Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

Men’s Fertility plunges

April 6th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

LifeSite News: April 7, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) — Scientists are witnessing an alarming trend: Men’s sperm counts are down, testosterone levels have plunged and erectile dysfunction is increasing. Male infertility is on the rise — and exposure to synthetic chemicals known as phthalates could be to blame, according to fertility scientist Shanna Swan, Ph.D., author of the new book, “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race.”

Citing Swan’s book, the New York Post reported that the global fertility rate has dropped 50% between 1960 and 2016, with the U.S. birth rate 16% below where it needs to be to sustain the population.

[PSA: Gentlemen! stop carrying your not-so-smart phone in your trouser pocket!]


Timely Refresher on Biblical Basis for Gun Rights

March 26th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Who ordered lethal weapons to be brought to the Garden?

Although much political muscle and media opinion favors “gun control,” that does not mean the loudest voices are on the side of morality or responsibility, let alone on the side of righteousness.  Rather, the dialogue should be broader, at least as much in moral terms as in consideration of constitutional rights, which come from God, not from the government.   On May 6, 2013, then VP of the United States (Joe Biden) asked clerics to preach gun control from the pulpit, taking for granted that religious leaders would be aligned with the Obama administration’s concept of gun control, and without seeming to understand that there is, indeed, a biblical basis for gun rights.  Even a cursory exegesis of New Testament Scripture leads to a deeper understanding of these issues. Luke, the only non-Jewish (Gentile) New Testament author, was a Greek physician, a man with close attention to detail and access to eyewitnesses.  His Gospel also helps to form conscience on Second Amendment Rights.

Christ’s true teaching has often been watered down, even from the pulpit, to a “nice” modern, non-controversial, secularly popular interpretation. Issues of self-defense are barely mentioned.  Yet, Christ did not avoid controversy.  He drove buyers and sellers from the Temple with a whip of cords (#1).  He spoke clearly, and often at personal risk, accusing Scribes and Pharisees of being “whitewashed tombs … full of dead men’s bones… (#2), calling Herod the Tetrarch a “fox (#3), and laying out Truth for the Roman governor of Judea, Pilate, who didn’t know or care what Truth meant (#4).  There is no reason to believe, facing imminent death, that Christ would have spoken with diminished candor.

Elsewhere in Scripture, when Christ was misunderstood, He persisted and did not allow His apostles to abide in error.  For example, after He deliberately delayed responding to Lazarus’ impending death, He used the softer word that Lazarus had fallen “asleep.  The disciples misunderstood, but He set them straight:  “Then Jesus told them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead….’” (#5)  Similarly, when a large group of disciples walked away from Jesus in John, Chapter 6, because they could not accept His Words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, He let them go.  They did not misunderstand; so He didn’t soften the Truth for them, but reiterated it even more strongly.  So, it makes sense, just hours before His arrest and death, that Jesus would not say something He did not mean.  Christ did call for swords to be carried to Gethsemane.  But why?

Arming the Apostles:  All four Gospels mention Christ’s apostles carrying swords to the Garden of Gethsemane, where He was arrested.  Only Luke explains that Christ was the One Who directed His followers to carry those weapons!  Luke writes:  “[Christ] said to them … let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.  For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was reckoned with transgressors;’ for what is written about Me has its fulfillment.”  “And they said, ‘Look, Lord, here are two swords.’  And He said to them, ‘It is enough.’” (#6)

Enough!  One comment should be made on Christ’s words: “It is enough,” lest misunderstanding be carried into the following discussion. The Greek word for “enough” is hikanos and has been inappropriately characterized in the Sacra Pagina regarding the Gospel of Luke to mean “exasperated termination of this discussion,” but that is not what the Greek implies.  “It is enough” seems best translated as “sufficient.”  Luke uses the word hikanos nine times in his Gospel, translated also into English as “worthy,” “many,” and “long,” and never with an almost snide modern meaning of “Enough already!”  The word has been used regarding John the Baptist’s not being worthy to untie Christ’s sandals, and about the centurion not being worthy that Christ should come under his roof. It is used for “many people,” “many swine,” and for a “long time.” Such eisegesis, reinterpreting hikanos 2000 years later with a gun control bias, does a great disservice to the Bible and to those who hold it sacred.

Protection: Christ’s words focus on protection, asserting that henceforth a sword would be needed even more than the mantle’s protection from cold and chill.  The mantle (or cloak) was so important that the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy (24:13) required, when it was given as a pledge, that it be returned by day’s end so that the wearer would not suffer in the nighttime chill.  One might also hear in Christ words His Own sense of obligation to protect those whose care had been entrusted to Him by the Father and even, since Peter had one of the swords, the continuation of such protection of the apostles through Peter.

CCC 2265: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.  The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.  For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.”

The Machaira:  The sword carried by Peter was likely a “machaira,” variously described as a large knife, a small sword, or a straight one-edged sword for thrusting.  Given the size of the machaira, it would be used in close quarters, against a near threat.  The word machaira occurs in fifteen Gospel verses.  Of these, eight are references to the apostles’ taking and using the weapon at Gethsemane, plus five refer to the crowds, to whom Christ said:  “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs….” (#7)


CCC 2264: “Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life.”

Why did Christ Call for WeaponsAs He faced His Crucifixion, Christ was concerned about the safety of His apostles.  He prayed for them, but He also called them to protect themselves.  Carrying weapons, they would have some protection, might make enemies hesitate to attack (i.e. deterrence), and perhaps even offer some self-confidence to control their fear.  Christ, about to die, would no longer be protecting them in an earthly sense.  His Priestly Prayer to the Father, just before His arrest, was: “While I was with them, I kept them in Thy Name, which Thou hast given Me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.” (#8) He said that He, their Shepherd, would be struck, and“the sheep will be scattered (#9).  He even told the apostles the reason they would be in danger; i.e., because He would be “reckoned with transgressors….”  It is logical to think His closest companions might be subject to harassment or attack for having been so long in the company of someone about to be crucified between two thieves, convicted of a capital crime.  Even the accusers presented Christ to Pilate as a transgressor:  “If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed Him over.” (#10)  The apostles’ risk further increased because they soon would preach Christ’s Own mission and work.

CCC 2269: “The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason….”

Why was Peter Told to Put Away the Sword?  The machaira which Peter carried was not intended to protect Christ from fulfilling His own mission, but for the apostles’ self-defense. His response to the crowd which came to arrest Him was: I told you that I am He; so, if you seek Me, let these men go.” (#11) Clearly, Peter did not understand his own role and reacted in a most human way, attacking:  Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s slave and cut off his right ear.  The slave’s name was Malchus.  Jesus said to Peter, ‘Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given Me?’” (#12)  These words illustrate that their swords were not to protect Jesus, Who had already prayed to the Father: “… not My Will, but Thine, be done.” (#13)

CCC 2262: “He [Christ] did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.”  Matthew 26:52.

There is no evidence Christ wanted His apostles to do anything illegal either.  Apparently just carrying a sword for self-defense was not illegal, or Peter would not have been told to put it back into its sheath, but rather it would have been confiscated by the armed guard.  One should not suppose that arming the apostles meant that they were to initiate an attack.  Peter was told to put away the sword, not to throw away the sword; i.e. not to “disarm.”

In Matthew’s Gospel, Christ adds:  “… for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (#14), criticizing drawing a weapon against someone who is not attacking, or perhaps not even armed.  Although the crowd had swords, we are given no evidence that anyone had used a weapon against Christ or the apostles.  A few translations of Luke 22:51 (#15) have Christ say (when Peter draws his sword) “No!” or “Stop!” but the Greek does not support using either word.  The better translation of the Greek would seem to be in the King James Version: “Allow even this,” an expression of Christ’s willingness to go to the Cross.  Then Christ healed the servant’s ear, protecting Peter once again, this time from potential criminal charges of assault.

The Gospels say little about whether the apostles were again threatened that night or soon after by armed authorities, but there must have been fear, for one young man, who was about to be seized, ran away naked.  The only apostle to show up at the Cross was John.  Peter’s fear was manifested in his three denials around the charcoal fire in the High Priest’s Courtyard during Christ’s trial:  “One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, ‘Did I not see you in the garden with Him?’” (#16)  This accusation was immediately followed by Peter’s third denial of Christ.

The Choice to Defend Oneself:  Misunderstanding or misreading these texts causes them to be overlooked as approving righteously carrying a self-defense weapon.  The Bill of Rights enshrines our God-given rights, rights not originating from the state, which is charged to protect those rights.  The Gospels affirm the “right” of self-protection and, at times, the obligation to protect the vulnerable (as a father protecting his family) and, by extension, for the protection of self for the service of God, for the work of His Church, for the service of others, and for the good order of society.

CCC 2263: The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing.

Later, after being strengthened by the Resurrection and Pentecost, a disciple could freely choose not to protect himself further, when his own martyrdom, not a senseless death, became a higher calling. In other words, exercise of the right to bear arms was not mandated as an obligation for self-protection. Hence, even the willingness to give up one’s life in martyrdom, to drink of the cup one is given for the sake of soul over body, would  seem not to violate the obligation to oneself:

CCC 2264 “Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality.… Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow….”

But there is nothing about guns in the Bible.  Of course not, nor about the Internet, space travel, chemotherapy, fission, cloning or fracking, e.g.  Yet the Gospel never becomes outdated.  Christ clearly authorized the right to self-defense.  The weapon in the biblical pre-gun society was the machaira, requiring close proximity for use.  But today, in a society with firearms, where an attacker has a clear tactical advantage, swords have no role.  The Bible does not fix the actual means of self-defense, but rather the right to self-defense, to use a weapon for protection.  If we are to hear about weapons from the pulpit, may it be God’s word, not politicians’ manipulations.

So, do gun-rights apply in Church? Well, Christ Himself called for weapons for the protection of His Own Apostles in the Holy Garden of Gethsemane. Doesn’t the answer seem clear?


References:  All Bible citations are from the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition unless otherwise noted:  (#1)  John 2:15, (#2)  Matthew 23:27, (#3)  Luke 13:32, (#4)  John 18: 37-38, (#5)  John 11:10-14, (#6)  Luke 22:36-38, (#7)  Matthew 26:55, Mark 14:48, Luke 22:52, (#8)  John 17:12, (#9)  Mark 14:27, (#10)  John  18:30,  (#11) John 18:8,  (#12) John 18:10-11, (#13) Luke 22:42, (#14)  Matthew 26:52, (#15)  Luke 22:51, (#16)  John 18:26


Diane C. Harris



The Silence of Death in St. Peter’s Basilica

March 22nd, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

‘Like a Museum’: Dead Silence in St. Peter’s Basilica as Suppression of Individual Masses Comes into Force| National Catholic Register (

An excellent article with picture gallery appears in the National Catholic Register today, March 22, 2021, written by Edward Pentin, about the deathly silence inside St. Peter’s Basilica. It follows the Vatican’s requiring concelebration of the Mass and tightly restricting the offering of the Traditional Latin Mass and hours in which Mass can be offered. Why is this happening and what does it mean?

While I am personally appalled at the implicit and simultaneous denigration of the Mass, as well as of priests and of the holy basilica, from the sidelines it is not difficult to find several possible reasons.  The following timeline is based on a translation of Contra Recentia Sacrilegia (translated as “Protest against Pope Francis’s Sacrilegious Acts”… be sure to read the impressive Signatories List) — that condemns wholesale the Pope’s dabbling in idolatry:

  1. Approximately a year and a half ago (a not-insignificant elapsed time period in prophecy) Pope Francis desecrated the property of the Vatican with worship services in the Vatican Gardens of  a “Pachamama, a fertility goddess” idol during the Amazonian Synod.  The desecration was on October 4, 2019, Feast of St. Francis of Assisi. On that day, Pope Francis attended an act of idolatrous worship of the pagan goddess “Pachamama”, thus desecrating the vicinity of the graves of the martyrs and of the church of the Apostle Peter.
  2. Pope Francis further  participated in this act of idolatrous worship by blessing a wooden image of Pachamama.
  3. On October 7, 2019, the idol of Pachamama was placed in front of the main altar at St. Peter’s and then carried in procession to the Synod Hall. Pope Francis said prayers in a ceremony involving this image and then joined in this procession.
  4. When wooden images of this pagan deity were removed from the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, where they had been sacrilegiously placed, and thrown into the Tiber by Catholics outraged by this profanation of the church, Pope Francis, on October 25, apologized for their removal.
  5. Another wooden image of Pachamama was returned to the church. Thus, a new profanation was initiated.
  6. On October 27, in the closing Mass for the Amazonian Synod, Pope Francis accepted a bowl used in the idolatrous worship of Pachamama and placed it on the altar of St. Peter’s Basilica.

And one actually wonders why silence has befallen the Basilica of St. Peter? Perhaps the silence is to make God’s voice heard.

How is a good priest able to celebrate a holy Mass in such an idolatrous location? God indeed provided time (a year and a half!) for cleansing of the basilica, for atonement for the multiple sins of idolatry, for the reparation by priests, some now victimized by interference in their freedom to celebrate Mass and others by their own failure to speak out against the Amazonian abominations.





Alleluia echoes during Lent – recalled!

March 10th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Thanks to “T” and “J” for input on the Alleluia post, which I am now recalling and rewriting. They each gave me some clarity on two different issues regarding returning to the pre-Covid Mass. While I apologize for any confusion caused from the original post, and for overlooking some fine ‘early return’ work by several prelates, there is always a second side each time error is found and corrected; i.e. the joy of realizing somebody read the post! I do welcome the input. What follows is less an attempt to determine which bishop did what first, but rather an effort to recognize the issues. The title I used was simply to recognize the joy of having Mass return to us, and we to Mass. It was not meant to be a liturgical Alleluia in Lent, but an exhalation after holding our collective breath for far too long. And still.

There are two key issues, and many associated concerns, which affect the laity’s return to Mass:

  1. The Law of the Church is clear. The first precept is “to attend Mass on all Sundays and other Holydays of Obligation….” That is only possible for the laity to perform if a priest celebrates Mass. When forbidden by the hierarchy and submitted to by the priest, the laity has little choice. When the Church herself, through the actions of the hierarchy, submits unnecessarily to civil authority (a point we can debate) the laity is severely injured, confused and frightened. Whistling the laity back to the pew needs therapy, clarity and love. The impersonality of the live-stream now comfortably suits too many souls, missing the whole intent of the Sunday Mass. It is not unique that bishops are reopening dioceses here and there; it is unique in the history of the world that all the bishops not only abandoned the Mass for the laity, but that so many are dawdling souls away by refusing to open fully.
  2. The Metastases of various Mass Forms accelerates disunity. Unfortunately, due to trying to accommodate the civil requirements, various forms have evolved which seem likely to persist without powerful intervention. It is not only about restoring everything from altar servers to holy water fonts and from singing hymns to abandoning the tweezers (!) It is also about certain of the clergy seeing an opportunity to design their own Mass, and deny the sacred to the flock. An example is that of attending a funeral Mass in a previously unvisited parish only to find out at Communion that the pastor refuses as a matter of his personal policy to give the Body of Christ on the tongue. Variations in Communion become differentiating factors between parishes and erode the ‘Oneness’ of the Faith. We end up with the Mass being the ‘culture’ of the presider.

I intend to write more on these subjects, but wanted first to show the underlayment of the dynamics of ‘bring back the Mass.’


Can we be forced to vax?

March 9th, 2021, Promulgated by Diane Harris

A very timely article has just appeared (Thanks, B, for the tip). CMF, Christus Medicus Foundation, has just joined the civil rights task force which counsels those who do not want to be forced to take the vaccine for COVID-19, on the elements of decision for which they should be aware.  Here is a summary from the news release:

CMF Joins Signatories from Health Care Civil Rights Task Force to Offer Vaccine Guidance

For Immediate Release
March 8, 2021

As members of the Health Care Civil Rights Task Force, our respective organizations have been fielding an increasing number of inquiries relating to individuals being required to take the COVID-19 vaccine. We offer this press release as a general response to this issue. We are not making any definitive pronouncement about the status of federal or state laws. Nor are we advocating that people take or not take the vaccine, but simply seek to protect the rights of those who in good conscience choose not to be vaccinated.

The following information provides current federal law with respect to mandating and administering vaccines:

Current COVID-19 Vaccines Are Experimental Medical Products.
It is important to note that no vaccine has received FDA approval for COVID-19 but to date three vaccines have received FDA authorization for emergency use. Being approved under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) means the products are investigational and experimental only, their investigational studies have not been completed, and the vaccine would not otherwise have been approved at their stage of testing.1

Federal Law Prohibits Mandates For The Current COVID-19 Vaccines.
Federal law regulates experimental medical products that have only been authorized for emergency use, and explicitly states that individuals have the right to “refuse administration of the product.”2

Federal Law Requires Disclosure For Experimental Vaccines.
This federal code also compels those who administer experimental medical products, including COVID-19 vaccines under an EUA, to disclose “the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown.”3

COVID-19 Vaccine Manufacturers Are Immune from Legal Liability.
According to 42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22, “No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”4

Employers Who Try To Mandate COVID-19 For Employees May Be Liable For Damages
Employers are not shielded from liability like pharmaceutical companies when it comes to vaccines. Although pharmaceutical companies are not liable (unless there is willful misconduct), the law does not shield employers or businesses and should they attempt to mandate vaccines, they may be liable for any resulting harm.

If anyone is being mandated or pressured to vaccinate and is choosing not to vaccinate, you may contact the Health Care Civil Rights Task Force for assistance in understanding your rights at


Terry McKeegan, Esq.
Joseph Meaney, PhD., National Catholic Bioethics Center
Alex Schneider, Esq., Life Legal Defense Foundation
Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network
Julie Grimstad, Healthcare Advocacy and Leadership Organization
Anne O’Meara, Healthcare Advocacy and Leadership Organization
Father James Bromwich, RN, M.Div., STL
Deb O’Hara-Rusckowski, RN, MBA, MTS
Michael Arthur Vacca, Esq., Christ Medicus Foundation

PRESS CONTACT: Michael Vacca, Christ Medicus Foundation,                                                               Director of Bioethics (248) 897-0599,


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.”


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?”


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.



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.


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.

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:

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.

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.

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

“… [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:


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)

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

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.”

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:

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.”


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


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: