Catholic Monitor

Wednesday, April 29, 2020

Fatima, the Sacred Heart, Hell & Virus Trads

This post is written with the hope that Catholic Monitor readers will this first Friday make reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Immaculate Heart of Mary and for the conservation of sinners as Our Lady of Fatima asked for.

I intend to offer reparation by following the fasting rules of Good Friday on May 1, the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker especially because many graces are needed at this critical moment in history because of the Satanic coronavirus hysteria tyranny.

Tradition in Action explains that Jesus is merciful, but also because of original sin and when after baptism we sin which is an infinite crime He had to redeemed us by his infinite sacrifice on Good Friday. However, He requires that we in grace unite to His Redemption by doing penance and reparation for forgiveness of our sins and implicitly for others: 

“In the images of the Sacred Heart, He points to this symbolic font of love and mercy for us. The devotions to the Sacred Heart always suppose reparation for our sins. We are sinners, we must make reparation. Despite the promises from Our Lord and the fact that He paid an infinite price for our Redemption, we must make reparation. We should always do penance for our sins and make various kinds of reparation.” 

“… the error of the [extreme Francis] Divine Mercy devotion. It preaches that we can expect an unconditional mercy with no price to be paid whatsoever, with no obligations whatsoever. This is not the message of Christ.”

“Christ is merciful. Time and time again, His mercy pardons our repeated sins in the Sacrament of Penance, always taking us back no matter how bad our sins are. And what happens in the Sacrament of Penance? The very name of the Sacrament tells us exactly what happens: to be effective the Sacrament supposes penance. Not only are you there at the Sacrament recognizing your full submission to the Church and your dependence on the Sacraments for forgiveness, but you walk out of the confessional with an imposed penance.”
[https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm] 

Also, Fatima’s Sister Lucia said that Our Lady asked for sacrifices and rosaries to obtain the graces so sinners will not go to Hell, but also for reparation because of sins against God and the Mother of God: 

“Sacrifice yourself for sinners and say many times especially whenever you make such a sacrifice: ‘O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversions of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”

Sister Lucia told Father Lombardi, according to Vatican’s Osservatore della Domenica on February 7, 1954, the following about why there is a need for sacrifices and prayers for sinners so they can be saved from Hell.

Fr. Lombardi: “Tell me is the Better World Movement a response of the Church to the words spoken to Our Lady?”

Lucia: “Father there is certainly a great need for this renewal. If it is not done, and taking into account the present development of humanity, only a limited number of the human race will be saved.”

Fr. Lombardi: “Do you really believe that many will go to Hell? I hope that God will save the greater part of humanity.” [He had just written a book entitled: Salvation for those without faith.]

Lucia: “Father, many will be lost.”

Fr. Lombardi: “It is true that the world is full of evil, but there is always a hope of salvation.”

Lucia: “No Father, many will be lost.”
(Fatima, The Great Sign by Francis Johnston, Tan Publishers, Inc. Rockford, Illinois, Page 36)

The devotions of Our Lady of Fatima and the Sacred Heart of Jesus are both about reparation because mankind has free will that by grace can cooperate with God for our redemption and others.

The heresies that denied free will were Protestantism and Jansenism which was a Catholicized Protestantism.

Might banning the Mass because of the supposed Black Plague coronavirus promoter Virus Trad Steve Skojec as well as Tim Gordon and his brother Dave be infected with the heresy of Jansenism?

This heresy like Protestantism and the Modernism of the Nouvelle theologie school, that dominated the proceedings of Vatican II, claimed to be returning to the “early Church” practices.

Jansenism emphasized pessimism due to original sin and predestination as did Calvinism and Lutheranism with the denial of free will.

One of the main tenets of Jansenism was that Holy Communion shouldn’t be received frequently. In the early twentieth century, Pope Pius X, the hammer of Modernist heretics, condemned this tenet and endorsed frequent Communion.

It appears that Skojec and the Gordon brothers agree with the Jansenist heretics and oppose Pius X’s endorsement of frequent Communion.

In a podcast of Rules for Retrograde, Dave (although it might have been Tim because their voices are similar), in a conversion about the “early Church” and why apparently because of original sin infrequent Communion was seemingly good for the reason of the veneration  due to the Eucharist, said:

“The frequent reception of the Eucharist, as Steve [Skojec] I think was speaking about in the Mike Church Show, the frequent reception of the Eucharist is a really relatively new thing.”
(Rules for Retrograde (Tim Gordon & Dave Gordon), R4R#43: Coronavirus & Catholicism w/ Steve Skojec,” March 20, 2020, 18:00-18:11)

Theologian Jessica Murdoch of Villanova University quotes Pope Pius X saying this type of thinking is Jansenistic:

“‘[T]he poison of Jansenism, which had infected… under the appearance of honor and veneration due to the Eucharist, has by no means entirely disappeared’… this same pontiff declared: ‘Let frequent and daily communion… be available to all Christians… it is enough, nevertheless, that they be free from mortal sins, with the resolution that they never sin in the future.'”
(First Things, “A Pessimism that would Canonize All'”  February 21, 2017)

Jansenist’s pessimism led them to say that Holy Communion shouldn’t be received frequently because they thought like Luther that man had no free will to cooperate with God’s grace to overcome mortal sin and make a “resolution that they never sin in the future.”

Apparently, Francis by his Lutheran denial of free will affirms the Protestant-like heresy Jansenism which denied love for “love under compulsion is hardly love.”  It appears that Francis “removes the very essence of love—freedom.” 

Murdoch, a associate professor of fundamental and dogmatic theology, explains:

“Thus the Jansenists reduced morality to meaninglessness. There is no hope here—one inescapably acts according to a delectation that does not in any way correspond to one’s free will. Both merit and damnation are possible without true freedom.”

“By rendering the will passive, Jansenius removes the very essence of love—freedom.For love under compulsion is hardly love. In the view of Jansenius, our storm-tossed souls merely crest and fall with no possibility of self-control. The upshot: Sin is ultimately God’s fault, rather than ours, because God could place the irresistible love of virtue in our souls, yet chooses not to.”

“… But [Francis’s Amoris Laetitia Lutheran and Jansenist] moral and anthropological pessimismdo not do justice to God’s mercy.For God’s superabundant mercy extends to redemption in Christ, who takes on our very nature in the hypostatic union and truly sanctifies our nature interiorly. By sanctifying us in a startlingly intimate way, the merciful God creates love in us—makes us lovable, draws our hearts into his own, and makes us fully free and capable of living the Christian life with vigor and joy. The moral norms of the Church are grounded, therefore, in what we might call a supernatural realism. Contrary to the sentiments of our age, realism is not found in an anthropological pessimism that settles for the ‘grey’ of continually ‘missing the mark’ and denies God’s transformative love. Rather, through faith we know that God’s grace makes us capable of virtue, even at times heroic virtue, as we see in the lives of the saints, who we might say are the most real among us.”

“We are, indeed, plagued by a new sort of Jansenism, one rooted in presumption rather than despair. The ‘old’ Jansenism arose from both anthropological and theological despair—the Catholic absorption of total depravity, and the loss of hope in the possibility of salvation.Ironically, those who criticize the four cardinals—and anyone who believes that Amoris Laetitia is in need of clarification—often fall into a new form of Jansenism.This ‘new’ Jansenism is marked by a similar pessimism with respect to human nature—total depravity under a new name, whether ‘weakness’ or ‘woundedness’ or ‘greyness.’ And like what preceded it, the new Jansenism articulates a loss of hope in the power of grace to regenerate the soul. The difference is that the new Jansenism tends towards presumption.Whereas the Jansenism of old despaired that anyone could really be loved by God, be good enough to receive Holy Communion, or be saved, its newer version has so little faith in the power of God to change hearts that it presumes God does not care for something so insignificant as the human heart. No, God is too busy to care about my paltry sins. None are loved personally as they are, but rather all are loved in a great, amorphous mass of humanity that could not but be saved. One need not be in a state of grace to receive Holy Eucharist, because the state of grace is not a real possibility for most people.”

“At first blush, the new Jansenism sounds encouraging—none are guilty, all are saved! In truth, however, a pessimism that would canonize all is only a shade less pessimistic than one that would condemn all to hell. As St. Thomas notes, both despair and presumption are sins against hope.”
[https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/02/the-new-jansenism]

Is it possible the Jansenistic pessimism against receiving Holy Communion frequently has infected Skojec and the Gordon brothers? 
Remember that Murdoch wrote the above that she thought that the Francis document “Amoris Laetitia… often fall[s] into a new form of Jansenism”:

“At first blush, the new Jansenism sounds encouraging – none are guilty, all are saved! In truth, however, a new pessimism that would canonize all is only a shade less pessimistic than one that would condemn all to hell. As, St. Thomas noted, both despair and presumption are sins against hope.”

Theologian Dr. Lawrence Feingold explains the Lutheran sin against the theological virtue of Hope which is presumption:

“[T]he original doctrine of Luther presumed to be certain of salvation without the necessity of contrition.”
(Course Notes for Fundamental Moral Theology, December 2009, Page 160)

Why is Hope called a theological virtue?

“Hope is termed a theological virtue because its immediate object is God.”
(Catholic Encyclopedia: New Advent, “Hope”)

It may be that for Francis, Skojec and the Gordon brothers in their obsession with the coronavirus that their “immediate object is [not] God,” but their “immediate object is” fear of death” since all of them apparently think the new virus is supposedly the new Black Plague.

As St. Athanasius said the real “disciple of Christ despise death… instead of fearing it.”

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Pray an Our Father now to offer reparation for the offenses against the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Immaculate Heart of Mary and for the conversion of sinnners.

After the Force Majeure

Michael Pakaluk

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2020

In the 2014 Swedish film, Force Majeure, a violent avalanche just about reaches and almost engulfs a family enjoying lunch on the deck of a ski resort in the French Alps.  The film’s director, Ruben Östlund, had formerly made ski films.  As you would expect, both the scenery and the setting, the resort of Les Arcs near Mont Blanc, are stunningly beautiful. In fact, much of the film’s power comes from the contrast it draws between the glorious beauty of nature and luxurious ski vacation, and the poverty of the life of the family it scrutinizes.

It’s the near miss with the avalanche that begins to reveal that poverty to them – not the avalanche itself, but the father’s reaction to it. As the clouds of the avalanche swallow up the family on the deck, the father gets up and runs for his own safety, leaving them behind. This subjective response, his selfishness and cowardice, becomes far more important than the objective threat. The wife thinks his character was revealed by his abandonment: his past obsession with work was never really “for them” after all. He thinks his actions were excused. All bets are off when an avalanche comes, he argues. When pressed, he even denies what he did: it’s just his wife’s perception, he says. One cannot speak of truth in such things.

When I think of the goods that will come out of the COVID virus, I believe that among the most important will be the revelation of character in our reactions to it, the subjective not the objective side of the pandemic. We will reach conclusions about both persons (friends “I never knew were like that”) and public agents. And as in the movie, there will no shared consensus: the sorting out will be seen and accepted only by some.  The revelation of who sees things in the same way will be important. There will even be disputes about whether long-lasting conclusions should be drawn.

I am convinced these personal realignments about character and judgment will be most important. Yet you can find other, more visible goods, of interest to Catholics. None is determined, of course, but dependent on free will and grace. I’ll state them under the following headings:

1. Homeschooling. Many parents under lockdown are discovering three things: first, children in public schools are shockingly ill-educated and have no good habits of study; second, their jobs are such that one parent at least can work from home, which makes homeschooling possible; and, third, homeschooling is actually pretty good. In fact, if planned, homeschooling is excellent – as even the schools now implicitly admit, since they concede that what they were doing can be carried out from home.

2. Disruption of higher education. The core of higher education is students with books, in a library most of the time, and sometimes with a professor, in a seminar room, classroom, or laboratory. It turns out that when students “migrate” from on-campus to online study, this core is the best preserved, while many other things must be jettisoned: athletics, extracurriculars, social gatherings, and everything else modern university bureaucracies cater to. It also turns out that the most studious students are those who least miss what was jettisoned.  Universities and colleges are generally not refunding tuitions from the online migration; therefore, they have conceded that this “core” provides the essential value of a college education. This core has been conferred equal standing and comparable prestige. Therefore, look for this core to be offered on its own in the future – and accepted by serious students and their parents.

3. Consumption. Many Catholics I know are admitting now that Pope Francis was wise in Laudato Si when he attacked the mania of consumption, along with the churning and incessant demands for growth that mark the modern global economy. The distinctions we have had to draw between “essential” and “non-essential work” – however crude – at least invite us to reset, simplify, exercise thrift, and save.

4. Work. At the same time, it’s likely all Catholics in the coming months will come to appreciate sharply the Church’s teaching in Centesimus Annus that to create wealth and jobs is a good service to others; if done with the right intention, it is an expression of charity.

5. The role of the laity.  Perhaps you’ve noticed that bishops, of themselves, have made no significant contribution to public discussions of Corona virus policy. Generally, they have deferred to civil authorities and public health experts. “But it’s for bishops to set down the general principles,” you might say by way of explication, “and for the laity to work through the problematic questions in how to apply them.” I don’t disagree, but would merely point out that ordinary questions of the economy are far more complex than finding the appropriate pandemic policy, and bishops have even less immediate expertise over them.  So, just perhaps, the right model of the role of the laity, envisioned by Vatican II, has now opened up. At the same time, many Catholics are recognizing that, without a life of prayer, devotion, and catechesis in their personal life and families, the institutional Church is like a flame that never ignites anything.  Maybe the necessary role of the “domestic church” has also now opened up with great clarity.

6. Pro-life. The evil of the Communist regime in China ought to have been apparent already (watch One Child Nation, if it’s not clear to you); many Americans have at last attained a welcome clarity here. And we can thank our governors for providing a clear example of how executives ought to act to protect human life: anything short of an executive order shutting down abortion clinics is simply not serious enough.

God sends us tribulations in part to chasten us.  These remarks are meant to be a start. Let’s draw out as much good as we can from this trial, and persevere in it.  History shows us there can be much worse.

*Image: The Village Fair by Gillis Mostaert, 1590 [Gemäldegalerie, Berlin]

© 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

• About the Author
• Latest Articles

Michael Pakaluk

Michael Pakaluk, an Aristotle scholar and Ordinarius of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is a professor in the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America. He lives in Hyattsville, MD with his wife Catherine, also a professor at the Busch School, and their eight children. His latest book, on the Gospel of Mark, The Memoirs of St Peter, is now available from Regnery Gateway. He is currently at work on a new book on Mary’s voice in the gospel of John.

NEWS

DR. RASHID BUTTAR: THE COVID-19 FARCE EXPOSED, VACCINES, 5G & BILL GATES

APRIL 28, 2020FROM ROME EDITOR5 COMMENTS

Dr. Buttar speaks with Brian Rose of LontonReal.TV.

Dr. Buttar is a Muslim and libertarian who exposes from beginning to end the Corona Stunt, the Corona Control, the Corona Hype, showing all the lies which underpin the narrative control of the Main Stream Media. Says ID2020 is the Mark of the Beast.

This is a must view for the information it contains. It exposes the COVID-19 plot to enslave and genocide humanity.

Gather your whole family and watch this.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR VIEWING THE INTERVIEW: To view it, click the image above and then when the page loads completely, sign up with an email, and then wait an the video image will replace the Interview #1 placer, which you see at the beginning when the page loads.

You can access the 5 part documentary which Dr. Buttar produced, and which was taken off YouTube, via his website

Ask Dr. Buttar

• Canada
• World
• All today’s opinion
• Last 10 days

• Subscribe
• Donate

•  Search

USA NEWS

Virginia governor sued for targeting Christians during coronavirus panic

Gov. Ralph Northam is charged with criminalizing religious worship, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly defended.Mon Apr 27, 2020 – 9:03 pm EST

By Liberty Counsel

---

• Share on Facebook1.9k
• Share on Twitter
• 18
• Share via Email
• Print this Page

RICHMOND, Virginia, April 27, 2020 (Liberty Counsel) — Pastor Kevin Wilson and Lighthouse Fellowship Church on Chincoteague Island filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Ralph Northam for violating their religious freedom by targeting churchgoers on Palm Sunday. Liberty Counsel represents the pastor and church and filed the lawsuit Friday in federal court. 

Police served a summons to Pastor Wilson for holding a church service for 16 people spaced far apart in a sanctuary that is rated for 293 people. The charge is violating Virginia Governor Northam’s COVID Order 55 with a penalty up to a year in jail and/or a $2,500 fine. 

On April 5, before the service on Palm Sunday, a local police officer entered the church. He gave no introduction and did not ask for the pastor. He abruptly said they could not have more than 10 people spaced six feet apart. Then, after the service, two police officers entered the church in full mask and gloves and asked to speak with the pastor. They issued him a summons and informed him that if he had service on Easter, all attending would get the same summons.    

Lighthouse Fellowship Church helps keep people free of drug addiction, brokenness, mental illness, poverty, and prostitution. The church, which does not have internet, provides physical, emotional and spiritual services to the community. Many of the members do not have driver’s licenses and are dependent on the church family for rides to get food, supplies, and go to medical appointments and personal care services like haircuts. Many attendees are on limited income obtained from government assistance — whether disability or social security, Medicare or Medicaid and the church has helped various members with electric or gas bills, rent, groceries, and physical labor. The church also offers a blanket ministry, prayer ministry, discipleship programs, and counseling services.  

Last Thursday, the parking lots of multiple commercial establishments were filled with hundreds of cars. Yet, Gov. Northam criminalizes religious worship that exceeds 10 people. 

The Supreme Court has unequivocally stated, “[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943) (emphasis added). The Commonwealth of Virginia does not have the authority to dictate the manner or form of worship, whether that be online or a 10-person limit. SUBSCRIBEto LifeSite’s daily headlinesSUBSCRIBEU.S. Canada World Catholic

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Governor Ralph Northam has clearly discriminated against Lighthouse Fellowship Church which provides essential physical, emotional and spiritual services to the community. This church does not have internet and cannot flip a switch to broadcast online. Even if it could go online, many of the people the church serves do not have internet. Pastor Wilson protected the health and safety of the 16 people that attended on Palm Sunday by requiring them to be spread far apart in the sanctuary. But because the church had six more people than the 10 allowed by the governor, the pastor is being criminally charged. We must balance the First Amendment with protecting the health and welfare of people but picking an arbitrary number of 10 people for every church is not the answer,” said Staver. 

Liberty Counsel is a nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics. Liberty Counsel provides broadcast quality TV interviews via Hi-Def Skype and LTN at no cost.

\Published with permission from Liberty Counsel.

                                                   We Have Not been Paying Sufficient Attention .

     On 19 March 2013 Jorge Bergoglio , elected on 13 March with the papal name Francis, presided at a Mass where he received the Pallium  and bestowal of the Fisherman’s Ring to mark the beginning of the Petrine Ministry of the Bishop of Rome . 

Before we turn to the address he delivered on that occasion [ our text is a Vatican edition in English of what one supposes to have been an Italian original ] we must enter an interpolation of the first magnitude . There is no Petrine Ministry of the Bishop of Rome . If there were the Petrine Ministry would have a geographical basis which neither is nor can be the case . In simple terms Peter is Bishop of Rome on account of his ministry there  and martyrdom, and his successors continue to be Bishops of Rome out of reverence for the saint; and indeed on account of  simplicity of access to a physical governmental base, but the Bishop of Rome is not Peter .

If he were his election by the Cardinal Electors would make him so . That election  neither does effect nor can effect the reception of a Petrine Persona which Christ alone has power and authority to confer . The Cardinals neither have nor conceivably could have power that is necessarily divine . The most recent canonical statement of Christ’s direct appointment of the elect of Rome as Peter was made By John Paul 11 in his Apostolic Constitution [ the present equivalent of a papal bull ] Universi Dominici Gregis , 1996 ,where he epitomizes the conferment of Peter’s office as being effected ‘’per immissionem divinam ‘’. The first pope to govern as Vicar of Christ , Innocent 111 [ 1198-1216 ] could not have been more lucid as to the universality of Petrine authority and its non-geographical basis : –

         —–etiam expresse notatur , quod Petro non specialiter aliqua specialis ecclesia , sed totus mundus commissus fuerit et Ecclesia generalis . [Reg.V11,1. ]

As has been said the Bishop of Rome is not Peter . In accepting the Divine Will that he be Peter the new Summus Pontifex , with universal power in se , also accepts his election to the See of Rome but if the acquisition of universal authority could spring  [an impossibility as has been seen] from election to the Roman See  there would be no reason to postulate divine power as the source of  Petrine Authority . If Petrine Authority does not proceed directly from Christ then by sleight of hand –the Roman -Petrine contention is false—the so-called pope acquires universal authority without the constraints of  the pre-set agenda of a Deposit of Faith divinely predetermined . The pope , alias Bishop of Rome , acquires a free hand to remould the Catholic Church in his own image and likeness 

 Had Jorge Bergoglio  intended to show obedience to the sacred canons , the duty of every pope until such time as , with the Divine Assistance ,  he perceive a better solution   than the canons  currently provide [ Pope Benedict XV1 , for example , in his modifications of 2005 ?7 to the voting procedures of Universi dominici gregis restored the 1179 ruling of Alexander 111 that a majority of two thirds and one was decisive ] he would have observed the canonical , and indeed theological truth , that he became Peter by Christ’s authority at the moment he gave assent to the Papal Camerlengo’s question ‘’ Acceptasne officium Summi Pontificis ?’’  In the implementing of a commission the operative divine word is ‘’now’’. Christ employed the present tense at Caesarea Philippi [ Matth. 16:18 ] to make Simon the Rock  as  he had promised in their first encounter in Transjordan [ John 1:42 ] and although the great authority he also conferred would be operative in the future it was  in  Petro

 from the moment that Simon  was invested with a   governmental and legal persona boundless in power to safeguard and to disseminate  the Deposit of Faith.  From the time , the day after his election in fact , that Innocent 111 revealed  His having received the papacy directly from Christ [ Reg. 1 , 1 ] until 19 March 2013 it has been the unshaken teaching of the Church that he is pope who having been canonically elected Bishop of  Rome  is made Peter and therefore  Summus Pontifex by Christ . Assent to what Christ has conferred commits the Roman elect to what may be called Petrinity all day every day until his death . Peter does not have off piste moments , his path and the essence of every word he speaks or writes are epitomized for him in the Lucan Commission [ 22: 32 ] to be unfailing in the Faith  , and to confirm his brethren in the same , that is the Faith Christ revealed and brought to its consummation on Calvary , a Faith whose primary values are spiritual because God is spirit and is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth [ John 4 : 24 ]so that his gift of eternal life ,  in and through Christ ,  may be granted . The life of Faith that is of obedience to God in observance of his commands and fidelity to the New Life of the Gospel does not include ascribing a Petrine Ministry to the Bishop of Rome  so that the said bishop may wholly reconstruct the agenda of the Church .   Annuario    L’innizzio solenne del Suoministerio di Pastore Universale della Chiesa  ie 19 March 2013 not 13 , the day on which he became Summus Pontifex.    Pastore Universale  Universal Bishop ie of Rome . There is one or more modern theologian , name unknown to me , who has taught Pope is universal Bishop  , not Vicarius Christi  [ I know because the previous Bishop of this diocese ‘’ learned ‘’ from him or them . So it seems has Bergoglio .

MAIRE WILKINSOJ

Easter Reluctance

Fr. Paul D. Scalia

SUNDAY, APRIL 26, 2020

Our Lord’s disciples have a curious reaction to His resurrection. It is a combination of hurry and hesitation, of racing and reluctance. The women go from the tomb quickly…fearful yet overjoyed. Something about their response is both swift and hesitant. Likewise, with Peter and John. They run to see the empty tomb, but still with some hesitancy. The passage ends with the curious statement that they did not yet understand the Scripture that he had to rise from the dead. As if they were still holding something back.

In today’s Gospel, our Lord rebukes the disciples on the road to Emmaus for being slow of heart to believe. When He appears later in the Upper Room, He again rebukes them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed. Even many weeks after, at His Ascension, when the disciples saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.

For some reason, the disciples were slow to entrust themselves to the Resurrection. They saw the risen Lord in His human body – and yet held back the giving of their hearts and minds to this new reality. Why?

Well, their slowness to believe tells us something not so much about the disciples in particular but about the human heart in general. So, we should have a certain sympathy for them. We too believe and rejoice in our Lord’s resurrection and yet are reluctant to trust completely in it.  In effect, we hesitate to entrust ourselves entirely to Him.

Two things about the human heart lead to this reluctance. The first is control. We like to determine our lives – what we think and say and do. We like our planned communities and planned families.

But the risen Christ is not under our control. In the resurrection accounts, He appears where and when He wills. He comes and goes suddenly, unbidden, and unexpected. He draws close to the disciples on the road unrecognized and then just as suddenly disappears from the table. He appears suddenly and unexpected in the Upper Room, etc.

He is not like the pagan gods that people kept in a temple or on a shelf at home. Even Mary Magdalene, one of His most devoted followers, had to learn this. Stop holding on to me, He says to her at the tomb, because she is trying to detain Him, to have Him on her own terms. The risen Christ is beyond human control.

Easter is not like Christmas. We can come and adore the baby in the manger as we wish. He’s not going anywhere. The risen Christ is, in a certain sense, untamed and dangerous. He might enter our lives and upset everything.

We try to prevent this by domesticating the whole event. It’s reduced to butterflies, pastels, and the Easter Bunny – or sophisticated theories that what really happened on Easter morning is that He rose. . . in the memories of His disciples…

So, one criterion for experiencing Easter joy is the surrender of control to Him. Only when we allow Him – unpredictable as He is – to fashion our thoughts, words, and actions will we be able to know fully Easter joy. If we do not, we will know not the risen Christ but only a caricature.

The second reason for our Easter reluctance is familiarity. We like what is familiar, even when it is bad for us. We draw back from the unfamiliar, even when it is good for us. Consider the account of the Gerasene demoniac. (Mk 5:1-20) The possessed man lived among the tombs. He wailed aloud and slashed himself with stones. The villagers could not subdue him even by chains or shackles. Our Lord arrives and frees him from possession. The villagers come out and find the man seated, fully clothed, and in his right mind – no longer a menace. Then they do a curious thing: they ask Jesus to leave. They ask the One Who had freed them from terror to leave. Why?

Because they had lost what was familiar. As threatening and terrible as the demoniac was, at least they knew what he was. They had fashioned their lives around his existence. He had grown familiar to them. To some degree they had grown comfortable with him. Now Jesus disturbed what was familiar and comfortable. They could not live their old lives. He required them to live a new life, one not determined by or shaped around the demonic.

The whole scene is an image of the resurrection. The man is as good as dead: he lives among the tombs – places of death – and he is under the dominion of the devil. His exorcism means new life, deliverance from the devil and from the tombs. And the townspeople cannot handle that new life. They prefer the old – not because it was good for them, but because it was familiar.

Here then is another criterion for Easter joy. Only when we are willing to leave sin behind – to leave behind the devil’s hold on our lives – will we be able to rejoice fully in Easter. Only when we are willing to set aside our comfortable, familiar old sins – really willing to have them taken away – will we know the risen Christ fully. This is why Mother Church always has us prepare for Easter by a season of repentance. We spend forty days considering our enslavement so that we can rejoice more in our freedom.

Our Lady is the one who rejoiced perfectly in Christ’s resurrection. She had perfectly surrendered control: Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word. She was completely free from sin and therefore capable of rejoicing in the new life the risen Christ brings. Let us then ask her intercession – so that we can surrender control to Him, earnestly desire to be free of our sins, and so come to know more perfectly the power and the mercy of the risen Christ.

*Image: Noli Me Tangere by Abraham Janssens, c. 1620 [Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dunkerque, France]

© 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

• About the Author
• Latest Articles

Fr. Paul D. Scalia

Fr. Paul Scalia is a priest of the Diocese of Arlington, Va, where he serves as Episcopal Vicar for Clergy. His new book is That Nothing May Be Lost: Reflections on Catholic Doctrine and Devotion.

Catholic Monitor

Sunday, April 26, 2020

Hero New Mexico Mayor Rebels Against Democrat Governor’s Tyrannical Police State Lockdown 

I was born and baptized in Grants, New Mexico. I have never been prouder of my birthplace. Grants Mayor Martin Hicks is the first mayor in the United States to stand up for the people against the tyrannical Democrat government of his state saying:

“[H]e’s giving businesses permission to reopen on Monday and is ordering the police force in the city of about 9,000 people to prevent any State Police officers from issuing lockdown violation citations.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/governor-killing-us-totally-killing-us-new-mexico-mayor-vows-reopen-city-next-week-video/%5D

This is open rebellion against the tyranny of  Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s State Police. The heroic mayor has ordered his Grants’ police force to “prevent” the State Police from enforcing the unconstitutional lockdown:

“The governor is killing us. She’s totally killing us,” Hicks said. “So we have no choice. So right now, we are reopening. Let State Police come down here.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/governor-killing-us-totally-killing-us-new-mexico-mayor-vows-reopen-city-next-week-video/%5D

The rebellion against the coronavirus hysteria oppression has begun.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. 
Fred Martinez at 3:51 PMShare

1 comment:

1. Aqua3:55 PM“Let ‘em come down here”.
   
   Kind of like the old Alamo saying – “Come and take it!”.
   
   Consent of the governed, it always comes down to that in our Constitutional Republic, Consent of the governed.
   
   “Consent withdrawn”!Reply

TODAY Saturday, April 25th is a very significant date in history.  There have been two times in history that St. Michael the Archangel appeared on April 25th, after prayers had been said to stop plagues. The first time was on April 25th, in the year 590, in Rome.  Pope St. Gregory the Great, after leading people in prayer saw St. Michael the Archangel along with other Angels descend above the crowd, a heavenly perfume filled the air and the plague ended on that date. The second time St. Michael intervened during a plague was on April 25th, 1631 in Tlaxcala, Mexico.
I know many us of have been praying daily during this current pandemic. Fr. CJ and the Spiritual Life Committee are asking you to pray the Chaplet of St. Michael the Archangel on Saturday April 25th.  Please remember that when we pray with great faith, prayers and yes, miracles can happen.
The Chaplet of St. Michael has been attached.  Pray this Chaplet with an intent heart to ask Our Lord, through St. Michael with the intercession of the Blessed Mother, St. Joseph and all the angles and saints to end this plague in this current time.
Remember prayers united in true faith and firm belief from the faithful is powerful. Let us pray to St. Michael to hear us and lead us to victory. St. Michael, pray for us.

The Chaplet of St. Michael
O God, come to my assistance. O Lord, make haste to help me. Glory be to the Father, etc.
[Say one Our Father and three Hail Mary’s after each of the following nine salutations in honor of the nine Choirs of Angels]
1. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Seraphim may the Lord make us worthy to burn with the fire of perfect charity. 
Amen.
2. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Cherubim may the Lord grant us the grace to leave the ways of sin and run in the paths of Christian perfection. 
Amen.
3. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Thrones may the Lord infuse into our hearts a true and sincere spirit of humility. 
Amen.
4. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Dominations may the Lord give us grace to govern our senses and overcome any unruly passions. 
Amen.
5. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Virtues may the Lord preserve us from evil and falling into temptation. 
Amen.
6. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Powers may the Lord protect our souls against the snares and temptations of the devil. 
Amen.
7. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Principalities may God fill our souls with a true spirit of obedience. 
Amen.
8. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Archangels may the Lord give us perseverance in faith and in all good works in order that we may attain the glory of Heaven. 
Amen.
9. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Angels may the Lord grant us to be protected by them in this mortal life and conducted in the life to come to Heaven. 
Amen.
Say one Our Father in honor of each of the following leading Angels: St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael and our Guardian Angel.
Concluding prayers:
O glorious prince St. Michael, chief and commander of the heavenly hosts, guardian of souls, vanquisher of rebel spirits, servant in the house of the Divine King and our admirable conductor, you who shine with excellence and superhuman virtue deliver us from all evil, who turn to you with confidence and enable us by your gracious protection to serve God more and more faithfully every day.
Pray for us, O glorious St. Michael, Prince of the Church of Jesus Christ, that we may be made worthy of His promises.
Almighty and Everlasting God, Who, by a prodigy of goodness and a merciful desire for the salvation of all men, has appointed the most glorious Archangel St. Michael Prince of Your Church, make us worthy, we ask You, to be delivered from all our enemies, that none of them may harass us at the hour of death, but that we may be conducted by him into Your Presence. This we ask through the merits of Jesus Christ Our Lord. 
Amen.

STEVE JALSEVAC

BLOGS

Two California Emergency Room Covid doctors may start revolution with calm, science/data-based questioning of extreme measures

These two wonderful doctors have taken a heroic risk being publicly honest about what they have been seeing, experiencing and asking themselves why we are isolating healthy people and imposing “risks from social isolation that are too high.”Fri Apr 24, 2020 – 7:54 pm EST

• Share on Facebook53.9k
• Share on Twitter
• 112
• Share via Email
• Print this Page

April 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Two California emergency room doctors may have started a revolution against the Wuhan virus extreme mitigation policies with their calm, very sincere, caring, scientific-based and statistics-emphasizing presentation in a press conference two days ago. Dr. Artin Masihi and Dr. dan Erikson are with Accelerated Urgent Care in Bakersfield California.

The comments from viewers at the bottom of this article give you an idea about what they revealed – for the good of the nation and their many patients – and how credible and worth listening to these two men seem to be.

I have constantly felt, from the beginning of this pandemic, that there are many things that do not add up about the extreme, unprecedented and devastating measures that have been put in place to try to stop this novel flu from causing the high numbers of model-estimated deaths that have clearly all proven to be dramatically wrong.

The doctors note that the scientific and statistical evidence does not at all justify the public becoming as terrified of this virus as they are and as the media continues to make them feel every day.

These two men, who have been on the front lines for very long hours every day treating Wuhan virus patients, note, from the evidence they present, that the chance of dying from this virus is actually very low and that it is in fact that much worse than the seasonal flu. They respectfully raise many questions that any good doctors should also naturally be raising.

One of the crucial things they highlight is that we normally do not isolate healthy people during a disease outbreak. During this pandemic, both the sick and the healthy are being forced to endure substantial isolation that results in many negative and even life-threatening outcomes, such as increased suicides and dangerous addictions. 

They also warn this extended indoors isolation out of the sun and fresh air will weaken the  immune systems of healthy people to the point that they will be more susceptible to the Wuhan virus and other communicable diseases after the isolation is ended. This could cause an unexpected flood of otherwise avoidable, seriously ill patients into hospitals when the isolation period is ended.SUBSCRIBEto LifeSite’s daily headlinesSUBSCRIBEU.S. Canada World Catholic

Their presentation reflects many of the reasons why I spent five days researching and writing my recent blog post that has received over 580,000 page views and 700,000 Facebook likes to date and is still going strong. Also, the RemnantTV video that I refer to in the article has reached 275,000 views. 

That article and video obviously hit a nerve with the public that is also now asking serious questions and wants answers – fast!

This is also why public demonstrations against the more authoritarian types of lockdown regulations are increasing and cropping up in one U.S. state after another.

I have never, in over 20 years of writing LifeSite articles, experienced as many people reading and forwarding one of my articles.

More and more people are asking “why are we doing all of this?,” “What has been the real benefit of it, if any,” and “can we keep going on like this for much longer without causing massive social, economic and even health damage that could take years to recover from?”https://www.youtube.com/embed/xfLVxx_lBLU

These two wonderful doctors have taken a heroic risk in being publicly honest about what they have been seeing, experiencing and asking themselves, as they have seen too many people with serious health issues dangerously avoiding hospitals because of unwarranted fear of infection, while far fewer people are dying from the virus than they realize.

Read the comments below that were posted under the first of the two videos. The Part 2 Video is much shorter than Part 1. The comments will help you understand, better than anything I can write, what you are about to see. And then watch both parts – with your family – and have a discussion afterwards.https://www.youtube.com/embed/zb6j7o1pLBw

Then contact your elected representatives and, for Americans, also contact the president at WhiteHouse.gov.

Viewer comments posted under the video

• These are the smartest, most logical and most professional doctors we are seeing right here. No other doctors are speaking truths like these two fine examples of boldness and professionalism.  Facts!!
• Huge respect to these 2 doctors speaking out and exposing this nonsense. I’m seeing more and more medical professionals speaking up.
• Unfortunately the masses aren’t really interested in the facts.
• Brilliant Doctors who actually care about the truth instead of just a paycheck. This exposes the PLANdemic and needs to be shared worldwide!
• The reporters love saying, trust the science, until the science doesn’t match up with their agenda. Love that the truth finally seems to be coming out.
• The job of the journalists is to keep the COVID scare going.
• You know what’s sad about this..? In the current state of people’s minds, they probably won’t believe it.
• Now u see why they wanted only people with symptoms to test. So it would manipulate the real numbers
• Medicare pays hospitals more when a patient dies of covid-19! Thats why the hospital admin is pressuring doc to add it to the cause of death.
• The condescending tone and rudeness of the first reporter show how angry they are with real science and immunology!
• As a retired Neurosurgeon, my hat’s off to these two physicians! They are spot on!
• These two should be around Trump. Not the completely corrupt Fauci and Brix.
• So proud of MY ER Doctors in this video!! May God watch over them, as exposing the lies can be detrimental to one’s well-being.
• When someone is talking BS to you it leaves a bad feeling.   When someone is speaking the truth it leaves a good feeling.  These guys should be on national tv for all.
• reporters are thinking. ” this does not fit the narrative we are going with “
• We all need to ask just what the hell is going on here.
• If something needs to go viral, I guess this is it.
• Those of us out there, with common sense and are not wearing masks, going out often, will be the ones taking care and helping those that cowered in the irrational fear that the media, and the WHO and CDC has spread everywhere. Kudos to those of you that didn’t cower in fear.
• Love “not science” disarming the Big Lie of Fauci, Scarf lady, Bill Gates.
• Dr. Massishi is a brilliant man too as well as Dr. Erikson, they’re both heroes.  This video is a gamechanger, we should share it as much as possible and listen twice to be able to memorize quotes and content from it to share with others.   I’m glad that that the two doctors are so calm and well able to explain it even with these aggressive reporters trying to catch them out.
• Thanks for making and uploading this fantastic video.

Fwd: Fw: Fwd: 4/16/2020 Report – BETRAYED: The Rise and Fall of Dr. FauciElizabeth Wickham10:44 AM (6 hours ago)to LifeTree, bcc: meNote:  This is long and good.  It is the first thing I have read from Christopher Ferrara on coronovirus-19.  I have always said that the Tony and Deborah show have their own connections to the Third Path Euthanasia Movement.  The NIH is a big funder of palliative care “research” and Deborah has her own ties to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.Do those of you in NC know that some of original research on this virus was done at UNC-CH in the 2015s with an emphasis on improving gain-of-function.  (more bang for the buck) BettyLIfetree.org Tuesday, April 14, 2020BETRAYED: The Rise and Fall of Dr. Fauc Written by  Christopher A.Ferrara https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/4851-betrayed-the-rise-and-fall-of-dr-fauci The Remnant Newspaper – BETRAYED: The Rise and Fall of Dr. Fauci Christopher A. Ferrara. Christopher A. Ferrara: President and lead counsel for the American Catholic Lawyers Inc., Mr. Ferrara has been at the forefront of the legal defense of pro-lifers for the better part of a quarter century. Having served with the legal team for high profile victims of the culture of death such as Terri Schiavo, he has long since distinguished him a premier civil rights …remnantnewspaper.com IntroductionOn Easter Sunday evening, we reached a turning point in the monumental, wholly unprecedented, nation-wrecking fiasco that is Coronagate: President Trump retweeted a post with the hashtag #FireFauci. Both the original tweet and Trump’s telling retweet were prompted by Anthony Fauci’s latest appearance on Fake News CNN. On Easter Sunday, no less, Fauci, who has been undermining Trump since the day this fiasco began, implied in response to loaded questions by the insufferable Jake Tapper that Trump could have saved lives had he announced “social distancing guidelines” that Fauci supposedly recommended to him as early as the third week of February.Fauci made no such recommendation in February, but was rather saying the exactly opposite that month, as  even the left-wing Politico shows in an article entitled Virus ‘Experts’ Early Statements Belie ‘Prescient’ Portrayal.  Thus, on Easter Sunday Fauci cooperated with Tapper in disseminating a demonstrable lie to the nation. Before we get to the lie, and Fauci’s belated and rather desperate attempt at a mea culpa, here is the background.Before we get to the lie, here is the background that demonstrates it. The Early Advice Fauci is HidingOn January 21, Fauci was asked the following question to which he gave the following answer in a video published by Newsmax:Q. What are you thinking in terms of this virus spreading in the United States?FAUCI: Well those people are probably at a very low risk…. Well, obviously you need to take it seriously and do the kinds of things that the CDC and the Department of Homeland Security are doing. But this is not a major threat to the people in the United States. And this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about. On February 18,  in a video published by USA Today, Fauci said the following:FAUCI: No, I don’t think people should be frightened. The risk right now, today, currently, is really relatively low for the American public. But… this could evolve [] into a global pandemic….So right now, don’t worry about it, be more concerned about influenza, which is going into a second peak for the season, than corona virus…. People wearing masks now is just not relevant. You don’t need to be walking around with a mask right now….The accompanying text of the February piece in Today quotes Fauci as saying that the danger from the Wuhan virus is “just miniscule” whereas: “We have more kids dying of flu this year at this time than in the last decade or more. The threat is (we have) a pretty bad influenza season, particularly dangerous for our children.” On Saturday, February 29, Fauci stated as follows on the Today Show:No, right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you’re doing on a day-by-day basis.  Right now, the risk is still low, but this could change. I’ve said that many times…You gotta watch out, because although the risk is low now—you don’t need to change anything you’re doing—when you start to see community spread, this could change….So, on February 29, Fauci was still giving assurances on national television that there was no need for Americans to change anything regarding their daily activities.  In fact, that was the very day the press reported the first death attributed to purported “community spread” of Wuhan virus in the United States.   On March 9, Fauci told John Roberts of Fox News that “If you are a healthy young person, there is no reason if you want to go on a cruise ship, go on a cruise ship” whereas “if you have…an individual who has an underlying condition, particularly an elderly person who has an underlying condition, I would recommend strongly that they do not go on a cruise ship.” To sum up, it is undeniable that during the months of January and February of 2020, Fauci minimized the threat of the Wuhan virus. There is not even the glimmer of a suggestion that there be a national lockdown of all Americans to “save lives.”Even Politico could not refrain from exposing the galling hypocrisy of the media’s glowing portrayal of this self-serving bureaucrat, who joked that would prefer that Brad Pitt play him on Saturday Night Live. “Today,” write Politico, “Anthony Fauci is held up by the media as a national hero of the pandemic response and the only reason to listen to a White House coronavirus briefing. Yet, rewind the clock back to January and his public statements essentially mirrored those of the administration.” Fauci Was Right Only When He Was “Wrong”But, most ironically, the early advice Fauci now seeks to hide was probably the only correct advice he has given Trump concerning the Wuhan virus. For it is fast becoming apparent that his and Scarf Lady’s models and predictions about death tolls were wildly exaggerated and that in end the only real difference between the Wuhan virus outbreak and a bad flu season will be the obsessive counting of every death attributed (however loosely) to the former.As the Economist  has just observed: “If millions of people were infected weeks ago without dying, the virus must be less deadly than official data suggest.” In support of that assessment, the Economist cites “a new study by Justin Silverman and Alex Washburne that used data on influenza-like illness (ili) to show that the coronavirus (SARS-COV-2) is now widespread in America. Silverman and Washburne found that the coronavirus mortality rate could be as low as 0.1 percent, ‘similar to that of flu.’”Which is what The Remnant has been saying all along based on common experience and common sense. Fauci’s Passive-Aggressive Opposition to Trump Fauci has been undermining his boss since the moment he became a member of the “Coronavirus Response Task Force.” His passive-aggressive opposition to Trump involves impeding as long as possible the rollback of the unwarranted and massively destructive national shutdown while slyly intimating that Trump is misleading the public and that he failed to act with sufficient promptness. Fauci’s subversion was on full display in an interview with Science magazine on March 22.  His remarks about Trump reek of condescension and contempt along with a thinly veiled attempt to accuse him of being unprepared to respond rapidly to the “deadly pandemic” at the very time Fauci himself was declaring to the public that no drastic measures were necessary.  The arrogance and audacity of the man is sickening:Q: … Trump keeps saying that the travel ban for China, which began 2 February, had a big impact on slowing the spread of the virus to the United States and that he wishes China would have told us 3 to 4 months earlier and that they were “very secretive.”… It just doesn’t comport with facts.A: I know, but what do you want me to do? I mean, seriously Jon, let’s get real, what do you want me to do?…  I can’t jump in front of the microphone and push him down. OK, he said it. Let’s try and get it corrected for the next time.Q: You have not said China virus….A: Ever.Q: And you never will, will you?A: No.Q: Big picture: We’ve had all this pandemic preparedness. Why did this fail? What went wrong?A: I think we’ll have to wait until it is over, and we look back before we can answer that. It’s almost like the fog of war. After the war is over, you then look back and say, “Wow, this plan, as great as it was, didn’t quite work once they started throwing hand grenades at us.” …Why were we not able to mobilize on a broader scale?...The implication is clear:  It was Trump who failed to “mobilize on a broader scale.”  Yet it was Fauci who said throughout January and February that there was no need to “mobilize on a broader scale.” The Easter Sunday BetrayalFast forward to Easter Sunday, when Jake Tapper invited Fauci to betray Trump on national television and he cooperated.  Herewith their exchange with my comments:TAPPER: “The New York Times reported today that you and other top officials wanted to recommend social distancing and physical distancing guidelines to President Trump  as far back as the third week of February, but the administration didn’t announce such guidelines to the American public until March 16, almost a month later. Why?COMMENT: Note the deceptive wording: “wanted to recommend” to Trump rather than did recommend to Trump. Fauci made no such recommendation to Trump, as shown above. But Fauci played along with the deception:DR. FAUCI: You know Jake, as I have said many times, we look at it from a pure health standpoint.  We make a recommendation. Often the recommendation is taken, sometimes it’s not. But it is what it is. We are where we are right now.COMMENT:  Fauci’s lying implication is that Trump rejected a recommendation from him during the third week of February that there be “social distancing and physical distancing guidelines.” But as we have just seen, on the last day of February Fauci told the nation that no changes in personal behavior were required and on March 9 even declared that young, healthy people could go on cruise ships, veritable incubators of any virus.TAPPER: Do you think lives could have been saved if social distancing, physical distancing, stay-at-home measures, had started the third week of February instead of mid-March?COMMENT:  Notice how the devious Tapper stealthily inserts “stay-at-home measures” into the already patently false claim by the New York Times that Fauci had recommended “social distancing, physical distancing” measures during the third week in February.  The “stay-at-home” orders, as the Times has noted elsewhere,  “began in California in mid-March,” were imitated by other Democrat governors and then by numerous Republican governors as a tidal wave of panic swept away reason and a barrage of preposterous commands assailed the several states. Next, Fauci went along with Tapper’s lying implication that Trump had caused thousands of lives to be lost for not doing what Fauci had never recommended in February:FAUCI: Obviously you could logically say that if you had a process that was ongoing and you started mitigation earlier you could’ve saved lives, obviously. No-one is going to deny that. But what goes into those kinds of decisions is complicated. But, you’re right: Obviously, if we had right from the beginning shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.COMMENT: The insinuation is that Trump gave Fauci “pushback” about “social distancing, physical distancing, and stay-at-home measures” during the third week of February, when in truth Fauci had not recommend any of these things to Trump at that time. On the contrary, he was declaring publicly that none of those things were needed.  As discussed below, Fauci was finally forced to admit this during the press briefing of April 13, when it appeared his job might be in jeopardy following the appearance on Tapper’s show. In short, during his Easter Sunday appearance on Fake News CNN Fauci—a Bill Gates retainer who wants to vaccinate the whole world—assisted Jake Tapper in crucifying Trump on national television. And the lying media loved it: “Fauci Downloads on Trump, Lives Could Have Been Saved if Shut Down Earlier: Battle to Reopen,” screamed a blood-red headline on the Drudge Report, echoed of course by Fake News CNN and the rest of the lying media, which now includes most of Fox News.But the betrayal did not end there. Later on Easter Sunday,  during an exchange with Al Sharpton on Fake News MSNBC, Fauci falsely claimed that it was “probably toward the middle or end of January” when “it became clear that there was community spread… then it became clear that we are in real trouble.” As already noted, the first reported case of community spread, in Washington State, was not until February 29, a month later, the same date on which Fauci declared to the American people “you don’t need to change anything you’re doing…”Next came a series of deceitful implications in response to Sharpton’s leading question:SHARPTON: And what, did you begin advising the administration and those authorities that we were in fact seeing something different here and this could be a major problem at that time [mid- to late January]?FAUCI: You bet. And that’s when [mid- to late January] it became clear that there are a couple of ways of addressing that. You could either prevent or try and block the influx of new cases into the country. And already cases had come in from China. To try and say that’s it, we gotta stop that, because now we already have cases here.And then it switched to Europe. And when Italy had their outbreak it became clear that that became a danger. So that’s when cases were cut off from coming in from Europe and then ultimately from the UK. But by that time, we had enough cases in our own country [the middle or end of January] that the ability to do the containment slipped then into the need for mitigation. And we saw what happened.Fauci falsified the timeline of actual events to make himself look good and Trump look bad, even though Trump was following Fauci’s advice to America in mid- to late January.  Here are the false implications in Fauci’s response to Sharpton:FALSE: Trump’s travel ban on people entering from China at the end of January was too late because “already cases had come in from China.” That’s lying by a half-truth.  Even if some unknown cases of infection had come in from China by that date—cases unknown to Fauci as well—Trump prevented many more from coming in. And no one, Fauci included, knew that the virus was being transmitted in this country until February 29, when the first death due to the virus in the United States occurred, on which date Fauci declared that Americans had no need to modify their activities.FALSE:  By mid- to late January, the spread of the virus had “switched to Europe” and that “when Italy had their outbreak it became clear that that became a danger.” There was no sign of an outbreak in Europe until the first  European death attributed to the virus, which occurred in France on February 15, the victim being an 80-year-old Chinese tourist.     Note well: Following Trump’s lead on January 31, nations all over the world began banning travel from China and neighboring counties, so that as of today “approximately 3 billion people [are] residing in countries enforcing complete border closures to foreigners,” as even the Fake News New York Times admitted on April 7.FALSE: By mid- to late January, Fauci knew that “the ability to do the containment slipped then into the need to for mitigation. And we saw what happened.”As already shown, Fauci knew nothing of the kind in mid- to late January, but rather was telling the American people a month later on national television that the threat from the virus was low, that they need not change anything in their daily routines, and that young and healthy people were safe on cruise ships.Finally, recall that, as I noted here, in  a co-authored article in the New England Journal of Medicine  published on February 28, Fauci opined that  “the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%)…” Nothing we have seen thus far contradicts that opinion, despite the hysterical hour-by-hour reporting of every death attributed in any way to the Wuhan virus. What is Fauci Up To?It should be obvious that Fauci has been none-too-subtly performing the function of a Deep State mole in the Trump camp. He has consistently aligned his public statements during media appearances with the Democrats’ “blame Trump” narrative.Fauci has even lent support to the Democrats’ absurd demand for “mail-in balloting”—that is, systematic vote fraud—in the November election on the pretext that the same virus that permits trips to the supermarket and the liquor store today will somehow make a trip to the polls too dangerous seven months from today.  During the same Easter Sunday appearance on Fake News CNN, Tapper asked the following question to which Fauci gave the following answer:TAPPER: “Do you think it will be safe in November for voters to physically go to vote at the polls?”FAUCI: “I hope so, Jake. I can’t guarantee it….Fauci’s Cunning Mea CulpaTrump’s retweet of the post with a #firefauci hashtag the day after Fauci’s Easter Sunday betrayal induced yet another frenzy among media jackals already driven mad by Trump Derangement Syndrome.  Trump must not dare to fire Fauci.  Fauci has become another Robert Mueller, along with Roberta Mueller in the person of Scarf Lady—unbearable yet untouchable. But not quite.  Sensing that his position is precarious, even if Trump is forced to retain him in some pro forma capacity, Fauci was forced to do something Mueller never did: offer a mea culpa. During the press briefing on April 13, he was at pains to let the media to know that Trump actually did follow his recommendations when he actually got around to making them:The first and only time that Dr. Birx and I went in and formally made a recommendation to the President to actually have a quote “shutdown” in the sense of—not really shutdown but to have really strong mitigation… the President listened to the recommendation and went to the mitigation.The next, second time, that I went with Dr. Birx into the President and said “fifteen days are not enough, we need to go thirty days,” obviously there are people who had a problem because of the potential secondary effects. Nonetheless, the President at that time went with the health recommendations and we extended it another thirty days.So, I can only tell you what I know and what my recommendations were. But clearly as happens all the time, there were interpretations of that response to a hypothetical question [by Tapper] that I just thought it would be very nice for me to clarify because I didn’t have the chance to clarify it.The media jackals in the press room were aghast at this disappointing about-face, which contradicted everything Fauci had so deceptively implied before with their cooperation. An incredulous bottle blond in the press room asked Fauci: “Are you doing this voluntarily?” to which Fauci replied indignantly: “Everything I do is voluntary. Please, don’t even imply that.”And then from another reporter the critical question: “When was the date?  The date?” That is, when did Fauci and Birx make their first recommendations to Trump?  Was it in January or February as Fauci had falsely been implying before? Or was it in March, in which case Trump can hardly be faulted for following advice he was never given before then.On this crucial point Fauci suddenly developed amnesia: “You know, to be honest with you, I don’t even remember what the date was. I can just tell you that the first and only time that I went in and said that we should do mitigation strongly the response was ‘Yes, we’ll do it.’”Come, now. Despite his mea culpa, the man is obviously still prevaricating.  The whole country knows that it was only after the governors had shut down their respective states in mid- to late March that Trump declared his wish to “reopen the country” by Easter Sunday, and that it was only after Trump’s declaration to that effect on March 24 that Fauci and Birx, whom Trump famously called “two very smart people,” persuaded him “You have to shut it down” for at least thirty days, meaning until April 30, or else up to 2.2 million people would die.  As Fauci boasted to the world on March 30: “We [Fauci and Birx] felt that if we prematurely pulled back, we would only form [sic] an acceleration or rebound of something, which would put you behind where you were before, and that’s a reason why we argued strongly with the president that he not withdraw those guidelines.”The problem for Fauci is that if he admitted it was not until at least mid-March that he advised Trump not to “open up the country” by Easter then it would be clear that everything he had implied during his previous media interviews about Trump’s failure to act promptly in January and February was a lie and that, in truth, during those months Trump was merely following Fauci’s own advice that no drastic measures were necessary. Hence Fauci’s convenient memory lapse about a date he could not possibly have forgotten.Another prevarication:  During the April 13 briefing Fauci suggested that it was he, not Trump, who had seen the need for a ban on travel from China and then the EU and the UK, and that each time he suggested travel bans to Trump “the answer was Yes.” Trump later rebuffed that claim: “I think I took my own advice on the ban, I don’t know.” Indeed, as noted above, in his Science magazine interview, Fauci pooh-pooed the China travel ban as ineffective. Asked about his reference during the Tapper interview to “a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then”—thereby falsely implying that it was Trump who had pushed back against a national shutdown in February—Fauci now said this “was the wrong choice of words. You know what it was? When people discuss, not necessarily in front of the President, when people discuss they say ‘Well, you know this is maybe gonna have a harmful effect on this or on that. So, it was a poor choice of words. It wasn’t anybody saying ‘No, you shouldn’t do that.’” So, according to Fauci on April 13, when he said “a lot of pushback” to Tapper the day before on Easter Sunday, falsely implying pushback from Trump that prevented early action, what he really meant was no opposition from anyone, Trump included. What a tangled web Fauci has woven for himself.A clearly infuriated press corps pressed Fauci to resume his passive-aggressive dog-whistling that Trump has made “mistakes.” One cunning reporter, who thought his question had been cleverly framed to compel the desired response, watched the question backfire explosively as Fauci, in a moment of candor, said that it was he who had been mistaken:Q. With the benefit of hindsight, with that caveat, what could have been done better? [Read: Come on, tell us what Trump did wrong. You can do it!]:Fauci: Well, I can’t comment on something out of my own field. But the thing when I think back on, was evolving in my mind, was something that was a virus that was much worse than what I had thought it was gonna be based on what we had learned early on…When I question myself—I’m not perfect—maybe I, I wouldn’t say made mistakes, I should really have tried to delve into that a bit more about what was going on….  You know: Is that a mistake? Maybe I should have been able to realize that more—earlier. I’m not sure it was a mistake….Fauci’s mea culpa ought not to salvage his position as a trusted advisor to Trump. He never was trustworthy, and even on April 13 he continued to exhibit passive-aggressive resistance to any release of the nation from its Democrat-engineered social and economic strangulation. For example, when another reporter clumsily demanded that Fauci be willing to speak out against any decision by Trump to “reopen” the country, he yet again undermined the President while pretending not to:Q: So when the President stands up here, whether—whatever day it is, May 1st, whatever—and outlines his plan, are you willing to stand up here after him and tell us all, tell the American public, what you had recommended he do if there is a difference?Fauci: You know, I have to think about that, because you know when have conversations with the President, sometimes they really should be confidential, and what you have given him, because he’s going to have to make his own choice. Um, I’ll have to think about that.Q: So that we would know whether he is actually listening to the health advice you provided.Fauci:    He is. I can tell you one thing: he’ll listen. What’s gonna happen, I don’t know for sure, is that he will get input from a number of individuals, representing a number of aspects of society. One them will be health. The only thing that I can tell you is that I will give him the advice based on evidence, my observation of what the best public health approach would be.The implications are staggering: Fauci will “think about” whether to contradict Trump by leaking his privileged conversations with the Chief Executive after decisions have been made about reviving an entire nation’s social life and economy! And, unlike the other advisors, Fauci’s advice will be based on evidence about “the best public health approach”—meaning saving lives, as he claims he has been doing, versus mere dollars and cents.So it is evident that Fauci, along with Scarf Lady, still thinks he is in the driver’s seat on the question of when the increasingly devastating, Democrat-enabling national lockdown will end and exactly how it will end.  As Fauci put it during the April 10 press briefing:  “Don’t let anyone get any false ideas that when Attachments areaPreview YouTube video Dr. Fauci: ‘It Became Clear That We Were In Real Trouble’ With Coronavirus Mid-January | MSNBCDr. Fauci: ‘It Became Clear That We Were In Real Trouble’ With Coronavirus Mid-January | MSNBC