The Antipope’s Mini-Me Rabbi doppelgänger seems to be every bit as enthusiastic about Pachamama demon worship as the old man. Imagine that!

And note the date, folks. July ARSH 2016. Bergman isn’t following Bergoglio’s agenda – Bergoglio is following Rabbi Bergman’s agenda. The Pachamama worship in the Vatican was concurrent with the CoronaScam launch: October ARSH 2019.  Intergenerational cooperation?????

A doff of the top hat and a clink of the snifter to the “Troll Room”. Strong work, y’all. Strong work.

---

https://www.jujuyalmomento.com/pachamama/buryaile-bergman-y-morales-ofrendaran-la-pachamama-humahuaca-n46997

Buryaile, Bergman and Morales will offer to the Pachamama in Humahuaca

In the historic city of Humahuaca, the governor of the province, Gerardo Morales, accompanied by the Ministers of the Nation, Sergio Bergman (Environment) and Ricardo Buryaile (Agribusiness), will hold the central ceremony in homage to Pachamama.

JULY 31, 2016 – 00:00

Due to the tributes to Mother Earth, in this province it was declared in 2013 by the National Congress as the National Capital of the Pachamama.

Bergman arrived on Sunday night and, together with Governor Gerardo Morales and Environment Minister María Inés Zigarán, participated in the Pachamama Festival that took place in the Cultural City. There Bergman received a gift and a decree signed by Governor Gerardo Morales declaring him guest of honor.

Today, Monday, Bergman will meet with the Bishop of the Prelature, Pedro Olmedo, in an interreligious dialogue regarding the Encyclical Laudato Si, which addresses the environmental issue and constitutes a valuable tool to reflect on the care of the earth and natural resources. . The Encyclical recognizes the contribution of the original peoples and speaks of the ethical and moral challenges of humanity to guarantee conditions that make existence possible in this common home, the earth.

The arrival of Rabbi Bergman in Jujuy, National Capital of the Pachamama, has particular significance as it expresses support for a public management that has among its central axes respect for the Pachamama, the values ​​that are implicit in that ceremony and the worldview Andean, for which the earth is a Mother who is cared for and honored and with whom a reciprocal relationship is established. For this reason, on this August 1, the men and women of this region will pay tribute to Pachamama to thank her for all the fruits she has provided and to ask her for prosperity for families.

Dear Fellow Patriot, In the summer of 2021, real estate records show that BLM Canada, which also goes by M4BJ, purchased a 10,000 square foot mansion for $6.3 million in cash, formerly known as the headquarters of The Community Party Canada for the past 30 years. The founder of M4BJ, Janaya Khan, also happens to be the wife of BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors. The building now is called “Wildseed: Centre for Art and Activism.” On the front page of their website, it reads, “make the revolution irresistible.” It describes itself as a ‘vessel that seeks to nurture Black radical creation in Canada’ and a ‘transfeminist, queer affirming space politically aligned with supporting Black liberation work across Canada.’ DonateThe transfer of money to the Canadian group has brought up further questions regarding transparency and accountability within BLM. In May 2021, Cullors resigned amid speculation that she used donations to fund her real estate purchases in Los Angeles and Georgia, amounting to over $3 million. Several more leaders have stepped down following her resignation, citing “struggles to improve internal processes.” According to InfluencerWatch.org, BLM’s former fiscal-sponsor Thousand Currents dumped $66 million directly into BLM in October 2020. BLM said it closed out 2020 with $60 million in the bank and won’t say who’s been in charge of those funds since Cullors left. Thousand Currents is a radical-left organization funded by globalist George Soros, that advocates for the defunding of the police. Before BLM was granted tax-exempt status in December 2020, Thousand Currents managed BLM’s donations. In the summer of 2020, it was discovered that federal fugitive and communist activist Susan Rosenberg was employed by Thousand Currents. Her involvement has since been removed from their website but archives show she held a Board of Directors position. Neither BLM Canada nor Khan have responded to multiple media inquiries for comment.

os:

Some Thoughts on Nomination Rhetoric

By ED WHELAN

February 4, 2022 10:15 AM

Having been away for a few days, I’ll re-enter the fray by offering a few thoughts on the rhetoric surrounding President Biden’s impending selection of a nominee for Justice Breyer’s seat:

1. As this New York Times article recounts, “Many [black women lawyers] say they have experienced discrimination or been second-guessed” and have at times “felt dismissed by others in the legal world.” It is not surprising that their experience of feeling belittled will shape how they view commentary on the various candidates for the vacancy.

2. Biden’s commitment to consider only black women for the vacancy means that he is excluding from consideration lots of other candidates that he might deem qualified for a Supreme Court seat. It is a logical error to conclude that none of the current contenders would be under consideration if Biden were considering all possible candidates. At the same time, the unfortunate but foreseeable effect of Biden’s explicit exclusion of other candidates is to cast a cloud of suspicion over all of the contenders.

3. A Supreme Court nomination ought to be a time for public debate over the relative strengths and weaknesses of the leading candidates. But the Left has attempted to squelch debate at the outset by proclaiming all the contenders to be beyond amazing and by screeching racist in response to any scrutiny of a candidate’s record.

4. The public rhetoric is now shifting, as the behind-the-scenes fights among supporters of the various contenders come out into the open. Consider this NYT article that disparages Michelle Childs’s candidacy as a “blatant effort” by Congressman James Clyburn to “call in a political favor.” Ironically, this attack on Childs involves the same sort of logical misstep that the Left has been decrying: Clyburn’s support for Childs provides no more reason to discredit her as a candidate than Biden’s blatant commitment to nominate a black woman provides to discredit all the contenders.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s First Appellate Opinion

By ED WHELAN

February 4, 2022 10:56 AM

On Tuesday, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson issued her first published opinion as a D.C. Circuit judge. Her opinion for the panel in American Federation of Government Employees v. Federal Labor Relations Authority holds that the agency responsible for overseeing labor relations with federal employees failed to adequately justify its new standard for determining that an employer’s change to the workplace is so minor that it does not trigger a duty to engage in collective bargaining.

Last week I highlighted legal-writing guru Ross Guberman’s competing assessments of the legal writing of Supreme Court contenders Ketanji Brown Jackson and Leondra Kruger, a competition in which Jackson fared very poorly. So I figured that I should note that her opinion garnered a much higher BriefCatch score than the district-court opinions that Guberman had rated. I likewise found the opinion to be well written overall (though with a couple of passages that called out for editing).

Of course, there are some things well beyond the reach of the best diagnostic software. On the Volokh Conspiracy, administrative-law expert Jonathan Adler faults Jackson for what he sees as a surprising misstatement and misapplication of Supreme Court precedent.

While I’m at it, I will also note that on Monday I poked fun at a sentence in a New York Times article that stated that “Judge Jackson has not yet written a body of appeals court opinions expressing a legal philosophy.” I found that a rather strange way to obscure that she hadn’t yet written a single appellate opinion. Some yahoos on Twitter condemned me for supposedly implying that she was unfit for the Supreme Court because she hadn’t published an appellate opinion. That’s not an intelligent reading of what I wrote, and it’s also a position that I had already explicitly rejected.

More Against Imaginary Middle Ground in Dobbs

By ED WHELAN

February 4, 2022 12:45 PM

As I’ve been pointing out for some time, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization puts the Supreme Court to a binary choice on Mississippi’s law that bars abortion (with some exceptions) after 15 weeks of gestation: Either the Court applies the Roe/Casey regime to hold that the statute is impermissible because it bars abortion before viability, or it overrules Roe and Casey and holds that the statute is permissible.

At oral argument in Dobbs, Chief Justice Roberts seemed to float the possibility of reconceiving Roe and Casey in a way that would allow the Mississippi statute to be enforced. In separate law-review articles, law professors Sherif Girgis and Eric Claeys explain why that theory sinks.

In “Misreading and Transforming Casey for Dobbs,” Girgis addresses the contention that a law that leaves women a fair opportunity to choose whether to abort—up until the 15^th week, under the Mississippi law—shouldn’t count as an “undue burden” under Casey. As he explains, Casey uses “undue burden” in a “synchronic sense,” forbidding laws that make abortion too hard to get at any point before viability.

In “Dobbs and the Holdings of Roe and Casey,” Claeys comprehensively explains that the viability line (before which states can’t prohibit abortion) was part of the holdings of Roe and Casey and, contrary to what the Chief suggested, can’t fairly be characterized as dicta.

This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—February 4

By ED WHELAN

February 4, 2022 8:00 AM

2004—Asked by the state senate whether its November 2003 ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health really imposes same-sex marriage, the Massachusetts supreme court answers yes (by the same 4-3 split as in its original ruling).

2005—In Hernandez v. Robles, a New York state trial judge rules that New York’s longstanding statutory definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman violates the state constitution. In July 2006, New York’s highest court, by a 4-2 vote, will reverse this ruling.

2016—A divided Ninth Circuit panel rules, in Smith v. Schriro, that Robert Douglas Smith was intellectually disabled when he committed acts of kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder in 1980. In the opening paragraph of her dissent from Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s lead opinion, Judge Consuelo Callahan observes (emphasis added):

“The one thing everyone appears to agree on is that Smith is not intellectually disabled. When tested in 2005 the experts found that he had an IQ of between 87 and 93, well within the low-average to average range of intellectual ability. Yet despite this fact, the majority reverses because it is certain that Smith was intellectually disabled in 1980 when he murdered Sandy Owen. The majority reaches this conclusion by disregarding the findings of the state courts, denying those courts the deference they are due, and expressing supreme confidence in its own ability to detect past intellectual disability despite substantial conflicting evidence and the fact that Smith is not now intellectually disabled. Accordingly, I dissent.”

This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—February 3

By ED WHELAN

February 3, 2022 8:00 AM

1988—By a vote of 97-0, the Senate confirms President Reagan’s nomination of Ninth Circuit judge Anthony M. Kennedy to fill the seat of retiring Justice Lewis Powell. Kennedy was Reagan’s third pick, following the October 1987 defeat of the nomination of Judge Robert Bork and the withdrawal of the subsequent decision to nominate Judge Douglas Ginsburg. Kennedy will sit on the Court for the next thirty years, until his retirement in 2018.

Often misdescribed as a “moderate conservative,” Kennedy in fact embraced an aggressive view of judicial power. While he sometimes deployed that power towards conservative ends, his misdeeds of liberal judicial activism were far more momentous—and were often masked by grandiose rhetorical diversions. To cite but a few examples:

“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Translation: We justices have the unbounded authority to decide which matters you yahoo citizens should be prohibited from addressing through legislation.

“It does not lessen our fidelity to the Constitution or our pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples simply underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom.” Roper v. Simmons (2005). As Justice Scalia responds, Kennedy relies on foreign sources “not to underscore our ‘fidelity’ to the Constitution, our ‘pride in its origins,’ and ‘our own [American] heritage,’” but to override the “centuries-old American practice … of letting a jury of 12 citizens decide whether, in the particular case, youth should be the basis for withholding the death penalty.”

“The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.” So begins Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), inventing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Quoting this passage, Justice Scalia laments that the Supreme Court “has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific”—and spelled out a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy. Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Translation: We modern justices are so much wiser than the Framers and therefore entitled to trump the political processes willy-nilly.

“The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.” Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) (emphasis added). It’s odd that Kennedy would think that speech (including opinion-writing?) should precede thinking. The notion is especially odd in a case concerning virtual child pornography.

2010—In Perry v. Schwarzenegger—the case challenging California’s Proposition 8 and traditional marriage—the ACLU Foundation of Southern California continues its involvement in the case by filing a post-trial amicus brief on behalf of its national affiliate, the American Civil Liberties Union.

Ramona Ripston, the wife of Ninth Circuit judge Stephen Reinhardt, is the executive director of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California and (per its website) is “responsible for all phases of the organization’s programs, including litigation.” In addition to leading the political opposition to Proposition 8, Ripston engaged in confidential discussions with the lawyers for the Perry plaintiffs about whether they should file the case. And months later, she will publicly celebrate Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision striking down Proposition 8.

Yet when the wonders of not-random-after-all selection assign arch-activist Reinhardt to the Ninth Circuit panel to review Walker’s decision in this very case, Reinhardt somehow will decline to recuse himself. He will instead end up writing the majority opinion in support of (and providing the decisive vote for) a divided-panel holding affirming Walker’s ruling.

2021—A Ninth Circuit panel splits on the elementary question whether an alien has “reentered the United States illegally” when he was inadmissible at the time of his reentry. In his majority opinion (in Tomsyzk v. Wilkinson), Judge William Fletcher concludes that illegal reentry under that statutory text somehow “requires more than mere status of inadmissibility” and instead depends, in some indeterminate way, “on the manner and circumstances of the entry.”

In December 2021, in a unanimous opinion written by Judge Consuelo Callahan, the en banc Ninth Circuit will rule that Fletcher’s reading contravenes “the plain language of the statute,” is inconsistent with Ninth Circuit precedents, and would create a conflict with rulings of the Seventh and Tenth Circuits.

This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—February 2

By ED WHELAN

February 2, 2022 8:00 AM

2009—Ninth Circuit judge Stephen Reinhardt, acting in his administrative capacity as designee of the current Chair of the Ninth Circuit’s Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, opines that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional insofar as it requires that federal benefits available to spouses of federal employees not be extended to same-sex spouses. Disguising his administrative misdetermination as a Ninth Circuit judicial order, Reinhardt purports to direct the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to add an employee’s same-sex spouse as a beneficiary.

2017—Evidently unfamiliar with the humor of high-school yearbook editors, the Daily Mail and the New York Post trumpet a ridiculous claim that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, while he was a high-school student, founded a student club named “Fascism Forever.”

2018—In Hill v. Anderson, a Sixth Circuit panel, in an opinion by Carter appointee Gilbert Merritt, rules that Danny Hill is entitled to federal habeas relief because the rulings of the Ohio courts against him in 2008 and earlier were contrary to Supreme Court precedent that was clearly established at the time of those rulings. But the Supreme Court precedent that the panel relies on most heavily is from 2017—years after the state rulings. The panel tries to cover its tracks by asserting that the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling was “merely an application of what was clearly established by” a 2002 ruling.

Less than a year later, the Supreme Court will summarily reverse the Sixth Circuit for its “plainly improper” reliance on the 2017 ruling.

This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—January 31

By ED WHELAN

January 31, 2022 8:00 AM

2006—Upon the Senate’s confirmation of Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court nomination, Justice O’Connor’s July 2005 decision to retire takes effect. Plucked by President Reagan from the obscurity of an Arizona intermediate appellate court in 1981, O’Connor failed to live up to her early promise. Averse to any judicial principle that would limit her discretion in future cases, O’Connor was notorious for her inconsistency. Worse, in her last 15 years on the Court, she cast her vote for liberal judicial activist results in many major cases. Her jurisprudential legacy consists primarily of the infinitely malleable and subjective standards that she concocted, such as her “endorsement” standard for review of Establishment Clause claims (a standard endorsed by no other justice) and her “undue burden” standard for abortion regulations.

This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—January 30

By ED WHELAN

January 30, 2022 8:00 AM

2006—Senator Kerry’s Davos-led fili-bluster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito fails. The Senate respects its longstanding tradition of providing an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor to Supreme Court nominees who have been reported to the full Senate.

2014—By a vote of 5-1, the Maine supreme court, purporting to reconcile two statutes, rules that a public school is required to allow a “transgender girl”—that is, a boy who identifies as a girl—to use a girls’ bathroom.

As the dissenter argues, the ruling defies “the plain language of a specific statute [that] explicitly requires segregating school bathrooms by sex.” Further, the ruling construes the Maine Human Rights Act in a way that “inescapably lead[s] to the conclusion that an individual may not be denied access to public bathrooms based upon sex.” The majority doesn’t dispute this proposition, and one member of the majority expressly agrees with it.

In other words, under the court’s logic, men in Maine may now use any public women’s bathroom, and women in Maine may now use any public men’s bathroom. (A “public” bathroom is any bathroom in a “place of public accommodation,” such as a restaurant or store.) Indeed, even labeling a bathroom with a sign designating “Men” or “Women” violates the majority’s understanding of the MHRA.

This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—January 29

By ED WHELAN

January 29, 2022 8:00 AM

1971—Two years before Roe v. Wade, a divided three-judge district panel rules in Doe v. Scott that the longstanding Illinois abortion statute is invalid in two respects. The majority holds, first, that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because its exception for abortions “necessary for the preservation of the woman’s life” is supposedly not sufficiently intelligible. Second, it determines that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut on a marital right to contraception compels the conclusion that the statute unconstitutionally invades a woman’s privacy interests. The court enjoins state officials from enforcing the statute against licensed physicians performing abortions during the first trimester in a licensed medical facility.

In an excellent dissent, senior district judge William Joseph Campbell faults the judges in the majority for “impos[ing] upon the people of Illinois their own views on this most important and controversial issue concerning public health and morals.” Judge Campbell points out that “we are presented with no actual circumstance where the vagueness question is in issue,” and he cites “numerous examples of statutes which have been held constitutional and which are not as clear and definite as this one.” He also finds “incredible” the majority’s assertion that “there is no distinction that can be made between prohibiting the use of contraceptives and prohibiting the destruction of fetal life.”

2004—Having somehow given her permission to the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund to dedicate a lecture series in her honor, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presents opening remarks at the fourth annual Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series on Women and the Law. Never mind that the highly ideological NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund regularly files briefs in the Supreme Court—and indeed had filed a brief in a case that was pending when Ginsburg agreed to give her remarks.

Somehow many of the same folks who squawk when a conservative justice merely speaks to a conservative group that doesn’t litigate in the Supreme Court are silent at the extraordinary spectacle of a justice’s permitting a repeat litigant to name a lecture series in her honor.

2018—In Ragbir v. Sessions, federal district judge Katherine B. Forrest orders that the federal government release from its custody an alien, Ravidath Ragbir, who had forfeited his status as a lawful permanent resident and had been ordered deported from this country in 2006 because of his conviction in 2001 on charges of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Forrest explicitly “agrees [with the government] that the statutory scheme governing [Ragbir’s] status is properly read to allow for his removal without further right of contest”—that it “allows [the government] to do what was done here,” i.e., to have Ragbir “suddenly taken into custody” earlier this month. But without citing any precedent, Forrest, trying to wax poetic, declares:

“There is, and ought to be in this great country, the freedom to say goodbye …, the freedom to hug one’s spouse and children, the freedom to organize the myriad of human affairs that collect over time.”

One might well lament that bureaucratic practices often aren’t as sensitive to real-life considerations as they might be. But Forrest’s notion that the Constitution forbids whatever she regards as unfair is simply lawless. And it seems perverse that, rather than giving the federal government any credit for the four stays of removal that it granted Ragbir since 2011, she invokes those stays only as evidence of the supposed cruelty of the government’s recent detention of him.

Worse, Forrest’s opinion is disingenuous nearly to the point of unintelligibility. Forrest asserts that Ragbir has “lived without incident in this country for years.” Only the very attentive reader will learn, in her eleventh and final footnote in the last paragraph of the body of her opinion, of the reason for Ragbir’s deportation order, his conviction in 2001. Until then, that reader might well have been puzzled over how a lawful permanent resident who had “lived without incident in this country for years” would find himself detained. As a matter of elementary judicial craftsmanship, his conviction should have been part of the basic narrative of the opinion.

M. Edward Whelan III
Distinguished Senior Fellow and

Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies
Ethics and Public Policy Center
1730 M Street N.W., Suite 910
Washington, D.C. 20036
202-682-1200
www.EPPC.org

Sign up for email distributions of my blog posts and other writings

Putting it ALL together for you!

Inbox

Raymond Antonini	Feb 2, 2022, 2:55 PM (1 day ago)
to

Below is my reply to an article regarding Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum and Young Global Leaders Alliance as the framework which is driving the Global Covid Tyranny.

—– Forwarded Message —–

From: Raymond Antonini <rayantonini@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: We’re either living in the age of coincidence or we are watching a very carefully thought out plan play out before our eyes.——Some might even call it “TREASON”—-

Exactly.

And what is Klaus Schwab’s mother’s maiden name?

Rothschild – from the son that was sent to Austria.

Family tree:

https://gab.com/a/posts/106650355791865479

And who were the third cousins to Karl Marx?

The Rothschilds.

Are you getting the picture exactly how this genocide is being contracted out to the front man and his minions and run???

Klaus Schwab – The New Karl Marx Destined to Kill Hundreds of Millions

And they absolutely do intend to trot out one of the family, Nathaniel, Jacob’s heir most likely, as the great peacemaker after the devastation they intend to create – the ***JEW*** Antichrist to rule the world.

Updating the 1978 film with these satanic JEW freaks of nature. Includes actual photo of Schwab just so you know exactly what we are dealing with here. Note, Trudeau’s biological father was the Communist JEW Fidel Castro:

While we’re at it, Jacinda Arden, the New Zealand Prime Minister pictured below, is in reality a male transvestite – which goes for Michael/Michelle Robinson Obama as well.

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022, 09:51:13 AM EST, wrote:

https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/27/great-reset-wef-young-global-leaders-trudeau-macron-ardern-boris/

BREAKING NEWS

Hidden Alliance of former WEF Young Global Leaders working in Lockstep to enforce the Great Reset include Macron, Trudeau, Ardern, & Boris Johnson

BY THE EXPOSÉ ON JANUARY 27, 2022 • ( 68 COMMENTS )

Listen Now

How is it that more than 190 governments from all over the world ended up dealing with the Covid pandemic in almost exactly the same manner, with lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination cards now being commonplace everywhere?

The answer may lie in the Young Global Leaders school, which was established and managed by Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum (“WEF”), and that many of today’s prominent political and business leaders passed through on their way to the top.

A hidden alliance of political and corporate leaders is exploiting the pandemic with the aim of crashing national economies and introducing a global digital currency, and these leaders include President of France Emmanuel Macron, Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern, and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson.

This isn’t fiction, it’s fact. Just listen to the President of the World Economic Foum, Klaus Schwab, himself say the following –

“I have to say when I mention or names like Mrs Mirkle, Vladimir Putin and so on they have all been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum, but what we’re really proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, the President of Argentina and so on. So we penetrate the cabinets.

“So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau, and I know that half of his cabinet are Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum.”

The story begins with the World Economic Forum (WEF), which is an NGO founded by Klaus Schwab, a German economist and mechanical engineer, in Switzerland in 1971, when he was only 32. The WEF is best-known to the public for the annual conferences it holds in Davos, Switzerland each January that aim to bring together political and business leaders from around the world to discuss the problems of the day.

Today, it is one of the most important networks in the world for the globalist power elite, being funded by approximately a thousand multinational corporations.

The WEF, which was originally called the European Management Forum until 1987, succeeded in bringing together 440 executives from 31 nations already at its very first meeting in February 1971, which was an unexpected achievement for someone like Schwab, who had very little international or professional experience prior to this.

The reason may be due to the contacts Schwab made during his university education, including studying with no less a person than former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

The Forum initially only brought together people from the economic field, but before long, it began attracting politicians, prominent figures from the media (including from the BBC and CNN), and even celebrities.

In 1992 Schwab established a parallel institution, the Global Leaders for Tomorrow school, which was re-established as Young Global Leaders in 2004. Attendees at the school must apply for admission and are then subjected to a rigorous selection process.

Members of the school’s very first class in 1992 already included many who went on to become important liberal political figures, such as Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Tony Blair.

Source

There are currently about 1,300 graduates of this school, and the list of alumni includes several names of those who went on to become leaders of the health institutions of their respective nations. Four of them are former and current health ministers for Germany, including Jens Spahn, who has been Federal Minister of Health since 2018. Philipp Rösler, who was Minister of Health from 2009 until 2011, and was then appointed the WEF’s Managing Director by Schwab in 2014.

Other notable names on the school’s roster are –

• Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand whose stringent lockdown measures have been praised by global health authorities;

Source

• Emmanuel Macron, the President of France;

Source

• Sebastian Kurz, who was until recently the Chancellor of Austria;
• Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary;
• Jean-Claude Juncker, former Prime Minister of Luxembourg and President of the European Commission;
• Annalena Baerbock, the leader of the German Greens;
• Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia;
• Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada;

We also find California Governor Gavin Newsom on the list, who was selected for the class of 2005, as well as former presidential candidate and current US Secretary of Transportation Peter Buttigieg, who is a very recent alumnus, having been selected for the class of 2019.

All of these politicians who were in office during the past two years have favored harsh responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, and which also happened to considerably increase their respective governments’ power.

But the school’s list of alumni is not limited to political leaders. We also find many of the captains of private industry there, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Virgin’s Richard Branson, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, and the Clinton Foundation’s Chelsea Clinton.

Again, all of them expressed support for the global response to the pandemic, and many reaped considerable profits as a result of the measures.

And if you don’t believe Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom isn’t in on it with his “build back better” slogans, then just take a look at this image of him taken at a World Econimic Forum Young Global Leaders event.

Leaders who have been groomed by the WEF have infiltrated Governments around the world and they have worked in lockstep to implement ridiculous, Draconian restrictions under the guise of an alleged virus that kills less than 0.2% of those it infects.

The following text is taken from a document released by the Rockefeller foundation in 2010 titled ‘Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development’. It describes a future scenario playing out which the document terms as the ‘Lockstep Scenario’.

Source

In 2020, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike the 2004 SARS epidemic, this new coronavirus strain—origin unknown—was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing millions in just seven months.

The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers. The pandemic blanketed the planet—though disproportionate numbers died in care homes, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols.

The United Kingdom’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.K but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better—China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.

China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets.’

You will have noticed a few words within the article which we highlighted in bold. These are words that we changed in order to bring the document in line with the current scenario playing out across the world – the alleged Covid-19 pandemic.

A grand total of just 9 words is all that we needed to change to ensure the full text; written in 2010 by the Rockefeller Foundation, fully represented the alleged Covid-19 pandemic. Just nine words.

We’re either living in the age of coincidence or we are watching a very carefully thought out plan play out before our eyes.

ReplyForward

the DAILY KNIGHT

• jmj4today
• • 54 minutes ago

Pope Francis: Apostates, Blasphemers, Persecutors, are Part of the Communion of Saints

David Martin | The Daily Knight

During his Wednesday Audience of February 2, 2022, Pope Francis seemingly professed heresy when he said that those who separate themselves from God through apostasy, heresy, hatred, or blasphemy are part of the Communion of Saints and are saved.

“Let’s think about those who have denied the faith, who are apostates, who are the persecutors of the Church, who have denied their baptism: Are these also at home [saved]? Yes, these too. The blasphemers, all of them. We are brothers. This is the Communion of Saints.”

An apostate is one who has separated himself from the Church through his rejection of the Faith so how is it that he is now part of the Communion of Saints? Apostates and heretics are eternally banished to hell without repentance so does the Communion of Saints now extend into hell? Are the inhabitants of hell saints?

Francis’ statement blatantly contravenes the Church’s teaching that eternal banishment awaits those who reject Christ and his Church. Pope Pius XII’s dogmatic encyclical “Mystici Corporis” defined clearly who is and who isn’t included in Christ’s Mystical Body:

“Only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the True Faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body [by sin], or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

This echoes what the Church has always taught, namely, that one must be baptized and must profess the Catholic Faith to be part of Christ’s Mystical Body. Heretics, apostates, blasphemers, and persecutors are not part of the Church but are excluded because God does not accept us as we are. Man must always change to please God, without which he cannot be saved.

Sin Separates From God

Francis spoke of our ecclesial bond as “an existential bond,” saying that “nothing…can break this bond.” This is false. Sin separates one from God if it is serious. When St. Paul says that nothing or no one “shall be able to separate us from the love of God” (Romans 8:39), he simply means that no person or externals can separate us from God if we are resolved to love him, but if we through our free will offend God (we sin), or worse yet, we blaspheme him or publicly resist his words as heretics we separate ourselves from God and cannot be saved unless we return to him through confession.

Francis’ statement has all the marks of formal heresy, which incurs ipso facto excommunication. St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, teaches:

“Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” — St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy

St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, likewise teaches:

“A pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church.” — St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff

Cardinal Raymond Burke made it clear in an interview with Catholic World Report (CWR) in December 2016 that if a pope were to “formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope.”

Burke was reiterating Church teaching, as expressed by famed canonist Franz Wernz in his Ius Canonicum: “In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact.”

What are we to make then of Francis who has professed error numerous times since his elevation to the Papacy in 2013? For instance, on February 4, 2019, he signed a joint statement with the head of Egypt’s al-Azhar Mosque, which states that “diversity of religions” is “willed by God.” This contravenes the Church’s dogma that:

There is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins

— Unam Sanctam, Papal Bull of Boniface VIII

Suffice it to say, Francis’ heterodox teaching does not square with that of the saints and doctors of the Church. No pope of Church history has taught that ‘all baptized persons are automatically included as living members of the Church regardless of their sins.’

St. Robert Bellermine said that a manifest heretic can “be judged and punished by the Church,” so what are the bishops waiting for? A committee of bishops should convene to verify if in fact Pope Francis has professed formal heresy so that they can proceed accordingly.

For their edification let them keep in mind the 1 prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi concerning a latter-day “pope” who would wreak destruction throughout the Church.

“At the time of this tribulation, a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error…. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer.”

___________________

1. Taken from Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, R. Washbourne Publishing House, 1882, pp. 248-250, with imprimatur by His Excellency William Bernard, Bishop of Birmingham. The source of this prophecy is the Opuscola or Writings of St. Francis (1623) by Fr. Luke Wadding, recognized as history’s foremost scholar and historian on St. Francis of Assisi.

“The Carnage Has Begun”: British Priest Rebukes Pope, Calls on Bishops to Openly Resist Suppression of Latin Mass

Written by  Diane Montagna | Vatican Journalist 

• Print

BOMBSHELL NEW VIDEO — Priest Once Imprisoned in Burma Decries Francis’ Suppression of the Old Mass

“Sit back and consider it: the highest power on earth is attacking the greatest good on earth, precisely when it’s his job to defend and preserve tradition and to pass it on to the next generation.” – Fr. James Mawdsley

A British traditional Catholic priest who was once imprisoned and tortured in a Burmese jail is openly challenging Pope Francis’ efforts to suppress the Church’s ancient Roman liturgy.

In a 9-minute video titled “Why withstand Pope Francis publicly?” [watch it below] Father James Mawdsley, formerly a priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), asserts that in his letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes, Francis “declared his intention to eradicate the traditional liturgy” and “impossibly claimed that the Novus Ordoconstitutes the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”

“Caiaphas was High Priest of the Old Covenant when he arranged for Jesus’ execution. Now shall the Vicar of Christ try to have Christ’s memorial destroyed?” he asks.

“What is happening is evil beyond description,” Father Mawdsley says. “Sit back and consider it: the highest power on earth is attacking the greatest good on earth, precisely when it’s his job to defend and preserve tradition and to pass it on to the next generation.” 

Fr. Mawdsley is no stranger to challenging oppression. At the age of 27, he spent 14 months in solitary confinement in Burma’s infamous Kengtung prison and was brutally beaten for challenging the country’s regime for its human rights violations.

He also challenges Congregation for Divine Worship Prefect Archbishop Arthur Roche’s claim in a recent interviewwith Catholic News Service that “the negative reaction to Traditionis Custodes has been very little,” saying to the archbishop, “What do you expect when a reign of terror is unleashed?

“Of course, people are keeping their heads down,” he continues. “Many clerics do not say openly what they think because they are afraid of vicious reprisals” such as confirmations or baptisms being “banned” in the Old Rite, or being told they can no longer celebrate the traditional Mass.

“The carnage,” he says, “has begun.”

No Stranger to Oppression

Fr. Mawdsley is no stranger to challenging oppression. At the age of 27, he spent 14 months in solitary confinementin Burma’s infamous Kengtung prison and was brutally beaten for challenging the country’s regime for its human rights violations, particularly those committed against ethnic minorities. It was also in the solitude of his prison cell that he experienced a deep conversion to Christ that would eventually culminate in a vocation to the priesthood.

Years later, reflecting on his imprisonment, Fr. Mawdsley would say: “Primarily, it was to show solidarity with the Burmese people, and particularly with the prisoners. It’s very clear when you’re willing to be alongside people in prison for their political rights, they realize they’re not forgotten by the world.”

In the new video, published on Jan. 28, Father Mawdsley says: “Truth is needed for spiritual health … It’s not enough to know it in our hearts. We need to hear it said by men in authority, from bishops and cardinals, that nobody has the right to attack tradition.”

Prelates such as Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago are “willing for the war and the slaughter to continue,” Fr. Mawdsley observes.

Addressing himself to those shepherds who wish to suppress the traditional liturgy, he says: “You may personally hate the Old Mass, but you can see that Christians love it. They love to encounter Christ there. They pray there more deeply than anywhere. Why would you take this away?”

Prelates such as Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago are “willing for the war and the slaughter to continue,” Fr. Mawdsley observes, in a reference to the cardinal’s brutal new policy for implementing Traditionis Custodes in the archdiocese. “Of all the days of the year, he chose Christmas Day to drop the axe. Who does that? Is that not sick? … He’s like another Herod.”

The former FSSP priest, who left the fraternity with the intention of speaking out, also called Archbishop Roche’s claim that most of the episcopate support efforts to suppress the traditional liturgy “unbelievable” given the reactions of bishops to Traditionis Custodes and the Responsa. “But this is precisely, bishops, why we need to hear in public what the truth is. Otherwise, the propaganda from Archbishop Roche will stand. And it’s so depressing to think that the Shepherds can’t find it in them to defend Christ, to defend the flock, to defend the faithful and to defend tradition.”

The Remnant spoke with Fr. Mawdsley about his new video:

(Diane Montagna) Fr. Mawdsley, why did you make this video?

(Fr. Mawdsley) Because if we do not speak the obvious truth then truth will die in us. Pope Francis, Archbishop Roche, Cardinal Cupich, and many other bishops are acting illegally in attempting to suffocate tradition. They are betraying the mission which Jesus gave to the Church. It would be wonderful if they were so surprised by the strength of resistance that they reconsidered and repented. But their reaction is not the priority. More important is that priests speak the truth without fear, otherwise we have nothing left. The flock is starving. And as all generations before us have passed on the Deposit of Faith, so for the sake of future generations we must not drop the ball. Or we must recover it. Without Tradition there is no future. And most importantly, for God’s glory. Those who had Tradition robbed from them in the 1950-70s did not know where it was leading. We have seen the horror, the indignity, the weakness, and inappropriateness of the Novus Ordo. In essence it is still Christ’s awesome Holy Sacrifice of Calvary; but what man has done to His Memorial is a faithless insult to God.

Let us defend the flock, let us break the jaws of the wicked and rescue the prey from their teeth.

(DM) You were ordained a priest of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. What is your relationship to the FSSP now?

(Fr. M) The FSSP is, I think, one of the best bodies of priests in the world. They are a great treasure in the Church. But I informed the superiors that I would leave and did not seek permission. It followed that I have been suspended a divinis for illegitimate absence. Obviously, I do not hold this against the Fraternity. They are definitively not the problem. But I will keep a distance, for there are vicious men in the hierarchy who will want to meet out reprisals on the innocent, in order to paralyze resistance.

Traditionis Custodes is built on lies, its content is incoherent, and it is aimed at the destruction of the greatest good on earth. 

(DM) Did this video have anything to do with your leaving the FSSP?

(Fr. M) The videos were made after I left the Fraternity, after I was suspended. I left the Fraternity with the intention of speaking out. The reason I did not seek permission was precisely to get a distance from the Fraternity, to be suspended, so that they can in truth say they are not responsible or accountable for the things I am saying. For the same reason, after some thought, I have not approached any other order or sought to be incardinated in a diocese. It would only bring trouble to them under the current oppression. There really are vicious men in the hierarchy who will unleash reprisals if they can find a target.

The Responsa are its vomit. It is better to be suspended than to pretend this wickedness has legal value.

(DM) What message would you like to send to your brother priests in light of Pope Francis’ Traditionis Custodes and the Responsa ad dubia issued by CDW Prefect Archbishop Roche just days before Christmas?

(Fr. M) God is mighty. We only need to follow Him, no matter what cost. He does not want us to support the destruction of Judas and Caiaphas, I mean with those like Archbishop Roche and Pope Francis who are savaging the Church and casting the faithful out. We can recognize their authority without complying with abuses of it. It really does not matter what price we pay on earth, only let us live in truth, let us defend the flock, let us break the jaws of the wicked and rescue the prey from their teeth. Traditionis Custodes is built on lies, its content is incoherent, and it is aimed at the destruction of the greatest good on earth. The Responsa are its vomit. It is better to be suspended than to pretend this wickedness has legal value.

https://remnant-tv.com/videoEmbed/538/withstand-francis-publicly-catholic-priest-calls-bishops-to-resist-pope-?channelName=RemnantTV

Note from Michael J. Matt

Please consider sharing this vital video message with your priest, bishop, friends, family, and social media contacts. This is no longer a question of Traditionalism vs. Modernism or Neo-Catholicism. This has become a matter of life vs. death, freedom vs. tyranny, patriotism vs. globalism, and Christianity vs. atheism.  

Every priest in the world, diocesan, FSSP, SSPX, ICK, etc: Please find a way to undermine the anti-Tradition agenda of this pontificate as Father Mawdsley has done so courageously. 

You bishops who have kept the Faith: For God’s sake and the sake our nation and our children, please find a way to circumvent the evil orders coming down from the Vatican. We beg you, Your Excellencies, resist this globalist pope of the New World Order. 

To the “clans” the world over: Share this urgent video message, which is also available at The Remnant’s YouTube and Rumble channels, as well as Fr. Mawdsley’s YouTube channel. Holy Mother Church needs all of her sons and daughters to stand with her as she undergoes this horrific persecution at the hands of human hirelings who have abandoned the Cross in pursuit of human respect. 

Feb 2, 2022, 4:20 PM (22 hours ago)
to me

    Letter #24, 2022, Wednesday, February 2: Pope Francis    Pope Francis made a remark today, apparently off the cuff (he seems to look up from his prepared remarks and speak extemporaneously), in the middle of his catechetical talk to those attending his General Audience in Rome which has sparked considerable comment, some favorable and much outraged.     In the passage, he speaks of the ontological character of one’s Christian identity after baptism.     What he means is that the grace of baptism, as the Church has always taught, changes the very being of a person so that all baptized are incorporated mystically but really — in actual being — into the body of Christ, that is, into the Church. He is stressing this point.    Francis said this incorporation is so profound and so real that nothing a person can do can eradicate it. That is, that all sinners (and of course we are all, according to Christian doctrine, sinners) are part of the body of Christ, part of the Church even as sinners. The Pope stressed this in his brief extemporaneous comment, saying (he is citing a hypothetical Christian who asks a priest or the Pope whether certain people can really be part of the Church; that is why the first part of this quotation is in quotes, citing this question): “‘Let’s think about those who have denied the faith, who are apostates, who are the persecutors of the Church, who have denied their baptism: Are these also at home?’ Yes, these too. The blasphemers, all of them. We are brothers. This is the Communion of Saints.” Here is a link to the precise moment when he speaks these words, which lasts about a minute. (link) Below we have a video of the entire Audience.    These words of the Pope have now been circulated widely on the internet.    I have three comments.    First, it is Catholic teaching that sinners are still members of the Church despite their sins. As Humble Catholic (@HumbleCath) commented here: “Quick reminder that everyone who is baptized is a member of the Church. This is the same way Paul and John used the term saints.” As The Catechism of Trent on the Communion of Saints teaches: “Those who are bound in the thraldom of sin and estranged from the grace of God, they are not so deprived of these advantages as to cease to be members of this body” (Thanks to Nathan Bird @NathanBirdCHA for pointing this out here).     Second, this comment, though it expresses traditional teaching, does seem open to misinterpretation and confusion, as many have noted on the internet including Danny Toma (@Danny_Toma) notes here: “The problem is not that it is heretical per se (there is a perfectly orthodox interpretation, as the baptized who deny the faith can always repent and return to full communion). The problem is that it is ambiguous and subject to different interpretations.” This possible confusion or ambiguity is expressed by the commenter Korbinian (@KorbinianOpn) here: “If apostates and blasphemers are in the Communion of Saints, what is the point of trying to be in the Communion of Saints? If this is true and one could engage in any apostasy or blasphemy and still remain in the Communion of Saints, what’s the point of trying?”    Third, regarding those who are attached to the Traditional Latin Mass these words would certainly seem to give them comfort, emphasizing that, even if they have doctrinal concerns about certain interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, they must still be considered, as baptized Catholics, to be members of the Church. Yes, I am saying this a bit “tongue in cheek,” trying to bring a certain sense of calm to those Catholics who feel that the Pope is treating them harshly by limiting their access to the old liturgy. I speak a bit humorously, but with good intention… to use these very challenging words of the Pope in favor of those toward whom he has seemingly been so severe. —RM    P.S. We have included below the video of the Pope’s General Audience from today, February 2, 2022, with English translation. The part that has become controversial begins at minute 17 and goes for a minute or so. Support the Moynihan Letters     The Pope at his audience today in Rome.     Below is the link to a video of the entire Audience of today, February 2, 2022.