Procinctu Press | THE BLOG

Bitcoin Fear and Greed | Currently at Resistance

Regarding Bitcoin Fear and Greed, Greed is currently at a high level of resistance. See the chart below to see how human emotion rotates from fear to greed, and what that means for the price of Bitcoin.

bitcoin fear and greed

I posted this topic of Bitcoin Fear and Greed on Trading View. Here is the content…

“Bitcoin is at resistance on the Fear and Greed index.

There are many indicators which point to Bitcoin being overbought right now. There are also moving averages that will be applying downward pressure. 

On top of that, there are many examples and charts comparing 2015 to 2019, and a pivot at this level would be both expected and healthy as we gear up for the next bull run. 

However, for the purpose of this chart, I wanted to cut through all the clutter and focus only on price movement as it relates to the Crypto Fear and Greed index. 

You can see the chart for the index here… BITCOIN FEAR AND GREED 

On this chart, the green vertical lines represent a high of fear…the red vertical lines represent a high of greed. To be more clear, the green lines are numbered on both charts to easily see the rotations. 

It is said that 90% of traders lose money, so these levels are helpful in judging sentiment, and when emotions are at an extreme one way or the other, it is often a signal to look to go against the crowd. Look to Buy when there is fear, Sell when there is greed. 

This is not just trading, but life in general. Remember that a stock or crypto chart is literally only a story about human sentiment and emotion. Nothing is ever 100% predictable 100% of the time, but there is a reason that similar patterns emerge over many different markets, and it is because the same human emotion is being displayed in the different markets. 

To the present time, and the present chart, the Crypto Greed is at a resistance. It would sure make sense for a pivot here at the $5,300 level and see the next high in fear bring bitcoin under $4,400. 

Does it have to happen? Of course not. Nothing is 100% as was stated earlier. However, chances are fairly high that the top is near, and it would be risky to go long when most humans are being greedy. Hope this was of use to you. 

I got the data from alternative.me/crypto and originally got it from Steve at Crypto Crew Youtube Channel.”

-Travis 
JMJ – UIOGD

Francis in Morocco: “Being a Christian is not about Adhering to a Doctrine”

from Novus Ordo Watch

It was bound to happen. On the last day of his two-day apostolic journey blather tour in Morocco, Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope” Francis) once again spoke his heretical mind. Whenever this man’s lips part, there is no predicting what will come out of his mouth, and this time he had a few theological indiscretions prepared for his audience.

At the Cathedral of St. Peter in Rabat, Francis addressed his own Novus Ordo clergy, as well as members of the so-called Ecumenical Council of Churches. Vatican Media has provided the following video of the meeting:

A full transcript of Bergoglio’s speech has been posted on the Vatican web site:

The address is the typical mixed bag of truths, half-truths, and outright errors. We will highlight some of them.

In all seriousness, Francis opines that “Jesus did not choose us and send us forth to become more numerous!” That is a direct denial of the Great Commission (see Mt 28:19-20); but of course Francis wouldn’t be Francis if he didn’t nevertheless affirm in his very next sentence: “He called us to a mission.”

But what does mission and preaching the Gospel mean for Francis? To him, its essence lies in “our capacity to generate change and to awaken wonder and compassion.” If you can’t recall the Gospel passage where Christ sends His disciples to generate change and awaken wonder and compassion, you’re not alone. It only exists in the gospel according to Francis, and that is a false one (cf. Gal 1:8-9).

The false pope proceeds to explain that whatever preaching the Gospel and being missionaries may mean, it is definitely not making converts of unbelievers:

We do this by the way we live as disciples of Jesus, in the midst of those with whom we share our daily lives, joys and sorrows, suffering and hopes (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 1). In other words, the paths of mission are not those of proselytism. Please, these paths are not those of proselytism! Let us recall Benedict XVI: “the Church grows not through proselytism, but through attraction, through witness”. The paths of mission are not those of proselytism, which leads always to a cul-de-sac, but of our way of being with Jesus and with others. The problem is not when we are few in number, but when we are insignificant, salt that has lost the flavour of the Gospel – this is the problem – or lamps that no longer shed light (cf. Mt 5:13-15).

(underlining added)

Ah yes, that ever-present scourge of “proselytism”! Francis never fails to warn his people against that great evil! Remember?

This time, the pretend-Pontifex even assures his listeners that proselytism “leads always to a cul-de-sac”, a curious assessment for which he offers no rationale whatsoever, of course.

The professional Novus Ordo apologists — you know, the likes of Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, Patrick Madrid, and Dave Armstrong — will try to tell you that “proselytism” refers not to the making of converts as such but rather to the making of converts using dishonest, intimidating, or otherwise immoral means. That, however, is definitely not what Francis means, and we can prove it:

Francis’ denunciation of proselytism is nothing new, then, and it is not surprising that he should have brought it up again, given the opportunity. However, he did have something new for his listeners, too, something that is no less outrageous:

I believe we should worry whenever we Christians are troubled by the thought we are only significant if we are the flour, if we occupy all the spaces. You know very well that our lives are meant to be “yeast”, wherever and with whomever we find ourselves, even if this appears to bring no tangible or immediate benefits (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 210). For being a Christian is not about adhering to a doctrine, or a temple or an ethnic group. Being Christian is about an encounter, an encounter with Jesus Christ. We are Christians because we have been loved and encountered, and not as the result of proselytism. Being Christian is about knowing that we have been forgiven and knowing that we are asked to treat others in the same way that God treated us. For “by this everyone shall know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35).

(underlining added)

So here the Jesuit apostate from Buenos Aires informs the world that being a Christian, a disciple of Jesus Christ, is not about adhering to a doctrine. Really? Let’s see.

In his Apostolic Letter against the French Sillon movement, Pope St. Pius X taught:

No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness.

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness.

But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors.

Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them.

(Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique; underlining and paragraph breaks added.)

All this is pretty clear. But since Francis also says that Faith “must be constantly nourished by the word of God”, we will also take a look at the testimony of Sacred Scripture regarding the importance of doctrine in Catholicism:

And they were astonished at his doctrine. For he was teaching them as one having power, and not as the scribes. (Mk 1:22)

Jesus answered them, and said: My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. (Jn 7:16)

The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. (Jn 18:19)

And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42)

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. (Acts 5:27-28)

Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. (2 Jn 9-10)

I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. (2 Tim 4:1-4)

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. (2 Thess 2:14)

I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Gal 1:6-9)

Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. (Rom 16:17)

Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Cor 2:13)

These things proposing to the brethren, thou shalt be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished up in the words of faith, and of the good doctrine which thou hast attained unto. Till I come, attend unto reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine. (1 Tim 4:6,13)

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing… (1 Tim 6:3-4)

Exhort servants to be obedient to their masters, in all things pleasing, not gainsaying: Not defrauding, but in all things shewing good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. (Titus 2:9-10)

…But being a Christian is not about adhering to a doctrine, huh?

Quick, someone call Catholic Answers and tell them to close down their offices. It’s not about doctrine, it’s all about an “encounter”, an experience. Maybe the Vatican will soon change the name of its Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to Congregation for the Experience of the Faith. At this point, anything is possible.

However, Francis isn’t quite so consistent in his dissing of doctrine. Keep in mind that he is the same theological shyster who at other times will suddenly play zealous guardian of orthodoxy and feign concern about a re-emergence of the heresies of Pelagianism and Gnosticism (see Letter Placuit Deo, approved and ordered by Francis); when, of course, he is the true Pelagian (atheist is in Heaven because he was “good”) and the real Gnostic (new doctrines from the “god of surprises”). In other words, being a Christian is all about doctrine whenever it suits him and his agenda.

Of course it is true that to be a genuine disciple of our Lord Jesus Christ, we must do more than simply believe and profess His holy doctrine. To enjoy God’s grace and ultimately make it to Heaven, we need not only Faith but also hope and charity, final perseverance (see Mt 7:21; Jas 2:14-26; Denz. 808). But that’s not the issue because that’s not what Francis was addressing: He didn’t say that in addition to professing the truth we must also live it if we wish to be saved. Had he said that, we could take no issue with it.

Instead, he said that “being a Christian is not about adhering to a doctrine.” Yet that is precisely what it is, above all. For he who adheres to the true doctrine but does not practice it, although he is a hypocrite and on his road to damnation, is nevertheless a Christian, a member of the Catholic Church, albeit a lifeless one:

If any one saith, that, grace being lost through sin, faith also is always lost with it; or, that the faith which remains, though it be not a lively faith, is not a true faith; or, that he, who has faith without charity, is not a Christian; let him be anathema.

(Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 28Denz. 838)

For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23)

Thus, he who retains Faith, even though he be in mortal sin, is still a Christian, still a member of the Church. (This important truth has immense repercussions for the visibility of the Church; otherwise one could not know who is and isn’t a Catholic, since one cannot tell whether another is in the state of mortal sin or in the state of sanctifying grace.) On the other hand, possessing charity and hope without Faith, is not possible: “But without faith it is impossible to please God…” (Heb 11:6).

Francis, then, has once again uttered a heresy, and quite an idiotic one at that. If Christianity isn’t about doctrine, why do we have a Creed?

Yes, yes, of course we are quite aware that one can spin Francis’ words to mean all sorts of things, as in, “Let me tell you what Francis meant by this”, but that’s beside the point. The point is what he actually said, not what he should have said or could have meant.

The false pope then turned to the topic of dialogue, talking about a “dialogue of salvation and friendship” to which we have supposedly been called, and exhorting his listeners to be a “living sacrament of the dialogue that God wants to initiate with each man and woman”. In this context, Bergoglio asks: “How can we fail to think of Saint Francis of Assisi, who at the height of the Crusades went to encounter Sultan al-Malik al-Kamil?”.

That’s a really great point, so let’s recall exactly how that “encounter” went between the two and discover if beyond a “dialogue of salvation” in which he “generate[d] change” and “awaken[ed] wonder and compassion”, St. Francis didn’t also engage in some of that dreaded “proselytism” that always ends in “a cul-de-sac”:

The Sultan Meledin asked him who sent them, and for what purpose they came? Francis answered with courageous firmness: “We are not sent by men, but it is the Most High who sends me, in order that I may teach you and your people the way of salvation, by pointing out to you the truths of the Gospel.” He immediately preached to him, with great fervor, the dogma of One God in Three Persons, and the Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind.

(Congregation of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, The Life of S. Francis of Assisi [New York, NY: D. & J. Sandlier & Co., 1889], pp. 197-198)

Clearly, if St. Francis were alive today, Bergoglio would be the first one to denounce him for proselytizing and spreading “religious supremacy”, another concept he disses in the same speech: “Dialogue, then, becomes prayer… A prayer of intercession that says to the Father, ‘Thy kingdom come’. Not by violence, not by hatred, not by ethnic, religious or economic supremacy….”

If there is no religious supremacy, that means all religions are equal. But this is a betrayal of the Gospel, a most frightful betrayal of Jesus Christ, who is the only Way to Eternal Life (see Jn 14:6; cf. 2 Cor 6:14-18).

In his landmark encyclical against Freemasonry, Pope Leo XIII warned:

…[T]he great error of this age [is] that a regard for religion should be held as an indifferent matter, and that all religions are alike. This manner of reasoning is calculated to bring about the ruin of all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions.

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Humanum Genus, n. 16)

Yes, Catholicism claims religious supremacy. It alone is the true religion; all others are false.

Francis preaches the fraternity and indifferentism of Freemasonry. Earlier this year in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, he had blasphemously declared that the “pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.”

No wonder he considers all religions equal. To him, what matters is encounter and experience; the rest — like doctrine, for example — is unnecessary bells and whistles:

What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few [Modernists]. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true.

(Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi Dominici, n. 14)

Francis is a true and proper Modernist and therefore inherently incapable of being the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Antipapal Appointees Always Advance Antichrist’s Anti-Catholic Agenda

from Christ or Chaos

Working in secret, a cabal under Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII developed a secret schema for the “Second” Vatican Council that supplanted the one that had been developed by a team under the supervision of Alfred Cardinal Ottaviani, who was the head of the Holy Office. As noted in Culpably Blind last month, the man who masterminded the hijacking of the schema was none other than the doctrinally, liturgically and morally corrupt Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini, then the Archbishop of Milan. This hijacking represented the conciliar revolutionaries’ mode by which they would use “bait and switch” efforts” to lull “conservatives” to sleep before they, the revolutionaries, used a blitzkrieg to implement the plans that they had made far in advance.

Similarly, the supposedly “limited” reform of the Sacred Liturgy that the subject of the robber council’s first decree, Sacrosanctum Concilium, November 1, 1963, turned into a full blown overthrow of the entirety of worship of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church in favor of an unprecedented liturgy that was designed to serve as an instrument of evangelization for the conciliar sect’s false doctrines. The promulgation of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service by means of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI’s very misnamed Missale Romanum on April 3, 1969, resulted in a regime of ceaseless, unremitting, mind-numbing changes. These changes and variations are so numerous that it is not uncommon for “conservative” Catholics within the conciliar structures to encounter stagings of this abomination of desolation that vary so widely from one place to another—and even within a single parish—as the “options” permitting such idiosyncratic differences are all permitted and are to be found in the General Instruction to the Roman Missal. (For an excellent history on how the liturgical revolution, which hijacked the Liturgical Movement that began with Dom Prsoper Gueranger, O.S.B., in the Nineteenth Century, made substantial inroads during the last decade of Pope Pius XII’s pontificate, please see a series of articles written by Dr. Carol A. Byrne, who is very much opposed to sedevacantism, at The Start of The New Liturgical Movement. One can follow the “Continued” links at the end of this article—and each subsequent one, numbering forty-five in total, to read the entire series, which is well worth reading.)

The teleology of error is such that one falsehood must multiply into many other falsehoods over the course of time, and the counterfeit church of conciliarism so replete with error as to make whatever decisions its officials take at one time subject to the same kind of “reevaluation” and “adjustment” with which they have dismissed the dogmatic decrees of Holy Mother Church’s twenty legitimate general councils and the defense of dogmatic truth by our true popes. What one conciliar “pope” does can be undone by the next conciliar “pope,” and no conciliar “pope” has been more intent on undoing anything approximating Catholicism that had been maintained prior to his “election” on March 13, 2013, than Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The Argentine Apostate has engaged in a systematic process of filling the conciliar curia with his fellow Jacobin/Bolshevik revolutionaries, some of whom have nominated and receive antipapal approbation for nominees to Vatican academies and councils who are not at odds with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law but who have made active war against them in the abject, open and unapologetic promotion of evil.

For example, “Archbishop” Vincenzo Paglia has made it a point to appoint anti-life and pro-sodomite “experts” to the revamped “Pontifical” Academy for Life in 2017. It is instructive for present purposes to review what happened two years ago in order to put Paglia’s belief, stated also in 2017, that parents in Italy must comply with state and school regulations requiring them to vaccinate their children with vaccinations derived from the cells of aborted babies in its proper perspective at a time when there was an outbreak of measles there:

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Academy, commented on the appointments, saying that “with these appointments Pope Francis has formed a College of academics of the highest professional standing that will offer to the Catholic Church and to the whole world a deep and wise vision in the service of human life, especially life that is weakest and most defenseless. The Academicians named by the Holy Father come from 27 countries around the world and are outstanding in diverse fields of human knowledge. Among them are a number of non-Catholics, either belonging to other religions and non-believers, a sign that the protection and promotion of human life knows no divisions and can be assured only through common endeavor.” With respect to the appointment of Honorary Members, Archbishop Paglia noted that, “They represent the history of the Academy and a passion for human life for which we must all be grateful; it is thanks to the earlier work of so many illustrious men and women that today, with the appointment of new Academicians, our institution continues its service to life with renewed energy.”

The Governing Council of the Academy, which will be appointed by the Holy See pursuant to the Statutes and the Regulations of the Academy, will appoint Corresponding Members and Young Researchers (a new membership category created in the Statutes promulgated by Pope Francis in 2016), and thus fill out the membership of the Academy.

The Ordinary Assembly of the Academy, scheduled for October 5-7 in the Vatican, will be opened by Pope Francis, and will constitute the official launch of the renewed Academy.

The following is the list of Ordinary and Honorary Members appointed by Pope Francis.

The Holy Father has appointed as Ordinary Members for a five-year term [a partial listing follows]:

● Professor Nigel BIGGAR, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, and Director of the McDonald Centre for Theology, Ethics, and Public Life, at the University of Oxford (Great Britain);

● Kathleen M. FOLEY, M.D., Neurologist, Director of the Department of Neurology at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the New York Hospital (United States);

●Professor Daniel SULMASY, Professor of Bioethics at Georgetown University, Washington, DC (United States); (Bergoglio Nominates One Pro-Abort and Two Soros Cronies to Serve in the “Pontifical” Academy for Life.)

This is what I wrote at the time:

It is instructive to look at these three new “ordinary members” as one, Nigel Biggar supports the direct intentional taking of innocent human life in the womb, and the other two, support the dispatching of human beings when “medical professionals” deem that it is necessary to put them on a “path” to “ease” them on a path to death according to a “plan” designed by the “team” assigned to their cases, which, of course “consults” (pressures) family members to agree to do what is “best.”

First, consider the case of Nigel Biggar:

ROME, Italy, June 16, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life defended Pope Francis’ appointment of a new Academy member who is pro-abortion and has expressed qualified support for euthanasia. Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia has, moreover, accused Catholic media of “sensationalism” for highlighting the pro-abortion pick.

When a Twitter user pointed out to Paglia that English Catholic media outlets were focusing on the pro-abortion appointee, he suggested Catholic media was falling victim to “sensationalism.” 

“[W]e pray that Catholics and Catholic media not fall victim to sensationalism,” he tweeted. “Love for life must mean love for each other.”

University of Oxford Professor Nigel Biggar, who was appointed to the Academy for a five-year term, stated in a 2011 dialogue with pro-infanticide ethicist Peter Singer that a preborn baby is “not … the same kind of thing as an adult or a mature human being” and therefore does not deserve “quite the same treatment.”

I would be inclined to draw the line for abortion at 18 weeks after conception, which is roughly about the earliest time when there is some evidence of brain activity, and therefore of consciousness,” he said as reported by Standpoint magazine.

Then, one year later, when he was the keynote speaker for an event at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, he said “it is not true that all abortion is equivalent to murder.”

When LifeSiteNews asked Biggar if his appointment to the Academy indicated that the Church under Francis is shifting gears on abortion, he said that as someone who is not Roman Catholic, he did not think it appropriate to comment on the Church’s position.

I am very sorry to disappoint you, but the issue of abortion is one on which I have views, but it is not one that I have thought about for a very long time,” he said. 

I believe that the reason for my recent appointment lies in my sustained work on the issues of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. On those issues, my conclusions are consonant with the Church’s,” he added.

But Biggar’s position on euthanasia is not, in fact, consonant with Catholic teaching. 

In a review of Biggar’s 2004 book titled Aiming to Kill: The Ethics of Suicide and Euthanasia, reviewer David Jones wrote for the periodical New Blackfriars that Biggar would allow some people to be euthanized who were so damaged that they could be excluded from being called “human.”  

“If someone’s brain is irreparably damaged so that he or she cannot think, then according to Biggar we should conclude that he or she is no longer a human ‘person’ and no longer part of the human community. Biggar even describes such individuals as ‘irretrievably inaccessible to human care’ so that it means nothing to protect them from being killed nor therefore (and this is my deduction) to visit, clothe or feed them,” wrote Jones. 

Christopher Ferrara, author and head of the American Catholic Lawyer’s Association, said an appointment of a pro-abortion member to the Vatican’s highest pro-life institution means that Pope Francis, “as incredible as it may seem, is programmatically committed to accommodating … the toleration of abortion in the life of the Church.”

“[He has] demolished John Paul II’s Pontifical Academy for Life by sacking every one of its members and having its new president, the ‘pro-gay’ Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia (of obscene mural fame), draw up new statutes for the Academy,” he wrote, adding: “Bear in mind that Pope [Francis] has abolished the pro-life oath formerly taken by members of the Academy.”

Former Academy member Judie Brown, president of American Life League, said the Academy under Pope Francis’ leadership has lost its way. 

“Pope Francis has created a revised version of the sainted Pope John Paul II’s vision that is not only scary, but also in many ways ugly to behold,” she wrote.  (Pro-Abort to Head “Pontifical” Academy for Life.)

What the well-intentioned, incredulous author of the report does not understand is that everything about the counterfeit church of conciliarism is ugly, and that includes Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s aforementioned warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth and his incessant acts of obeisance to false religions, false places of worship and the idols and symbals of false religion. Those who do not see this are forever expressing “outrage” at what are simply the logical consequences of endorsing dogmatic evolutionism and of making a mockery of the First, Second, and Third Commandments.

It is really as simple as this: attacks the immutable nature of God and His Divine Revelation lead inevitably to attacks upon each of the Ten Commandments, including the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Commandments.

“Saint John Paul II,” of course, always used the conciliarspeak of “human dignity” and “human rights” to condemn abortion, almost never referring to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment in his addresses and allocutions, although he did refer to “Thou shalt not” in Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, without specifically stating that this injunction was found in the Fifth Commandment. One of the reasons the fourth in the current line of antipopes did not do so might have from an “ecumenical” desire to get Protestants, who enumerate the Commandments differently, to read his encyclical, which was revolutionary not only in the language of conciliarspeak utilized but also for its attack on the liceity of the death penalty in most cases. To attack the liceity of capital punishment when it is administered by a duly constituted authority after the administration of due process of the law is to attack the Natural Law itself.

All that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is doing is to take full advantage of “Saint John Paul II’s” living tradition by fully embracing “brain death” and “palliative care” as positions of the “Pontifical” Academy for Life. After all, why should any conciliar “pope,” including Bergoglio, having any more respect for the teaching of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II than the latter had, say for Pope Saint Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, or The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, or for Pope Pius XI’s defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, and his condemnation of false ecumenism in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928?

It should come as no surprise that parents of children who attend Assumption Academy in Walton, Kentucky, which is administered by the Society of Saint Pius X, are being undercut by Vincenzo Paglia’s Antipapal Academy for Death, which says that there is no moral objection to having their son vaccinated with a vaccine derived from the cells of butchered babies:

VATICAN CITY, March 26, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — In a stunning declaration, the Pontifical Academy for Life — now populated entirely with Pope Francis appointments — has urged parents to vaccinate their children, even if the vaccines are derived from aborted babies.  

The issue made national headlines this month when a Catholic family sued a local health department after it placed severe restrictions on school attendance and extracurricular activities of students at Assumption Academy in Walton, Kentucky, following an outbreak of chickenpox at the school.  

Many Catholic families choose not to vaccinate their children against certain childhood diseases such as measles and chickenpox because the only vaccines available are derived from the cells of babies aborted in the 1960s.  

In the middle of the controversy, the Pontifical Academy of Life chimed in, siding not with the conscientious Catholic parents and students, but with the health department officials for whom the abortion-derived vaccines present no moral dilemma.   

The newly constituted Pontifical Academy of Life (PAV) — from which Pope Francis ejected all members appointed by Pope St. John Paul II and inserted his own appointees, with controversial Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia serving as the body’s head — said that “the cell lines currently in use are very distant from the original abortions and no longer imply that bond of moral cooperation indispensable for an ethically negative evaluation of their use.”

here is a “moral obligation to guarantee the vaccination coverage necessary for the safety of others,” added the PAV in its 2017 statement.

“An appropriate and necessary response”

The Kunkel parents, upon discovering the truth about the origins of the vaccines, chose not to have the chickenpox vaccine administered to their son, Jerome. 

Now an 18-year-old senior, Jerome plays center for the school’s basketball team but has been prevented from finishing out the season as result of the Northern Kentucky (NKY) Health Department’s directive.

The ban pits the religious liberty of the Kunkels and other Catholic families who conscientiously object against what the NKY Health Department says is the common good.

“Chickenpox, also known as varicella, can be a very serious illness that is especially dangerous for infants and pregnant women or anyone who has a weakened immune system,” declared the the NKY Health Department in an online statement. “The recent actions taken by the Northern Kentucky Health Department regarding the chickenpox outbreak at Our Lady of the Sacred Heart/Assumption Academy was in direct response to a public health threat and was an appropriate and necessary response to prevent further spread of this contagious illness.”

“The chickenpox vaccine is the best way to prevent becoming ill and spreading the varicella virus,” concludes the NKY Health Department, which advised Assumption Academy parents in a series of letters about the outbreak.  

Parents were told, “All students without proof of vaccination or proof of immunity against chickenpox will not be allowed to attend school until 21 days after the onset of rash for the last ill student or staff member.”

Discrimination against Catholics living their faith

Despite the dangers inherent in rejecting the vaccine, its origin remains highly problematic — if not anathema — for Catholics who view abortion of unborn infants as murder. The fact that those murders occurred over fifty years ago does not ameliorate their violence and horror.

erome says the ban discriminates against him because of his religious beliefs.

“The fact that I can’t finish my senior year of basketball … is pretty devastating,” said Jerome. “I mean, you go through four years of high school playing basketball, you look forward to your senior year.”  

His father, Bill, went further and told The Washington Post, “This is tyranny against our religion, our faith, our country.”  

“I don’t believe in that vaccine at all,” said the elder Kunkel in a WLWT5 TV interview, “and they’re trying to push it on us.”

“The chickenpox vaccine is derived from aborted fetuses,” continued Kunkel, adding, “as Christians, we’re against abortions.”

The new Pontifical Academy of Life delivers muddied message, defies Catholic consciences

The PAV’s newly stated position represents a subtle shift in support of aborted fetal vaccines.

In 2005, the PAV issued a statement that went to great lengths to describe the various levels of evil associated with the development, production, and marketing of such vaccines, while also addressing the culpability of doctors and parents.  

The PAV said at that time that cooperation with the moral evil involved is “more intense on the part of the authorities and national health systems that accept the use of the vaccines” than it is on the part of doctors who administer the vaccines and the parents who choose to inoculate their children using the tainted vaccines because no other option exists.  

While the PAV’s 2005 statement acknowledged the “moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk,” the 2017 statement by the Academy essentially erases the role of conscience for parents, instead declaring a moral obligation to use the vaccines derived from aborted children.

As we have seen on many other questions, the reconstituted PAV backslides into positions that no longer reinforce the conscience protections Catholic parents, and Catholics in general seek in order to live their lives in faith and trust in Christ,” said Judie Brown, American Life League president, in a statement to LifeSiteNews. “The new PAV position on vaccinations for children is more of the same.”

So not only are the consciences of the Catholic families of Walton Kentucky’s Assumption Academy pitted against their local health department, but they find themselves in opposition to the relaxed attitudes and standards of Francis’s Pontifical Academy of Life.

Pope Francis’s Pontifical Academy of Life: Tacit approval of aborted fetal vaccines

Debi Vinnedge, the founder of Children of God for Life, recently told LifeSiteNews’s Rome Correspondent, Diane Montagna, “There is a huge market worth billions of dollars due to the creation of patents, sale of the cell lines by companies that actually store and resell aborted fetal material.”

Research and vaccine production is filling the pockets of “universities, biotech companies, the pharmaceutical industry and of course, Planned Parenthood who was caught in an undercover sting discussing how they ensure obtaining intact organs for sale.”

“The tacit approval of using the aborted fetal vaccines when there is no alternative is a major roadblock to making any progress to stop this injustice,” said Vinnedge. “Until our physicians and clergy leaders unite worldwide demanding the moral alternatives, the pharmaceutical industry is not going to change. In fact, as history and the current trends are proving, it’s only going to get worse.”

Christopher Ferrara, author and head of the American Catholic Lawyers’ Association, said in 2017 that Pope Francis “demolished John Paul II’s Pontifical Academy for Life by sacking every one of its members and having its new president, the ‘pro-gay’ Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, draw up new statutes for the Academy.”

“Bear in mind that Pope [Francis] has abolished the pro-life oath formerly taken by members of the Academy,” he added. (Parents Must Vaccinate Even if Vaccines Come From Aborted Babies.)

This is all about the money and control

Forget all the relativist, rationalist, subjectivist rhetoric of “women’s rights” and “reproductive freedom.”

Contraception and surgical abortion are all about the money, blood money to be accurate.

Planned Barrennhood is now and has always been about the money, a point that is made in a documentary, “Unplanned,” that is debuting this week in motion picture theaters. Although I do not go to movies—and have done only for three movies (Therese, which was disappointing, The Passion of the Christ and, of course, For Greater Glory)  the past twenty years—and will not do so during Lent, it is my understanding that “Unplanned” is a powerful statement against Planned Barrennhood in very graphic terms, although I never underestimate the public’s ability to ignore truth even on the natural level and/or to be unmoved by it.

The pharmaceutical industry is not about “making us healthy.” It is about the money, which it makes in bundles and bundles by convincing physicians and hospitals to purchase their wares that are filled with poisons and are approved for marketing without proper safeguards and with built-in profit-margins that contain budget amounts for payouts as they expect a certain percentage of patients to die from their use.

Big Agriculture is not about supplying us with healthy food. It is about the money, which is why they have pushed most small farmers out of business and why they are so heavily invested in gene-editing, the manipulation of seeds and thus of the productive of genetically modified food products that their bought-and-paid-for agents in the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Food and Drug Administration and White House and Congressional staffers, congressmen, senators, governors, state legislators and the advertising industry. (This same relationship, of course, exists between Big Pharma and the same government bureaucrats, media conglomerates, elected officials and their appointees.)

The medical, working in conjunction with the insurance industry, is all about the money. Patients are milked for everything covered by their insurance policies, at which point most patients, many of whom are made more sick by the drugs they are administered by medical “professionals, are either consigned to burdensome debts that they pay never be able to pay off during their lifetimes or are said to be candidates for “palliative” care because of a what a team of “professionals” considers to be “quality of life” considerations that makes their being dispatched more “cost-effective” over time. (See Chronicling the Adversary’s Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry.)

Moreover, save for a few notable and very rare exceptions, most of the graduates of medical schools and colleges throughout the course of the Twentieth Century, including in supposed “halcyon days” of the 1950s that were not so great, were indoctrinated by the bilge about the “safety” of various pharmaceutical products and how vaccines were responsible for eliminating outbreaks of diseases. Lies. All lies.

Ah, you doubt my word.

Let me acquaint you with the work of Dr. Suzanne Humphries, who left conventional medicine after a period of twenty-two years after she had seen what was being done to patients and the lies that were being told in the name of “public health.” Her research speaks for itself, and her informative videos are chock-filled with important information, including how the government, the advertising industry and pesticide manufacturers such as Monsanto marketed the nonexistent safety of “DDT” in the 1950s with such gimmicks as a little girl dancing “DDT is good for me-e-e!” as she walked a cow”! I kid you not. Prolonged exposure to DDT produced symptoms that mimicked those of poliomyeletis, meaning the true culprit of many illnesses at the time the polio vaccine as developed were caused by DDT, which was heavily promoted by the government and advertisers as safe, safe, safe. Here are some examples:

DDT-laced wallpaper, from Copyranter:

(text for this final ad after the jump)

“The great expectations held for DDT have been realized. During 1946, exhaustive scientific tests have shown that, when properly used, DDT kills a host of destructive insect pests, and is a benefactor of all humanity.

Pennsalt produces DDT and its products in all standard forms and is now one of the country’s largest producers of this amazing insecticide. Today, everyone can enjoy added comfort, health and safety through the insect-killing powers of Pennsalt DDT products . . . and DDT is only one of Pennsalt’s many chemical products which benefit industry, farm and home.

GOOD FOR FRUITS – Bigger apples, juicier fruits that are free from unsightly worms . . . all benefits resulting from DDT dusts and sprays.

GOOD FOR STEERS – Beef grows meatier nowadays . . . for it’s a scientific fact that compared to untreated cattle beef-steers gain up to 50 pounds extra when protected from horn flies and many other pests with DDT insecticides.

FOR THE HOME – Helps to make healthier and more comfortable homes . . . protects your family from dangerous insect pests. Use Knox-Out DDT Powders and Sprays as directed . . . then watch the bugs ‘bite the dust’!

FOR DAIRIES – Up to 20% more milk . . . more butter . . . more cheese . . . tests prove greater milk production when dairy cows are protected from the annoyance of many insects with DDT insecticides like Knox-Out Stock and Barn Spray.

GOOD FOR ROW CROPS – 25 more barrels of potatoes per acre . . . actual DDT tests have shown crop increases like this! DDT dusts and sprays help truck farmers pass these gains along to you.

    GOOD FOR INDUSTRY – Food processing plants, laundries, dry cleaning plants, hotels . . . dozens of industries gain effective bug control, more pleasant work conditions with  Pennsalt DDT products. (DDT Is Good for Me–e–e.)

As Dr. Suzanne Humphries notes in a very compelling and informative video (see Dr. Suzanne Humphries on the smallpox vaccine), the government, the media and, of course, the pharmaceutical/medical industrial complex of death have been lying to us ever since the development of vaccines in the Nineteenth Century. The lies that have been told us even when many of us “baby boomers” were getting vaccines aplenty are astounding, and this is from one who had to be convinced of the vaccine scam in 2001 by several people. The evidence is there. Only the willfully blind refuse to see it as we have been conditioned to accept whatever the government and the medical industry insist is “good” for us. Dr. Humphries explains the vaccinators have changed the definition of illnesses such as poliomyelitis in order to convince the general populace that they are at risk for contracting polio. Dr. Jim West, who is known to at least a few readers of this site, also debunked the causes of polio in an article that he wrote in 2002 and was posted in 2015 at another website; see Everything You Learned About the Cause of Polio is Wrong.

All one really has to know about the vaccine scam is that the draconian Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, which is fully funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, was instrumental in pushing the propaganda used to condition us about the “necessity” of vaccines for one’s personal health and for public safety.

Yes, I know full well that some of true popes got vaccinated and that true priests led processions of their parishioners to get vaccinated. Pope Pius VII even said that the development of the smallpox vaccine was an instrument of God’s omnipotence. I am not casting aspersions on them. However, we know more now than they did when they lived, and most of what is known, as Dr. Humphries documents fully, is based upon the evidentiary paper trail left us by the so-called “medical professionals,” alleged scientists and pharmaceutical company executives that documented how vaccines failed to work. These alleged guardians of “public health” also documented how they changed the definitions of the various diseases the vaccines were said to have cured in order to cover-up the fact of their failure to do what they had told the public had been accomplished. 

Talk about fake news.

There are two issues here, therefore, that I want to bring to the attention of my own readers, few in number though you may be. (Again, this is a statement of fact without any complaint. Obscurity is good. Deo gratias.)

First, decrees issued by the conciliar authorities on matters pertaining to Faith and Morals carry no authority at all to bind the faithful. This has been true from the time of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII to that of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is in Morocco at this time promoting the apostate document that he signed in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates on January 19, 2019. Too bad vaccines don’t work as I, for one, would love to have a vaccine that kept the world safe from Jorge Mario Bergolio and conciliarism.

Second, decrees issued by the conciliar authorities under Jorge Mario Bergoglio invariably wind up supporting the promotion of sin under the cover of “compassion” and/or “accompaniment” and are reliably supportive of every falsehood promoted by pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, statist, open-borders and anti-family politician on the face of the earth, including the Chicoms, whose bidding he has done by throwing underground Catholics in Red China to them to persecute with antipapal approbation.

Thus it is that the parents in Kentucky who do not want to subject their children to vaccines derived from the cells of butchered babies (whether from abortions directly or from babies conceived by means of the illicit and immoral money-making practice of in vitro fertilization and then discarded for commercial purposes) have been undercut by the authorities at the revamped “Pontifical” Academy for Life, which is truly the Antipapal Assembly for Death, headed as it is at this time by Vincenzo Paglia, an absolute nogoodnik of the first order. (This is but another reason to simply avoid all contact with the contagious disease known as conciliarism, which is cured by simply cutting oneself off from the spiritual robber barons. Very simple.)

Although the Antipapal Assembly for Death did not rule directly about the aforementioned case in Kentucky and a 2017 statement Paglia issued concerned an outbreak of measles in Italy, Zigmunt Zimoski, the president of the “Pontifical” Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers,” did issue a “New Charter for Health Care Workers” that was translated into English by the National Catholic Bioethics Center of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The “new charter,” which supports the lies of the inversion of the ends proper to Holy Matrimony, “natural family planning,” the medical industry’s manufactured, money-making myth of “brain death,” vital organ “donation” and transplantation, and vaccinations, including the use of vaccines derived from “biological material” that have some “association” with the cells of butchered babies. It is on the basis of this “new charter” that Vincenzo Paglia’s Antipapal Assembly for Death has ruled it permissible to use vaccines derived from the cells of butchered children.

Here is the relevant passage from the “New Charter for Health Care Workers, interspersed with my own interjections.

From the perspective of preventing infectious diseases, the development of vaccines and their employment in the fight against such infections, through the obligatory immunization of all populations concerned, is undoubtedly a positive step.  (New Charter for Health Care Workers, pp, 52-54.)

Interjection Number One:

The employment of “vaccines in the fight against” infectious diseases, through the obligatory immunization of all populations concerned, is undoubtedly a positive step”?

Says who?

Big Pharma, that’s who.

Big Government, that’s who (two).

Vaccines have nothing to do with public health, and the passage of laws and issuance of decrees and directives mandating the obligatory immunization of all citizens represents a draconian effort on the part of social engineers to engage in the control of the population. Once again, you see, the Rockefeller Foundation and its offshoot, the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, do not have public health and safety in mind. They are concerned about an ideological agenda that is opposed to that which constitutes the true public good, namely, the eternal good of souls upon which all just scientific and medical decisions and treatments must be based.

Consider, for example, the positivistic, utilitarian reasoning of Associate Justice John Marshal Harlan I in the Supreme Court of the United States of America concerning compulsory immunization in the case of Jacobson v. United States, February 20, 1905:

The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best, and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that “persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State, of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made so far as natural persons are concerned.” Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 46595 U. S. 471Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613169 U. S. 628169 U. S. 629Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington R.R., 27 Vermont 140, 148. In Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86137 U. S. 89, we said:

“The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one’s own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is then liberty regulated by law.”

In the constitution of Massachusetts adopted in 1780, it was laid down as a fundamental principle of the social compact that the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for “the common good,” and that government is instituted “for the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor or private interests of anyone man, family or class of men.”

The good and welfare of the Commonwealth, of which the legislature is primarily the judge, is the basis on which the police power rests in Massachusetts. Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53, 84.

Applying these principles to the present case, it is to be observed that the legislature of Massachusetts required the inhabitants of a city or town to be vaccinated only when, in the opinion of the Board of Health, that was necessary for the public health or the public safety. The authority to determine for all what ought to be done in such an emergency must have been lodged somewhere or in some body, and surely it was appropriate for the legislature to refer that question, in the first instance, to a Board of Health, composed of persons residing in the locality affected and appointed, presumably, because of their fitness to determine such questions. To invest such a body with authority over such matters was not an unusual nor an unreasonable or arbitrary requirement. Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members. It is to be observed that, when the regulation in question was adopted, smallpox, according to the recitals in the regulation adopted by the Board of Health, was prevalent to some extent in the city of Cambridge, and the disease was increasing. If such was the situation — and nothing is asserted or appears in the record to the contrary — if we are to attach any value whatever to the knowledge which, it is safe to affirm, is common to all civilized peoples touching smallpox and the methods most usually employed to eradicate that disease, it cannot be adjudged that the present regulation of the Board of Health was not necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety. Smallpox being prevalent and increasing at Cambridge, the court would usurp the functions of another branch of government if it adjudged, as matter of law, that the mode adopted under the sanction of the State, to protect the people at large was arbitrary and not justified by the necessities of the case. We say necessities of the case because it might be that an acknowledged power of a local community to protect itself against an epidemic threatening the safety of all, might be exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public, as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons. Wisconsin &c. R.R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 27179 U. S. 301; 1 Dillon Mun. Corp., 4th ed.,§§ 319 to 325, and authorities in notes; Freund’s Police Power, § 63 et seq. In Railroad Company v. Husen, 95 U. S. 46595 U. S. 471-473, this court recognized the right of a State to pass sanitary laws, laws for the protection of life, liberty, heath or property within its limits, laws to prevent persons and animals suffering under contagious or infectious diseases, or convicts, from coming within its borders. But as the laws there involved went beyond the necessity of the case and under the guise of exerting a police power invaded the domain of Federal authority, and violated rights secured by the Constitution, this court deemed it to be its duty to hold such laws invalid. If the mode adopted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the protection of its local communities against smallpox proved to be distressing, inconvenient or objectionable to some — if nothing more could be reasonably affirmed of the statute in question — the answer is that it was the duty of the constituted authorities primarily to keep in view the welfare, comfort and safety of the many, and not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few.  (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, February 20, 1905.)

Admitting that the individuals are not free to do whatever it is they want to do as there is no moral liberty to sin nor to disobey just laws made by the civil authorities, Justice Harlan’s decision in the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts was based upon the presumption that vaccines were effective against smallpox. They were not. Harlan’s decision was also premised upon the reliance of the near-infallibility of the medical community, a myth that Dr. Humphries explodes in her books and videos and that an article about the Jacobson case made very clear:

Attorney Lawrence Gostin has said that Jacobson v. Massachusetts “is often regarded as the most important judicial decision in public health.”2 He got that right. He knew he could use it after 9-11 to re-write state public health laws giving government more police power to trample on freedom whenever health officials declare a “public health emergency.”5

The tragic legacy of Jacobson v. Massachusetts not only haunts public health law making in the U.S., it has come to define it. If you wonder why this summer CDC officials boldly announced they want more police power to yank you off a plane and put you into involuntary quarantine because they believe you might get measles, you can thank the Supreme Court.6  If your healthy unvaccinated child has been kicked out of school while sick vaccinated children are allowed to stay7 – or if you have been fired from your job because you said “no” to getting a flu shot8 – look no further than Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

In a nutshell, the judges sitting on the Supreme Court more than a century ago used bad logic, relied on old science and made the ridiculous assumption that doctors are infallible to give government the green light to force healthy Americans to risk their lives with a pharmaceutical product based on “common belief” rather than fact. Piously waving the “greater good” flag, they threw individuals under the bus by throwing civil liberties out the door.

Here is how the Supreme Court created the legal club being used today to take away your right to exercise freedom of thought, conscience and religious belief when making vaccine decisions for yourself or your children.

Pastor Jacobson and His Son Had Suffered Severe Reactions to Smallpox Vaccine

In 1904, a Lutheran minister, Swedish immigrant Henning Jacobson, objected to a Cambridge, Massachusetts Board of Health law requiring all adults to get a second smallpox vaccination or pay a $5 dollar fine. Pastor Jacobson and his son had suffered severe reactions to previous smallpox vaccinations and he logically argued that genetic predisposition placed him at higher risk for dying or being injured if he was revaccinated.

e correctly concluded that smallpox vaccine ingredients were toxic and often caused injury and even death and that medical doctors were unable to predict who would be harmed.10 11 12 13 14 15 He made the legal and ethical argument that being required to get revaccinated was an assault on his person and a violation of his 14th Amendment right to liberty and equal protection under the law.16

Jacobson v. Massachusetts Affirms Infallibility of Doctors

But the attorneys representing medical doctors persuaded judges in the state court that Jacobson did not know what he was talking about and ruled against him. Instead of simply paying a $5 fine, Jacobson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was a mistake that led to one of the most unethical and dangerous legal decisions in American jurisprudence.

In a split decision with one dissenting vote, the Court majority, including Oliver Wendell Holmes, said that citizens do not have the right under the U.S. Constitution to be free at all times because there are “manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subjected for the common good.” They said that state legislatures have the constitutional authority to enact compulsory vaccination laws and exercise police power to restrict or eliminate liberty during smallpox epidemics to “secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state.”

The judges dismissed Jacobson’s concern about being genetically susceptible to vaccine harm. Instead they chose to incorrectly affirm the infallibility of doctors by making this ignorant statement: “The matured opinions of medical men everywhere, and the experience of mankind, as all must know, negative the suggestion that it is not possible in any case to determine whether vaccination is safe.”

Compulsory Vaccination Compared to Military Draft

Comparing compulsory smallpox vaccination of adults with the military draft in times of war, the judges declared that a citizen “may be compelled, by force if need be, against his will and without regard to his personal wishes or his pecuniary interests, or even his religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense.”

Of course, today, most of the citizen soldiers being forced to “risk the chance of being shot down” in America are babies in newborn nurseries17 18 and little children who want to go to school.19 20

Vaccine Law Can Be Based on “Common Belief,” Not Fact

Although the 1905 Supreme Court judges dismissed concerns about the safety of smallpox vaccine as completely unfounded, they were clearly uncomfortable about Jacobson’s contention that his life was on the line. Not once, but repeatedly, they returned to the knotty problem of individual risk only to ridicule Jacobson and point out that his uneducated opinion was no match for the “common knowledge” expert opinion of medical doctors. In fact, the judges went so far as to say that – even if Jacobson could prove medical experts were wrong about the safety of smallpox vaccination – states still have the constitutional power to enact laws based on majority opinion and “common belief” and not on truth or proven facts. They said:

“A common belief, like common knowledge, does not require evidence to establish its existence, but may be acted upon without proof by the legislature and the courts. The fact that the belief is not universal is not controlling, for there is scarcely any belief that is accepted by everyone. The possibility that the belief may be wrong, and that science may yet show it to be wrong, is not conclusive…for what the people believe is for the common welfare must be accepted as tending to promote the common welfare, whether it does in fact or not.”

I wonder how many legislators know that the 1905 Supreme Court ruling being used to eliminate exemptions from vaccine laws was based on the idea that “common belief” – not hard evidence – can rule the day?

The 1905 Supreme Court judges tried to defend their decision by explaining that if individuals like Jacobson were able to get exempted from vaccination, it would mean that, “Compulsory vaccination could not, in any conceivable case, be legally enforced in a community, even at the command of the legislature, however widespread the epidemic of smallpox; and however deep and universal was the belief of the community and its medical advisors that a system of general vaccination was vital to the safety of all.”

And there it is again. The Supreme Court told state governments they can make vaccine laws based on “deep and universal” beliefs about vaccination, especially beliefs held by medical doctors, but can ignore the deeply held beliefs of individuals with good reason to conclude they will be harmed by vaccination.

The Utilitarian Legacy of Jacobson v. Massachusetts

What were the beliefs of doctors in the early 20th century? Well, many influential doctors in academia and those leading social reform movements believed in a political philosophy called utilitarianism, which has its roots in hedonism.21 Utilitarianism is a theory of morality based on a mathematical equation: the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.22 23  Legislators like it because law making becomes a simple matter of adding and subtracting numbers, like generals do on a battlefield when counting how many casualties it took to win a battle. (The Harm of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, February 20, 1905.)

Although the author of this excellent analysis does not understand that the triumph of utilitarianism is the result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and the subsequent rise and institutionalization of the naturalistic precepts of Judeo-Masonry, the truth remains that trusting in the infallibility of the medical industry now is even more dangerous than it was in 1905. The assertion made about the “necessity” of compulsory vaccinations in the text of “New Charter for Health Care Workers” is gratuitous and contrary to fact.

Here is the next section from the “New Charter for Health Care Workers”:

The preparation of certain vaccines occasionally involves the use of “biological material” of illicit origin, for example, in the cell lines developed from deliberately aborted fetuses. The ethical problems here are essentially cooperation with evil and scandal, because of a grave disorder against the life and integrity belonging to every human being. The duty remains for everyone to manifest disagreement with the use of biological material of illicit origin for the preparation of vaccines and to ask health care systems to make other types of vaccines available.

In some cases, researchers utilize “biological material” that was not directly produced by those who make use of it, but acquired commercially; in these situations, one can invoke the criteria of independence, that is, the absence of proximate connection to illicit practices. Nevertheless, the researchers, in their professional activity, have the duty to avoid scandal.

Hence “there is a duty to refuse to use such ‘biological material’ even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or abortion, or when there was no prior agreement with the centers in which the artificial fertilization took place. This duty springs from the necessity to remove oneself within the area of one’s own research, from a gravely unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the value of human life.

In general there are of course different levels of responsibility, so that serious reasons could be morally proportionate for the use of such “biological material” even though it remains the duty for researchers to object to this situation and to try to make use of material not of illicit origin. (New Charter for Health Care Workers, pp, 52-54.)

Interjection Number Two:

The conciliar Vatican clearly accepts the utility of effective of vaccinations.

How can someone who is unvaccinated and contracts measles able to transmit the disease to those who are vaccinated?

Isn’t the whole point of the vaccination-scam to “protect” people?

How can those who are “protected” get infected by people who are not?

What’s the big deal about getting measles?

Many of us got them. We survived.

Many of us got and survived chicken pox and the mumps.

So what?

The human body was designed to fight off these diseases.

What about the power of the Miraculous Medal, which protected people in France from outbreaks of disease in the Nineteenth Century?

Mind you, I am not saying that pharmaceutical products cannot be used nor that they are not effective in many cases, and I got each of the existing vaccines in my childhood years (polio and oral polio vaccines, smallpox and tetanus). Additionally, although I do take a whole lot of supplements that I believe are responsible for my not having developed major coronary artery blockage—something that I learned after a heart catheterization on November 16, 2017, will never be the case given my age and the presence of only a twenty percent blockage in the left descending artery—and that I should be using natural means to control my blood pressure, I have been on blood pressure mediation for over forty years. It is not to reject all conventional medicine to reject the poisonous nature of vaccines, especially those containing cells derived from butchered babies. (By the way, of course, even though the supplements I take daily are beneficial, Saint Philomena is principally responsible for the good results of that heart catheterization in 2017 as the initial echo-cardiogram had showed that I had suffered a heart attack at some point, something that was contradicted by the findings of the catheterization. See Take Devotion to Saint Philomena Seriously.)

Whatever vaccines were sixty years ago, however, they are not now. This is true even of vaccines administered by veterinarians, including those, such as rabies, that state law mandates to be given. Our own Chase developed a sarcoma at the base of his neck just above his spine in January of 2015 in the exact spot where he had received a rabies vaccination twelve months before. The veterinarian, who is a pioneer in the use of alternative treatments (chiropractic, electro-acupuncture, laser treatment, his own naturopathic formulae), excised the tumor surgically upon discovery. However, it grew back in an operable place under his neck a year later, and he had to be euthanized over three months ago now. The veterinarian, who is seventy-seven years of age, knows the harmful nature of the vaccines. He told me that of least one other case as Chase’s in his practice. However, this is an instance where a veterinarian has to comply with the state mandate or lose his license.  

Catholics are not anti-medicine or anti-science. However, we must use good, old-fashioned common sense to know what is truly beneficial for us and when there is an actual need to seek medical attention in the event of an accident or a life-threatening illness. One does so these days, however, with the recognition that we are at the mercy of medical “evaluators” who desire to put us into the pipeline for eventual “home hospice” “care.”

This having been noted, it is important to point out that even though the “New Charter for Health Care Workers” is aimed principally at guiding those who work in the health care industry, including medical researchers, the section on vaccinations does have relevance to the situation in Kentucky, especially in light of Antipapal Assembly of Death’s acceptance of the moral liceity of such vaccines. Alas, this is not a complex matter at all once one recognizes (a) one can have nothing to do with abortion; and (b) that vaccine scam is based on one false premise after another. Does an evil act because less evil because it was committed forty years ago? The passage of time can never conference legitimacy on that which is illegitimate. 

As one medical professional, one who does not reject all vaccines, wrote to me on this matter: “It is better to be sick than be given a vaccine made from a cannibalized baby.”

It is this simple. There is no need for the moral casuistry of the Vatican relativists who seek to complexify every situation facing Catholics who are confronted with demands from the omniscient, omnipotent statist overlords who want to control us even while they insist that they believe in “freedom of choice.” Sure, we have “freedom of choice,” all right. We have the “freedom of choice” to agree with them or suffer their wrath.

The situation in the supposedly “free” West is slightly different, at least visibly, than in, say, Red China, where everyone is under compulsion to do what the state says or suffer monstrous fines. There is no such thing as legitimate freedom of conscience exemptions in a Communist tyranny, thus forcing Catholics who know better to be injected with the poisons that may cause serious health problems over the course of their lifetimes. We are getting closer and closer to that point to be sure (see (Rockland County, New York, Bans Unvaccinted Minors from Churches and other public places during measles outbreak and Protests Erupt over Unvaccinated Child Ban In Rockland County, New Yorks ), and when we do have at it formally, of course, the officials within the conciliar Vatican will be the first to make sure those of us who resist receive the maximize penalties allowable under the law after, that is, we are forced to be vaccinated with the poisons that are said to be so very good for us and for the good of public health. The whole vaccination scam is designed to destroy human immune systems and to give the pharmaceutical companies and governmental decisions more and more power over the lives of ordinary citizens.

The medical industry has lied to us about the “safety” of contraception, which can never be safe on natural level as that which is unsafe for the soul is inherently unsafe for the body. Contraception is a lie as it denies the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of Holy Matrimony. 

The medical industry has lied to us about the “safety” of surgical abortion, which is deadly to an innocent baby, harmful to the body and soul of his mother and destructive of the just order of  men and their nations.

The medical industry has lied to us about the “safety” of overt pharmaceutical abortifacients such as RU-486, which has killed women in addition to killing babies and the souls of their mothers and those who manucture, market and dispense them at a retail level with the full knowledge of being complicit in an abortion.

The medical industry has lied to us about the “fact” of brain death, which has made possible the killing off of innocent beings to faciliate the the vivisection of their bodily organs in order to “give the gift of life.”

The medical industry has lied to us about the “necessity” of starving and dehydrating to die persons said to be in a “persistent vegetative state.” (Yesterday, March 31, 2019, was the fourteenth anniversary of the court-ordered death of Mrs. Theresa Maria Schindler-Schiavo, who died on March 31, 2005, after she had been starved and dehydrated for thirteen grueling days of state-sponsored torture (see Ten Years Later).

The medical industry has lied to us about the “compassion” of “palliative care,” which is nothing other than a carefully supervised execution of a human being who is either terminally ill or said to be suffering a loss of a “quality of life” because of a chronic illness or even because the “team” of health care professionals deem that he is better off dead than alive.

The medical industry has lied to us the “dignity” of “doctor-assisted suicide,” which denies the Sovereignty of God over the inviolability of innocent life just as does abortion. New Jersey has become the latest state to “legalize” this lie (see New Jersey Governor Vows to Sign Bill Allowing Doctors to Help Kill Terminally Ill Patients).

Big Pharm has lied to us about the “safety” and the “benefits” of various products that have killed people.

Mad scientists, believing in their own omnipotence and omniscience, have lied about their work in gene-editing, human cloning and eugenics so that they can spring their “findings” as faits accompli for a public distracted by bread and circuses to admire with due reverence and acceptance.

Why should we believe that these combined forces are telling us the truth about the “safety” of vaccinations and even about the history of these vaccinations and their supposed effectiveness?

Why should we believe the assurances given by the government of the United States of America and global organizations such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization about the “safety” of food additives, preseveratives, artificial sweeteners and vaccines, some of which contain sterilizing agents to wipe out the popuations of Third World countries (see, for example, Mass Sterilization Exercise: Kenyan Doctors Find Anti-Fertility Agent in UN Tetanus Vaccine)?

Remember, the government assured us that “DDT is safe for me-e-e”.

What’s next?

Trusting the doctors and the government to get ourselves microchipped if we want to board an airplane (not that I do) or simply to “assure” the public safety by being able to identify (and to control) us and our activities?

At what point do we say, “This is enough, I will not believe in the lies told by people who do hate Christ the King and His true Church and who do not have either the temporal or eternal good of souls in mind”?

It has become an article of the secular “faith” to treat the high priests and priestesses of science with unfailing deference.

I dissent.

Moreover, Modernity is built on the lie that the Incarnation, Nativity and Redemptive Act of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ are matters of complete indiffence to medicine, science, commerce, banking, politics, government, education and what passes for “popular culture,” and Modernism, which has propagated its own lies on matters of Faith, Worship and Morals that contradict the teachings of Holy Mother Church’s true general councils and her true popes and have deconstructed the teaching of the Church Fathers on doctrine and Sacred Scripture, has made its reconciliation with the lies of Modernity and propagated a false religion that yields in almost all instances to those high priests and priestesses of these fields. 

We cannot believe in these lies as each is from the master of lies and the prince of darkness, the adversary himself.

When are we going to learn that all must fall apart without the Social Reign of Christ the King as it must be exercised by His true Church?

On Monday in the Fourth Week of Lent

As noted earlier in this commentary, we are suffering the consequences of Protestantism’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the innumerable plots of the various factions of the synagogue of satan (Judeo-Masonry, which includes all forms of naturalism, viz. political “philosophies” and ideologies) in every aspect of our lives bar none. Our situation is going to get worse, not better, over time as not even the “make America great campaign” of President Donald John Trump includes clamping down on Big Pharm and Big Ag and Fake Science as too many money passes hands and too many lies have been accepted as truth for this to happen. We must suffer. We are being chastised justly for our own sins.

Dom Prosper Gueranger’s reflection on the Gospel reading for today, Monday in the Fourth of Lent, should remind us we bear a significant responsibility for the horrific state of the world around us as it is but a small window into the mess that is our immortal souls in light of what Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died for them to be so that they could go to Heaven immediately after death:

We read in the Gospel of the first Tuesday of Lent, that Jesus drove from the temple that were making it a place of traffic. He twice showed this zeal for His Father’s house. The passage we have just read from St. John refers to the first time. Both occasions are brought before us during this season of Lent, because this conduct of our Saviour shows us with what severity He will treat a soul with severity that harbours sin within her. Our souls are the temple of God, created and sanctified by God to the end that He might dwell there. He would have nothing to be in them, which is unworthy of their destination. This is the season for self-examination; and if we have found that nay passions are profaning the sanctuary of our souls, let us dismiss them; let us beseech our Lord to drive them out by the scourge of His justice, for we, perhaps, might be too lenient with these sacrilegious intruders. The day of pardon is close at hand; let must make ourselves worthy to receive it. There is an expression in our Gospel which deserves a special notice. The evangelist is speaking of the Jews who were more sincere than the rest, and believed in Jesus, because of the miracles He wrought; he says: Jesus did not trust Himself to them, because He know all men. So that there may be persons who believe in and acknowledge Jesus, yet who are not changed! Oh the hardness of man’s heart! Oh cruel anxiety for God’s priests! Sinners and worldlings are now crowded round the confessional; they have faith, and they confess their sins; and the Church has no confidence in their repentance! She knows that, a very short time after the feast of Easter, they will have relapsed into the same state in which they were on the day when she marked their foreheads with ashes. These souls are divided between God and the world; and she trembles as she thinks on the danger that they are about to incur by receiving holy Communion without the preparation of a true conversion. Yet, on the other hand, she remembers how it is written that the bruised reed is not to be broken, nor the smoking flax to be extinguished. Let us pray for these souls, whose state is so full of doubt and danger. Let us also, pray for the priests of the Church, that they might receive abundant rays of that light, whereby Jesus knew what was in man. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Volume V—Lent, pp. 332-333.)

We must pray to Our Lady, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary and as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart according to the teaching of Saint Louis de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary so that we will surrender our very liberty to her so that she will dispose of all our prayers, good works, sacrifices and sufferings as she sees fit for the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity and the good of souls. (See the Appendix below for an excerpt from True Devotion to Mary).

We need Our Lady’s maternal assistance and the graces that flow forth through her loving hands to drive out the demons from our souls lest we, having fought the demons of this passing world, die without having cooperated with those graces to do battle first with the enemies of our salvation, which are ultimately far more important to contend with than those who can harm and kill the body alone.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, Triumph soon!

Our Lady of the the Rosary, pray for us.  

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.  

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Appendix

From Chapter Three of True Devotion to Mary

CHAPTER THREE – THE PERFECT CONSECRATION TO JESUS CHRIST

1. A complete consecration to Mary

120.  As all perfection consists in our being conformed, united and consecrated to Jesus it naturally follows that the most perfect of all devotions is that which conforms, unites, and consecrates us most completely to Jesus. Now of all God’s creatures Mary is the most conformed to Jesus. It therefore follows that, of all devotions, devotion to her makes for the most effective consecration and conformity to him. The more one is consecrated to Mary, the more one is consecrated to Jesus.

That is why perfect consecration to Jesus is but a perfect and complete consecration of oneself to the Blessed Virgin, which is the devotion I teach; or in other words, it is the perfect renewal of the vows and promises of holy baptism.

121.  This devotion consists in giving oneself entirely to Mary in order to belong entirely to Jesus through her. It requires us to give:

  (1) Our body with its senses and members;

  (2) Our soul with its faculties;

  (3) Our present material possessions and all we shall acquire in the future;

  (4) Our interior and spiritual possessions, that is, our merits, virtues and good actions of the past, the present and the future.

In other words, we give her all that we possess both in our natural life and in our spiritual life as well as everything we shall acquire in the future in the order of nature, of grace, and of glory in heaven. This we do without any reservation, not even of a penny, a hair, or the smallest good deed. And we give for all eternity without claiming or expecting, in return for our offering and our service, any other reward than the honour of belonging to our Lord through Mary and in Mary, even though our Mother were not – as in fact she always is – the most generous and appreciative of all God’s creatures.

122.  Note here that two things must be considered regarding our good works, namely, satisfaction and merit or, in other words, their satisfactory or prayer value and their meritorious value. The satisfactory or prayer value of a good work is the good action in so far as it makes condign atonement for the punishment due to sin or obtains some new grace. The meritorious value or merit is the good action in so far as it merits grace and eternal glory. Now by this consecration of ourselves to the Blessed Virgin we give her all satisfactory and prayer value as well as the meritorious value of our good works, in other words, all the satisfactions and the merits. We give her our merits, graces and virtues, not that she might give them to others, for they are, strictly speaking, not transferable, because Jesus alone, in making himself our surety with his Father, had the power to impart his merits to us. But we give them to her that she may keep, increase and embellish them for us, as we shall explain later, and we give her our acts of atonement that she may apply them where she pleases for God’s greater glory.

123. (1)  It follows then: that by this devotion we give to Jesus all we can possibly give him,and in the most perfect manner, that is, through Mary’s hands. Indeed we give him far more than we do by other devotions which require us to give only part of our time, some of our good works or acts of atonement and penances. In this devotion everything is given and consecrated, even the right to dispose freely of one’s spiritual goods and the satisfactions earned by daily good works. This is not done even in religious orders. Members of religious orders give God their earthly goods by the vow of poverty, the goods of the body by the vow of chastity, their free will by the vow of obedience, and sometimes their freedom of movement by the vow of enclosure. But they do not give him by these vows the liberty and right to dispose of the value of their good works. They do not despoil themselves of what a Christian considers most precious and most dear – his merits and satisfactions.

124.  (2) It follows then that anyone who in this way consecrates and sacrifices himself voluntarily to Jesus through Mary may no longer dispose of the value of any of his good actions. All his sufferings, all his thoughts, words, and deeds belong to Mary. She can then dispose of them in accordance with the will of her Son and for his greater glory. This dependence, however, is without detriment to the duties of a person’s present and future state of life. One such duty, for example, would be that of a priest who, by virtue of his office or otherwise, must apply the satisfactory or prayer value of the Holy Mass to a particular person. For this consecration can only be made in accordance with the order established by God and in keeping with the duties of one’s state of life.

125.  (3) It follows that we consecrate ourselves at one and the same time to Mary and to Jesus. We give ourselves to Mary because Jesus chose her as the perfect means to unite himself to us and unite us to him. We give ourselves to Jesus because he is our last end. Since he is our Redeemer and our God we are indebted to him for all that we are.

2. A perfect renewal of baptismal promises

126.  I have said that this devotion could rightly be called a perfect renewal of the vows and promises of holy baptism.  Before baptism every Christian was a slave of the devil because he belonged to him. At baptism he has either personally or through his sponsors solemnly renounced Satan, his seductions and his works. He has chosen Jesus as his Master and sovereign Lord and undertaken to depend upon him as a slave of love. This is what is done in the devotion I am presenting to you. We renounce the devil, the world, sin and self, as expressed in the act of consecration, and we give ourselves entirely to Jesus through Mary. We even do something more than at baptism, when ordinarily our god-parents speak for us and we are given to Jesus only by proxy. In this devotion we give ourselves personally and freely and we are fully aware of what we are doing.

In holy baptism we do not give ourselves to Jesus explicitly through Mary, nor do we give him the value of our good actions. After baptism we remain entirely free either to apply that value to anyone we wish or keep it for ourselves. But by this consecration we give ourselves explicitly to Jesus through Mary’s hands and we include in our consecration the value of all our actions.

127.  “Men” says St. Thomas, “vow in baptism to renounce the devil and all his seductions.” “This vow,” says St. Augustine, “is the greatest and the most indispensable of all vows.” Canon Law experts say the same thing: “The vow we make at baptism is the most important of all vows.” But does anyone keep this great vow? Does anyone fulfil the promises of baptism faithfully? Is it not true that nearly all Christians prove unfaithful to the promises made to Jesus in baptism?  Where does this universal failure come from, if not from man’s habitual forgetfulness of the promises and responsibilities of baptism and from the fact that scarcely anyone makes a personal ratification of the contract made with God through his sponsors?

128.  This is so true that the Council of Sens, convened by order of the Emperor Louis the Debonair to remedy the grave disorders of Christendom, came to the conclusion that the main cause of this moral breakdown was man’s forgetfulness of his baptismal obligations and his disregard for them. It could suggest no better way of remedying this great evil than to encourage all Christians to renew the promises and vows of baptism.

129.  The Catechism of the Council of Trent, faithful interpreter of that holy Council, exhorts priests to do the same and to encourage the faithful to remember and hold fast to the belief that they are bound and consecrated as slaves to Jesus, their Redeemer and Lord. “The parish priest shall exhort the faithful never to lose sight of the fact that they are bound in conscience to dedicate and consecrate themselves for ever to their Lord and Redeemer as his slaves.”

130.  Now the Councils, the Fathers of the Church and experience itself, all indicate that the best remedy for the frequent lapses of Christians is to remind them of the responsibilities of their baptism and have them renew the vows they made at that time. Is it not reasonable therefore to do this in our day and in a perfect manner by adopting this devotion with its consecration to our Lord through his Blessed Mother? I say “in a perfect manner”, for in making this consecration to Jesus they are adopting the perfect means of giving themselves to him, which is the most Blessed Virgin Mary.

131.  No one can object that this devotion is novel or of no value. It is not new, since the Councils, the Fathers of the Church, and many authors both past and present, speak of consecration to our Lord or renewal of baptismal vows as something going back to ancient times and recommended to all the faithful. Nor is it valueless, since the chief source of moral disorders and the consequent eternal loss of Christians spring from the forgetfulness of this practice and indifference to it.

132.  Some may object that this devotion makes us powerless to help the souls of our relatives, friends and benefactors, since it requires us to give our Lord, through Mary, the value of our good works, prayers, penances, and alms-giving.

To them I reply:

  (1) It is inconceivable that our friends, relatives and benefactors should suffer any loss because we have dedicated and consecrated ourselves unconditionally to the service of Jesus and Mary; it would be an affront to the power and goodness of Jesus and Mary who will surely come to the aid of our relatives, friends and benefactors whether from our meagre spiritual assets or from other sources.

  (2) This devotion does not prevent us from praying for others, both the living and the dead, even though the application of our good works depends on the will of our Blessed Lady. On the contrary, it will make us pray with even greater confidence. Imagine a rich man, who, wanting to show his esteem for a great prince, gives his entire fortune to him. Would not that man have greater confidence in asking the prince to help one of his friends who needed assistance? Indeed the prince would only be too happy to have such an opportunity of proving his gratitude to one who had sacrificed all that he possessed to enrich him, thereby impoverishing himself to do him honour. The same must be said of our Lord and our Lady. They will never allow themselves to be outdone in gratitude.

133.  Some may say, perhaps, if I give our Lady the full value of my actions to apply it to whom she wills, I may have to suffer a long time in purgatory. This objection, which arises from self-love and from an unawareness of the generosity of God and his holy Mother, refutes itself.

Take a fervent and generous soul who values God’s interests more than his own. He gives God all he has without reserve till he can give no more. He desires only that the glory and the kingdom of Jesus may come through his Mother, and he does all he can to bring this about. Will this generous and unselfish soul, I ask, be punished more in the next world for having been more generous and unselfish than other people? Far from it! For we shall see later that our Lord and his Mother will prove most generous to such a soul with gifts of nature, grace and glory in this life and in the next. (Saint Louis de Montfort, True Devotion to Mary.)

Fatal Flaw?

from In Veritate

On the Fatima Center website, Mr. Ferrara attacked the sedevacantists for what he calls self-contradiction, a “fatal flaw” in their thinking. He first accurately sums up the sedevacantist position:

So, according to sedevacantist thinking, one cannot legitimately recognize yet resist a true Pope because while not every papal magisterial act is infallible, every papal magisterial act is (1) authoritative, (2) binding on consciences, (3) safe to follow, and (4) free from pernicious error. [emphasis added]

He then proceeds to attack this position as containing a contradiction.

What the sedevacantists are really saying, then, is that a Pope who errs in his teaching on a matter of faith and morals, even once, ceases to be Pope (or never was Pope) because every exercise of the papal magisterium must be free from error.

Notice that the word pernicious has disappeared. In leaving this word out, Mr. Ferrara has manifested that he does not understand the whole point of the sedevacantist argument.

We are saying that non-infallible papal magisterium is indeed fallible — obviously — but that if it should err, it cannot teach or command something which is evil or pernicious, that is, something contrary to Catholic doctrine or morals. He cannot teach a doctrine which is contrary to the Church’s teaching, nor can he teach something condemned by the Church. The pope can teach, for example, that the moon is made of green cheese, but he cannot teach that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation. And I challenge the neocons to produce a single point of pontifical magisterium which violates this rule.

This is not a question of infallibility but of indefectibility, which has a much broader object than infallibility. Infallibility has as its object truths which are immutable and irreformable. Indefectibility has as its object not only doctrine but also discipline, in such a way that the Church could never teach or prescribe or command something contrary to Catholic doctrine, impious, evil, or pernicious. While this gift of indefectibility does not preserve the pope from error in his non-infallible teachings — what we call pontifical or authentic magisterium — it nonetheless preserves him and the universal Church in general from requiring that the faithful assent to any pernicious doctrine, or observe any discipline which would be sinful to observe. Pope Gregory XVI taught this very thing in his encyclical Quo graviora of 1833:

Is it possible that the Church, which is the pillar and ground of truth, and which is continually receiving from the Holy Ghost the teaching of all truth, could ordain, grant, or permit what would turn to the detriment of the salvation of souls, to the contempt and harm of a sacrament instituted by Christ? Would it not be the most insolent insanity, as Augustine said, to dispute whether something, which the universal Church does throughout the whole world, should be done or not?

Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Sapientiæ christianæ said:

Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.

Mr. Ferrara is confusing positive infallibility with negative infallibility, a distinction made by theologians. The first is that which pertains to his solemn declarations, such as the Immaculate Conception, which are the object of divine and catholic faith. The second refers to his non-infallible teaching, such as pontifical magisterium, which is not free from error, except in that he cannot require religious assent to doctrinal or moral teaching which would be contrary to Catholic doctrine, or command a discipline which would be sinful to observe.

Anything which falls under the category of pontifical magisterium, that is, non-infallible papal teaching, requires something called religious assent, which, although not being the assent of faith, nonetheless is an assent made out of obedience to the Pontiff as Supreme Teacher. In other words, we cannot blithely “blow it off” because we disagree with it. Furthermore, while these teachings could be erroneous, they cannot contain pernicious error, that is, something sinful to accept or observe.

Pope Pius XI said in his encyclical Casti connubii:

For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as … to imagine … that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

Pope Pius XII said in the encyclical Humani generis:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me.”

I have given these lengthy quotations from the Roman Pontiffs to show that my assertions about the non-infallible magisterium have not been “pulled out of a hat.” Cardinal Franzelin, a very prominent theologian of the nineteenth century, who was the principal theologian at the Vatican Council of 1870, summed it up in this way: “In this sort of declarations [which are not made with the intention of binding infallibly by a definitive sentence], there is not the infallible truth of doctrine, since, in this case, there was not the will to bind; but there is infallible safety of doctrine, by reason of which all Catholics can safely embrace it, and it is not safe, nor can it be free from the violation of due submission toward the supreme Magisterium, that they should refuse to embrace it.” [emphasis added]


Reducing the Catholic Church to a Protestant church. While Mr. Ferrara is of good will, no doubt, and is doing his best to make sense of the present problem of a deviating “magisterium,” what he is proposing is the reduction of the Catholic Church to a Protestant church.

I reiterate: It would be contrary to the very purpose of the founding of the Catholic Church by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the assistance He promised to it, if it were capable, through its universal teachings and practices, to lead souls to hell through pernicious error and/or sinful laws and disciplines.

On the other hand, the Protestants see their preachers and hierarchies as human beings who are not assisted by Christ, but who merely propose to us what they think is true doctrine and sound morals. It is up to the individual to decide if he thinks that their teaching is in conformity with the Scriptures or not. For this reason, there is no unity of faith among the Protestants. It is a dogma-less religion, dogma being the sole domain of the individual. For this reason, despite the variety of their sects, they are all in communion with one another as “Christians.” This means that despite their doctrinal differences, in the end it does not matter, since doctrine is your decision, and not the Church’s. This is the very soul of Protestantism.

By recognizing as the true Catholic hierarchy the Vatican II “popes,” the Recognize-and-Resist people are protestantizing the Catholic Church by treating the hierarchy in the same manner as that of the Protestants. The pope proposes a doctrine, then we see if it is in accordance with Tradition. If not, then we reject it out of hand, but at the same time recognizing the erring pope to be the head of the Church, Vicar of Christ on earth.

The sedevacantist position, on the other hand, insists that if there is a deviation from Catholic doctrine in the teachings and disciplines of a Roman Pontiff, it is an infallible sign — as smoke is of fire —that he does not bear, for whatever reason, the assistance of Christ, and therefore cannot be a true Roman Pontiff. It is an infallible sign since the indefectibility of the Church is a de fide dogma of the Church.

Only this position preserves the nature of the Catholic Church, which is a supernatural organization of which the universally taught and prescribed doctrines and disciplines may and must also be accepted as being safe and conducive to salvation.

Deny this and you destroy the Catholic Church.

The Real and the False Sister Lucy of Fatima: The Scientific Evidence is here!

from Novus Ordo Watch

Not the same person: the real Sr. Lucy, left, vs. the impostor

On Aug. 1, 2018, we published a post announcing that scientific evidence had been gathered for the first time that proves that the woman commonly accepted as Sr. Lucy of Fatima in the past few decades is not in fact the real Sr. Lucy (Lúcia de Jesus Rosa dos Santos) to whom Our Lady appeared at Fatima, Portugal, in 1917, and again at Tuy in 1929.

Yesterday, Mar. 25, the web site Sister Lucy Truth was launched. It publishes all the scientific evidence collected so far. The site can be accessed here:

The evidence presented there includes:

  • facial analysis
  • plastic surgeon report
  • forensic art
  • handwriting analysis
  • dental report
  • ophthalmological analysis (coming soon)

It’s important to understand that the Sister Lucy Truth project — a non-profit organization started by Dr. Peter Chojnowski — is credible. The published evidence comes from professional and accredited experts in their respective fields that stand behind their analyses and judgments with their names and, in some cases, with sworn declarations.

The significance of this can’t be overestimated. We are talking about scientific proof, the kind that can be used in a court of law to prove or disprove someone’s alleged identity. In other words, this cannot be dismissed as some kind of “conspiracy theory” — it is now conspiracy fact, at least as factual as empirical science can be.

On the Sister Lucy Truth site, the following indictment is posted:

Sister Lucy dos Santos of Fatima and the Woman Who Replaced Her

We at Sister Lucy Truth publicly declare that based on the evidence presented here, we have found it to be morally and scientifically certain that the woman portrayed to the world as “Sister Lucy,” from her first public appearance on May 13, 1967 to her death on February 13, 2005, was not the same person as Sister Lucy, Seer of Fatima and Visionary who predicted the Miracle of the Sun on October 13, 1917.

This, one of the greatest frauds in the history of the Church, was discovered through the use of the most sophisticated facial recognition programs available, along with the accumulated testimony of plastic surgeons, orthodontists, forensic artists, private investigators, handwriting analysts, and facial recognition experts. Due to the availability of hundreds of photos of “Sister Lucy” available on the internet and in authoritative biographies, this case of substitution, fraud, and stolen identity has been able to be uncovered and analyzed. Without the judgment of the best and most relevant professionals available, we would not be making this grave accusation and presenting this charge. We will continue to accumulate and post on this site new studies and research concerning this investigation as they are produced and published. All of the names of the relevant experts shall be published along with their professional findings. The truth of the disappearance of the true Sister Lucy and the identity of the imposter who took her place shall be placed before an internationally based private investigator who will investigate and solve the case.

The fraud has been identified and named. We charge the highest officials in the Vatican with conspiracy to perpetuate and conceal the substitution of Sister Lucy dos Santos of Fatima with an as yet unknown Imposter.

(“An Indictment”Sister Lucy Truth, Mar. 25, 2019; all formatting given.)

That there should have been an impostor Sister Lucy is not difficult to fathom if we look at what the Modernists and Masons have accomplished since the death of Pope Pius XII. It is most likely that the true Third Secret of Fatima (perhaps this text?) Our Lady revealed to the children in 1917 announces in some fashion the impending subversion of the Church, the calling of a false ecumenical council, the destruction of the Catholic Mass, and with it all the emergence of the strange new church we call the Novus Ordo Sect. For this reason alone, it would have been of the greatest importance for the anti-Catholic revolutionaries in the Catholic hierarchy to find a way to “deal with” Sr. Lucy of Fatima.

But the most important thing for now is to spread far and wide the scientific fact that “Sister Lucy” is not Sister Lucy. Whatever else may have happened or be the case, the woman who was presented to the world as the true Fatima seer after 1958 is not in fact the same person to whom Our Lady appeared.

The ramifictions of this for the Vatican and the various Fatima apostolates are very significant: for the Vatican, because they are ultimately responsible, and substituting an impostor for the real Sr. Lucy doesn’t happen by accident but is done deliberately. Why the deception? What happened to the real Sr. Lucy, and what is the true identity of the woman who played her role? It is also disastrous for the various Fatima apostolates because so much of their material relies on words and actions of the imposter, who endorsed the Novus Ordo religion and its false popes.

Thus it probably comes as no real surprise that the semi-traditionalists operating the late Rev. Nicholas Gruner’s Fatima Center have shown no interest in discovering the truth about this whatsoever. Clearly, an impostor Sister Lucy is not helpful to their work, as they have relied heavily on the fake seer being the real one. Most notably, the convenient “diabolical disorientation” mantra they used to explain or excuse any theological or spiritual aberration in the Novus Ordo Sect without having to draw the undesirable sedevacantist conclusion, has just gone up in smoke for them, as the origin of that phrase and concept is found in the warnings of the post-1958 impostor Lucy, not the real one.

The Sister Lucy Truth project shows what one person can accomplish in the fight against the false Vatican II Church if only he makes a genuine effort: With prayer for divine assistance, generous alms from other interested parties, a small internet presence, and a lot of courage and persistence, one man, Peter Chojnowski, simply went ahead and collected as many facts as he could and then hired the right firms that can determine with scientific accuracy whether the Sr. Lucy impostor hypothesis is true or false. Now we know it is true, and, armed with credible evidence, the Vatican can now be confronted before all the world.

We encourage all people who have various means and talents to stop wasting time simply browsing web sites or participating in comboxes. Get out and do something effective! There are so many things that could be done and need to be done.

For example: Some Novus Ordo magazines, such as Inside the Vatican, publish letters to the editor with the full names and email addresses of the senders. As many of their readers are quite concerned about what has been happening under Francis, one can simply start emailing these people with information and links about the true state of the Church. Why not subscribe to a magazine like that and begin emailing those people with information taken from, or pointing to, (for example) this web site, True Restoration, or Bp. Sanborn’s blog?

Alternatively: Why not put ads in a local paper to advertise the truth about what has happened to Holy Mother Church to help confused souls? A simple ad that reads: “What has happened to the Catholic Church? Are you wondering why they changed your religion? Get free info packet by calling or writing to ….” could do so much good! Or how about distributing flyers to Novus Ordos as they leave church on Sundays? (Make sure you do not trespass, of course, and observe all local laws and regulations.) Or, if you speak a foreign language, how about starting your own blog and translating some of our articles (permission hereby granted) and putting them up in that other language? (Don’t know how to create a blog? Look it up on YouTube!)

So much can be done if people just start exploring options a bit and quit wasting time doing ineffective things. Look at Dr. Chojnowski. Instead of just speculating about whether or not the post-1958 Sister Lucy is the real Lucy of Fatima and debating it with others in some online forum, he did what he could to find out for sure and prove it, and now the Vatican can be confronted with the embarrassing evidence.

Together, with God’s help, we can accomplish so much. May Our Lady of Fatima intercede for us!

Suspended Magisterium?

from In Veritate

Recently the camp of the Novus Ordo conservatives, or neocons, as they are commonly called, seems to have descended into a panic.

Up to now they have bent over backwards to maintain the principle that Vatican II did not change anything substantial in the Catholic Faith. While they may prefer pre-Vatican II rites and ceremonies, they refuse to call what has come out of Vatican II a new and false religion, as we call it.

Consequently we have seen over the years mostly an ostrich approach to anything that seems to contradict this thesis of theirs.

Continuity of Catholic doctrine, Catholic liturgy, and Catholic disciplines is essential and critical to the Church’s very nature as an organization founded by Christ and assisted by Christ until the end of time. Therefore finding continuity since Vatican II has been the source of a lot of angst among traditionalists of all kinds.

We say that continuity is saved by the categorical rejection of Vatican II and its reforms as the work of Modernist reformers, who have attempted to impose on the Church changes which are lethal to it.

Bergoglio has dismantled little by little, through his outrageous heresies, this neocon model. They are now turning to other “solutions.”

The latest is something that appeared recently in the Internet by Christopher Ferrara, a well known figure in neocon circles. He has proposed the idea of “suspended magisterium” during these times. He states: “The answer lies in what Cardinal Newman described as ‘the suspense of the functions of the Magisterium’ during the Arian crisis, when it seemed almost the entire Church had embraced the Arian heresy.”

Mr. Ferrara imagines that the pope and the entire episcopate stopped teaching Catholic doctrine during the Arian crisis, citing Cardinal Newman who said that the pope and the bishops “said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth.”

According to Cardinal Newman, this went on for sixty years.

It first should be pointed out that Cardinal Newman was a convert from Anglicanism, and that throughout his life was friendly with the Modernists, particularly with the arch-Modernist radical, Baron von Hügel. [1]

Secondly, it is simply not true, historically, that the pope and the entire hierarchy stopped teaching Catholic doctrine. The popes never taught heresy or anything close to it. The bishops who taught heresy were Ari-an bishops, who were intruders appointed not by popes but by emperors. Catholic bishops were deprived of their sees and sent into exile. It is furthermore true that the problem was not universal. The West was not nearly as much affected by the heresy as the East. There are, as well, some fine examples of popes during that fourth-century period who unwaveringly taught Catholic doctrine.

Some bring up the case of Pope Liberius who allegedly signed an ambiguous formula of a council. It is not even certain that he did sign it, but what is certain is that he did not teach it as Catholic doctrine. Consequently the worst that could be said of Liberius is that he fell personally into heresy, but it cannot be asserted that he taught it to the Church. This is a critical point.

Even this fall, however, is doubtful, for upon his return to Rome from exile, he was hailed as a great hero of the Faith. This was the same Rome which refused the emperor’s appointee to replace Liberius, whose name was Felix. The Roman Catholics refused him, not because he was an Arian, but because he was in communion with the Arians. Consequently, they never would have hailed Liberius if he had truly fallen.

All the bishops of the Eighth General Council (Constantinople IV), held in 869 and 870, which condemned the schism of Photius, declared: “For we must not forget the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Thou art Peter, etc.’ This saying has been proved by events, because in the Apostolic Chair the Catholic religion has been preserved immaculate, and holy doctrine ever held.” How could they have said such a thing if there had ever been deviation from Catholic doctrine in the Apostolic See?

Furthermore, Pope Pius VI in 1794 condemned as heretical the following proposition: “In these latter times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ.”

How does one reconcile a “suspension of the magisterium” with this condemnation?

Finally, Cardinal Newman, later in life, himself backed off of the precise interpretation that Mr. Ferrara has given to his words, written in 1859.

The reason why Mr. Ferrara is claiming a “sus-pension of the magisterium” is that Bergoglio’s “magisterium” is obviously not Catholic. The solution? Just ignore it, because we are in a time of sus-pension.

One critic of Mr. Ferrara’s position asked this question: “When will we know that the magisterium is functioning again? Will we receive an email?” The point is well taken. Who is Mr. Ferrara, or any other Catholic for that matter, to decide that the magisterium has been suspended? The neocons attack the sedevacantists for usurping authority in saying that the Roman See is vacant because of heresy. But the sedevacantists can cite a chorus of theologians to support what they say, whereas no one, except Cardinal Newman, has ever said that there has been a stop-page of the teaching Church, and even he retracted that very idea later in life. [2] We have already seen that Pope Pius VI condemned this idea as heretical.


[1] Newman asserted, for example, “freedom from symbols [creeds] and articles [of faith] is abstractedly the highest state of Christian communion”, but was “the peculiar privilege of the primitive Church.” Such a statement is thoroughly modernist, and echoes the thoughts of the arch-Modernist excommunicate Alfred Loisy.

[2] All Catholic theologians (with one exception, which is even doubtful) agree that a heretical pope cannot be a true pope. It is true that they disagree about how he falls from office, but they all agree that papacy and heresy are two radically incompatible things. This concerns fall from office due to personal heresy. These same theologians are silent about a pope’s teaching of heresy, since they regard this as an impossible case.