Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

The Shaming of Western New York Catholics!

February 26th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Church Militant announced tonight that the passing of the mis-named “Equality Act” witnessed also the traitorous crossing by three Republican Congressmen to the other side of the aisle. The betrayal of their own party is not the worst of it either. All three are Catholic! I live in the diocese of the one from Corning, NY, the Rochester Diocese, which borders the diocese of another — Syracuse! And, not so far away, is the congressman from Philadelphia. A triumvirate of abandonment!

 

I can’t believe that, recently hearing about the failures and vulnerability of Andrew Cuomo, I actually thought of supporting Reed in his announced interest in opposing Cuomo in the next election. No way now. Bad as Cuomo is, there is the unfortunate reality that “The devil you know is better than the one you don’t know.” Could we have had any inkling that Reed would rush to the limelight of treachery? We’ve learned over time more and more of Cuomo’s reach. It’s bad, but no longer surprising.

Now let us see how those western New York bishops handle the scandal, and protect the rest of the flock. Or will they ignore what has festered, and is continuing to fester in their own dioceses, without  denouncement? The entire Catholic population of these dioceses is shamed by having voted those pols into office.  Now their own Church is victimized by the “Equality Act” trio; and shamed by those three Republican- Catholic votes, which weren’t even needed to pass (220-206) such an egregious act, violating so many Catholic Teachings. In my opinion, it seems a deliberate act of violation and harm, like rejecting God Himself. Said another way, how can we expect a man to be faithful to his political promises when he isn’t even faithful to God’s moral law?

Express your opinions to the relevant bishops (which the laity have the right to do under Canon 212):

Bishop Douglas Lucia, 240 E Onondaga St, Syracuse, NY 13202

Bishop Salvatore Matano, 1150 Buffalo Rd, Rochester, NY 14624

Archbishop Nelson Perez, 222 North 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103

 

|

In touch with holiness? Part I

February 24th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

There is a story twice recounted in the Old Testament, a story which seems very much overlooked today. The two sons of the Shiloh Priest, Eli, took the Ark of the Covenant into battle against the Philistines, without having the right to do so. They lost their lives as well as the Ark to the Philistines.

But the illicit (captured) presence of the Holy Ark created fear and dread in the Philistines, who sent the Ark back to the Hebrews in a rather remarkable manner, by a cart led only by milk cows, without a driver. Yet they headed not to their own stables to give milk to their newborn calves, but right for the land of the Hebrews. As the story develops in 2 Samuel Chapter 6 and in 1 Chronicles Chapter 13, the Ark is later transported on a new cart drawn by oxen to a pre-arranged worship site under King David (remember this is before the Temple is built by David’s son, Solomon.) When they arrive at the site, the oxen stumble, and the cart driver, Uzzah, puts out his hand to steady the Ark, and is struck dead on the spot.

King David is upset with the Lord about Uzzah’s death, and one can understand why. To the King it might have seemed more like Uzzah was a hero by saving the Ark from falling to the ground or that his touching the Ark was instinctive, without evil motive. But only God knows the motives of Uzzah, or of any heart. Regardless of intention, reaching out a hand to touch what is most holy, regardless of motives or theoretical justification, was a great transgression.

I think of this passage at Mass sometimes when communicants present themselves at the altar with an outstretched hand, touching what is even holier than an Ark, i.e. the very Body of Jesus Christ, Son of God. I try to look away, in the interest of more time for my own thanksgiving, but sometimes it is difficult to ignore the meaning of what is occurring only a few steps away. Sometimes I wonder why God is not striking down those among us who receive Communion in the Hand, instead of on the tongue as was done in the Catholic Church for so many generations. And I think of how difficult it must be for a holy priest, charged with defense of the Eucharist, to put a host into the communicant’s hand when he knows full well the story of Uzzah.

One might surmise in these endtimes that God is being incredibly merciful, over and over again, until He is not so any longer, and then He has forever to punish. And some will have forever to contemplate why they resisted such a Divine invitation to holy intimacy.

Wisdom 6:10 – “For they will be made holy who observe holy things in holiness, and those who have been taught them will find a defense.”

https://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_comunione_en.html

 

Excerpt from 2 Samuel Chapter 6. (See also 1 Chronicles Chapter 13).

Read the rest of this entry »

|

So much for free will and human dignity!

February 18th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris


Then, again, a day after social media push back and outrage, maybe nobody will lose their jobs in Vatican City after all. Or maybe they will. And the world doesn’t even bother to ask “What is Truth?”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/new-note-vatican-employees-might-not-be-fired-for-covid-vaccine-refusal?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=61dcbf9027-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520U.S._COPY_977&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-61dcbf9027-401405341

|

A Rabbi’s 31 Reasons for not taking The Vaccine

February 9th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

31 Reasons Why I Wont Take the Vaccine

The following list was created by the Israeli rabbi Chananya Weissman.

Originally published by Baron Bodissey, Feb. 2, 2021. By Narrow Gate on Feb. 9th.

1. It’s not a vaccine. A vaccine by definition provides immunity to a disease. This does not provide immunity to anything. In a best-case scenario, it merely reduces the chance of getting a severe case of a virus if one catches it. Hence, it is a medical treatment, not a vaccine. I do not want to take a medical treatment for an illness I do not have.
2. The drug companies, politicians, medical establishment, and media have joined forces to universally refer to this as a vaccine when it is not one, with the intention of manipulating people into feeling safer about undergoing a medical treatment. Because they are being deceitful, I do not trust them, and want nothing to do with their medical treatment.
3. The presumed benefits of this medical treatment are minimal and would not last long in any case. The establishment acknowledges this, and is already talking about additional shots and ever-increasing numbers of new “vaccines” that would be required on a regular basis. I refuse to turn myself into a chronic patient who receives injections of new pharmaceutical products on a regular basis simply to reduce my chances of getting a severe case of a virus that these injections do not even prevent.
4. I can reduce my chances of getting a severe case of a virus by strengthening my immune system naturally. In the event I catch a virus, there are vitamins and well-established drugs that have had wonderful results in warding off the illness, without the risks and unknowns of this medical treatment.
5. The establishment insists that this medical treatment is safe. They cannot possibly know this because the long-term effects are entirely unknown, and will not be known for many years. They may speculate that it is safe, but it is disingenuous for them to make such a claim that cannot possibly be known. Because they are being disingenuous, I do not trust them, and I want no part of their treatment.
6. The drug companies have zero liability if anything goes wrong, and cannot be sued. Same for the politicians who are pushing this treatment. I will not inject myself with a new, experimental medical device when the people behind it accept no liability or responsibility if something goes wrong. I will not risk my health and my life when they refuse to risk anything.
7. Israel’s Prime Minister has openly admitted that the Israeli people are the world’s laboratory for this experimental treatment. I am not interested in being a guinea pig or donating my body to science.
8. Israel agreed to share medical data of its citizens with a foreign drug company as a fundamental part of their agreement to receive this treatment. I never consented for my personal medical data to be shared with any such entity, nor was I even asked. I will not contribute to this sleazy enterprise.
9. The executives and board members at Pfizer are on record that they have not taken their own treatment, despite all the fanfare and assurances. They are claiming that they would consider it unfair to “cut the line”. This is a preposterous excuse, and it takes an unbelievable amount of chutzpah to even say such a thing. Such a “line” is a figment of their own imagination; if they hogged a couple of injections for themselves no one would cry foul. In addition, billionaires with private jets and private islands are not known for waiting in line until hundreds of millions of peasants all over the world go first to receive anything these billionaires want for themselves.
10. The establishment media have accepted this preposterous excuse without question or concern. Moreover, they laud Pfizer’s executives for their supposed self-sacrifice in not taking their own experimental treatment until we go first. Since they consider us such fools, I do not trust them, and do not want their new treatment. They can have my place in line. I’ll go to the very back of the line.
11. Three facts that must be put together:

·         Bill Gates is touting these vaccines as essential to the survival of the human race.

·         Bill Gates believes the world has too many people and needs to be “depopulated”.

·         Bill Gates, perhaps the richest man in the world, has also not been injected. No rush.

Uh, no. I’ll pass on any medical treatments he wants me to take.

12. The establishment has been entirely one-sided in celebrating this treatment. The politicians and media are urging people to take it as both a moral and civic duty. The benefits of the treatment are being greatly exaggerated, the risks are being ignored, and the unknowns are being brushed aside. Because they are being deceitful and manipulative, I will not gamble my personal wellbeing on their integrity.
13. There is an intense propaganda campaign for people to take this treatment. Politicians and celebrities are taking selfies of themselves getting injected (perhaps in some cases pretending to get injected), the media is hyping this as the coolest, smartest, most happy and fun thing to do. It is the most widespread marketing campaign in history. This is not at all appropriate for any medical treatment, let alone a brand new one, and it makes me recoil.
14. The masses are following in tow, posting pictures of themselves getting injected with a drug, feeding the mass peer pressure to do the same. There is something very alarming and sick about this, and I want no part of it. I never took drugs just because “everyone’s doing it” and it’s cool. I’m certainly not going to start now.

 

15. Those who raise concerns about this medical treatment are being bullied, slandered, mocked, censored, ostracized, threatened, and fired from their jobs. This includes medical professionals who have science-based concerns about the drug and caregivers who have witnessed people under their charge suffering horrible reactions and death shortly after being injected. When the establishment is purging good people who risk everything simply to raise concerns about a new medical treatment — even if they don’t outright oppose it — I will trust these brave people over the establishment every time. I cannot think of a single similar case in history when truth and morality turned out to be on the side of the establishment.
16. This is the greatest medical experiment in the history of the human race.
17. It is purposely not being portrayed as the greatest medical experiment in the history of the human race, and the fact that it is a medical experiment at all is being severely downplayed.
18. Were they up front with the masses, very few would agree to participate in such an experiment. Manipulating the masses to participate in a medical experiment under false pretenses violates the foundations of medical ethics and democratic law. I will not allow unethical people who engage in such conduct to inject me with anything.
19. The medical establishment is not informing people about any of this. They have become marketing agents for an experimental drug, serving huge companies and politicians who have made deals with them. This is a direct conflict with their mandate to concern themselves exclusively with the wellbeing of the people under their care. Since the medical establishment has become corrupted, and has become nothing more than a corporate and political tool, I do not trust the experimental drug they want so badly to inject me with.
20. We are being pressured in various ways to get injected, which violates medical ethics and the foundations of democratic society. The best way to get me not to do something is to pressure me to do it.
21. The government has sealed their protocol related to the virus and treatments for THIRTY YEARS. This is information that the public has a right to know, and the government has a responsibility to share. What are they covering up? Do they really expect me to believe that everything is kosher about all this, and that they are concerned first and foremost with my health? The last time they did this was with the Yemenite Children Affair. If you’re not familiar with it, look it up. Now they’re pulling the same shtick. They didn’t fool me the first time, and they’re definitely not fooling me now.
22. The government can share our personal medical data with foreign corporations, but they won’t share their own protocol on the matter with us? I’m out.
23. The establishment has recruited doctors, rabbis, the media, and the masses to harangue people who don’t want to get injected with a new drug. We are being called the worst sort of names. We are being told that we believe in crazy conspiracies, that we are against science, that we are selfish, that we are murderers, that we don’t care about the elderly, that it’s our fault that the government continues to impose draconian restrictions on the public. It’s all because we don’t want to get injected with an experimental treatment, no questions asked. We are even being told that we have a religious obligation to do this, and that we are grave sinners if we do not. They say that if we do not agree to get injected, we should be forced to stay inside our homes forever and be ostracized from public life.
This is horrific, disgusting, a perversion of common sense, morality, and the Torah. It makes me recoil, and only further cements my distrust of these people and my opposition to taking their experimental drug. How dare they?
24. I know of many people who got injected, but none of them studied the science in depth, carefully weighed the potential benefits against the risks, compared this option to other alternatives, was truly informed, and decided this medical treatment was the best option for them. On the contrary, they got injected because of the hype, the propaganda, the pressure, the fear, blind trust in what “the majority of experts” supposedly believed (assuming THEY all studied everything in depth and were completely objective, which is highly dubious), blind trust in what certain influential rabbis urged them to do (ditto the above), or hysterical fear that the only option was getting injected or getting seriously ill from the virus. When I see mass hysteria and cult-like behavior surrounding a medical treatment, I will be extremely suspicious and avoid it.
25. The drug companies have a long and glorious history of causing mass carnage with wonder drugs they thrust on unsuspecting populations, even after serious problems had already become known. Instead of pressing the pause button and halting the marketing of these drugs until these issues could be properly investigated, the drug companies did everything in their power to suppress the information and keep pushing their products. When companies and people have demonstrated such gross lack of concern for human life, I will not trust them when they hype a new wonder drug. This isn’t our first rodeo.
26. Indeed, the horror stories are already coming in at warp speed, but the politicians are not the least bit concerned, the medical establishment is brushing them aside as unrelated or negligible, the media is ignoring it, the drug companies are steaming ahead at full speed, and those who raise a red flag continue to be bullied, censored, and punished. Clearly my life and my wellbeing are not their primary concern. I will not be their next guinea pig in their laboratory. I will not risk being the next “coincidence”.
27. Although many people have died shortly after getting injected — including perfectly healthy young people — we are not allowed to imply that the injection had anything to do with it. Somehow this is anti-science and will cause more people to die. I believe that denying any possible link, abusing people who speculate that there might be a link, and demonstrating not the slightest curiosity to even explore if there might be a link is what is anti-science and could very well cause more people to die. These same people believe I am obligated to get injected as well. No freaking thanks.
28. I am repulsed by the religious, cult-like worship of a pharmaceutical product, and will not participate in this ritual.
29. My “healthcare” provider keeps badgering me to get injected, yet they have provided me no information on this treatment or any possible alternatives. Everything I know I learned from others outside the establishment. Informed consent has become conformed consent. I decline.
30. I see all the lies, corruption, propaganda, manipulation, censorship, bullying, violation of medical ethics, lack of integrity in the scientific process, suppression of inconvenient adverse reactions, dismissal of legitimate concerns, hysteria, cult-like behavior, ignorance, closed-mindedness, fear, medical and political tyranny, concealment of protocols, lack of true concern for human life, lack of respect for basic human rights and freedoms, perversion of the Torah and common sense, demonization of good people, the greatest medical experiment of all time being conducted by greedy, untrustworthy, godless people, the lack of liability for those who demand I risk everything… I see all this and I have decided they can all have my place in line. I will put my trust in God. I will use the mind He blessed me with and trust my natural instincts. Which leads to the final reason which sums up why I will not get “vaccinated.”
31. The whole thing stinks.

This article was posted in Civil LibertiesCowardiceCulture WarsInsanityIsraelLegal actionLife in a dystopiaNewsPersecution of dissidentsPlaguesPolitics by Baron Bodissey.

|

Perspective from Tyler, TX

February 9th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

From LifeSiteNews tonight (2/10/21)

“In the wake of learning that many medicines are also tainted with abortion, Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, has not decided to give up and throw in the towel. Rather, he said, ‘Some may see this as a reason to surrender. No! We should uphold the dignity of human life more than ever. With one strong voice we all need to proclaim … WE WILL NOT KILL CHILDREN TO LIVE.’

|

Ash Wednesday 2021

February 9th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Father Altman courageously proclaims, “Know this. Rest assured, as long as there is a breath in my body I will make the sign of the cross on your foreheads with ashes on Ash Wednesday. God bless you and keep your souls safe in these most dangerous and confusing times!”

|

Impeachment: who is making the most of it?

February 8th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Recently I heard an excellent sermon regarding God’s permissive will, i.e. His allowing evil in the world for the greater good which can be accomplished. It struck me that, although much further down the discernment ladder, the evil associated with impeachment, the half-truths, character assassination and unjust or fabricated accusations, beg for a mindset of ‘making the most of it’ at many levels.

So, without debating any of the issues associated with the current situation unfolding in Washington DC, one might consider how the framework of expectations could influence the precedent in future cases. Though half serious and half ironic, some potential outcomes of future cases might hinge on the very precedent created in the current case.

Who is eligible to be impeached under the US Constitution?

It is quite clear that only The President of the United States can be impeached from that office. “The President,” not “a president.” Therefore, impeaching past or future presidents is not permitted. Since the present situation targets a prior president, if allowed to be pursued in the current case it opens up the opportunity (or risk) to impeach other prior presidents. Among a sampling of the opportunities which might be considered for impeachment of past-but-still-living presidents are the following examples:

  1. Impeach Barack Obama for the Benghazi disaster, for his failing as commander-in-chief to send aid and mitigate the disaster, and wanton loss of life plus the cash pile to Iran.
  2. Impeach George W. Bush for the Gulf War, for alleging what has not been verified in finding weapons of mass destruction, and for claiming an end to the conflict prematurely.
  3. Impeach Bill Clinton, not for the Monica Lewinsky affair which was already tried, but for repeal of the bank-protective Glass-Steagall Act, leading to burst bubbles, bankruptcies, bailouts and destruction of market value.
  4. Impeach Jimmy Carter for failure to recognize the risk to the American Embassy in Tehran of a diplomatic standoff, leading to imprisonment at the embassy of 52 American diplomats and citizens as hostages for 444 days without rescue. The hostages were released on Jan. 20, 1981, within minutes of Reagan’s being sworn into office.

The U.S. Constitution does not cover impeachment of a past president; but, if that were to change this week, it opens up the precedent and potential for impeaching the other four living presidents. Such impeachment has the opportunity to begin as soon as the Congressional elections in 2022, or sooner for Bush. The above particular situations are limited mostly to one event per term for each of the four living presidents as an example, but one can imagine separate impeachments for separate matters, and the use of 5 or 10 separate impeachments to control a president from having any productivity when the Executive Branch and Congress are in different political hands.

Impeaching dead Presidents?

While the current impeachment attempt is against the living, it is only a short jump to opening up the impeachment process to include dead presidents, in a country rife with cancel culture, creating new precedents, and making it up as they go. What seemed absurd less than a year ago is current right now. When it isn’t about justice but about rewriting history, punishing before judgment, instilling fear of reprisal, it’s all possible. No point in illustrating how it might be used; we’ll probably see it soon enough.

Impeaching yet-to-be inaugurated Presidents?

No longer seems as strange as it once did. There are always campaign promises to build up an impeachment issue, and the spying we saw last time around might get institutionalized, might it not? It will turn out to be whether or not the Constitution is followed, or changed by the brute force of ignoring it. It will be about whether America is, or isn’t.

|

$125M Lawsuit-NY Archdiocese/Vatican/Seminary

February 4th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

|

Lenten Expectations 2021

February 2nd, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Pandemic Lent:  bulletin excerpts in several Diocese of Rochester parishes

 

Ash Wednesday

We are not allowed to distribute ashes in the usual way of closeness between the priest and recipient, even wearing masks. We shouldn’t use our hands without sanitizing them after touching each individual forehead. One solution is to omit the distribution of ashes completely. Another solution is to sprinkle ashes on the crown of each person’s head. Everyone would individually step forward, bow his or her head, and the priest would sprinkle the ashes on each head, without words. This is probably the form that will be used for this coming Ash Wednesday in the Rochester Diocese.

 

Retreats and Bible Studies

It’s important to have ways to grow in our Faith, and Lent is a special time to do so. But because of social distancing, wearing masks, and fear of contamination, many usual group gatherings will not be held this year. However, over the last six months, more parishioners have become zoom-enabled, so good planning and a varied selection of learning materials can still help a parish to offer spiritual value selections without everyone gathering in one place.

 

Liturgical Gatherings

For nearly a year now, there have been virtually no Entrance Processions, no procession of gifts, no recessionals. Again, there will be no Washing of Feet on Holy Thursday because of the need for social ‘distancing’ between the people involved. Unfortunately, that means (again) no Palm Sunday or Easter Vigil Procession, no Procession of Eucharistic Adoration on Holy Thursday and no processions on Easter Sunday. It is also unclear what alternatives there can be for lay participation without the appropriate passages made available for reading aloud, as in proclamation of Our Lord’s Passion and Death.

Nevertheless, compared to last year, which was worsened by lack of preparedness and knowledge and fear, hopefully this Lent and Easter will be at least somewhat better than all being lost as in 2020.

|

Candlemas

February 2nd, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

|

Deterioration in Quality of Washington D.C. Shepherds

January 25th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

One might expect the quality of Washington D.C. prelates to be superior and above reproach since they have the Apostolic Nuncio nearby, effectively noticing and presumably reporting to the Vatican  on their failures as well as successes. And there should be a high expectation of leadership, knowledge and performance, given the influential opportunities in such a proximate relationship in the Capitol between Church and State. Most of all there should be a visible and personal commitment to holiness among the prelates. But the more recent track record in Washington is shaky, and belies the expectations.

Background

From 1939 to 1947, the Washington Diocese was administered by the Irish-born Bishop of Baltimore, Archbishop Michael Joseph Curley. The first resident Cardinal Archbishop of Washington D.C. (second in the Washington line of bishops) was Patrick Aloysius O’Boyle, appointed in 1947 by Pope Pius XII. O’Boyle retired 25 years later, in 1973. His parents were Irish immigrants, his father a steelworker in Scranton. O’Boyle was baptized at St. Paul’s Church at two days old, where he returned on May 22, 1921 to celebrate his first Mass. (Note, the Spanish flu, also known as the 1918 flu pandemic, is dated from February 1918 to April 1920. Hardest hit was Philadelphia.) It was not an easy road to his vocation and he certainly was no ‘silver spoon’ appointee. His father died when Patrick was 10 years old, and he became a paperboy to help support his mother. At 14, he dropped out of school to begin full time work, but his biographical records show that a local priest intervened and gave orders that he should attend St. Thomas College, where the road to his priesthood began.

The Catholic University of America is the only national university operated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). During my five years in Washington D.C. all I knew of Archbishop O’Boyle was that he wielded a lot of power and influence, that he was highly respected, and perceived as a larger-than-life figure in his involvement and responsibilities toward CUA, where he had the final say in all matters of oversight, and seemed not afraid to exercise that right and responsibility. 

The Season of Vatican II

But Vatican II was already shaking the trees, and dissidents were grabbing their opportunities. It was a time of great upheaval, with a description of O’Boyle that then seemed actually to be possible: “theologically conservative but socially progressive.” Thus, it is no surprise that he would consecrate the U.S. to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and stand forth in full support of Humanae Vitae, but also be against racism.

O’Boyle integrated the Washington Catholic Schools six years before the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was unconstitutional. Quoting Archbishop O’Boyle: “There is in every man a priceless dignity which is your heritage. From this dignity flow the rights of man, and the duty in justice that all must respect and honor these rights…” In his remarks, he urged Congress to pass the Civil Rights bill and those present at his speech to “tell our Representatives our conviction that such a law is a moral obligation.” 

O’Boyle’s prominence was also brought to focus by his being prelate of the Washington D.C. diocese during the Kennedy years. On Nov. 22, 1963, the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church assembled for the second session of Vatican II, and to vote on the final draft of the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” (“Sacrosanctum Concilium”). A few hours later President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. O’Boyle hurried back upon receiving the news, in time to be in the sanctuary at St. Matthew’s Cathedral for the funeral Mass celebrated by Cardinal Cushing of Boston.

http://thisweekatvaticanii.blogspot.com/2013/11/50-years-ago-at-council.html

That first resident prelate of Washington, D.C. left an impressive track record which is hard to match. The successor of Cardinal O’Boyle and third bishop of Washington was Abp. William Baum in 1973, followed by Archbishop James Hickey in 1980. In 2001, the now laicized for sexual abuse, Mr. Theodore McCarrick, was installed, succeeding Cardinal Hickey and, as they say, “all hell broke loose.”  McCarrick was replaced by then Bishop Donald Wuerl in 2006, who resigned as Archbishop of Washington in 2018 in the wake of revelations about his poor handling of incidents of sexual abuse in Pittsburgh.

Most recently, Pope Francis named the 7th Archbishop of Washington, Abp. Wilton Gregory, whom he relatively quickly elevated to Cardinal. It is unfortunate that so much attention and back patting is involved over the naming of a man of color to the Diocese of Washington, rather than the need for him to be a man capable of changing tension into peace, and truth into action, like Cardinal Sarah. Rather, Gregory roiled the waters. He had already shown some poor judgment related to the luxurious residence he inhabited in Atlanta, having to make either a humble or humiliating apology, depending on one’s opinion. More on lavish bishop residences can be found here:       https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/08/us/american-archbishops-lavish-homes/index.html

What does it take to earn a red hat?

Abp. Gregory became ensconced in the Washington Diocese on May 21, 2019 in the midst of Pope Francis’ frequent denigrations of the U.S. President who was running for re-election. Instead of being a man of olive branches and hope, regardless of color, Gregory publicly denounced President Trump’s and his wife’s paying a visit of thanksgiving to the Pope John Paul II Institute. Gregory further issued an order to priests of his diocese to join demonstrations against the President. Pope Francis had made his own antipathy obvious against the most pro-life President the U.S. has ever seen, and Gregory seemed by his actions to be seeking a papal ‘atta-boy’ with relatively childish and demeaning servility to please Pope Francis, thus ham-stringing whatever credibility the episcopate might have had for statesman-like influence. What a long way is the fall from the days of Cardinal O’Boyle! The Diocese of Washington has continued down the slippery slope since 2001. It is not a matter of judging; rather, it is a matter of testing the fruit, by which all men should want to be known.  

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dc-archbishop-criticizes-long-planned-trump-visit-to-catholic-shrine-as-reprehensible

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/dc-archbishop-orders-priests-to-protest-president

Is it any wonder that the city which is home to the Federal government is in such a mess with this kind of church hierarchy entrenched for the last 20 years? And Gregory has gone beyond his predecessors who tried to keep their sins hidden. He has gone beyond their selling out Catholics to China, beyond unaccounted millions collected from the pews under the guise of CRS, beyond abuse of seminarians, beyond selling the priesthood out to sexual deviation and impurity, beyond even the killing fields of abortion. As Archbishop in charge of the flock of Washington D.C., he has touted his willingness to be Biden’s accomplice not just in sinning against the vulnerable, but against God Himself, by willingly dropping the Holy Eucharist into the hands of a man sworn to kill the newborn and the unborn. In Gregory’s scandalous insistence that he will communicate Biden, he affirms his sacrilegious intent against the Body of Christ and all Church Teaching, demonstrating his allegiance to Biden’s persistent and unrepentant sins against the Holy Eucharist.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-dc-archbishop-affirms-he-will-give-holy-communion-to-pro-abortion-joe-biden?utm_source=featured&utm_campaign=standard

And, finally, I mourn for and pray for The Catholic University of America, where Cardinal Gregory has now assumed the role of Chancellor. 

|

“A Hill Worth Dying on” — vaccine (im?)morality

January 21st, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/a-hill-worth-dying-on-expert-explains-how-aborted-baby-cells-taint-covid-vaccines?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=a0a8c87a3a-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520U.S._COPY_956&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-a0a8c87a3a-401405341

“… [R]ough transcript of LifeSite co-founder (JHW) John-Henry Westen’s explosive interview with (PA)Pamela Acker, a vaccine researcher and expert.” A critical look at vaccine development technology and risks.

Conclusion Excerpt

JHW: … “give us if you would Pamela, your final reflections”

PA: The short thing is don’t get it, it’s not good for your soul and it’s not good for your body. And I think that we really need to, as Catholics, if we don’t stand up now… we’re losing the opportunities we’re ever going to have to stand up and rectify this wrong that’s been going on now for decades. And it’s been going on for decades and we’re going to be accountable for that. We lived in this time, we had an opportunity to stand up, we had an opportunity to do something, and if we don’t, we are going to be held accountable for that at the end. You can’t just sit on your hands and say, “Oh well, I’m not going to take it. Oh well, it’s not that big a deal.” This is a big deal, this is a hill worth dying on.”

|

Vatican embargoes criticism of Biden

January 20th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

The Vatican ordered USCCB’s expression of concern about Biden (due to have been released 9AM on Jan 20th) until after Pope made glowing and triumphant remarks supporting Biden. What was so touchy? Read it on LifeSiteNews:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-orders-us-bishops-to-hold-back-statement-condemning-bidens-plan-to-pursue-evil-policies?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=a93ad6ed4c-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520U.S._COPY_955&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-a93ad6ed4c-401405341

|

Our Right to Decide: COVID Vaccine + Vigano comment

January 11th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

A Matter of Prudential Judgment

Whether to accept a vaccination against COVID-19 (-20?), or not, is a personal decision. There is a word for that concept, in Church-speak. It is called “Prudential Judgment.” Some decisions are strictly yes/no moral decisions; e.g. that abortion is always and everywhere a serious (mortal) sin. Some personal decisions are appropriately left to the discerner to make, such as being well enough to attend Mass on Sunday. Matters of Prudential Judgment call for faithful discernment and serious and timely attention, not merely as social opinions, or convenience or wishful thinking. Therefore, we ‘educate’ ourselves in the pros and cons of political candidates, such as their immigration policies, tax programs or military spending proposals. So too, we need to educate ourselves regarding choice of vaccinating our bodies, or not.

To accept or reject a vaccination against COVID is a complex matter of Prudential Judgment. It is a sacred decision, a life-and-death choice for the individual that should not be usurped by the government or by the Church. Yet, there is threatened interference from both quarters. And, given the recent example of the Church’s caving in so much to government oppression of the Mass and Sacraments that it required SCOTUS’ reversal, we hope for but can hardly expect more respect for religious liberty this time around since we are not even exercising the rights we already have. It is necessary to keep asserting the rights of the Church in matters of lockdown abuse, and now also with respect to the prudential judgment matter of vaccination. So the Church should not undermine our rights by caving in to the state, or by dictates of the hierarchy with its own agenda. Moreover, the state should not undermine our rights by rattling the saber of mandatory vaccination, and announcing it will vaccinate 11 year-olds at school without notifying their parents.

The Issue of Time

The matters of discernment are complex, made more so by the rush to develop an anti-COVID vaccine, leaving out parts of the testing processes and/or the extent of those processes heretofore thought necessary for FDA approval. Much data can be amassed even during an accelerated testing program but, as yet, there is no practical way to manufacture ‘time’ to test any product. Oh, a manufacturer can store product at higher temperatures on the expectation that it might mimic deterioration due to elapsed shelf time, but it is an inadequate substitute for the reality of timed quality assurance analysis for production, storage and shipment, or even for time spent in the human body, causing yet-unknown DNA changes.

Whether the government in the past had been needlessly delaying prior drug approvals by its testing protocols, or whether the COVID vaccine has received approval too soon remains to be seen. Still on the subject of time, is the question whether or not efficacy for the patient (i.e. protection from contracting COVID) will need seasonal updates or is a matter of one time / lifetime efficacy. Or, will later versions of COVID obsolete what has already been given as vaccine? Will a new derivative vaccine be compatible with what has already been used in the same person?  It is unlikely we will soon have a full knowledge base, identifying and quantifying risks, benefits, contraindications and complete disclosure of the usual data on adverse reactions, etc.

The decision to accept a vaccine now is understandably more frightening than if it were two years or more since the first vaccine had been given, and it had some track record of safety and efficacy. Many, many questions remain. The foregoing is not meant to belabor the point of technical issues being complex as we form our own prudential judgments, maybe even too difficult to find resources without conflict of interest. But the effect of time is only one such example.

Appalled at Pope Francis’ comments

Quite frankly, I dare to write about these matters after being thoroughly appalled by Pope Francis’ demand (Jan. 9, ’21) that Catholics accept the vaccine. I believe he way oversteps his authority to make taking the vaccine a matter he can or should dictate. The Pope seems to ignore the rights of the individual’s Prudential Judgment in these matters, disrespecting the dignity of the individual soul. I do wonder if he will really be able to take the vaccine himself, given his pulmonary problems (including, I think, removal of sections of one lung) early in life.

LifeSiteNews covered Pope Francis’ demand; here is their opening paragraph:

“January 9, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – In an interview scheduled to air Sunday night with the Italian television station Canale 5, Pope Francis has opined that “everyone” must take the COVID-19 vaccine. 

‘I believe that, ethically, everyone should take the vaccine,’ he said, according to a transcript released in advance of the airing of the interview. 

The Pope added that he would be taking the vaccine himself and that the Vatican will start administering it to its citizens “next week,” remarking that ‘it must be done.’

(Note: it is unclear whether or not the Vatican is making local vaccination mandatory for its citizens or not)

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/francis-calls-on-everyone-to-take-covid-vaccine-it-must-be-done?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=c47c8a1d2b-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520U.S._COPY_947&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-c47c8a1d2b-401405341

For further articles of interest, consider: Fr. Steven Reuter, SSPX, on “Just and Unjust Laws” here:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/comply-or-disobey-priest-explains-just-vs-unjust-laws?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=c47c8a1d2b-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520U.S._COPY_947&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-c47c8a1d2b-401405341

How remote is remote?

LifeSiteNews also reprinted the position of Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Bishop Joseph Strickland and others “On the moral illicitness of the use of vaccines made from cells derived from aborted human fetuses.”  They wrote:  “In the case of vaccines made from the cell lines of aborted human fetuses, we see a clear contradiction between the Catholic doctrine to categorically, and beyond the shadow of any doubt, reject abortion in all cases as a grave moral evil that cries out to heaven for vengeance (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2268, n. 2270), and the practice of regarding vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines as morally acceptable in exceptional cases of “urgent need” — on the grounds of remote, passive, material cooperation. To argue that such vaccines can be morally licit if there is no alternative is in itself contradictory and cannot be acceptable for Catholics.” December 12, 2020, Memorial of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Guadalupe.

To make use of vaccines “made from the cells of murdered unborn children contradicts [this] ‘maximum determination’ to defend unborn life.”  

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/prominent-clergy-on-social-media-oppose-abortion-tainted-covid-vaccines?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=60dda1d9c2-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520U.S._COPY_942&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-60dda1d9c2-401405341

Indeed it is more than just a contradiction in teaching in the short period from Pope John Paul II to Pope Francis; it is a scandal to the laity as well. How this is all linked to the politics of the dissolution of the Pontifical Academy of Life, and its reconstitution with a notorious figure at the helm, and with non-Catholics’ input but without being required to vow to accept Catholic Teaching as had originally been required for membership, is open for discussion but beyond the scope of this post. The very idea of a certain passage of time contributing to remoteness and therefore calling use in vaccines now acceptable raises the question what else might now be acceptable due to passage of time? Is the penalty of Adam and Eve’s sin now to be expired due to so many years having elapsed? Remote? Yes. But we are still the inheritors of real original sin.

Three Problems with Pope Francis’ Demands

There are at least three very obvious problems created by Pope Francis’ virtually demanding that Catholics (and others?) take the vaccine.

1) The Catholic Laity lose whatever credibility they might have had to bring force to bear on developers and manufacturers of vaccines to use morally clean materials and processes. How can we argue for the development of vaccines which don’t bear the abortion stain, when Catholics (including prominent bishops) choose the abortive-derived products at the first opportunity, leaving fewer souls to cry out for moral accommodation? We now have to argue why we don’t want the vaccine, while the state sees Pope Francis telling us to get the vax. And so, Catholics lose their credibility and whatever voice or pressure they might have had in the public square.

2) One more needless and divisive element is introduced into the Body of Christ, as if there weren’t enough already, and as if others previously had not suffered deprivation by being unable to use the abortive-related products which Pope Francis pushes today. Furthermore, any attempt to refuse the COVID vaccine, will not be able to draw on the resources of the Vatican for explanation or defense, since it is the source of the obvious conflict.

3) It is unclear how the Pope can be urging Catholics to get the vaccine, without at the same time implying that their bishops should push and be pushed in the same direction. It is a frightful thought that parish priests might even be pressured by their bishops, under the whip of filial obedience, to get the vaccine. It is also a disgusting thought to receive Communion at the hands of someone carrying within his body and on his shoulders an albatross of implicit guilt, an RNA/DNA link to abortive materials, which cannot be undone once chosen. Moreover, the Church so far seems to be silent on the obvious relationship of the vaccine to the “Mark of the Beast,” allowing souls in her care to stumble through their forming Prudential Judgments without real guidance. One hopes that the discussion in this post will be useful to some of those who face such decisions for themselves or their families.

Of potential interest:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nurses-hospital-staff-refuse-to-take-covid-vaccine-in-large-numbers?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=60dda1d9c2-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520U.S._COPY_942&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-60dda1d9c2-401405341

Bill Gates admits Covid-19 vaccine changes DNA – The Maravi Post

There have been cautions to women not to be pregnant or nursing for several months when receiving the vaccine. Now there is mention of men being told that they might want to consider saving a semen sample in a sperm bank in case they want to procreate after vaccination.

Cleansing Fire Resources

Also put “vaccine” in the search bar of Cleansing Fire’s home page to find more than a dozen prior articles related to COVID vaccination. Comment #5 is the addition of Abp. Vigano’s comments on Pope Francis as vaccine pusher.

|

Election Summary 2021

January 7th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Curfew imposed 6PM to 6AM

 

Election Summary 2021: Michael Voris for Church Militant and “for the record.”

https://www.churchmilitant.com/?mc_cid=846376dbfc&mc_eid=87b0370dca

 

Meanwhile, in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021, an election perspective from LifeSiteNews at the U.S. Capitol:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/what-just-happened-in-washington-dc?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=bea8888fab-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520U.S._COPY_945&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-bea8888fab-

 

ADDENDUM:  The reason I chose to use Church Militant’s and LifeSiteNews’ summaries is threefold:

  1. to honor their consistent coverage of complex religio-politico issues over an extended period,
  2. to document their representation and presence in the Town Square of Church Teaching, and
  3. to provide a vehicle to place a number of prior CF posts AND comments in a summary context.

It has not been my desire to prolong repetitive or meaningless debate, especially on issues of fact. History will judge those points. Therefore, when posted, the box to allow comments was deliberately not checked, leaving their ‘last word’ to the media which has been helpful and valuable to CF’s readers. I cannot explain how the box became checked to allow comments, but I’ve once again dechecked the box, and will continue to do so. And I have also deleted the comment against one of the media sources lest it degenerate into lack of gratitude for the work done by those non-profit sources. And I apologize for not having better defined my reason for the original post.

Meanwhile, tonight’s LifeSiteNews article is even more to the point, and can be found here:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/the-truth-about-the-2020-election-is-far-more-sinister-than-you-think?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=384e0a8cc9-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520U.S._COPY_946&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-384e0a8cc9-401405353

|

Immediate Danger Alert from LifeSiteNews

January 5th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

LINK: https://www.votervoice.net/LifesiteNews/campaigns/79017/respond?ct=t(VV-NY-COVID-BILL-1-4-21)

|

Complicity between Cuomo and the Church?

January 2nd, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

On November 26th, 2020, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) ruled on the illegality of the attendance limits Gov. Cuomo placed on the Churches of New York. Perhaps the presence of Amy Coney Barrett on the bench made a difference from the prior time the court reviewed. The Chief Justice then slipped from his prior majority opinion into a minority opinion, downplaying the significance of the decision to support the First Amendment. The story is here, short and clear:    https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/11/26/939264852/supreme-court-says-new-york-cant-limit-attendance-in-houses-of-worship-due-to-co

The message was clear. The decision is not a temporary ‘indulging’ of the churches, but rather is the key argument: “Even in a pandemic, the constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.” Exactly!

So here is the big question:

“Why, with such an empowering decision from SCOTUS, do the Catholic Churches seem to have taken no notice, implemented no changes and often not even shared such an important decision with members of many congregations?” Obviously there must be exceptions, but not so noticeably that Mass attendees’ behavior has changed. Most Catholic Churches still stick to the 30% number, when clearly it has no legal status. Pews are still marked off. The result data of Church-spread are not publicized; but hair salons were reopened based on the data that they were not causing ‘spread.’ So too were some gyms and restaurants and barber shops reopened.

Yet the Church seems reluctant to seize and reinforce her rights. Worship should be (and is) an “essential service.” It must be clarified and President Trump is doing it. The Church should be leading the way. Why has nothing seemed to happen to assert the Church’s First Amendment rights since the November 26th SCOTUS decision? It is almost as if the hierarchy is still bowing before the governor, instead of asserting her rights and the rights of her parishioners. Ditching Cuomo’s ‘one size fits all’ persecution of the Church should have been celebrated the very next day by stripping the tape and ropes away and considering what works best from the Church’s point of view, given size and need in each parish, and for the good of souls.

What kind of complicity is going on that such a momentous decision by SCOTUS should go unexercised by the very victims of the abuse? “Use it or lose it,” my brothers and sisters! For those whose churches did make immediate changes, in the sunshine of the Supreme Court decision, please put up a comment about what has happened there since Nov. 26th. Meanwhile, let’s pray for a little more courage among the clergy.

What happened at Christmas?

Some celebrants of Christmas Masses seem surprised that the attendance numbers were lower than prior years, sometimes significantly lower. Why should they be surprised? The Church, bowing to civil pressure, locked her members out for 75 days, starving us from Communion which God clearly instructed be given to us as our ‘daily bread.’ The message was loud and clear to Mass-goers: Mass is just not that important. The Church is now further perpetuating the image that attendance at Mass really doesn’t matter by keeping the barriers in place which were mandated by civil government.

It was the hierarchy who further bowed to the civil law and excused itself from feeding the flock, in spite of the SCOTUS decision, and who forced attendees to retain the 30% government criteria. The Church has further demonstrated the lack of importance of the Mass by not reinstating the requirement of Sunday Mass as a Law of the Church. Quite frankly, the ‘dispensation’ has reached a ridiculous level. There has always been a dispensation for the sick; no other exception needs to be made, even for the ‘fearful.’ Learn to “Be not afraid” because worse may come, and the lack of having been ‘fed’ through the Mass will weaken the Body of Christ. The tolerance of parishes and dioceses to excuse non-attendance is driven at least in part by seating limitations under government mandates, which no longer exist. 

God gave us a beautiful gift for Advent; SCOTUS ruled on November 26th in favor of enforcing the First Amendment. It was up to the Church to enforce the Third Commandment, to keep holy the Lord’s Day. THREE DAYS LATER was the First Sunday of Advent. We should have seized the opportunity to begin a new Church year as fully free to worship. But, apparently, the gift was unnoticed, and still lies unopened under the Tree. How can we not read such a sign of the times?

On Christmas, as many of us arrived for Mass, there were often ushers or ‘guides’ or ‘counters’ at the doors to make sure those without tickets didn’t enter, or to count arrivals up to the Cuomo-limit and then turn away the excess. Aaah! the irony! What an excellent example of re-enacting “There is no room in the inn.”

 

Other Reading

Cuomo’s Partisan Authoritarianism Struck Down By SCOTUS – Frank Vernuccio (townhall.com)

BREAKING: Supreme Court tosses rulings against churches in Colorado, New Jersey | News | LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)

|

The vaccine: to take it or not? Key Links

December 21st, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Background

Some of us need all the help we can get to make certain moral decisions, and the front and center issue of taking or not taking the COVID-19 vaccine is one such issue.  We may need input to navigate those waters, and there’s no lack of opinion available.

To begin, we look at the list divided by those vaccines “morally tainted” by abortion and those which apparently are not. The lists can be found here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/which-covid-19-vaccines-are-connected-to-abortion

The vaccines currently available (and of the briefest testing?) are Pfizer’s and Moderna’s and each depends on some connection to abortive materials. Two other vaccines in the development track have been reported to be clear of such issues.

We look to those who have not only thought deeply on the issue but who have shown they are not afraid to express an unpopular position, in which group Archbishop Schneider is one of the most prominent:    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-christians-must-refuse-covid-vaccine-derived-from-aborted-babies-even-if-it-means-martyrdom?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=e9c6289aad-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520U.S._COPY_859&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-e9c6289aad-401405353

California Bishop Brennan has also spoken out strongly against any vaccine with abortive connection:  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/california-bishop-warns-catholics-not-to-take-covid-vaccine-connected-in-any-way-to-aborted-babies?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=d828be5d96-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520U.S._COPY_901&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-d828be5d96-401405341 

One can also google the strong opinions of Bishop Strickland of Tyler Texas and, of course, Cardinal Burke, who has resolutely stood by Our Lord’s own Church with his Canon Law expertise. Meanwhile, unfortunately, Bp. Wenski of Miami  became one of the first US Prelates to grab headlines and notoriety by volunteering for an abortion-contaminated COVID-19 drug, the one from Pfizer.

The essence of the debate regards whether or not one can really be remotely distanced enough from the original crime of murder  when receiving a mere pin prick vaccination decades later? Lady Macbeth can tell us. ‘ Out damned spot ‘ is a line she speaks in Shakespeare’s play, Macbeth. She walks and talks in her sleep about the assassination of King Duncan, in which she is implicated. And no matter how hard she tries, she cannot remove the sense of bloodshed which convicts her, the spots which only she sees. Perhaps just such a sense of haunting from abortive slaughter gives rise to a worldwide guilt which must be weighed in any participation in such a vaccination?

Just received from NCRegister:  Archbishop Naumann on the Ethics of COVID-19 Vaccines| National Catholic Register (ncregister.com)

The Only Way to Resist the ‘Law of Moral Compromise’ is Not to Compromise| National Catholic Register (ncregister.com)

And tonight (12/22) we also get Church Militant’s summary of division within Catholic hierarchical leadership regarding use of COVID vaccines:  https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/vatican-to-administer-abortion-tainted-covid-vaccine

While this post is a collection of articles intended to be helpful to those seeking to come to a morally acceptable decision on whether or not to receive the abortion-tainted vaccine, and might even serve as a litmus test for the seriousness with which one makes such a decision, it also brings home the division within the Catholic Church. It is reminiscent of the reactions to the publication of Humanae Vitae, with various bishops, priests and laity accepting the encyclical and being obedient to it, vs those who sought for every possible way around what Pope Paul VI had intended because it was just “too hard” for the average Catholic to obey.  The slippery slope only goes in one direction — down!

A few more reflections and opinions

In my opinion we are in the same situation as we were with Humanae Vitae, with fans of a permissive teaching on one side, and fans of Traditional respect for the teaching office of the Church on the other.  Today, with Pachamama having invaded the Vatican, and the ‘splitting of hairs’ morality and nuance among the prelates, priests can find a position somewhere which they will uphold from the pulpit. And then we can wonder if there is indeed any Teaching Office left.

But the difference between then and now is that Pope Paul VI’s position against contraception was a perpetual teaching for obedience, confronted in every marital act, with the opportunity to confess and begin again. The prelates drug-pushing the vaccine are dealing with what they seem to imply is a one-time act, a global pandemic. But, therefore, it is all the more serious.  In the demonic symbolism, mimicking true Sacraments, the vaccine leaves an indelible character on the body for sure, and on the soul if it was willingly chosen in spite of being aware of the split teaching, all convenienced for the benefit of the progressive mob. More simply, there is no do-over here.

What is also different from the Humanae Vitae situation is that the priest in the pulpit, when firmly committed to his promise of celibacy, did not have to personally decide to obey or not obey the encyclical. However, in the present situation, the priest must decide to receive or reject the COVID vaccine. And then the laity will decide which priest’s moral teaching they want to hear from the pulpit. My guess, strictly a guess, is that some bishops will try to order their clergy to take or not take the vaccine, to the further detriment of souls.

If we are not already in schism, just wait. God has hit His reset button again, and He is testing us, just as he tested Abraham in the sacrificial offering of his son. With an apparent split in the Oneness of the Teaching Office, it is not unreasonable to reach for the alternative which is the least likely to offend God. But we do need to be careful that the voice we hear is God’s and not the progressives’ interpretations (aka ‘teaching’ us) that what they want us to do is a ‘patriotic duty’. No it isn’t. It’s about the profit inducement to Pfizer, and opening the door for the Gates’ mark of the beast.

Where does the Pope stand?  Who? and When? The reader might also want to read how Pope Francis did a ‘reset’ of his own in 2016-17 when he fired the entire Pontifical Academy for Life and went ‘dark’ for nearly a year, reinstituting it under the notorious Cardinal Paglia, and giving up the member’s vow to the Deposit of the Faith. How could this not have badly damaged the compass of moral perception within the Church and to the world?  Pontifical Academy for Life – Wikipedia

As new articles appear, look for a few more to be listed here.  One BIG, unanswered question is “Why are Faithful Catholics not waiting for the vaccine that will be free of abortion-tainting?

Vatican doctrine dept permits abortion-tainted vaccines for ‘grave danger’ | News | LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/twitter-censors-unesco-declaration-stressing-need-to-consent-to-medical-intervention?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=d803a3924b-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520U.S._COPY_911&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-d803a3924b-401405353

DC passes bill to vaccinate children without parental knowledge, consent | News | LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)

Exorcist priest: Abortion-tainted vaccines are ‘ongoing theft’ of babies’ bodies | News | LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/live-action-founder-challenges-trump-and-pence-on-support-for-abortion-tainted-covid-vaccines

US Bishops: Vaccines From Abortions OK (churchmilitant.com)

 

|

St. Faustina’s Worst Suffering was 84 years ago

December 17th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

St. Faustina recorded in paragraph 323 of her diary the details of the worst suffering she ever experienced.

It was on December 17, 1936, the day Jorge Mario Bergoglio was born.

St. Faustina wrote:

 

|

Magnificent 2020 Perspective by Abp. Vigano

December 16th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/we-are-not-alone-a-2020-recap-by-archbishop-vigano

 

|