Previously unpublished letters add to Rupnik abuse case allegations (America): “A former Jesuit, Father Rupnik is accused of abusing more than two dozen women over several decades. He has denied wrongdoing.”
Why Is the Archdiocese of Washington Less Protective of Religious Liberty Than Maryland? (Daily Signal): “For some, questions of religious liberty seem abstract. For us and our families, they are deeply personal.”
The Modern Axis of Christian Persecutors (Providence):“In China, faith in Christ as the only way to heaven is considered “cultist” theology by the government.”
‘Protect Our Christian Heritage’: Italian and Danish PMs Rally Europe Against Mass Migration (The European Conservative): “Italy’s conservative prime minister and Denmark’s centre-left leader said tighter returns policies alone are “not enough”, arguing that respect for European laws must go hand in hand with respect for European values.”
No, Fauci’s Texts Are Not Proof of a Conspiracy to Hide Vaccine Risks to Pregnant Women (National Review): “Critics of Anthony Fauci are holding up newly released text messages from 2021 as evidence that the nation’s leading public-health authority hid his private doubts about the safety and efficacy of Covid vaccination for pregnant women.”
Thoughts on Theology Today (To Be a Thomist): “After the Second Vatican Council, a certain kind of ‘orthodox truce’ was reached between the kind of theology that has come to be called (somewhat inexactly) ‘Ressourcement’ and a kind of ‘broad consensus’ Thomist vocabulary.”
“The dominant culture has ‘permeated ecclesial circles,’ Cardinal Sarah warns in wide-ranging interview” (Catholic Culture): It is never licit to reduce the Gospel to social and horizontal themes, however relevant, because it is a failure in the very will of Christ, who sent us to preach eternal salvation, and not social redemption.”
Have American Catholics Given Up on Evangelizing? (First Things): “… less than a third of American Catholic and mainline Protestant pastors have an authentic missionary approach to their ministry.”
(*The posting of any particular news item or essay is not an endorsement of the content and perspective of said news item or essay.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
#5 No, Fauci’s Texts Are Not Proof of a Conspiracy . .
It’s annoying to have an article pointed out and then not be able to read it because it’s behind a paywall.
Just sayin’.
Cleo, there is no paywall. I read Brittany Bernstein’s article through. There was an invitation to subscribe.
As to the Jesuits and Rupnik:
It seems to me that “The Jez” at “America (etc) feel comfortable “reporting on their concerns” about their prior-JEZ Rupnik, now that they have confected a way to kick him out of “The Jez,” which they couldn’t manage to do for decades, and then couldn’t manage to do involving his alleged serial sexual abuse. (They confected some “disobedience-to-the-Jez” offense.)
So “JEZ-America-Magazine” seems to be using the Rupnik story (which heretofore wasn’t ever goung to be on their radar) as a “resource” to remind “their readers” that now that Rupnik is not one of us, we urgently publish that we are corporately “shocked and saddened” about this man Rupnik.
Which brings to mind this quip:
“In sales, sincerity is everything. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”
@ No, Fauci’s Texts Are Not Proof of a Conspiracy
A refreshing counter balance to the deluge of Fauci criticism and cries for criminalization. So widespread, one sided that I [can you imagine that?] was drawn into the blamefest.
Brittany Bernstein National Review, although not a total exoneration, makes a compelling case for moderation.
From a biblical perspective, the scapegoat analogy frequently holds true in our troubled world. Our sins are readily heaped on the invidious goat and sent off into the desert for demon Azazel to relish.
Ridiculous. Fauci is guilty on so many levels. First he funded the research he was directed by Obama not to fund. He disregarded and then lied, over and over. From my perspective to fund such dangerous research in a foreign country is not only stupid but arrogant. For whatever reason he disregarded the potential risks and loss of lives. He is a Dr. Frankenstein, not a goat.
The “Victor Frankenstein” analogy is spot on.
@ Grand Rapids Mike
The point is, that when we refuse to acknowledge any credibility to a viable defense against the accusation of conspiracy – regardless of other indications, including evidence of unethical policy on Fauci’s part, we’re in effect making him our scapegoat.
Another example is the common belief that Fauci invented the Covid virus [indications support a bio-engineered weaponized virus] by his unwarranted request and financial support for the research that allegedly created it. Fauci and his team claim that their request was limited below the protocol for that level of research.
Otherwise, I agree he had taken advantage of his position to enrich himself, acted unethically in solicitation, supported and used the shutdowns to carry out his own convictions, then blatantly lied that he did not.
Much to my regret, I decided to read the article. My expectations were met. Oh well, I have another data point supporting my contention that NR isn’t worthy of rational ignorance.
BB’s thesis is best compartmentalized in this: “Namely, that while further study was needed, the existing data did not show that vaccination posed any risk to pregnant women.”
That’s the inverse of how it’s supposed to work. If there’s suspicion of potential harm, you don’t proceed. First do no harm.
This is how it’s supposed to work. I have two conditions that the jab is suspected of exacerbating. My doctor said, “look this isn’t medical proof, but I’ve had a couple of patients who experienced worsening after the shots, so I’d rather you wait until the safety is better established”, explaining that most COVID fatalities were accompanied by multiple comorbidities and citing the case of one woman who acceded to a general practitioners pressure and had her cancer go turbo.
Assume for the sake of argument that not having evidence of harm is the same as evidence of safety. (There’s a reason why physicians notate “NED”, no evidence of disease and not “END” evidence of no disease and that on this particular issue, he’s not guilty of making public pronouncements at odds with his judgment. Great. On so many other scores, he’s guilty.
Again, the problem he’s an administrator with a god complex. He’s Philip Dru with an MD. He’s not a doctor. I wouldn’t have him treat me for ANYTHING, because doctors treat individuals after they have a medical history, appropriate tests and an examination.
Your initial complaint was there was a “deluge of Fauci criticism and cries for criminalization”. Your defense is the speculation about one minor part of complaints against him.
There’s a difference between speculation regarding a theoretical risk and actual evidence. If researchers were to publicly share what’s simply at that level of competency it could cause an adverse reaction of public fear.
Researchers require a given time of consultation and study for verification.
“A refreshing counter balance to the deluge of Fauci criticism and cries for criminalization.”
On the contrary, “refreshing” would be more public figures admitting to just how wrong they were six years ago just as Stephen A. Smith admitted his grievous error was when he called Kyrie Irving “stupid” for refusing the jab.
.
What are the requirements for “proof”? (In all candor I’m not reading the article, NR now falls under the clear heading of “rational ignorance” for me) and what elements are missing? Perhaps that creative writing minor Bernstein added to her BA in journalism received just paid off.
Fauci’s a good example why, if you are in a cabal, you lay low. Otherwise, you’re easily offered as tribute when the pitchfork rebellion is at the gates and demanding something for the troubles the cabal inflicted on the villagers.
I’d like to see people such as Bourla (CEO Pfizer) also called to account. Of course Bourla is a DVM, not an MD, so I’m not surprised he treated people as cattle in his quest for MOAR! executive compensation. Imagine you have a product, and it can be sold not through convincing informed consumers but through your symbiotes exerting government and cultural coercion. Awesome, huh?
There’s a couple Catholic Bishops who opined in a hurry, without any competence and should be called to account as well. One was the late Bishop of Rome, but he has so much to account for in the next realm, so. And full disclosure, my DOCTOR told me it was inconsistent with my health, so I was taking his advice.
I won’t say Fauci can go to hell-only because I think God values every soul so I have no right to discount the worth of his, even if he doesn’t think it exists.
If however he spends the rest of his days in this realm in ignominy as a pariah, it’s well deserved. No more five or six figure speaking fees, no corporate directorships, no sinecure as a think tank Senior Fellow might actually provoke the prodigal son back home. He’ll never be indicted, let alone prosecuted for his crimes, unfortunately. Even if the deep state was inclined to offer him up as the “designated deviant”, I’m cynical enough to think he’s cunning enough to feign dementia in order to be declared incompetent to stand trial.
If there’s one thing his diarrheic diary shows, it’s a man with an extraordinarily dislocated locus of identity with profound, to the point of pathological affirmation and membership needs.
Thanks for a great rejoinder as well as clearing up the mystery of your screen name.
I did not know it was a mystery. It arises from my observation and conviction that abuse of authority is the greatest affliction of humanity and “a little revolution now and then, is a good thing”.
Acton was correct. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
Corrupt officials rarely have fits of conscience-they usually require an “incentive” to leave.
I wasn’t sure what the point of the points were either, but is the 2nd greatest affliction putting up with these people, and even admiring them? For example, the Dems gave us an apparent gift in MI electing a far far away lefty to go up against Rogers in the general election (US Senate). They don’t work together to present a overall good content, just themselves. Often true of both parties.
I’ve seen a hawk perched near the chicken yard; the alert goes out and they rush to congregate under the closest bush or shelter and keep up the cry. Once the dangerous predator leaves, they go back to pecking and competing for survival and the hens putting up with roosters. I guess the lesson is they do come close when they need to; kinda like our nation did after 9/11.
Brittany Bernstein National Review doesn’t as said exonerate Fauci of wrongdoing – she acknowledged there was much else that deserved criticism. Her essay was narrowed on the alleged misinterpretation of a conspiracy.
Otherwise much of his activity if not criminal was unethical.
So what you are saying isn’t that that the “deluge of Fauci criticism and cries for criminalization.” are unmerited, just that one writer makes a quixotic case he isn’t guilty of conspiracy in a fit of pedantry, which might be the least of his crimes and offenses. That’s a peculiar defense. No, he’s not quite the devil incarnate, but he’s a twisted, evil man and I don’t see how that’s refreshing.
Of course, this is the definition (at the federal level) and in my opinion, there was enough concealment among a limited group to make it a conspiracy.
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
U.S. Code
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
As near as I can figure, many people above the age of 80 suffer from many forms of mental disability. We have under our microscope more than one specimen.
I note that you note that you did not read the article. Bernstein’s point was that Fauci was the object of conspiracy–a conspiracy at work AGAINST Fauci in one regard. Specifically, Fauci failed to publicly caution pregnant women as to his privately held concern of some higher risk of miscarriage as a result of receiving the COVID vaccine. That’s the gist of the article. She gave more than a few example of news commentators, Republicans, or influencers who Fauci to task for that. She ‘proved’ rationally how they were all wrong in doing that.
Morello then took the opportunity to turn a morality tale. The tale was a kind of fable, involving two biblical goats and a great many very bad people.
The End.
Correction: She gave more than a few examples of news commentators, Republicans, or influencers who //ADD// took// Fauci to task for that.
No, PR, I do not deny the merit of the deluge of criticism. I was simply pointing out that Fauci, in this instance, wasn’t responsible for a conspiracy. In a similar manner, Fauci was not directly responsible for the closures of schools, churches etc. That was a government decision beyond his authority. Although he sided with the government and then lied about it.
“But the text thread, released by Paul and Senator Ron Johnson (R., Wis.), actually shows Fauci hewing privately to the same points he often made in public: Namely, that while further study was needed, the existing data did not show that vaccination posed any risk to pregnant women” (Bernstein NR).
Fauci did not recommend that pregnant women take the vaccine. He did so after it was proven not a danger. This context is missing in meiron’s account.
Now if that means pedantry to you, or a childish morality tale to meiron, then I suggest a reexamination of our understandings of justice and judgment.
Our Lord often used morality tales to teach His children.
I’m just adding to the comments about Dr. Fauci & expectant mothers. I don’t want to wade into the Covid wars again but we did have mothers & their unborn children die here after the mother contracted Covid. They seemed especially at risk.
Young people in their 30’s died. It was a mess. Covid looked different according to demographics & poverty levels.We were right at the bottom of the poorest states last time I checked. The more poverty, the higher instances of chronic illness. We have more sickle cell, high blood pressure, diabetes, & asthma. All conditions that were connected to worse Covid outcomes.
So many people were hospitalized locally that we ended up having the Navy Medics helping out in our hospital. Too many doctors & nurses were out sick for the hospital to operate otherwise & patients were lined up on gurneys out in the hallways because there were no beds available.
I don’t know what advice should have been given to expectant mothers but either way there seemed to be risks. I hope we learned something from all that minus the politics.
I’m not against vaccinations but we do treat human beings like cattle when we inoculate them with as many vaccines as possible at one go. It’s the idea of getting as much done at one time while you have them in the squeeze chute because you never know when you’ll catch them again.
Human vaccines protocols should be designed for the best interest of the individual, not the herd.
I’m not against vaccines, either.
But the COVID shots are NOT VACCINES. A vaccine is the introduction of dead or degraded pathogenic genetic material that will not cause infection, but will create and immune reaction.
You cannot do that for an RNA virus, because an RNA virus doesn’t have its own DNA, instead it hijacks host cells to reproduce.
If you are thinking wait, this is a vicious thing of unknown paternity-and maybe the absolute worst sort of thing to be supercharging (using of course the misleadingly benign term “gain of function”)-well then, ALL ABOARD. The Reckless is leaving on Track 1 and the Bioweapon is on Track 2.
How the COVID vaccine works,
mRNA vaccines give cells a temporary genetic blueprint to make a harmless piece of a virus protein. The body builds this protein, triggers an immune response, and creates protective antibodies. The cells break down the mRNA within days, leaving the immune system trained to fight the real virus. You can read more via the. Exactly like every other vaccine. In your words introduction of degraded pathogenic material that will cause an immune reaction.
This is to Gerard trying to get away with “how the vaccine works” also “proves” that “not taking it is narcissism”.
Everybody I know who got COVID injections of any type, later fell ill with COVID and some of them multiple times. The injections infect you with “the virus” that then acts in the very same manner -pathology- of the COVID infection. Except with the injections it gets magnified -this, for many causes. With the injections you also shed more and become more susceptible to infection and to developing co-morbidities and chronic illness -the same people I am telling you about have chronic symptoms they didn’t have at an earlier time. Sinopharm and that type of injection does not bring all those risks of side-effects but you still get COVID after taking this injection.
THAT scenario set-up does not make anybody “narcissistic” nor is it generating common morality/obligation of “having to get injections”.
It also must be noted that COVID injections were introduced onto the medical scene without the proper attention having been paid to, or completed analysis having been done for, side-effects problems from prior traditional vaccination.
Irrational fear of illness could itself be narcissistic but not necessarily. When the irrational fear drives you to irrational treatment, you make yourself and others vulnerable to a mounting exploitation and stupidity.
I don’t know how you can characterize willful public dishonesty, based on junk science, that damaged the lives in one way or another of everyone in the world as anything other than crimes against humanity.
What sins have we put onto Fauci? The public labored and suffered Fauci’s sins and failings. What guilt have we? Fauci himself made idol of his fatuous expertise and relished homage to that. If Fauci is a scapegoat, he was its designer, builder and merchandiser. Like-minded power-seeking minions and an addled ‘leader’ sealed Fauci’s creation by demanding public obeisance, compliance and obedience. Else risk livelihood, life, and censor by other common fools. Fauci was a prime factor in gouging us of freedom and funds. Only in another hellish nightmare are WE to blame for Fauci’s faults.
Perhaps the unwillingness to consider other viewpoints that give some credence to Fauci’s intentions, such as the argument made by Brittany Bernstein.
Another would be whether the Covid 19 vaccine had any value.
Who of us, however close we may be to God, is without sin? Who of us, however pristine our faith, knowledge of the Commandments is the perfect judge of his brother?
If we label a man with invective – calling him raca and worse we accuse ourselves before Our Lord. Yes, the goat is well saddled with our sins.
We who refuse to call Fauci our scapegoat do NOT imply that we are without sin. Actions and words that say so are unjust, scapegoating, and blame-mongering. To impute sin upon a person that he does not have is an uncalled-for twist of reality and an injustice. Meat for Confession.
Claiming Fauci as our scapegoat implies his innocence and our guilt, and such a view is LUDICROUSLY LUCIFERIAN!
Bible Gateway defines the traditional biblical scapegoat:
“In the Bible, a scapegoat is a goat that symbolically bears the sins of the people and is sent into the wilderness, representing the removal of guilt and atonement.”
The term “scapegoat” originates from the Hebrew ritual described in Leviticus 16, during the Day of Atonement. Two male goats were selected by lot: one for the Lord, which was sacrificed as a sin offering, and the other for Azazel, the scapegoat, which remained alive. The high priest laid his hands on the scapegoat’s head, confessed over it all the iniquities, transgressions, and sins of the Israelites, and then sent it into the wilderness. This act symbolically transferred the people’s sins to the goat, removing them from the community and demonstrating God’s provision for cleansing and reconciliation (Leviticus 16:8-22).
Let us say they are minor sins that virtually everyone is prone to make, unfair, unbalanced judgment of others. If you’re convinced of your freedom, to assume otherwise is Luceferian, that’s your choice.
The Delphic oracle could never have been so clear. I wish you sunny days in the study of your stars.
Our country specializes in scapegoats creation. Has been at least during my decades here anyway – someone will pay even if the facts are not actually evident.
Fauci should tell us exactly what happened, even if he has to go into witness protection.
With all due respect Father, whom I agree with 99 percent of the time, the junk journalism, from the formerly conservative National Review, justifying the junk science of Fauci does not exercise sufficient criticism towards calling data definitive when it was impossible to assess long term effects, including the efficacy of the vaccines themselves let alone damaging effects. This assuming the surveyed data itself was authentic.
I’ve worked in science for many years, and I can affirm that ego driven bad intentions are very common.
I’m certainly open to intelligent, alternative perspectives such as yours Edward.
Insofar as the shutdowns, schools and churches were initiated by CDC warnings [specifically from Dr. Nancy Messonnier], implemented by State order. Most were intended for a several week trial basis.
Trump wanted to restore everything back to normal after the trial period but unfortunately agreed to extend the shutdowns. Fauci supported the extended closures.
It’s now obvious Trump should have followed his instincts. We would have avoided the deleterious consequences. My research Edward isn’t intended to indict or absolve, rather to have a more substantiated sense of what occurred. As you suggest, self aggrandization may well have been an invisible factor.
Insofar as the shutdowns, schools and churches were initiated by CDC warnings [specifically from Dr. Nancy Messonnier], implemented by State order. Most were intended for a several week trial basis.
Trump wanted to restore everything back to normal after the trial period but unfortunately agreed to extend the shutdowns. Fauci supported the extended closures.
It’s now obvious Trump should have followed his instincts. We would have avoided the deleterious consequences.
For further input, Dr Nancy Messonnier was a career federal official who served as the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases and a primary leader of the agency’s COVID-19 response.
@ Protect Our Christian Heritage
“Defend its Christian cultural heritage. We do not accept uncontrolled immigration to Europe” (Italy’s PM Giorgia Meloni and Danmark’s PM Mette Frederiksen).
Two women. Where are the men? Off to twaddling the European Union humanistic line everyone. When, if ever, will they learn?
At least these two women have intelligence and a firm hold on values that matter. If it will take strong women to herd morally neutered men then so be it. Perhaps they will be shamed out of their femininity and become men, restoring sanity in European politics.
Why is “Catholic” Diocese of DC (and same goes for those in Florida) Contemptuous of Religious Liberty?
Most likely because “THE EMINENT McElRoy,” like others in “his cult,” is a post-Christian-queer-church-bureaucrat managing “government-adjacent-affairs” as one of many “false-shepherds-walking-away-from-Christ” into “their paradigm-shift-darkness-of-their-queered-fake-church.”
“Harvard’s own Cardinal.”
Did you mean Emetic McElroy
Syrup of ipecac has nothing on his inductive capacity in that regard.
Thoughts on Theology Today (To Be a Thomist): I admire Dr. Minerd’s depth. Here he speaks to faith and charity, but predominantly I found his message to be one of hope, a hope contingent upon Lovers of the Church of Christ finding peace in Truth’s manifold simplicity.
The “dominant culture” theme runs over to the Provisional Agreement with China, though it’s not mentioned at all; which undercuts VATICAN II, see Christus Dominus 20.
Said Provisional Agreement undercuts not only VATICAN II specifically with regard to China, but also the whole of the Council; since the tendency will be to make it sort of standardizing universal /general reference about meeting culture and interpreting Council irrespective of national context. Chinese episcopate could make that their external mission to the whole Church.
@ “Why is the Archdiocese of Washington less protective of religious freedom than Maryland”
I don’t think that poor mom understands what “religious freedom” means. The freedom of the other Catholic parents to send their children to school without fear of deadly disease cannot be disregarded because of your “beliefs” no matter how sincerely held. In the days of the WWII conscientious objectors had to show membership in an established pacifist religious group otherwise the penalty for refusal to serve was prison. Now the entitled American claims “religious objection” without any basis as a cover for “what I want to do and damn the consequences to others”. It’s not Christian or even patriotic citizenship.
Some troubles with that position you take Gerard, are: it gives to one what it denies to the other; and it sets up presumptions in favour of novel injections not tested properly. The so-called vaccines like the Pfizer injection caused long-term shedding, result would be that in a densely populated environment they would be continuously reinfecting one another. That information came out relatively early.
The dynamic of new information coming out then dislodges absolutist rules too.
But there are other problems with it:
a) there was always variety in treatments for COVID and some people needed nothing at all
b) a person is bound to consider his individual medical circumstances and is free to take medical counsel from different viewpoints
c) a person is bound to avoid worsening his negative preconditions
d) the multiplicity of injections immediately proved there was no single fix-it
e) it was already known that co-morbidity and agedness were the danger points.
It was not a good thing to superimpose predetermined arrangements. The best thing would be been the natural thing, which is, to have let each subsidiary group work through their own arrangements that included making allowances for individual decision. Everyone was happy to adapt momentarily to remote work.
Other issues arise such as the fact that they closed churches but let other places remain open, totally confounding the claims they had broadcast concerning infection.
In another place, Gerard, you were saying that as far as you are concerned, it is the Pope-for-you this and the Pope-for-you that; however, that subjective piety even if good for you is not something that is thrust on everyone whether generally or for purpose of determining medical interventions or individual health decision.
I’m referencing routine childhood vaccinations discussed in the article, not COVID. Not at all clear what you are banging on about with “the pope for you”
You weren’t at all clear yourself which “vaccines” you were referencing in the post of yours to which I was responding here. You merely mentioned “children”; and it does appear as your way to dismantle objections.
In other places in CWR you have in fact been supportive of these strange injections irrespective of children and you make to defend them unconditionally.
Regardless of your reply above, all my points hold. Your reply bangs on, speak for yourself! Here in this CWR article (see your comments in link) you shared some of those “vaccine” views of yours already plus your attitude to “following shepherds in the name of the Pope”. You then went on to muddle what you were saying by adding that “no-one ever claimed to impose moral imperative”.
As far as general public knows, the “chief developer” of “the vaccines” was not “Trump”. If Trump was involved in pushing their development, you would be indicating his participation in a long time-period prior to 2016, that would truly be “news”.
Your arguments could be an attempt to impose muddles as moral imperative. What would be true too is that there are a handful of leaders today who do just that as their choice “method and style of leadership”.
Coming back to the mention of “children” with “vaccines”: in today’s context that language has become misleading and needs qualifying when those elements become present, because the professed aim is to do away with old-style vaccines altogether in favour of mRNA and other artificial constructs to be used as “medical norm” and to be “scientifically accepted” as “standard” and “most efficacious”.
The Gerard comments are in this CWR article, Fauci and lukewarm Catholicism.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2026/07/30/anthony-fauci-and-lukewarm-catholicism/
If you had looked at the article I was commenting on you would have known which vaccines were at issue. It is a moral imperative to look out for each other, including the most vulnerable. It is a long standing tradition of faithful Catholics to follow their shepherds appointed through Apostolic Succession. Trump was the author of Warp Speed to develop the MRNA vaccine. The rest of your reply is muddled and off topic. I wish you the best.
Sir I did read that article before now and it’s about religious exemption without specifying injections by name. You could be talking about anything at your election; but I overtook you and drew away from any muddle.
The article refers to the Vaccine Act. Developing on what I and others have noted about the novel untested injections, this would need to be reformed. Arguing about Catholicisms like “it’s ok to take an abortion taint vaccine” is not resolving the issue to do with medical risk.
All my points hold and your latest comment amounts to either a ducking out or an admission. Why are you ducking out? why are you admitting without owning? Why are you placing Apostolic Succession next to that? In any event, the reader decides for himself, I am just putting forth on what I see as obvious.
Don’t be mistaken there are many readers to see the same thing as I do without having to read anything I ever wrote or hear anything I ever said.
“The freedom of the other Catholic parents to send their children to school without fear of deadly disease cannot be disregarded”
How it it a matter of “freedom” to receive guaranteed protection against the possible unhappy consequences of coexisting with other human beings, adult or child, whatever their condition in life, just as Jesus Christ said we must?
Being free requires risk and suffering.
Being truly free means trust and cooperation among people in a civilized society, not Darwinian values.
Why is submission to and cooperation with evil non-Darwinian and self-sacrifice in order to do the right thing Darwinian?
Perhaps you’re oblivious or uncaring about “civilizations” around the world conducting exterminations based in utilitarian functionality or simple inconvenience.
There is nothing evil about taking a vaccine to help stop the spread of a pandemic.
The words ‘free’ and ‘freedom’ do not connote any Darwinian values–where do you get that idea? Neither do they mean anything like trust and cooperation. Grasping at straws or spewing thin air will not usually persuade someone to consider a new perspective.
Merriam Webster on “Freedom”: the quality or state of being free: such as
a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action;
b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another; independence
c(1): the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous; freedom from want/fear/consequences
(2): the state of being unmarried
d: unrestricted use
e: ease, facility
f: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
g: (somewhat old-fashioned): improper familiarity
h: boldness of conception or execution
2a: a political right
especially a right or liberty guaranteed by a constitution or fundamental law
b: a power or liberty granted by one in authority
Just like true freedom is found in God’s rules so we find it in society where values of self sacrifice and love of neighbors outweigh selfish individual concerns and narcissistic self advancement over others.
Pabulum.
Sure Boomer, except that it’s not 1968 anymore and this isn’t the summer of love 🙄.
The summer of love was in 1969, kid. Some that spirit might be good for you to explore. You know, peace and justice and all that instead of uber fascism.
Gerard: How do you define uber fascism?
Wikipedia dates the summer of love at 1967.
Also, grammatically, Athanasius does not equate the summer of love to 1968. He simply says this isn’t the summer of love AND it’s not 1968. He gives two separate thoughts in one sentence to say that you are wrong in more ways than one.
Gerard: “Just like true freedom is found in God’s rules so we find it in society where values of self sacrifice and love of neighbors outweigh selfish individual concerns and narcissistic self advancement over others.”
Mostly correct since it mostly aligns what your critics have been saying and the precise opposite of what you have been saying, an example being your insults of the self-sacrifice by those who refuse vaccines created from the slaughter of innocent life. All moral truth comes from God and is generally countercultural. Societies create no truth at all, moral or otherwise.
Self-sacrifice and love of neighbor are precisely what is avoided by those who trivialize the hearts, minds, and souls reduced to sociological caricatures. Casting individuals as determined by “narcissistic self-advancement over others” is dependent on willful economic ignorance that fails to understand market economies are not and can never be a zero-sum game. Creators of enterprises are the creators of wealth and employment that never existed previously. And personal assets are almost always reinvested in other wealth production. The era of truly evil industrialists like Henry Frick are over due to adopting God given principles of justice.
A belief in benevolent social management by society’s elites nudging humanity towards non-existent utopia is such established fiction in the popular moral imagination that those acquiescent are reflexively hostile towards anyone giving resistance, vilifying them as uncaring and immoral. The counter productivity inherent to utopian “ideals” are ignored.
They often do because their self-esteem systems depend on aligning with everything that utilitarian assumptions present as progress, enabling them to avoid examining a human condition permanently imperfectible, evidenced by the continuing sinfulness of everyone, not just those designated as evil.
The landmark research by former liberal, Arthur C. Brooks, in his book, “Who Really Cares” demonstrates the polar opposite charitable practices of liberal and conservative generosity and sacrifice of time towards the downtrodden. The ratio, mathematically adjusted for personal wealth, ranges from ten to one to a hundred to one, depending on the activity, in favor of conservatives. Even such things as donating blood, conservatives donate forty times the rate as liberals. Liberals only outpace conservatives in donations to abortion slaughterhouses, that at a rate of two hundred to one.
Gerard addendum: And it is not “a long standing tradition of faithful Catholics to follow their shepherds appointed through Apostolic Succession”.
When shepherds are wrong and at odds with Catholic doctrine as Francis was frequently, it is obligatory to disobey.
Right is right even if no one is right, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is wrong.
The sincerity of leftist commitment to a cause du jour was aptly demonstrated at the beginning of the Ukraine conflict, when they started attaching blue and yellow insignias to their social media profiles, along with the statement “I stand with Ukraine”. It accomplished nothing other than group public political Onanism.
Of course as the war drags on, and less savory details emerge about Zelensky and their itinerant emotions migrate, those declarations are getting to be hard to find.
It’s similar to their love of the poor. Actually parting with their dough absent a tax isn’t really their thing, but public advocacy for “programs” and “funding”, well that comes easy.
“The summer of love was in 1969, kid. Some that spirit might be good for you to explore. You know, peace and justice and all that instead of uber fascism.”
Yes, people copulating with strangers in the mud, discordance masquerading as music. Everybody on narcotics.
Same old hedonism.
You do know if a flock of sheep are spooked by a bear while sleeping near a mountain ledge, and one jumps over the edge, they’ll all follow? (that actually happened)
I haven’t seen that myself but I know if one sheep finds a gap in the fence & heads out on the road the entire flock will follow…
@ The dominant culture has ‘permeated ecclesial circles,’ Cardinal Sarah warns
Which in effect means the Church itself requires a reconversion to its Apostolic roots. Otherwise, remaining parishioners will continue to suffer “banal sermons”, and fairytale, Pollyannish descriptions of Christianity.
If anything, we are all challenged to the limits of our mettle. We either pay the price to retain the faith and deepen our closeness to Christ, or end up being another statistic. Eternal life awaiting the faithful is worth fighting for.
Belief systems of sinners, even while professing religion, follows less from deference to what God might think than what decisions they prefer to adopt about the nature of evil. A desire to believe evil is impersonal, determined by the tides of history, cannot avoid siding with the principalities of elites who address evil through social engineering which they promise to eliminate once they are allowed to impose self-anointed visions on the rest of humanity. I am often forced to wonder how often high prelates go to confession.
Edward. As with faithful Laity prelates would likely average the same. That was my impression in Rome and with bishops who managed my diocese.
Faithfulness to our shepherds instead of our own understanding is Catholicism.
You can’t be truly faithful to your shepherd AND be misleading them or be misleading with them.
Gerard you got chewed up on this page nice.
It could be Francis saw the opportunity to take “the vaccine” evil injection as a submission to a form of persecution; where, “therefore”, he positioned it as an act to be done out of Christian charity. In his mind (perhaps) comparable to Christians thrown into the circus with lions. As far as I know he never indicated this. Whether as a form of crucible unavoidable or voluntary -not distinguished.
She got you there Fr. Luckily this is just a whiteboard with Carl Olson tolerating everybody.
Fauci and others know very well mRNA injection is not “vaccine”. It’s called lying. Sending them to Azazel and all that is not how the system deals with brazen abuse of power. Arguing about not knowing what the funding request would have led to at the point in time is not how it is dealt with either; it is an intentional introduction of a diversion or a severing from getting to the whole continuum. You’re just resetting the board for the next play.
Dr. Malone exposed his own invention and they are denouncing him as a misinformer.
They are doing that up to this day while Fauci is ….. well ….. !
While Fauci is asseveratin’; notwithstanding that huge sections of the science and medical community corroborate with Malone’s departure that the mRNA is a synthetic contraption designed to injure. It could be bio-synthetic or just synthetic -it then becomes a matter of POTENCY in the sense of how much harm it can made to cause whether as single shot or given as injections in a series or in a health-profiling context.