”Because You alone, O Lord, are the true Liberator.” —Archbishop Viganò, in a Christmas Message for 2021, released today, Saturday, December 18, 2021 *** Letter #182, 2021, Saturday, December 18: A Message from Archbishop Viganò for Christmas 2021 Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 80, has written a message for Christmas, for 2021, and he has read the message on a video which is available on Youtube at this link, and on Rumble at this link. The text of the message begins with an ancient Christmas text from the Martyrologium Romanum (see here for a discussion of this text). Then follows Viganò’s reflection on the profound and joyful meaning of Christmas.
NATIVITAS DOMINI NOSTRI JESU CHRISTISECUNDUM CARNEM Octavo Kalendas Januarii, Luna undetricesima, innumeris transactis sæculis a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit cælum et terram, et hominem formavit ad imaginemsuam; permultis etiam sæculis ex quo post diluvium Altissimus in nubibus arcum posueratsignum fœderis et pacis; a migratione Abrahæ, patris nostri in fide, de Ur Chaldaeorum sæculovigesimo primo; ab egressu populi Israël de Ægypto, Moyse duce, sæculo decimo tertio; ab unctione David in regem anno circitermillesimo; hebdomada sexagesima quinta juxta Danielis prophetiam; Olympiade centesimanonagesima quinta; ab Urbe condita anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo; anno imperii Cæsaris Octaviani Augustiquadragesimo secundo, toto orbe in pace composito, Jesus Christus, æternus Deus æternique Patris Filius, mundum volens adventusuo piissimo consecrare, de Spiritu Sancto conceptus novemque post conceptionemdecursis mensibus in Bethlehem Judae nasciturex Maria Virgine factus homo. Nativitas Domini nostri Jesu Christi secundum carnem. —Martyrologium Romanum, 25 Dec. [Our English translation:] “On the 25th day of December, in the 13th moon, when ages beyond number had run their course from the creation of the world, when God in the beginning created heaven and earth, and formed man in his own likeness; when century upon century had passed from the time when the Almighty had set his bow in the clouds after the Great Flood, as a sign of covenant and peace; in the 21st century from the time when Abraham, our father in faith, came out of Ur of the Chaldees; in the 13th century from the time when the People of Israel were led by Moses in the Exodus from Egypt; around the 1,000th year from the time when David was anointed King; in the sixty-fifth week of the prophecy of Daniel; in the 195th Olympiad; in the year 752 from the foundation of the City of Rome; in the 42nd year of the reign of Caesar Octavian Augustus, the whole world being at peace, JESUS CHRIST, eternal God and Son of the eternal Father, desiring to consecrate the world by his most loving presence, was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and when nine months had passed since his conception, was born of the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem of Judah, and was made man. The Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.” —Martyrologium Romanum, 25 December
”Nothing will be the same as before” A Christmas reflection By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò December 18, 2021 Like every year, in the cycle of seasons and of history, the Holy Church celebrates the Birth according to the flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ, eternal God and Son of the eternal Father, conceived by the work of the Holy Spirit by the Virgin Mary. With the solemn words of the liturgy, the Birth of the Redeemer imposes itself on humanity by dividing time into a “before” and an “after.” Nothing will be the same as before: from that moment the Lord incarnates himself to carry out the work of Salvation and definitively snatches man, who fell in Adam, from the slavery of Satan. This, dear brothers and sisters, is our “Great Reset,” with which divine Providence restored the order broken by the ancient Serpent with the Original Sin of our First Parents; a Reset from which apostate angels and their leader Lucifer are excluded, but which has granted all men the grace to be able to benefit from the Sacrifice of God made man, and to regain the eternal life to which they were destined since the creation of Adam. What a wonderful gesture of Mercy, toward creatures rebellious from the beginning, on the part of their Creator. What divine Charity, which granted to disobedient man the ransom of his infinite guilt by accepting the offering of His divine Son on the Cross. What divine Humility, which responded to man’s pride with the obedience of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, incarnate “propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem” – for us men and for our salvation. This is the true “New Order,” willed by God and destined to last for the eternity of the centuries, after the thousand battles of a war in which the eternal Defeated tries to prevent the glory of the divine Majesty from being shared by us, poor mortal creatures. This is the triumph of the One who is not satisfied with creating man with his perfections and granting him His friendship, but after man had betrayed Him by surrendering himself as a slave to the Devil, he decided to buy him back – redemptio is precisely the institution of Roman law by which the slave is redeemed and becomes free again – at the price of the Most Precious Blood of His Only Begotten Son. And it is also the triumph of the Mother of God, who in the Mystery of the Incarnation gave birth to the Redeemer, that Holy Child destined to suffer and die for us. It is She who in the Proto-Gospel was promised as the victor over the Serpent, in the eternal enmity between her lineage and the Enemy. For this the Chosen People were gathered; for this they were led to the Promised Land. For this the Holy Spirit inspired the Prophets by indicating the time and place of the Savior’s Birth. For this the Angels sang their Gloria at the cave, and the Magi followed the Star to adore the Child wrapped in swaddling clothes like the son of a king. For this the Virgin sang her Magnificat and the little Saint John the Baptist leapt in Saint Elizabeth’s womb. For this Simeon pronounced the Nunc dimittis [“Now you may dismiss”] holding the promised Messiah in his arms. Veni, Emmanuel: captivum solve Israël. Come, Emmanuel: free your captive people. Free them also today, as you freed them with Your Most Holy Birth and with Your Passion and Death. Free Your Holy Church by revealing the false shepherds and mercenaries, as you revealed the envy of the High Priests and their silences regarding the Messianic Prophecies, which were hidden from the simple. Free the nations from evil rulers, from corruption, from the slavery of power and money, from enslavement to the Prince of this world, from the lie of false freedom, from the deception of false progress, from rebellion against Your holy Law. Free each one of us from our miseries, from sin, from pride, from the presumption of being able to save oneself without You. Free us from the disease that afflicts our soul, from the pestilence of the vices that infect our life, from the illusion of being able to defeat death, which is the just reward of our rebellion. Because You alone, O Lord, are the true Liberator; only in You who are Truth will we be free, will we see the chains that bind us to the world, to the flesh and to the Devil fall. Veni, o Oriens. Come, O Rising Sun: cast away the shadows and disperse the darkness of the night. Veni, Clavis Davidica. Come, Key of David, open wide our celestial homeland; make the way to heaven secure and close the door to hell. Veni, Adonai. Come, O Powerful Lord, who gave the Law from above to Your people on Sinai, in the majesty of your glory. Veni, Rex gentium. Come, King of the peoples, to reign over us, Prince of Peace, Angel of the Great Council. Come and descend into time and history, upset this infernal Tower of Babel that we have built by challenging You in Your Majesty. Come, Lord. Because in these two years of pandemic madness, we have understood that Hell does not consist so much in the suffering of the body, but in the desperation of knowing You are far away, in Your silence, in letting ourselves sink into the deaf horror of Your absence. And blessed be your Most Holy Mother and our Mother, whom you have left at our side in these terrible days as our Advocate, because in the vision of this hell on earth we can find the spiritual medicine which enables us to welcome You into our souls, into our families, in our nations, returning to You that crown that we have usurped from You. Bless, O Child King, those who will allow themselves to be conquered by Your love, for which You did not hesitate to incarnate yourself and die for us. May this divine Love be received with grateful wonder by those who, dead in Adam, in You, the new Adam, have been reborn; by those who, having fallen with Eve, in Mary, the new Eve, will rise again. May it be so. + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop Saturday, December 18, 2021 Quattuor Temporum Adventus
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on NOTHING WILL BE THE SAME AS BEFORE
Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci have created a formidable public-private partnership that wields incredible power over the American public, along with global health and food policies
Inspired by Rockefeller’s business model, Bill and Melinda Gates donated $36 billion worth of Microsoft stock to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation between 1994 and 2018
Gates also created Bill Gates Investments (BGI), which predominantly invests in multinational food, agriculture, pharmaceutical, energy, telecom and tech companies with global operations
Gates strategically targets BMGF’s charitable gifts to give him control of the international health and agricultural agencies and the media, allowing him to dictate global health and food
Fauci and Gates met in person, shaking hands in 2000 in an agreement to control and expand the global vaccine enterprise
You can read all of the details in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s best-selling book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” which contains more than 2,200 footnotes of referenced data
(Mercola) Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci have become household names in the U.S., their largely sterling reputations protected by a heavily biased press. Less known is the deep partnership between the two — the culmination of which has created a formidable public-private partnership that wields incredible power over the American public, along with global health and food policies.
You can read all of the details in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s bestselling book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” which contains more than 2,200 footnotes backing up its data. It exposes the connection between Gates and Fauci, as well as how Gates patterned his rise to control after John Rockefeller’s empire.
In 1913, Rockefeller created the Rockefeller Foundation, which is largely responsible for creating the Big Pharma-controlled medical paradigm that exists today. The foundation imbued its philosophy, precepts and ideologies into the League of Nations Health Organization, which turned into the World Health Organization.
Now, Gates contributes to WHO via multiple avenues, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) as well as GAVI, which was founded by the Gates Foundation in partnership with WHO, the World Bank and various vaccine manufacturers. Together, this makes Gates WHO’s No. 1 funder.
How Gates Used Rockefeller’s Business Model
Inspired by Rockefeller’s business model, Bill and Melinda Gates donated $36 billion worth of Microsoft stock to the BMGF between 1994 and 2018. Gates also created a separate entity, Bill Gates Investments (BGI), which manages his personal wealth and his foundation’s corpus.
BGI predominantly invests in multinational food, agriculture, pharmaceutical, energy, telecom and tech companies with global operations. Federal tax laws require the BMGF to give away a portion of its foundation assets annually to qualify for tax exemption.
Gates strategically targets BMGF’s charitable gifts to give him control of the international health and agricultural agencies and the media, allowing him to dictate global health and food policies so as to increase profitability of the large multinationals in which he and his foundation hold large investment positions.
As was the case with Rockefeller, whose wealth only grew after his Standard Oil Company was forced to split into 34 different companies, Gates’ strategic gifts have only magnified his wealth. Gates’ personal net worth grew from $63 billion in 2000 to $129.6 billion in 2021,1 his wealth expanding by $23 billion during the 2020 lockdowns alone.2
How Gates Controls the WHO
How does a private citizen, not an elected official, gain so much control over a global health agency like WHO? When it was founded, WHO could decide how to distribute its contributions. Now, 70% of its budget is tied to specific projects, countries or regions, which are dictated by the funders.3 As such, Gates’ priorities are the backbone of WHO, and it wasn’t a coincidence when he said of WHO, “Our priorities, are your priorities.”4
As of 2018, the cumulative contributions from the Gates Foundation and GAVI made “Gates the unofficial top sponsor of the WHO, even before the Trump administration’s 2020 move to cut all his support to the organization,” according to Kennedy. “Plus, Gates also routes funding to WHO through SAGE [Strategic Advisory Group of Experts] and UNICEF and Rotary International bringing his total contributions to over $1 billion.”
These tax-deductible donations give Gates both leverage and control over international health policy, “which he largely directs to serve the profit interest of his pharma partners.”
Further, “Gate’s vaccine obsession has diverted WHO’s program contributions from poverty alleviation, nutrition and clean water to make vaccine uptake its preeminent public health metric. And Gates is not afraid to throw his weight around,” according to Kennedy. “… The sheer magnitude of his foundation’s financial contributions has made Bill Gates an unofficial — albeit unelected — leader of the WHO.” Gates’ power has grown further due to his decadeslong partnership with Fauci.
Fauci’s Immense Power
Alone, both Gates and Fauci wield immense power in their fields. Together, they’re a formidable, if unfortunately nefarious, force.
As the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) — “Fauci has a $6.1 billion budget that he distributes to colleges and universities to do drug research for various diseases,” Kennedy says. “He has another $1.7 billion that comes from the military to do bioweapons research.”5
This is where Fauci’s power lies: in his capacity to fund, arm, pay, maintain and effectively deploy a large and sprawling standing army. The NIH alone controls an annual $37 billion budget distributed in over 50,000 grants supporting over 300,000 positions globally in medical research.6
The thousands of doctors, hospital administrators, health officials and research virologists whose positions, careers and salaries depend on AIDS dollars flowing from Dr. Fauci, Gates and the Wellcome Trust (Great Britain’s version of the Gates Foundation) are the officers and soldiers in a mercenary army that functions to defend all vaccines and Dr. Fauci’s HIV/AIDS doxologies.
Along with Gates, Fauci had the power to influence funding of U.S. foreign aid to Africa for AIDS, prioritizing that for vaccines and drugs instead of nutrition, sanitation and economic development. Yet, Fauci and his team, funded by Gates, have never created a vaccine for AIDS, despite squandering billions of dollars, and causing uncounted human carnage. In 2020, many of the Gates/Fauci HIV vaccine trials in Africa suddenly became COVID-19 vaccine trials.7
As explained in Kennedy’s book, HIV provided Gates and Fauci a beachhead in Africa for their new brand of medical colonialism and a vehicle for the partners to build and maintain a powerful global network that came to include heads of state, health ministers, international health regulators, the WHO, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, key leaders from the financial industry and military officials who served as command center of the burgeoning Biosecurity Apparatus.
Their foot soldiers were the army of frontline virologists, vaccinologists, clinicians and hospital administrators who relied on their largesse and acted as the community-based ideological commissars of this crusade.
Fauci ‘Enthusiastic’ About Gates COVID Partnership
April 1, 2020, Fauci spoke with Gates on the phone, according to emails released in 2021. Fauci referred to the phone call in an email to Emilio Emini, the director of the Gates Foundation’s tuberculosis and HIV program, stating, “As I had mentioned to Bill yesterday evening, I am enthusiastic about moving towards a collaborative and hopefully synergistic approach to COVID-19.”8
The email was part of 3,000 emails obtained via a FOIA public records request by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN). Despite having no medical degree, Gates has been granted direct access to top government health officials, who regard him as a public health authority. In June 2021, Daily Mail reported:9
“The Gates Foundation has committed at least $1.75 billion toward the global effort to fight the pandemic — a sum that opened doors at the highest levels of government. Following Fauci’s phone call with Gates, the Gates Foundation executive Emini emailed him to follow up and ask ‘how we can coordinate and cross inform each other’s activities.’
‘There’s an obvious need for coordination among the various primary funders or the focus we need to have given the state of the pandemic will become lost through uncoordinated activities,’ Emini wrote.”
Fauci also said he would facilitate a call between Emini and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA),10 which provides funding for vaccine and drug development, promoting “the advanced development of medical countermeasures to protect Americans and respond to 21st century health security threats.”11 Daily Mail continued:12
“The Gates Foundation’s partnership with BARDA resulted in at least one joint funding project. In June 2020, Evidation Health announced that BARDA and the Gates Foundation were financing an effort to ‘develop an early warning algorithm to detect symptoms of COVID-19.’
It’s unclear whether the warning system was ever launched, and Evidation issued no further statements on the project after the initial announcement. Other emails released … make it clear that the Gates Foundation remained actively involved in the NIH’s pandemic response.”
The Fauci-Gates partnership led to $1 billion in increased funding to Gates’ global vaccine programs, even as the NIH budget itself experienced little growth.13 Long before the April 2021 phone call, however, Kennedy’s book reveals that Fauci and Gates met in person, shaking hands in 2000 in an agreement to control and expand the global vaccine enterprise.
Why Haven’t You Heard About This Before?
When you’re one of the richest people in the world, you can buy virtually anything you want — including control of the media so that it only prints favorable press. If you have enough money — and Gates certainly does — you can even get major media companies like ViacomCBS, which runs MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon and BET, among others, to insert your approved PSAs into their programming — and BMGF has.14
Via more than 30,000 grants, Gates has contributed at least $319 million to the media, Alan MacLeod, a senior staff writer for MintPress News, revealed.15 From press and journalism associations to journalistic training, Gates is an overarching keeper of the press, which makes true objective reporting pertaining to Gates himself — or his many initiatives — virtually impossible.16
Speaking with MintPress News, Linsey McGoey, a professor of sociology at the University of Essex, U.K., explained that Gates’ philanthropy comes with a price:17
“Philanthropy can and is being used deliberately to divert attention away from different forms of economic exploitation that underpin global inequality today.
The new ‘philanthrocapitalism’ threatens democracy by increasing the power of the corporate sector at the expense of the public sector organizations, which increasingly face budget squeezes, in part by excessively remunerating for-profit organizations to deliver public services that could be delivered more cheaply without private sector involvement.”
It’s a sentiment Kennedy, who believes Fauci and Gates should be investigated for criminal wrongdoing, has echoed. In an interview, he stated that billionaires are in collusion with media, corporations and politicians in order to increase their tremendous wealth:18
“The most important productive strategy or the big talk around the oligarchs and the intelligence agencies and the pharmaceutical companies who are trying to impoverish us and obliterate democracy, their strategy is to create fear and division.
So orchestrate fear, divide Republicans from Democrats and blacks from whites and get a lot of infighting so nobody notices that they are making themselves billions and billions, while they impoverish the rest of us and execute the controlled demolition of American constitutional democracy.”
For more details on how the Fauci-Gates-Pharma alliance is furthering the agenda of totalitarian control, using unfathomable power and greed — all under the guise of a pandemic — read “The Real Anthony Fauci.”
“The Truth About COVID-19” exposes the hidden agenda behind the pandemic, showing the countermeasures have nothing to do with public health and everything to do with ushering in a new social and economic system based on totalitarian, technocracy-led control. So, it’s not misinformation they fear. It’s the truth they want to prevent from spreading. Pick up a copy of this best-selling book today before it’s too late.
Modern people, heirs of an incoherent totalitarian liberalism, typically oscillate between despising all authority and blindly submitting to whatever authority they still acknowledge. There is no longer a rich network of authorities at various levels that form a constellation of reference points within which the individual Christian yields his obedience to God and to the hierarchy that proceeds from God.[1] Authority is too often twisted into a voluntaristic, arbitrary caricature of itself, and the obedience given to such a substitute is itself a caricature. It is no virtue to submit to known falsehoods; there is no merit in obeying a system erected on errors and lies.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
What we must understand is that the virtue of obedience, properly understood, is beautiful because it is always an obedience to GOD, whether immediately or mediately. For example, when I worship God on the Lord’s Day, I am doing so out of obedience to Him directly, because He is the one who has given the divine law that we must set aside one day of the week to worship Him. When I obey the pastors of the Church by assisting at Mass on Sunday, I am also obeying God, but indirectly, because the pastors who govern in His Name are the ones who established that particular determination of the precept. Similarly, when I obey legitimately-constituted civil authority, it is because it has its authority from God—not from the people. According to Pope Leo XIII, the one whom we must always obey—the only one whom we ultimately obey—is God Himself. It would be unworthy of human dignity, he says, that one man should have to submit to another man equal to him in nature, unless the ruler rules in God’s name and by His authority, for then we are giving our assent to what God wills through His minister.[2]
The implications of this point are staggering. Immediately we understand why any human being, no matter what his position in the Church or in the State, is to be obeyed only if and when what he commands is in harmony with the law of God, or at very least not evidently opposed to it. If a civil law or an ecclesiastical law is at odds with the divine law or the natural law (which is the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law of God’s mind), then the principle memorably enunciated in the Acts of the Apostles takes force: “We must obey God rather than men.” If one has a serious and well-founded doubt about whether the human command is compatible with the divine or natural law, one should not obey it. To say otherwise would be to say that in a case where we fear we might be committing a mortal sin, or even a venial sin, we should go ahead and do it lest we offend our superior.
Thus, obedience to anyone except to God is not an absolute and does not exist in a vacuum. It has conditions for its existence, levels at which it operates, and limits. A sound and sober analysis of this question is given by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa theologiae.[3] According to Aquinas, it belongs to the divine order that rulership is exercised not solely by God, whose will is always in accord with wisdom, but also by His representatives, whose will may not always be right: “It is written (Acts 5:29): We ought to obey God rather than men. Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.”[4] St. Thomas explains:
There are two reasons for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First, on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Romans 13:2, ‘They that resist the power, resist the ordinance of God’: ‘If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God’ (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him.[5]
To clarify further, the Angelic Doctor writes:
Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law.[6]
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
It is important to note that Catholic theologians are unanimous in maintaining that an authority can actually act against the common good, the pursuit and protection of which is the very basis of all legitimate authority—and, even more importantly, that ordinary Catholics are capable of recognizing when it is happening. If we could not, we would be helpless to respond to any moral or intellectual deviations on the part of our pastors and teachers. For that matter, if the faithful lacked this capacity of discernment, much of Church history would be unintelligible.
Take the staunch and public refusal of many Catholics in England to attend Archbishop Cranmer’s new, protestantized rite of Mass, even when they were encouraged to do so by clergy who preferred the strategy of compromise with the heretical forces coming to power there in the sixteenth century.[7] Even at the cost of inconvenience, harassment, fines, and worse penalties, devout English Catholics refused to attend what would only later be called the Anglican rite—and this, well before any directive from Rome asserted that the new service was “the offspring of schism, the badge of hatred of the Church,” and “grievously sinful” to attend.[8]
If we understand, then, how both conscience and virtue operate, we will see that there can be no such thing as “blind obedience” in the Christian life. To do anything good and to avoid evil, we must make a judgment about the good to be done or the evil to be avoided; we must engage in practical reasoning about any proposed course of action; we must interiorly will conformity to the truth and reject falsehood. While there are general rules of action and exceptionless norms, only the individual can, at the moment of acting, know and choose what is right to do or not do; this responsibility over oneself cannot be “outsourced” to someone else who will think and choose for him.[9] This, rightly understood, is the primacy of conscience to which the Catholic tradition bears witness.[10]
Of course, there will be times when a command is given to someone who is under another’s authority and the subordinate sees no moral difficulty in it; in that situation, the lack of anything objectionable in the command would free him to follow it without further ado. The point here is not that moral reasoning must be complicated and time-consuming—a virtuous person with an illuminated conscience will find certain decisions very easy to make, even if the consequence will be suffering—but rather, that moral reasoning is always going on and cannot be circumvented, nor should any attempt be made to do so in the name of a purportedly “holier” form of obedience.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
If we are convinced that something essential, something decisive in the Faith is under attack from the pope or any other hierarch, we are not only permitted to refuse to do what is being asked or commanded, not only permitted to refuse to give up what is being unjustly taken away or forbidden; we are obliged to refuse, out of the love we bear to Our Lord Himself, our love for His Mystical Body, and our proper love for our own souls.
Because this is true, any penalty or punishment meted out for “disobedience” to the revolutionaries would be illicit. If a punishment is given on false theological or canonical premises, it is null and void, just as the canonical trial and excommunication of Joan of Arc were recognized as illegitimate twenty-five years after her execution at the hands of corrupt and politically-motivated clergy.
Imagine a hierarch who removes, suspends, excommunicates, or seeks to laicize a Catholic priest because the priest loves and adheres to the liturgical tradition and the hierarch despises and rejects it.[11] The suspension or excommunication or even removal from the clerical state would be null and void: it is a self-contradiction for authority to be used against anyone whose only “crime” is that he “contends earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints” (cf. Jude 3). The priest may continue administering the sacraments as before; his faculties remain unimpaired.
Let me emphasize: I am speaking about a priest who is punished for nothing other thanthe “fault” of adherence to liturgical tradition, which is not a fault but a resplendent virtue—for example, a priest who is suspended just for continuing to say the traditional Latin Mass after the local Ordinary has dared to forbid it; or a priest who is removed from his pastorship and any parochial duties because he can no longer, in good conscience, distribute Holy Communion in the hand. Invariably, most superiors in cases like this will devise trumped-up charges to distract from the real issue.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Someone might object that I am, in essence, denying that legitimate ecclesiastical authority still exists, for if it did, any penalty it meted out against a priest, whether guilty or innocent, would still be effective pro tempore: a priest who had his faculties removed would lack faculties. After all, canon law assumes the validity of actions in the external forum.[12]
My response is that this reasoning would be true in ordinary times but not in our extraordinary times, when ecclesiastical authority, by its assault on liturgical and theological tradition, has turned against the common good of the Church, subverting its own purpose and, to that extent, its authority. Catholics recognize a law more fundamental than canonical dictates—one that conditions them necessarily and thoroughly: salus animarum suprema lex, the salvation of souls is the supreme law. It is for the salvation of souls that the entire structure of ecclesiastical law exists; it has no other purpose than ultimately to protect and advance the sharing of the life of Christ with mankind.
In normal circumstances, ecclesiastical laws create a structure within which the Church’s mission may unfold in an orderly and peaceful way. But there can be situations of anarchy or breakdown, corruption or apostasy, where the ordinary structures become impediments to, not facilitators of, the Church’s mission. In these cases, the voice of conscience dictates that one should do what needs to be done, in prudence and charity, for the achievement of the sovereign law. For example, St. Athanasius the Great was officially excommunicated but did not hesitate to carry on with his work nonetheless (including the public celebration of the liturgy), and many priests who remained faithful amid the extinction of the Catholic hierarchy in Elizabethan England exercised their ministry in violation of ordinary canonical norms, even over multiple generations.[13]
The conventional line of argument would be that if a priest’s faculties have been removed, he may continue to validly (but illicitly) offer the Holy Mass, baptize, confer the Last Rites, and confirm (if he does so at the time of Baptism or reception into the Church), but could not give valid sacramental absolution except in a case of emergency and could not serve as witness to a valid sacramental marriage. Without wishing to deny that there are complicated canonical issues involved, we must not fail to acknowledge the elephant in the room: the traditional Catholic Faith is under unprecedented assault from the very ones who should be its primary upholders and defenders. This already creates a generalized emergency that does not need to be “declared” as such. (Who would declare it? Surely not the lavender modernists who are in positions of highest authority and who benefit from, or at least approve of, the dissolution of Catholic faith and morals.) The fundamental right of the baptized to a traditional sacramental life, being of divine law, may never be compromised by any appeal to or application of human laws, howsoever authoritative they may be in se. The law does not provide for every situation, and without a doubt the canonical principles of equity and epikeia must come into play. Canon law exists to facilitate the glorification of God and the sanctification of His people, not to create impediments and obstructions to them.[14]Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
When a building is burning down, one tries to put out the fire and rescue victims with any means at hand, rather than waiting until the fire brigade arrives—especially if one knows from bitter experience that the fire chief is absent from his post, or sleeping, or intoxicated, or convinced that fires are beneficial, and most of the firemen are bumblers whose methods don’t work, or, worse, are paid by saboteurs to spray gasoline on the fire. The crisis in the Church is not to be blamed on those who, conscious of an obligation in the sight of God and a duty to suffering fellow believers, have responded to it as best they can, with the bright weapons of obedience to the highest law that governs all others.
To read more about the book from which this excerpt was taken, see the product page at Sophia Institute Press. Pre-orders may be placed either there or at Amazon.
[7] The new missal of Pope Paul VI bears alarming similarities to Cranmer’s rite, as may be readily observed in any dispassionate comparison. Charts useful for this purpose can be found at www.whispersofrestoration.com/chart and www.lms.org.uk/missals.
[8] William Lilly, “England (Since the Reformation),” The Catholic Encyclopedia, special ed. (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, 1913), 5:449. See Michael Davies, Cranmer’s Godly Order: The Destruction of Catholicism through Liturgical Change, rev. ed. (Ft. Collins, CO: Roman Catholic Books, 1995).
[9] See Marc D. Guerra, “Thomas More’s Correspondence on Conscience,” Religion & Liberty, vol. 10, n. 6, July 20, 2010. In his Commentary on the Sentences, St. Thomas says (In IV Sent., Dist. 38, Q. 2, art. 4, qa. 3) that a married man must be ready to die excommunicate rather than have marital relations with someone whom a church tribunal decrees to be his wife, but whom he knows is not his wife, since “truthfulness of life…must not be given up [even] to avoid scandal.”
[10] In the words of the late Cardinal Carlo Caffarra: “Conscience says absolutely: you have to do this action; you mustn’t do that action. The voice of conscience confronts man’s freedom with an absolute: an absolute duty…. Man cannot dispense himself from an obligation which the judgement of conscience forces on him: the universal experience of remorse proves it….. The fact that man feels he cannot dispense himself from an obligation dictated by his own conscience shows that its judgment makes the person know a truth that pre-exists conscience itself. A truth, that is, which is not true because our conscience knows it, but, vice-versa; our conscience knows it because that truth exists. In other words: it is not truth that depends on conscience, but conscience that depends on truth” (“The Restoration of Man,” The Catholic World Report, September 20, 2017).
[12] The principle of “what is freely given can be freely taken away” (i.e., since a priest’s faculties are freely given by his ordinary, they may be freely taken away) must be properly understood. No man has an absolute right to become a priest, and no priest has an absolute right to offer the Mass or celebrate the other sacraments. But if we understand that the very purpose of the priesthood is to offer sacrifice, to reconcile sinners, to add new members to the Church, etc., then it would be absurd, once a man is ordained a priest, to impede his ministry—that is, Christ’s ministry in and through him—unless he is actually guilty of wrongdoing (e.g., heresy, schism, sexual abuse). It would thus be more accurate to say: “what is freely given for X purpose should not be taken away unless X is violated,” or, spelled out more fully, “what is freely given for the common good of the Church and the good of each of Christ’s faithful may not be taken away unless the recipient of that gift acts against the common good or against the good of the faithful.” This brings us squarely back to the question of the Church’s bonum commune, which cannot be severed from (in the words of Pius IV, speaking of the traditional Roman Rite) “the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all the sacraments.”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on HERE IS GOOD GUIDANCE FOR BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND LAITY IN COPING WITH FURTHER ATTACKS BY THE VATICAN ON THE EXERCISE OF OUR RIGHT TO WORSHIP GOD IN THE TRADITIONAL WAY THAT OUR FOREFATHERS DID
The scene: a small church in some out-of-the-way place. Early morning sunlight dimly filters through a small window, revealing smoke curling up from two just-extinguished candles. There are six candles in all, upon an altar that is hard against the wall. Some placards with prayers in Latin are spaced along the altar. It is quiet. Several figures are huddled near the altar, waiting for the priest to acknowledge them. It is the second Sunday of Advent.
Still meditating on the Gospel, the priest at length said to them, “What did you come here to see? A man whispering incantations? A sorcerer changing bread to flesh and wine to blood? An automaton kneeling and standing and gesturing?”Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Silence.
“Why then have you come?”
And they made answer to him, “We have come because you have the words of eternal life. We have searched for you, now three generations on. We were blinded in our cribs. We sought the holy bread from our fathers, but were given stones. In our time of trial, we knocked seeking refuge, but the doors were locked against us.
“We have come that we might offer right worship and sacrifice to our God who created us from the beginning of time. And that we might do so more abundantly in a place where the holy angel from heaven guards, cherishes, protects, visits and defends all assembled. Where Michael the Archangel stands at the right side of the altar of incense.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
“We have come to hear the writings from the ancient books and the songs from our ancestors, that they may unite us to countless generations of holy men and women.”
A pained expression came over the priest and he stared past them. He had been skeptical when he saw this group. So many had come lately to demand an end to the old-fashioned ways. Finally the priest refocused and said in reply, “We have seen now the abomination of desolation. The signs of the times are clear warning of what has begun. Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of?”
They answered as one. “We can.”
Then the priest sighed deeply. Looking into the eyes, no, the very soul, of each one of them, he saw their fear and their hope. He felt new strength well up in him. He said, “You shall indeed drink of the chalice that I drink of. And we shall drink of it together.”Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
They did not flinch.
***
They could not have known that earlier that very morning the priest had stared into the abyss. He had had a vision of himself, standing before his bishop and being given the ultimatum: give up the old Mass and sacraments or be banished without faculties into the world. He was reminded of his vow of obedience to the bishop, solemnly sworn before God and his brother priests on the day of his ordination. But he was torn; his conscience unquiet. What would he say?
He had been reading and praying over this. What is the duty to obey an unjust order? Who is to decide whether a superior’s order is unjust? What is the duty of a priest to his parishioners? Can a successor of the apostles be wrong? Would this be happening if Pius X were pope? Is his own soul in peril if he submits?Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
He knew that the matter would not end with his decision when that day came. He would not simply melt into the community and become invisible. No, he would continue to say Mass every day. The Tridentine Mass. And people would find out. And they would come — unbidden — to hear that Mass, wherever he might offer it.
Regardless of orders from Rome and ultimata from bishops, the old Mass and sacraments would continue, as he and dozens, perhaps hundreds, of men like him continued to live their vocations, rather than bend to someone else’s vocation. This would continue until Jesus Christ rescued His church or — more likely — until the abomination of desolation culminated.
The priest had prayed that morning for a sign from God. Now before him stood seekers who had been deprived of their birthright, but who nevertheless had found him and begged for right worship. He understood the sign.
Raymond Kowalski is from Rochester, New York. He is a product of parochial elementary schools and The Aquinas Institute. He holds a bachelor’s degree from St. Bonaventure University and a law degree from The George Washington University. After a forty-year career in communications law, he is retired and living with his wife in Gainesville, Virginia. They are the parents of three and grandparents of five.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on COURAGE, FATHER! COURAGE!
“IT’S HAPPENING” against “the Emerging #Totalitarianism”: Japan is Anti-Biden “Criminal [Forced] Mandates” & German Court “says Starving People to Death is against their Fundamental Rights”
Whereas it must be emphasized that our brothers and sisters who have received these injections with insufficient knowledge or freedom, being victims of propaganda or the violence of criminal mandates, cannot be said to have incurred guilt to their consciences on account of this act;
We the undersigned, in observation of Church teaching, hereby affirm that even presuming an individual is fully opposed to these gene-based vaccines being tainted with the horrendous crime of abortion, that due to the presence of any of the three following conditions as supported above, it remains objectively morally illicit for a person to accept these shots:
the manifest lack of a “grave danger” posed by COVID-19,
the positive availability of safe and effective “ethically irreproachable Covid-19” health interventions, and,
the absence of adequate testing data which is morally necessary for even attempting to calculate a risk / benefit analysis for such experimental gene-based injections, especially when these shots have been shown to be exceptionally ineffective and dangerous, particularly to the most vulnerable. – “The Bethlehem Declaration” which was signed by Bishop Rene Gracida and other bishops
You know you’re living in peak clown world when that is considered a big achievement, in the supposedly free world. 🤡 Hunk honk 🤡 [https://patriots.win/p/140cgJDiIT/sweden-its-happeninga-german/c/]
Moreover, The Epoch Times reported that Japan refused to join the Axis of Evil worldwide Nazi-like Biden “criminal mandates” against “Fundamental Rights”:
Also, against “the Emerging #Totalitarianism” are the “[anti-]criminal mandate” Catholic bishops including the 98 year-old Bishop Gracida, who has been a World War II airman, monk, rancher and the most courageous defenders of the unborn in the entire College of Bishops. He said “I was happy to sign‘The Bethlehem Declaration.'” [https://abyssum.org/] On his website, he posted the Declaration and an article by LifesiteNews that explained “’all people of good will’ [need] to ‘vehemently oppose’ the “abortion-tainted experimental injections for COVID-19,’ along with mandates for their reception, calling the shots ‘morally illicit’”: I WAS HAPPY TO SIGN THE ‘BETHLEHEM DECLARATION [https://abyssum.org/2021/12/17/i-was-happy-to-sign-the-bethlehem-declaration/] Bethlehem Declaration PDF download and LifePetition.
The Bethlehem Declaration: Challenging the moral liceity of the abortion-tainted experimental injections for COVID-19 and calling for universal opposition to ‘vaccine mandates’
’For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man’ (GS 22).
Whereas the Second Vatican Council rightly summarized the horror of abortion classifying it as an “abominable crime” which also encompasses a “supreme dishonour to the Creator” (GS 51 § 3; 27);
Whereas St. John Paul II taught all must oppose such deliberate “murder” of the most vulnerable with “maximum of determination” (EV, 58; CL);
Whereas, the sanctity of pre-born babies, created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:27), is gravely violated by their utilitarian exploitation and commodification; thereby furthering the descent of the human race into “a civilization of ‘things’ and not of ‘persons’, a civilization in which persons are used in the same way as things are used” (St. John Paul II, GS 13);
Whereas all of the experimental COVID-19 gene-based vaccines currently available in the Western world, are abortion-tainted having been tested or developed through the abuse of stolen fetal cells from the bodies of murdered pre-born children;
Whereas last December (2020) the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) released a Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines (Note) the subject of which was limited to “the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted,” while specifically stating as well that the congregation did “not intend to judge the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, although ethically relevant and necessary;
Whereas the Note affirms there remains a “moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation” in the crime of abortion by use of said injections; yet explains this duty is “not obligatory” in the presence of a “grave danger” that can be evaded by the “vaccine,” and when an “ethically irreproachable Covid-19” alternative health intervention is not available;
Whereas absent the presence of at least these criteria it remains morally illicit to receive said injections;
Whereas despite the Note stating the current “pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19” constitutes the necessary “grave danger” to justify the use of abortion-tainted vaccines, such a judgment is “contingent and conjectural” relying on scientific data which continually develops over time (DVer, 24), while also being outside the proper competence of bishops, as their authority is defined as pertaining to the realms of faith and morals (LG 25);
Whereashundreds of medical professionals with due competence have come to the opposite conclusion classifying use of these experimental COVID-19 injections as “unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe;” while over 59,000 medical scientists and practitioners have affirmed that due to the relatively mild danger of COVID-19 to the vast majority of the population, “those who are at minimal risk” should be permitted “to live their lives normally [and] build up [herd] immunity to the virus” apart from any vaccines; and several thousand others have called exposing the population to an inadequately tested vaccine to counteract such a mild virus “irresponsible;”
Whereas “[i]n the vast majority of people (~99.8% globally), SARS-CoV-2 is non-lethal. It is typically a mild to moderately severe illness. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of people are not at risk from COVID-19 and do not require vaccination” (source)
Whereas COVID-19 has an average age of death which is higher than that of the general population demonstrating its mild nature, including an overall survival rate of 99.74%;
Whereas reported survival rates for those under eighteen years of age are 99.998%, for those between eighteen and fifty years, 99.95%, from fifty to sixty-five, 99.4%, and for those over sixty-five years, 94%, equating to those under 70, having a better chance of dying from influenza than COVID-19 which presents an overall threat comparable to the medium influenza pandemics of 1936 and 1957;
Whereashundreds of medical professionals affirm, “approximately 99% of people are already protected against COVID-19 by memory-type antibody responses,” and “most people will now have immunity due to exposure to SARS-CoV-2,” thus this population will not “benefit at all from being vaccinated;”
Whereas the government officials who have been charged with vetting the COVID-19 gene-based vaccine injections have been heavily compromised with multiple conflicts of interest through their deep connections to the pharmaceutical industry even actually profiting from the products that they have vetted, even while the research is funded and influenced by these drug corporations who are producing the products in question;
Whereas all of the currently available COVID-19 “vaccine” injections are reallygene-based medical treatments, “qualitatively different than standard vaccines,” calling into question the Note’s applicability to these drugs;
WhereasDignitas Personae distinguishes such drugs from vaccines specifying, “[g]iven that gene therapy can involve significant risks for the patient, the ethical principle must be observed according to which, in order to proceed to a therapeutic intervention, it is necessary to establish beforehand that the person being treated will not be exposed to risks to his health or physical integrity which are excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the pathology for which a cure is sought. The informed consent of the patient or his legitimate representative is also required” (26);
Whereas since there has been no long-term animal testing to determine the long-range harmful side effects of the new experimental gene-based COVID-19 products, nor have standard safety committees been put in place to assess the data—causing many experts to insist the vaccination program “should be halted immediately”—it is impossible to assert that the benefits of these injections are proportionate to the harmful side effects as is morally required to be known before such experimental gene therapies can be morally acceptable;
Whereas by means of comparison, American casualties in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars equate to 7,074, yet in the U.S. alone credibledeath reports due to the these injections currently number 19,886 (through December 3, 2021) and are steadily increasing on a passive government reporting system which has historically “under-reported adverse events by about two orders-of-magnitude” meaning actual deaths could be in “the hundreds of thousands for the USA” (source);1
Whereas reports of these vaccine deaths, presently 47 times higher in 2021 than 2020, continue to be suppressed by the media along with the accounts of almost 103,000 hospitalizations and over 36,600 individuals being permanently disabled; and in consideration of a peer-reviewed study revealing a “five times” greater chance of death from the vaccines than from COVID-19 “in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic,” including an increased risk vs. benefits ratio with younger age groups, at least hundreds of doctors insist these experimental gene-based injections are “dangerous” and “not safer” than COVID-19 itself;
Whereas the onus is upon the scientists, government health officials and moralists who promote the acceptance of these injections to prove that the unprecedentedly multitudinous reported adverse events related to these injections are not caused by these shots before others are subjected to them — which certainly has not been done;
Whereas these gene-based vaccines have been shown to be ineffective—far lesseffective than natural immunity of recovered patients — suffering high-levels of “breakthrough cases” of the “fully vaccinated” as compared to the “unvaccinated” (74%), including hospitalizations (60%), with significantly higher risks to the recovered who accept the shots (56%), along with showing a curious correlation between implementation of “vaccine” campaigns across the globe and sharp increases in COVID-19 deaths; and, lastly, revealing strongindications that the “vaccinated” are just as likely to carry and transmit the virus as the unvaccinated, vitiating the broadly advanced motive for the healthy to be injected out of “love of neighbor” in order to “protect others”;
Whereas facing the unjust implementation and advancement of freedom-killing“vaccine passports”— which “protect nobody” from the virus—in Europe, Israel, Australia, and Canada, along with initiatives at the city, state and federal level in the United States, sparking vast global protests, a legitimate act of “love of neighbor” can rightly be exercised by what many agree is the “only way” to protect the freedom of western democracies: massive non-compliance with “vaccine” mandates and passports;
Whereas the Church has also taught that the use of any such abortion-tainted injections may be chosen only on a “temporary basis,” as habitual material cooperation through multiple shots may, among other dangers, erode the subject’s “sense of right and wrong” engendering “an occasion of grave sin;” and yet the use of at least the two mRNA experimental gene-transfer COVID injections are designed to require “boosters” on an ongoing basis involving a routine and physical concatenation with the crime of abortion;
Whereas taking abortion-tainted products encourages the abortion industry and the pro-abortion pharmaceutical and biomedical research industry to continue abusing cell lines stolen from murdered babies (and even developing new abortion-derived cell lines) despite any and all verbal protests of pro-lifers speaking out in opposition to these atrocities;
Whereas such a counter-witness has the potential of causing scandal to the secular world, it also serves to undermine a higher duty of “love of neighbor” by encouraging the gravely immoral acts of abortionists, researchers, marketers and administrators involved in these evils, further endangering their immortal souls;
Whereas it must be emphasized that our brothers and sisters who have received these injections with insufficient knowledge or freedom, being victims of propaganda or the violence of criminal mandates, cannot be said to have incurred guilt to their consciences on account of this act;
We the undersigned, in observation of Church teaching, hereby affirm that even presuming an individual is fully opposed to these gene-based vaccines being tainted with the horrendous crime of abortion, that due to the presence of any of the three following conditions as supported above, it remains objectively morally illicit for a person to accept these shots:
the manifest lack of a “grave danger” posed by COVID-19,
the positive availability of safe and effective “ethically irreproachable Covid-19” health interventions, and,
the absence of adequate testing data which is morally necessary for even attempting to calculate a risk / benefit analysis for such experimental gene-based injections, especially when these shots have been shown to be exceptionally ineffective and dangerous, particularly to the most vulnerable.
We further confirm that as a matter of logic at least one such prohibitive condition will apply to virtually all, if not every, individual.
In circumstances which constitute criminally imposed duress or coercion, mandating reception of such dangerous, ineffective and under-tested experimental injections, in violation of the Nuremburg Code and international law, those victimized by these acts of violence are encouraged to make the most prudentdecision possible in service to their own health, freedom and the common good.
It also naturally follows that it remains morally illicit to facilitate, promote or mandate the mass reception of these dangerous, under-tested, under-monitored, abortion-tainted COVID-19 injections.
We therefore respectfully appeal to the Holy Father, the CDF, all Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, lay faithful, and all people of good will to vehemently oppose the reception of these morally tainted, dangerous, and ineffective products, along with the gravely unjust mandates for their reception being imposed upon millions of students and workers across the Christian West.
Initial Signatories December 15, 2021
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
+ Bishop Marian Eleganti, Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus of Chur, Switzerland
+ Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
Rev A B. Carter B.Sc. (Hons.) ARCS DipPFS
Fr Koenraad Huysegems
Fr. Timothy Sauppé, S.T.L.
Fr. Michael Menner M.A. Theology; Bachelor of Science in Human Biology
Abbé Janvier Gbénou, priest
Abbé Fr. Guy Pagès, priest, author
Fr. Luis Eduardo Rodríguez Rodriguez Parish Priest, Venezuela.
Fr. John Rizzo
Diocese of Parramatta, Australia
Deacon Nick Donnelly, MA
Lynn Colgan Cohen, OFS, MA Secular Franciscan
Prof. Dr. phil. habil. Berthold Wald
Professor of Systematic Philosophy (ret.), Theological Department Paderborn, Germany
Dr. Claude E. Newbury M.B., B.Ch., D.T.M&H., D.P.H., M.F.G.P., D.O.H., D.C.H., D.A., M.Med. Physician, public health expert, former President of Pro‑Life South Africa
Peter A. Kwasniewski, Ph.D., independent scholar and author
Dr. Caroline Farey, BA, MA, STB, STL, PhL, PhD (Lateranensis)
Prof. Dr. Dr. Daniel von Wachter, philosopher and theologian, Principality of Liechtenstein
Carlos A. Casanova, Philosopher, University Professor
Donna F. Bethell, J.D. Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Dr.rer.pol. Rudolf Hilfer, Stuttgart, German
Andrea Rosario Iñiguez. PHD Law.
Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg, psychologist
Prof. em. Dr. Hubert Windisch, Germany
Dr. Robert Hickson (USA ret.), scholar of literature and military history
Dr. Maike Hickson, journalist and author
Gabriele Civello, PhD in Law
Edward E. Schaefer, president The Collegium
Michael Hageböck, school headmaster, publicist
Sarah Henderson DCHS MA (RE & Catechetics) BA (Mus)
René Fuchslocher Raddatz, attorney, politician and farmer
John-Henry Westen, co-founder and editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews.com
Michael Matt, Editor, The Remnant
Sven von Storch, Editor-in-chief of Frei Welt, Chairman of the Zivie Allianz, Chairman of the Institute for Strategic Studies in Berlin
Brian M. McCall, Orpha and Maurice Merrill Chair in Law; Editor-in-chief, Catholic Family News
Matt Gaspers Managing Editor, Catholic Family News
Rod Pead, Editor, Christian Order magazine, UK
Helene und Alexandra Walterskirchen, Castle Rudolfshausen, Germany (Kultur-Magazin Schloss Rudolfshausen)
Leila Marie Lawler, Author of The Summa Domestica: Order and Wonder in the Home
Maureen Mullarkey, writer
Jeanne Smits, journalist, France
Adrie A.M. van der Hoeven MSc, published scientist and author of www.jesusking.info
Elizabeth Yore, Esq., Founder, YoreChildren
Joseph Doyle, Executive Director Catholic Action League of Massachusetts
Ernest Williams, Switzerland
Debi Vinnedge, Retired founder of Children of God for Life
Yvonne Bontkowski, Executive Director, Taking Recourse Patrick Delaney, M.Div., MA 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)
– 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.
Respond to this post by replying above this lineNew post on A Sign of HopeGet Your Hands Dirty – or Perishby charliej373St. Boniface and the Sacred OakBy Charlie JohnstonWhat fellowship can light have with darkness? – 2 Corinthians 6:14As recently as 50 years ago, one could honorably be either Democrat or Republican. Both parties were basically pro-life, pro-nuclear family, pro-individual liberty, pro-free speech, and at least gave lip service to the Judeo-Christian ethic and took pains not to offend these sensibilities. This was a time when it was right and proper for clerics to be non-political, for the parties agreed on fundamental goals that were compatible with the faith, only disagreeing on how best to get there. For a cleric to pushily get political was to risk intruding on what was a primary temporal duty of the laity.Times have changed. Now, various political entities (almost all left wing) have denounced fundamentals of the Christian faith, have outlawed some and continue to try to outlaw more, and have declared any opposition to be “political.” Far too many clerics have gone timid – or outright refused to defend the faith in order not to seem political. Pathetic!In 1938, Nazi Germany took over Austria without firing a shot. Mere threats were enough. It was called the Anschluss. The Austrian leadership had neither the wit nor courage to take their own side in a fight. When a hostile power seeks to take over your legitimate territory, it is not “political” for you to defend it. Far too many clerics are playing the role of Austria during the Anschluss, hoping forlornly, as Winston Churchill once said, that if they “feed the crocodile, it will eat them last.”Just in the last century, the Church was far more vigorous in defending her territory. She had no problem looking at how the Soviet Communist Party and later the Nazi Party were committed enemies of the fundamentals of the faith – and formally condemned them and excommunicated any Catholic who voluntarily joined either. But now many clerics are more concerned with being nice to the crocodile than to living up to their solemn oath to defend Christ and His people. Some, hideously, have even joined forces with the demonic left in repudiating Christian doctrine and persecuting the very faithful they promised to give their lives to defend.I have had more than a few Priests criticize me for being too political and being a supporter of Donald Trump. They think they have the moral high ground. You want to criticize me for having supported Trump after initially being close to being a never-Trumper? That is entirely fair game – just as in 1960 you could criticize someone for being either pro-Nixon or pro-Kennedy, without doing violence to the faith. But if your criticism is not accompanied by condemnation of those who wage war against the faith, you are not being non-political, you are just a useful idiot for the anti-God left – a coward and a chump who does not have the wit to take your own side in a fight, hoping the crocodile will eat you last.A couple of years ago I set up a small savings account. I was a bit disoriented because I had had no bank account at all for almost a decade – having lived poverty from about a year before I left on my pilgrimage. The branch manager, seeing my struggle, helped me personally in her office. Naturally, she was curious about why I was confused when I seemed to be an otherwise fairly astute fellow. I explained to her about the pilgrimage and voluntarily living poverty. She was charmed – and we had a delightful chat. She told me she leaned left, but had become a little embarrassed by it because her side had become so vicious and intolerant. She then asked me (with no hostility; we were just good-naturedly candid with each other by this point) how a man who obviously took his faith so seriously could justify supporting a man like Trump. I told her I thought Trump was undergoing a genuine conversion experience, but to set that aside for now. In 2016, I was confronted by what I believed to be two reprobates: Hillary Clinton, a reprobate who promised to destroy me and every aspect of religious liberty she could and Donald Trump, a reprobate who, even if he wasn’t one of us, promised to protect and defend our rights and religious liberty. I told her my faith did NOT obligate me to vote for the candidate who promised to destroy me. Her eyes went wide and she said, “You’re right. I never thought of it that way.” Would that some hostile clerics were as quick to pick up on what is at the heart of the matter.It is the legitimate prerogative of any cleric to support a different candidate than I do, but only insofar as that candidate is NOT hostile to religious liberty or to fundamentals of the faith. It is also the legitimate prerogative of any cleric to stay out of political matters altogether – but NOT to attack me or anyone else who supports a candidate who defends religious liberty – but that the cleric doesn’t like. When your legitimate territory and prerogatives are under attack and you refuse to defend them, you are not being non-political: you are, at best, a moral coward and, at worst, a traitor to the living Christ to whom you solemnly swore fidelity.This is nothing new in the hierarchy, though. The much-maligned Crusades, contrary to conventional but errant wisdom, was NOT Christianity’s attack on innocent Islam. Islam was waging a war of extinction on Christianity. By the time Christians decided to finally fight back, Islam already had taken over the entire Iberian Peninsula and substantial chunks of Italy and France. One could legitimately criticize the Church for being so slow to defend itself and the faithful – and even for some excesses, but you cannot legitimately criticize it for defending itself. The Crusades were not a Christian assault on innocent Islam; rather, it was the Christian counterattack against sustained Islamic aggression.If you are a cleric, you can remain completely non-political (but that means refraining from deriding someone who supports Trump or any other candidate you don’t like who, nonetheless, supports religious liberty – while simultaneously maintaining “prudent” silence towards those who support candidates who actually assault the faith – whether by advocating for the execution of infants or any other fundamental of the faith. You don’t get to pretend to be non-political while trying to curry favor with the “cool kids.”) If you choose to be completely non-political, you had better truly devote yourself to corporal acts of mercy, lest the Lord spew you out of His mouth for being lukewarm instead of hot or cold. This can be done. I have long been friendly with a Bishop who is orthodox but has no taste for the culture wars or the broader theological battles. He does, however, devote himself to helping the addicted, the wounded, and the broken. And he knows them by name. I deeply admire the man. You can certainly tend to the wounded, but woe to you if, when the faith was under sustained assault, all you did was try to keep out of the line of fire. If you further afflict the afflicted in an effort to ingratiate yourself with the aggressors, you deny Christ – who will deny you unless you repent and do real penance.It is NOT political to defend the legitimate prerogatives of the faith and of liberty (free will). Great saints have been formed by boldly going into hostile territory, effectively opposing the zeitgeist, and bringing new souls to Christ. These great saints suffered great persecution, often for decades, because of their deep love for Christ and commitment to win souls for Him. Zero saints have been formed by trying to accommodate the faith to a debauched and fallen world. St. Patrick did not go into Ireland and assure the pagans that they were fine as they are, while adopting pagan attitudes, himself. St. Boniface did not adopt the superstitions of the semi-pagan Germanic and Nordic peoples when he was sent among them: he chopped down the sacred oak and called the people he was responsible for to full communion with Christ.In times of great strife, when the faith and the faithful are assaulted from within and without, if you will not get your hands dirty, either completely devoted to cardinal acts of mercy or passionately defending the faith, the faithful, and the sovereignty of Christ, you will perish. You cannot be the timid and cowardly Gideon of Judges, Chapter 6. Rather, you must be the fully trusting, passionate Gideon of Judges, Chapter 7. If you protest that the forces of secularism and rot are too great, that is not an argument at all – just a confession that you don’t trust God at all. The initially timid Gideon conquered an invading army of 135,000 warriors with a mere 300 men God sent him out with. Trust or don’t, but don’t whine about how hard things are. Christianity is not for wimps. For crying out loud, gird your loins and stand your ground under the banner of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. How much nobler to give your life for the faith than to preserve it for the rot around you!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 | December 18, 2021 at 9:47 am | Categories: Culture, Spiritual Preparation, The Church, The Storm | URL: https://wp.me/p9wpk6-14y
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on WORDS OF WISDOM TO HELP YOU COPE WITH THE CRISIS IN THE WORLD IN WHICH YOU LIVE
once we have lost the ability to express our opinions openly, we are no longer the semblance of a democratic republic. Other principles are automatically undermined.________________________________________________
Big Oops: Facebook Lawyers Reveal Why Company Must Be Broken Up
By: Roger L. Simon
The Epoch Times
December 15, 2021
More than any principle, freedom of speech is what makes America, America. Other defining characteristics exist—many extremely important as well—but once we have lost the ability to express our opinions openly, we are no longer the semblance of a democratic republic. Other principles are automatically undermined.
For some time now, this freedom has been under assault, via the cancel culture and other forms of suppression, including, lately, business censorship, most often in the name of supposed “misinformation.”
“Fact-checkers”abound to keep us on the straight and narrow of their version of “truth.” The Washington Post—the newspaper, we now know and even they finally admit, lied about Trump-Russia collusion on its front page for nearly two years—embarrassingly features one of these “fact-checkers,” doling out “Pinocchios” to one and all.
Worse yet are the social media companies. Facebook and Twitter (of Hunter Biden fame) have hundreds, maybe thousands of such censors, commonly recent graduates of our increasingly-biased educational system, operating under various euphemisms and cut-outs, making sure everything is according to their Hoyle.
Facebook has chosen—in search, one supposes, of “plausible deniability”—to outsource their fact-checking: “Fighting misinformation is an ever-evolving problem, and Facebook can’t do it alone. We rely on independent fact-checkers to review and rate the accuracy of stories through original reporting, which may include interviewing primary sources, consulting public data and conducting analyses of media, including photos and video.”
The company they have chosen for this work is “IFCN-certified.” In case you missed it, that’s the International Fact-Checking Network, which “was launched [by Poynter] in 2015 to bring together the growing community of fact-checkers around the world and advocates of factual information in the global fight against misinformation.”
Ah, those “advocates of factual information”—they always know better.
Or do they?
Enter John Stossel.
The well-known journalist had posted a video on Facebook that, in his words, “reported facts suggesting that government mismanagement probably played a bigger role in causing California’s wildfires than climate change.”
Working through a fact-checker, a group called Climate Feedback got the video branded as “false and misleading” for Facebook’s nearly 1.7 billion users.
Stossel felt he was being defamed. His claim was arguable. Many thought it was accurate. He tried to get the company to walk their branding back, but, receiving no response, ultimately sued.
The results of the suit, so far, are surprising to say the least.
Anthony Watts, who founded the world’s most popular website on climate, Watts Up With That, puts this surprising turn succinctly:
“In its response to Stossel’s defamation claim, Facebook responds on Page 2, Line 8 in the court document that Facebook cannot be sued for defamation (which is making a false and harmful assertion) because its ‘fact-checks’ are mere statements of opinion rather than factual assertions.
“Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation. The quote in Facebook’s complaint is,
“‘The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.’
So there you have it. The cat’s out of the proverbial bag. According to Facebook’s own lawyers, fact-checking isn’t fact-checking. It’s opinion.
But didn’t we always know that? Isn’t Mark Zuckerberg—well, let’s be honest—a big, fat liar when he hides behind pompous pronouncements on his company’s devotion to factual accuracy, whether home grown or outsourced?
What he is pushing is his own party line, like most of us, but he is pushing it on an audience of approximately five times the number of people who reside in the United States of America.
The “misinformation” claim is being used for propagandistic purposes on a level never seen before with terrifying consequences, both real and potential. (Think COVID.)
Attempts have been made in Congress to rein this in by toughening Section 230, a legalism that defines the degree to which companies like Facebook (now Meta) and Google (now Alphabet) are liable.
Though well-meaning, this is misconceived and, at most, a temporary patch for a problem that is much larger, especially now that Facebook is telling us their censorship is merely the assertion of protected opinion. If true, they can censor virtually anything they wish.
At the time Anti-Trust Legislation was written, no one, with the possible exception of H.G. Wells, could have conceived of the reach of these companies. At this point, they are virtually uncontrollable.
But this very assertion that their fact-checking is actually opinion provides a possible entry point. As in the case of Stossel, these companies are intruding on, indeed actually erasing, the Constitutionally-protected right of free speech.
Yes, they are private companies, but should they be under these completely unforeseen circumstances with their ability to cross national borders easily, sometimes undetected, and even go into space?
Recently, it was revealed their cousin Apple made a secret deal with China to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and who knows what intellectual property. The latter could have tremendous national security implications. No one stopped the Cupertino company or, as far as we know, even tried.
Ultimately, the way to really prevent these American techno giants from running amuck and dominating our lives to extraordinary degrees is to break them up or turn them into public utilities open to all to express themselves. The only exceptions to this openness would be for criminal behavior or pornography.
Beyond correcting the fascistic tendencies of their censorship, making social media public utilities might also help undo or ameliorate the extraordinary amounts of harm these companies have already done to our children by addicting them.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely something like this can be easily effectuated because these companies are, with Big Pharma, the biggest political donors extant. But in the end, the people have the power to get this done. It is, as always, up to us.
“America’s Most Interesting Bishop” & other Bishops as well as Scholars signed the “Bethlehem Declaration” against the “Abortion-tainted” COVID Shots & “Criminal Mandates”
Whereas it must be emphasized that our brothers and sisters who have received these injections with insufficient knowledge or freedom, being victims of propaganda or the violence of criminal mandates, cannot be said to have incurred guilt to their consciences on account of this act;
We the undersigned, in observation of Church teaching, hereby affirm that even presuming an individual is fully opposed to these gene-based vaccines being tainted with the horrendous crime of abortion, that due to the presence of any of the three following conditions as supported above, it remains objectively morally illicit for a person to accept these shots:
the manifest lack of a “grave danger” posed by COVID-19,
the positive availability of safe and effective “ethically irreproachable Covid-19” health interventions, and,
the absence of adequate testing data which is morally necessary for even attempting to calculate a risk / benefit analysis for such experimental gene-based injections, especially when these shots have been shown to be exceptionally ineffective and dangerous, particularly to the most vulnerable. – The Bethlehem Declaration
Today, Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, who has been called the “most interesting bishop in the country” by Texas Right to Life, reported on his website that he signed “The Bethlehem Declaration” against the “abortion-tainted” COVID shots and the Joe Biden unconstitutional mandates. The 98 year-old Bishop Gracida, who been a World War II airman, monk, rancher and the most courageous defenders of the unborn in the entire College of Bishops, said “I was happy to sign‘The Bethlehem Declaration.'” [https://abyssum.org/] On his website, he posted the Declaration and an article by LifesiteNews that explained “’all people of good will’ [need] to ‘vehemently oppose’ the “abortion-tainted experimental injections for COVID-19,’ along with mandates for their reception, calling the shots ‘morally illicit’”: I WAS HAPPY TO SIGN THE ‘BETHLEHEM DECLARATION [https://abyssum.org/2021/12/17/i-was-happy-to-sign-the-bethlehem-declaration/] Bethlehem Declaration PDF download and LifePetition.
The Bethlehem Declaration: Challenging the moral liceity of the abortion-tainted experimental injections for COVID-19 and calling for universal opposition to ‘vaccine mandates’
’For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man’ (GS 22).
Whereas the Second Vatican Council rightly summarized the horror of abortion classifying it as an “abominable crime” which also encompasses a “supreme dishonour to the Creator” (GS 51 § 3; 27);
Whereas St. John Paul II taught all must oppose such deliberate “murder” of the most vulnerable with “maximum of determination” (EV, 58; CL);
Whereas, the sanctity of pre-born babies, created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:27), is gravely violated by their utilitarian exploitation and commodification; thereby furthering the descent of the human race into “a civilization of ‘things’ and not of ‘persons’, a civilization in which persons are used in the same way as things are used” (St. John Paul II, GS 13);
Whereas all of the experimental COVID-19 gene-based vaccines currently available in the Western world, are abortion-tainted having been tested or developed through the abuse of stolen fetal cells from the bodies of murdered pre-born children;
Whereas last December (2020) the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) released a Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines (Note) the subject of which was limited to “the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted,” while specifically stating as well that the congregation did “not intend to judge the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, although ethically relevant and necessary;
Whereas the Note affirms there remains a “moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation” in the crime of abortion by use of said injections; yet explains this duty is “not obligatory” in the presence of a “grave danger” that can be evaded by the “vaccine,” and when an “ethically irreproachable Covid-19” alternative health intervention is not available;
Whereas absent the presence of at least these criteria it remains morally illicit to receive said injections;
Whereas despite the Note stating the current “pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19” constitutes the necessary “grave danger” to justify the use of abortion-tainted vaccines, such a judgment is “contingent and conjectural” relying on scientific data which continually develops over time (DVer, 24), while also being outside the proper competence of bishops, as their authority is defined as pertaining to the realms of faith and morals (LG 25);
Whereashundreds of medical professionals with due competence have come to the opposite conclusion classifying use of these experimental COVID-19 injections as “unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe;” while over 59,000 medical scientists and practitioners have affirmed that due to the relatively mild danger of COVID-19 to the vast majority of the population, “those who are at minimal risk” should be permitted “to live their lives normally [and] build up [herd] immunity to the virus” apart from any vaccines; and several thousand others have called exposing the population to an inadequately tested vaccine to counteract such a mild virus “irresponsible;”
Whereas “[i]n the vast majority of people (~99.8% globally), SARS-CoV-2 is non-lethal. It is typically a mild to moderately severe illness. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of people are not at risk from COVID-19 and do not require vaccination” (source)
Whereas COVID-19 has an average age of death which is higher than that of the general population demonstrating its mild nature, including an overall survival rate of 99.74%;
Whereas reported survival rates for those under eighteen years of age are 99.998%, for those between eighteen and fifty years, 99.95%, from fifty to sixty-five, 99.4%, and for those over sixty-five years, 94%, equating to those under 70, having a better chance of dying from influenza than COVID-19 which presents an overall threat comparable to the medium influenza pandemics of 1936 and 1957;
Whereashundreds of medical professionals affirm, “approximately 99% of people are already protected against COVID-19 by memory-type antibody responses,” and “most people will now have immunity due to exposure to SARS-CoV-2,” thus this population will not “benefit at all from being vaccinated;”
Whereas the government officials who have been charged with vetting the COVID-19 gene-based vaccine injections have been heavily compromised with multiple conflicts of interest through their deep connections to the pharmaceutical industry even actually profiting from the products that they have vetted, even while the research is funded and influenced by these drug corporations who are producing the products in question;
Whereas all of the currently available COVID-19 “vaccine” injections are reallygene-based medical treatments, “qualitatively different than standard vaccines,” calling into question the Note’s applicability to these drugs;
WhereasDignitas Personae distinguishes such drugs from vaccines specifying, “[g]iven that gene therapy can involve significant risks for the patient, the ethical principle must be observed according to which, in order to proceed to a therapeutic intervention, it is necessary to establish beforehand that the person being treated will not be exposed to risks to his health or physical integrity which are excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the pathology for which a cure is sought. The informed consent of the patient or his legitimate representative is also required” (26);
Whereas since there has been no long-term animal testing to determine the long-range harmful side effects of the new experimental gene-based COVID-19 products, nor have standard safety committees been put in place to assess the data—causing many experts to insist the vaccination program “should be halted immediately”—it is impossible to assert that the benefits of these injections are proportionate to the harmful side effects as is morally required to be known before such experimental gene therapies can be morally acceptable;
Whereas by means of comparison, American casualties in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars equate to 7,074, yet in the U.S. alone credibledeath reports due to the these injections currently number 19,886 (through December 3, 2021) and are steadily increasing on a passive government reporting system which has historically “under-reported adverse events by about two orders-of-magnitude” meaning actual deaths could be in “the hundreds of thousands for the USA” (source);1
Whereas reports of these vaccine deaths, presently 47 times higher in 2021 than 2020, continue to be suppressed by the media along with the accounts of almost 103,000 hospitalizations and over 36,600 individuals being permanently disabled; and in consideration of a peer-reviewed study revealing a “five times” greater chance of death from the vaccines than from COVID-19 “in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic,” including an increased risk vs. benefits ratio with younger age groups, at least hundreds of doctors insist these experimental gene-based injections are “dangerous” and “not safer” than COVID-19 itself;
Whereas the onus is upon the scientists, government health officials and moralists who promote the acceptance of these injections to prove that the unprecedentedly multitudinous reported adverse events related to these injections are not caused by these shots before others are subjected to them — which certainly has not been done;
Whereas these gene-based vaccines have been shown to be ineffective—far lesseffective than natural immunity of recovered patients — suffering high-levels of “breakthrough cases” of the “fully vaccinated” as compared to the “unvaccinated” (74%), including hospitalizations (60%), with significantly higher risks to the recovered who accept the shots (56%), along with showing a curious correlation between implementation of “vaccine” campaigns across the globe and sharp increases in COVID-19 deaths; and, lastly, revealing strongindications that the “vaccinated” are just as likely to carry and transmit the virus as the unvaccinated, vitiating the broadly advanced motive for the healthy to be injected out of “love of neighbor” in order to “protect others”;
Whereas facing the unjust implementation and advancement of freedom-killing“vaccine passports”— which “protect nobody” from the virus—in Europe, Israel, Australia, and Canada, along with initiatives at the city, state and federal level in the United States, sparking vast global protests, a legitimate act of “love of neighbor” can rightly be exercised by what many agree is the “only way” to protect the freedom of western democracies: massive non-compliance with “vaccine” mandates and passports;
Whereas the Church has also taught that the use of any such abortion-tainted injections may be chosen only on a “temporary basis,” as habitual material cooperation through multiple shots may, among other dangers, erode the subject’s “sense of right and wrong” engendering “an occasion of grave sin;” and yet the use of at least the two mRNA experimental gene-transfer COVID injections are designed to require “boosters” on an ongoing basis involving a routine and physical concatenation with the crime of abortion;
Whereas taking abortion-tainted products encourages the abortion industry and the pro-abortion pharmaceutical and biomedical research industry to continue abusing cell lines stolen from murdered babies (and even developing new abortion-derived cell lines) despite any and all verbal protests of pro-lifers speaking out in opposition to these atrocities;
Whereas such a counter-witness has the potential of causing scandal to the secular world, it also serves to undermine a higher duty of “love of neighbor” by encouraging the gravely immoral acts of abortionists, researchers, marketers and administrators involved in these evils, further endangering their immortal souls;
Whereas it must be emphasized that our brothers and sisters who have received these injections with insufficient knowledge or freedom, being victims of propaganda or the violence of criminal mandates, cannot be said to have incurred guilt to their consciences on account of this act;
We the undersigned, in observation of Church teaching, hereby affirm that even presuming an individual is fully opposed to these gene-based vaccines being tainted with the horrendous crime of abortion, that due to the presence of any of the three following conditions as supported above, it remains objectively morally illicit for a person to accept these shots:
the manifest lack of a “grave danger” posed by COVID-19,
the positive availability of safe and effective “ethically irreproachable Covid-19” health interventions, and,
the absence of adequate testing data which is morally necessary for even attempting to calculate a risk / benefit analysis for such experimental gene-based injections, especially when these shots have been shown to be exceptionally ineffective and dangerous, particularly to the most vulnerable.
We further confirm that as a matter of logic at least one such prohibitive condition will apply to virtually all, if not every, individual.
In circumstances which constitute criminally imposed duress or coercion, mandating reception of such dangerous, ineffective and under-tested experimental injections, in violation of the Nuremburg Code and international law, those victimized by these acts of violence are encouraged to make the most prudentdecision possible in service to their own health, freedom and the common good.
It also naturally follows that it remains morally illicit to facilitate, promote or mandate the mass reception of these dangerous, under-tested, under-monitored, abortion-tainted COVID-19 injections.
We therefore respectfully appeal to the Holy Father, the CDF, all Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, lay faithful, and all people of good will to vehemently oppose the reception of these morally tainted, dangerous, and ineffective products, along with the gravely unjust mandates for their reception being imposed upon millions of students and workers across the Christian West.
Initial Signatories December 15, 2021
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
+ Bishop Marian Eleganti, Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus of Chur, Switzerland
+ Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
Rev A B. Carter B.Sc. (Hons.) ARCS DipPFS
Fr Koenraad Huysegems
Fr. Timothy Sauppé, S.T.L.
Fr. Michael Menner M.A. Theology; Bachelor of Science in Human Biology
Abbé Janvier Gbénou, priest
Abbé Fr. Guy Pagès, priest, author
Fr. Luis Eduardo Rodríguez Rodriguez Parish Priest, Venezuela.
Fr. John Rizzo
Diocese of Parramatta, Australia
Deacon Nick Donnelly, MA
Lynn Colgan Cohen, OFS, MA Secular Franciscan
Prof. Dr. phil. habil. Berthold Wald
Professor of Systematic Philosophy (ret.), Theological Department Paderborn, Germany
Dr. Claude E. Newbury M.B., B.Ch., D.T.M&H., D.P.H., M.F.G.P., D.O.H., D.C.H., D.A., M.Med. Physician, public health expert, former President of Pro‑Life South Africa
Peter A. Kwasniewski, Ph.D., independent scholar and author
Dr. Caroline Farey, BA, MA, STB, STL, PhL, PhD (Lateranensis)
Prof. Dr. Dr. Daniel von Wachter, philosopher and theologian, Principality of Liechtenstein
Carlos A. Casanova, Philosopher, University Professor
Donna F. Bethell, J.D. Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Dr.rer.pol. Rudolf Hilfer, Stuttgart, German
Andrea Rosario Iñiguez. PHD Law.
Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg, psychologist
Prof. em. Dr. Hubert Windisch, Germany
Dr. Robert Hickson (USA ret.), scholar of literature and military history
Dr. Maike Hickson, journalist and author
Gabriele Civello, PhD in Law
Edward E. Schaefer, president The Collegium
Michael Hageböck, school headmaster, publicist
Sarah Henderson DCHS MA (RE & Catechetics) BA (Mus)
René Fuchslocher Raddatz, attorney, politician and farmer
John-Henry Westen, co-founder and editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews.com
Michael Matt, Editor, The Remnant
Sven von Storch, Editor-in-chief of Frei Welt, Chairman of the Zivie Allianz, Chairman of the Institute for Strategic Studies in Berlin
Brian M. McCall, Orpha and Maurice Merrill Chair in Law; Editor-in-chief, Catholic Family News
Matt Gaspers Managing Editor, Catholic Family News
Rod Pead, Editor, Christian Order magazine, UK
Helene und Alexandra Walterskirchen, Castle Rudolfshausen, Germany (Kultur-Magazin Schloss Rudolfshausen)
Leila Marie Lawler, Author of The Summa Domestica: Order and Wonder in the Home
Maureen Mullarkey, writer
Jeanne Smits, journalist, France
Adrie A.M. van der Hoeven MSc, published scientist and author of www.jesusking.info
Elizabeth Yore, Esq., Founder, YoreChildren
Joseph Doyle, Executive Director Catholic Action League of Massachusetts
Ernest Williams, Switzerland
Debi Vinnedge, Retired founder of Children of God for Life
Yvonne Bontkowski, Executive Director, Taking Recourse Patrick Delaney, M.Div., MA 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)
– 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.
NATIONS LINING UP FOR COVID ANTIVIRALS — Pfizer and Merck are on pace for a combined $20 billion in sales of their Covid-19 antiviral pills next year as countries seek new ways to combat the virus, POLITICO’s Carmen Paun reports.Pfizer is expected to account for $17 billion of that revenue, according to science and analytics firm Airfinity. The Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics–developed molnupiravir could generate roughly $2.5 billion.The U.S. is likely to be the pills’ biggest buyer, spending about $10.8 billion, according to the Airfinity estimate. The European Union and the U.K. could combine for $4.9 billion, with the rest of the world accounting for the remaining amount.Both pills are still awaiting FDA authorization, though Pfizer’s treatment appears to do a better job in reducing the risk of hospitalization or death from Covid-19.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on PFIZER AND MERCK ARE ANTICIPATED TO EARN A COMBINED $20,000,000,000 IN THE SALE OF CORONAVIRUS VACCINE NEXT YEAR, WITH PFIZER EARNING $17,000,000,000 AND MERCK/RIDGEBACK EARNING $2,500,000,000. BILL GATES IS HAPPY!
The declaration is ‘the definitive response to the globalist tyrannical health Madness,’ said Elizabeth Yore. It ‘must resonate strongly amidst the noisy COVID clatter.’
(LifeSiteNews) – A group of Catholic prelates, scholars, activists, and journalists have initiated a petition appealing to the hierarchy of the Church, the lay faithful, and “all people of good will” to “vehemently oppose” the “abortion-tainted experimental injections for COVID-19,” along with mandates for their reception, calling the shots “morally illicit.”
“The Bethlehem Declaration” (Declaration), sponsored by Deacon Nick Donnelly of the Diocese of Lancaster, England, has been endorsed by Bishops Athanasius Schneider, Marian Eleganti, and Rene Henry Gracida, along with several priests and other scholars such as Drs. Peter Kwasniewski of the United States, Berthold Wald of Germany, and Caroline Farey of the United Kingdom.
Altogether, 48 individuals are listed as “Initial Signatories” of the petition, which argues that, according to the Church’s moral teaching, the conditions for reception of the abortion-derived injections, under ordinary circumstances, have not been met.
These conditions include the necessity of the abortion-tainted vaccine to evade a “grave danger,” and when an “‘ethically irreproachable Covid-19’ alternative health intervention is not available.”
According to the four-page document, a moral justification for utilizing these COVID-19 gene-based injections fails when these factors are not present, which is the case for many people, including healthy young people and those who have recovered from the disease and thus enjoy natural immunity.
The Declaration also observes that the injections available in the Western world “are really gene-based medical treatments,” therefore “calling into question” the applicability of the Church’s teaching on standard vaccines that are “qualitatively different.”
Treating “gene therapy” specifically, an instruction from the Catholic Church emphasizes that due to this form of treatment’s “significant risks,” science must “establish beforehand” that the patient is not “exposed to risks to his health or physical integrity which are excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the pathology for which a cure is sought.”
The document goes on to propose that with a lack of prior animal testing, standard safety committees, and transparent data, “it is impossible to assert that the benefits of these injections are proportionate to the harmful side effects as is morally required to be known before such experimental gene therapies can be morally acceptable.”
Highlighting the harmful side effects, the missive continues, citing government reports of vaccine deaths currently being “47 times higher in 2021 than 2020,” and growing, which could actually amount to “hundreds of thousands for the USA” alone.
Hyperlinking several studies, the petition asserts the superiority of natural immunity to short-lived vaccine-induced immunity, the “high levels of ‘breakthrough cases’” of the virus, and the fact that the shots do not even prevent infection and transmission, “vitiating the broadly advanced motive for the healthy to be injected out of ‘love of neighbor’ in order to ‘protect others.’”
Deacon Donnelly told LifeSiteNews that the manifesto received its name due to its release near Christmas when the Church is recalling the “baby Jesus, who manifests the sanctity of life of all babies, created in the image and likeness of God.”
“Bethlehem is also associated with the massacre of the Holy Innocents by King Herod,” he said. “This petition gives us the opportunity to protest on behalf of these silenced victims of the pharmaceutical industry” who have been exploited and used for the development and testing of COVID-19 vaccines.
Child advocate Elizabeth Yore, who also signed the Bethlehem Declaration, told LifeSiteNews it is “an outstanding document” that serves as “the definitive response to the globalist tyrannical health madness.” Encouraging everyone to read it, she said, this petition “must resonate strongly amidst the noisy covid clatter.”
“I so love the gravitas of this grace-filled and divinely inspired document,” Yore said.
The Bethlehem Declaration: Challenging the moral liceity of the abortion-tainted experimental injections for COVID-19 and calling for universal opposition to ‘vaccine mandates’
’For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man’ (GS 22).
Whereas the Second Vatican Council rightly summarized the horror of abortion classifying it as an “abominable crime” which also encompasses a “supreme dishonour to the Creator” (GS 51 § 3; 27);
Whereas St. John Paul II taught all must oppose such deliberate “murder” of the most vulnerable with “maximum of determination” (EV, 58; CL);
Whereas, the sanctity of pre-born babies, created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:27), is gravely violated by their utilitarian exploitation and commodification; thereby furthering the descent of the human race into “a civilization of ‘things’ and not of ‘persons’, a civilization in which persons are used in the same way as things are used” (St. John Paul II, GS 13);
Whereas all of the experimental COVID-19 gene-based vaccines currently available in the Western world, are abortion-tainted having been tested or developed through the abuse of stolen fetal cells from the bodies of murdered pre-born children;
Whereas last December (2020) the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) released a Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines (Note) the subject of which was limited to “the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted,” while specifically stating as well that the congregation did “not intend to judge the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, although ethically relevant and necessary;
Whereas the Note affirms there remains a “moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation” in the crime of abortion by use of said injections; yet explains this duty is “not obligatory” in the presence of a “grave danger” that can be evaded by the “vaccine,” and when an “ethically irreproachable Covid-19” alternative health intervention is not available;
Whereas absent the presence of at least these criteria it remains morally illicit to receive said injections;
Whereas despite the Note stating the current “pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19” constitutes the necessary “grave danger” to justify the use of abortion-tainted vaccines, such a judgment is “contingent and conjectural” relying on scientific data which continually develops over time (DVer, 24), while also being outside the proper competence of bishops, as their authority is defined as pertaining to the realms of faith and morals (LG 25);
Whereashundreds of medical professionals with due competence have come to the opposite conclusion classifying use of these experimental COVID-19 injections as “unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe;” while over 59,000 medical scientists and practitioners have affirmed that due to the relatively mild danger of COVID-19 to the vast majority of the population, “those who are at minimal risk” should be permitted “to live their lives normally [and] build up [herd] immunity to the virus” apart from any vaccines; and several thousand others have called exposing the population to an inadequately tested vaccine to counteract such a mild virus “irresponsible;”
Whereas “[i]n the vast majority of people (~99.8% globally), SARS-CoV-2 is non-lethal. It is typically a mild to moderately severe illness. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of people are not at risk from COVID-19 and do not require vaccination” (source)
Whereas COVID-19 has an average age of death which is higher than that of the general population demonstrating its mild nature, including an overall survival rate of 99.74%;
Whereas reported survival rates for those under eighteen years of age are 99.998%, for those between eighteen and fifty years, 99.95%, from fifty to sixty-five, 99.4%, and for those over sixty-five years, 94%, equating to those under 70, having a better chance of dying from influenza than COVID-19 which presents an overall threat comparable to the medium influenza pandemics of 1936 and 1957;
Whereashundreds of medical professionals affirm, “approximately 99% of people are already protected against COVID-19 by memory-type antibody responses,” and “most people will now have immunity due to exposure to SARS-CoV-2,” thus this population will not “benefit at all from being vaccinated;”
Whereas the government officials who have been charged with vetting the COVID-19 gene-based vaccine injections have been heavily compromised with multiple conflicts of interest through their deep connections to the pharmaceutical industry even actually profiting from the products that they have vetted, even while the research is funded and influenced by these drug corporations who are producing the products in question;
Whereas all of the currently available COVID-19 “vaccine” injections are reallygene-based medical treatments, “qualitatively different than standard vaccines,” calling into question the Note’s applicability to these drugs;
WhereasDignitas Personae distinguishes such drugs from vaccines specifying, “[g]iven that gene therapy can involve significant risks for the patient, the ethical principle must be observed according to which, in order to proceed to a therapeutic intervention, it is necessary to establish beforehand that the person being treated will not be exposed to risks to his health or physical integrity which are excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the pathology for which a cure is sought. The informed consent of the patient or his legitimate representative is also required” (26);
Whereas since there has been no long-term animal testing to determine the long-range harmful side effects of the new experimental gene-based COVID-19 products, nor have standard safety committees been put in place to assess the data—causing many experts to insist the vaccination program “should be halted immediately”—it is impossible to assert that the benefits of these injections are proportionate to the harmful side effects as is morally required to be known before such experimental gene therapies can be morally acceptable;
Whereas by means of comparison, American casualties in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars equate to 7,074, yet in the U.S. alone credibledeath reports due to the these injections currently number 19,886 (through December 3, 2021) and are steadily increasing on a passive government reporting system which has historically “under-reported adverse events by about two orders-of-magnitude” meaning actual deaths could be in “the hundreds of thousands for the USA” (source);1
Whereas reports of these vaccine deaths, presently 47 times higher in 2021 than 2020, continue to be suppressed by the media along with the accounts of almost 103,000 hospitalizations and over 36,600 individuals being permanently disabled; and in consideration of a peer-reviewed study revealing a “five times” greater chance of death from the vaccines than from COVID-19 “in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic,” including an increased risk vs. benefits ratio with younger age groups, at least hundreds of doctors insist these experimental gene-based injections are “dangerous” and “not safer” than COVID-19 itself;
Whereas the onus is upon the scientists, government health officials and moralists who promote the acceptance of these injections to prove that the unprecedentedly multitudinous reported adverse events related to these injections are not caused by these shots before others are subjected to them — which certainly has not been done;
Whereas these gene-based vaccines have been shown to be ineffective—far lesseffective than natural immunity of recovered patients — suffering high-levels of “breakthrough cases” of the “fully vaccinated” as compared to the “unvaccinated” (74%), including hospitalizations (60%), with significantly higher risks to the recovered who accept the shots (56%), along with showing a curious correlation between implementation of “vaccine” campaigns across the globe and sharp increases in COVID-19 deaths; and, lastly, revealing strongindications that the “vaccinated” are just as likely to carry and transmit the virus as the unvaccinated, vitiating the broadly advanced motive for the healthy to be injected out of “love of neighbor” in order to “protect others”;
Whereas facing the unjust implementation and advancement of freedom-killing“vaccine passports”— which “protect nobody” from the virus—in Europe, Israel, Australia, and Canada, along with initiatives at the city, state and federal level in the United States, sparking vast global protests, a legitimate act of “love of neighbor” can rightly be exercised by what many agree is the “only way” to protect the freedom of western democracies: massive non-compliance with “vaccine” mandates and passports;
Whereas the Church has also taught that the use of any such abortion-tainted injections may be chosen only on a “temporary basis,” as habitual material cooperation through multiple shots may, among other dangers, erode the subject’s “sense of right and wrong” engendering “an occasion of grave sin;” and yet the use of at least the two mRNA experimental gene-transfer COVID injections are designed to require “boosters” on an ongoing basis involving a routine and physical concatenation with the crime of abortion;
Whereas taking abortion-tainted products encourages the abortion industry and the pro-abortion pharmaceutical and biomedical research industry to continue abusing cell lines stolen from murdered babies (and even developing new abortion-derived cell lines) despite any and all verbal protests of pro-lifers speaking out in opposition to these atrocities;
Whereas such a counter-witness has the potential of causing scandal to the secular world, it also serves to undermine a higher duty of “love of neighbor” by encouraging the gravely immoral acts of abortionists, researchers, marketers and administrators involved in these evils, further endangering their immortal souls;
Whereas it must be emphasized that our brothers and sisters who have received these injections with insufficient knowledge or freedom, being victims of propaganda or the violence of criminal mandates, cannot be said to have incurred guilt to their consciences on account of this act;
We the undersigned, in observation of Church teaching, hereby affirm that even presuming an individual is fully opposed to these gene-based vaccines being tainted with the horrendous crime of abortion, that due to the presence of any of the three following conditions as supported above, it remains objectively morally illicit for a person to accept these shots:
the manifest lack of a “grave danger” posed by COVID-19,
the positive availability of safe and effective “ethically irreproachable Covid-19” health interventions, and,
the absence of adequate testing data which is morally necessary for even attempting to calculate a risk / benefit analysis for such experimental gene-based injections, especially when these shots have been shown to be exceptionally ineffective and dangerous, particularly to the most vulnerable.
We further confirm that as a matter of logic at least one such prohibitive condition will apply to virtually all, if not every, individual.
In circumstances which constitute criminally imposed duress or coercion, mandating reception of such dangerous, ineffective and under-tested experimental injections, in violation of the Nuremburg Code and international law, those victimized by these acts of violence are encouraged to make the most prudentdecision possible in service to their own health, freedom and the common good.
It also naturally follows that it remains morally illicit to facilitate, promote or mandate the mass reception of these dangerous, under-tested, under-monitored, abortion-tainted COVID-19 injections.
We therefore respectfully appeal to the Holy Father, the CDF, all Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, lay faithful, and all people of good will to vehemently oppose the reception of these morally tainted, dangerous, and ineffective products, along with the gravely unjust mandates for their reception being imposed upon millions of students and workers across the Christian West.
Initial Signatories December 15, 2021
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
+ Bishop Marian Eleganti, Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus of Chur, Switzerland
+ Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
Rev A B. Carter B.Sc. (Hons.) ARCS DipPFS
Fr Koenraad Huysegems
Fr. Timothy Sauppé, S.T.L.
Fr. Michael Menner M.A. Theology; Bachelor of Science in Human Biology
Abbé Janvier Gbénou, priest
Abbé Fr. Guy Pagès, priest, author
Fr. Luis Eduardo Rodríguez Rodriguez Parish Priest, Venezuela.
Fr. John Rizzo
Diocese of Parramatta, Australia
Deacon Nick Donnelly, MA
Lynn Colgan Cohen, OFS, MA Secular Franciscan
Prof. Dr. phil. habil. Berthold Wald
Professor of Systematic Philosophy (ret.), Theological Department Paderborn, Germany
Dr. Claude E. Newbury M.B., B.Ch., D.T.M&H., D.P.H., M.F.G.P., D.O.H., D.C.H., D.A., M.Med. Physician, public health expert, former President of Pro‑Life South Africa
Peter A. Kwasniewski, Ph.D., independent scholar and author
Dr. Caroline Farey, BA, MA, STB, STL, PhL, PhD (Lateranensis)
Prof. Dr. Dr. Daniel von Wachter, philosopher and theologian, Principality of Liechtenstein
Carlos A. Casanova, Philosopher, University Professor
Donna F. Bethell, J.D. Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Dr.rer.pol. Rudolf Hilfer, Stuttgart, German
Andrea Rosario Iñiguez. PHD Law.
Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg, psychologist
Prof. em. Dr. Hubert Windisch, Germany
Dr. Robert Hickson (USA ret.), scholar of literature and military history
Dr. Maike Hickson, journalist and author
Gabriele Civello, PhD in Law
Edward E. Schaefer, president The Collegium
Michael Hageböck, school headmaster, publicist
Sarah Henderson DCHS MA (RE & Catechetics) BA (Mus)
René Fuchslocher Raddatz, attorney, politician and farmer
John-Henry Westen, co-founder and editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews.com
Michael Matt, Editor, The Remnant
Sven von Storch, Editor-in-chief of Frei Welt, Chairman of the Zivie Allianz, Chairman of the Institute for Strategic Studies in Berlin
Brian M. McCall, Orpha and Maurice Merrill Chair in Law; Editor-in-chief, Catholic Family News
Matt Gaspers Managing Editor, Catholic Family News
Rod Pead, Editor, Christian Order magazine, UK
Helene und Alexandra Walterskirchen, Castle Rudolfshausen, Germany (Kultur-Magazin Schloss Rudolfshausen)
Leila Marie Lawler, Author of The Summa Domestica: Order and Wonder in the Home
Maureen Mullarkey, writer
Jeanne Smits, journalist, France
Adrie A.M. van der Hoeven MSc, published scientist and author of www.jesusking.info
Elizabeth Yore, Esq., Founder, YoreChildren
Joseph Doyle, Executive Director Catholic Action League of Massachusetts
Ernest Williams, Switzerland
Debi Vinnedge, Retired founder of Children of God for Life
St. Boniface and the Sacred OakBy Charlie JohnstonWhat fellowship can light have with darkness? – 2 Corinthians 6:14As recently as 50 years ago, one could honorably be either Democrat or Republican. Both parties were basically pro-life, pro-nuclear family, pro-individual liberty, pro-free speech, and at least gave lip service to the Judeo-Christian ethic and took pains not to offend these sensibilities. This was a time when it was right and proper for clerics to be non-political, for the parties agreed on fundamental goals that were compatible with the faith, only disagreeing on how best to get there. For a cleric to pushily get political was to risk intruding on what was a primary temporal duty of the laity.Times have changed. Now, various political entities (almost all left wing) have denounced fundamentals of the Christian faith, have outlawed some and continue to try to outlaw more, and have declared any opposition to be “political.” Far too many clerics have gone timid – or outright refused to defend the faith in order not to seem political. Pathetic!In 1938, Nazi Germany took 
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.