THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Sunday, June 02, 2019

I Dare Skojec to Counter Bp. Gracida and my Arguments against “Universal Acceptance”

I am in the receipt of a email from Steve Skojec, publisher of the website One Peter Five, in which he attacked an article I wrote about Dr. Peter Kwasniewski and the apparent “culture of fear that surrounds him which caused him to change a short Amazon review.”

That’s fine. I am aways ready for a good give and take.

But, then he send me another email where he attacked my manhood.

That’s not fine.

I have been stabbed (in the finger), shot at and been in numerous brawls when I was young.

I am more than happy to put on some boxing gloves and fight Skojec anywhere of his choice.

He is probably not up to it so I have another idea.

Skojec, you need to be a man.

You need to come out about it and admit that your theory about “universal acceptance” is a fraud or counter what Bishop René Gracida and I have thrown in your face.

Be a man about it and don’t run away hiding from everything Bishop Gracida and I have presented to you. I dare you to do a post countering us point by point on 1P5.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Fred Martinez at 8:42 PM

Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s Analysis of Youth Synod Final Document

 November 7, 2018       Bishop Athanasius Schneider

Share on Facebook0Share on TwitterShare on LinkedInSend emailPrint0TotalShares

(ROME, November 7, 2018:LifeSiteNews)

LifeSite: Your Excellency, as a general question, how does the final document of the recently concluded Synod on ‘Young People, the Faith and Vocational discernment’ differ from past final documents in its language, content and style.

Bishop Schneider: The main difference between the final document of the Youth Synod and previous synod documents consists in the fact that it was immediately approved by the Pope. As to the content, it was the first time that a worldwide assembly of Catholic bishops has dealt specifically with the theme of young people. The language and the style are also quite different from previous synod documents in so far as it lacks doctrinal clarity and abounds with expressions of sentimentalism, a trait which, to some extent, also characterized the Final Report of the Synod on Family in 2015.

Magisterial weight

According to the new apostolic constitution on the structure of synods, “Episcopalis Communio”, if the final document is “expressly approved by the Roman Pontiff” or if he “has granted deliberative power to the Synod Assembly, according to the norm of canon 343 of the Code of Canon Law,” it “participates in the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter.” What is your view on this? How should the laity understand this?

We first have to clarify the meaning of “Ordinary Magisterium.” This expression is new and did not exist until the time of Pope Pius IX. However, Pope Pius IX and the First Vatican Council never used the expression “Ordinary Magisterium,” but rather “Ordinary Universal Magisterium.” This exercise of the Magisterium was understood as being infallible, which means that the entire episcopacy, together with the Pope, taught unchangeably at all times and in all places infallibly those things which are necessary for salvation. Beyond the infallible definitions of the Pope (called “ex cathedra”), the infallible doctrinal definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, and the infallible constant teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, there are no documents of the Magisterium which possess the qualification “infallible.”

In order to avoid any confusion with the infallible “Ordinary Universal Magisterium,” it would be better to use expressions such as “Ordinary Daily Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops” or “Daily Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops.” From a theological point of view, it is possible — and at times, from the pastoral point of view, it is also helpful — to make such distinctions; for instance, when the Roman Pontiff, together with the College of Cardinals, or with representatives of the entire episcopacy, or with a regional group of bishops, issues a non-infallible document as a part of the Ordinary Daily Magisterium.

Role of a synod

Episcopalis Communio, n. 3, says: “The Synod of Bishops, whose name evokes the Church’s ancient and very rich synodal tradition, held in particular esteem by the Eastern Churches, would normally exercise a consultative role, offering information and counsel to the Roman Pontiff on various ecclesial questions, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, the Synod might also enjoy deliberative power, should the Roman Pontiff wish to grant this.” What light do the Fathers of the Church shed on the role of a synod? And can a synod in its present form be deliberative?

In the age of the Church Fathers, there were frequent regional meetings or synods of bishops which had three aims: to reject heresies, to define Catholic doctrine more precisely, and to resolve highly relevant disciplinary questions and correct abuses and lax discipline in the life of the Church. In those times, there were no meetings of bishops just to have meetings, or to discuss pastoral programs, as is the case with the current practice of the Synod of Bishops, initiated by Paul VI in 1965. Meetings to discuss pastoral programs were unknown in the times of the Church Fathers. They met only when there was a real and acute emergency, and they preferred to use their precious time for prayer and for the work of direct and zealous evangelization.

As to our current situation, since the Second Vatican Council the Roman Pontiff has increased the participation of the bishops from various regions in the decision-making and consultative processes of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia: first, there are bishops who are members of the dicasteries; second, there are bishops who are consultants to the dicasteries.

One ought not to forget that the College of Cardinals is the primary advisory body of the Roman Pontiff. The vast majority of cardinals today are also diocesan bishops who come from various regions around the world. Today, therefore, we have three stable groups composed of members of the episcopal college whose role is to advise and help the Pope in governing the universal Church. The institution of a permanent Synod of Bishops is, to my opinion, an unnecessary multiplication of institutions. Regrettably, this leads to a greater bureaucratization of the life of the Church that in turn consumes a large amount of money at a time where the Church continuously declares herself to be a Church of the poor.

Furthermore, the frequent and basically unnecessary meetings of the Synod of Bishops steal the bishops’ precious time, which they ought to use primarily for prayer and for the proclamation of the truth of the Gospel (cf. Acts 6:4).

As to whether a synod in its present form can be deliberative: I would say that in an exceptional way and with clearly defined norms, this is possible. If, however, such a deliberative synodal assembly were to be held on a regular basis, it would become confused with the deliberative power of an Ecumenical Council, which is a strictly collegial and universal, and as such, an extraordinary form of the exercise of the episcopal ministry. A permanent deliberative episcopal assembly on the universal level is problematic from a dogmatic point of view, since the Lord instituted Peter and his successors as the ordinary supreme universal governance in the Church and not the whole episcopacy. Quasi-permanent deliberative synodal assemblies would entail the negative effects of “conciliarism,” which the Church had already experienced in the 15^th century.

Instrumentumlaboris

Your Excellency, the Instrumentumlaboris (IL) has made its way into the final document (n. 3). During the synod the IL was widely criticized for various reasons, the main one being that it was too sociological in nature. It also contained the loaded acronym “LGBT” used by the homosexual lobby. One synod father, who reportedly was speaking for many bishops, said he hoped the working document would “die” so that a new one would “germinate and grow.” What are your views on the inclusion of the Instrumentumlaboris in the final document?

The “LGBT” acronym is a cunning slogan being used in the global propaganda campaign to promote the homosexual ideology and the legitimization of homosexual activity. The neutral and uncritical mention of such a term in a document of the Holy See is unacceptable and it demonstrates by this simple fact a kind of collaboration of the Holy See with the dictatorship of the totalitarian homosexual ideology in our days. The inclusion of the Instrumentumlaboris in the Synod’s final document represents a dishonest way to grant acceptance through the backdoor, as it were, to the unacceptable political acronym “LGBT.”

Sexuality

The paragraph most opposed by the Synod Fathers was number 150, with 65 voting against (of a total of 248). What is your assessment of n. 150, particularly its use of the term “sexual orientation” and its call for a “deepened anthropological, theological and pastoral elaboration” about sexuality?  

The reference to the Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Personsprovides the correct interpretation of the term “sexual orientation.” However, it is generally known and easily proven that today the term “sexual orientation” is highly ambiguous, and is mainly used by the ideological propaganda arm of the homosexuality lobby and the United Nations. The Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the term “homosexual tendency,” which more appropriately expresses various inordinate psychological and moral inclinations, or the concupiscence due to the original sin. The term “orientation” implies a positive reality, a positive aim, and should, therefore, not be used to express a homosexual tendency.

For a true Catholic, and all the more for the Magisterium, a deeper anthropological, theological and pastoral elaboration about sexuality can only mean the following: to show more clearly the revealed truth about human sexuality, as God has conceived and created it, and as the Holy Scripture and the Tradition of the Church has taught it unchangingly and always in the same sense and meaning. Such a deeper elaboration should necessarily include the esteem for the virtue of chastity.

Regrettably the final document of the Youth Synod lacks a clear Catholic statement on chastity. It would have been spiritually very useful for young people, if the final document had quoted statements on chastity, such as the following by Pope John Paul II: “True happiness demands courage and a spirit of sacrifice, refusing every compromise with evil and having the disposition to pay personally, even with death, faithful to God and his commandments. How timely this message is! Today, pleasure, selfishness and directly immoral actions are often exalted in the name of the false ideals of liberty and happiness. It is essential to reaffirm clearly that purity of heart and of body go together, because chastity ‘is the custodian’ of authentic love” (John Paul II, AngelusJuly 6, 2003).

Synodality

Number 121 of the final document, on the synodal form of the Church, also met with considerable opposition, with 51 Synod Fathers voting against it. Although synodality was barely discussed during the Synod, it dominated the third part of the draft final document, surprising many of the Synod Fathers. Some suggest that synodality will be used to usher in heterodox teaching. What are your views and concerns about the final document’s emphasis on synodality?

The fact that the strictly ecclesiological and somewhat “clerical” theme of “synodality” was given such prominence in the document of a synod on the pastoral care of young people is in itself astonishing, and seems suspect. Indeed, some among the high-ranking clergy used the Synod on young people — and thus the good young people themselves, the little ones — to promote their own agenda of enhancing their decision-making power in the Church, and to introduce their own ideology into the life of the Church, justifying their aims through vague references to the Fathers of the Church.

It is ironic that n. 121 of the final document mentions St. John Chrysostom in support of “synodality,” when it was precisely St. John Chrysostom who was condemned by “synodality,” i.e. by a synod of bishops. Indeed, the synodal condemnation of St. John Chrysostom quoted the canons of the Arian synod of Antioch, which for its part condemned St. Athanasius.

Two of the greatest Fathers and Doctors of the Church, St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom, were victims of “synodality.” They were condemned by synods. Nowadays St. John Chrysostom and St. Athanasius, together with St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, are represented in the monumental statues that hold aloft the chair of St. Peter in the apse of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

Furthermore, we know well what St. Gregory Nazianzen, one of the greatest theologians among the Church Fathers, thought about “synodality.” He said: “I am resolved to avoid every meeting of bishops, for I have never seen any synod end well, nor assuage rather than aggravate disorders” (Ep. ad Procop.). Pushing through the theme of “synodality” in the final document, in disregard for authentic synodal methods — since this topic was not sufficiently debated in the synod hall, and there was not enough time to read the final text, which was given to the bishops only in Italian – is a demonstration of an exasperated clericalism. Such “synodal” clericalism intends to transform the life of the Church into a worldly and Protestant parliament style with continuous discussions and voting processes on matters that cannot be put to a vote.

Role of women in the Church

Number 148, on the role of women in the Church, has also been cited as one of the more controversial passages in the final document. One source close to the Synod said this paragraph’s reference to women being present in “ecclesial bodies at all levels,” disrupts the apostolic nature of the Church, represents a “deep rejection” of Christ’s intentions for episcopal leadership, and undermines the spiritual fatherhood of priests. Do you agree? Do you believe there are legitimate ways the Church can better involve women in the decision-making process? And what are the limits?

The inclusion of the theme “the role of women in the Church” in the synod debate and in its document demonstrates once again the abuse of our dear young people, of the little ones, by high-ranking clerics who want another Church, who want to give the unwomanly ideology of feminism a basis for action inside the Church. A true Catholic woman does not like to have power in deciding ecclesiastical policy, or in issues that, by their nature, belong to the divinely established hierarchy. A true Catholic woman detests struggles for power in the life of the Church. The most far-reaching decision-making power of a Catholic woman in the life of the Church is the Christian exercise of motherhood in the family. Can there exist a greater decision-making power than that of a mother who forms a future saintly priest, a future saintly bishop, a future saintly pope? What tremendous decision-making power belongs to a young woman who becomes a Bride of Christ in her religious life, and who through her cloistered consecrated life represents the heart of the Church? There are, of course, holy women who are Doctors of the Church. We know them: St. Hildegard of Bingen, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila and St. Thérèse of Lisieux, not to mention two other patronesses of Europe, St. Bridget of Sweden and St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross. They taught the Church with what they received from the Church, and not with their own ideas. They were enabled to do so by their life of contemplation, of holiness, and of love for the integrity of the doctrine of the Church.

In times of great tribulation in the life of the Church, and out of love for the Church, holy women were not afraid to raise their voices in order to express a filial correction to bishops and popes. Clerics, however, were often cowards and chose not to express a necessary correction to higher-ranking hierarchy because they were concerned about their own career. The holy women mentioned above did not belong to decision-making bodies of the Church in their respective age. Let us not put Catholic women into clerical decision-making bodies or they will lose their liberty to publicly correct abuses perpetrated by clerics, or to express filial corrections toward the higher levels of the hierarchy. We do not need new clericalized women who will become part of the ecclesiastical bureaucracy. The Church in our days urgently needs new St. Hildegards, new St. Catherines of Siena, new holy women who by their wisdom and prayer enrich the understanding of the Faith, and who by their courage admonish negligent and abusive clerics on all levels.

Conscience

What is your view of the final document’s treatment of conscience? (See n. 107-109)

The final document’s statements on conscience n. 107-109 reflect the teaching of the Church and are quite acceptable. For a more complete understanding of conscience, however, it would have been helpful had the document also mentioned the dangers of errors in conscience and the obstacles to a rightly formed conscience. It would have been profitable for young people if the final document had included explanations on conscience such as, for example, that of Blessed John Henry Newman: “The sense of right and wrong, which is the first element in religion, is so delicate, so fitful, so easily puzzled, obscured, perverted, so subtle in its argumentative methods, so impressible by education, so biased by pride and passion, so unsteady in its course, that, in the struggle for existence amid the various exercises and triumphs of the human intellect, this sense is at once the highest of all teachers, yet the least luminous. Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself” (Letter to the Duke of Norfolk).

Sexual abuse

What is your view of the final document’s treatment of the sexual abuse crisis that has affected especially particular regions of the world? (See n. 29-31). Archbishop Charles Chaput has said the passages were “inadequate and disappointing on the abuse matter” and that Church leaders outside countries hit by the abuse crisis “clearly don’t understand its scope and gravity.” There is “very little sense of heartfelt apology in the text,” he said, and clericalism “is part of the abuse problem, but it’s by no means the central issue for many lay people, especially parents.”

I agree with the observations of Archbishop Chaput. The document’s response to the issue of sexual abuse in the life of the Church is surely inadequate. The most painful and one of the deepest wounds in the life of the Church — namely, the sexual abuse of children and adolescents by clerics — was not specifically mentioned and was therefore swept under the carpet of an enumeration of different types of abuse, such as an abuse of young people, abuse of power, abuse of conscience, economic abuses, etc.

The text dodged the core issue and avoided putting the finger on the wound. Failing to speak about the proven fact that homosexuality played a crucial role in the causes of the sexual abuse of minors, is either dishonest or ideologically motivated, i.e. done to protect homosexuality, or is politically motivated, i.e. done to be politically correct with mainstream opinion, which denies the connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors.

In a recent academic study, the Ruth Institute (located in Lousiana, USA) presented clear evidence of the connection between the sexual abuse of minors and the homosexualization of clergy. According to this study, 78% of the abused minors were not children, but postpubescent male adolescents. The document of the Synod of Youth 2018 will surely go down in history as a great omission on the part of the hierarchy in admitting one of the main causes of the sexual abuse of children and adolescents, which is clerical homosexuality. Is not such a denial of evidence in the synod document also a form of clericalism?

Positive elements

What positive elements do you see in the final document?

There are of course several positive elements in the final document. One could mention for instance the following:

• The call to holiness, especially in n.165.
• A beautiful and theologically correct description of the Sacred Liturgy in n. 134; the importance of silence, the awe before the Mystery, etc.
• The importance of prayer, contemplation, Eucharistic adoration, interiority, pilgrimages, and popular devotions.
• The need to give answers and reasons for our Faith, quoting 1 Peter 3:15.
• The mention of not creating a new Church in n. 60.
• The mention of grace – seven times; however, the word “action” is mentioned twice as much as “grace.”
• The importance of spiritual direction.
• The mention of ascesis and the spiritual battle, and the formation of conscience.
• The prayer for vocations.
• The beautiful conclusion in n. 167.

Omissions and tendentious terms

Your Excellency, is there anything you would like to add?

In order to evaluate a document one has also to consider the omissions and tendentious terms. These omissions and tendentious terms reflect a specific ideology. Indeed the basic approach of the document clearly manifests a tendency towards naturalism, anthropocentrism, doctrinal ambiguity, vague sentimentalism, and subjectivism. This tendency can be identified unmistakably as neo-pelagianism clothed in clericalism.

One has to consider, for example, the following omissions, which speak for themselves: there are no words such as: “sacred”, “holy”, “rock”, “eternal”, “eternity”, “supernatural”, “heaven” (in the sense of eternal life); “win, conquer”, “resist”; “defend”; “soldier”; “victory”, “goal, aim”, “virtue” (in the theological sense), “soul” (instead “body” is mentioned 19 times), “truth” (not in the theological or metaphysical sense, but only in psychological and human relationships), “objective”, “objectivity”, “clear”; “conviction”; “law of God”; “observance”, “commandments”, “penance”, “obedient”, “obedience”, “martyrdom” (in the sense of dying for the sake of the Catholic Faith and for Jesus Christ), “reverence and respect towards God.”

There are also the following tendentiously used words: “human” (20 times, whereas “Divine” is used only twice); “body” (19 times, whereas “soul” is never used); “history” (15 times); “experience” (52 times); “liberty and freedom” (38 times); “action and activity” (25 times, whereas “grace” only 7 times); “earth” (6 times); “ecology” (3 times); “synodal and synodality” (105 times).

It is astonishing that the following biblical quotations, which are most apt for the formation of young people, are missing in the final document:

• “A young man came up to him, saying, ‘Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?’… If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (Mt. 19:16-17);
• “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:19);
• “So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air” (1 Cor 9, 26);
• “Rooted and built up in him and confirmed in the faith” (Col. 2:7);
• “Flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness” (2 Tim. 2:22);
• “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1);
• “You are established in the truth that you have” (2 Peter 1:12);
• “This is the victory that has overcome the world — our faith” (1 John 5:4).

The timeless voice of the Church

The following words of John Paul II and of Pius XII reflect the timeless voice of the Church in instructing young people. This voice is timeless in its content and in its language:

“What must I do to inherit eternal life?” … Are we not the generation whose horizon of existence is completely filled by the world and temporal progress? … When we place ourselves in the presence of Christ, when he becomes the confidant of the questionings of our youth, we cannot put the question differently from how that young man put it: ‘What must I do to inherit eternal life?’. Any other question about the meaning and value of our life would be, in the presence of Christ, insufficient and unessential. … In his dialogue with each of you, Christ repeats the same question, “Do you know the commandments?” This question will be infallibly repeated, because the commandments form part of the Covenant between God and humanity; they form the foundation of behavior, determine the moral value of human acts, and are connected with man’s vocation to eternal life, and the establishment of God’s Kingdom here among us. … If necessary, be resolved to go against the current of popular opinion and propaganda slogans! Do not be afraid of the love that places clear demands on people. These demands — as you find them in the constant teaching of the Church — are precisely capable of making your love a true love” (John Paul II, Letter to the Youth of the World, March 31, 1985).

“Catholic young people, this is what you desire to be, and fully so. You oppose the irreligiousness and unbelief that surrounds you with your firm, living and active faith. Your faith can only be steadfast and luminous if you know it, not in a superficial and confused way, but clearly and intimately. Your faith is alive if you live according to its maxims and keep God’s commandments. The young man who sanctifies the feasts by facing any difficulty or trouble, who often approaches the Table of the Lord, who is truthful and loyal, ready to help the needy, who respects girls and women, and has the strength to close his eyes and heart to all that is impure in books, images, ‘films’ — truly shows that he has a living faith. And take note that, if it is not alive, faith is not even active. If others often make such great efforts for the evil one’s undertakings, how much greater must your zeal be for the cause of God, of Christ, and of the Church! Catholic young people, be men with a supernatural spirit, for whom union with Christ, the glorious resurrection and eternal life are worth more than all human things. The Catholic world carries within itself an inexhaustible source of prosperity and goodness even in the field of earthly life, precisely because it places the eternal simply above the temporal. If it were not so, its strength would be extinguished. […] In our time, humanity has heard the message of “overturning all values” (UmwertungallerWerte)…. Precisely in these years of economic and social upheaval, religious and eternal values have powerfully demonstrated their absolute indestructibility: God and his natural law; Christ and his Kingdom of truth and grace; the Christian family are always the same and always the backbone and measure of every economic and public order; the sweet and sure hope of the next world, of the resurrection and of eternal life” (Address of Pius XII to the Youth of the Italian Catholic Action,September 12, 1948).

One must regret the fact that the Church’s first synod on young people did not quote an important work of a great Saint and Doctor of the Church, St. Basil, which deals specifically with the theme of young people. It is worth quoting from this Patristic work, at least the following statements, which are timeless and so up to date for young people today. St. Basil writes:

“We Christians, young [people], hold that this human life is not a supremely precious thing, nor do we recognize anything as unconditionally a blessing which benefits us in this life only….. We place our hopes upon the things which are beyond, and in preparation for the life eternal do all things that we do […] If one should estimate and gather together all earthly weal from the creation of the world, he would not find it comparable to the smallest part of the possessions of heaven; rather, that all the precious things in this life fall further short of the least good in the other than the shadow or the dream fails of the reality. Or rather, to avail myself of a still more natural comparison, by as much as the soul is superior to the body in all things, by so much is one of these lives superior to the other. […] Truth should be made the guide of one’s life, so that if one must needs speak against all men, and be in ill-favor and in danger for virtue’s sake, he shall not swerve at all from that which he considers right” (St. Basil the Great, To Young Men, chapters 2;9).

Rather than giving young people, metaphorically speaking, nutritious and healthy homemade bread, by providing them with an authentic doctrinal, spiritual and pastoral formation in its content and language, the final document of the synod on young people failed to do this, and can therefore metaphorically be called “overly sweetened lemonade.” Sweet lemonade is not for everyone and not for all times, while healthy and nutritious homemade bread is food which has an unperishable taste and gives true strength. Such were the authentic magisterial documents of the Church for over two thousand years, for they reflected faithfully and unambiguously in their content and their language the unchanging Tradition of the Catholic Faith, which is witnessed to in a privileged manner by the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church, and also by the many youthful martyrs and confessors.

Diane Montagna

NEWSTue May 28, 2019 – 6:26 pm EST

EXCLUSIVE: Abp Viganò says Pope is lying in latest denial about McCarrick

Pope Francis, Theodore Mccarrick, Vigano Testimonies

ROME, May 28, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — For what appears to be the first time, Pope Francis has openly denied that he knew anything of former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s immoral activities, directly contradicting Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s account of their conversation on the subject.

“I didn’t know anything … nothing, nothing,” Pope Francis said in a new interview published on Tuesday in Vatican News.

In response, the former apostolic nuncio to the United States has directly accused Pope Francis of lying.

In comments to LifeSite following the release of the interview, Archbishop Viganò said: “What the Pope said about not knowing anything is a lie. […] He pretends not to remember what I told him about McCarrick, and he pretends that it wasn’t him who asked me about McCarrick in the first place.”

Both interviews coincide with the release of a leaked correspondence between Pope Francis, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, and then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, confirming that restrictions were placed on McCarrick by the Vatican in 2008, and that the former cardinal (who has now been laicized over charges of sexual abuse) travelled extensively during the Francis pontificate, playing a key diplomatic role in establishing the controversial Vatican accord with Communist China.

The new interview

In the May 28 interview with Mexican journalist Valentina Alazraki, Pope Francis sought to explain why he has never openly denied Archbishop Vigano’s original testimony, while issuing a denial seemingly for the first time.

Readers will recall that news of the former US nuncio’s testimony broke last August 25, while Pope Francis was attending the World Meeting Families in Dublin. One day later, during an inflight press conference on his return to Rome, the Pope sidestepped questions about the explosive allegations that he knew of former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s abuse.

“Read the [Viganò] statement carefully yourselves and make your own judgment. I am not going to say a word about this,” the Pope told journalists aboard the papal plane (see video here).

“You all have sufficient journalistic ability to draw conclusions,” he said.

“It is an act of trust,” the Holy Father added. “When a little time goes by, and you have drawn conclusions, perhaps I will speak about it, but I would like your professional maturity to do this work. It will do you all good, really.”

In today’s interview with Alazraki, the journalist and long-time friend of John Paul II candidly tells Pope Francis: “That silence has been very burdensome, because for the press and for many people, when one is silent it is like a husband and wife, isn’t it? You catch your husband and he doesn’t answer you. And you say, ‘There’s something rotten here.’”

“So why the silence?” Alazraki pointedly asks Pope Francis. “The time has come to answer that question we asked you on the plane.”

“Yes,” Pope Francis responds. “Those who have studied Roman law say that silence is a way of speaking.”

He continues:

The Viganò case: I saw it, I hadn’t read the whole letter. I saw a little and I already knew what it was, and I made a choice: I trust the honesty of journalists and I said to them, “Look, here you have everything. Study it and draw your conclusions.” And that’s what you did, because you did the work, that was great, and I was very careful to say things weren’t there but then, three or four months later, a judge in Milan said them when he was convicted.
“You’re talking about his family,” Alazraki asks.

“Of course,” the Pope responds. “I kept quiet, why should I make it worse. Let the journalists find out. And you found it, you found that whole world. It was a silence of trust towards you … And the result was good, it was better than if I had started to explain, to defend myself.”

Pope Francis is suggesting that Archbishop Viganò has been exposed as unreliable because of a legal conflict with his brother that was settled in a Milan court.

In comments to LifeSite, Archbishop Viganò dismissed the Pope’s attempt to cast doubt on his reliability over a dispute with his brother concerning the management of their inheritance — a question he pointed out had “no relevance to the allegations regarding Cardinal McCarrick.”

“What Pope Francis said regarding the Milan ruling and my family has nothing to do with anything, because it has been completely clarified. It was only a division of property between brothers. I accepted it to make peace. Neither me nor my brother appealed the ruling, so the story ended there. And it has nothing to do with McCarrick. It is one of the many stories that they raised to destroy my credibility.”

Archbishop Viganò’s account of these proceedings has been extensively verified by LifeSite [see our report here].

In Oct. 2018, the Vatican announced that a “thorough study” of all relevant documents on McCarrick housed in Vatican offices would be conducted. It’s unclear however why Pope Francis would require an archival investigation to say whether he knew about Cardinal McCarrick’s misdeeds.

In his comments to LifeSite, Archbishop Viganò noted:

“On the return flight from Dublin, the Pope told journalists: ‘I trust in your professionalism.’ He promised to provide documents and he doesn’t provide the documents. Tell me how journalists are supposed to know the truth if you don’t provide the documents. How much time has passed since the Vatican promised an investigation? It’s all a contradiction. He completely contradicts himself.”
“The Pope pretends not to remember what I told him about McCarrick,” Archbishop Viganò added. “He pretends that it wasn’t him who asked me about McCarrick in the first place. And he pretends not to remember what I told him.”

The Pope even claimed during the interview that there have been allegations that Archbishop Viganò was bribed to make damaging claims about him [it is obscure to whom the Holy Father is referring], insinuating in the context a comparison of the former US nuncio to Judas Iscariot.

Pressing Pope Francis

In the May 28 interview, Alazraki presses Pope Francis further on whether or not he knew about former cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s misdeeds.

“I didn’t know anything about McCarrick, obviously, nothing, nothing,” he says. “I’ve said that several times, that I didn’t know, I had no idea.”

It’s unclear as to what Pope Francis is referring to when he says that he denied knowledge of McCarrick’s immoral activities on several occasions as his refusal to comment one way or another has been a particularly notable element of the scandal.

Pope Francis continues: “When [Archbishop Viganò] says that he spoke to me that day [on June 23, 2013], that he came … I don’t remember if he told me about this, whether it’s true or not, no idea! But you know that I didn’t know anything about McCarrick; otherwise I wouldn’t have kept quiet, right?”

Archbishop Viganò observed of this remark: “He tries to be clever, claiming that he doesn’t remember what I told him, when he was the one who asked me about McCarrick.”

The Pope says in the interview that there was a twofold reason for his silence. “First,” he tells Alazraki, “because the evidence was there, you judge. It was really an act of trust.”

“Secondly,” he adds, “because of the [example of Jesus], that in moments of viciousness it is better not to speak, because it makes it worse. Everything is going to go against you. The Lord taught use that path and I follow it.”

Leaked Correspondence

News of Pope Francis’s comments about Archbishop Viganò coincided with the release on Tuesday of a correspondence between Theodore McCarrick, Pope Francis and Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin.

The correspondence, obtained by former aide to Theodore McCarrick, American Monsignor Anthony Figueiredo, confirms that restrictions were placed on Theodore McCarrick by the Vatican in 2008, and that the former cardinal, who was laicized over charges of sexual abuse, travelled extensively the Francis pontificate, playing a key diplomatic role in establishing a Vatican accord with China.

Asked today about the correspondence, Archbishop Viganò told LifeSite “the letters sing.”

“Msgr. Figueiredo was McCarrick’s personal secretary when he came to Rome,” the former US nuncio said. “He has released these letters from McCarrick to Parolin and the Pope in which he reports on his trips to China, to Iran and other places. Therefore, they were all well informed about this.”

Archbishop Viganò also noted that the correspondence shows that the Vatican was informed about the fact that McCarrick was sharing a bed with seminarians. “McCarrick admitted it,” he said.

“To defend himself with the Pope, McCarrick said he never had sexual relations with anyone, but that he slept in the same bed with seminarians and priests,” the former US nuncio said.

Archbishop Viganò explained:

It’s the same thing he said before the ruling from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The sentence to reduce him to the lay state him was based on abuse against adults, minors and also abuse in Confession. Either the sentence from the Holy Office [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] is irrelevant, or what McCarrick said, that he never had relations with anyone, is a lie — just like what the Pope said about not knowing anything is a lie, just like what he said about not remembering what I told him is a lie, when he was the one who asked me.
The former nuncio to the United States also noted that the letters confirm Cardinal Parolin’s involvement in the McCarrick affair, adding that it’s time for him to be investigated.

“As I wrote in my first testimony, in May 2014 — when the article came out in the Washington Times referring to McCarrick’s trip to Central Africa — I wrote to Cardinal Parolin, asking him: Are the restrictions that were placed on McCarrick still valid or not?”

“Parolin never responded to me,” the archbishop said, adding that the Vatican Secretary of State should also be investigated. “He never responded to my letter, because is a total yes man, as we see with the China deal.”

Catholic Monitor

Friday, November 09, 2018

Prayer Needed: Is the Reason as Viganò said Francis “Lie[d]… about McCarrick”; & has Lied for Six Years is because he may be Afraid of Punishment Now more than Eternally?

Updated: May 28, 2019

Today, on LifeSiteNews, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò said “What the Pope said… is a lie… about McCarrick.”

In OnePeterFive, on April 4, 2019, renowned historian Roberto De Mattei said the “Francis Pontificate: Six Years of ‘Hypocrisy and Lies.'”

The famous psychologist Paul Ekman, named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine, wrote:

“My data [shows]… To avoid being punished. This is the most frequently mentioned motivation for telling lies.”
(PaulEkman.com, “Why do People Lie? 9 Motivates for telling Lies,” September 26, 2018)

Francis should go to confession because he appears to fear the punishment of public humiliation now more than eternal punishment.

It appears that we may need to pray that he goes to confession to be absolved of his sins against the Eighth Commandment with a firm purpose of amendment not to sin anymore or as Dummies.com in the post “Catholicism and the Ten Commandments” said:

“The Church doesn’t see the Ten Commandments as arbitrary rules… Obey them and eternal happiness is yours. Disobey them and suffer the consequences.”

Please pray that Francis goes to confession and with a firm purpose of amendment not to sin anymore, if he hasn’t done so already, because Jesus Christ died on the cross to save him from his sins and wants his eternal happiness.

Below are some other apparent lies of Francis’s six years of “hypocrisy and lies” which he may need to confess:

1. Calling homosexual sexual abuse “clericalism” is a lie unless Francis and his clerical as well as his media collaborators mean to add “clericalism” to Thesaurus’ sexual abuse synonym list which includes: molestation, rape, violation, carnal abuse, grope, sex crime and apparently now “clericalism.”

2. Francis called sex abuse cover-up Cardinal Donald Wuerl “noble.” CNN: “[T]he pope praised Wuerl for his ‘nobility’… The Pope wrote… ‘However, your nobility has led you not to choose this way of defense. Of this, I am proud and thank you.'” Wuerl according to PJ Media “shuffled known predator priests around… [and] allegedly paid off a priest who was involved in a child porn ring.”

3. CNN: “Gay man: Pope told me [a male sex abuse victim of a gay priest] ‘God made me like that.'”

4. PJ Media.com: “‘Regarding pedophile priests… Francis says there were no cases in his [Argentina] diocese,’ said Boudot, it prompting laughter from the [sex abuse Argentina victims] group.”

5. Church Militant: “[P]romised… zero tolerance… record shows that time and again, he violated his own policy and covered for, resurrected and even promoted multiple predators with deep ties to and involvement in the homosexual clerical network in the Church… Francis can hold out, as calls for his resignation become louder… around the globe.”

6. And do a search on this website by typing in “Pope Francis’s sex abuse cover-ups” if you want a longer list of apparent lies for which the Pope may need to confess in the confessional booth.

Pray an Our Father now for Francis and for the restoration of the Church.

Fred Martinez at 8:49 PM

Catholic Monitor

Sunday, May 26, 2019

Francis, Ocasio-Cortez, Abortionist One-World Government & the Club of Rome

Is Pope Francis the biggest hypocrite of our time?

He compares abortion to Nazi eugenics:
“The murder of children. To have an easy life, they get rid of an innocent… Last century, the whole world was scandalised by what the Nazis did to purify the race. Today, we do the same thing but with white gloves.”
[http://www.lifenews.com/2018/06/18/pope-francis-was-right-to-compare-abortion-to-nazi-eugencis/]

But then he promotes the leading one-world government abortionist eugenicist leaders:

Pope Francis’s Vatican hosted Paul Ehrlick who has “called for forced abortion and mass sterilization” according to Lifenews.com.[https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/pope-francis-marks-pope-francis-marks-day-for-life-with-abortion-language-c]

Francis said he is “gratified” by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals which “promote universal access to abortion” according to Voice of the Family.com.[http://voiceofthefamily.com/pope-francis-gratified-by-un-goals-that-demand-universal-access-to-sexual-and-reproductive-health/]

In 2015, LifeSiteNews reported:

“Pope Francis has appointed controversial German Professor John Schellnhuber as an ordinary member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Schellnhuber was one of the four presenters of the new encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si’, on Thursday. He is also scheduled to chair a session of a Pontifical Academy for Sciences educational workshop on “Children and Sustainable Development” set for November.”

“… Schellnhuber is also known for his advocacy of a one-world government. In order to avoid his catastrophic predictions for unchecked climate change.”

“… Schellnhuber is also a full member of the Club of Rome.”

“[T]he Club of Rome in 1972, was one of the starting points for the worldwide attempt to reduce the population by aggressive methods of promoting birth control and the killing of pre-born children.”
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/whos-that-one-world-climate-guru-who-helped-present-the-popes-encyclical-at]

Francis is in alliance with the United Nations, the Club of Rome and Schellnhuber in calling for a one-world government.

The New American reported on the “unholy alliance” between the globalists and the Pope:

Francis said “‘When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority legally and concordantly constituted capable of facilitating its implementation. We think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new forms of slavery and peace,’ his holiness told those gathered to discuss ‘Nation, State, and Nation-State,’ the conference theme.”

“Pope Francis put a pretty fine point on his message, claiming that planetary problems are exacerbated by ‘an excessive demand for sovereignty on the part of States.'”

“… Our only hope for planetary peace and progress is to make room for ‘international organizations’ to develop into governing bodies, supplanting the ‘state interests’ with the will of the United Nations, he stated.”

“… Those people pushing for unlimited access to abortion loathe the Roman Catholic Church and its centuries-long opposition to the murder of children in utero are the very people standing with the head of that church in the fight to kill sovereignty and establish a one-world government.”

“That seemingly bizarre and undeniably unholy alliance should be enough to compel people to question what the underlying goal of the globalists must be.”

“In other words, what sort of government would the pope and pro-abortion advocates find mutually commendable?”
[https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/32245-pope-francis-calls-for-end-of-sovereignty-and-establishment-of-global-government]

Also, apparently in alliance with Francis and the Club of Rome is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in their attempt to bring about a abortionist eugenicist one-world government:

“Ocasio-Cortez is the leading champion of the Green New Deal, in collaboration with a Rockefeller-funded left-wing astroturf advocacy group called the Sunrise Movement [SM]… ”

“The Green New Deal is exploiting the popularity of social democratic ideals as sugar coating to disguise the globalists’ poison pill. According to reporting by Inside Philanthropy, institutional funders made up about 55 percent of Sunrise Movement’s 2018 budget, which includes donors like the Rockefeller Family Fund, Wallace Global Fund, and the Winslow Foundation. The Wallace Global Fund was originally founded by former US Vice-President Henry A. Wallace. Winslow is run by Wren Winslow Wirth, who is married to former politician Tim Wirth.[3] SM was launched in April 2017 by six principal co-founders—veterans of the Occupy Movement—who had developed a friendship with Michael Dorsey of the Rockefeller-funded globalist institution, the Club Of Rome; Dorsey was also a former Sierra Club board member, whom President Barack Obama had appointed to the EPA’s National Advisory Board in 2010 and 2012.”
[http://www.conspiracyschool.com/blog/green-astroturf-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-agent-globalist-conspiracy]

Who is Dorsey who is one of Ocasio-Cortez’s puppet masters behind the scenes?

The Club of Rome Dorsey “is a recognized expert on global governance and sustainability.”
[https://www.diversegreen.org/people/michael-dorsey/]

It appears that Ocasio-Cortez is in line with the abortionist eugenicist Club of Rome “promoting [of] birth control and the killing of pre-born children”:

“‘Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don’t turn this ship around and so it’s basically like, there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult,’ Ocasio-Cortez said while chopping up food in her kitchen during an Instagram live video. ‘And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, ‘Is it okay to still have children?'”
[https://www.dailywire.com/news/43880/ocasio-cortez-people-maybe-shouldnt-reproduce-due-ryan-saavedra]

By coincidence it appears that Ocasio-Cortez’s new Chief of Staff Saikat Chakrabarti is a fan of a ally of Hitler:

“Based on a recent clothing choice, Chakrabarti might justifiably be considered a Nazi sympathizer. But really? Well, yes. In his latest love-fest video for AOC, Chakrabarti is sporting a tee-shirt that features a portrait of Subhas Chandra Bose. Not familiar with this former Indian head of state? Here a few facts:”
“Bose was an ally of Adolf Hitler and met with him personally in 1942.”
“Bose founded the Free India Legion (FIL) made up of troops captured by Nazi Field Marshal Rommel’s Afrika Korps.”
“The FIL swore an oath to Hitler and was under SS command.”[https://www.libertynation.com/ocasio-cortez-and-the-nazi-connection/]
Also, by coincidence Ocasio-Cortez and her Chief of Staff Chakrabarti happen to be pro-choice like the one time one-world government abortionist eugenicist leader Adolf Hitler.

As the German Media covered up Hitler’s many eugenic scandals, the Nazi Media proudly promoted the pro-choice Hitler.

In 1933, when the Nazis came to power, one of Hitler’s first acts was to legalize abortion for the “health of the mother” which meant abortion on demand. By 1935 Germany had 500,000 abortions a year.[http://www.klannedparenthood.com/nazis-and-abortion/hitler-was-pro-choice/]

Pro-choice Hitler’s next step after legalizing abortion was sterilization which lead to eugenics which lead to the mass murder of not only the innocent unborn babies, but the disabled, poor, unemployed, Nazi opponents, gypsies and Jews.[http://www.klannedparenthood.com/nazis-and-abortion/hitler-was-pro-choice/]

Getting back to Francis who appears to be in alliance with Ocasio-Cortez in achieving the goal of the Club of Rome to have a abortionist eugenicist one-world government; we need to remember that Francis’s Vatican hosted Paul Ehrlick who has “called for forced abortion and mass sterilization” according to Lifenews.com.[https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/pope-francis-marks-pope-francis-marks-day-for-life-with-abortion-language-c]

Remember that Hitler’s next step after legalizing abortion was sterilization which lead to eugenics which lead to the mass murder of not only the innocent unborn babies, but the disabled, poor, unemployed, Nazi opponents, gypsies and Jews.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
Fred Martinez at 5:00 PM

An Inheritance of Peace
Fr. Paul D. Scalia
THE CATHOLIC THING

SUNDAY, MAY 26, 2019

A man facing death sets his affairs in order. He makes arrangements so that his heirs will be well provided for upon his death. This is what our Lord does at the Last Supper. Making the final preparations before His Crucifixion, He leaves an inheritance to the Apostles and through them to the entire Church. Thus He gives us the Eucharist, the new commandment of love (the mandatum), the priesthood, etc.

We hear of one such gift in today’s Gospel: Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. This is part of His last will and testament, of our inheritance. Of course, “peace” is one of those words that we often use and rarely understand. What He intends here is not geopolitical peace but spiritual. Still, the classic definition used in political thought also applies: peace is the tranquility of order.

Sin has disturbed our souls, set them out of order. Our interior disquiet, in turn, causes disturbances outside of us – in the family, society, and the world as a whole. Christ’s grace within us frees our souls from the disorder of sin. He gives us an interior tranquility of order by configuring us to Himself. Once at peace interiorly, we can then (and only then) be a cause of peace for others.

Interestingly, our Our Lord says little about peace – not even a full verse. Still, the context of His words indicates its importance, and His precise phrasing reveals its distinctive nature.

Peace I leave with you. . . .His peace is left to us. It is something received, not seized or manufactured. Like Christ Himself, His peace is “begotten not made.” It is the fruit of His grace within us, and not something we attain by our own cleverness or dint of effort. We can neither think our way to this peace nor will it for ourselves. Ours is to respond to and cooperate with His grace of peace, not to create or grasp for it.

*
In fact, the attempt to manufacture this interior peace typically results in its exact opposite. (Serenity now!) We all know those who think they can bring about peace by their own efforts. For them, peace depends on controlling the situation. Such people not only fail to attain peace for themselves; they also disturb it for others. That is one takeaway from today’s first reading: those who insisted on their own way of salvation disturbed the “peace of mind” (Acts 15:24) of Christ’s followers. It is not in controlling Christ that we have peace but in receiving Him.

My peace I give to you. . . .Ultimately, only Jesus Christ can say this, because only He has peace to give. As both God and man, He is our reconciliation with the Father. As the risen One He has vanquished everything and everyone that threatens that peace. Thus even the peace we extend to others (cf. Mt 9:13) is not our own but what He has entrusted to us. Further, He does not give something apart from or external to Himself. His peace comes from within. Indeed, He is our peace, as Saint Paul bluntly states. (Eph 2:14)

Not as the world gives do I give it to you. The world gives conditionally, according to its own familiar standards of wealth, power, and pleasure. If we want peace on the world’s terms, then we must have those things. If we set our hearts on what the world gives, then our peace will be as fragile and unstable as the world is. Our Lord gives a peace that doesn’t depend on the things of this world and so can withstand any setbacks, sufferings, and even the worst persecutions.

The world gives by way of compromise with the truth. In effect, it gives not peace but only a truce. Or, perhaps more accurately, the world threatens conflict if we do not compromise. So we often settle for a false peace (as we do false loves and mercies) at the price of truth. Christ’s peace, however, comes from knowledge of and adherence to the truth. It is the peace that comes from knowing Him and being found in Him. (cf. Phil 3:9-10)

Finally, since the Great Novena to the Holy Spirit begins this Friday in anticipation of Pentecost, we should note the relation of Christ’s peace and the Holy Spirit. Like any other inheritance, this one becomes effective upon the death of the Giver. Unlike any other, however, this inheritance comes not as the Giver departs from us, but as He comes to us in a more powerful way, through His Spirit.

May that same Spirit increase our intimacy with Christ and bring to fruition His peace within us.

*Image: Descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles by Mikhail Vrubel, 1885 [Church of St. Cyril, Kiev, Ukraine]
Share this:
Facebook
© 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org
The 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 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.

The Right To Choose – HLI Reports on The Seedy Vaccine Business

OCTOBER 14, 2001 COG FOR LIFE
The Right to Choose: Making an Informed Decision about Vaccines

By Jameson Taylor, Human Life International

President Bush, in a 12 August NY Times op-ed, defended his decision to fund embryonic stem cell research by citing the widespread use of vaccines derived from fetal tissue. This article addresses the ethical dilemmas posed by such vaccines.

One of the ironies of the Culture of Death is that while a mother can choose to murder her unborn child, parents are not free to care for their children as they choose. Everyone knows of or has heard of a family that has had their children taken away for spanking. Likewise, parents that home school their children know just how intrusive government bureaucrats can be. How much worse can things get? …much, much worse.

As many pro-lifers may already know, six commonly used vaccines—polio, rabies, mumps, rubella (MMR), chickenpox and hepatitis-A—were developed using fetal tissue from aborted infants. Catholic theologians and ethicists have determined that the use of these vaccines comprises “remote material cooperation” with the sin of abortion and, as such, is not necessarily wrong. “A Catholic may want to make a moral statement by refusing the vaccines,” notes Richard Doerflinger, Associate Director of Policy Development for the NCCB, “but the people who analyzed the issue didn’t feel that was a moral requirement.” Ultimately, parents must decide for themselves, after prayer and study, what to do.

On 3 May 2001, Human Life International’s South African affiliate, Pro-Life South Africa, petitioned Pope John Paul II to “draw the attention of the world to this hideous practice…[so] that alternative means of vaccine production be urgently brought on line.” “Children of God…For Life,” (cogforlife.org) has information on its website to help parents make an informed decision about the vaccines and has drafted an online petition demanding the creation of pro-life vaccines.

The good news is that, in some cases, substitutes are available. A list of the various options is posted at cogforlife.org. No alternatives, however, exist for chickenpox, rubella and hepatitis-A. Coincidentally, fetal-tissue vaccines for these three ailments are all manufactured by Merck & Co.[i] Merck’s total sales in 2000 were U.S.$40.36 billion. In 1999, Merck’s charitable endeavors exceeded that of all U.S. companies. The John Merck Fund, created by the widow of Merck’s deceased CEO, George W. Merck, has long been known for its willingness to “back controversial issues and small groups.” Francis W. Hatch, former Republican candidate for governor in Massachusetts, administers the fund on behalf of his now-deceased mother-in-law. Under Hatch’s leadership, Merck has become the top supporter of New England’s leading environmental groups. Not coincidentally, Merck provides significant support to Planned Parenthood as well as the PP “iwannaknow” website, Princeton University’s “Emergency Contraception” website, [ex-]Catholics for a Free Choice and Abortion Rights Mobilization (ARM). In 1993, ARM, impatient with FDA delays in approving RU-486, began manufacturing the abortion pill in a rented warehouse. A 1997 grant from the Merck Fund made it possible for ARM to expand its distribution of this back-alley-manufactured-abortion-pill. Danco, formed solely for the purpose of marketing RU-486 (mifepristone) nationwide, is also run by a former Merck executive, Roy Karnovsky.

Given Merck’s murky ties to the Culture of Death, many pro-lifers are refusing to use Merck vaccines created from aborted fetal tissue. The federal government, however, encourages states to force vaccines upon children by giving states $50-$100 for each fully vaccinated child. Most states thus have mandatory vaccine policies that subject the typical child to 33 doses of 9 to 10 different vaccines by kindergarten. By contrast, our grandparents received only one vaccination—for smallpox. Over two hundred additional vaccines are currently in development, with one manufacturer promising that all 12-year olds in the United States will soon be injected with an AIDS vaccine. Other observers are concerned that the U.S. government, as in Mexico and the Philippines, will force or deceive women into accepting vaccines containing anti-pregnancy hormones.

Every state supposedly allows religious and medical vaccine exemptions. But state health officials are notoriously unsympathetic to parents who want to protect their children—body and soul—from these vaccines, even going so far as to abduct such children from their parents.

The courts have ruled that state agencies cannot frustrate parents’ requests for vaccine exemptions. In March 2001, the Rutherford Institute, representing Jeff and Susan Page before the Wyoming Supreme Court, successfully sued the Wyoming State Department of Health for denying the Pages’ request for a religious exemption from the hepatitis-B vaccine. The Pages saw no reason to inoculate their children against a disease that almost exclusively results from intravenous drug use and promiscuous homosexual and heterosexual sex. Declared John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, “The…decision is a resounding affirmation of the right to parents to direct their children’s medical treatment according to their own religious beliefs, without interference from the state.” Similarly, this past May, the Illinois state legislature passed a bill deleting provisions of a 1987 act that required the state’s Department of Children and Family Services to investigateparents who choose not to vaccinate their children.

Parents must be free to choose whether or not their children are vaccinated for two reasons. The first reason is the Constitution. As James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” affirms, all citizens at all times “retain an equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of conscience.” Adams would have whole-heartedly agreed with the Wyoming Court’s ruling that no government official can question a parent’s conscientious decision to not vaccinate his children. Second, scientists and medical professionals are increasingly worried that some vaccines are not only unnecessary, but also unsafe.

Why is the federal government pushing unnecessary vaccines on America’s children? After an eight month investigation by the House Committee on Government Reform, the answer is clear: pharmaceutical companies essentially control the FDA and CDC advisory committees that determine what vaccines American schoolchildren are required to receive. Concluded Dan Burton (R-IN), chair of the Committee on Government Reform, “We’ve taken a good hard look at whether the pharmaceutical industry has too much influence over these committees. From the evidence we found, I think they do…[possibly] the entire process has been polluted and the public trust has been violated.”

Congress found clear evidence that the vaccine advisory boards are “inappropriately influenced by special interests.” Dr. John Modlin, chairman of the CDC vaccine advisory committee, owned stock in Merck valued at $26,000. Modlin also served on Merck’s Immunization Advisory Board. Dr. Patricia Ferrieri, chairman of the FDA advisory committee, owned stock in Merck worth $20,000. Dr. Paul Offit, a member of the CDC board, held a patent on one of the vaccines affected by the committee’s rulings—a vaccine developed with funding from Merck. Offit also revealed that “he is paid by the pharmaceutical industry to travel around the country and teach that vaccines are safe.” Dr. Harry Greenberg, another chairman of the FDA committee, held significant stock in two vaccine companies. The House committee found many more cases of apparent conflicts of interest among vaccine committee members, concluding that “it almost appears that there is an ‘old boys network’ of vaccine advisors that rotate between the CDC and FDA.”

According to the New York Times, pharmaceutical companies spent $5.3 billion in 1998 alone to convince lawmakers, doctors, scientists and consumers to use or force others to use their products. As Congressman Burton’s committee found, doctors and scientists are not immune to such persuasion. The prestigious New England Journal of Medicine was itself compelled to apologize to its readers for having violated—19 times in three years—its own financial conflict-of-interest policies regarding reviews of new drug treatments.

Because of the rampant corruption plaguing the vaccine approval process, more and more doctors and scientists are questioning the safety of additional vaccines. The National Academy of Sciences issued a 1994 report that found serious problems “concerning a general deficiency of safety testing in the vaccine field, especially as concerns long-term side effects.” Experts are calling for more studies on whether vaccines are linked to significant increases in asthma, diabetes, autism and learning disabilities. For these reasons, in November 2000, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons unanimously called for a moratorium on all government mandated vaccines.

It is an interesting coincidence that the same vaccines developed using fetal tissue have proven to be among the least necessary and most dangerous on the market. Doctors readily admit that children have virtually no chance of getting Hepatitis-A or B. Hearings before the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources in May 1999 revealed that thousands of children have been severely injured or killed by the hep-B vaccine. Over 16 peer-reviewed medical articles have linked multiple sclerosis, autism and other neurological and immunological disorders to the vaccine. Of course, the FDA approved the hep-B vaccine—manufactured by Merck & Co.—after Merck submitted “long-term” safety studies that consisted of a mere 653 healthy infants monitored for only five days after each vaccination! As one doctor asked Congress: “How can an experiment such as universal hepatitis-B vaccination be adopted nationwide?…Apparently this was accomplished by the joint efforts of an official of an agency that stood to gain much influence and power by the program and by an executive of a drug company which stood to make billions of dollars.”

Though the federal government rescinded the vaccine’s mandate on July 9, 1999 (the year before, French health officials had also stopped using the vaccine), most states still require hepatitis-A and B vaccinations. On 17 June 1999, the government also revoked approval of the oral polio vaccine. The vaccine itself had proven to be the sole cause of polio in the United States since 1979. In addition, the vaccine is suspected of causing encephalitis.

Concerned parents in Illinois prevented a statewide chickenpox vaccine mandate by demonstrating that the vaccine is probably more dangerous than the virus itself. According to the Illinois Vaccine Awareness Coalition, “the federal government received reports of 12,635 adverse reactions to the chickenpox vaccine, 31 deaths and 590 serious complications.” The Coalition estimates that the actual death toll may be far greater owing to the fact that an estimated 99 percent of adverse reactions to vaccines are unreported. As of last summer, the federal government continued to withhold data on the side effects of the Hep-B and chickenpox vaccines.

Finally, as revealed in separate hearings before the Committee on Government Reform, the MMR vaccine may cause or contribute to autism and enterocolitis. In Japan, the MMR vaccine has been banned since 1993. While scientists debate the actual safety of the vaccine, it has become clear that neither the FDA nor the CDC can be trusted to determine which vaccines parents should give their children. Whatever informed decision parents make concerning the use of fetal-tissue vaccines, it is time for us all to stand up for the right to choose! vaccines that are morally acceptable, truly necessary and credibly safe.

Note 1: SmithKline Beecham also manufactures a fetal tissue Hepatitis-A vaccine.

Printed with permission of Human Life International

Posted in: Archive, Fetal & Vaccine Research Tags: vaccines

Vaccines from Abortion – Time to Report the Truth!
by CoG for Life
Vaccines from Abortion – Time to Report the Truth!
Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director, Children of God for Life
May 20, 2019

When articles like What does the Catholic Church teach about vaccines, Washington D.C., May 6, 2019 / 04:28 pm (CNA) appear in what is supposed to be valid Catholic news, mass confusion abounds and false information becomes viral on social media and worse, in the chanceries of some dioceses. In an email to Catholic News Agency dated May 10, 2009 we asked they correct their errors and publish the truth. Since they have not responded, we will because it is important that the truth is reported.

So, let’s look at the glaring errors the unnamed author of the article puts out. The problems begin with their statement that, “One reason that some people decline the measles vaccine in particular has to do with the fact that it was developed from cell lines descending from aborted fetal tissue.” (1)

This is completely false. It is rubella, not measles that is currently produced using aborted fetal material in both the virus, known as RA273 and in the cell line WI-38 which is used to cultivate the virus. The rubella vaccine is combined with measles and mumps in the MMR.
As for the measles outbreaks, it is no different now than in 2014 with the Disney outbreak’s 667 cases and now. In both situations, one needs to put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Merck, the sole producer of MMR in the United States and not the parents who are exercising religious exemptions.

Because until 2009, Merck provided the separate vaccines for measles (Attenuvax) and mumps (Mumpsvax) which are morally produced using chicken eggs. Despite massive public outcry, Merck refused to continue supplying separate vaccines, stating it was not profitable to do so. This when their own financial records showed over $10 million in sales for the separate doses that year.

So exactly what do those symbolic letters and numbers RA273 and WI-38 in the MMR vaccine actually stand for? Let’s decipher what was really going on.

During the rubella epidemic of 1964, doctors in Philadelphia began advising pregnant women who contracted rubella to abort their babies due to fear of Congenital Rubella Syndrome (CRS) which can affect the unborn child. The aborted babies were immediately sent to the science labs of Dr. Stanley Plotkin who isolated the virus RA273, translated as: R=Rubella, A=Abortion, 27=27th aborted baby, 3=3rd tissue explanted that contained the live rubella virus. (2)

And although he had successfully isolated the virus that would eventually be used in the rubella vaccine on the market today, it didn’t stop there. In subsequent research papers Dr. Plotkin noted another 40 aborted babies were dissected to obtain further virus samples. (3) This means there were at least 67 babies electively aborted just to obtain the virus for the rubella vaccine. And what about that WI-38 cell line used to culture the virus? Dr. Leonard Hayflick graphically describes his research and the aborted babies that were shipped from Sweden to his labs at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia in several research papers. (4, 5) WI-38 translates as Wistar Institute, specimen number 38.
Before perfecting his work there were 32 elective abortions to produce the WI-38 cell line. In six of the abortions, multiple organs were dissected and numbered, hence the difference between the number of abortions (32) and the WI-38 designation. That’s 99 elective abortions for the rubella vaccine alone.

Compare this to what the author of the article stated – that there were “two abortions performed in 1960s from which the cells lines were developed”. Unfortunately, this is probably one of the biggest falsehoods that has been propagated on an unsuspecting American public for decades!

In addition, there are several more cell lines from hundreds more abortions that are used in vaccines and medicines such as MRC-5, (6) WI-26 and WI-44, (7) IMR-90, (8) IMR-91, (9) HEK-293, (10) Lambda hE.1, (11) PER C6, (12) and in 2015, WALVAX 2. (13) This baby was chosen from 9 abortions in China as they were trying to replicate WI-38 and MRC-5 cell lines for their own vaccines. Like IMR-90 and IMR-91, scientists deliberately chose to use aborted babies that would match the gestation age and tissue type (lung tissue) to replace the cell lines which were depleting. They could have chosen a moral cell line as Japan did, but they chose not to do so.

If that was not bad enough, the horror goes much deeper as described in the article Forsaking God for the Sake of Science. Exposed are the forced sterilizations and forced abortions that took place in the early 1900’s under the Eugenic Sterilization Act, during which noted polio scientists describe their research using aborted babies. (14)

In just one such research paper, Drs. Thicke, Duncan, Wood and Rhodes graphically describe their work: “Human embryos of two and one-half to five months gestation were obtained from the gynaecological department of the Toronto General Hospital. They were placed in a sterile container and promptly transported to the virus laboratory of the adjacent Hospital for Sick Children. No macerated specimens were used and in many of the embryos the heart was still beating at the time of receipt in the virus laboratory.” (15)

Deplorable, despicable and completely unnecessary because in all research documents from 1936 -1964, from polio to rubella, scientists noted there were several other moral sources that could be used as well.

Continuing with the problems in the May 6th article, the author states that “none of these cells are in the vaccines themselves”, but this too is completely false. All one has to do is read the manufacturer’s own package insert under “Ingredients” or “Description”. For example, the Varivax (chickenpox) vaccine literature clearly states, “The product also contains residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein.” (16)

Next, the writer lays out the misleading claim that the Pontifical Academy for Life “has concluded that it is both morally permissible and morally responsible for Catholics to use these vaccines”. That is a bit deceitful because the 2005 document from the PAFL, Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared From Cells Derived From Aborted Human Foetuses, goes much deeper than that. The Academy expressed the right of parents to use or abstain from aborted fetal vaccines “if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis. The moral reason is that the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience.” The central concern in their document was for pregnant women and the possible transmission of rubella to her unborn child. (17)

So let’s look at the situation in the US where according to the CDC, rubella has been eliminated since 2002 with less than 10 cases per year, none of which were native and all were self-contained, meaning no one else was infected. (18) Women are tested for rubella immunity at their first prenatal checkup and if they are not immune, Immune Globulin (IG) may be used to prevent rubella. IG is not harmful to the woman or her unborn child and provides protection through the first trimester when CRS could harm an unborn child.

Additionally, one might ask “What if the pregnant woman refuses aborted fetal cell line vaccines for religious reasons? Should that trump the right of someone else who is abstaining?” The answer of course, is no.

It is important to keep in mind that the PAFL document was written for the entire world – not just the US. In some countries, rubella and CRS are still a problem. However, there is virtually no risk currently anywhere in the US, Canada, Mexico, Central America or South America nor has there been any risk for over sixteen years in the US. (19) “Significant risk”, “considerable danger” and “grave inconvenience” do not exist in the US.

Unfortunately, the article then makes the disingenuous assertion that “science does not substantiate claims that vaccines pose a significant threat”. Actually, science and reality say otherwise.

Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the Federal Government has paid out nearly $4 billion dollars to over 6,500 families of vaccine injured children, including 1,301 deaths. (20) It is important to understand that these numbers represent only those that were both filed in vaccine court and compensated. The number of adverse reactions are reported separately in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) which receives over 10,000 reports annually; about 15% are serious. (21)

In conclusion, in 2015 Planned Parenthood boldly defended abortion based on the use of the fetal cell lines in vaccines as “life-saving research”. That too was false news because there have always been moral alternatives for all childhood vaccines except chickenpox. Japan has moral measles, mumps, rubella and hepatitis-A vaccines. And incredibly, many parents determined to stand by their moral convictions have traveled there to get their children vaccinated. Certainly, this is not an option for many who cannot afford to do that.

But when news agencies and bioethicists cling to outdated and false information, our bishops and other Catholic leaders are misled. And worse, the public is lulled into a tacit approval of the status quo since they are told it’s perfectly okay to use the vaccines. If there is no demand for moral alternatives, as the PAFL instructed the faithful to do, there will never be a reason for the industry to change.

Dr. Jozef Zalot, who was mentioned in the article, was rightfully concerned about removing parental moral conscience rights to abstain. This is especially important in light of the fact that the protection of this sacred right has been at the top of our Catholic healthcare and the bishops’ concerns for many years. More than ever, we need Catholic and other Christian pro-life leaders to unite worldwide, to protect parental and physicians’ rights, to put pressure on the industry and put an end to this injustice. Stay tuned…at Children of God for Life we intend to do just that!
————————-
References:
1. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/what-does-the-catholic-church-teach-about-vaccines-75223
2. Plotkin et al, Attenuation of RA 2713 Rubella Virus in WI-38 Human Diploid Cell, American Journal of Diseases of Children, Vol. 118, pp 178-179, August 1969
3. Chang TH, Moorhead PS, Boue JG, Plotkin SA, Hoskins JM. Chromosome studies of human cells infected in utero and in vitro with rubella virus. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1966 May;122(1):236-43
4. L. Hayflick and P.S. Moorhead, The Serial Cultivation of Human Diploid Cell Strains, Experimental Cell Research Vol 25, pp 585-621, 1961
5. L. Hayflick, The Limited In Vitro Lifetime of Human Diploid Cell Strains, Experimental Cell Research, Vol 37, pp 614-636 1964
6. Jacobs et al, Nature, Vol 227, pp 168 -170, 1970 Characteristics of a human diploid cell designated MRC-5.
7. Hayflick L, Plotkin SA, Norton TW, Koprowski H. Preparation of poliovirus vaccines in a human fetal diploid cell strain. Am J Hyg. 1962 Mar;75:240-58
8. https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/imr90CoriellFullReport.pdf
9. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not93-196.html
10. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170404095429/ https://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/agenda/3750a1.htm
11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC350439/pdf/pnas00499-0116.pdf
12. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170404095429/ https://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/agenda/3750a1.htm
13. https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/walvaxScienceDoc.pdf
14. https://cogforlife.org/2012/06/13/polioperversion/
15. Joan C. Thicke, Darline Duncan, William Wood, A. E. Franklin and A. J. Rhodes; Cultivation of Poliomyelitis Virus in Tissue Culture; Growth of the Lansing Strain in Human Embryonic Tissue, Canadian Journal of Medical Science, Vol. 30, pg 231-245
16. https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/v/varivax/varivax_pi.pdf
17. https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/vaticanresponse1.pdf
18. http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/t050321.htm
19. http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10798%3Aamericas-free-of-rubella&Itemid=1926&lang=en
20. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/monthly-stats-may-2019.pdf
21. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/VAERS-Braun.htm

CoG for Life | May 20, 2019 at 8:34 am | URL: https://wp.me/p2ogdv-4Tp
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
comment:
Debi Vinnedge
5:17 PM (1 hour ago)

to me

Your Excellency,
There is an error where you commented on this post:

THE HORROR GROWS DARKER DAY BY DAY! SOME DRUG COMPANIES ARE SWITCHING FROM USING CHICKEN EGGS TO PRODUCE RUBELLA VACCINE TO USING ABORTED HUMAN FETAL TISSUE INSTEAD

You stated before the beginning of the article that:
“THE HORROR GROWS DARKER DAY BY DAY! SOME DRUG COMPANIES ARE SWITCHING FROM USING CHICKEN EGGS TO PRODUCE RUBELLA VACCINE TO USING ABORTED HUMAN FETAL TISSUE INSTEAD”
However, this is not true. The rubella vaccine has always used aborted fetal cell lines since the 1970’s. The MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccines have always used – and still do use – chicken eggs for measles and mumps components.
I did not want to comment but rather let you know privately so you could correct the above. You are correct that it is a horror that continues to grow and I deeply appreciate you helping us bring it to light.
May our dear Lord bless you always,
Debi Vinnedge
Children of God for Life

Fr. Rutler’s Weekly ColumnMay 26, 2019

A chronic temptation of the historian is to play the “Monday morning quarterback” who assumes that he would have made a correct decision in a past crisis. But the players at the time could only postulate consequences. The appeasers who signed the Munich Agreement in 1938 do not enjoy a happy legacy, but then the thought of repeating the carnage of the Great War was unspeakable. In his first use of the term, back in 1911, Churchill described “une politique d’apaisement” as a wise strategy.   A magnanimous Churchill wept at the coffin of Neville Chamberlain and eulogized: “The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions.” But if blundering by innocence is forgivable, not learning from mistakes is unconscionable. That distinguishes innocence from naiveté. Experience has crafted the adage: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”   Some future historian may impute a lack of probity to the Vatican agreement with Beijing in 2018, which conceded civil interference in the appointment of bishops. Though difficult to assess since the full text has not been published, this clearly contravenes the canonical stricture that “In the future, no rights and privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation of bishops are granted to civil authorities.” (Code of Canon Law c. 377.5)   After Pope Pius XI realized that the Reichskonkordat of 1933 had been abused by Nazi Germany, he issued the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge—“with burning indignation.”Damage had been done, just as the Yalta Agreement of 1945 put Poland on the chopping block, a betrayal never forgotten by a Polish pope (Centesimus Annus, n. 24). He denounced the fallacy of communism in Warsaw in 1979, and Reagan did the same in his Westminster speech in 1982. The New York Times displayed its propensity to be fooled more than twice, by editorializing that John Paul II “does not threaten the political order of the nation or of Eastern Europe” and that Reagan was “bordering on delusional.”   While the Holy See invokes two thousand years of diplomatic experience, China beats that by more than twice, and has treated the 2018 agreement as tissue, tearing down churches and persecuting faithful Catholics, not to mention banishing over a million Uighur Muslims and Falun Gong cultists to concentration camps. The issue is not theology but control. The Vatican Secretary of State said that “an act of faith is needed” for the agreement to work, but the heroic Cardinal Zen replied that a “miracle” is needed, and miracles are rare in Rome and Beijing.    Diplomacy is a delicate art, and there have been saints among Catholic emissaries, though few remember Eusebius of Murano, Conrad of Ascoli, Anastasius Apocrisarius, and Fulrad of Saint Denis. There remains the haunting specter of the only diplomat among the Twelve Apostles, “who by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place” (Acts 1:25).

PUBLIC DISCOURSE

BOOK REVIEWS, CULTURE, POLITICS

Ben Shapiro and the West’s Moral Vision

One might expect a book by Ben Shapiro to be about the task of “owning the libs” or “drinking liberal tears.” In fact, the reader comes away with a starkly different impression. In The Right Side of History, Shapiro argues that the cultural and political malaise of contemporary America is due to its being severed from its Judeo-Christian roots.

Ben Shapiro is one of the most influential conservative voices in America. His podcast is one of the most downloaded in America, and he has over a million followers on Twitter. YouTube clips of Shapiro taking campus progressives to task and exposing their shallow thinking have gone viral. He has become a go-to voice for conservatives who rely on digital platforms to advance their movement.
After graduating from Harvard Law School at the age of twenty-three, Shapiro first became notorious for his shock-jock bombast. I became familiar with Shapiro when he was with Breitbart news, the controversial right-wing news website. I feared that Breitbart’s incendiary brand portended more bravado than substance from Shapiro.
Why is Shapiro so popular with conservatives and why is he, an Orthodox Jew, also a favorite of conservative Christians? One observes in Shapiro similar traits that conservatives saw in William F. Buckley, Jr. He possesses a fearless tenacity to do battle in the war of ideas. Yet, like Buckley, Shapiro is no scold. He’s a happy warrior who ventures into spaces held sacred by progressives. His courage is infectious and inspiring to a generation of conservatives who are told to hide their convictions.
Religious conservatives are drawn to Shapiro because he anchors his worldview in an unapologetic Judeo-Christian worldview. He has become an apologist for Western civilization while castigating a figure like Nietzsche as a super-villain and Hitler as his heir-apparent. His understanding of morality pairs nicely—though incompletely—with a Christian understanding of the world. He offers clarity and acerbic irreverence to a culture held hostage to trigger-warnings and micro-aggressions. Where the regimes of political correctness and grievance stifle free speech, Shapiro attacks both with a vigorous wit and a brain that sometimes processes faster than he can speak. While Shapiro can certainly speak in tones that make me wince, overall, his trajectory has been one of increasing intellectual rigor and seriousness.
This comes through in his new book, The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great. This is not a book of punditry, but of political philosophy. In fact, owing to the large role that God plays in Shapiro’s worldview, the book is as much a moral cosmology as it is a treatise on what has gone wrong in the West. Whereas one might expect Shapiro’s book to be about the task of “owning the libs” or “drinking liberal tears,” the reader comes away with a starkly different impression. In The Right Side of History, Shapiro argues that the cultural and political malaise of contemporary America is due to its being severed from its Judeo-Christian roots.
The Roots of Western Civilization
What are those roots, according to Shapiro? Jerusalem and Athens.
That may, at first, seem reductive. What Shapiro means is that these two cities capture the heart of civilization: they were fused together to forge the Western tradition—a tradition that treated humanity as more than just a material byproduct. It should be noted that this taxonomy for the roots of the West’s philosophy—“Jerusalem” and “Athens”—is not original to Shapiro. The division is a shorthand for what many philosophers have understood as the unique combination of both cities’ political and religious moorings that forms Western civilization.
The Judeo-Christian tradition told the world that humanity is made in God’s image, and that God’s moral law—revealed in both general and special revelation—is intelligible and binding on individuals who possess reason. From the Greeks came a tradition of natural law—the idea that a universal morality stands behind the universe, accessible to the human mind. According to Shapiro, it is the Christian and Aristotelian traditions’ accounts of morality and purpose that have infused our moral order with a sense of obligation.
Shapiro then builds on this philosophical framework to argue that happiness—or flourishing— requires four elements: individual moral purpose, the individual capacity to pursue that purpose, communal moral purpose, and the communal capacity to pursue that purpose. In short, individuals and communities need a sense of moral purpose and the freedom to see that purpose fulfilled. For individuals and societies to flourish, people must have the ability to act on the ethical duties that instill purpose in their lives. This framework also provides a buffer to keep individualism from collapsing into libertarianism, and communitarianism from morphing into statism. We are individuals in community and a community of individuals. Any framework that erases or collapses one into the other will lead either to moral relativism or to tyranny. And it’s the genius of Jerusalem and Athens that negotiated this balance in proper proportion.
From these twin pillars came the fruits of Western success: a principled account of freedom, scientific discovery, limited government, human rights, and entrepreneurialism. This stands in contrast to a worldview that depicts man as a mere cog or animal grappling with existential dread, meaninglessness, and radical subjectivity. Shapiro laments the drift of America away from the roots of its order: “We are in the process of abandoning Judeo-Christian values and Greek natural law, favoring moral subjectivism and the rule of passion.” Abandoning the Judeo-Christian and Greek tradition means a regression to base human instincts—tribalism, barbarism, hedonism.
In the latter half of the book, Shapiro gives an account of the West loosening itself from this framework. From Hobbesian relativism to the outworkings of Intersectional theory, the West has splintered into conflicting moral accounts. The idea of objective morality has given way to moral systems that reduce truth and meaning to the distribution of power. The careful balance between the individual and the community has given way to the growth of the state. The vacuum created from the absence of a common moral vision and the growth of the state has produced a society without a common moral purpose, and increasingly defined by a contest of tribal comeuppance.
Strengths and Weaknesses
What does Shapiro get right? A lot.
Evangelical Christians like me will find much to admire in Shapiro’s account of moral foundations. Shapiro’s morality is God-authored and thus God-centered. Any account of morality that hopes to be binding needs God and a God-mediated nature as its backstop, or else morality is determined by mere consent. Shapiro defends this theistic account, and sees the moral revelation of the Judeo-Christian tradition as the best anchor for stabilizing society.
From a history-of-ideas standpoint, Shapiro has an impressive understanding of the philosophical trends that have shaped the West. For that reason alone, this is a book I would put in the hands of any bookish student seeking to understand Western exceptionalism.
Speaking as an ethicist, I want to commend Shapiro for explaining both the biblical and classical traditions’ accounts of morality and happiness. In particular, the fourfold framework he develops (mentioned above) for morality and freedom helps explain the ethical architecture or meta-ethic for how ethics “work,” so to speak. It’s not just that Shapiro holds a lot of correct views about morality and certain moral obligations, it’s that he’s thinking about morality itself correctly through the lens of individual and communal agency.
Still, the book has its weaknesses. Because of what Shapiro tries to accomplish in this relatively short text, any historian (which I am not) will likely take issue with the pace at which Shapiro breezes through the history of ideas. This is not because Shapiro’s reading of the ideas that influenced the West is wrong or novel, but simply because there are too many contingencies present in any given age to make history as genealogically predictable or tidy as Shapiro presents it. Monocausal explanations for a culture’s demise should always be received with caution.
As for the prescriptions on how to recover the original vision of America’s founding spirit, Shapiro’s advice is pretty thin. A lot of his suggestions follow simply from conservative political philosophy. Though Shapiro probably does not intend it, the prescriptions verge into the self-help lane: “Your Life has a Purpose,” he writes, and “You Can Do It.” While I understand the sentiment behind these recommendations, I would have preferred a longer and more substantive set of prescriptions.
We Don’t Just Need Christian Morality—We Need Christ
This is where, predictably, the Christian prognosis of contemporary American culture will differ. It’s not that Shapiro’s suggestions for repairing the ruins are wrong; it’s just that they are incomplete from the perspective of a Christian. A Christian account of moral repair does not begin with moral self-improvement. Yes, Christians should stand for what is true, because what is true is grounded in what is morally righteous, but that’s not sufficient. On the gospel account, man, in his revolt against God, has revolted against himself. No amount of moralizing will correct man’s corrupt nature. The best thing for society, then, is not to call people to a better understanding of moral obligation. It is, quite frankly, to call people to repentance.
The church is not to be a signpost of morality. It is to be a signpost of the Kingdom. This entails a morality born of Christian righteousness. As the prophet Jeremiah states in Jeremiah 6:16, “Thus says the LORD: ‘Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls.’ But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’” This is not a call to conservatism (as much I agree with its tenets). It is a call to understanding that the moral righteousness God demands is supplied by Him in Jesus Christ. Society will not land on the “right side of history” by morality alone—it needs repentance and a moral restoration born of the Spirit.
The Right Side of History is an excellent book. Students of history will love it, and conservatives will see a reflection of their deepest convictions in it. Christians, however, should be encouraged to draw the conclusion that the moral reckoning our society needs is not just the moral foundations of Christianity, but Christ Himself.

About the Author