Posted on June 23, 2021 by abyssum

Bishop James T. McHugh – The Forgotten Man in the McCarrick Equation – Part 4

Guest Contributor June 23, 2021 No Comments

Although Cardinal Joseph Bernardin (above) is most often credited with originating the “Consistent Life Ethic,” McHugh claimed that the basic concept originated with his *1972 Respect Life Program*

By: Randy Engel

In the final installments of this series on the influence of Bishop James T. McHugh and other homosexual prelates on the Right-to-Life Movement, the reader will have an opportunity to see how McHugh’s “prolife” and “anti-abortion” compromise policies and strategies became the formal policies of the American bishops via the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/U.S. Catholic Conference (NCCB/USCC), later the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), and how these instruments of compromise and accommodation to the Antilife Establishment have worked against the interests of the unborn child in the past, and will continue to do so in the future unless the McHugh legacy is buried forever in the prolife consciousness of Catholic laymen and clerics alike.

I’ll begin with some background archival material on how the Prolife Movement successfully operated in its early years using the U.S. Coalition for Life (USCL) as an example, and how, in contrast, the programs and strategies employed by McHugh and implemented by the bishops’ bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. and carried out by the State Catholic Conferences ultimately served the interests of the Antilife Movement.

McHugh Originally Favored the U.S. Coalition for Life

First, to clear the air, it should be noted that McHugh initially favored the research and legislative agenda of the U.S. Coalition for Life.

In the early 1970s, Msgr. James McHugh, head of the Family Life Office of the U.S. Catholic Conference mailed a confidential memo to all American bishops regarding major U.S. prolife organizations. Entitled, “Analysis of Prolife Groups,” the memo provided basic information on funding, leadership, goals, and effectiveness of twelve of the top prolife groups in the nation.^[1] The stated purpose of the memo was to aid individual bishops in pursuing a more active role in coordinating or facilitating the work of the several groups within their own dioceses.

According to the special and exclusive report to The Wanderer, an unidentified writer who was obviously not a McHugh fan, reported:

Since Msgr. McHugh crucially influences the policy considerations of the American bishops, he is, for better or worse, one of the most important single individuals in the country as far as the success or failure of prolife efforts are concerned (bold added). Therefore, his rating of the several prolife groups is a matter of considerable public interest.
McHugh’s highest compliments go to the U.S. Coalition for Life (USCL), directed by Mrs. Randy Engel , and the National Youth Pro-Life Coalition, headed by Thomas Mooney.
Concerning the Pittsburgh-based USCL, Msgr. McHugh writes that “the group does a good job of following legislation and the activity of government agencies, and provides information to a larger constituency by way of a newsletter [The Pro-Life Reporter]. On specific legislative proposals, the coalition generally seeks assistance from Washington sources.”^[2]

In addition to Msgr. McHugh’s initial approval of the USCL, the enemies of life also shared a special interest in the rise of the newly established USCL, but for different reasons.

Antilifers Monitor USCL Closely

In January 1974, Family Planning Digest – a bi-monthly publication of the Bureau of Community Health Services, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C., that was prepared under government contract with the antilife Center for Family Planning Program Development, the Technical Assistance Division of Planned Parenthood-World Population – carried an article on the new and worrisome “roadmap” the Right-To Life Movement was taking thanks to the USCL:

Combining selective quotations regarding family planning, sterilization, abortion, and demographic developments with editorial comment and “action line” directives, The Pro-Life Reporter, a newsletter of the U.S. Coalition for Life, is a roadmap of the direction in which this movement is traveling in its opposition to specific aspects of family planning such as the IUD, contraceptive sterilization and postcoital contraceptives. The newsletter makes clear that the right-to-life groups have broadened their interest from opposition to abortion to concern with every aspect of family planning, including government policy and funding, and scientific research. Aimed at educators, physicians and population agencies, in addition to its own constituency, the newsletter should be helpful to those in family planning concerned with what this well-organized and committed group is saying and doing (bold added).^[3]

USCL Team Confronts Population Controllers

In the summer of 1974, the USCL raised $22,000 in six weeks to send a 12-member prolife team to the United Nations World Population Conference (WPC) and Tribune in Bucharest, Romania. Leading the Right-to-Life contingent was economist Professor Albert T. Kapusinski (USA), and Rev. Paul Marx (USA), aided by agricultural specialist, George Barmann (USA); Child and Family editor, Dr. Herbert Ratner (USA); Constitutional lawyer, Charles Rice (USA); writer and editor John Harrington (Canada); Rev. Pedro Richards (Uruguay); Dr. John Linklater (England); Rev. Michel Welters (Haiti); Dr. H. Patrick Dunn (New Zealand); demographer Rev. Anthony Zimmerman (Japan), and prolife activist, Frances Frech (USA), the only woman on the USCL team.

Joining up with the Vatican delegation, the USCL team took the NGO Tribune by storm sending shock waves through the Antilife Establishment, which thought it had the World Population Conference all tied up.^[4] Conference logistics were handled by Pittsburgh’s People Concerned for the Unborn Child. The editors of national Catholic papers including The Wanderer, the National Catholic Register, and Our Sunday Visitor, and prolife newsletters across the country including the National Right to Life News provided free advertising for the effort.

To the amazement and chagrin of the Antilife Movement, the international USCL-team turned the WPC on its head. This was a typical example of the way things got done in the early years of the unified, grassroots Prolife Movement in the United States.

New Right-to-Life Roadmap Riles Eugenicists

In 1976, with the creation of the International Foundation for Genetic Research/Michael Fund by the USCL as a prolife alternative to the National Foundation/March of Dimes, the Eugenics Establishment became even more concerned with the expanding USSCL roadmap that the Prolife Movement was following.

At the Johnson Foundation’s “International Summit on Prevention of Mental Retardation from Biomedical Causes,” held at Wingspread in Racine, WI, December 15-16, 1977, and attended by eugenicists from major U.S. antilife medical centers and universities, as well as mental retardation groups including the National Foundation/March of Dimes and the National Association for Retarded Citizens (NARC), Dr. Richard Koch, Professor of Pediatrics and Medical Genetics at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, spoke in his concluding remarks about the danger his fellow eugenicists faced from the emerging Right-to-Life-Movement:

VIII. Potential Danger of the Right to Life Movement
The recent coalescence of the Right to Life movement into a national force of significant proportions, I believe has been a surprise to all of us. To some, this has been an unwelcome development. If we do not meet this force head-on, it could become a threat to the science of genetics to amniocentesis programs, to sex education in public schools, and to our efforts to help with the problem of teen-age pregnancy, and it could seriously diminish our effort to prevent mental retardation. I am suggesting that we confront this force by linking up with other organizations such as the National Organization for Women, AMA, Planned Parenthood, Community Medicine, and abortion rights organizations and public health officials working for the rights of all women to opt for or against abortion of their own free will. We must emphasize the importance of the protection of equal rights – the right of the child to be well born and the right of the mother to have healthy children. At the same time, we must respect the fact that in a country as diverse as ours, there is room for difference of opinion, and for the greatest good, both forces should join hands to spur progress so that abortion will become an unnecessary solution. For that to occur, much tact and effort will be needed.^[5]

USCL Part of a National Volunteer Coalition

I mention these little snippets of the Prolife Movement’s early history because many of the readers of this series, including many young people and their parents who attend the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. every year, were not yet born when the grassroots prolife movement spontaneously sprung up in the late 1960s and early 1970s, years before Roe v. Wade.

Please note that the USCL, created in 1972, was just one of the hundreds of independent prolife organizations that made up a nation-wide coalition of predominantly Catholic lay volunteers. Like most of its prolife counterparts, the USCL operated with no formal office, no elaborate bylaws, no dues, and no paid employees, on a budget that rarely exceeded four digits.

In these early years, most Congressional prolife business was conducted from kitchen and dining room tables manned by self-taught wives and mothers who were as politically sophisticated and knowledgeable as any women’s libber thanks to aides like Robert G. Marshall’s classical prolife political action handbook, Bayonets and Roses.^[6]

The particular strength of the USCL laid in its large International and National Advisory Board composed of the best prolife minds (and spirit) in the world, and volunteer lobbyists from the Long Island Coalitions for Life who kept the prolife fires burning under the feet of every U.S. congressman and senator in Washington, D.C., to achieve absolute and unconditional protection for unborn children from the immoral and lethal scourge of abortion; and for the elderly and handicapped from the mounting dangers of euthanasia.

This loose coalition strategy employed by almost all local, state, and national right-to-life groups in the early years of the Prolife Movement was successful beyond imagination as we can see by the obvious panic it set off within the Antilife Establishment as described above.

Proabortion Movement Checkmated

As Dr. John Grady noted in his 2015 essay “Abortion – Yes or No,” by the early 1970s, grassroots prolifers were already well organized at the State level. Once they were on the move, proabortion activists at the State level were checkmated at every turn by prolifers:

… By 1971 pro-life organizations were functioning well. No major abortion legislation passed any state in 1971, and liberal abortion laws were defeated in at least 28 states. Some states which had enacted the new abortion laws began to reverse their liberal position.^[7]
However, when the proabortion movement was slowed to a stop in the state legislatures the battle shifted to the courts. … It was inevitable that the matter would ultimately be heard by the United States Supreme Court. ^[8]

Readers should never forget that in 1972, two years after the Governor Nelson Rockefeller-led New Yok State Legislature passed an abortion-on-demand law, that same proabortion legislature reversed itself and voted to restore New York’s pre-1970 anti-abortion law. This had never happened before or since. This remarkable achievement was accomplish under the magnificent leadership of Republican Senator James Donovan backed by a political rag-tag coalition of New York prolifers who relentlessly lobbied assemblymen and state senators within their districts, day and night, for two years, in defense of the unborn child. They won, only to have the frenzied Governor Rockefeller veto the measure.^[9]

McHugh Creates A New Bureaucracy

Under the early prolife coalition structure, dedicated Catholic laity, supported by their parish priests and diocesan bishop, provided the fundamental leadership that drove the movement’s successful anti-abortion engines throughout the United States. Gradually, they were joined by hundreds of Protestants from mainline churches and a handful of Jewish Orthodox rabbis.

But not everyone was satisfied with the successful formula being pursued by Catholic grassroots prolife activists.

Msgr. James McHugh, spokesman for the American bishops’ NCCB/USCC bureaucracy on all matters prolife, entertained a different vision for the Right-to-Life Movement following Roe v. Wade – a vision that eventually split the movement into two separate and competing camps.

In “The Intellectual Legacy of James T. McHugh,” Richard M. Doerflinger,^[10] a Wormtongue at McHugh’s service and Deputy Director for the USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, explains his boss’ vision for the formation of “a new grassroots movement for sustained political change.”^[11]

It is, of course, the abortion issue with which Bishop McHugh became most closely associated in the public eye. On this issue there may seem to be little new that anyone could contribute in the late 20th Century, because the Church’s teaching has been so consistent and of such long standing. To assume this, however, would be to underestimate the divergent approaches taken by Catholics as American society began to accept abortion, and especially as the Supreme Court decided to legalize abortion virtually on demand in 1973. Agreeing with and accepting the decision was not a serious option for anyone committed to Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life – though certainly there were dissenting voices that favored just that approach. But the Church in the U.S. could simply have denounced the decision and moved on, urging Catholics to retreat into their own separate culture on this and related matters… . Or Catholics could have organized as a protest movement, like the pacifist movement, that would remain outside established political channels while insisting that abortion is unacceptable.
Under Monsignor McHugh’s guidance, the Church in the U.S. chose neither option. The abortion decisions were not only anti-Catholic but antihuman, for they violated a fundamental natural right and disregarded the founding ideals of the American republic. Catholics could not simply retreat into their own families, because the radical individualism of the abortion liberty would erode the very idea of the family. And while there was a valid role for prophetic protest, organizing to reverse a Supreme Court decision would take more – it meant the formation of a new grassroots movement for sustained political and cultural change. Thus was born the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities of 1975, an unprecedented national blueprint for activating Church structures to help Catholics organize as a social and political force (Bold added).^[12] …
Monsignor McHugh helped the bishops to chart a middle course – not a course of compromise, but one of discernment that carefully distinguished the essentials of Catholic teaching from the contingent details of particular strategies or legislative proposals. He charted and set forth a theological basis for the Church’s approach to incremental change on abortion policy – an approach ultimately endorsed by Pope John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) (Bold added).^[13]

Bishops Champion McHugh’s New Blueprint

In truth, the Prolife Movement did not “need” McHugh’s “help,” given his miserable, anti-life track record documented in Part I of this series.

But, unfortunately, it got it anyway.

On November 20, 1975, almost three years after Roe v. Wade, the American bishops voted to implement and finance McHugh’s “Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities,”^[14] designed to oppose “permissive abortion.”^[15] The almost immediate result was a disastrous paradigm shift at every operational level of the Prolife Movement.

McHugh’s blueprint for “a new grassroots movement” called for the creation of a vast “systematic” bureaucracy headquartered in Washington, D.C. under the leadership and direction of the Bishop’s Pro-Life Office, and the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment (NCHLA), an entity of the NCCB/USCC, created in 1974.^[16] I’ll be returning to the NCHLA at the end of this series.

State leadership was centered on State Catholic Conferences, each having a State Coordinating Committee composed of a Director and a battery of diocesan prolife coordinators (bishops’ representatives), and assisted by various “respect life coordinators,” Conference liaisons, public affair and information advisors, legal advisors, parish prolife committee representatives and Congressional district representatives, etc., etc. etc. I’m sure the reader quickly gets the picture.

Not surprisingly, the financing of the NCCB/USCC’s Pastoral Plan which included the salaries of an endless number of paid “prolife” bureaucrats at the national, state, diocesan and parish level, siphoned off millions of dollars that could have been used to underwrite the expenses of thousands of volunteer grassroot prolife Catholic activists and organizations who were the real workhorses of the Prolife Movement.

Logistically speaking, the overall support and cooperation local bishops and priests once gave to prolife grassroots organizations working in dioceses with local parishes was now transferred to “official” diocesan prolife employees and organizations. If there was a conflict of interest or difference of opinion on pending abortion legislation or the legitimacy of antilife organizations such as the March of Dimes, the hierarchy and clergy almost always backed the NCCB/USCC and the later, the NCHLA over prolife grassroot organizations.

McHugh and the “Consistent Life Ethic”

The emerging split in the Prolife Movement was exasperated by the American bishops’ adaptation of the “Seamless Garment,” later renamed the “Consistent Life Ethic” – the precursor of “Consensus,” a policy of surrender currently being promoted and financed by the Knights of Columbus and the March for Life leadership.^[17]

Although Cardinal Joseph Bernardin is most often credited with originating the “Consistent Life Ethic,” McHugh claimed that the basic concept originated with his 1972 Respect Life Program.^[18] McHugh sought to broaden the prolife tent by expanding the Prolife Movement’s primary opposition to abortion and euthanasia to include other so-called “social justice” issues favored by the NCCB/USCC including welfare reform, opposition to capital punishment (however, abortion is not viewed as the most common form of capital punishment), and civil liberties (particularly those of homosexuals).^[19] McHugh’s strategy now permitted pro-abort State and Congressional legislators to claim they were “pro-life” as they supported the NCCB/USCC’s “social justice” agenda except for baby killing in the womb and in the laboratory.

The 1975 Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities incorporated McHugh’s “consistent life ethic,”^[20] stating:

16. Although the primary purpose of the intensive educational program is the development of pro-life attitudes and the determined avoidance of abortion by each person, the program must extend to other issues that involve support of human life: there must be internal consistency in the pro-life commitment.
17. The annual Respect Life Program sets the abortion problem in the context of other issues where human life is endangered or neglected, such as the problems facing the family, youth, the aging, the mentally retarded, as well as specific issues such as poverty, war, population control, and euthanasia. This program is helpful to parishes in calling attention to specific problems and providing program formats and resources.

The split between Catholic lay prolife leaders and the NCCB/USCC Prolife offices did not escape the attention of anti-life leaders who welcomed and exploited legislative differences and conflicts between “official” Church representatives and Catholic prolife grassroots groups.

The Battle Over S. 158 – A Human Life Bill

In early 1981, the split reached its apex in the on-going fratricidal war that erupted over a S. 158,^[21] a Human Life Bill (HLB). The HLB was introduced by Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois and Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina. The measure was not intended to replace the need for a Constitutional Human Life Amendment (CHLA), but to jump start and invigorate Congressional backing for such an amendment.

The stated purpose of the HLB was to recognize that the life of each human being begins at fertilization and to enforce the 14^th amendment to the Constitution by extending its protection to the life of every human being. It also affirmed that every human being has intrinsic worth and equal value regardless of its (sic) stage, or condition.^[22]

The first legal effect of the passage of S. 158 would have required the Supreme Court to reconsider its holding in Roe v. Wade that unborn children are not persons entitled to protection of their lives under the 14^th amendment.^[23] The second legal effect was that it would require the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1973 holding that found the right to privacy to include abortion, and that permitted abortion on demand throughout the term of pregnancy.^[24] The third legal effect of S. 158 was that no state would be able to deprive an unborn child of life without due process of the law.^[25]

Unlike a Constitutional Human Life Amendment, the Senate measure needed only a majority vote in the House and Senate – and prolifers had close to those necessary votes. The HLB was backed by all grassroots prolife organizations because, as Constitutional lawyer Charles Rice said, “It was a win-win situation.”^[26]

Then, while the Human Life Bill was still in committee, Wilfred Caron, the USCC general counsel, publicly declared the measure to be unconstitutional,^[27] and therefore the USCC would oppose the measure.

In its place, the NCCB/USCC legal apparatus with the assistance of the Bishops’ Pro-Life Office and the NCHLA, proposed still another of its “States’ Rights amendment” to the Constitution that was introduced by McHugh’s Man of the Hour, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah on September 21, 1981.

It was an act of sabotage and every right-to-lifer knew it. The Hatch Amendment was not formally a Human Life Amendment at all as it offered no mandatory protection for the pre-born child for whom death would still be a matter of geography.

Once the Hatch Amendment was introduced, the NCCB/NCHLA used its bureaucratic minions to whip the American bishops into shape.

By the time of the annual NCCB meeting in Washington, D.C. on November 14-16, 1981, President Archbishop John R. Roach and Cardinal Terence Cooke, Chairman of the Bishops’ Pro-Life Committee – both homosexuals as noted previously in this series – had already publicly expressed support for Hatch. After a formal NCCB vote to approve Hatch, lobbyists for the bishops and the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment began to pressure pro-life Congressmen to support the Hatch Amendment or face the threat or being labeled “pro-abort!”

Next on the NCCB/NCHLA hit list came National Right to Life^[28] which originally opposed the Hatch States Rights Amendment, but on December 12, 1981, after an all-day battle, voted to endorse Hatch.

While the grassroots Prolife Movement held its ground and continued to support S. 158, it could not repair the damage inflicted on S. 158 by the NCCB/USCC, the Committee for Pro-Life Activities, its Secretariat, and the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment.

The U.S. Senate ultimately rejected the Helms Human Life Bill (modified) by a 47 to 46 motion to table – a difference of only one vote! The Senate also rejected the Hatch Amendment. But the NCCB/NCHLA could not care less, since the real aim of introducing the Hatch Amendment was to defeat the Helms-Hogan Human Life Bill.

Words cannot adequately express the harm done to the grassroots Prolife Movement that year by the Bishops’ Washington D.C. bureaucracy’s engineering and promotion of the Hatch Amendment, but USCL Advisor Professor Charles Rice of Notre Dame came pretty close when he spoke to The Wanderer’s reporter Paul Fisher in a March 1982 interview:

Initially, the bishops were betrayed by McHugh and Company. Then they partook in the betrayal by confirming the Hatch Amendment. They made their separate peace with the enemy.^[29]

Professor Rice concluded that support for the dangerous Hatch Amendment (as worded) was akin to “racing out to mid-ocean in a helicopter to board the Titanic.”^[30]

Seven years later, on December 17, 1989, Auxiliary Bishop Edward O’Donnell of the St. Louis Archdiocese, a member of the USCCB Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Affairs explained in plain wrapper and unmistakable language what the American bishops’ corporate position on induced abortion was.

O’Donnell told Pittsburgh Press reporter, Ann Rogers-Melnick that, while in terms of theology, the bishops reject any willfully procured abortion, “… [in] terms of public policy, the bishops support legislation allowing a far broader range of abortions to save the life of a mother.” And that for the sake of political expediency, they were willing to accept anti-abortion legislation with rape and incest exclusions, O’Donnell said. “We recognize that we live in a pluralistic society,” he continued. “We teach our people and attempt to hold them to that. It’s not that every iota of Catholic teaching needs to be enacted into law,” he concluded (bold added).^[31]

The reader may well want to reread Bishop O’Donnell’s statement until his words really sink in.

In truth, the HATCH strategy that killed S. 158, along with the McHugh-Bernardin-based NCCB/USCC’s systemic disastrous policies of “incrementalism,” and “the seamless garment” and “dialogue,” and “accommodation” with the Antilife Establishment, was akin to eviscerating the Prolife Movement – a near deadly act from which the Prolife Movement never fully recovered.

Almost half a century after Roe v. Wade, prolife forces have been to hell and back politically speaking. The Constitutional Human Life Amendment has been all but forgotten. More than 330 Human Life Amendments have been introduced in the House and Senate,^[32] most dying in committee. Only one, the one sentence NCCB/USCC- Hatch-Eagleton States Rights Amendment, “A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution,” ever made it to the full Senate for a vote in July 1983. It failed, which turned out to be a blessing in disguise as few prolife organizations would have worked for a Constitutional amendment that failed all the requirements of a valid Human Life Amendment and would not have given mandatory protection and due process to the unborn child.

[In the final installment of this series, Randy Engel describes how, thanks to McHugh’s legacy, unborn children continue to die while an inept USCCB squanders millions of dollars provided by the faithful.]

Since 1972, the U.S. Coalition for Life, under the direction of Randy Engel, has been leading the charge for a Human Life Amendment. The Coalition has never compromised and it never will. Click below to join their mailing list.

^[1] “Msgr. McHugh Analyzes Prolife Groups,” Special to The Wanderer, 1974 (?), p. 1.

^[2] Ibid. The other groups mentioned in the McHugh memo were Americans United for Life, Americans Against Abortion, the Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life, Life Lobby, Inc. [William Devlin and John Short], the National Right to Life Committee, Inc., Operation Pro-Life Rite, the American Right to Life Association, Inc., Women for the Unborn, the Committee Against and Judicial Power, and the Committee of Ten Million [Gilbert Durand].

^[3] “Family Planning Digest,” Vol. 3, No. 1, January 1974, BCHS, HAS, Dept. HEW, Washington, D.C.

^[4] “USCL Special Report on U.N. World Population Conference-Tribune, Bucharest, August 19-30, 1974.

^[5] “International Summit on Prevention of Mental Retardation From Biomedical Causes,” HEW Publication No. (HDS) 78-21023, U.S. Dept. of HEW, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Human Development, President’s Committee on Mental Retardation, Washington, D.C., p. 198.

^[6] Robert G. Marshall, Bayonets and Roses: Comprehensive Pro-Life Political Action Guide, Falls Church, Virginia, 1976. Distinguished political prolife activist, Bob Marshall created this book to serve as “a citizens’ political action manual containing the information necessary to combat the entrenched evil of abortion in America.” The 364-page handbook served as a political staple in every prolifer’s home for decades. Marshall’s updated Civics 101 prolife political guide, Reclaiming the Republic: How Christians and Other Conservatives Can Win Back America, Tan Publishes, Charlotte, NC, 2018, is available from Amazon in hardcover and Kindle format at https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Robert+G.+Marshall&i=stripbooks&ref=nb_sb_noss.

^[7] Dr. John Grady, “Abortion – Yes or No,” Insight, 2015, p. 43, (self-published).

^[8] Ibid.

^[9] Arlene Doyle, “Do you need permission to save an unborn child- A Pro-life study of power struggle within the Right to Life Movement and the comparison of two kinds of organization – Directorship vs. Coalition,” June 1974, p.1. Available as a free download at http://uscl.info/edoc/doc.php?doc_id=88&action=inline.

^[10] Richard Doerflinger was responsible for the Office of Human Research Protections (HHS) fraudulent federal definition of “pregnancy” and “fetus.” He was instrumental in promoting the definition of “pregnancy” and “fetus” as the products of conception beginning at implantation in the uterus, when in fact, pregnancy occurs in the woman’s fallopian tube when the sperm first makes contact with the oocyte. And the term “fetus” refers to the unborn child at nine weeks after fertilization. See https://www.medicalmuseum.mil/assets/documents/collections/hdac/stage01.pdf.

^[11] Richard M. Doerflinger, M.A. Div. “The Intellectual Legacy of James . McHugh,” Catholic Social Science Review, Vol. 7, 2002, pp. 13-33. Text available at https://www.pdcnet.org/collection/fshow?id=cssr_2002_0007_0013_0033&pdfname=cssr_2002_0007_0000_0013_0033.pdf&file_type=pdf.

^[12] Ibid., p. 19.

^[13] Ibid., p. 21.

^[14] “Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities,” NCCB/USCC, November 20, 1975. Text available at http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/pastoral-plan-prolife-activities.cfm#:~:text=Pastoral%20Plan%20for%20Pro-Life%20Activities%3A%20A%20Campaign%20in,3%20Public%20Policy%20Program.%20…%20More%20items…%20.

^[15] The term “permissive abortion,” is used throughout the text of the Pastoral Plan as if to imply that the goal was to merely restrict rather than end induced abortions.

^[16] Ibid., p. 9.

^[17] See https://akacatholic.com/the-case-against-abortion-consensus/.

^[18] Msgr. McHugh, “Letter to the Editor,” Crisis Magazine, February,1989, p.3.

^[19] For an excellent review of today’s meaning of “social Justice” see Dianne Irving’s “’Social Justice’ Today Grounded in Marxist Communist ‘Liberation Theology’” at http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_246socialjusticecommunist.html#:~:text=Originally%2C%20in%20Catholic%20social%20thought%2C%20%22social%20justice%22%20had,formally%20refuted%20by%20several%20documents%20from%20the%20Vatican.

^[20] When the 1975 Pastoral Plan was renewed in 2013 (“A Campaign in Support of Life) by the USCCB, the Consistent Life Ethic is much more pronounced. See http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/pastoral-plan-prolife-activities.cfm.

^[21] The Human Life Bill – S. 158 Report, 97^th Congress, First Session, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, N0.97. Reprinted by the University of Michigan Library. S. 158 enunciated that protecting the lives of human beings is the highest duty of government and unborn children are human beings .It noted that the question of when human life begins – when an individual member of the human species comes into existence- is answered by scientific, factual evidence. In Roe v. Wade the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t say that unborn children were not human beings, but that the Court was unable to rule when human life began. S. 158 stated that contemporary scientific evidence provides the answer for the Court – The zygote resulting from the union of the male spermatozoon and the female oocyte is the beginning of a human being. The text of S. 158 plus a section on the opposition viewpoints to the measure by the U.S. Catholic Conference legal staff is available from https://www.amazon.com/Human-Life-Bill-S-158-report/dp/B003TU28V2/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=The+Human+Life+Bill+-+S.+158+Report&qid=1600272284&s=books&sr=1-1.

^[22] Ibid. p. 2.

^[23] Ibid., p. 18.

^[24] Ibid., p. 19.

^[25] Ibid.

^[26] Paul A. Fisher, “Horse trading on Hatch,” The Wanderer, March 4, 1982, p.1.

^[27] Senator Hatch defended his opposition to S. 158 by quoting Yale Law Professor Robert Bork who claimed that the bill was unconstitutional. But supporters of the bill argued that Congress has both the authority and the duty to disagree with the result of an earlier Supreme Court decision based on an investigation of facts and on a decision concerning values that the Supreme Court has declined to address. They also noted that the Supreme Court retains full power to review the constitutionality of S. 158.

^[28] National Right to Life (NRL), had its origin as the National Right to Life Committee, a subsidiary of McHugh’s Family Life/Prolife office at the NCCB/USCC. In June 1973, NRL morphed into a super-corporate structure as the “flagship” of the Prolife Movement. The saving grace of NRL, when compared to that of McHugh’s Church bureaucracy, was that state-run NRL affiliates around the county were coalition-based, and despite troubles at the Washington office, they continued to work with and promote projects of other national groups including the USCL, so the damage done by internal squabbling at the NRL in D.C. were minimum in these early years until the S. 158 – Hatch States Rights battle.

^[29] Paul A. Fisher, “Horse trading on Hatch,” The Wanderer, March 4, 1982, p.1.

^[30] Ibid.

^[31] A. Rogers- Melnick, “Anti-Abortion Groups Resent Papal Puppet Portrayal,” Pittsburgh Press, December 17, 1989, p. 10. How far have the bishops strayed from 1974 when Cardinal Madeiros of Boston stated, “The prohibition against the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life should universal and without exception.”https://www.nytimes.com/1974/03/08/archives/4-cardinals-urge-us-abortion-ban-but-they-refuse-to-endorse.html.

^[32] See https://www.humanlifeaction.org/downloads/sites/default/files/HLAlst7303.pdf.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Posted on June 22, 2021 by abyssum

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Are Francis and Bp. Barron Arian Heretics & Practical Atheists?

June 22, 2021

“St. Nicholas (aka Santa Claus) is caught mid-mosaic about to slap [punch] Arius in the chops for his ‘wicked theology’.'” He “sided with… Saint Athanasius and they condemned Arius as a heretic.” [https://uncyclopedia.ca/wiki/Arianism and https://taylormarshall.com/2011/12/saint-nicholas-allegedly-punched-this.html]

Today, Fr. David Nix implied that Francis and his collaborator “Jesus is merely the ‘privileged route to salvation’” Bishop Robert Barron are Arian heretics:

If Jesus is merely the “privileged route to salvation,” then all religions can be a vehicle to salvation. However, this notion is no different from Arianism. Here’s why: Jesus claims to be God. Jesus claims to be the only way, truth and life. If this is not true, then He is not God. And this is Arianism. Thus, religious indifferentism encapsulates a thousand heresies, including Arianism.

Notice that belief in the Trinity is inherently linked to the Catholic Faith being necessary for salvation (with implicit desire for baptism occasionally being enough for salvation.) But according to St. Athanasius, the Catholic faith is the One Faith which everyone must keep “whole and undefiled [or] without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”

The Creed of St. Athanasius begins thus:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.

St. Athanasius wrote this against Arius. Notice therefore that the notion that Christ is merely the “privileged route to salvation,” is not only a denial of the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation, but also a denial of the Trinity. Why? Again, as I wrote above, Jesus claims to be God. Jesus claims to be the only way, truth and life. If this is not true, then He is not God. And this is Arianism. [https://padreperegrino.org/2021/06/privilegedroute/]

Moreover, Bishop Robert Barron like Semi-Arians who supported the Arian heretics uses ambiguity and Catholic sounding “language” as a cloak for his “real sentiment” of promoting a soft “reign of terror” on those who reject the heretical Francis creed of Communion for adulterers and other errors.

Barron is calling for the predator Theodore McCarrick created American bishops to police non-heretical Traditionalist Catholics on social media. This call appears to want to mirror the Arian “reign of terror” on Traditionalist Catholics in the early Church.

F.A. Forbes in his book “St. Athanasius” on the Arian crisis wrote how the Arians and their allies the Semi-Arians policed Catholics in the early Church:

“[A] new reign of terror began, in which all who refused to accept the Arian creed were treated as criminals.”

Now, it appears that Barron wants a “new reign of terror, in which all who refused to accept the” Francis creed of Communion for adulterers and the death penalty being “inadmissible” are “treated as criminals” in the McCarrick American Church

The totalitarian-like Barron cloaks this “sentiment” like the Semi-Arians in Catholic sounding “language” and “eloquent ambiguity.”

The Francis teaching that the death penalty is “inadmissible” is contrary to Scriptures and the irreformable teachings of the Catholic Church’s ordinary Magisterium is called by Barron “eloquent ambiguity.”

In the time of the Arian crisis those with forked tongues who spoke of “eloquent ambiguity” like this bishop were called Semi-Arians or semi-heretics.

St. Athanasius said Semi-Arians, that is semi-heretics, were accomplices and Arians in disguise trying to promote “the Arian madness” through ambiguous statements designed to have “an orthodox and a heretical interpretation.”
(The Great Athanasius, page 136 and Bad Shepherds, page 27)

Athanasius said:

“They disguise their real sentiment, and then make use of the language of Scripture… as a bait for the ignorant, that they may inveigle them into their own wickedness.”
(The Great Athanasius: An Introduction into his Life and Works, page 136)

Early Church expert Rod Bennett writing of the Arian crisis said:

“[T]he number of episcopal sees that can be shown to have remained in orthodox [Catholic] hands throughout the crisis can be counted on the fingers of one hand.”
(Bad Shepherds, page 29)

Finally, the Catholic News Agency headline on December 7, 2013 reported Barron’s beloved Francis’s supposed ironic focus on “practical atheism”:

“Pope: Neglect of human dignity causes ‘practical atheism'”

Pope John Paul II in a General Audience on April 1999 said:

“The contemporary era has devastating forms of ‘theoretical’ and ‘practical’ atheism. Secularism… with its indifference to ultimate questions and… the transcendent.” (Vatican.va>hf_jp_ii_ 14041999)

Francis’s primary focus on only earthly human dignity, it appears, could be a form of practical atheism or secularism.

Francis rarely focuses on “ultimate questions and… the transcendent” such as heaven and hell as well as the Last Judgement, but almost always on non-ultimate/transcendent issues that tend to bring leftist pro-abortion politicians into power such as radical environmental issues, leftist economic policies and unlimited immigration.

This form of practical atheism has brought about the Francis’s seamless garment teachings which we will see appears to be a form of Kantian practical atheism.

The abortion holocaust in Ireland can, to some extent, be blamed on the Irish bishops following Francis’s seamless garment “pro-life” teachings that equates killing innocent human life with pro-abortion politician issues such as the death penalty, leftist economic policies and radical ecology policies.

Even after the abortion referendum was overwhelming lost, to some extent, due to the seamless garment focus as well as inaction by Francis and the Irish bishops, Dublin Bishop Diarmuil Martin had the gall to call for more seamless garment Kantian practical atheism. Martin said:

“Pro-life means being alongside… economic deprivation, homelessness and marginalization.” (Crux, “After abortion loss, Irish prelates look to pope’s vision of ‘pro-life,” May 27, 2017)

The seamless garment teachings of Francis and the Irish bishops, to some extent, can be blamed for the coming death of thousands even millions of babies

This teachings come about because of their apparent conscious or unconscious Kantian practical atheism which is this world materialistic and tends to exclude the eternal.

The practical atheist Immanuel Kant while not explicitly denying the existence of God said:

“God is not a being outside me but merely a thought within me.” (Fr. Stanley Jaki, Angels, Apes and Men, page 10)

Below is a summary of the type of Kantian practical atheism which appears to be part of the thinking of Francis and the Irish bishops.

In this part of the academic article “Categorical imperatives impair Christianity in culture” by scholar Douglas A. Ollivant it is explained that Kantian practical atheism infiltrated Catholicism and gives a background, to some extent, to why the protection of the unborn ended in Ireland.(July 20, 2010, Religion and Liberty, Volume 13, Number 4):

Historically, Christianity established this religious and moral framework for Western culture. Today, to the extent a larger framework is recognized at all, contemporary advocates, both Christian and secular, tend to rely on human dignity by itself to furnish this greater moral framework. But we must take care to remember that human dignity includes more than just each individual person’s dignity or rights.
Traditional Christian anthropology views human beings as participating in both the temporal and the eternal… historical Christian scholars, such as Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, have striven to understand and apply this Christian anthropology, contemporary Christian scholars seem to have moved in a different direction. In addition to our own sloth-induced forgetfulness, we have Immanuel Kant to thank for this wrong turn.
The Categorical Imperative Surfaces

In his must-read Christian Faith and Modern Democracy, Robert Kraynak introduces us to the concept of “Kantian Christianity.” [1] Kraynak claims that the “Kantian influence on modern Christianity is … deep and pervasive.”

What he means is that Christian thinkers no longer speak about culture and politics in terms of the more enduring principles of moral virtue, law, and the common good but now focus on social justice, understood as solely the immediate, material rights and dignity of the human person.

Moreover, they have drastically reduced the role of prudence in politics accepted under the historical Christian anthropological understanding, which has recognized a variety of political regimes depending on the circumstances. This historical understanding also acknowledged the harsh realities of the political realm in a fallen (albeit redeemed) world, and the difficulties and agonies involved in fashioning a just or moral response to contingent events.

Instead of prudential judgments, Kraynak maintains that we now hear only moralistic pronouncements about peace and justice that severely limit the range of (legitimately recognized) political options.Kraynak maintains that Kantian Christianity has seeped into the language of contemporary Christians even though contemporary Christians do not seem to have a full understanding of the underlying anthropology that comes with it.

The rights and dignity of each person replaces moral and theological virtues: rational and spiritual perfection. Further, an emphasis on personal autonomy or personal identity diminishes long-established Christian teachings about the dependence of the creature on the Creator, original sin, grace, and a natural law through which human beings may share or “participate” in eternal law.

Following Kraynak, it is clear to see that in our public life and culture, this language of rights and dignity tends to lead to absolutes in morality, or “categorical imperatives.” Now, Christianity has no problem with moral absolutes (and in fact dictates several), provided they are properly stated. But a proper statement of a moral absolute is made difficult by the anthropology lingering in Kant’s legacy.

Kant’s original categorical imperative, of course, states that one must live in such a manner that one’s actions could form the basis of a universal law. It is the quest for “universal laws,” exclusive of a prudent account of circumstance, that proves troubling.
This universalist language is incompatible with the more prudential approaches to public life articulated by Augustine and Aquinas, which was driven by their much richer understandings of the human person and his or her relation to the physical world and the divine…”
The Authentic Culture of Life

But the most flagrant use of categorical imperatives in our current political culture deals with life issues. It must be stated up front that no practicing Christian disputes that life is one of the most precious gifts that God has given to us. The second century “Letter to Diognetus” bears testimony to early Christians not taking part in the Roman custom of “exposing [or “discarding”] their offspring” – the preferred method of pagan infanticide for the weak or unwanted. [3]

But to speak of a “culture of life” – if used simply to express a “seamless garment” univocal defense against any taking of life – has become a categorical imperative. For instance, the core of what we might call the “Bernadin project” is that Christians (in this case Catholics) must dogmatically oppose and fight against any early termination of human life. But this understanding fails to see that there may be an important, and even a critical, difference between a true culture of life and a “culture of merely life.” The former taking into account the authentic existence of human beings within not only the material realm, but also the immaterial, the spiritual; the latter limiting human existence to the breathing of the air in this temporal world only.

This issue cuts very close to home, as it deals with some of the most controversial politics in our culturally fragmented society: abortion, war, capital punishment, infanticide, and euthanasia. To introduce questions of prudence into these debates is often difficult, but such introductions must take place to prevent the categorical imperative from seeping further into contemporary Christian thought. On issues of great import, no matter whether these issues involve economics, politics, or human life itself, making proper distinctions is always of the essence. To choose perhaps the least charged of these issues, Christians – and particularly Roman Catholics – have been engaging in a debate over the proper limits of state-imposed punishment for some time.

Led by the personal opposition of Pope John Paul II, the Catholic Church has grown ever more dubious of the appropriateness – and therefore the justice – of capital punishment. Many prominent Catholics in America – some out of deep conviction, others in reaction to the dissolving Democratic party monopoly on Catholic political allegiance – have sought to link opposition to the death penalty with opposition to abortion, having the effect (whether intended or not) of neutralizing any partisan distinctions on “life issues.”

But this categorical language seems to conceal more than it clarifies, for even Pope John Paul II has conceded that the death penalty is a legitimate option “when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.” Now, a categorical use of this language seems to imply that the state can only take a life when failure to do so endangers other lives. But as Cardinal Avery Dulles has pointed out to us, it may be that:

When the pope speaks of the protection of society as grounds for using the death penalty, he may have more in mind than mere physical defense against the individual criminal. To vindicate the order of justice and to sustain the moral health of society and the security of innocent persons against potential criminals it may be appropriate to punish certain crimes by death. [4]

In other words, to insist on categorical language – maintaining that the Church must insist on the continuation of physical existence regardless of the attendant circumstances – may actually be contrary to the “culture of life” that the Church seeks to promote. It is not self-evident that a “culture of life” is promoted by the continuation of human lives that have been tainted by egregious sins against human dignity. By committing the churches to this univocal definition of the culture of life, forbidding any prudential account of circumstances, the lives of the innocent become equated with the lives of the guilty. This inability to make relevant distinctions is indicative of a certain poverty in our contemporary understanding, a focus on the material that implicitly denies access to, and perhaps even the reality of, the transcendent. This univocal focus on pure physical existence does not permit us to assess, to use the Cardinal’s terms, the “moral health of society,” let alone its Christian witness or sanctity. But it does excel in permitting the generation of convenient “categorical imperatives.”

Instead of speaking dogmatically about a “right to life,” it may be that Christians could better promote human dignity by returning to more traditional language, explicitly grounded in a Christian anthropology, that allows for proper distinctions of this sort.

To quote at length from Kraynak:

Proclaiming a right to life easily turns into the claim that biological existence is sacred or that mere life has absolute value, regardless of whether it is the life of an innocent unborn child, or the life of a heinous criminal. And the claim that life is a “right” diminishes the claim that life is a “gift” from God: How can a gift be a right? Proclaiming a right to life eventually leads to the mistaken idea of a “seamless garment of life” that is indistinguishable from complete pacifism or a total ban on taking life, including animal life, even for just and necessary causes. It also makes one forget that the good life, not to mention the afterlife, is a greater good than merely being alive in the present world – an unintended but significant depreciation of Christian otherworldliness. [5]

Christian Life in Otherworldliness, Not Categorical Imperatives

Kraynak forcefully reminds us that in the end the Christian life is about “otherworldliness.” We are merely pilgrims here in this world. A world of “categorical imperatives” seeks to bring about the kingdom of God on earth. This goal is, however laudable in intention, subject to serious abuse, as the totalitarianisms of the past century have so forcefully taught us.

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

Francis Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

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

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

Election Notes:

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

– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1 – A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1 What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”:
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

“It is unfortunate that after so many years that the few ‘resistance’ prelates there seemingly are haven’t by now developed a morecoordinated strategy, message, and response to what is going on in the Church and the hierarchy.”

Posted on June 22, 2021 by abyssum

New post on Roma Locuta Est

Dr. De Mattei’s Vigano Theory: What is this really about?by Steven O’ReillyJune 22, 2021 (Steven O’Reilly) – Yesterday, Dr. Roberto De Mattei in Corrispondenza Romana authored an article entitled The Viganò Case: The Archbishop and His Double. The article advanced the theory that Archbishop Viganó may not have authored some of the recent texts published under his name. That is, Dr. Mattei suggests the possibility that perhaps some of these articles may been ghost written by one or more others, and Viganó’s name was only affixed to the documents by Viganó.The reader can see the original article above for Dr. De Mattei’s case. De Mattei in the end concludes his article saying: “The question we pose is therefore this: analysis of the language and content of the documents produced by Archbishop Viganò during the years 2020-2021 reveals an author different from that of the years 2018-2019. But if Archbishop Viganò is not the author of his writings, who now is filling in his words, and perhaps even his thoughts?We would never have opened the case if so many good traditionalists were not presenting as a quasi-magisterium the statements, not of Archbishop Viganò, but of his “double.” A clarification is necessary for the good of the Church and of souls who have in Archbishop Viganò a point of reference, but also for the sake of the prelate who has served the Church so well and could continue to serve it. (Roberto de Mattei)P.S. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has already been informed in private, by several persons, of the existence of this problem, for more than a year now.”Now, I have great respect for Dr. De Mattei, and I even reviewed his book on “Filial Resistance to the Pope” (see Dr. Mattei and “Filial Resistance to the Pope”). However, I was greatly disappointed that Dr. De Mattei aired his Viganó theory in public when it is based on such questionable evidence. If De Mattei or others have disagreements with what Archbishop Viganó says in his letters and articles, that is perfectly fine. But then state the basis of your disagreement, and then provide your counterarguments, etc. Instead, Archbishop Viganó’s authorship and credibility have been unnecessarily called into question on flimsy grounds. Now, quickly comes the word that Archbishop Viganó’s denies Dr. De Mattei’s accusation. Gloria TV reports on Viganó’s response:”There is no ghost writer,” Viganò insists, “By the grace of God I am still in full possession of my faculties, I am not manipulated by anyone and I am absolutely determined to continue my apostolic mission for the salvation of souls.”Viganò confirms that “all my writings, statements and interviews are the result of a maturation of convictions of which I proudly claim full authorship,” calling De Mattei’s allegations “totally unfounded,” “bold” and “fanciful.”[Source: Gloria TV. “De Mattei Attacks: Viganò Turns the Table Around“, June 22, 2021.]It is not clear what Dr. De Mattei hoped would be gained by voicing his theory in public other than to undermine Viganó’s credibility. But how does that help the ‘resistance’? So what to make of this? I don’t know for sure. I have no inside information. Looking in from the outside, De Mattei’s article ultimately reflects a divide within the ‘resistance’ in Rome. That is, some in the ‘resistance’ — perhaps the likes of Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider among them, and with whom Dr. Mattei is very likely in contact — are simply uncomfortable with Archbishop Viganó’s more visible and vocal approach, and the content of his message. Theories of authorship aside, that is fundamentally what this is all about. That the disagreement over content and tone of Viganó’s message had to descend into questions of authorship is unfortunate. Again, if you have a disagreement over content, argue thatpoint.Once, there was one issue (i.e., Amoris Laetitia and the Dubia) that called for a possible “formal correction” but since then, there are a seeming dozen more (e.g., Abu Dhabi statement, Pachamama, the Scalfari Interviews). It is unfortunate that after so many years that the few ‘resistance’ prelates there seemingly are haven’t by now developed a morecoordinated strategy, message, and response to what is going on in the Church and the hierarchy. Then, again, maybe we have been expecting far too much from them all along.Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta with their family. He has written apologetic articles and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions. He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on Parler or Gab: @StevenOReilly).Steven O’Reilly | June 22, 2021 at 4:24 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: https://wp.me/p7YMML-6Sn

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Posted on June 22, 2021 by abyssum

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Posted on June 22, 2021 by abyssum

Ideology Divides Us, Not Race

June 22, 2021

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on remarks recently made by CNN’s Don Lemon on the issue of race:

CNN’s Don Lemon recently said, “We’re living in two different realities as black and white people.” But it is not race that divides us as much as it is ideology.
If blacks and whites really lived in different realities it would make it difficult for them to get along. However, Lemon, who is black, is positive proof that this is not the case. In his Washington Post interview, it was noted that he has “a bit of a lovefest” going on with CNN’s Chris Cuomo. Indeed, Cuomo, who is white, likes to say during the handoff, “I love you.” This suggests that Cuomo and Lemon share the same reality.
If Lemon really believed that the races live in two different realities, why did he choose to live in a town where 90% of the people are white, and rich ones at that? His home in Sag Harbor, New York is only 4.62% black, and it has not one Native American or Pacific Islander living there. Also, why, if whites and blacks live in two different realities is his “spouse” a white man? Seems they get along just fine.
Rep. Byron Donalds is a black Republican congressman. He recently sought to join the Congressional Black Caucus, but he was denied. He was not denied because he is black but because he is a Republican.
Whatever happened to being inclusive? Why did black congressional Democrats exclude Donalds? They proved that it is ideology, not race, that divides us.
Why is it that liberal black politicians and activists tend to support proposals to defund the police, while the average black person is opposed to this policy? It is not race that is dividing these two clusters of African Americans, it’s ideology.
The U.S. bishops recently completed one of their two biannual meetings. All share the same religion, all are (approximately) of the same rank, all are men, and most are white. Their demographic profile suggests they live in the same reality. Yet they cannot agree on what to do about offering Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Once again it is ideology that matters.
There is also plenty of division in many American families. This is most evident during the holidays every year. Yet family members, being of the same race, share the same reality, at least according to Lemon. However, what divides them are their ideological predilections, not their race.
The Left has race on the brain. They see every issue through the prism of race, looking desperately for evidence that divides us. Indeed, racial division is what they live for, which explains their embrace of critical race theory. They don’t fight racism—they promote it.
Don Lemon is not an anomaly. He is a prototypical liberal, one whose ideology, not his race, determines his perception of reality.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Posted on June 21, 2021 by abyssum

Joe Biden Defies Bishops, Attends Mass Two Days After They Vote for New Communion Document

National | Steven Ertelt | Jun 21, 2021 | 9:10AM | Washington,

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is joebiden47.png

Joe Biden defied the nation’s Catholic bishops this weekend by attending Mass just two days after they voted for a new document on communion that could be used to rebuke pro-abortion politicians like him.

After the bishops overwhelming voted for the document and despite numerous bishops speaking up about the importance of the Catholic Church’s opposition to killing babies in abortion, the supposedly “faithful Catholic” went to mass anyway.

According to the Daily Mail:

President Joe Biden attended Mass on Saturday afternoon near his Delaware home ignoring a growing controversy as U.S. Catholic bishops try to block him receiving Communion because of his liberal stance on abortion.

He walked through the churchyard of St Joseph on the Brandywine before entering the church for its 4pm service.

He is a regular at the church when spending the weekend in Wilmington, and it was a familiar moment on a day marked by heartbreak. [Death of one of their dogs.]

Writing at the American Thinker, Monica Showalter called Biden “arrogant” for receiving communion so soon after the bishops stressed how repugnant it is for politicians who promote killing God’s children in abortions to claim they are in communion with the Church and pro-life Biblical teachings.

Joe Biden Defies Bishops, Attends Mass Two Days After They Vote for New Communion Document

National | Steven Ertelt | Jun 21, 2021 | 9:10AM | Washington,

According to the Daily Mail:

He walked through the churchyard of St Joseph on the Brandywine before entering the church for its 4pm service.

He is a regular at the church when spending the weekend in Wilmington, and it was a familiar moment on a day marked by heartbreak. [Death of one of their dogs.]

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Which is a little arrogant, given that he wouldn’t exactly know unless someone among the bishops is leaking to him. It’s in the same vein as Democrat clowns “daring” the bishops to deny wonderful-them communion, too. LifeNews described his attitude as “defiant” and “smug.”

It’s actually a bit of a moot point in that Biden is married to a divorced woman whose spouse is still living, a hardline ‘no’ for communion, although one wouldn’t be surprised if the bishops broke their own rule and gave it to him while going hardline and denying it only to the little guys.

The problem here is that Biden wears his Catholicism on his sleeve as a means of personally profiting, a means of reaping votes. He’s using his membership in the Church to advance his political power. Joe Biden being Joe Biden, fully in the control of spinners, it’s quite likely someone at the White House press office called in the Daily Mail to cover his attendance at mass as a way to tell voters he was a “devout Catholic,” just as his spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, told us.

He may well have been trying to reap political hay off the controversy around him. Then, during the week, he doesn’t just hold anti-life views, but he uses his government power to act on them.

On Friday, a defiant Joe Biden essentially dared the nation’s Catholic bishops to deny him communion, saying he doubted they would follow through on any rebuke of his radical abortion agenda.

sked about the vote and the potential to be denied communion, Biden smugly dismissed it. Biden first appeared like a deer in headlights, not understanding the question and asking a reporter to repeat it before appearing completely unconcerned about the potential.

“That’s a private matter and I don’t think that’s going to happen.”

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

He may well have been trying to reap political hay off the controversy around him. Then, during the week, he doesn’t just hold anti-life views, but he uses his government power to act on them.

On Friday, a defiant Joe Biden essentially dared the nation’s Catholic bishops to deny him communion, saying he doubted they would follow through on any rebuke of his radical abortion agenda.

“That’s a private matter and I don’t think that’s going to happen.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Posted on June 21, 2021 by abyssum

Page 1 of 22

WILLIAM J. OLSON

(VA, D.C.)

HERBERT W. TITUS

(VA OF COUNSEL)

JEREMIAH L. MORGAN

(D.C., CA ONLY)

ROBERT J. OLSON

(VA, D.C.)

WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

370 MAPLE AVENUE WEST, SUITE 4

VIENNA, VIRGINIA 22180-5615

TELEPHONE (703) 356-5070

FAX (703) 356-5085

E-MAIL: wjo@mindspring.com

http://www.lawandfreedom.com

114 CREEKSIDE LANE

WINCHESTER, VA 22602-2429

TELEPHONE (540) 450-8777

FAX (540) 450-8771

June 18, 2021

NOTE: Personalized versions of this letter were sent to the President and Board Chair of

the following Public Colleges and Universities in Virginia:

Christopher Newport University

College of William & Mary

George Mason University

James Madison University

Longwood University

Old Dominion University

Radford University

University of Mary Washington

University of Virginia

Virginia Commonwealth University

Virginia Military Institute

Virginia Tech

Subject: Request for Reconsideration and Revocation of Mandatory COVID-19

Inoculation Requirement; Notice to Preserve Documents

It is our understanding that [your institution] was adopted a policy by which students

are being required to receive an experimental vaccine against COVID-19 before returning to

campus for the fall semester.1 We are writing to urge you in the strongest possible terms to

reconsider and revoke this coercive policy, before your students are harmed or killed by these

dangerous experimental inoculations.

This letter is sent on behalf of parents, students, and a variety of other organizations,

some of which have formed specifically to oppose Virginia college and university policies

requiring students and staff to receive the COVID-19 inoculation before returning to campus:

1 A similar letter is being written to each of the Virginia colleges and universities that

have been identified as requiring COVID-19 vaccinations for students and/or staff, based on a

variety of sources, since we have found no one depository of this information in the

Commonwealth. If your institution does not require such vaccination, we would greatly

appreciate your advising us so we can let others know. Page 1 of 22

Page 2 of 22

• Center for Medical Freedom

• Health Freedom Virginia

• Virginia Coalition for Medical Freedom

• CNU Parent Covid-19 Mandate Concerns

• University Parents for Informed Consent

• Students for Medical Freedom

• Virginia Tech Freedom of Choice

• JMU Freedom of Choice Parents

• Virginia Freedom Keepers

• The Virginia Project

• America’s Future

• Students for America

It is our understanding that these groups include parents of students or students

attending most, if not all, of the colleges and universities in Virginia.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There are many thousands of students who have been planning to attend Virginia

colleges and universities this fall, but who refuse to yield to mandates that they first participate

in unmonitored experimental genetic therapy by taking the COVID-19 vaccine. Your

institution’s policy is putting these students, and their parents, in an untenable situation, where

they must choose between accepting the significant risk of bodily injury, possible lifelong

disability, or death or continue their education at your institution.

The evidence is now clear that some statistically significant number of those students

receiving the inoculation will be harmed seriously, and some may die. We cannot see how

imposing the risk of such harm is consistent with your fiduciary duty of protection of these

students. Moreover, a policy of coercion can impose on your institution great responsibility,

as well as liability. Have you counted the cost? The same principles apply to your

institution’s staff to the extent the vaccination mandates apply to them.

Indeed, it is our view that this coercive policy is contrary to law, contrary to science,

and out of line with how other institutions are handling this issue, and therefore flawed from

its inception.

This letter first explains that the federal government has refused to adopt the type of

draconian policies adopted by your institution, making your decision an outlier. Next, we

bring to your attention new evidence that has been developed against the vaccine. Then we

address the medical arguments against mandating the COVID-19 experimental inoculation and

the legal arguments. We conclude by asking your institution to reconsider and revoke that

decision, and failing that, to take certain steps to preserve documents. Please take these steps Page 2 of 22

Page 3 of 22

now, as each day more and more students are being vaccinated due to these mandatory

policies.

YOUR INSTITUTION’S POLICY IS OUT OF STEP

WITH NOTED EXPERTS IN THE FIELD

If coerced COVID-19 vaccinations were necessary as a matter of public health, it would

have been adopted by the same federal government that granted the Emergency Use

Authorizations (“EUAs”). However, the federal government recently adopted a policy for its

employees which is completely opposite your institution’s policy. The federal government

does not generally require federal employees or contractors to be vaccinated. More than

that, federal agencies may not require federal employees or contractors to disclose such

information about vaccination status. See General Services Administration Safer Federal

Workforce Vaccination Status.

If coerced vaccinations were necessary as a matter of public health, surely the federal

agency charged with being “the nation’s medical research agency” — the National Institute of

Health (“NIH”) — would have mandated it. However, on April 25, 2021, the Director,

Francis S. Collins, told NBC News that he will not mandate his employees at NIH to get

vaccinated: “I’m certainly encouraging everyone who works for me … to get vaccinated, but

I’m not mandating it.”

Likewise, if coerced vaccinations were necessary as a matter of public health, surely

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) — the national public health

agency of the United States — would require its employees to be vaccinated, but Dr. Anthony

Fauci, in Congressional Testimony,2

estimated that “a bit more than half, around 60 percent,”

of CDC employees had been vaccinated.

Finally, if coerced vaccinations were necessary as a matter of public health, surely it

would be required for the United States military. However, in a recent interview with NBC’s

Today Show, President Biden stated that even if the experimental COVID-19 inoculation

were to receive full FDA approval, which it has not, he called it a “tough call” as to whether

members of the military would be required to receive it — and that he would leave that

2 On May 11, 2021, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions

held a hearing on ongoing federal efforts to combat COVID-19. https://www.help.

senate.gov/hearings/an-update-from-federal-officials-on-efforts-to-combat-covid-19. The

witnesses at that hearing were Anthony Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and

Infectious Diseases, NIH; David Kessler, Chief Science Officer, HHS; Peter Marks,

Director, CBER, FDA; and Rochelle Walensky, Director, CDC. The answer about

vaccination rates at the other national health agencies was similar. https://youtu.be/

qW8MF98wCgs?t=8421. Page 3 of 22

Page 4 of 22

decision to the military, rather than compelling the vaccine. Thereafter, at a press briefing on

May 20, 2021, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Dr. Terry

Adirim, stated: “there’s no plans at this time to make the vaccine mandatory. If and when the

FDA does license the vaccine we’ll make a decision at that time.”

Your institution’s mandatory vaccine policy is out of step with the policies that have

been adopted by these federal institutions.

CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE RECONSIDERATION

OF ANY MANDATORY INOCULATION POLICY

Some colleges and universities adopted their forced vaccination policies weeks ago,

well before deeply troubling new information about the risks of accepting the vaccine were

known. In recent days, new information about these inoculations has emerged which ethically

require your reconsideration of this decision, and a revocation of this mandate, for many

reasons.

On June 2, 2021, Forbes reported that Israel’s health ministry said it has observed a

correlation between the Pfizer vaccine and myocarditis, particularly in young males.

On June 9, 2021, Dr. Tess Laurie, Director, Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy

Ltd. in the United Kingdom, recommended that all COVID vaccinations be suspended after

examining the British Equivalent of the American Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

(“VAERS”), the Yellow Card System, based on data received through May 26, 2021:

We are sharing this preliminary report due to the urgent need to

communicate information that should lead to cessation of the vaccination roll

out while a full investigation is conducted….

The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card

system [similar to the VAERS system in the United States] to declare the

COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans. Preparation should be made to

scale up humanitarian efforts to assist those harmed by the COVID-19 vaccines

and to anticipate and ameliorate medium to longer term effects. [Open Letter to

Dr. Raine, the Chief Executive of the MHRA from Dr Tess Laurie (Director,

Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy Ltd and EbMC Squared CiC Bath, UK)

(emphasis added).]

On June 10, 2021, Germany’s vaccine advisory committee recommended that only

children and adolescents with pre-existing conditions should be given the COVID-19 vaccine.

“German panel gives limited approval for COVID-19 shot for adolescents,” Reuters (June 10,

2021). Page 4 of 22

Page 5 of 22

On June 10, 2021, the American Academy of Pediatrics reported that the CDC has

confirmed 226 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in persons ages 30 and younger who have

received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and are investigating about 250 more reports. As a

result, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (“ACIP”) of the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention will hold an emergency meeting on June 18, 2021, to assess

this new development.

On June 12, 2021, Reuters reported that the “Italian government said on Friday it was

restricting the use of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine to people over the age of 60, after a

teenager who had taken the shot died from a blood clot.” “Italy halts AstraZeneca vaccine for

under-60s after teenager dies,” Reuters (June 12, 2021).

As of June 14, 2021, George Mason University, the largest public university in

Virginia with over 37,000 students, reported two student positives and zero employee positives

in the past 14 days.

On June 14, 2021, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled “University

Vaccine Mandates Violate Medical Ethics: College Students Aren’t Guinea Pigs.” That

article stated:

Some 450 U.S. colleges and universities — including our institutions — have

announced policies mandating that all students be fully vaccinated against

Covid-19 before the fall semester, with some requiring vaccination now for the

summer term. Schools have for decades required vaccination against infectious

diseases, but these mandates are unprecedented — and unethical. Never

before have colleges insisted that students or employees receive an

experimental vaccine as a condition of attendance or employment. [Emphasis

added.]

On June 15, 2021, Jane M. Orient, M.D. wrote an article explaining the recent

information on risk to the heart and other threats posed by the vaccinations, citing a recent

video by Dr. Peter A. McCullough, M.D., MPH:

You might be able to get a college degree with a damaged heart, but the

door may be slammed permanently on athletics, military service, or any

physically demanding occupation.

Your daughter also is at risk. The heart problems are less frequent in

women, but women are not exempt. And where else do those lipid

nanoparticles enclosing the instructions for spike protein go? Those college

administrators don’t know, and if Dr. Fauci knows, he’s not telling.

Would putting a hold on your college education be worth it? [Jane M.

Orient, M.D., “Sending your son to college? Is the vaccine risk worth it?”

WND (June 15, 2021).] Page 5 of 22

Page 6 of 22

This letter is written in agreement with the Wall Street Journal article — believing that

these mandates are not only unprecedented, but also are unethical. Moreover, your policy is

subjecting students to great danger with virtually no corresponding benefit, particularly as

college and university age students face little danger from this virus.

ARGUMENT

I. MEDICAL ARGUMENTS

A. None of the Experimental COVID-19 Inoculations Have Been Approved by the

FDA.

None of the so-called COVID-19 “vaccines” have been approved by the FDA. Here is

the status of each of these products:

Pfizer-BioNTech

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) issued December 11, 2020

Revised EUA issued December 23, 2020

Second Revised EUA issued February 25, 2021

Status: Currently authorized for emergency use

Moderna

EUA issued December 18, 2020

Revised EUA issued February 25, 2021

Status: Currently authorized for emergency use

Janssen (formerly called Johnson & Johnson)

EUA issued February 27, 2021

Revised EUA issued June 20, 2021

Paused on April 13, 2021 (after six cases of blood clots reported)

Resumed on April 23, 2021

Status: Currently authorized for emergency use

AstraZeneca

Submitted letter seeking approval to U.S. clinical trial investigators April 21, 2021

FDA responded with a request for more data

Status: Additional data required before authorization for use

Merck

Status: Vaccine development discontinued January 25, 2021

If and when FDA approval is obtained, it would mean “the agency has determined,

based on substantial evidence, that the drug is: Page 6 of 22

Page 7 of 22

• effective for its intended use, and

• that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks when used according to the

product’s approved labeling.”3

The EUAs for those vaccines specifically require the manufacturers to pursue full FDA

approval, but until then, because this approval has not been obtained, it can be understood that:

• the vaccines HAVE NOT been shown to be effective for their intended use, and

• the benefits of the vaccine HAVE NOT been shown to outweigh the risks.

Based on this fact alone, mandatory vaccines are simply wrong.

B. COVID-19 Inoculations Are Not Typical Vaccines.

Vaccines are well known to the American people as “any preparation used as a

preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing an

innocuous form of the disease agent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate

antibody production.” Dictionary.com. The COVID-19 inoculations are of an entirely

different nature from traditional vaccines. They are better understood as a type of

experimental gene therapy. The Mayo Clinic describes the vaccines as follows:

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines use

messenger RNA (mRNA). Coronaviruses have a spikelike structure on their

surface called an S protein. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines give cells instructions

for how to make a harmless piece of an S protein….

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine is a vector vaccine.

In this type of vaccine, genetic material from the COVID-19 virus is inserted

into a different kind of weakened live virus, such as an adenovirus. When the

weakened virus (viral vector) gets into your cells, it delivers genetic material

from the COVID-19 virus that gives your cells instructions to make copies of

the S protein…. [“COVID-19 vaccines: Get the facts,” Mayo Clinic (emphasis

added).]

The use of a SPIKE Protein in these vaccines had been thought to be benign, but

increasingly it is being understood that the SPIKE Protein itself is the problem. Dr. Mike

Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer of the Allergy and Respiratory

Unit of Pfizer Drugs, has explained: “The spike protein is not a passive protein that the virus

uses to anchor to human cells. Its biologically active … and prompts cells to stick together.”

3 FDA, “Understanding the Regulatory Terminology of Potential Preventions and

Treatments for COVID-19.” Page 7 of 22

Page 8 of 22

Additional medical, legal, and anecdotal reports about problems with the “vaccine” are

collected at http://www.centerformedicalfreedom.com.

C. The Efficacy of the Experimental Inoculation.

An article in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research

assesses that the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, based on data provided by the

manufacturers, is negligible:

While the high estimates of risk reduction are based upon relative risks, the

absolute risk reduction is a more appropriate metric for a member of the

general public to determine whether a vaccination provides a meaningful risk

reduction personally. In that analysis, utilizing data supplied by the vaccine

makers to the FDA, the Moderna vaccine at the time of interim analysis

demonstrated an absolute risk reduction of 1.1% (p= 0.004), while the Pfizer

vaccine absolute risk reduction was 0.7% (p<0.000) (Brown 2021). [“Worse

than the disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the

mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” International Journal of Vaccine Theory,

Practice, and Research (Vol. 2, no. 1 (2021)).]

See also Lancet Microbe Comment: COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness —

the elephant (not) in the room (April 20, 2021) (“the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is

the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population.

ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs:

1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for

the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines. ARR is also used to derive an

estimate of vaccine effectiveness, which is the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent

one more case of COVID-19 as 1/ARR. NNVs bring a different perspective: 81 for the

Moderna–NIH, 78 for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 108 for the Gamaleya, 84 for the J&J, and

119 for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.” (Emphasis added))

Furthermore, when weighed against the very low mortality rate among the age range

typical of college students, the benefits do not outweigh the risks. According to CDC Data,

only 0.2 percent of COVID-19 deaths were younger than 25. “COVID-19 Deaths By Age,”

Heritage Foundation (February 17, 2021). Page 8 of 22

Page 9 of 22

D. The VAERS System Now Shows Tremendous Death and Illness from the Disease.

On June 16, 2021, the most recent date that data are available, VAERS4

has received

326,239 events (a range of adverse events) reported for the COVID-19 vaccines.5 Of this,

there are 4,946 deaths that have been reported to be related to the COVID-19 vaccines. The

number of COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths exceeds the 4,598 deaths for every other

vaccine-related deaths reported to VAERS as long as records are available up to December

31, 2020 (including 19 deaths related to the COVID-19 vaccine during that time period).

The VAERS data, based on a voluntary reporting system, is generally understood to

significantly underestimate adverse reactions. Steve Kirsch, Executive Director of the

COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, presented a video analysis of CDC data on TrialSiteNews

on June 16, 2021, showing that the number of vaccine-related deaths thus far is more likely to

be about 25,000 (“Kirsch video”).

Beyond the demonstrated danger for all those who are inoculated, what is most

remarkable is the disproportionate appearance of young people in those Adverse Event

Reports:

More than half of the cases reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting

System (VAERS) after people had received their second dose of either the

Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna (MRNA.O) vaccines were in people between the ages of

12 and 24, the CDC said. Those age groups accounted for less than 9% of doses

administered. [“Heart inflammation in young men higher than expected after Pfizer,

Moderna vaccines – U.S. CDC,” Reuters (June 10, 2021).]

E. The COVID-19 Inoculation Does Not Protect All Inoculated Persons from

Contracting COVID.

Even proponents of the COVID-19 inoculation do not claim that it prevents the

recipient from getting the COVID-19 infection — what is known as “sterilizing immunity.”

Consider the following:

Eight people in Maine have died with COVID after being fully

vaccinated, according to the latest numbers from Maine’s

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which

confirmed a total of 457 breakthrough cases in the state…. In

See https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html.

5 VAERS data is updated every Friday, and it is believed that there is a significant

backlog of reports that the CDC has not yet processed. Page 9 of 22

Page 10 of 22

Maine and other states, anyone who tests positive for

SARS-Cov-2 two weeks after receiving the single-dose Johnson

& Johnson shot or completing the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer

vaccination is recorded as a breakthrough case. [“8 Fully

Vaccinated Die of COVID in Maine, as States Continue to Report

‘Breakthrough’ Cases,” Clarion News (June 14, 2021).]

F. Persons Have Very Little Need for the Inoculation Due to the Availability of

Successful Treatments.

An EUA can be issued only when the underlying infecton is not treatable. And if

COVID-19 is readily treatable, it alters the risk/benefit calculation dramatically. As just one

example of a treatment, COVID-19 is being successfully treated around the world with

Ivermectin. On June 1, 2021, it was reported that Ivermectin is overwhelmingly successful in

treatment of COVID-19. “Ivermectin obliterates 97 percent of Delhi cases,” The Desert

Review (June 1, 2021). This same result has been shown in other countries: “The impact of

ivermectin use in Zimbabwe,” MedicalUpdateOnline (April 19, 2021); “Uttar Pradesh

COVID-19 Case Decline Continues as Authorities Lift Restrictions in 72 or 75 State Districts:

What Was in those Medicine Kits?” TrialSiteNews (June 6, 2021); “Immediate Use of

Ivermectin Medicine Globally Can End COVID-19 Pandemic: Scientists,” Newsbreak (May 8,

2021); “Latest peer-reviewed research: Immediate global ivermectin use will end COVID-19

pandemic,” Association for the Advancement of Science (May 7, 2021); “Ivermectin in

COVID-19,” Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). See also Kirsch video,

supra, addressing numerous effective treatments which are currently being used.

G. Persons Who Have Had COVID-19 Should Not Be Vaccinated.

The vaccine can be more dangerous for people who have already had COVID-19. Any

policy must take into account the protections already afforded by national antibodies present in

the human body, which are far superior to the immunity that could be obtained by a vaccine.

H. Vaccinated Women Are Experiencing Serious Bleeding Disorders.

A published letter to the British Medical Journal states:

Many women across the world after receiving CoViD vaccines are

complaining of irregularities in their menstrual bleeding; some experiencing

heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia), some bleeding before their periods

were due or bleeding frequently (metrorrhagia/polymenorrhea), whereas some

are complaining of postmenopausal bleeding.

As of 5th April 2021, there have been ~958 cases of post-vaccination

menstrual irregularities, including vaginal haemorrhages, that were recorded in

MHRA’s adverse event reports. There were twice more cases of menstrual

irregularities with CoViD Vaccine AstraZeneca than Pfizer (643 vs 315 Page 10 of 22

Page 11 of 22

respectively)…. It is anticipated that the actual numbers of cases are much

higher than the numbers recorded in the pharmacovigilance systems as many

women in different cultural context may have felt uncomfortable to talk about it,

may not have thought that it was vaccine-related, or may have not been

encouraged by their clinicians to make an official report into the adverse events

reporting system. [“Thrombosis after covid-19 vaccination,” The BMJ (April

14, 2021).]

Professor Peter McCullough, M.D., MPH, provided a lengthy video interview

(beginning at 1:10) discussing the many dangers posed by the vaccines, including to pregnant

women, who were excluded from the COVID-19 trials.

II. LEGAL ARGUMENTS

A. Attorney General Herring Advisory Opinion Provides No Cover for Coerced

Vaccines, particularly by Private Colleges and Universities.

On April 26, 2021, Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring issued a Legal Opinion

(21-030) which concluded that the Commonwealth’s public colleges and universities have the

authority to impose a requirement that students must provide evidence of receipt of an

approved COVID-19 vaccination in order to attend the institution in person. His opinion relied

on Virginia Code section 32.1-48, which authorizes the Commissioner of Health to require

“immunization of all persons in case of an epidemic of any disease of public health importance

for which a vaccine exists other than a person to whose health the administration of a vaccine

would be detrimental as certified in writing by a physician licensed to practice medicine in this

Commonwealth,” and Virginia Code section 32.1-43, which served as the basis for an opinion

of a previous Attorney General that the Health Commissioner has the power “to require

quarantine, vaccination or treatment of any individual when he determines any such measure to

be necessary to control the spread of any disease of public health importance.” The

Commissioner of Health has not exercised this power.

Mr. Herring’s opinion then reasoned that each public board of visitors and the State

Board for Community Colleges can require vaccination as a condition of in-person attendance,

citing Virginia Code sections 23.1-1301(A)(1), 23.1-1304(B)(14), 23.1-2904, and 23.1-2905.

Those statutes authorize such boards to make regulations relating to protecting the general

physical and psychological well-being of students.

Neither the Herring opinion nor the opinion of his predecessor addresses the issue of

whether the student may oppose a vaccination requirement by asserting a constitutional right to

bodily autonomy or other traditional objections based on medical, religious belief or

conscience. Additionally, the Herring opinion refers to “an approved COVID-19 vaccine,”

but there is no such approved vaccine. Page 11 of 22

Page 12 of 22

It is our view that this Legal Opinion is flawed, does not apply to the unapproved

COVID-19 inoculations, and does not address the issue of exemptions.

B. Coerced COVID-19 Immunization Breaches a Contract with Students and Parents.

Those students who decided to attend or entered your college did so prior to any

requirement of receiving an experimental vaccine. Your institution is changing the rules in the

middle of the game, unilaterally changing the terms of a previously agreed upon contract.

C. It Is a Violation of Bio-Ethics to Coerce Use of An Experimental Drug.

After World War II, the United States conducted the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials.

One of those was United States v. Karl Brandt, et al. where Karl Brandt was prosecuted for

crimes against humanity in conducting medical experiments with prisoners. The U.S.

Holocaust Memorial Museum has preserved the documents of that trial. The Court’s decision

established what came to be called the Nuremberg Code, establishing 10 principles governing

medical experimentation on human subjects. The experimental COVID-19 vaccine being

forced on students is very much subject to the principles governing medical experimentation,

and it fails on the very first point. The students objecting to the COVID-19 vaccine cannot be

said to have given their voluntary consent. In fact, some may be below 18 years of age and do

not have the legal capacity to give consent. They are not able to exercise free power of choice

without coercion. Nor are they being given sufficient information about the dangers to make

an informed choice, and thus these students do not accept the hazards that have been shown to

occur with some regularity.

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means

that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be

situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention

of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior

form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and

comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable

him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element

requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the

experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration,

and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be

conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the

effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his

participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the

quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or

engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may

not be delegated to another with impunity. [Id. (emphasis added).]

Lastly, these Nuremberg Principles require the following: Page 12 of 22

Page 13 of 22

During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to

terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the

exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required by him

that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or

death to the experimental subject. [Id.]

The United States has a long and sad history of conducting experiments on humans

without full disclosure, full understanding of risks, and full assumption of risks. Just one

illustration of this practice was the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male,”

conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama by the U.S. Public Health Service.

Another case came to light in United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987), which

ruled that a U.S. Serviceman given LSD without his consent could not sue the U.S. Army for

damages, but was later awarded over $400,000. The dissenting opinion of Justice O’Connor is

instructive:

No judicially crafted rule should insulate from liability the involuntary and

unknowing human experimentation alleged to have occurred in this case.

Indeed, as Justice Brennan observes, the United States military played an

instrumental role in the criminal prosecution of Nazi officials who experimented

with human subjects during the Second World War … and the standards that

the Nuremberg Military Tribunals developed to judge the behavior of the

defendants stated that the ‘voluntary consent of the human subject is

absolutely essential … to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts.’ ….If this

principle is violated the very least that society can do is to see that the victims

are compensated, as best they can be, by the perpetrators. [Id. at 709-710

(emphasis added).]

In 1964, the international medical community, working through the World Medical

Association, adopted the Declaration of Helsinki, which contains bio-ethical principles

designed to restrict human experimentation. It appears that the minimum requirements of that

Declaration have not been met here. Based on the information that we have seen, none of the

Virginia colleges and universities have observed complete disclosure of the risks of the

COVID-19 vaccine, have not made an effort to ensure students understand those risks, and

thus have not obtained true “informed consent” of the students. As such, these students have

been coerced into participating in a dangerous human trial without meeting the minimum

standards required by modern notions of Bio-Ethics. At some point, those injured by these

vaccines will seek compensation, and it will be very difficult for any institution that mandates

these vaccines to avoid liability for its coercive policy. Page 13 of 22

Page 14 of 22

D. Every College or University Must Offer a Religious and Medical Exemption.

Virginia Code section 23.1-800 (“Health histories and immunizations required;

exemptions”) states:

Any student is exempt from the immunization requirements set forth in

subsections B and C who (i) objects on the grounds that administration of

immunizing agents conflicts with his religious tenets or practices, unless the

Board of Health has declared an emergency or epidemic of disease, or (ii)

presents a statement from a licensed physician that states that his physical

condition is such that administration of one or more of the required immunizing

agents would be detrimental to his health. [Emphasis added.]

We have been advised that some colleges and universities are not expressly advising

students of these two exemptions, which would violate this code section.

Also, some colleges and universities appear to be tightening the requirement for a

religious exemption beyond that which was previously applied, requiring detailed statements

about the basis for a religious exemption, as if the college and university would be a judge

over the personal religious beliefs of the student. In our view, any such effort would violate

both the statute and the Constitution of Virginia, Article I, Section 16 (“No man shall be

compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor

shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise

suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief.”).

Additionally, the Virginia Department of Health’s Administrative Code, 12 VAC5-110-

80, allows for exemptions from immunization requirements by those who can demonstrate

existing immunity. We have not seen a mandatory policy which provides this allowance.

E. Colleges and Universities Should Not Mandate Use of Pharmacologic Products

Developed or Manufactured Using Aborted Fetal Tissue.

The religious and moral objections of many persons who object to use of vaccines

which may have been developed or tested with or manufactured using aborted fetal tissue

should be honored. See “Which COVID-19 vaccines are connected to abortion?,”

LifeSiteNews (Dec. 11, 2020).

F. Bodily Autonomy under Virginia Law.

A recent survey of the law of bodily integrity by Professor Caitlin Borgmann provides

this historical background of the right to bodily integrity: Page 14 of 22

Page 15 of 22

The common law right not to have our bodies touched or invaded without our

consent is so well established that most of us take its existence for granted. The

Supreme Court has described it as the most “sacred” of rights. [Caitlin

Borgmann, The Constitutionality of Government-Imposed Bodily Intrusions,

2014 U. ILL. L. REV. 1059 (2014).]

For this principle, Professor Borgmann cites Union P.R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251

(1891) (“No right is held more sacred or is more carefully guarded by the common law than

the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all

restraint or interference of others unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.”). As

Professor Borgmann explains, the Supreme Court has been uneven in its defense of the notion

of bodily integrity, but that ambiguous record should provide no comfort to educators who

should respect that right of students and staff.

A challenge to a vaccination requirement imposed by a private institution likely would

be based on the common law right to determine “what shall be done with one’s own body.”

Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 305-09 (1990) (Brennan, J., dissenting)

(tracing the history of the common law right). The common law right to be free from

unwanted medical attention is “a right to evaluate the potential benefit of treatment and its

possible consequences according to one’s own values and to make a personal decision whether

to subject oneself to the intrusion.” Id. at 309. In Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 272

(1994), the Court recognized that “matters relating to marriage, family, procreation, and the

right to bodily integrity” are subject to substantive due process challenge.

It would be tragic indeed if colleges and universities were to rely for authority on the

U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), which upheld Virginia’s

statute authorizing sterilization of “feeble-minded” individuals, but has never been overruled.

Moreover, the Virginia statute at issue in Buck v. Bell has since been repealed, and the

Supreme Court appeared to limit that ruling in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316

U.S. 535 (1942).

G. Federal Law Prevents Coerced Administration of the Vaccine.

Finally, we urge you to consult with your counsel about whether your institution has

any authority to impose any COVID-19 vaccine mandate, when the Federal statute governing

EUAs specifies the conditions on which the EUA products may be authorized and

administered.

(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the

product is administered are informed—

(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;

(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of

the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and Page 15 of 22

Page 16 of 22

(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the

consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the

alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks. [21

U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) (emphasis added).]

Note that this federal statute expressly anticipates that each individual will be given the

option to refuse the EUA product.

REQUESTED RELIEF

For the reasons set out above, and on behalf of our clients, we respectfully, but in the

strongest possible terms, urge you to reconsider and then revoke your policy mandating an

experimental COVID-19 inoculation for students or staff. Further, we make the following

requests.

A. Request for Your Institution’s Policy.

Many colleges and universities are advising students and staff of their vaccine

requirements via email or their website, with changing views on how their policy will be

implemented. To avoid confusion, we would ask that we be provided a copy of your

institution’s current COVID-19 Vaccine Policy or revised policy rescinding the mandate,

which we would be able to share with others.

With the illness and death of increasing numbers of students around the country, there

will come a time of accountability for compelling a dangerous experimental inoculation.

Therefore, and in the interest of transparency, it is critical for the public to know who made

the decision. Was it a vote of your governing board? Was it a decision of the President?

Who were the lawyers who advised that this policy be adopted? What information did they

have available to them when the decision was made? Did the institution reconsider that

decision in response to this letter, or for some other reason?

B. Request for a Commitment to Assume Financial Liability for Death, Disability, or

Illness of Students Being Required to Take the COVID-19 Inoculation.

Federal law immunizes vaccine manufacturers from liability, and appears to immunize

those administering vaccines, but does not appear to immunize colleges and universities from

liability for coercing students and staff to get vaccines.

We are not privy to the insurance coverage that your institution may have that could

apply here. Moreover, while Virginia’s public colleges and universities may be able to assert

a variety of defenses to assert against liability, there is no guarantee that such efforts will be

successful. Certainly the mere possibility of immunity should never cause anyone to make

decisions which endanger others. Page 16 of 22

Page 17 of 22

We would suggest that you ask your institution’s legal counsel about liability and

whether you should advise your insurance carriers of potential claims. Parents and students

would like to know if your institution has the resources and/or insurance coverage to ensure

payment for personal injury claims resulting from your coercive mandates.

C. Notice to Preserve Evidence.

Pursuant to the Virginia and federal rules of civil procedure, we are placing your

institution on notice to preserve electronic and discoverable evidence. This requires your

immediate attention without regard to what position you may or may not ultimately take

concerning any institutional vaccination and exemption policy.

This notice applies to the institution’s on- and off-site computer systems and removable

electronic media plus all computer systems, services, and devices (including all remote access

and wireless devices) used for your institution’s overall operation. Email and other electronic

communications are especially important to preserve. This means halting any automatic

erasure or deletion of documents or communication that are relevant to the institution’s medical

policy or practices in connection with its student body and staff. Please notify your IT

department immediately to cease adherence to its record retention disposition policy. This

includes disposition of electronically stored information and hard copies of documents.

As litigation often involves complex issues, we are also requesting that all student and

staff documentation involving past vaccinations, boosters, immunizations, and related

voluntary or mandatory medical treatment required or solicited as a condition of admission,

matriculation, or employment, be preserved. This request also covers PHI, student records

protected under federal law, and all waivers, exemptions, and exceptions to any vaccination,

vaccination-related, or preventive or protective medical policy or practice of the institution.

This request includes without limitation and by way of example, TB, meningitis, flu, SARS,

and COVID-19 data, records, policies, and exemptions.

This request to preserve also covers medical licensing and insurance documentation.

This includes documents and communications authorizing institutional agents, contractors, and

employees’ state medical licensure documentation, including claims and malpractice history for

each such person going back 10 years. It also includes any documents that authorized

unlicensed persons to administer vaccinations and hold harmless, indemnification and release

agreements or forms that may be relevant.

Our request covers the institution’s insurance policies, communications specific to

vaccination coverage and liability, and any riders specifically related to coverage or waiver of

liability for harm caused pursuant to a mandatory vaccination policy. Please ask your counsel

about your duty to place all such carriers on notice of a possible claim and request assignment

of legal counsel under a reservation of rights if necessary.

We are advised that many institutions require students to obtain health insurance as a

condition of admission to the institution. Student Health and Wellness records come within Page 17 of 22

Page 18 of 22

this preservation request as well as all records, communications, and documents addressing

coordination among health insurance carriers of claims arising from illness, disability, injury,

or death resulting from an institutionally required vaccination. Records identifying who pays,

in what amounts, and in what order, including policy limits, reinsurance, and institutional

liability beyond policy limits are also to be preserved.

Moreover, please preserve all records consulted in developing an institutional

vaccination policy. These include records related to preservation or exercise of any individual

right associated with declining medical treatment. This in turn also covers records pertaining

to development of a policy protecting the individual right to refuse blood or blood transfusions

from COVID-19 vaccinated persons or sources and liability associated with malpractice

relating thereto.

Our request to preserve also includes all privileged documents and communications. A

court can sort out production of those documents under seal or in camera or otherwise later on.

Since these matters are often discussed at the Board and administrative level, we want you to

understand that communications regarding COVID-19, the institution’s responses and policies,

as well as vaccination-related communications by and between the Board and its institutional

decision makers and/or administrative officers, are of particular importance to ensure unaltered

preservation. Often these communications take place on both institutionally issued computers

and phones, but in many instances personal devices are used.

This notice to preserve covers all devices without regard to institutional ownership.

Normally, a letter to that effect would be sent to your governing Board and officers as well as

your General Counsel. That letter should include this communication and also ensure that all

such devices are physically delivered to the institution. Once delivered, each of their drives,

texts, and emails must all be secured on an ongoing basis. If in civil discovery, we find this

notice or procedure was not followed or your Board members were not placed on immediate

notice, court rules provide for sanctions to punish this behavior. See Va. R. Sup. Ct. 4:1;

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(e)(1).6 Please consult with your legal counsel.

6 Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 37(c): Failure to Preserve Electronically Stored Information.

If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation

or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and

it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court:

(1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information, may order

measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice; or

(2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the

information’s use in the litigation may:

(A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party;

(B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the

party; or

Page 19 of 22

We are also advised that the CDC has addressed “COVID-19 Racial and Ethnic Health

Disparities.” See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/health-equity/

racial-ethnic-disparities/index.html. Our request to preserve documents is intended to address

all such documentation identified in the CDC memorandum regarding special attention the

institution has taken in connection with its COVID policy as it affects racial and ethnic

minority groups disproportionately affected by COVID-19. We assume that any companion

development of a COVID-19 vaccination policy will have thoroughly addressed the equivalent

concerns regarding the health effects of vaccinations on racial and ethnic minority groups

disproportionately affected by vaccinations. This request to preserve includes all such policy

and developmental documents addressing the health effects of vaccinations on racial and ethnic

minority groups disproportionately affected by vaccinations, including any COVID-19-related

vaccinations.

Since electronically stored information is easily corrupted, altered, and deleted in

normal daily operations, an important method for preserving data in its original state is to have

a forensic image (mirror image or clone image) made of pertinent hard drives of both office

and home computers used for business and of network servers. This image captures all current

data, including the background or metadata about each document. Simply copying data to a

CD-ROM or other common backup medium is not adequate. For each captured image file,

record and identify the person creating the image and the date of creation. Secure the file to

prevent subsequent alteration or corruption, and create a chain of custody log. Once the

forensic data image file is created, the pertinent computer or other device can be placed back

into operation.

This preservation notice covers the above items and information between the following

dates: January 1, 2020, to date, except as otherwise noted.

Again we remind you that to properly fulfill your preservation obligation, stop all

scheduled data destruction, electronic shredding, rotation of backup tapes, and the sale, gift, or

destruction of hardware. Notify all individuals and affiliated organizations of the need and

duty to take the necessary affirmative steps to comply with the duty to preserve evidence.

CONCLUSION

On May 25, 2021, the Chancellor of Virginia’s Community Colleges, Glenn Dubois,

issued a policy for those institutions:

After consulting with presidents and senior leaders across our 23 community

colleges, I believe it is in the best interests of our faculty, staff, and students to

encourage everyone to get their COVID-19 vaccine. However, we will not

require an individual be vaccinated to attend or to work at one of our

colleges. [“No Vaccine Mandate to Attend, Work at a Virginia Community

College Masks are Optional for Those Fully Vaccinated Against COVID-19,”

Virginia’s Community Colleges News (May 25, 2021) (emphasis added).] Page 19 of 22

Page 20 of 22

The Community College policy apparently was based in part on “lack of residence halls

on community college campuses” (id.), but there are great numbers of students at Virginia’s

four-year colleges which live off campus. There is no reason to believe that Chancellor

Dubois is less concerned about the health of his students than the four-year colleges requiring

vaccines.

On April 24, 2021, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (“AAPS”)

issued an Open Letter to Universities entitled “Allow Students Back Without COVID Vaccine

Mandate.” In this letter, which is attached as an appendix, Paul M. Kempen, M.D., Ph.D.,

AAPS President, offered 15 facts supporting the recommendation. The AAPS letter

concludes:

Please reverse your decision to mandate experimental COVID-19 vaccines

before more students are harmed and make the vaccines rightfully optional.

Both unvaccinated and vaccinated students should be permitted on campus.

[“Open Letter from Physicians to Universities: Allow Students Back Without

COVID Vaccine Mandate,” AAPS (Apr. 24, 2021) (emphasis added).]

On behalf of the organizations, students, and parents we are writing, we join AAPS’

request. Please reconsider and revoke your policy requiring COVID-19 vaccines of students

and staff.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Patrick M. McSweeney /s/ William J. Olson

Patrick M. McSweeney William J. Olson

McSweeney, Cynkar & Kachouroff, PLLC William J. Olson, P.C.

13649 Office Place, Suite 101 370 Maple Ave. W., Suite 4

Woodbridge, VA 22192 Vienna, VA 22180

Appendix: AAPS Open Letter Page 20 of 22

Page 21 of 22

Appendix — Page 1

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Open Letter from Physicians to Universities:

Allow Students Back Without COVID Vaccine Mandate

Dear Deans, Governing Boards and Trustees,

On behalf of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, I am writing to ask you to

reconsider your new policy mandating COVID-19 vaccination of students prior to returning to

campus.[i] Institutions of higher learning are divided on this issue.[ii] ,[iii] Although, at first

glance, the policy may seem prudent, it coerces students into bearing unneeded and unknown

risk and is at heart contrary to the bedrock medical principle of informed consent.

There are multiple reasons to reverse your policy. I ask you to consider the following:

1. Young adults are a healthy and immunologically competent and vibrant group that is at,

“extraordinary low risk for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.”[iv]

2. College and University students, however, are under significant mental health strain already

from COVID-19 fears, circumstances, distance learning problems and the imposition of

government health policy restrictions.[v]

3. Even though the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for three COVID-19

vaccines, they are not FDA approved to treat, cure or prevent any disease at this time.

Clinical trials will continue for at least two years before the FDA can even consider approval

of these vaccines as effective and safe.

4. The COVID-19 vaccines on the market in the U.S., mRNA (Moderna and Pfizer) and DNA

(Johnson & Johnson – Janssen), have caused notable side effects, pathology and even death

(4.178 deaths per VAERS as of May 5, 2021). These adverse reactions result in absence from

school and work, hospital visits, and even loss of life.[vi]

5. College-age women may be at unique risk for adverse events following administration of the

experimental COVID vaccinations currently available. According to the CDC, all cases of

life-threatening blood clots, subsequent to receiving the J&J vaccine, reported so far in the

United States, occurred in younger women.[vii] The vast majority of cases of anaphylaxis

have also occurred in women.[viii] In addition, “women are reporting having irregular

menstrual cycles after getting the coronavirus vaccine,”[ix] and 95 miscarriages have been

reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID

vaccination as of April 24, 2021.[x]

6. Recent research data demonstrates that the spike protein, present on the SARS-CoV-2 virus

and the induced primary mechanism of action of COVID-19 vaccines, are the primary cause of

disease, infirmity, hospitalization and death.[xi]

7. Students who have had self-limited cases of COVID-19 already possess antibodies,

activated B-cells, activated T-cells (detectable by lab testing). This durable, long-term

immunity would not only prevent them from getting recurrent COVID-19, but would also

represent herd immunity to protect others in the college or university community.[xii],[xiii]

8. COVID-19 convalescent students may be harmed by college and university policy requiring

COVID-19 vaccines.[xiv] They already have extensive immunity and would be likely harmed

from a forced confrontation with COVID-19 vaccine induced spike protein causing

autoimmune reactions leading to illness and possible death.[xv] Page 21 of 22

Page 22 of 22

Appendix — Page 2

9. Students and their families may justifiably believe these policies discriminate against

individuals who aren’t candidates for this vaccine, have pre-existing conditions, previous

COVID-19 disease, cite religious objections, or are otherwise exercising their freewill

choosing not to participate in this optional vaccine experiment. Refer to the Nuremberg code

from WWII, which requires individuals, “to be able to exercise free power of choice, without

the intervention of any element of force….”[xvi]

10. Institutional policies that permit faculty to choose or refuse vaccination, but do not allow

students the same options, raise equal protection constitutional issues.

11. The ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, requires “reasonable accommodations,” be

provided based on an individual’s own unique health situation. This includes rejection of an

experimental vaccine intervention which may exacerbate known health problems and thereby

cause harm.

12. Colleges and Universities should consider whether they might be liable for damages, poor

health outcomes, and loss of life due to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies.[xvii]

13. “Positive cases,” as defined by laboratory testing alone, may be false positive testing

errors or asymptomatic infection that is not clinically proven to spread disease.

14. Ambulatory outpatient early treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection / COVID-19 has been

demonstrated effective in adults.[xviii]

15. Informed consent is the standard for all medical interventions. The FDA factsheet for the

healthcare provider reads, “The recipient or their caregiver has the option to accept or refuse

(Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine.”

Please reverse your decision to mandate experimental COVID-19 vaccines before more

students are harmed and make the vaccines rightfully optional. Both unvaccinated and

vaccinated students should be permitted on campus. Thank you for your time and attention. We

would appreciate hearing back from you as soon as possible and welcome further discussion

with you and other leaders at your institution.

Sincerely,

Paul M. Kempen, M.D., Ph.D. – AAPS President (2021)

[Footnotes omitted.] Page 22 of 22

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Posted on June 21, 2021 by abyssum

Historian’s Corner: Assessing America in the Age of Woke Part Two

By: Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson // Private Papers

June 19, 2021

(emphasis added)

Hat Tip: Rip McIntosh

Culturally The Left has atomized traditionalist American culture. Campus curricula are designed to indoctrinate and graduate cultural Marxists. Society itself is already seeing the result in a general decline in services and professions as the academic quality of college graduates continues to erode. When we get official government notices, or talk to bureaucrats or read of public policy, we expect such communications to be incoherent rather than just weaponized, the work of high-schoolers not of college graduates. Twenty-something BA holders who are as arrogant as they are ignorant do not bode well for the country over the next 50 years.

In response, half the nation lives in a monastery of the mind—

turning off most network news and increasingly network entertainment,
ignoring professional sports,
avoiding going to the movies,
staying clear of college campuses,
relying on home-schooling, charter and parochial schools,
listening only to select podcasts,
shunning the major cities,
detouring around blue states and counties,
keeping quiet about politics,
increasingly arming,
moving to red counties and states,
not reading the major newspapers, and,
bonding with family and similarly minded friends.

We have not seen such hardening geographical separatism since the Civil War, and you readers understand the perilous implications for the nation better than I.
But note: few Leftists anymore are moving to New York, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, or Minneapolis. Many progressives are quietly riding out the insanity within their own ranks or thinking of moving to a place that will not implement their own crackpot theories. They know Leftism is a nice boutique distraction that can enhance restaurants and produce fine wines, funky small shops, and good bed-and-breakfast inns—as long as there are enough traditional adults (whom they will vote against) still to run the government. Heaven for a leftist is to reside in a leftwing community in a red state. Hell for a conservative is to be in a red county stuck in a blue state.
SociallyIn terms of race, a strange bifurcation is occurring.
Black, Latino, and Asian elites are increasingly becoming radicalized. And they are promoting issues that their own traditionalist constituencies do not necessarily support—from transgenderism and green mandates to critical race theory, reparations, open borders, radical abortion, and mandatory woke re-education training. For example, the Asian-American majority knows that when the elderly walk alone in a city like San Francisco or New York, the danger of an anti-Asian hate crime will more likely come from an African-American than a white male. And they know that their own loud, activist leadership, for purposes of its careers and psyches, will insist on just the opposite. Ditto the phenomenon with Jews being attacked not by “white anti-Semites” as they are lectured, but by Hamas supporters and largely those with Middle Eastern backgrounds.
Mexican-American of three generations in America know that open borders allow dangerous gang bangers into their communities, crowd out the advanced-placement curricula in their neighborhood schools, and make the use of swarmed government services far more difficult—even as their leaders, seeking a reenergized dependent immigrant constituencies, insist that border security is “racist.”
This class division among Democrats is growing. Mirabile dictu, it occurs even as the Republican Party is focusing on the working classes of all races. The result is that while Republicans are losing the corporate and intellectual “elite,” they are winning over a lot of working-class Democrats, Hispanics, and Asians, and achieving some small gains among blacks—all worried about energy costs, high taxes, crime, and borders. If these bipolar trends were to accelerate, the Democratic Party will continue to become the home of the very rich but culturally become estranged from half of minority America.
The unknowns are twofold:

will the Democrats reset and try to win back the working class, and,
will the Never Trump/Lincoln Project/Bulwark/McCain wing take back the Republican Party led by Ben Sasse and Mitt Romney types?

I don’t see either happening.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Posted on June 21, 2021 by abyssum

Add title

The Biden No-Go Zones: The Democratic Party won because of its long march through journalism, but this Pyrrhic victory has meant the destruction of every principle of journalistic integrity liberals ever claimed to champion.

By: Victor Davis Hanson

June 20, 2021

(emphasis added)

Hat Tip: Rip McIntosh

In American journalism, there are supposed to be some clear, nonnegotiable third-rails.
One is zero tolerance for overtly racist language and comportment among our movers and shakers. Reporters, for example, for four years damned Donald Trump for his neutralizing summation that there were both “fine people” and extremists mingled among the hordes of protestors during their occasionally violent encounters in Charlottesville, Virginia.
It mattered little to the media that Trump added qualifiers of “many” and “both” sides of the protests:
We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence, on many sides . . . And I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally—but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, OK?. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats—you had a lot of bad people in the other group, too.
Selected words from the above quote were recycled ad nauseam as proof Trump was a racist.
Another no-go zone is any hint of contextualizing sexual harassment or assault. No statute of limitations can provide exemption, much less a “she said/he said” defense in the age of “women must be believed.”
The Brett Kavanaugh circus of September 2018 was a reminder that a lack of evidence, credible witnesses, or basic logic is no defense against the 30-year-old charges of alleged teenage sexual misbehavior. Bill Clinton managed to use his progressive credentials as an insurance policy to avoid for months any condemnation that he was a callous womanizer, but finally the press corps found his exploitative appetites too egregious to ignore.
A third zero-tolerance zone is any hint of presidential debility. We were told in the dark days of 1973 that Nixon was non compos mentis, nursing his wounds with drink as his legendary constitution finally cracked under the pressure, making him supposedly unable physically to withstand the impending impeachment. Saturday Night Live made an industry out of Chevy Chase replaying Gerald Ford’s stumbles. Ronald Reagan was all but declared senile by the press for using index cards in some of his summits and speeches, or putting his hand to his ear and claiming he could not fathom reporters’ gottcha questions amid the din of swirling helicopter blades on the White House lawn.
Finally, lying, fibbing, and even presidential exaggeration are deemed intolerable—or so we are told by the media. It does not matter that the newsroom is currently one of the great purveyors of untruth, as we saw in the Russian collusion hoax, the dubious Wuhan wet-market narrative, or the yarn about the Lafayette Square militarization to green-light a Trump photo-op.
Reporters never let Richard Nixon live down his “tricky Dick” reputation for his purported bouts of misinformation. Lyndon Johnson’s lies about the supposed impending victory in Vietnam doomed him.
George H. W. Bush never got free of his “Read my lips: No new taxes” pledge. Bill Clinton was impeached because what he said about his sexual misadventures, sometimes under oath, could not be squared with the facts.
There is no need to rehash the media’s echo chamber of “Bush lied, people died” in connection with the flawed CIA intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. One reason why the media’s canonization of Barack Obama ultimately failed was the latter’s blatant lies. (Who can forget “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”?) The Washington Post and an epidemic of “fact-checkers” tallied up all of Trump’s exaggerations and contradictions to convince the public that he was an inveterate liar.
Americans may disagree with these journalistic rules, but to quote Hyman Roth about the state of our media, “This is the business we’ve chosen.”

Yet it is arguable that while no other president in modern memory has trespassed more egregiously on these no-go areas than Joe Biden, he has received no criticism for his transgressions.

Joe Biden (never mind his son, Hunter) has compiled the most glaring rap sheet of racist quotes of any current modern political leader. He characterized Barack Obama as the first “clean and articulate” black presidential candidate. He told a group of accomplished black professionals that Romney would put “y’all back in chains,” as if they were helpless laborers.
Biden’s rants about Indians and donut shops, the Corn Pop fables, his dismissals of black journalists with put-downs such as “you ain’t black” and invectives such as “junkie” would have disqualified any other candidate. His earlier treatment of Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court nomination confirmation hearing, his idolization of fossilized racist kingpins in the Senate, his rhetoric on busing and black career criminals, were all couched in racial condescension.
At a time when the current incarnation of Biden is siccing the federal government—and the Pentagon in particular—on a mythical, nationwide white supremacist conspiracy, the president’s own son is revealed to have habitually used the N-word and emulated what he thought was a backward black patois. Was Joe warning America about Hunter, when he charged that white supremacy reigned and must be dethroned?
While Joe Biden is also pointing fingers at white America with despicable false accusations of anti-Asian hate crimes (in truth, these attacks disproportionately are committed by black males), the press is quiet about Hunter Biden’s exchanges with his cousin Caroline Biden over set-up “dates.” In one, Caroline warns Hunter “I can’t give you f—ing Asian sorry. I’m not doing it.” Hunter trumps her racist slurs with his own agreement: “No yellow.” That story was buried by mainstream journalists who have long ago fused with the progressive cause.
As a senator, vice president, and presidential candidate Joe Biden was often caught—and occasionally even apologized for—habitually touching, smooching, squeezing, hugging, and breathing on women, some of them preteens, in a manner that can only be called creepy, with all of the females recoiling at his advances. When the intrusions became too great to ignore, the would-be president said only he would be “mindful” of invading the private space of women.
Tara Reade, a former assistant in Senator Biden’s office, replayed the role of Christine Blasey Ford with charges of sexual assault—but with far greater credibility and detail (“There was no exchange, really, he just had me up against the wall . . . I remember it happened all at once . . . his hands were on me and underneath my clothes.”). Reade provided corroborating evidence, and explicit details of assault, yet the same journalists and politicians—again so often joined at the hip—who had sought to destroy Brett Kavanaugh gave Biden a pass, absurdly citing the statute of limitations, and even questioning the sanity and stability of Reade herself.
As far as presidential health goes, even Donald Trump’s enemies have remarked on his almost unnatural stamina and energy, characterized by 20-hour workdays and near inexplicable rapid recovery from COVID-19. No matter. By mid-2017 there was a nonstop journalist mantra that Trump was “crazy” and “unhinged,” and too “sick” to remain president. The clamor continued until Trump himself took the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and aced the exam’s questions. A Yale psychiatrist achieved mini-celebrity status by unprofessionally diagnosing Trump in absentia as mentally challenged and in need of a forced intervention—unhinged charges that nonetheless enhanced reporters’ frenzied calls for the invocation of the 25th Amendment.
Contrast this with Joe Biden. He has trouble walking up the steps of the Air Force One. He forgets names and events. His days are short and his attention span shorter, his press conferences rare—and scripted. At the recent G-7 summit he displayed a mishmash of bizarre interruptions, “get off my lawn” temper tantrums at reporters, slurred words, incomplete thoughts and sentences, cognitive freezes, and general fragilities. His own administration, or more likely those around Vice President Kamala Harris, habitually leak to their lackeys in the media portentous “worries” that Biden’s infirmities are such that they can longer be successfully hidden. And yet the ruse continues.
Finally, Biden says things that are just flat-out lies. He declared that no Americans had been vaccinated until he took office, despite a presidential photo-op of him greeting the vaccination on December 21, 2020, and the fact 1 million people had been vaccinated by the day he took office, including him.
At the G-7 meeting, Biden offered his most egregious untruth—that Trump supporters had killed officer Brian Sicknick—although the autopsy report, now several weeks old, found Sicknick had died of natural causes a day after the riot.
While the border is wide open, Biden ignores the chaos and asserts the border is secure and closed.
Hunter Biden’s laptop, Joe insists, was a result of “Russian disinformation.”
Almost everything Biden has said on illegal immigration, the effects of his proposed tax hikes, and the January 6 Capitol assault is untrue.
Reporters ignore the mounting lies, ironically winking and in acknowledgment that most are the result of Biden’s own cognitive deterioration—as if it is more reassuring that a president does not know what he is saying rather than is saying something untrue.
How can we explain this utter dereliction of American journalism?
The media was always left-leaning. But after 2016, it openly announced that it could no longer remain unbiased given the existential threats supposedly posed by President Trump. CNN transmogrified from a leftist airport news aggregator into a purveyor of whoppers, open threats against the president, and outright obscenities.
Remember the blasé reporting about presidential decapitation and poisoning? On-air discussion of defecation? The forced retractions of fake news? The retirements and firings for fabricating stories? All that characterized CNN after 2015.
But aside from Trump, another reason why journalism died was the rise of Silicon Valley and related left-wing billionaires, enriched from monopolies of social media and Internet communications, buying up media companies.
Abetted by the subversion of higher education that turned journalism schools into ideological factories, the tech oligarchs made war on the First Amendment, which they hate almost as much as the Second. Reporters were rewarded handsomely for upholding woke orthodoxy, knowing that while an accurate story offering a positive view of a conservative could stall a career, any inaccurate negative take on conservatism was likely to be job enhancing.
Finally, there is no longer a Democratic Party—at least not of the kind that Joe Manchin and earlier incarnations of Joe Biden and Bill Clinton used to represent. The Left talks of Representative Liz Cheney’s (R-Wyo.) psychodramas and fissures in the Republican Party, but only because civil war for control of the Democratic Party is long over, and was won by the hardcore neosocialist left. Now it is only a matter of mopping up stragglers and relics.
Translated into presidential coverage, reporters know that any tough question or honest reporting on Joe Biden will not be praised for disinterested journalism or personal courage, but damned as apostasy and disloyalty. In truth, Democratic politicians treat the media now as if they were obedient poodles. They consider any who timidly bark when not so instructed to be in need of neutering.
The final ironies? The Democratic Party won the long march through journalism, but this Pyrrhic victory has meant the destruction of every principle of journalistic integrity liberals ever claimed to champion.
Now, its most progressive leaders—Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi—have grown so accustomed to fawning Soviet-style reportage that they no longer have the ability to answer any real journalist’s questions.
Stranger still, the beneficiaries of media obsequiousness have nothing but contempt for the helots who now serve them. Remember Ben Rhodes’ haughty putdown of slavish journalists who “know nothing” and were unknowingly drowning in the swampy echo chambers he had so cynically created?
Once politicians lose all fear of the press, they will say and do anything in their hubris, as we now see with the completely unmoored Joe Biden. And having lost not just the respect of the public but also the regard of the very progressives they idolize, America’s journalists are routinely slapped down as the fawning toadies they have become.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Posted on June 21, 2021 by abyssum

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Do “‘Conspiracy’ Thinking” Francis & his Inner Circle have Paranoia?

June 20, 2021

The paranoid user's guide to Windows 10 privacy | Computerworld

Francis and his inner circle appear to have symptoms of paranoia. Cardinal Gerhard Mueller in a 2017 interview revealed that Francis told him:

“They tell me you’re my enemy.”

Muller in the interview said the “magic circle” around Francis does “spying on alleged opponents” and tells him who are his friends or enemies.

It seems that Francis may be overly attached and surrounded by certain persons with unhealthy thought processes and strange conspiracy ideas.

The Vatican Insider usually a solid news source which has access to ranking Vatican insiders close to the Francis on October 19, 2016 wrote a tabloid like paranoid article.

It slandered anyone remotely criticizing the questionable prudential actions and non- infallible teachings of Francis.

The Insider claimed that those who question Francis are in a global conspiracy with Russian strongman Putin against the him.

Phil Lawler and his CatholicCulture.org which defends many of Francis’s teachings and even the Argentine norm of Amoris Laetitia when commenting on this article said:

It is “likely…people surrounding Pope Francis” have a “paranoid style” and have fallen into ‘conspiracy’ thinking that “see enemies wherever there is resistance to their agenda.” [https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1367]

Francis like those who surround him appears to have fallen into paranoid and conspiracy thought processes as shown by his thinking the wishy-washy Muller is his “enemy.”

This is the namby-pamby Muller who while working in the Vatican attacked the Dubia Cardinals to the “bewilderment” of his staff at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith because he contradicted “everything he said… on the matter until now” according to Vatican expert Edward Pentin. (National Catholic Register, “Cardinal Muller TV Interview Causes Bewilderment,” January 9, 2017)

If Francis thinks the indecisive Muller is his “enemy,” who endorsed Amoris Laetitia and before said the divorce and remarried can’t receive Communion unless chaste, then it appears that the he may have dementia.

Alzheimer experts say a symptom of dementia can be paranoia.

The Alzheimer’s Foundation of America says individuals “with dementia may become paranoid.”

The Every Day Health post “The Seven Stages of Dementia- Alzheimer’s Disease Center” says a sign of severe dementia is:

“Changes in personality or behavior, such as increased paranoia.” (Everydayhealth.com, By Madeline Vann, MPH)

Wikipedia says paranoia “is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety and fear…typically includes…beliefs of conspiracy.”

Even EWTN commentator Robert Royal of The Catholic Thing said in the 2014 article “Pope Francis Needs New Friends” that Francis appears to be surrounded by certain persons with strange non-rational conspiracy ideas:

“He’s clearly in a bubble” with Cardinals like the German Kasper who wants “God to repeal the Laws of Non-contradiction” and radicals like the Honduran Maraiaga who were leading Francis to “connect…global poverty-with a kind of conspiracy theory about arms sales and war is simply bizarre.”

Francis Notes:

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

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

Election Notes:

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Bishop James T. McHugh – The Forgotten Man in the McCarrick Equation – Part 4

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Are Francis and Bp. Barron Arian Heretics & Practical Atheists?

“It is unfortunate that after so many years that the few ‘resistance’ prelates there seemingly are haven’t by now developed a morecoordinated strategy, message, and response to what is going on in the Church and the hierarchy.”

Joe Biden Defies Bishops, Attends Mass Two Days After They Vote for New Communion Document

Joe Biden Defies Bishops, Attends Mass Two Days After They Vote for New Communion Document

Page 1 of 22

Page 2 of 22

Page 3 of 22

Page 4 of 22

Page 5 of 22

Page 6 of 22

Page 7 of 22

Page 8 of 22

Page 9 of 22

Page 10 of 22

Page 11 of 22

Page 12 of 22

Page 13 of 22

Page 14 of 22

Page 15 of 22

Page 16 of 22

Page 17 of 22

Page 18 of 22

Page 19 of 22

Page 20 of 22

Page 21 of 22

Page 22 of 22

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Do “‘Conspiracy’ Thinking” Francis & his Inner Circle have Paranoia?

Follow Blog via Email

Archives

Recent Posts

Top Posts & Pages

Top Clicks