Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

The Repentance of Fr. David Palmer

October 20th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

I was delighted to receive this email from a friend, verifying the words attributed to Fr. David Palmer, a Catholic Priest in Wales, of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham:











His very simple and clear words are the essence of confession. He has examined his conscience, recognized and admitted his sin, and made a firm purpose of amendment to never do it again. In his courage, and by his confession, Fr. Palmer confronts the overwhelming pressure of filial obedience to the bishop, who ordered him to deny the sacraments to souls, with the reality of what he was ordained to do — feed souls.

Consider what Christ said to Peter. Thrice the Lord asked if Peter loved him, and then Christ followed Peter’s three declarations of love with three orders to tend and feed the lambs and sheep. Non-negotiables. Christ didn’t say “Build Churches” or  “Write the Bible.” First of all, Peter was to feed the flock. And The Lord’s Prayer specifically tells us to ask for our “daily [supernatural] bread.” Does a Father hand his child a scorpion? Doesn’t a priest feed his flock by his own hands?

Read all of Chapter 34 in Ezekiel, and see how God Himself came to feed the sheep because of the failure of the Levitical priests to care for the sheep. Notice how many of the current news articles show an awakening to the failures of the bishops en masse, badly using their own priests by succumbing to governmental pressures and fraternal pressures within their own brotherhood. That every single US bishop caved to the shutdown of Churches and Eucharist is an indictment of their intent. And each is totally responsible for the bad fruit of his own closure decision, which each had canonical power to resist.

The keyword in Fr. Palmer’s writing is ‘repent’ and it must be as public as he is making it because a public sin can’t be properly atoned privately.

It is sad when prideful obedience to hierarchy starves the sheep, a 75 day shutdown in feeding the flock. That very lack of care of the flock by the priests of Jeremiah and Ezekiel’s time led to loss of the Levitical priestly status. I am reminded of the day’s Gospel reading from Luke, Chapter 12, answering Peter’s question: “And the Lord said, ‘Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?'” And what is the proper feeding time for the sheep? It surely is not every 75 days. It is ‘daily’, as mentioned in the Lord’s Prayer.

It seems we are in for a rough ride as our own priests and bishops struggle with their consciences, without expressing repentance. But all is essential preparation for the next government lockdown, sure to come and probably soon.

For an expanded version of these words, before Fr. Palmer’s declaration, see the posts:                                                       


Do not misunderstand this brief post; much more is covered in the links above. This is not a tirade against bishops or their priests. I have come to understand that it is not possible to love the Eucharist without also loving the priests who confect the sacred sacrament. My sadness is about the pressure so many committed priests are under to ‘obey’ when every bone of their body fights against starving the flock. Some have been pushed into sin not of their creation, but of their surrender. Pray for our priests, we say over and over. Love them. Forgive them. But most especially pray for them, that they seek forgiveness for any element of complicity with civil or ecclesial power, or any element of self-shriving. Our being fed well depends on their holiness.


When Prelates turn their backs

October 19th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

A year ago this month we cited the Church Militant article about Cardinal Dolan’s guilt in allowing pro-aborts to receive communion. That article is here: https//

Cardinal Dolan, like many other prelates, turns a blind eye to the reality that the Holy Sacrament is being abused and defiled in being given to people living scandalously in mortal sin. Can a Cardinal really not know what is going on behind his back?

No! Because the Cardinal is the one who turned his back so as not to see. A year ago we had no idea how sacrilege-run-wild would soon come down to putting America’s soul at serious risk. Prelates who refuse to speak out have given the Church the situation in which she now suffers, costing many souls to be lost.


Luke 22:31-32   Christ speaks to Peter just before His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane: 

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”


How to handle USCCB’s funding Biden thru CCHD

October 19th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Put CCHD in the search bar on page #1 of Cleansing Fire to find the 17 separate posts which have appeared over the last 11 years, cautioning about any support of CCHD — the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

CCHD notoriously has funded sin, in particular abortion and contraception. It is a great scandal that parish pastors continue to put the CCHD envelopes in their churches, entrapping souls into financially funding sinful purposes. It is a very great scandal that bishops require their priests to make such collections.

Apparently it is up to the laity to interfere by 1) not giving a penny to the CCHD collection, 2) communicating ‘why’ one refuses to support the CCHD or whatever the guise under which it appears (parish, diocese or even the USCCB.) 3) If you didn’t know part of the collection will go to Biden, and it wasn’t disclosed to you, ask your pastor to return your donation to you. 4) This year the CCHD funding has the additional effect of funding the Biden campaign and all the sin for which it stands. Tell other parishioners. Encourage them to ask for their donation to be returned. 5) Recognize too that donations made to CCHD are not fully deductible as charitable donations due to the campaign funding. If they are reported to you at year end as ‘donations’ very likely your parish is violating tax law. 

How to handle those sneaky envelopes?  Here is one non-verbal opinion which is easy to express, and easy to toss into the collection box or a litter box:







Headline from 10/14 LifeSiteNews:

US bishops funding group that blatantly campaigns for pro-abortion Joe Biden

“The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, through the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, is funding an organized and direct effort to elect Joe Biden as the next president.” Here is the full story link:

Personally, I am of the opinion that those who put out those solicitation materials know exactly what they are doing, after all this time, and are undeserving of the usual, more kindly requests. Let it rip!


North American Martyrs’ blood consecrated our land

October 19th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Today is the Memorial of St. John de Brebeuf and St. Isaac Jogues and their companion martyrs. Many people are familiar with the Shrine of the North American Martyrs in Auriesville, NY but are less familiar with the roadside shrines in our own area. The following links will bring up what we’ve previously written about the little very-close-to-the-roadside shrine on the way from Canandaigua to Bloomfield, and the other one where the road splits and Rte. 15A heads north and the other branches into Main Street in Honeoye Falls. Here are posts with pictures and information from both ‘shrines.’

You will know you are not the first to visit this day if you find a red rose awaiting you. We owe so much to these martyrs; surely this is a good day to ask them to pray for our country’s future and for God’s blessings in this coming election, to keep strong the Faith for which the martyrs gave everything. Today’s Liturgy of the Hours (Office of Readings) contains a beautiful prayer of Fr. de Breboef for his own martyrdom. I am particularly touched by the words in the closing paragraph which are still so applicable today: “How I grieve, my God, that You are not known, that this savage country is not yet wholly converted to faith in You, that sin is here not yet blotted out!” 

God bless America! 

Here is the Reading #2 of the Office of Readings:



Courage to Preach the WORD in Election Season

October 6th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Hear Rev. Anthony Amato exhort the flock at St. Katharine Drexel and St. Maximilian Kolbe Parishes  to embrace the Catholic Church’s Pro-Life Teaching against abortion this election season:

Complicit Clergy has also publicized Father Amato’s sermon here:  


Dear Bishops: “Hurry up, please; it’s time”

October 4th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

I confess there is much of T.S. Eliot’s 433-line poem “The Wasteland” which I don’t understand. For the parts I do understand a bit, it is easy to be somewhat repulsed, or at least lose interest in revisiting the opus. But there is one line which is a signal theme of “The Wasteland” which locks into the mind – the line: “Hurry up, please; it’s time.” Spoken by the pub bartender, it is a call to order a final drink, a reminder that time is rapidly running out, so do it now! The line is repeated several times, just as an innkeeper might do, so none of the patrons can argue that the “endtime” wasn’t properly announced. Both sad and surprising is the casual way (in 1922) in which words about ‘abortion by pill’ are strung between those repetitions from line 152 to 165.

Executive Summary in 100 words

The Catholic Church’s wholesale caving to civil pandemic regulations, diocese by diocese, endangered the religious liberty of the Church and her members. When the candles were blown out across America, during a mere week in March 2020, the laity were left without Mass or Communion. The Church should take protective action against having established precedent for COVID-20 by acquiescence to government interference — from attendance to facemasks, from liturgy to sacramental practice. Such appeal would reset the parameters by which the Church asserts her rights, refusing to begin at the set point of COVID-19 precedent. Hurry up, please; it’s time!

Short Straws

When I first thought of writing about the strategic action now needed to be taken by the Bishops of the Catholic Church, The Wasteland repetition leapt to mind and has been there ever since. It is not just about hurrying up; it is about time being ‘up’ too. As the pandemic now seems to wind down, as more functions and services are restored, we can see that the churches in particular, from the beginning, were getting the short straw, and still are. Liquor stores and abortuaries, deemed ‘necessary,’ got a ‘free pass’ to stay open, while churches had severely restricted access to their members, and members to their churches, thus deemed de facto “unnecessary” even where Catholics were dying in hospitals without the presence of their priests. And, among the churches, it was the Catholic Churches which got the shortest of straws, especially on hot button items interfering with the liturgy, beginning with cancellation for 2-3 months of all Masses for the laity and, when laity could return in very small numbers, there were regulations even against not singing though masked, and against receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, a practice deeply embedded over centuries of worship and, in some cases, even having their reception of Holy Communion in the hand perverted by using tweezers, a disgusting abomination of the sacred.

Complacency or Complicity? Collusion or Coincidence?

The powers and privileges of individual Bishops are highly protected under Canon Law. They have an abundance of power to resist the pressure of other bishops or of civil authorities’ meddling power plays. To get every bishop to agree on any matter is most difficult, even suspicious. But just the perception that they agree on something facilitates wider acceptance of what may not be acceptable at all.  Here are three items from the Code of Canon Law which Bishops should be able to rely on:

  • 381 §1 states: “In the diocese entrusted to his care, the diocesan Bishop has all the ordinary, proper and immediate power required for the exercise of his pastoral office, except in those matters which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to some other ecclesiastical authority.”
  • 455 §1 states: “The Bishops’ Conference [e.g. USCCB] can make general decrees only in cases where the universal law has so prescribed, or by special mandate of the Apostolic See, either on its own initiative or at the request of the Conference itself.”
  • 455 §4 states: “In cases where neither the universal law nor a special mandate of the Apostolic See gives the Bishops’ Conference the power mentioned in [455] §1, the competence of each diocesan Bishop remains intact. In such cases, neither the Conference nor its president can act in the name of all the Bishops unless each and every Bishop has given his consent.”

Over most of a week in mid-March 2020, one-by-one dioceses across the U.S. caved in to pressure to stop offering all public Masses and Holy Communion. Later, left wing talking heads would marvel at the ease with which they were able to get to the heart of the Church and shut us down from that which we most need.  If it was a dress rehearsal for future socialist onslaught, and it seems to be, the Church hierarchy flunked the test, and therefore actually encouraged further actions against the Body of Christ. The bishops with all their power simply caved to the civil authorities and there seems to have been virtually no dissension. The pictorial story from last March is shown here:                                       

Perhaps the talking heads credit their own work too much. It seems as if the pressure on dioceses came at least in part from other dioceses. If it had been a genuine debate, there might be signs of compromise, or at least a few of the later holdout dioceses might have stayed open, or closed much more slowly, especially some in Florida, Texas, Maine, Alaska and Minnesota. It was ironic that by St. Joseph’s Day, the entire map had gone dark, the bishops trusting in their own obedience to civil authority more than to the Patron Saint of the Catholic Church.  Their trust was tested and it failed themselves and their flocks. Isn’t it even more ironic that bishops who usually don’t agree on much would come to such total Complacency? Collusion? Complicity? In just a few days? It certainly isn’t about Coincidence!

The Yoke of Power

Now there seems to be a tremendous temptation to sigh deeply “Whew! Glad that’s over!” But it isn’t over, and power hungry state and local governments will surely not let the Church off the hook that easily. Anyone who thinks that the first encounter didn’t set a baseline for what can be presumed and used in the “Return of COVID” doesn’t understand how power works.  NYS is an example, with Governor Andrew Cuomo. A media broadcast per day gave him the communications channels to encourage friends, threaten enemies, and set up for ridicule on his own schedule and timing any resistance. It surely makes voters, media, companies, government – well, everyone — afraid to resist or criticize or perhaps even to make any suggestions, like not putting COVID patients in nursing homes. Recently, Cuomo threatened to close down worship in the only two faiths which God Himself founded, the Jewish religion and the Catholic Church, for ‘violating’ Cuomo’s worship rules! Where is the data which he favors so much to prove any link to COVID spread in excess of any other activity? If he had it, wouldn’t he show it? Or is it a matter of happily caving to the God-haters?

So, if you watch carefully, Cuomo is being very slow to return power where it belongs. He just finds new targets. He releases one state from his self-proclaimed quarantine and then adds another, requires food on the bar menu and rejects part of the menu, demands that masks be kept on, even outdoors, by threatening arrest, and won’t release churches from a capacity guideline, to do what they think best for their flocks. What else can be added and regulated is the question of this phase, to create yet another reason to hold on tightly to power. A true leader rejoices when things return to normalcy, doesn’t manage by the decimal points, and hands back the reins to local leaders (subsidiarity) as soon as possible. In the current case it almost seems that some state and local governments are in fear of the people’s becoming refreshed by regaining the freedoms they ‘used to have.’

A Plan Forward?

Now, what would make us think the Catholic Church, diocese by diocese, would not again be the first and fastest to cave, when the next COVID hits, BEGINNING at the worst of the prior level of ‘power and control’ as “Precedent,” and then being pressured further by the state for more concessions from the Church? Nothing but naïveté or wishful thinking would deny that likely scenario. There are some legal actions which need to be done to recover, maintain and protect religious liberty in the U.S. We should begin as soon as possible. Hurry up, please, it’s time!

  1. Disown Precedent: The Catholic Church is theoretically best positioned to disown any Precedent having been formed during COVID-19, and government accordingly warned against any role it might try to take to interfere in a church’s worship and/or the religion of its flock. The split politics among the hierarchy make it difficult and impractical to work beyond the diocesan level.
  2. Place “on notice”: State and local governments should be placed “on notice” of all the incursions or potential incursions of religious liberty, and quantified where feasible to do so. Specific interferences and harassments should be referenced, even where the Church might have agreed temporarily under timing pressure.
  3. Clarify financial damages and areas of impact: Without a financial incentive to avoid causing conflict and persecution, government has no incentive not to repeat its indefensible treatment and harassment of churches during the COVID-19 lockdown. Such strategy is not to emphasize financial gain, although it is not unreasonable to be fairly compensated for injuries suffered. Financial disincentive is essential to prevent COVID-19 becoming a “Precedent” starting point for COVID-20 or -21.
  4. Require a consent decree to prevent certain actions by government in the future, and to recognize the Diocesan bishop’s right to set Mass times and attendance, liturgical elements, to allow convening for study, teaching and access for priests to hospitals and treatment centers, and so much more, all without permissions or licensing by civil government. It must not be a promise from government, but an absolute legal obligation not to trespass on religious rights. The Church especially should not allow herself to be beholden to governments involved with institutionalizing sin: abortion access, LGBT and transgender activism and the looming threat of euthanasia.

Timing is Short; but Climate is Encouraging

If cases against government are not brought by dioceses, “Precedent” is likely to be assumed and re-imposed (if it ever was intended to expire), with the argument: “Well, you put up with it last time and didn’t complain.” Without resistance, to destroy the precedence basis, there may also be statutes of limitations which can’t be overcome later on, and those readings are almost always favorable to the government. Legal action needs to begin in 2020. “Hurry up please, it’s time!”

Once a few cases are filed, others should be more easily assembled. There are also a few pieces of good news embedded below, which indicate encouraging timing which can lead to framing a successful strategy.

  • First, President Trump (may God grant him good health) has reinvigorated the values in our country to pro-life and a strong stand for the religious liberty promise of the First Amendment. He is not afraid to speak the name of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, publicly. And he is a uniting force for Christians. If the Catholic Church doesn’t respect and use well this opportunity, she will have only herself to blame.
  • US Attorney General William Barr has said that COVID lockdowns are the “greatest intrusion on civil liberties since slavery,” and by those words has sent a very broad invitation to the Church, among others, to recognize what they have suffered during the pandemic in violation of our civil rights. There would seem to be little reason for the DOJ to interfere.
  • The target for lawsuits is not the Federal government, but state and local governments, and there is no lack of material over which to bring lawsuits, especially regarding discrimination, disparity of treatment and violation of First Amendment rights.
  • States’ dependence on “numbers” rules, like 10 people per Mass provides a database which otherwise might have been difficult to capture. Church attendance data is quantifiable, and lost collections as well as the long term contributions loss of those afraid to return to Mass, for every parish in a diocese, can be a significant and a reasonable argument for damages (or we might say ‘reparations’ –yes – we can use that word too!) The state changed the Church from being a haven for care of the people to our essentially being hostages of the government.
  • It is essential to take action diocese by diocese because it doesn’t take much to slow down or stop an entire initiative. It is the sheer volume of cases that can be brought and the diversity of those cases which will help dismiss Precedent, and let dioceses play to their strengths without depending on other dioceses with different motives.
  • Ancillary damage: Many actions taken by state and local governments created a climate which caused damage to churches, furnishings and statuary (and maybe increased their insurance rates as well.) While the BLM, Antifa and race riots are the proximate causes of many of these actions against churches, they were made worse by government’s entertaining defunding the police and not responding to civil disturbance. It was, at least in part, the weakness of the churches in the face of COVID restrictions which created a vulnerable, easy to attack image, with brittle self-defense.

Push-back against “Precedent” also will shine a spotlight, diocese by diocese, to recognize which bishops are acting on behalf of their flocks, and which are not. But the action needs to be timely.


Hurry up please, it’s time!



Holy Goalie on morality of ‘lockdown’

September 26th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

In case someone doesn’t remember who the ‘Holy Goalie‘ is, it is Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, IL who wrote the book “Holy Goals for Body and Soul” with all the credibility of actually being a real life Hockey Goalie as well as prelate. It’s a great book for teenagers in particular, confirmation class worthy.

Apparently guarding the net is a mindset, as is protecting the Church and her teachings. Bp. Paprocki was out front on the abortion issue in a national election in 2012, after two weeks of activities in various dioceses on religious liberty.  His words and those of the Priests for Life made some waves, especially contrasted with years of  silence from the pulpit on such issues. I remember driving around with a quote on the tailgate over the good bishop’s name to the effect that voting for a candidate who supports abortion is a serious sin which can send souls to hell. I also remember some outrage for me and my friends from Festival for Freedom at the ‘vehicular bulletin board’ being parked (during Mass) in the church parking lot! And, at another church, the people handing out Priest for Life materials on the village sidewalk in front of the church were greeted with expletives by a diocesan priest! There is something about Bp. Paprocki’s directness, like slamming the puck away, that is compelling and made us stick our necks out.

Now, eight years later, such fearless statements are being made very widely and directly: “You can’t be Catholic and vote Democrat.” But in 2012, Bp. Paprocki was breaking new ground, shocking his fellow prelates by speaking the absolute truth. Why mention this now (besides the obvious connection to election season?) Because, when the Holy Goalie speaks, it is worth listening. And Bp. Paprocki has just written an essay for the September issue of Ethics & Medics, distinguishing between extraordinary means to save life and ordinary ones, and its application to a lockdown in a pandemic. Here are some excerpts from a LifeSiteNews recap, in which Bp. Paprocki argues:

  • there is no moral obligation to shut down our society, require people to stay at home, put employees out of work, send businesses into bankruptcy, impair the food supply chain, and prevent worshippers from going to church.”
  • “While some people may voluntarily adopt [extraordinary] means, only ordinary means that are not unduly burdensome are morally required to preserve life, both on the part of individuals as well as society as a whole.” 
  • Bp. Paprocki applies the moral principles commonly used in clinical decision-making to society as a whole. He wrote:  “while we recognize that our human life is one of our greatest gifts, it is not a moral absolute and in fact is secondary to the eternal life of our immortal soul.” While life needs to be treated “with respect and reverence,” there are higher goods, as can be seen in “things like martyrdom, or attempting to save the life of another.”

Bp. Paprocki wrote that “the US Supreme Court got it wrong” when it ruled that Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom could enforce the order “that discriminated against houses of worship in placing numerical restrictions on public gatherings.” He explicitly contrasted the pro-abortion platform of the Democratic Party and its candidate for president with the pro-life platform of the Republican Party and President Donald Trump.

I especially value that Bp. Paprocki is not afraid to cross diocesan lines and state lines (see comment above on Newsom) to witness to the Faith. If more bishops were willing to do that, there might be some accountability of one bishop to another. Instead they often seem blind to key events affecting the flock if it is not in their dioceses, or under the USCCB purview of another bishop on the subject.


When is a priest not a priest? When he isn’t baptized!

September 23rd, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

In the last month, two prominent cases were brought to light in which a man, who became a ‘priest,’ had not even been baptized. Thus, without baptism, neither of those individuals had received any of the other sacraments validly, including ordination.

The very real pain for them is exacerbated by all the individuals who received ‘sacraments’ at their hands, for those sacraments too are invalid (except Baptism, if done properly). Penance, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Anointing of the sick or dying, marriage and ordination to both the diaconate and priesthood, are all invalid when received from a ‘priest’ who is not baptized. One priest expressed his own grief that he had given the Last Rites to his grandmother, invalidly. 

For more details of the reasons and conclusions in these young men’s cases, see the two links:


The recent problem

What is more important, it would seem, is to realize it is highly unlikely that these are the only two men who have had this experience, and for the sake of the souls of others, for the sake of justice, the painful realization is essential to bring forward so that it can be corrected, as soon as possible. In one of the cases, the local diocese had explored the situation and decided that reconsecration to the priesthood was not necessary, only to find that the Vatican has a different opinion. There may be cases with a flawed assessment of the need for re-baptism, or of the obligation to receive the other sacraments leading to the priesthood.

Pope Benedict decided

I believe it was soon after Pope Benedict was elected that a situation was brought before him regarding changing part of the prayer said by the priest or deacon at baptism. The case I remember was clearly driven by feminist ego, nibbling around the edges of coveting the male priesthood. The words were different from the two cases mentioned above; it was basically a renunciation first of all of God’s presenting Himself as the male Father, and Jesus as male Son, and the Holy Spirit to whom the bible refers in the male gender. Hence, the revised words presented and being used I was told already, at that time in some Protestant churches, were: “I baptize you in the name of the Creator, the Savior, and the Sanctifier.” Absolutely not, ruled Pope Benedict, saying that any baptism using that formula was invalid and would have to be repeated. Speculations abounded at that time: “Suppose the boy became a priest?” and here we are today.

Reasons for problems

For the sake of souls, I hope anyone, especially priests, with the slightest doubt, will quietly launch an investigation and do whatever is needed, no matter how late it is, no matter how many years have gone by, no matter how great the personal cost. For they haven’t done anything wrong, just been victimized by the smoke of Satan entering the Church, unless guilty of keeping the secret. Before Vatican II, which may not be a clear cut-off, some priests who grew up as Protestants were ‘automatically’ baptized before priestly ordination, usually I think before entering the seminary. But some of the sloppy thinking toward ecumenism that arose post Vatican II can explain a lot of reason for errors. So too can militant feminism, and the desire to change words for the sake of ego. “We wrote our own vows” is one example, cherry-picking and splicing readings and ‘designing’ liturgies are others! The constant rewriting of scripture even within the Church (thinking about the papal changes recently in Italy to the Our Father and Gloria) sometimes happens in order to create more differentiation for the sake of a copyright.

Taking matters into one’s own hands

There is another issue which few people discuss but seems more common than once suspected. I have been told of several situations in which Catholics who want their grandchildren to be baptized take care of the matter with the babies at their own kitchen sink when the parents are away. When the correct words and formula are used, it seems to be a valid baptism which can’t be undone unless being against the parents’ will it might be seen as ‘forced’ against the child’s will. Where this has already been done, those involved should seek out a thoughtful priestly opinion.  While it is really an offense against the parents, the children will need to know at some point, maybe through a codicil in the grandparents’ will or a private letter in case they grow up and decide to become Catholic and unknowingly seek a second baptism at some point, and then realize they will have to confess all past sins, rather than have a baptismal cleansing.


How Joe Biden is “hoist by his own petard.”

September 21st, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

If anyone is unfamiliar with the expression in the title, it simply means to be caught in one’s own trap, and to be blown up in that trap. How is Biden ‘caught’ in a trap? Well, technically, he has just played into the claws of the evil one, who is a very clever architect of the demise of souls. Joe Biden, in his efforts to be seen as a ‘good Catholic,’ cloaked in campaign rhetoric, even solicits testimony and personal witness from others who are likewise deformed in their Faith. Such falsehood enables Biden to promote serious sins against souls, sins such as abortion, same-sex activism, and receiving Holy Communion unworthily, and so much more. He argues for being accepted as a Faithful Catholic just by saying empty words, and in so doing shows that he knows exactly what is necessary to be and do in order to be ultimately judged Catholic, and what is not. He knows; he now cannot not know. It is a particularly sturdy trap because he’s built it himself, for himself. He can no longer plead ignorance as an excuse because he knows, very clearly, what he is and is not. His own words convict him and the churchmen and leaders who support him. Yes, he can ask for mercy. But he should also remember that God is a just judge and, in leading souls astray, one pays a price that  is all the greater. 


When the Flock isn’t fed, it starves …

September 21st, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

When I wrote “Feeling Angry and Betrayed” back in early August, I said that 75 days without the Eucharist was “starving,” and so it was. Some folks might have felt that in a world where human beings are sadly dying every day, from lack of food or from contaminated water, my words were inappropriate, lacking in sensitivity, or melodramatic.  I disagree, and I hope in this post to explain why, and to propose principles to limit such an offense against souls in the future.

Is it worse to starve souls than to starve bodies?

Yes, I would say so. Consider Matthew 10:28 “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” What does starving from lack of our “soul-food” actually mean? Likely it is different for each person, regarding his or her own spiritual practices before and during withholding the Holy Eucharist, the resources one has available, the length of time involved, the spiritual activities, if any, which one tries to substitute, the support or harassment one receives, and the trauma associated with the reason for a lock-down, such as riots, plague, war etc. Some effects may be more temporary, others more enduring. Because it is the Church herself, administering both the rules and the pain through her bishops and priests, even if at the behest of civil government, it would not be surprising to have pastoral relationships damaged, burdening attempts to return to ‘normalcy’ in spiritual practice. It would not be surprising to have permanent soul-damage done through long term denial of the Holy Eucharist at the hands of the most trusted.

What is meant by “long term?”

Certainly the 75 days and longer, without any end announced or anticipated during the COVID-19 lock-down, is long term. Consider that God Himself uses 40 days as an expiatory period or a testing period, for the rain in the flood, for the exploration of the promised land by a delegate from each tribe, for Christ’s 40 day fast in the desert, for Lenten fasts and practice. Forty years of wandering in the desert tracks similar “40” imagery. In beatings and whippings, the number of lashes was not supposed to exceed 40, and just to be sure there was no error in counting, the limit was often set at 39 as a mercy (Christ may have received more due to the leaders hatred of Him, and their judgment of blasphemy.) St. Paul makes this ‘mercy of 39’ clear in 2 Corinthians 11:24 when he describes physical abuse by the Jewish leaders:  “Of the Jews five times I have received at the hands of the Jews forty lashes less one.”

Is it a sin to deny Communion to someone who would otherwise be permitted?

It is just a matter of my opinion, and looking forward to some discussion, but I believe it is wrong to be deprived of the Holy Body and Blood of Christ, at the hands of her presbyters, which exceeds Christ’s own fasting from bread; i.e. forty days. It seems more appropriate to make 39 days the absolute limit without receiving relief, significant relief, and not a mere token day or two. The figure of 75 days is grossly excessive and damaging compared to key scriptural events, and I would advocate that the Church should explicitly have a rule for the protection of her flock that a Church-imposed Eucharistic deprivation on a community may not exceed 39 days in any one, or even more, liturgical years.

Why is this so important to declare now, before the next lock-down? Read the rest of this entry »


Cardinal Sarah demands return to the Eucharist

September 15th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

September 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — “In a letter entitled Let us return to the Eucharist with joy!,’ addressed to the presidents of bishops’ conferences around the world, the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Cardinal Robert Sarah, spoke of the need to return to normalcy and asserted that virtual Masses are no substitute for being physically present at the liturgy.” 

“As soon as is possible,” LifeSiteNews recounts Cardinal Sarah writing in his letter, “we must return to the Eucharist with a purified heart, with a renewed amazement, with an increased desire to meet the Lord, to be with Him, to receive Him and to bring Him to our brothers and sisters with the witness of a life full of faith, love, and hope.”

“Broadcasts alone risk distancing us from a personal and intimate encounter with the incarnate God who gave Himself   to us not in a virtual way, but really, saying: ‘He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me and I in him’ (Jn 6:56),” said Sarah, declaring, “This physical contact with the Lord is vital, indispensable, irreplaceable.” (Red letter emphasis on Cardinal Sarah’s words is added below.)

“The faithful should be recognized as having the right to receive the Body of Christ and to worship the Lord present in the Eucharist in the manner provided for, without limitations that go even beyond what is provided for by the norms of hygiene issued by public authorities or Bishops,” said Sarah. 

“In the Eucharistic celebration the faithful adore the Risen Jesus present; and we see with what ease the sense of adoration, the prayer of adoration, is lost,” noted Sarah to the bishops. “In their catechesis we ask Pastors to insist on the necessity of adoration.” 

Cardinal Sarah lists 6 reasons why we cannot and certainly no longer should do without what has been lost. And we might at least ask ourselves if that list is complete, and might even venture to say that it is not by any means a complete list. The point at which nurturing hunger for the Eucharist hangs by the thread of desire to view video may have long since passed into one more stage setting, where the reality of Presence becomes more and more difficult to discern. It is worth more deeply understanding why some priests deliberately delayed (and still are delaying) a complete return to the fullness of pre-pandemic liturgies and why some Catholics can more and more easily talk themselves into not being ‘ready’ to return. Both priests and people have suffered from the continued distancing into the  masked image of unreality, doing far more persistent damage to their communities than was done by the COVID-19.

After presenting Cardinal Sarah’s 6 points, LifeSiteNews returns to the Cardinal’s words: “… Let us … continue to entrust ourselves confidently to God’s mercy, to invoke the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary… to  persevere in prayer for those who have left this life, and … renew our intention to be witnesses of the Risen One and heralds of a sure hope, which transcends the limits of this world.”

Cardinal Sarah’s letter was written on August 15, the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary; approved by Pope Francis on September 3; and published in Italian on September 12, 2020. The English translation was provided by the Catholic News Agency (CNA), which is carrying its full translation.

Related story re Abp. Jerome E. Listecki of Milwaukee: 



Lack of Credibility: Immunization and the mark of the beast (Part III)

September 10th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Facing the Mark of the Beast (Part II)

August 30th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Foreword: This is a long post, I admit. But there is a certain unity and integrity between the various parts, since five different but compatible strategies are being considered for a complex subject, but also one for which much is unknown at this time, but should be included in planning. The reader may want to scroll first the entire post, looking at the titles in red, for some orientation to the subject.

Recently we noted the parallels between the Bible’s mentions of the ‘mark of the beast’, and certain medical doctors’ advocating mandatory vaccination (with a mark on the forehead or right hand) of virtually the entire population, with no allowance for religious or moral exemption, and with strict and difficult punishments for refusal. See prior post in the matter of doctors’ statement:

There certainly is a great desire on the part of the ‘left’ to be able to wield control over the bodies of their dissenters. And, now it seems, their souls as well. The following includes five potential strategies and background to consider as we work our way through a very dangerous time.

I. The Biblical basis for the mark of the beast 

If one wonders where those doctors got the idea to mark the right hand and/or forehead of someone as an indelible information symbol of their having been vaccinated against COVID, the answer is in that last book of the New Testament, Revelation, which is also called the Apocalypse.  That prior post listed the references (12 verses in 5 chapters:  Revelation 13:15-18; 14:9-13; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4) mentioning the “mark of the beast.” No other book in the bible mentions the mark of the beast. That doesn’t mean God is planting the seeds of such abomination for the doctors to find. Rather, He is all knowing and what was written in prophecy two millennia ago may well be coming realized in our time, encouraging us by verifying the excellence, truth and accuracy of the Holy Word, which breakaway priests like Luther wanted to remove from the Bible, perhaps because it seemed so unlikely or difficult for them to imagine?

Notice the particular language of Revelation regarding the mark of the beast in that prior post. The language is one of worshiping (or acting as worshiping) the beast and being MARKED on the right hand or the forehead as choosing the beast. In another passage the mention is “RECEIVES OR HAD RECEIVED a mark” or “HAS” the mark. Yet another passage mentions people who “BORE” the mark. The triumphant people “HAD NOT RECEIVED a mark on their foreheads or their hands.” From Revelation it does not appear that someone will receive the mark without his or her consent, i.e. not by being operated on or mutilated against one’s will, but that choosing the mark rather than death, albeit under great pressure and even deception, is still a person’s CHOICE, even if perhaps their prior sins make them weaker and more susceptible to the evil one. Apparently the recipient makes a CHOICE, God or the beast. How ironic that an eternal decision might come down to the very language which has so misdirected souls — “my body; my CHOICE.”  And how appropriate that those who touted their CHOICE of sin such as abortion should now have to make their final CHOICE for God or the beast!


II. The medical establishment’s support of the beast

It is also appropriate that the part of today’s medical establishment, which defends and administers abortion, should appear as an ally of the beast!  In 2012 an article coming from England reported a decision to refuse a doctor’s license to anyone who had not participated in the OB-GYN rotation, and actually committed abortion as part of their training.

But there is no deception in Christ’s having warned us that we cannot serve two masters. And as I look at some of the violent upheavals in our world today, especially the satanic forces which are seemingly unleashed, it becomes increasingly believable that people can reach such a dire point — of choosing the beast over God. It points out, too, that it is foolish to wait for the moment to arrive and then begin to commit ourselves to what might well be a call to martyrdom. One of the requirements for such preparation is prayer, prayer and more prayer. And then, being in Christ’s words in Matthew 10:16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” These words not only refer to abortion, but also to other abominations in which many parts of the medical system participate and support themselves, including transgender surgery, forbidding psychological counseling on same-sex sins, sterilization and euthanasia.  That so much of the medical establishment would seek to vaccinate God’s people into the mark of the beast is really not such a surprise after all, is it? St. Luke, pray for us!


III. Five strategies to consider / evaluate /use:

A number of strategies could be implemented to oppose and/or to delay , but first we never forget what medical doctors have revealed about their strategies and the similarity of their ‘rules’ to the mark of the beast. If we always begin with the mark of the beast  in mind, with our highest priority — souls, we won’t be on the wrong track.  Here are five areas for strategic concentration:

  • Fear the mark of the beast. And share the fear with others. We lose momentum when we hesitate and dither about the issues, or become subdivided in our priorities. Given the punishing words of the doctors involved in pushing a vaccine, measured against the prophecy of the Book of Revelation, makes it hardly a stretch to see the verification mark on forehead and/or right hand as being the fearsome mark(s) of the beast. So I am not going to write a thesis here to convince anyone who can’t see the connection. But the similarity to end-times prophecy is startling, and for those who have ears to hear, fear of the mark of the beast should not be left out; it should be part of righteous discernment since it has been given to us by God. It is
  • front and center, because it is of concern for our own souls as well. We might wonder why accepting the mark of the beast isn’t being treated as more of a secret by the forces of evil, to keep us less prepared. What I believe is that when Satan is involved in unleashing his plans, he can’t help but brag about how he thinks he is beating God Himself! Whether leading pride parades, burning down cities, pushing the drug culture and so much more, it is all about pride, his hatred of God, and of wresting souls into the flames. It is one of the signs of who is behind events as they unroll.
  • Re-examine, lobby and implement the anti-malarial strategy for widespread treatment. Let’s begin with an obvious statement of which we may have lost sight. Remember! A vaccine is NOT a treatment; it is supposed to be a preventative. And it puts a lot of the eggs into one basket if we are not simultaneously looking for and pursuing treatment. If the vaccine fails or kills many or needs frequent updating behind the infection curve, it may never catch up to the next variation. The Chinese are not stupid. One should expect they have built into the virus a number of surprises. What we know we have available is the antimalarial, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, with antibiotic, which has had good results both when the COVID is early stage and when such medicine is a last resort.
  • Mysteriously, scientific articles quickly appeared denouncing the antimalarial which has been on the market for nearly half a century. Why? One suspects it is because the antimalarial was widely available (especially in more sub-tropical areas), inexpensive, stable and trusted by doctors. Apparently it can be used multiple times, and as a pre-infection booster and has application to similar respiratory viruses, thus hopefully to the application for the biological warfare likely to be released in the future. A new wave of COVID may well drive people to seeking the chloroquine and derivatives, as seemingly much less risky than a relatively untested vaccine with beastly side effects.
  • It seems essential to keep pushing the antimalarial treatment strategy, so that people will realize a vaccine isn’t their only alternative, and not be dragged into compromising themselves. Otherwise, we may find ourselves with NO TREATMENT and just an ineffective vaccine, sowing for the grim reaper all over the world.
  • This past week some Republican members of the US Senate wisely demanded the FDA stop fighting against the chloroquines. Why? In June it was reported that the FDA actually took the antimalarial off the market, stranding people who need it for other purposes, like arthritis. One can only imagine the desperation of the vaccine producers and those who are funding the dream vaccine, to find themselves competing against a now unpatented half-century old effective product.
  • See here:
  • If the FDA doesn’t let the antimalarial back onto the market, which prescriptive use has been within easy use of family doctors for years, there will surely open a black market here and outside the US. I can imagine efforts to stockpile, and to hold the antimalarial hostage during sieges from Wuhan. Lobbying for access to the antimalarial will be absolutely necessary, with much attention on the real agenda of the vaccinists. It may also be worth seeking the antimalarial in advance through medical channels or foreign sourcing to have it available in case we are denied out of deference to the big money vaccine. I can totally understand why people especially at risk would like to have the antimalarial in their medicine cabinets.
  • Although the famed Lancet Medical Magazine renounced the article it published against the antimalarial, and issued a correction in their false reporting, admitting their publishing false data, nevertheless the articles are still available on line, misleading those searching for information into believing those false reports. Why was it opposed when clearly that drug has been in use for decades in the general dispensary, without the dangers touted? Is it not because the profit margin, reduced by lack of patent coverage, lacks profits anywhere near a vaccine and its ‘marker’ system? It seems to be about money, first and foremost. See retraction here:
  • The antimalarial story would not be complete without mentioning the personal initiative shown by President Trump. I also must personally take this opportunity to say that President Trump’s choice to take that drug at his own risk (and under his doctor’s oversight) was heroic and self sacrificing, placing himself in God’s hands, yet all he aroused was anger from his opponents! Indeed, he entered the fray, when impeded by the drug blockade, with the heart of a first responder. And it is because he was so successful and without apparently experiencing any side effects, that the Lancet medical journal had to retract and apologize for having printed a lie, a scam. Again, I believe that deep money is behind the vaccine impetus and its attacking the anti-malarial treatment, in order to allow people no choice.
  • Be reasonably critical of the many unknowns associated with rushing a vaccine to market. If drug development were following its normal course, it would be a few more years before testing had been completed, contraindications identified, modifications made for optimization, and choosing the best of the vaccines available, with great and probable safety risks averted. Instead, the drug blockade crows over how fast they have developed a vaccine! That should be a warning, not a point of pride, not an implication of success. Once the first person receives the first ‘dose’ there may be side effects, deliberate or not, that cannot be reversed, and there may be no going back for those recipients. Likely those first doses will be administered in parts of Africa where the people are not infrequently victimized as “guinea pigs,” often with devastating results, and begging the serious and relevant moral issues.
  • Part of the strategy must be delay, until more is known and alternatives are offered. Delay at a minimum means keeping options open as long as possible. Even if a vaccine is effective, how long before it fades in effectiveness? What are the odds of re-infection? Of chasing a mutating virus? How many and how often would doses be required? What are those side effects? Where is a development protocol to try to avoid abortive ingredients? And what is the relative weighting of each such goal? Rather, it sounds a bit like whatever engineered vaccine is available will be the framework of the goals, rather than the other way around. Publicity around all these unanswered questions for the opponents of the vaccine scenario, is a sound strategy. Remember, many of those with much to gain have been also associated with the desire for 80% population reduction. Why give them another chance? Some of the questions which seem to be ignored in rushing a vaccine to market are the very ones those opposed to antimalarials complain have to be tested first and only used in small and very controlled protocols.
  • Urge rapid clarification of whether or not a vaccine program can be effective. Is a vaccine program the way to go when we don’t even know if the virus itself creates immunity, let alone does a vaccine create immunity? Right now there is beginning to be identified reinfection of individuals who had COVID-19 earlier this year. Is it a fluke or the onset of a new wave of infection? Or does it simply demonstrate that this is a virus that does not lend itself to producing immunity after infection, so what good is a vaccine? If there can be no immunity even for those who recovered from the virus, any vaccine program will likely be a total waste. Or has COVID-19 morphed so that immunity becomes a meaningless concept?
  • This is a very serious question for scientific and public discussion – how long (if at all) does immunity last? This is why unreasonable acceleration of vaccine development may lead nowhere, except to a beast marker. Think about it – there are many ways drugs can be tested, but time doesn’t come in a bottle. Only prolonged testing can lead to a reasonable understanding of how long immunity can last, if indeed immunity is produced. Here’s an update on skipping standards on the COVID vaccine:
  • If the virus does creates immunity, consider deliberately getting the virus and not needing the vaccine or mark of the beast. This concept was described here for measles, from the 1950’s when no vaccine had been developed: It certainly is not without risk, but since the mark of the beast is about eternal punishment, perhaps dying from the virus is not as frightening. How long does immunity last? Would you have to do this every year or just once? Can the virus be moderated to a low level with an anti-malarial for safety and still register immunity? Would civil authorities bother testing or honoring testing that had been done to bypass the vaccine and the mark of the beast? It is not all about risk either. It may create a pool of people who refuse the vaccine, can no longer buy or sell or receive medical treatment, but would create a community taking care of each other, as in the early Church when Rome administered similar penalties, including burning as a living torch. Implementing such a strategy will depend somewhat on what we learn about immunity, but the rush to market for the vaccine may keep us from knowing much for a while, hence the recommendation for a delay strategy.
  • Launch a protest on moral and religious grounds if a pro-life vaccine is not developed but an abortive lines vaccine is–  (revised).  There is a momentum right now, especially as the political campaigns shed light on the evils of abortion, to oppose any development which seems to depend on abortion. The prominent and heroic work of Daleiden and Merritt also remains on appeal. While still on appeal in the courts, there may well be hope for a deferral to delay a vaccine too, at least for safety sake or to repudiate use of baby parts that may be involved in the research. Legal action may also force release of documents which are ‘company confidential’ at this point, but show deliberate choice of an abortive cell line as discriminating against people of faith who choose not to use abortion-based vaccines, or to use work based on dissection and sale of baby parts.
  • Unfortunately, this approach (demanding a vaccine free of abortive lines) will likely have to be implemented without much Vatican support, which, since around 2005, has been weaker it seems against the  issue of using abortive lines in vaccines. Nevertheless, there is still a popular window which might be exploited, through which protests might be made for a COVID vaccine which totally avoids any abortion linkage. Since vaccines such as for rubella had used abortive lines, the Church’s position had often seemed that such use was a kind of cooperation with the evil of abortion. (In my opinion it was also a pretty disgusting thought to vaccinate one’s child ‘using’ another child’s death in the womb, the child of a mother who chooses abortion.) There was apparently (at that time) an effective non-abortive-line vaccine in Japan, but not cleared in the US, so most parents had little recourse. Parents had invoked their own conscientious objection to reject vaccines from abortive lines on grounds of their religion or morals, and based on serious health matters as well. Linkages such as to autism is frequently denied by some scientists but, nevertheless, parental concern has been persistent. Now, after a pandemic, conscience doesn’t seem to carry as much weight, and the ‘doctors’ recently cited have tried to exclude such excuses, as has government. The Church’s role in openly challenging the use of abortive cell lines also seems diminished, but resistance is still worth considering as a delay strategy by demanding (and suing for) a vaccine which does not use abortive lines.

In a  related matter, the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAL) was totally dismantled by Pope Francis in 2016 and reassembled with all new members about a year later. Many of those unceremoniously dismissed were connected to PAL’s founder, Pope St. John Paul II. Now under the leadership of Abp. Paglia, who is himself of no small concern to those who follow closely, perhaps the best we can hope for at this point is ignoring PAL’s work in the future. In these matters, the Vatican seems unlikely to have much interest in or support for a protest in favor of using non-abortive lines in a COVID vaccine. Note: the foregoing comment appeared in this post about 30 hours before LifeSiteNews presented the following article:


IV. Emphasize the “moral objection” 

It is somewhat more practical and opportunistic to simply emphasize resistance as “moral objection” when the term fits the situation, and to avoid making an issue seemingly based only on personal opinion or specific religious teaching or practice, if possible. More emphasis on morality and not just religiosity, regardless of “why” one seeks to be moral, and even what it means to be moral, has merit for attracting a wider base of resistance against mandatory vaccination, and more cooperation. This point is NOT about minimizing the religious aspect, but rather as welcoming even those who do not identify with a religion, even those who are atheists or agnostics, to aspects of the vaccination resistance based on their own moral values, and to form a coalition, to avoid division and yet remain true to the objective. We experienced much of this type cooperation during the 2012 religious freedom program called for by the USCCB.

This explanation is offered because language is important, and often shapes the argument. For example, framing abortion as a woman’s health issue, and framing LGBT as a civil rights issue, advanced both “causes” without even addressing the real moral questions. So, too, we can expect the still-emerging assisted suicide issue to be framed as patriotic, and about “human dignity.” The vaccination issue will break some ground for assisted suicide as ‘patriotic.’ This is an especially relevant concern in a culture hurtling toward an objective of as much as 80% population reduction. For example, rarely is the word ‘murder’ spoken from the pulpit about abortion, and not speaking precisely and courageously has cost many babies their lives. The ‘mark of the beast’ may not be relevant to an agnostic who has never read the bible, but is a subject of great import for Catholics and many other Christians.

On the other hand, we shouldn’t minimize how God can turn hearts!

Thank you to all who lent assistance in the technical matters referenced above. I apologize for any misstatements which might have occurred on my part.



Joe, Joe …. What have you done?

August 25th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

The first Democratic primary for the 2020 Presidential Race was held in Iowa on February 3rd, and Biden came in 4th, with 14.9% of the vote, behind Bernie Sanders with 24.7%, Pete Buttigieg with 21.3% and Elizabeth Warren with 18.5%.

The second primary was held on February 11th in New Hampshire, and Joe Biden came in 5th with 8.3%, behind Bernie Sanders 25.6%, Pete Buttigieg with 24.3%, Amy Klobuchar with 19.7% and Elizabeth Warren with 9.2%. It certainly looked like Joe Biden’s campaign had lost any fire it might have had.

Those results can be verified here:


What in the world (or outside the world) happened? One answer might lie in what was said and done on the day after the New Hampshire primary, when Biden’s campaign seemed to be falling apart. Politico reports the gist of a phone conversation Biden had with his supporters on Lincoln’s birthday (Feb. 12th), the headlines of which read:

“Biden on phone call: ‘I’ll be damned if we’re gonna lose this nomination’”


Do you see it? After two miserable showings, there is a hard-to-predict turnaround. The next primary, in Nevada on Feb. 22, has Biden in 2nd place with 19% to Bernie Sanders 40%, and then comes the big turnaround – the South Carolina primary, when Biden garners 49% of the vote, and Bernie Sanders 20% on Feb. 29th. And Biden never looks back. What happened? What really happened?

In what appears to be spiritual warfare, between great immorality and sin on one side, and the struggles to maintain a Christian and moral position on many fronts, disadvantaged by all the associated problems of a pandemic which reversed the extraordinary gains and successes of the current administration in three prior years, did Joe Biden call out for demonic reinforcement for the Democratic side and for himself?

“I’ll be damned” – I think most of us have some idea of what that means. One understanding is that a person who says those words is willing to be damned, offering himself to be damned, to gain an objective. That is not as strange as it first seems. The theme of selling one’s soul to the evil one permeates literature, art and opera. We seem to be sensing that this is a time to be very, very careful of what we say and do, with such forces astir. Words matter; they have effect. Did they hand Joe the nomination?

During this same period in February, Trump put the China travel restrictions  into effect on February 2nd, and expanded them to cover Iran on February 29th, the date of the South Carolina primary. Joe Biden’s campaign did pick up fire or, we might say, fire may have picked him up.

Ephesians 6:12 states: “For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” It is not unreasonable to wonder what Joe Biden actually did with his words. And, if it is as it seems, the entire Democratic Party, activists and bystanders, may be drawn into supporting not only a platform against God, but also a campaign targeted against His sons and daughters.

What we are in now calls for much careful speech, and for much strong commitment. It is likely not to be what we have come to expect from prior conventions and elections. Personally, I will not be surprised to see weather and climate manifest the evil being precipitated, which happens when the ordered world can no longer contain it.

Joe, Joe…. What have you done? “I’ll be damned….” Yes, Joe, that is probably a fair assessment, unless we can all make a huge effort to pray to an incredibly merciful God for His enemies to repent.  


Excerpts from US Priest’s Review of Church’s ‘Misjudgment’

August 25th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Excerpts from LifeSiteNews on article by Rev. Michael Orsi:

[Red text is reviewer’s selected emphasis.]

US Priest: Our ‘biggest misjudgment’ amid COVID

was to close churches, suspend Sunday obligation


“In our anxiety about this new and mysterious plague, we’ve been too ready to compromise faith for the sake of civic duty,…”

“… we’ve had far too little concern for the transcendent dimension of life. Consequently, spiritual health has suffered. Probably our biggest misjudgment was the decision to close our churches and suspend the Sunday Mass obligation.”

“We could have maintained a regular worship schedule, or something like it. Reasonable, sensible adjustments would have provided a significant measure of protection.”

“Anyone whose health was compromised, or who feared they might be endangered by coming to Mass (or endangering others), would have had an automatic dispensation from attending — which is the Church’s regular, commonsense rule anyway.”

“The downside is that people were still denied the encouragement of sharing their faith in community. They were left to feel cut off from their fellow believers, and kept from reception of the Eucharist, an experience that’s caused much emotional deprivation.”

“We also should have placed greater emphasis on prayer, fasting, and other pious practices — even organizing rosary processions (properly distanced). All of these would have called upon the long history of intercessory prayer so well established in Church tradition.”

“… in our anxiety about this new and mysterious plague, and in a well intentioned effort to operate our parishes responsibly, we’ve been too ready to compromise faith for the sake of civic duty.”

“Perhaps we were being called to risk a certain kind of legal martyrdom for the sake of religious liberty. Many people have paid a price for our reluctance. And there might be long-term consequences of the failure to stand our ground…. We’re seeing signs of it already in the vandalism that’s occurred to some church buildings and religious statuary. These incidents can be understood only as efforts to intimidate Catholics into silence on certain issues and movements that faithful people would be expected to oppose.”

“…our willingness to curtail ministry for the sake of public health may suggest that we can be muzzled in other ways.”

“… we didn’t make nearly enough of the “teaching moment” nature provided. And that has been a great loss during the “Great Pandemic.”


The author, a priest of the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, Rev. Michael P. Orsi currently serves as parochial vicar at St. Agnes Parish in Naples, Florida. Full article is here



Mark of the Beast — already a work in progress? (Part I)

August 12th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris
  • CF rarely reprints almost an entire published article; we usually use relevant excerpts. But when great danger is involved, spiritually and/or physically, some concessions to urgency and importance make sense.
  • Lifesite News published the following article (blue text) on the evening of August 11, 2020 [a bit of repetition has been removed, and pictures, and a sneer at Putin] and it is a clarion call for concern and action. The bolded, underlined text is for emphasis; if not enclosed by quotation marks, it is attributed to the author, Claire Chretien.







By Claire Chretien    FOLLOW CLAIRE

“A coronavirus vaccine should be mandatory, and tax penalties, higher insurance premiums, and denial of many government and private services ought to be considered for those refusing the shot,” three doctors argued in USA Today.

“[W]hile the measures that will be necessary to defeat the coronavirus will seem draconian, even anti-American to some, we believe that there is no alternative. Simply put, getting vaccinated is going to be our patriotic duty,” wrote Drs. Michael Lederman, Maxwell J. Mehlman, and Stuart Youngner.

There is no “alternative to vaccine-induced herd immunity in a pandemic,” they argued. “Broad induction of immunity in the population by immunization will be necessary to end this pandemic.”

The USA Today article, published August 6, is titled Defeat COVID-19 by requiring vaccination for all. It’s not un-American, it’s patriotic.” Its original subhead read, “Make vaccines free, don’t allow religious or personal objections, and punish those who won’t be vaccinated. They are threatening the lives of others.” It has since been changed to “Make vaccines free, don’t allow religious or personal objections, and create disincentives for those who refuse vaccines shown to be safe and effective.”

“When a vaccine is ready,” the doctors wrote, it must be free and exemptions must only be made for people with “medical contraindications to immunization.” But “medical conditions that prohibit all COVID-19 vaccines will be rare,” they claimed. No religious or personal objections to receiving the shot or shots should be honored, they wrote, and harsh penalties should be adopted by important sectors of society to pressure the populace to comply.

The physicians proposed, “Private businesses could refuse to employ or serve unvaccinated individuals. Schools could refuse to allow unimmunized children to attend classes. Public and commercial transit companies — airlines, trains and buses — could exclude refusers. Public and private auditoriums could require evidence of immunization for entry.”

They then outlined how a “registry of immunization will be needed with names entered after immunization is completed.” People who receive the vaccine should be issued “certification cards” with expiration dates (“the durability of protection by different vaccines may vary and may require periodic booster immunizations”). The concept of “immunization cards” or digital vaccine records was floated shortly before the coronavirus outbreak and since the virus has spread.

A December 2019 article in Scientific American described the vision of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers for embedding vaccine records “directly into the skin” of children. “Along with the vaccine, a child would be injected with a bit of dye that is invisible to the naked eye but easily seen with a special cell-phone filter, combined with an app that shines near-infrared light onto the skin. The dye would be expected to last up to five years, according to tests on pig and rat skin and human skin in a dish.”

The development of this idea, which the article proudly noted avoids using “iris scans” that might violate privacy, was “funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.” It “came about because of a direct request from Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates himself, who has been supporting efforts to wipe out diseases such as polio and measles across the world.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and one of Trump’s top pandemic advisers, said in April that he thought it was “possible” that one day Americans may have to carry certificates showing they are immune to the coronavirus. “I think it might actually have some merit under certain circumstances,” he said. Also in April, Gates speculated, “Eventually, we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.”

Lederman, Mehlman, and Youngner concluded by comparing Americans’ fight against the coronavirus to World War I and World War II. Around 37 million casualties can be attributed to World War I, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. World War II was even deadlier, with 70 million to 85 million deaths– including those due to famine, the Holocaust, disease, and other war-related factors – being attributable to it.

As of press time, worldwide, there have been 20,383,417 million reported coronavirus cases but only 741,707 reported deaths. 13,281,928 people have contracted the virus and recovered. These numbers may not be accurate due to the unreliability of COVID-19 tests and reporting systems in the United States – which has seen people who were never even tested for the virus receive positive results, the governor of Ohio receiving both positive and negative test results on the same day, and at least one person who died in a motorcycle crash coded as a COVID-19 death – and the likelihood of communist China, where the virus originated, downplaying its infection and death rates.

During World War I and World War II, “Everyone contributed, no one was allowed to opt out merely because it conflicted with a sense of autonomy, and draft dodgers who refused to serve were subject to penalties,” the doctors wrote. “True, conscientious objectors could refuse to use weapons for religious reasons, but they were obligated to help out in other ways, serving in noncombatant roles. There are no such alternatives for vaccination.”

In a recent online debate on mandatory vaccinations, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.pointed out that a significant percentage of participants in a recent trial for a leading coronavirus vaccine have been hospitalized.

Kennedy, a liberal environmental attorney and member of the Kennedy political dynasty, also noted that several of the coronavirus vaccine developers, a number of which have received funding from Bill Gates, have been forced to pay billions of dollars in criminal penalties related to their medical products.

“It requires a cognitive dissonance for people who understand the criminal corporate cultures of these four companies to believe that they’re doing this in every other product that they have, but they’re not doing it with vaccines,” Kennedy said.

In an April 9 article, Kennedy wrote: “Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.”

Kennedy has been raising awareness about those injured by vaccines since before the coronavirus outbreak and has now emerged as one of the strongest voices against a forced COVID-19 vaccine.

Many immunizations are made from cell lines of aborted babies, and a number of the coronavirus vaccines being developed are also using immorally obtained fetal cell lines. 


Comments from Cleansing Fire Author Diane Harris

Forcing people to choose between their faith and their life is not new and clever, it is as old as inhumanity. Just recite aloud the treasured bible story in Second Maccabees 6:18-31 of Eleazar, the Jewish scribe who died rather than eat pork or partake in a charade to mislead souls. Or remember how Christians were martyred for refusing to add just one grain of incense in idolatry of the Roman Emperor, or were made into human torches at Nero’s garden parties. Or remember any of thousands of martyrs who died rather than do something against God, or their Faith.

Where did this idea come from regarding mandatory marking of people and punishing those who refuse to be marked? You know — it comes from the Bible, the Book of Revelation specifically in which the Apostle and Evangelist John is shown the end-times (all the references are not included below, just the key items most related to taking the mark on forehead or hand):


 Revelation 13:15-18
“… and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast so that the image of the beast should even speak, and to cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain. Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the foreheadso that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty-six.
Revelation 14:9-13
“And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, ‘If any one worships the beast and its image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also shall drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of His anger, and he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.’ Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. And I heard a voice from heaven saying, ‘Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth.’ ‘Blessed indeed,’ says the Spirit, ‘that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!'”  
Revelation 16:2
“So the first angel went and poured his bowl on the earth, and foul and evil sores came upon the men who bore the mark of the beast and worshiped its image.” 
Revelation 19:20
“And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulphur.” 
Revelation 20:4
“Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” 

I have much more to add on the decision we appear to be facing soon.; and I think perhaps even some helpful strategies. But this is a good point to leave us all to contemplate that it is possible we may even face such a decision in 2020, a seemingly accursed year? No, not accursed. Isn’t this what we so often pray?

“Amen. Come Lord Jesus.” Revelation 22:20-b.

Besides, here is a hint. It is mentioned in a March 2019 post on Vaccination:

Peace, d


Election Prayer for Life

August 9th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris



The Life and Death Issues of COVID Vaccines

August 3rd, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris


In April, 2020, Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, asked Catholics to “join your voices with mine in an effort to bring to a halt” any coronavirus vaccines which were derived from aborted babies.

“Tragically, people are not aware of or have chosen to turn a blind eye to the advances in medical science which allow vaccines to be developed with the wholesale use of aborted children’s bodies,” Strickland wrote in his pastoral letter. “Scientists I’ve spoken with assure me that there is no medical necessity for using aborted children in order to develop the much-needed vaccine to protect us from this particular strain of coronavirus,” he stated.

The August 2, 2020 Cleansing Fire Ticker included the following link: and it is a particularly disturbing article not only because the UK bishops are supporting use of aborted fetal cell lines for a Covid-19 vaccine, but even more of concern because those same bishops seem to be ordering Catholics to surrender their free will and consciences, mandating them to receive that same questionable vaccine. Here are some references to what we know about the vaccine and associated plans, which is very little indeed:

There is also a serious effort to ‘get the vaccine-scare toothpaste back in the u-tube’ due to earlier reports, video etc. that Bill Gates was quoted as saying up to a million people could die just from adverse reactions to a vaccine. A number of articles have now made a point of denying he said those words, but the original statement seems not to be available any longer, at least not by using common search tools. In the ‘cancel culture,’ deletion apparently now means it never happened.

One day, a month or two ago, I was praying after Mass about such a huge financial force as the Gates Foundation seemingly overwhelming its opposition on the issues they fund, like abortion and a ‘worldwide’ vaccine. I was remarking to the Lord how “Melinda and Bill” have been blessed with so much, and the pro-life effort seems so small by comparison, so vulnerable, and how weak the Church seems at such a crucial moment.  The Lord suddenly led me to remember Matthew 16:18b: “…and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Neither shall the Gateses. Amazing, isn’t it?

While mandatory vaccine (by magisterial authority) ‘only’ applies to the UK at the moment, it is a dangerous precedent, and plays right into the weaknesses of so many bishops in the USCCB. See “God’s Fearful Frozen” here:  The weeds are indeed growing with the wheat, even among the members of a national conference of bishops. (“An enemy has done this.”)

We need courage from our prelates, like that of Bishop Strickland’s refusing to sign the Texas bishops’ statement permitting hospitals and similar institutions of ‘care’ to decide unilaterally how to ration life-saving equipment. It smells of rationing mortal sin: “Who gets to commit it and who doesn’t?” But sin is sin, and it is a sad situation when the majority of the successors of the Apostles, albeit in just one geographical area, presume to permit such sin in the same tone as permission to eat meat on Friday!


The Rest of the Story

This intrusion into civil rights by a bishops’ conference is an “emerging” issue of great significance in the Church, regardless of whether one believes the proposed vaccination is related to the “mark of the beast” or not , and regardless of the courage or lack thereof among the shepherds who seem far more willing to command irrational, risky behavior by the flock than they are to criticize the wolf.

But there is another issue clouding these matters, for which our often short term memory can be impaired — how the Church has been harmed by actions from high levels in the Vatican in the last 5 years. One Peter Five does an excellent summary of Pope Francis’s dismissal at the end of 2016 of the entire Pontifical Academy for Life (Founded by St. John Paul II) : See  That particular article is especially worth our careful reading, and remembering. It seems to be a template for  other possible changes.

During 2017 the Pontifical Academy for Life was almost completely reconstituted under Abp. Paglia, himself the center of much concern and accusation: One surprise is the contrast between the 2005 position of the Academy, and what was belatedly issued for 2017 regarding vaccines. We can wonder how much of the dissolution of the Academy was for the purpose of rewriting the vaccine guidelines, for it is certainly emerging that vaccination is a likely part of any plan for One World Religion/Government, and potentially for significant population reduction as well. And it may also be essential to the ‘mark of the beast’ (See Revelation, Chapter 13). It is only a small leap from legislating that everyone must accept a vaccine to saying they can’t do any business, pay bills, get groceries, own property, rent, drive or receive health care, etc. unless they obey. This is not like isolation was a century ago in TB Sanitaria of sick patients to protect the well. Being isolated (quarantined indefinitely) today is potentially a tactic against the healthy, to force compliance. 

Interestingly, Catholic Culture reported on March 21, 2019 a statement on vaccines by The Pontifical Academy for Life somewhat contradictory to its prior (2005) position. Their statement is dated July 2017 but apparently became only widely known nearly two years later. That article is shown below in the blue type. And, just a little over one year later, we now have the statement from the UK Bishops virtually mandating vaccination.

It now appears possible that the engineering of the entire demise of The Pontifical Academy for Life could have been a 3-5 year plan to revise the Church’s position on vaccinations, which of course inevitably weakens the strength of the pro-life movement. If the bishops really believe what they are trying to order done in the UK, they should be the first to receive the vaccine, except of course any who speak courageously from their own consciences against mandatory inoculation.

I have chosen not to argue the relative merits of the proximity in timing between the sin of killing the unborn and the use of the fetal cells, as I do not feel competent to make such a decision; that is one reason why it is so important for the Church to get it right, and for stability of the Church Teaching. Confusion is the fruit of the evil one. About 6 hours ago, I uploaded this post. Now I have just received the happy news from LifeSiteNews that Bp. Strickland has again asserted the same position he expressed previously.

From Catholic Culture and Catholic World News: 

Click here to read about Pontifical Academy for Life’s 2019 encouragement of vaccinations.  Read the rest of this entry »


Feeling angry and betrayed!

August 2nd, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

We were 75 days without Holy Communion. Our Daily Bread! And it was like starving. It wasn’t just “like” starving, it WAS starving. Instead of being a nutrient to our souls in a time of great anxiety, a stabilizing force to our families and communities in their duress, and a strengthening of our own faith, the lack of the Body and Blood of Christ contributed to the pain, the misery, the affliction. We as Catholics were less than we could have been during such a difficult period due to our weakness from starving souls.

We blamed the Chinese for the Wuhan Virus, appropriately so. We blamed the transparent motives of obvious political forces trying to destroy our country. We blamed the talking media heads for often contradictory healthcare advice and for pushing blatant errors in their widely touted opinions. And of course we blamed the governor of NY for violating appropriate and long standing boundaries between Church and State, and for causing so many needless nursing home deaths. When we did blame the Church, it was mostly about our resenting bishops’ surrendering to civil directives and lack of courage among the clergy at every level, especially in the episcopacy. What we most credited and praised were the priests who risked themselves to anoint COVID patients, and front line medical responders and caretakers, who put themselves at risk to help others.

Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”  John 15:13


Thomistic Institute Guidelines

Recently I peered into the Guidelines issued by the Thomistic Institute at the USCCB’s request, virtually completely accepted by dioceses and parishes, and which continue to prevail at large. Up until now I have just accepted the party line of what we can and cannot do, but lately I decided to read those Guidelines myself. If you want to do the same, those Thomistic Guidelines can be found here, for version 1.2 (May 7th) :

My feeling anger and betrayal is piqued by pages 22-24, and which are technically still applicable since not revoked. The relevant material from just those particular pages is posted in blue under the continuation “Read the Rest…”  at the end of this post. The title says it all: Distribution of Holy Communion to Individuals outside of Mass (may be done while observing strict limits to the size of public gatherings).

Read the document yourself and see if it doesn’t convey to you the implication (at least) that we could have been receiving Holy Communion even though “Public Masses” were shut down. If so, it surely raises the question of why we were soul-starved for 75 days if at least an occasional Communion had been allowed. And, we could have then been receiving all those hosts in the Tabernacles of the parishes, when the edict against Public Mass came down on a Monday, following the usual Sunday consecration.  If indeed we could have received Communion, wasn’t that a better alternative than a priest consuming those hosts in private Masses over the first few weeks? Or worse, destroying those hosts and thus revealing a sacrilegious attitude toward the Real Presence? 

Why was the alternative of receiving Holy Communion not presented to us as a possibility during those 75 days of starving in the bunker?  I have no doubt there are and will be, now that time has passed, some ‘logical explanation’ that was hidden during the quarantine. Remember, the Thomistic Guidelines were released May 7, version 1.2. That was a few weeks before public Mass was reopened in most parishes. It also begs the question of what is in the earlier versions of the Thomistic Institute document, to which I have not yet found access. Finally, the entire matter should be considered within the context of the right (yes RIGHT) of the laity to the Sacraments, which is clearly stated in Canon Law and which was ignored profusely:



If one needs further clarification of those rights, consider Canon 212, part 2:

It is about NEED, and we certainly were needy! Looking at the May 7th Guidelines of the Thomistic Institute (and perhaps some of earlier date?), upon which the USCCB and diocesan implementations were based, we read how even during the recent times of suspended public Masses there was provision to receive Communion! The reception process for a group (10 at a time, group after group) is explained in the Appendix to the Guidelines, but there is no minimum number of recipients, so it appears priests could have given us individual Communion. But apparently they didn’t because either they didn’t want to, were ordered not to (the obedience thing), just didn’t know they could, didn’t adequately research the possibility on our behalf, or some other opaque reason of which we are unaware? And haven’t yet told us the truth or at least communicated reasons which could give us some comfort? When does pastoral need get considered? What about a lock-down of one thousand, two hundred and sixty days? This is an important matter because what has happened during this lock-down, from Church policy, to relationship with civil authorities, to communication with the Faithful, becomes the text book for the next lock-down, i.e. abandonment of the Eucharist for the Faithful in times of crisis, and so begs the need to focus on the issues. (This paragraph was revised for clarity/reposted.)

For those who intentionally withheld from their flocks the Holy Communion that could have been given, I believe they are gravely in violation of Canon Law and have failed in the virtues of courage and charity as well. I hope they will realize the seriousness of what has occurred, confess and begin again to fully care for souls. Otherwise the dilemma we now have to live with is compounded by non-repentance on one side, and feeling betrayed on the other.


Other Considerations

But I do not mean to paint all pastors and bishops with the same brush. There was heroism of heart as well, charity for those suffering the loss of what Christ Himself gave to us to sustain us in just such a trial as we endured. As I have spoken to people from a few parishes so far, as I prepared to write these words, most were denied — by not all! I now know a few names of priests who quietly communicated some souls who particularly suffered from the loss of the Eucharist. I say bravo for their courage and charity.

More important from a practical point of view is making sure, when the next virus strikes (The Book of Revelation prophesies multiple plagues), we are not denied what we need most, food for our souls. When I wrote the series of posts on “Sheltering in Place” I mentioned how indispensable it is to have a priest we can trust and who can care for our needs at such a difficult time. What I had not sufficiently considered was the need to have such a relationship PLUS minimal access to several priests, in case the one is lost to martyrdom, transfer, or just lost to fear or other pressures. I hope to learn more of the identity of those priests who were willing to communicate souls during those 75 days of starving, unabashedly for my own sake and always for the good of souls and the honor and glory of God . 

Elsewhere on CF I have raised the question if we the laity were being quarantined from our pastors, or our pastors were being quarantined from us. It is as if we just had a shakedown cruise to see if the ship holds together or it needs some rehabilitation, repair and refitting for the storm that lies ahead. What we found out, also about the civil agendae and now the emerging local persecutions, we needed to know. Now we need to do, promptly,  what is required to be seaworthy.

Meanwhile, I am still angry and feeling betrayed, but I’m working on it.

Click below to read the Appendix to the Thomistic Guidelines regarding Communion.


Read the rest of this entry »


Blessed Sacrament Returns to a Rightful Throne

July 30th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Yet another milestone is achieved in the Rochester Diocese! May others take encouragement to do the same.

Cleansing Fire has been told that thanks to Fr. George Heyman’s commitment and leadership, the support of the Knights of Columbus, and the prayers and sacrifices of the parish community, the Tabernacle of the church of the Assumption in Fairport has been finally relocated to the proper location and the goal to return Christ to the center of the Sanctuary has been achieved.



Previously,  the Tabernacle had been located in the chapel, walled off from the Sanctuary for many years. 

Sadly, Christ was hidden from the view of Mass goers in the main church during that time.