OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASEJune 17, 2020Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the majority opinion rendered this week by the U.S. Supreme Court on sexual orientation and gender identity:There are many problems with the majority opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch on workplace discrimination, sexual orientation and gender identity, but none is more important than the flawed anthropology upon which the ruling rests. In fact, it is pivotal.“An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions.” This sweeping statement, which will be cited in every lawsuit on this subject, is manifestly false.If a man volunteers to be a Big Brother, working with fatherless boys, and decides to “transition” to a woman, he cannot reasonably be expected to do the job he was hired to do. He deliberately changed the required profile. This should clearly be grounds for termination.The next sentence written by Gorsuch explains his anthropological flaw. “That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” He is wrong again.Take the case just cited. The employee should be terminated not because of his assigned sex—indeed he was hired precisely because he was a man—but because he is no longer capable of offering the kind of paternal counseling that only a man can provide.In other words, it is entirely possible to discriminate against a transgender person without discriminating against his sex, as assigned at birth.Gorsuch concedes, as he must, that sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity are not the same. “We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex.” But he no sooner states the obvious when he falls back on his remarkable claim that to discriminate against a person based on his sexual orientation or gender identity is to discriminate against him on the basis of his sex. As Justice Samuel Alito aptly put it, “repetition of an assertion does not make it so, and the Court’s repeated assertion is demonstrably untrue.”Gorsuch tries hard to persuade by offering several hypothetical examples, all of which Alito seizes upon to great effect. For example, he says that if a female staffer, who was rated a “model employee,” were to bring her same-sex partner to a holiday party, and was subsequently fired because she is a homosexual, it would mean she was treated that way because of her sex, not just her sexual orientation.Alito devastates Gorsuch’s scenario. “This example disproves the Court’s argument because it is perfectly clear that the employer’s motivation in firing the female employee had nothing to do with that employee’s sex. The employer presumably knew that this employee was a woman before she was invited to the fateful party. Yet the employer, far from holding her biological sex against her, rated her a ‘model employee.’ At the party, the employer learned something new, her sexual orientation, and it was this new information that motivated her discharge.”Here is where Gorsuch’s problem lies. Sex is a biological attribute that is not identical to sexual orientation or gender identity. Let’s start with sexual orientation.The sex of a child can be known before he is born. But his sexual orientation cannot. The former requires no volition; the latter does. They are therefore not identical.Being a male or a female is similar to being black or white: sex and race have no inherent normative content. That’s because they are fixed properties and do not speak to behavior, which has moral consequences.The key to understanding the difference between sex and sexual orientation is made plain by the word “orientation.” Sex, or being male or female, is behaviorally neutral; it is not oriented toward anything. Sexual orientation is: it is oriented behaviorally towards either heterosexuality or homosexuality.Notice that Gorsuch does not speak about homosexual persons, but about homosexuality, as being a distinct concept from sex. He is right about that. Homosexuality is a behavioral attribute: it speaks to men having sex with men or women having sex with women. It is therefore not behaviorally neutral. It is normative.Indeed, it is precisely because homosexuality is not identical to sex that virtually all of the world’s great religions, in western and eastern civilization, have passed judgment on its practice, without passing judgment on the sex of the participant. The two concepts are distinct and do not ineluctably bleed into each other, despite what Gorsuch claims.Similarly, gender identity is a behavioral concept that is quite independent of one’s sex. Anatomical surgery and hormone therapy are chosen, unlike one’s sex. They are undertaken because the person elects to change his sex (which he cannot do in any real sense—no one can change his chromosomal makeup). It is done because the person does not like what nature has ordained, therefore making it erroneous to conflate sex with gender identity.Consider the language chosen by Alito and Gorsuch to refer to a newborn’s sex. The terminology is not only different—it explains why their legal reasoning differs.At four different junctures, Alito speaks about an individual’s “sex assigned at birth.” Gorsuch, on six occasions, speaks about an individual “who was identified” as male or female at birth.Gorsuch refuses to employ “assigned at birth” because it would undercut his conviction that sex is a fluid concept. He wants to advance the notion that our sex is a matter of identity, which is a psychological construct, and not a matter of human nature, which of course it is. He is the one conflating sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. This represents his personal conviction and in no way should be treated as if it were a truism.Trying to minimize, if not deny, the existence of human nature necessarily yields bad outcomes, both in terms of law and public policy. Most Americans want separate sports teams and restroom facilities for men and women. They understand basic differences based on sex and do not appreciate elites who say they are wrong. They also understand how unjust and indecent it is for men to compete in women’s sports and shower in women’s locker rooms simply because they believe they are female.It is never helpful when the courts seek to solve problems that barely exist, especially those that touch on the moral order. To cite one example, there are no known cases where a Catholic school has fired a teacher because he happens to be a homosexual. But there are many cases where a homosexual teacher has been fired after it was publicly disclosed—often by the teacher—that he is married to his boyfriend. Activist lawyers will now test the limits of this Supreme Court decision.Gorsuch’s majority opinion, which is based on bad anthropology, makes for bad law and will now make for bad public policy. Had it been a more narrow ruling, tailored to specific instances of workplace discrimination, there would be no tidal wave of lawsuits. But now that the moral order has been further diced and spliced by the courts—thanks to this classic case of judicial overreach—it is a sure bet there will be.
The Supreme Court’s transgender ruling undermines the rule of lawBy Trey Dimsdale, J.D. • June 18, 2020
Bostock v. Clayton County is the first U.S. Supreme Court decision that directly addresses the issue of transgender rights. At issue is the meaning of the word “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, specifically, whether the word “sex” encompasses sexual orientation and gender expression/self-identity. Policy questions aside, the Supreme Court has once again proven an unsettling enthusiasm for enacting laws without Congressional approval or the president’s signature. Led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the majority of the Court ignored canons of statutory interpretation and decades of legislative history in order to read a meaning into the law that was never intended. This decision is celebrated by activists as a victory that they have continuously been denied by the deliberative and democratic legislative process, but it represents a significant blow to authentic diversity, the separation of powers, and the rule of law. What was at stake? The plaintiffs in these cases include a transgender funeral home worker, a homosexual skydiving instructor, and a homosexual government employee. All three lost employment due to their status as homosexual or transgender and sued to recover damages, claiming they were fired because of their “sex.” The Court decided to combine all three cases, and this week the nation learned that lurking beneath the plain meaning of the text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is an expansive definition heretofore undiscovered. Acts of jurisprudential sleight-of-hand like this one are far too common. It is likened to a “pirate ship” sailing under a “textualist flag” in Justice Samuel Alito’s masterful and devastating dissent. Most significant is the case of Harris Funeral Homes, which fired a transgender employee who was hired as a man and who initially wore men’s clothing but later decided to dress and present as a woman. Gorsuch found that in this case the employer’s decision was bound up with the employee’s sex. A man would never be fired for dressing like a man, so a woman could never be fired for dressing like a woman. Any disparity would be impermissible under the law. Gorsuch has assumed, however, a subjective answer to the question, “What is a woman?” Up until very recently, this question has had an obvious and objective answer that would almost certainly be the type of fact ripe to be considered by way of judicial notice, a legal procedure that admits “notorious or well known” facts into evidence. The answer is now a topic for strenuous debate. Obfuscating true diversity This decision contains significant implications for the nation’s democratic self-determination and Americans’ unalienable rights. The Court has pledged that there was never a consideration of religious freedom in this case, so neither the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) nor the exclusive rights of churches to consecrate their own clergy as recognized by the Court in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC is in peril. It is hard, however, to place much stock in this assurance given the ease with which six justices undermined the constitutional order and effectively rewrote the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What remains unclear, however, is how women (as society has traditionally understood the category) will ever enjoy protection against discrimination under this new scheme. A person who is male in all ways other than self-identification is free to compete in women’s sports, seek admission to a battered women’s shelter, or gain access to locker rooms and restrooms that are segregated by biological sex. How can anyone demand to hear women’s voices on corporate boards or see them represented even on the Supreme Court if the only prerequisite to being a woman is a self-declaration completely disconnected from any objective standard? Authentic diversity, which is already difficult to realize, has just become more elusive. The dangers of a “living constitution” The most alarming part of Bostock, however, is not those implications, as serious as they are. The most dangerous aspect of this decision is the precedent for the blatant rewriting of the law. The Constitution vests the legislative power of the United States in the Congress. Legislatures are elected from communities and, more than any other part of the government, they are most responsive to the popular will. Of the available options, it is in the legislature that policy decisions are most fruitful and most authoritative, even if the process itself is flawed and corrupted by special interests and often self-serving politicians. And, as Justice Alito points out in his dissent, there is a long history of Congress indicating time and again that “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to protect people from discrimination on the basis of their biological sex. The relative wisdom of the various answers to the policy question is irrelevant: The law simply does not support the decision in Bostock, especially in light of overwhelming evidence that the rightful promulgators of law have been aware that “sex” does not and has never encompassed sexual orientation or gender self-identity. The Gorsuch majority opinion has ignored the clear separation of powers and claimed even more ground for the courts to shape public life without regard to the democratic process. The U.S. Constitution is the oldest written constitution in the world in large part because it has given the people democratic control over the divided and balanced powers of government. While the constitutional structures of the system have steadily eroded, the system has cultivated a stable society with predictable laws and legal processes. This is the very heart of rule of law, which is dependent upon consistency and clarity. Members of a society must have assurances that the law that they read today will not change in ways that alter their standing before the law, their contracts, the claims to property, and any other right protected or recognized by law. It is decisions like this one that undermine the rule of law by subverting the system that has given rise to it. The consequences of this decision Reckless jurisprudence like that on display in Bostock is often defended, because some argue that it is not the role of the judge to look ahead to the social or legal chaos that may ensue because of a particular ruling. The duty of a court is a duty to the law. It is not a duty to activism nor to innovation. In fact, the judicial branch should be the least innovative branch of government and a safe harbor for consistency and restraint. Six justices of the United States Supreme Court have betrayed that duty this week and, in the process, dealt a significant blow to a system that has—despite its imperfections—provided the space for economic, cultural, and even moral growth. It remains to be seen just how significant the damage will be. (Photo credit: Lorie Shaull. This photo has been cropped and modified for size. CC BY-SA 4.0.)
CNA German edition is reporting moments ago that Pope Benedict XVI has left the Vatican. The reason for his visit is officially to visit his sick brother Georg, who is said to be in a bad state of health.
According to the report, the Pope visited his brother this morning.
In the last seven years since his renunciation of ministry, he has rarely left the Vatican precints, and then only for a visit no further than Castle Gandolfo.
The momentous decision to travel to Germany shows at least the very great love he has for his only surviving sibling.
It is presumed that Pope Benedict XVI is residing in Regensberg in the vicinity of his brother. And, no need to say it, but if the world is still sane, there will be a mob of reporters and photographers descending upon the city as we speak.
It was long suspected that Pope Benedict XVI was motivated to consent to the pressures of the St. Gallen Mafia out of fear for his brother’s safety. If that assertion is correct, we might see the Holy Father begin to say things quite unlike what he was permitted to say or alleged to say from the Vatican.
Dear Relatives, Friends and Loyal Readers of abyssum.org.
As some of you know, I am going to have an operation to replace my right hip.
Because of my age, 97 years, there has been a certain extra amount of caution being manifested by the medical profession. I have been having a series of consultations with my doctors.
I am neutral about whether or not to have the operation although I recognize that my activity, including publishing abysum.org daily is becoming more difficult with each passing week. Therefore I place my trust totally in the will of Our Lord which he will surely reveal to me.
Because of my age and because I have a slight problem with the left ventricle of my heart I suspected that my cardiologist would rule out ether and would favor a spinal block for the anesthetic for the operation.
I had a consultation with my cardiologist yesterday and he ruled out a spinal block because of the the three metal devices my spine surgeon implanted in my spine to cure spinal stenosis which was causing sciatica in my right leg.
So my understanding is that I will be given a light dose of ether; perhaps I will be able to listen in as the doctors perform the operation.
I have my next consultation with the surgeon on June 23 and I will learn more about what he will do after he has reviewed the recommendation of my cardiologist.
I will continue to post on Abyssum up until the day of the operation, if there is going to be an operation. If there is to be an operation there will necessarily be a period of silence on abyssum.org which may last as long as a week (or permanently if it be God’s will).
Your prayers for the success of the surgery will be most appreciated.
Archbishop José Gomez 3424 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90010-2241
Your Excellency:
With all due respect for your attempts to stop the spread of COVID-19, the faithful of the Los Angeles Archdiocese feel betrayed that you allowed state officials to step in and impose a political lockdown of the Church. And while the reopening of the Church is finally in motion, it is loaded with regulation and restrictions that are coming from the state, not from Almighty God. You seem to have forgotten that the Church is not bound to the state, and this would especially apply when the state officials are accomplices to crime.
Certainly you must know that Governor Newsom and Mayor Garcetti were calling for a disbanding of the police for the purpose of encouraging race riots. Newsom told Black protesters last week, “I want you to know that you matter. To those who want to express themselves [riotously]… keep doing it. Your rage is real.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/your-rage-is-real-gavin-newsom-tells-california-protesters/ar-BB14THDJ
According to Newsom, criminals “matter” but the innocent owners of looted shops don’t matter. That a state official should act as a political arsonist to ignite the fire of civil violence testifies to the diabolical depths to which some of our leaders have descended. Are these the people you consult in directing Christ’s Church?
COVID-19 was sprung on us by these very socialists to place society and Church on lockdown, so your duty as bishop is to ignore tyrannical state rulings and to remember your fidelity to God who commands that you listen to Him and not to corrupt state officials that have exaggerated the COVID-19 figures for their own political gains.
The numbers are way over the top. Doctors have testified to how the government has pressured them into lying about COVID-19 death figures. It’s all politically motivated. They deliberately up the number of COVID-19 deaths to justify continuation of their socialist lockdown, which is all the more reason for the Church to ignore these state rulings and recommendations.
Even if the state was just in its recommendations—which it is not—the final decision is with the Church, not the state, since the state cannot impose itself on the Church. The Church is autonomous and is even protected by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Separation of Church and State) that says the state cannot interfere with the Church. Why do you allow the state to bully the Church?
We often praise the martyrs who accepted persecution and death at the hands of pagan leaders because they stood up against these tyrants, but when it’s our turn we suddenly shrink and make excuses for fleeing the cross. You wrote a book about “Men of Brave Heart,” yet you don’t live by it. Stand up against these political wolves and don’t allow them to boss the Church.
And please do not allow Cardinal Mahony to exert any influence in the Church. The consensus among many clerics is that Mahony is running the Archdiocese through you and is acting as an agent of the deep-state to impose these COVID-19 restrictions—something they plan to continue into the future. Certainly you must know that Mahony has a history of abuse, not to mention that he is a gay-rights advocate. Many allege that he is a Freemason. How is it that Mahony is allowed to write, speak, and to function in your Archdiocese?
What is absurd is that receiving in the hand is far more influential in spreading coronavirus than receiving on the tongue, proving all the more that these imposed restrictions have little to do with COVID-19. We’ve become like the hypocrites in Christ’s time, touting our hand-washing and “sanitary” procedures and adopting ridiculous “traditions of men” while the work of God is ignored!
The bottom line is that Communion in the hand is sacrilegious and may never be imposed on the faithful under any circumstances. Canon law forbids that any cleric should deny the faithful their God-given right to receive Communion on the tongue. The enemies of the Church were hoping to use COVID-19 to get Communion in the hand mandated on a permanent basis, so we ask that you stand against this ungodly plan to profane the Eucharist under the guise of “public health and safety.”
Remember, these liberal bureaucrats can only execute their plans through you, so please stand up like a man and lock the state out of the Church. All the fuss about face-masks, social distancing, limited attendance, and receiving in the hand has accomplished nothing more than to turn the Church into something of a police-state. Let’s drop the protocol and open the churches without reserve that the people might be on their knees in reparation for the many sins in the Church that brought this chastisement upon us to begin with.
For COVID-19 has truly been a chastisement for our profanation of the Church through modern practice, especially the practice of receiving Communion in the hand. When chastisements are given by God, we’re supposed to learn by them. Have we learned our lesson or are we continuing like Pharisees to impose sin upon the faithful?
Back in 1976 Fr. Michael Scanlan (former longtime head of U. of Steubenville) gave a prophecy at a national Charismatic Catholic gathering. It was widely publicized at the time and I kept it then and have re-read it often since. His words of what was ahead for faithful Catholics is stunning in its accuracy. Hope you can take a few minutes to hear this message from Dr. Ralph Martin. Video: Father Scanlan’s Prophecy
I read with great interest the essay of His Excellency Athanasius Schneider published on LifeSiteNews on June 1, subsequently translated into Italian by Chiesa e post concilio, entitled There is no divine positive will or natural right to the diversity of religions. His Excellency’s study summarizes, with the clarity that distinguishes the words of those who speak according to Christ, the objections against the presumed legitimacy of the exercise of religious freedom that the Second Vatican Council theorized, contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both.
The merit of His Excellency’s essay lies first of all in its grasp of the causal link between the principles enunciated or implied by Vatican II and their logical consequent effect in the doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary deviations that have arisen and progressively developed to the present day.
The monstrum generated in modernist circles could have at first been misleading, but it has grown and strengthened, so that today it shows itself for what it really is in its subversive and rebellious nature. The creature that was conceived at that time is always the same, and it would be naive to think that its perverse nature could change. Attempts to correct the conciliar excesses – invoking the hermeneutic of continuity – have proven unsuccessful: Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret [Drive nature out with a pitchfork; she will come right back] (Horace, Epist. I,10,24). The Abu Dhabi Declaration – and, as Bishop Schneider rightly observes, its first symptoms in the pantheon of Assisi – “was conceived in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council” as Bergoglio proudly confirms.
This “spirit of the Council” is the license of legitimacy that the innovators oppose to their critics, without realizing that it is precisely confessing that legacy that confirms not only the erroneousness of the present declarations but also the heretical matrix that supposedly justifies them. On closer inspection, never in the history of the Church has a Council presented itself as such a historic event that it was different from any other council: there was never talk of a “spirit of the Council of Nicea” or the “spirit of the Council of Ferrara-Florence,” even less the “spirit of the Council of Trent,” just as we never had a “post-conciliar” era after Lateran IV or Vatican I.
The reason is obvious: those Councils were all, indiscriminately, the expression in unison of the voice of Holy Mother Church, and for this very reason the voice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Significantly, those who maintain the novelty of Vatican II also adhere to the heretical doctrine that places the God of the Old Testament in opposition to the God of the New Testament, as if there could be contradiction between the Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. Evidently this opposition that is almost gnostic or cabbalistic is functional to the legitimization of a new subject that is voluntarily different and opposed to the Catholic Church. Doctrinal errors almost always betray some sort of Trinitarian heresy, and thus it is by returning to the proclamation of Trinitarian dogma that the doctrines that oppose it can be defeated: ut in confessione veræ sempiternæque deitatis, et in Personis proprietas, et in essentia unitas, et in majestate adoretur æqualitas:Professing the true and eternal Divinity, we adore what is proper to each Person, their unity in substance, and their equality in majesty.
Bishop Schneider cites several canons of the Ecumenical Councils that propose, in his opinion, doctrines that today are difficult to accept, such as for example the obligation to distinguish Jews by their clothing, or the ban on Christians serving Muslim or Jewish masters. Among these examples there is also the requirement of the traditio instrumentorum declared by the Council of Florence, which was later corrected by Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis. Bishop Athanasius comments: “One may rightly hope and believe that a future Pope or Ecumenical Council will correct the erroneous statement made” by Vatican II. This appears to me to be an argument that, although made with the best of intentions, undermines the Catholic edifice from its foundation. If in fact we admit that there may be Magisterial acts that, due to a changed sensitivity, are susceptible to abrogation, modification, or different interpretation with the passage of time, we inevitably fall under the condemnation of the Decree Lamentabili, and we end up offering justification to those who, recently, precisely on the basis of that erroneous assumption, declared that the death penalty “does not conform to the Gospel,” and thus amended the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And, by the same principle, in a certain way we could maintain that the words of Blessed Pius IX in Quanta Cura were in some manner corrected by Vatican II, just as His Excellency hopes could happen for Dignitatis Humanae. Among the examples he presents, none of them is in itself gravely erroneous or heretical: the fact that the Council of Florence declared that the traditio instrumentorum was necessary for the validity of Orders did not in any way compromise priestly ministry in the Church, leading her to confer Orders invalidly. Nor does it seem to me that one can affirm that this aspect, however important, led to doctrinal errors on the part of the faithful, something which instead has occurred only with the most recent Council. And when in the course of history various heresies spread, the Church always intervened promptly to condemn them, as happened at the time of the Synod of Pistoia in 1786, which was in some way anticipatory of Vatican II, especially where it abolished Communion outside of Mass, introduced the vernacular tongue, and abolished the prayers of the Canon said submissa voce; but even more so when it theorized about the basis of episcopal collegiality, reducing the primacy of the pope to a mere ministerial function. Re-reading the acts of that Synod leaves us amazed at the literal formulation of the same errors that we find later, in increased form, in the Council presided over by John XXIII and Paul VI. On the other hand, just as the Truth comes from God, so error is fed by and feeds on the Adversary, who hates the Church of Christ and her heart: the Holy Mass and the Most Holy Eucharist.
There comes a moment in our life when, through the disposition of Providence, we are faced with a decisive choice for the future of the Church and for our eternal salvation. I speak of the choice between understanding the error into which practically all of us have fallen, almost always without evil intentions, and wanting to continue to look the other way or justify ourselves.
We have also committed the error, among others, of considering our interlocutors as people who, despite the difference of their ideas and their faith, were still motivated by good intentions and who would be willing to correct their errors if they could open up to our Faith. Together with numerous Council Fathers, we thought of ecumenism as a process, an invitation that calls dissidents to the one Church of Christ, idolaters and pagans to the one True God, and the Jewish people to the promised Messiah. But from the moment it was theorized in the conciliar commissions, ecumenism was configured in a way that was in direct opposition to the doctrine previously expressed by the Magisterium.
We have thought that certain excesses were only an exaggeration of those who allowed themselves to be swept up in enthusiasm for novelty; we sincerely believed that seeing John Paul II surrounded by charmers-healers , buddhist monks, imams, rabbis, protestant pastors and other heretics gave proof of the Church’s ability to summon people together in order to ask God for peace, while the authoritative example of this action initiated a deviant succession of pantheons that were more or less official, even to the point of seeing Bishops carrying the unclean idol of the pachamama on their shoulders, sacrilegiously concealed under the pretext of being a representation of sacred motherhood.
But if the image of an infernal divinity was able to enter into Saint Peter’s, this is part of a crescendo which the other side foresaw from the beginning. Numerous practicing Catholics, and perhaps also a majority of Catholic clergy, are today convinced that the Catholic Faith is no longer necessary for eternal salvation; they believe that the One and Triune God revealed to our fathers is the same as the god of Mohammed. Already twenty years ago we heard this repeated from pulpits and episcopal cathedrae, but recently we hear it being affirmed with emphasis even from the highest Throne.
We know well that, invoking the saying in Scripture Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat [The letter brings death, but the spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6)], the progressives and modernists astutely knew how to hide equivocal expressions in the conciliar texts, which at the time appeared harmless to most but that today are revealed in their subversive value. It is the method employed in the use of the phrase subsistit in: saying a half-truth not so much as not to offend the interlocutor (assuming that is licit to silence the truth of God out of respect for His creature), but with the intention of being able to use the half-error that would be instantly dispelled if the entire truth were proclaimed. Thus “Ecclesia Christi subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica” does not specify the identity of the two, but the subsistence of one in the other and, for consistency, also in other churches: here is the opening to interconfessional celebrations, ecumenical prayers, and the inevitable end of any need for the Church in the order of salvation, in her unicity, and in her missionary nature.
Some may remember that the first ecumenical gatherings were held with the schismatics of the East, and very prudently with other Protestant sects. Apart from Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, in the beginning the countries of Catholic tradition did not welcome mixed celebrations with Protestant pastors and Catholic priests together. I recall that at the time there was talk of removing the penultimate doxology from the Veni Creator so as not to offend the Orthodox, who do not accept the Filioque. Today we hear the surahs of the Koran recited from the pulpits of our churches, we see an idol of wood adored by religious sisters and brothers, we hear Bishops disavow what up until yesterday seemed to us to be the most plausible excuses of so many extremisms. What the world wants, at the instigation of Masonry and its infernal tentacles, is to create a universal religion that is humanitarian and ecumenical, from which the jealous God whom we adore is banished. And if this is what the world wants, any step in the same direction by the Church is an unfortunate choice which will turn against those who believe that they can jeer at God. The hopes of the Tower of Babel cannot be brought back to life by a globalist plan that has as its goal the cancellation of the Catholic Church, in order to replace it with a confederation of idolaters and heretics united by environmentalism and universal brotherhood. There can be no brotherhood except in Christ, and only in Christ: qui non est mecum, contra me est.
It is disconcerting that few people are aware of this race towards the abyss, and that few realize the responsibility of the highest levels of the Church in supporting these anti-Christian ideologies, as if the Church’s leaders want to guarantee that they have a place and a role on the bandwagon of aligned thought. And it is surprising that people persist in not wanting to investigate the root causes of the present crisis, limiting themselves to deploring the present excesses as if they were not the logical and inevitable consequence of a plan orchestrated decades ago. If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae. If we have a liturgy that is Protestantized and at times even paganized, we owe it to the revolutionary action of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and to the post-conciliar reforms. If the Abu Dhabi Declaration was signed, we owe it to Nostra Aetate. If we have come to the point of delegating decisions to the Bishops’ Conferences – even in grave violation of the Concordat, as happened in Italy – we owe it to collegiality, and to its updated version, synodality. Thanks to synodality, we found ourselves with Amoris Laetitia having to look for a way to prevent what was obvious to everyone from appearing: that this document, prepared by an impressive organizational machine, intended to legitimize Communion for the divorced and cohabiting, just as Querida Amazonia will be used to legitimize women priests (as in the recent case of an “episcopal vicaress” in Freiburg) and the abolition of Sacred Celibacy. The Prelates who sent the Dubia to Francis, in my opinion, demonstrated the same pious ingenuousness: thinking that Bergoglio, when confronted with the reasonably argued contestation of the error, would understand, correct the heterodox points, and ask for forgiveness.
The Council was used to legitimize the most aberrant doctrinal deviations, the most daring liturgical innovations, and the most unscrupulous abuses, all while Authority remained silent. This Council was so exalted that it was presented as the only legitimate reference for Catholics, clergy, and bishops, obscuring and connoting with a sense of contempt the doctrine that the Church had always authoritatively taught, and prohibiting the perennial liturgy that for millennia had nourished the faith of an uninterrupted line of faithful, martyrs, and saints. Among other things, this Council has proven to be the only one that has caused so many interpretative problems and so many contradictions with respect to the preceding Magisterium, while there is not one other council – from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican I – that does not harmonize perfectly with the entire Magisterium or that needs so much interpretation.
I confess it with serenity and without controversy: I was one of the many people who, despite many perplexities and fears which today have proven to be absolutely legitimate, trusted the authority of the Hierarchy with unconditional obedience. In reality, I think that many people, including myself, did not initially consider the possibility that there could be a conflict between obedience to an order of the Hierarchy and fidelity to the Church herself. What made tangible this unnatural, indeed I would even say perverse, separation between the Hierarchy and the Church, between obedience and fidelity, was certainly this most recent Pontificate.
In the Room of Tears adjacent to the Sistine Chapel, while Msgr. Guido Marini prepared the white rocchetto, mozzetta, and stole for the first appearance of the “newly elected” Pope, Bergoglio exclaimed: “Sono finite le carnevalate! [The carnivals are over!],” scornfully refusing the insignia that all the Popes up until then had humbly accepted as the distinguishing garb of the Vicar of Christ. But those words contained truth, even if it was spoken involuntarily: on March 13, 2013, the mask fell from the conspirators, who were finally free of the inconvenient presence of Benedict XVI and brazenly proud of having finally succeeded in promoting a Cardinal who embodied their ideals, their way of revolutionizing the Church, of making doctrine malleable, morals adaptable, liturgy adulterable, and discipline disposable. And all this was considered, by the protagonists of the conspiracy themselves, the logical consequence and obvious application of Vatican II, which according to them had been weakened by the critiques expressed by Benedict XVI. The greatest affront of that Pontificate was the liberal permission of the celebration of the venerated Tridentine Liturgy, the legitimacy of which was finally recognized, disproving fifty years of its illegitimate ostracization. It is no accident that Bergoglio’s supporters are the same people who saw the Council as the first event of a new church, prior to which there was an old religion with an old liturgy.
It is no accident: what these men affirm with impunity, scandalizing moderates, is what Catholics also believe, namely: that despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by Our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal religion that was first theorized by Masonry. Expressions like new humanism, universal fraternity, dignity of man, are the watchwords of philanthropic humanitarianism which denies the true God, of horizontal solidarity of vague spiritualist inspiration and of ecumenical irenism that the Church unequivocally condemns. “Nam et loquela tua manifestum te facit [Even your speech gives you away]” (Mt 26, 73): this very frequent, even obsessive recourse to the same vocabulary of the enemy betrays adherence to the ideology he inspires; while on the other hand the systematic renunciation of the clear, unequivocal and crystalline language of the Church confirms the desire to detach itself not only from the Catholic form but even from its substance.
What we have for years heard enunciated, vaguely and without clear connotations, from the highest Throne, we then find elaborated in a true and proper manifesto in the supporters of the present Pontificate: the democratization of the Church, no longer through the collegiality invented by Vatican II but by the synodal path inaugurated by the Synod on the Family; the demolition of the ministerial priesthood through its weakening with exceptions to ecclesiastical celibacy and the introduction of feminine figures with quasi-sacerdotal duties; the silent passage from ecumenism directed towards separated brethren to a form of pan-ecumenism that reduces the Truth of the One Triune God to the level of idolatries and the most infernal superstitions; the acceptance of an interreligious dialogue that presupposes religious relativism and excludes missionary proclamation; the demythologization of the Papacy, pursued by Bergoglio as a theme of his pontificate; the progressive legitimization of all that is politically correct: gender theory, sodomy, homosexual marriage, Malthusian doctrines, ecologism, immigrationism… If we do not recognize that the roots of these deviations are found in the principles laid down by the Council, it will be impossible to find a cure: if our diagnosis persists, against all the evidence, in excluding the initial pathology, we cannot prescribe a suitable therapy.
This operation of intellectual honesty requires a great humility, first of all in recognizing that for decades we have been led into error, in good faith, by people who, established in authority, have not known how to watch over and guard the flock of Christ: some for the sake of living quietly, some because of having too many commitments, some out of convenience, and finally some in bad faith or even malicious intent. These last ones who have betrayed the Church must be identified, taken aside, invited to amend and, if they do not repent they must be expelled from the sacred enclosure. This is how a true Shepherd acts, who has the well-being of the sheep at heart and who gives his life for them; we have had and still have far too many mercenaries, for whom the consent of the enemies of Christ is more important than fidelity to his Spouse.
Just as I honestly and serenely obeyed questionable orders sixty years ago, believing that they represented the loving voice of the Church, so today with equal serenity and honesty I recognize that I have been deceived. Being coherent today by persevering in error would represent a wretched choice and would make me an accomplice in this fraud. Claiming a clarity of judgment from the beginning would not be honest: we all knew that the Council would be more or less a revolution, but we could not have imagined that it would prove to be so devastating, even for the work of those who should have prevented it. And if up until Benedict XVI we could still imagine that the coup d’état of Vatican II (which Cardinal Suenens called “the 1789 of the Church”) had experienced a slowdown, in these last few years even the most ingenuous among us have understood that silence for fear of causing a schism, the effort to repair papal documents in a Catholic sense in order to remedy their intended ambiguity, the appeals and dubia made to Francis that remained eloquently unanswered, are all a confirmation of the situation of the most serious apostasy to which the highest levels of the Hierarchy are exposed, while the Christian people and the clergy feel hopelessly abandoned and that they are regarded by the bishops almost with annoyance.
The Abu Dhabi Declaration is the ideological manifesto of an idea of peace and cooperation between religions that could have some possibility of being tolerated if it came from pagans who are deprived of the light of Faith and the fire of Charity. But whoever has the grace of being a Child of God in virtue of Holy Baptism should be horrified at the idea of being able to construct a blasphemous modern version of the Tower of Babel, seeking to bring together the one true Church of Christ, heir to the promises made to the Chosen People, with those who deny the Messiah and with those who consider the very idea of a Triune God to be blasphemous. The love of God knows no measure and does not tolerate compromises, otherwise it simply is not Charity, without which it is not possible to remain in Him: qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo [whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him] (1 Jn 4:16). It matters little whether it is a declaration or a Magisterial document: we know well that the subversive mens of the innovators plays games with these sort of quibbles in order to spread error. And we know well that the purpose of these ecumenical and interreligious initiatives is not to convert those who are far from the one Church to Christ, but to divert and corrupt those who still hold the Catholic Faith, leading them to believe that it is desirable to have a great universal religion that brings together the three great Abrahamic religions “in a single house”: this is the triumph of the Masonic plan in preparation for the kingdom of the Antichrist! Whether this materializes through a dogmatic Bull, a declaration, or an interview with Scalfari in La Repubblica matters little, because Bergoglio’s supporters wait for his words as a signal to which they respond with a series of initiatives that have already been prepared and organized for some time. And if Bergoglio does not follow the directions he has received, ranks of theologians and clergy are ready to lament over the “solitude of Pope Francis” as a premise for his resignation (I think for example of Massimo Faggioli in one of his recent essays). On the other hand, it would not be the first time that they use the Pope when he goes along with their plans and get rid of him or attack him as soon as he does not.
Last Sunday, the Church celebrated the Most Holy Trinity, and in the Breviary it offers us the recitation of the Symbolum Athanasianum, now outlawed by the conciliar liturgy and already reduced to only two occasions in the liturgical reform of 1962. The first words of that now-disappeared Symbolum remain inscribed in letters of gold: “Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est ut teneat Catholicam fidem; quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit – Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith; For unless a person shall have kept this faith whole and inviolate, without doubt he shall eternally perish.”
I feel compelled to say something after seeing, in recent days, some of the things that have been posted about pro-life, racism, the death penalty, etc. Please don’t quote Pope Francis to me, or any other prelate for that matter. I know exactly what they have said, and though much of it is well intentioned (let’s give the benefit of the doubt) in relationship to a number of “life” issues, much of it is also very misleading.
First off, there is NO moral equivalency between the deaths of 60 million INNOCENT babies, the overwhelming majority of whom are minority babies, and the 1518 people on death row who have been executed since 1976, close to the time when abortion was legalized in this country. 60 million vs. 1518. Of those on death row, and executed in this period of time, 8.5% were Hispanic, 34.1% were black, 55.8% were White, and 1.6% were other. That equals 847 Whites, 517 Blacks, 129 Hispanics and 25 others. Certain states seem to have some clear issues with race bias. But the overall national average is as stated. The race of the victims is surprising as well. 76% of the victims were White, 15% Black, 7% Hispanic and 2% other. Think about that for a bit.
Now think about the numbers for abortion, because pro-lifers are fighting racism more deeply than almost any other group out there, unless you don’t think the slaughter of black babies in the womb is racist enough to qualify. More black lives are lost through abortion than all other causes of death combined. By far, the highest percentage of aborted babies are Black and then Hispanic and then White. Yes, all these issues are of one piece. But opposition to pro-lifers on the basis of a perceived obsession that ignores race, is a master lie that comes from the pits of hell, and is easily recognized by sane minds sanctified in the Truth. If you can’t see it then you need to examine your own conscience!
Look at the evidence:
Over 50 million abortions have taken place in the US since 1973.[xvii]
In the US, less than 1 percent of abortions occur because of rape or incest.[xviii]
More African American babies have been killed by abortions since 1973 than the total number of African American deaths from AIDS, violent crimes, accidents, cancer and heart disease combined. Approximate number of African American deaths since 1973:
Abortion: 13+ Million
Heart Disease: 2.26 Million
Cancer: 1.64 Million
Accidents: 307,723
Violent Crimes: 306,313
AIDS: 203,649 [xix]
Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population in the US by over 25%.[xx]
In the US, over 90% Down Syndrome babies are aborted.[xxi] (Who cares about the discrimination going on here?)
The abortion industry in America each year in the U.S. brings in approximately $831 million through their abortion services alone.[xxii]
In the world, a baby in the womb dies every 2 seconds. Every time your heart beats, a baby dies. (Info taken from Lifeinstitute.net)
I, emphatically reject the suggestion that anyone who is pro-life, anti-abortion, is obsessed with one issue and unconcerned about the other life issues. It is utter nonsense! It is simply a repetition of an old, and false narrative and it is distressing to see anyone in leadership parrot such nonsense. Such labeling and generalizations betray very real bias of another sort which has dark origins, very dark indeed! While I don’t support the death penalty, I cannot expend the bulk of my energy on it as an issue when millions are perishing on another front, and future generations are being wiped out. So, Please don’t tell me you can vote for a pro-abort politician because at least they are anti death penalty. There is absolutely no equal comparison here.
Let’s use a different analogy to make the point crystal clear. We’re in a war. A fierce, bloody, ugly, smoke from hell war against life. JPII said life is always at the center of the battle between good and evil. And where are the front lines today? The front lines always are found where there is direct engagement with the enemy and the loss of life is higher than anywhere else. There is no General or Commander in the history of the World who ever believed you could win a war by staying away from the front lines and fighting the small battles behind the lines where the enemy may have infiltrated in small numbers. The seamless garment argument (you must attack all issues, and especially the lesser ones at once, or you are not really pro life and shouldn’t therefore do anything) is an example of this kind of appalling thinking and impotent strategy that believes you can win the war without ever going to the frontlines where all the power of the enemy is wreaking the most destruction and will continue to do so unless someone feels an urgency to stop it.
Enemies do not magically go away. They conquer completely in the end, if you don’t fight back and fight back where the war is especially fierce. It is ludicrous to think anyone could consider this a legitimate strategy in warfare and no one who wanted to win a war would appoint that kind of commander.
Is racism a problem? Perhaps. But, it is not what it was in the past. Progress has been made. Don’t take my word for it. Read Shelby Steele, and Thomas Sowell, or listen to some of the other Black Leaders out there who read what’s really going on and are trying to get your attention in order to help you think beyond the sound bites and manipulated media clips that pull your strings just as really as if you were puppets! I, for one, reject the notion that I am racist simply because I’m white. And I reject the notion that all cops are bad because one did something horrific. Identity politics leads to the insanity we are currently seeing. Stop playing their game. You are being played.
If you are a student of history, you will recognize the same tactics used in igniting the French Revolution and the rivers of blood and destruction and desecration that followed. Outsiders came in to stir up the people against law and order, and to incite them to riot. Many, many, many lies were told for that purpose. And people believed them without thinking twice.
My own theory is that the emphasis upon the smaller battles and the discrediting of those who have the courage to fight on the frontlines when it comes to abortion, comes from cowardice and a convicted conscience. We have a nation, and particularly a Church, of deserters, deserters in the battle for life on the frontlines which should have been taken back decades ago! And we have, and will pay a price that is immeasurable. The consequences of our sin will recoil back on us, and have already begun to do so. When it gets worse, and it will, remember why! We let the enemy win!
Dear friends and enemies fo Stilum Curiae, Giuseppe Pellegrino has translated a very interesting article by Andrea Cionci, from the Italian daily Libero on the renunciation of Joseph Ratzinger. Andrea Cionci is a Art Historian, and writes about History, Archeology and Religion. He has reported from Lebanon adn Aghanistan. You will find first the English text, and then the Italian original article. Enjoy your reading.
§§§
The “Resignation” Was Intentionally Written Badly by Ratzinger to Break the Bank
A Latinist friar explains the true meaning of the Latin text that has been falsified by the Vatican
For the past few days there has been discussion on the internet about the critique made of Benedict XVI’s resignation from the papacy by an Italian-American Franciscan Latinist who is an expert in Scholastic texts and in canonical argumentation about the papal resignation. Brother Alexis Bugnolo, who has translated over 9000 pages of Saint Bonaventure from the original Latin and has a mastery of the Church’s language as few others, was interviewed on YouTube by Decimo Toro.
Through an attentive reading of the text of Benedict XVI’s Declaratio of resignation, following a thread of logic, canon law, and the meaning of the original Latin, Brother Bugnolo maintains that the text was written by Benedict, with extreme skill and subtlety, intending that it would eventually be discovered to be invalid. By so doing, Ratzinger permitted the “Saint Gallen Mafia,” the Masonic-progressive ecclesiastical lobby that forced him to abdicate, to take power hastily and so reveal itself. Benedict resigned in such a way that all of the acts, appointments, and changes in doctrine done by the “false church” can eventually be swept away in one fell swoop precisely because of the invalidity of his resignation from the papacy.
For this reason, according to Brother Bugnolo, the Vatican has deliberately falsified the translations of Benedict’s Latin Declaratio, attempting to remedy his intentional flaws in the original text, but in fact thus demonstrating further malice. Forty years ago, John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger already knew, thanks to the Third Secret of Fatima, that the gay-Masonic lobby of clergy would attempt to seize power, and for this reason they changed the Code of Canon Law in time, setting up an emergency system to “break the bank” in case of usurpation. This, in essence, is Bugnolo’s thesis.
In order to prevent accusations that his reconstruction of events is a conspiracy theory, Brother Alexis cites only the documents from the Vatican website that we have attached below. All of them may be checked at the Vatican website.
It is quite clear that the text of Benedict’s Declaratio contains a number of huge grammatical errors, which were already noted in 2013 by eminent classicists such as Luciano Canfora and Wilfried Stroh. The lack of the majestic plural “nos” which is always used in official documents is already surprising, but Brother Bugnolo, who has translated more than 9000 pages of Saint Bonaventure, has identified forty other linguistic imperfections: verbs that are wrongly declined, “decisionem” being used in place of the correct “consilium,” “vobis” in place of “vobiscum,” the erroneous use of “explorata” to say “investigated,” etc. The complete list may be seen here.
But the biggest problem is the construction of Ratzinger’s text that renders the papal resignation invalid. Since it was reformed by John Paul II and Ratzinger in 1983, the Code of Canon Law requires the resignation of the “munus petrino” – the office, the charge of the papacy that comes from God and from Saint Peter. (Previously, the pope only had to say “renuntio” – “I resign” – and the 1983 modification to the requirement was probably added in order to reinforce possible future papal abdications).
In his Declaratio, Ratzinger writes that his strength, due to advancing age, “is no longer suitable for adequately exercising the munus petrino.” However, he does not say at all that he is renouncing it, but rather, “well aware of the gravity of this act,I declare to renounce the ministry[that is, the exercise] of Bishop of Rome – [declaro me MINISTERIO Episcopi Romae…renuntiare]. Thus at the beginning of the Declaratio he cites the munus in a generic way, but then he formally declares to renounce only the ministerium, which according to many experts is completely useless for the validity of the act. It would be as if a king who was abdicating would say that he is renouncing the exercise of his power without renouncing the throne he obtained by divine right.
Among other things, Ratzinger does not even write “renuntio” but rather “declaro renuntiare,” which does not imply that his resignation is sincere, just as “declaring to love” does not necessarily correspond to “love.” Supposing that Benedict was subjected to pressure – faced with a choice, for example, of either resigning or having the Vatican go bankrupt (on this, refer to the well-known affair of the Vatican SWIFTcode being cancelled and the blocking of Vatican bank accounts that occurred in the weeks preceding the resignation in 2013) – he could have freely chosen to “declare to resign” – which is much different than saying “I freely resign.”
Another question raised by Bugnolo: Why did Ratzinger write that the See would be vacant after 18 days? The act of resignation should render the See vacant either from the moment of either the death or the act of resignation of the pope.
The argument over the word “munus” is not new, and it has been amply addressed by Vittorio Messori, Antonio Socci, and other authoritative Vaticanists. But now Brother Alexis, for the first time, has divulged that in all of the translations of the Declaratio (on the Vatican web site), the word munus is also translated as “ministry,” thus bringing together into one meaning two prerogatives that canon law clearly distinguishes. Brother Bugnolo explains: “Who authorized these translations? Munus should be perfectly translatable into all languages. This is the proof that the Vatican has attempted to annul the fundamental distinction that Pope Benedict, in his recent book-interview “Ein Leben,” has only newly restated, declaring that he still retains the “spiritual office” (spirituelle Zuordnung) having renounced the concrete exercise (konkrete Vollmacht). He is still the reigning pontiff and he continues to wear the white robe, to give the Apostolic Blessing and sign his name P.P., Pontifex Pontificum, the title that belongs to the reigning pope.” (It should be recalled that the only explanation given by Ratzinger for having maintained the white papal robe was that “there were no black robes in his wardrobe.”)
In 2016, Msgr. Giuseppe Sciacca, Bishop-Secretary of the Apostolic Signatura, responded to the argments over munus in an extremely technical article that was completely incomprehensible to non-experts. “Like a clever lawyer,” Brother Bugnolo says, “Sciacca says, correctly, that the power cannot be divided between two popes, but he takes the validity of the resignation for granted and then he avoids the real question. He then says that renouncing the ministerium automatically included renouncing the munus, but in fact this is not true, because Benedict could have easily named a Vicar to manage the ministerium while maintaining his own office, the munus, which is also essential for theological and dogmatic questions, not only for canonical ones, inasmuch as it comes directly from God.”
Then there are other very strange anomalies in the translations published by the Vatican: “I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, IN SUCH A WAY, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant.” As Brother Bugnolo specifies, “In such a way” is written by Ratzinger in Latin as “ut” which however ought to be translated as “SO THAT.” In contrast, IN SUCH A WAY would properly be rendered in Latin as “quomodo.”
These are two very different things: “in such a way” presupposes the absolute legal automatism of an act-consequence relationship. In contrast, “so that” can also reveal a hidden intention or a desired effect that is generated on purpose. It is the difference between an external and natural “way” as compared to a subjective “end.”
For example, it is not correct to say: “I put the bait in the trap in such a way that the mouse may be captured,” because it is not a given that the mouse will fall for the deception. Rather, it must be said: “I put the bait in the trap so that the mouse may be captured.”
Let’s imagine for a moment that Benedict was actually forced to abdicate: he writes therefore that “he declares to resign” his “ministry” “SO THAT” the see may be vacant…thus perhaps also through the action of the usurpers. If he had actually written “in such a way” it would have implicitly admitted the validity of his resignation. But in fact, he did not.
Here is another anomaly: Why does Benedict write that the new conclave will have to be convoked “BY THOSE WHOSE COMPETENCE IT IS” and not “by you cardinals”? It sounds like a delegitimization, since it would obviously be the cardinals to whom he was speaking who would have to form the conclave. It is as if the president of the Senate, speaking about a future president of the Republic, would say that he “will have to be elected by those whose competence it is” and not, as is obvious, “by you ministers of parliament.”
Furthermore, Ratzinger does not specify the PRECISE DATE of the new, true conclave for the election of the Pontiff. He says only that it will have to be convoked AFTER THE SEE WILL BE VACANT, which is, really, the moment after his death. This is why the valid election of the new Pontiff would be, in that case, the competence only of SOME CARDINALS, the ones appointed prior to the coming of Bergoglio who are disposed to recognize the “coup” that happened. In fact the cardinals appointed by Bergoglio would not be legally valid, because they came from an invalid pope, because the resignation was invalid. In the event that many more years pass and the “legitimate” cardinals created by Benedict or John Paul II are no longer alive or active, the new Pontiff would have to be chosen by the Roman Church, as in ancient times. Seen in this light, this is why a new conclave would have to be convoked “by those whose competence it is” and not by the cardinals he is addressing. The logic is faultless.
Is this political fiction? Or is it a Declaratio that, while appearing to be botched, reveals itself to be, if read in the right way, a document of unbreakable “Ratzingerian” coherence?
Brother Bugnolo is certain: the errors in the Latin were purposely intended by Ratzinger in order to draw attention to the invalidity of the document and so that, when it was attentively read, the truth would emerge when the time was ripe. The same opinion is held by the Viennese lawyer Arthur H. Lambauer, a noted expert in international law, who had already noted the anomalies in 2013: “I believe that Benedict made mistakes on purpose in order to render his successor invalid, in such a way he would not create anything irrevocable (homosexual marriage, female diaconate, etc.) and so that, if necessary, the successor could be swept away.”
Above all, there is one objective and incontestable fact: in those strange 18 days that passed from the “resignation” to the vacant see (which, as a rule, should start from the resignation) no one was able to or wanted to correct the Declaratiowritten so “badly” by Benedict. Why? And yet it is the specific competence of the cardinals to correct the pope in a caring and filial way, if he is in error. “This demonstrates,” Brother Bugnolo maintains, “that the cardinals were disloyal and blinded in their haste to take power, while other officials of the Apostolic Secretariat, who certainly could not have failed to notice certain errors, were “accomplices” of Benedict who were well aware of the trick, and they remained silent so that one day “the bomb would go off.” In both cases, a usurpation is revealed.”
Let’s consider some objections: “Perhaps Ratzinger does not know Latin well enough or he was already too old to write it well.” It is difficult to believe that the German theologian, who was for fourteen years the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who is the author of outstanding writings in Latin, would not know how to master this text. Moreover, the pope is surrounded by excellent Latinists who would have been able to assist him. In February 2013 he was lucid enough to be able to give a spontaneous discourse for 58 minutes. “In any case,” Brother Alexis responds, “the invalidity would remain, because resignation requires not only full mental lucidity but also absolute awareness of canon law.”
Another possible objection is: “Perhaps someone else who does not know Latin well wrote it.” But if the document came from a coercer or a counterfeiter, why would they construct it in such a way that it would be canonically invalid?
A final possible criticism: “Benedict XVI would never deceive anyone.” In fact, Pope Benedict did not deceive anyone, he only wrote a resignation of the ministerium. According to Brother Bugnolo, there are others who have not wanted look at what was actually written and at how Benedict has comported himself since 2013. Thus, they deceived themselves out of their greed for power.
At the first reading, all of this leaves you dazed: it seems absurd, but terribly coherent. In this case, there is no point in launching the usual charge of dismissing it all as a “conspiracy theory” because there are facts here that deserve an explanation that is EQUALLY logical and coherent.
In the secular world, an inheritance can be legally challenged for far less, and yet the question of the validity of the resignation of a pope from the throne of Peter was thought to be all wrapped up very quickly, indeed perhaps too quickly. What happens next? Brother Bugnolo’s arguments are based on the evidence and also provide a motive that explains them. Perhaps they will simply be ignored and derided, or else their author will probably begin to undergo a series of attacks ad personam. We will see what happens.
Non solum propter tres canonizationes ad hoc Consistorium vos convocavi, sed etiam ut vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita communicem. Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad MUNUS Petrinum aeque administrandum.
Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis rapidis mutationibus subiecto et quaestionibus magni ponderis pro vita fidei perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae necessarius est, qui ultimis mensibus in me modo tali minuitur, ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam. Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me MINISTERIO Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.
Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis pro omni amore et labore, quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis. Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim.
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine MINISTRY.
I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the MINISTRY entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
§§§
Da qualche giorno, circolano in rete le denunce di un francescano italoamericano, latinista, esperto in Scolastica e in argomentazioni canoniche sulla rinuncia papale, che, intervistato dallo youtuber Decimo Toro, sta diffondendo i contenuti esplosivi del suo sito http://www.fromrome.info. Frà Alexis Bugnolo, questo il suo nome, ha tradotto oltre 9000 pagine latine da San Bonaventura e padroneggia la lingua della Chiesa come pochi.
Il frate, leggendo attentamente la Declaratio di rinuncia di Benedetto XVI, seguendo un filo rosso fra logica, diritto canonico e lingua latina, ritiene che sia stata da lui scritta, con estrema abilità e sottigliezza, appositamente perché nel tempo venisse scoperta invalida. In questo modo, Ratzinger ha permesso alla “Mafia di San Gallo”, la lobby massonico-progressista ecclesiastica che lo aveva costretto ad abdicare, di prendere frettolosamente il potere e di svelarsi. Benedetto ha fatto così in modo che tutti gli atti, le nomine e i cambiamenti nella dottrina operati dalla “falsa chiesa” possano essere spazzati via in un sol colpo proprio per l’invalidità della sua rinuncia al papato. Per questo il Vaticano– secondo frà Bugnolo – ha deliberatamente falsificato, nelle traduzioni in lingua straniera, la Declaratio latina di Benedetto, tentando di porre rimedio alle sue falle intenzionali, ma dimostrando, così, ulteriore dolo. Quarant’anni fa, Giovanni Paolo II e l’allora card. Ratzinger sapevano già, dal terzo Segreto di Fatima, che le lobby gay-massoniche del clero avrebbero tentato di prendere il potere, per questo avevano cambiato per tempo il Codice di diritto canonico predisponendo un sistema di emergenza per far saltare il banco in caso di usurpazione.
Questa la tesi. Per prevenire le accuse di complottismo alla sua ricostruzione, frate Alexis cita solo i documenti dal sito del Vaticano che copiamo-incolliamo di seguito. Tutti possono controllare con un clic su http://www.vatican.va.
E’ del tutto assodato che nel testo della Declaratio di Benedetto sono contenuti alcuni grossolani errori grammaticali, notati già nel 2013 da eminenti classicisti come Luciano Canfora e Wilfried Stroh. Se già stupisce la mancanza del plurale maiestatico usato nei documenti ufficiali, frà Bugnolo, già traduttore di oltre 9000 pagine di San Bonaventura, ha però notato una quarantina di altre imperfezioni linguistiche: verbi declinati male, “decisionem” al posto del corretto “consilium”, “vobis” al posto di “vobiscum”, l’uso erroneo di “explorata” per dire “indagata”, etc. Per l’elenco completo: https://fromrome.info/2020/06/10/clamorous-errors-in-the-latin-of-the-renunciation-2/
Ma il grosso problema è la costruzione del testo di Ratzinger che renderebbe invalida la rinuncia al papato. A partire dal 1983, infatti, il Diritto canonico esige la rinuncia al “MUNUS petrino”, ovvero all’ufficio, alla carica del Pontefice che deriva da Dio e da San Pietro. (Prima, al papa bastava solamente dire “rinuncio” e tale modifica fu aggiunta probabilmente per blindare eventuali future abdicazioni papali).
Ratzinger scrive nella Declaratio che le sue forze, a causa dell’età, “non sono più adatte per esercitare in modo adeguato il MUNUS petrino”. Tuttavia, non scrive affatto di rinunciarvi, ma piuttosto: “ben consapevole della gravità di questo atto, DICHIARO DI RINUNCIARE AL “MINISTERO” (cioè all’esercizio) di Vescovo di Roma”. All’inizio, quindi, cita il Munus in modo generico, ma formalmente poi dichiara di rinunciare solo al Ministerium, a detta di molti, del tutto inutile per la validità dell’atto. Come se un re, abdicando, dicesse di rinunciare a esercitare il potere pratico senza rinunciare al trono ottenuto per diritto divino.
Tra l’altro, Ratzinger non scrive nemmeno “rinuncio”, bensì “dichiaro di rinunciare”, il che non implica che la sua rinuncia sia sincera, così come “dichiarare di amare”, non corrisponde per forza ad “amare”. Ipotizzando che Benedetto sia stato sottoposto a pressioni, posto di fronte a una scelta, ad esempio fra le dimissioni e la bancarotta vaticana (per questo si rimandi alla nota vicenda del codice swift e del blocco dei conti bancari vaticani) egli potrebbe aver LIBERAMENTE SCELTO DI “DICHIARARE DI RINUNCIARE”. Una cosa molto diversa dal dire “liberamente rinuncio”.
Altro interrogativo sollevato da Bugnolo: perché Ratzinger scrive che la sede sarà vacante dopo 18 giorni? Eppure la rinuncia dovrebbe rendere la sede vacante fin dalla morte o dall’atto di rinuncia del papa.
La polemica sul Munus non è nuova e se ne sono occupati ampiamente Vittorio Messori, Antonio Socci e autorevoli vaticanisti, ma Frà Alexis, per primo, ha divulgato che, in tutte le traduzioni della Declaratio (sul sito vaticano), anche il Munus viene tradotto con “ministero”, accorpando quindi in un unico significato due prerogative che il diritto canonico ha ben distinto. Spiega frà Bugnolo: “Chi li ha autorizzati? Munus sarebbe perfettamente traducibile in tutte le lingue. Questa è la prova che il Vaticano ha tentato di annullare la fondamentale distinzione che papa Benedetto, nella sua recente intervista “Ein Leben”, ha pure nuovamente ribadito dichiarando come tuttora egli mantenga per sé l’”incarico spirituale”(spirituelle Zuordnung) avendo rinunciato all’esercizio concreto (konkrete Vollmacht). E’ ancora il papa regnante e infatti continua a indossare la veste bianca, a impartire la benedizione apostolica e a firmarsi P.P., Pontifex Pontificum, titolo che spetta al papa regnante”. (Va ricordato che l’unica spiegazione fornita da Ratzinger per aver mantenuto la veste bianca fu che non “aveva vesti nere nel suo armadio”).
Alla querelle sul Munus aveva risposto nel 2016, in un articolo estremamente tecnico, del tutto incomprensibile per i non addetti ai lavori, Mons. Giuseppe Sciacca, vescovo e segretario della Segnatura apostolica. “Come un furbo avvocato – dice frà Bugnolo – Sciacca dice, giustamente, che il potere non può essere diviso fra due papi, ma dà per scontata la validità della rinuncia ed elude la vera questione. Dice poi che rinunciare al Ministerium comporta rinunciare automaticamente anche al Munus, ma questo non è affatto vero perché Benedetto avrebbe potuto benissimo nominare un Vicario per gestire il Ministerium e mantenere la propria carica, il Munus, che è essenziale anche per questioni teologiche e dogmatiche, non solo canonistiche, in quanto proviene da Dio”.
Vi sono poi altre stranissime anomalie nella traduzione italiana pubblicata dal Vaticano: “dichiaro di rinunciare al ministero di Vescovo di Roma, Successore di San Pietro, a me affidato per mano dei Cardinali il 19 aprile 2005, IN MODO CHE, dal 28 febbraio 2013, alle ore 20,00, la sede di Roma, la sede di San Pietro, sarà vacante”.
Come specifica frà Bugnolo: “In modo che”, in latino è scritto da Ratzinger con UT che però deve essere tradotto con AFFINCHE’. Diversamente, “in modo che” si deve tradurre, invece, con “QUOMODO”.
Sono due cose molto differenti: “in modo che” presuppone l’assoluto, legale automatismo di un rapporto atto-conseguenza. “Affinché” invece può rivelare anche un intento nascosto o un effetto voluto, ingenerato appositamente. La differenza che passa tra un “modo” esterno e naturale rispetto a un “fine” soggettivo.
Ad esempio, non è corretto dire: “Metto l’esca nella trappola in modo che il topo sia catturato” perché non è detto che il topo caschi nell’inganno. Si deve piuttosto dire: “Metto l’esca nella trappola affinché il topo sia catturato”.
Immaginiamo per un attimo che, realmente, Benedetto sia stato costretto all’abdicazione: lui scrive quindi che “dichiara di rinunciare” al suo “ministero” “AFFINCHE’” la sede sia vacante… quindi forse anche per l’azione degli usurpatori. Se avesse scritto realmente “in modo che” avrebbe implicitamente ammesso la validità della sua rinuncia. Così, no.
Altra anomalia: perché Benedetto scrive che il nuovo conclave dovrà essere convocato “DA COLORO A CUI COMPETE” e non “da Voi cardinali”? Suona come una delegittimazione, dato che sarebbero ovviamente i cardinali a cui si rivolge a dover formare il conclave. Come se il presidente del Senato, parlando di un futuro presidente della Repubblica dicesse che questi “dovrà essere votato da coloro a cui compete” e non, come ovvio, “da voi parlamentari”.
Ratzinger, inoltre, non specifica la DATA PRECISA del nuovo, vero conclave per l’elezione del Pontefice. Dice solo che questo dovrà essere convocato DOPO CHE LA SEDE SARA’ VACANTE, cioè realmente, il momento successivo alla sua morte. Ecco perché l’elezione valida del nuovo Pontefice COMPETEREBBE, in quel caso, solo ad ALCUNI CARDINALI, quelli nominati prima dell’avvento di Bergoglio e disposti a riconoscere l’avvenuto “golpe”. Infatti le nomine cardinalizie di Bergoglio non sarebbero legalmente valide, perché emanate da un papa invalido, poiché invalida è stata la rinuncia. Nel caso passassero ancora molti anni e non rimanessero vivi e attivi cardinali “legittimi”, nominati da Benedetto o da Giovanni Paolo II, il nuovo Pontefice dovrebbe essere scelto dalla Chiesa romana, come nei tempi più antichi. Ecco perché, in questa ottica, un nuovo conclave dovrebbe essere convocato “da coloro a cui compete” e non ai cardinali cui lui si rivolge. Non fa una piega.
Fantapolitica o una Declaratio apparentemente pasticciata che, però letta nel modo giusto, si rivela di adamantina, “ratzingeriana” coerenza?
Frà Bugnolo è sicuro: gli errori di latino sono stati voluti apposta da Ratzinger per attirare l’attenzione sull’invalidità del documento e per far emergere, a una attenta lettura, la verità quando i tempi sarebbero stati maturi. Dello stesso avviso è l’avvocato viennese Arthur H. Lambauer, noto esperto di diritto internazionale, che già nel 2013, aveva notato le anomalie: “Ritengo che Benedetto abbia commesso errori di proposito per rendere invalido il successore in modo che non creasse nulla di irrevocabile (matrimoni gay, diaconato femminile etc.) e nel caso, spazzarlo via”.
Su tutto, un dato oggettivo e incontestabile: in quegli strani 18 giorni che passano dalla “rinuncia” alla sede vacante (che pure, a regola, dovrebbe scattare dalla rinuncia) nessuno ha potuto o voluto correggere la Declaratio scritta da Benedetto così “malamente”. Perché? Eppure è compito specifico dei cardinali correggere il papa, in modo premuroso e filiale, ove sbagliasse. “Questo dimostra – sostiene frà Bugnolo – che i cardinali erano sleali e accecati dalla fretta di prendere il potere e che forse alcuni di loro, come anche alcuni funzionari della Segreteria Apostolica cui non potevano sfuggire certi errori, erano “complici” di Benedetto e, ben consapevoli del trucco, hanno taciuto affinché un giorno “scoppiasse la bomba”. In entrambi i casi si rivela un’usurpazione”.
E veniamo alle possibili obiezioni: “Ratzinger non conosce approfonditamente il latino o era già troppo anziano per scriverlo bene”. Difficile che il teologo tedesco, per 14 anni a capo della Congregazione per la Dottrina della fede, già autore di eccellenti scritti in latino, non sapesse padroneggiarlo. Peraltro, il papa è circondato da eccellenti latinisti che avrebbero potuto supportarlo. Nel febbraio 2013 era, poi, lucido tanto da poter tenere un discorso a braccio di 58 minuti. “In ogni caso, l’invalidità resterebbe – risponde frate Alexis – perché la rinuncia impone non solo piena lucidità mentale, ma anche assoluta consapevolezza del diritto canonico”.
Altra prevedibile contestazione: “Glielo ha scritto qualcun altro che non sa bene il latino”. Ma se il documento provenisse da un coercitore o da un falsario, perché costruirlo in modo da essere canonicamente invalido?
Ultima critica eventuale: “Benedetto XVI non ingannerebbe mai nessuno”. Infatti, papa Benedetto non ha ingannato nessuno, ha solo scritto una rinuncia al ministerium. Secondo frà Bugnolo, sono altri che non hanno voluto vedere cosa c’era scritto realmente e come lui si è comportato fino ad oggi. Così, si sono ingannati da soli per la loro avidità di potere.
A una prima lettura, tutto ciò lascia frastornati: sembra assurdo, ma terribilmente coerente. A nulla vale, in questo caso, sbandierare la solita categoria difensiva del “complottismo” perché qui ci sono dati di fatto che meritano una spiegazione ALTRETTANTO logica e alternativa.
Nel mondo laico, a livello giuridico si possono impugnare dei lasciti per molto meno, eppure la questione sulla validità della rinuncia di un papa al soglio di Pietro è stata liquidata molto, forse troppo in fretta. Prossimi scenari? Le argomentazioni di frà Bugnolo, che hanno pure un loro perché e si appoggiano su evidenze, forse saranno semplicemente ignorate, derise o il loro autore probabilmente comincerà a subire una serie di attacchi ad personam. Staremo a vedere.
BOMBSHELL: Leaked conversation of Lancet and NEJM Editors-In-Chief reveals they already know Big Pharma is a “criminal” cartel pushing rigged science for profit
(Natural News) In the aftermath of a stunning incident in which both The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) were forced to retract a study that used laughably faked data to try to destroy the credibility of hydroxychloroquine (and get clinical trials cancelled around the world), details of a secret conversation have leaked, documenting a phone call between the editors of the journals, during which Big Pharma is described as a “criminal” enterprise that’s pushing junk science while rigging studies with altered data.
This stunning admission reveals that even the editors of “prestigious” science journals are well aware that Big Pharma is a corrupt criminal enterprise. And they know the game is rigged, the data are faked, and the medical journals are nothing more than Big Pharma puppets that parrot junk science to push high-profit prescription drugs and vaccines.
As you can hear in the audio below — French audio with English subtitles — Richard Horton, the Editor-In-Chief of The Lancet, says:
“Now we are not going to be able to, basically, if this continues, publish any more clinical research data because the pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today, and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect, but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want them to conclude.”
Paraphrased, this means Big Pharma can rig any data necessary to achieve publication of junk science in the journals.
This has all come to light via an individual who participated in a “closed” phone call, and who describes what he heard, including the assertion by journal editors that Big Pharma is a “criminal” operation (which is exactly what we’ve been reporting for nearly two decades).
Via the video description:
May 24, 2020: Philippe Douste-Blazy, Cardiology MD, Former France Health Minister and 2017 candidate for Director at WHO, former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, reveals that in a recent 2020 Chattam House closed door meeting, both the editors of the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine stated their concerns about the criminal pressures of Big Pharma on their publications. Things are so bad that it is not science any longer.
Apolline de Malherbe (French broadcaster): But it’s hard to understand why scientists would voluntarily give bias to studies
Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: Exactly! That’s the great question. That the great question we are all asking ourselves, finally, and you know those Chatham House lectures in London.
Apolline de Malherbe: Remind us what is this all about? This is extremely interesting.
Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: These are meetings that are completely behind closed doors, only with experts. No one can record, no one is taking any pictures. It’s only between experts.
Apolline de Malherbe: Top secret.
Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: Top secret. But still. there was a meeting the other day, of the directors of scientific journals, like The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine…
Apolline de Malherbe: The Lancet, which is that journal which published this study we are talking about…
Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: These are extraordinary journals. When it’s written in Lancet, it’s “written in Lancet”. So that’s why… Here, we’re talking about something very important this discussion that happened. And it ended up leaked: The Lancet’s boss, Horton, said: “Now we are not going to be able to, basically, if this continues, publish any more clinical research data, because the pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want to conclude… This is very, very serious!
Apolline de Malherbe: But what you are telling us is very serious! That would mean that it is the pharmaceutical companies that are putting pressure on, including financial pressure, I guess on the scientific results! But you understand, who can we trust anymore today?
Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: Indeed, that’s why I allow myself to tell you about it, because it is one of the greatest subjects… never anyone could have believed. I have been doing research for 20 years in my life. I never thought the boss of The Lancet could say that and the boss of the New England Journal of Medicine too. He even said it was “criminal”, the word was used by them. That is, if you will, when there is an outbreak like the COVID, in reality, there are people… us, we see ‘mortality’, when you are a doctor or yourself, you see ‘suffering’. And there are people who see ‘dollars’, that’s it.
Big Pharma’s fake science racket relies on medical journals to establish LIES as “facts”
Of course, readers of this website are not surprised at all to learn the Big Pharma is rigging science papers with fabricated data to push dangerous, faulty drugs for obscene profits. That’s their entire business model, and the “science” journals are just the puppets that rubber stamp the faked science to create the illusion of scientific validity for toxic prescription medications that rarely even work.
The entire system of Big Pharma, the FDA, medical journals and so-called “science” is nothing but a pyramid of lies, an elaborate ruse to generate profits from the sales of products that harm far more people than they help.
All a grand conspiracy to murder blacks with depopulation vaccines
Much of the reason why Big Pharma and the medical journals conspired to publish fake, rigged data to destroy the evidence of hydroxychloroquine + zinc being able to save lives is because Big Pharma is gearing up to mass murder blacks with weaponized vaccines.
There exists an actual conspiracy plot to first cause millions of black Americans to be exposed to the coronavirus through the race riots, then to demand that blacks receive the vaccines first, out of a sense of “equality.” This was just announced by depopulation globalist Melinda Gates, who says “people of color” should be the first to receive the (unsafe, barely tested) vaccines.
Next, as all the black people are lined up like cattle, they will be injected with a race-specific mRNA vaccine that interferes with protein synthesis in ways that are preferentially destructive to the physiology of those of African origin. This will cause an explosion of autoimmune disorders, infertility and cancer among blacks, thus achieving the goal of depopulation and eugenics, which is the racist philosophy of mass death that underlies the vaccine industry (whose vaccines already target black babies with a 420% increased risk of autism compared to non-black babies).
This extraordinary, insidious conspiracy to exterminate black people using a plandemic, riots and vaccines is fully described in this shocking but true podcast that’s banned everywhere except Brighteon.com.
WARNING: Profanity and strongly shocking content in this podcast.
About the author: Mike Adams (aka the “Health Ranger“) is a best selling author (#1 best selling science book on Amazon.com called “Food Forensics“), an environmental scientist, a patent holder for a cesium radioactive isotope elimination invention, a multiple award winner for outstanding journalism, a science news publisher and influential commentator on topics ranging from science and medicine to culture and politics. Follow his videos, podcasts, websites and science projects at the links below.
Mike Adams serves as the founding editor of NaturalNews.com and the lab science director of an internationally accredited (ISO 17025) analytical laboratory known as CWC Labs. There, he was awarded a Certificate of Excellence for achieving extremely high accuracy in the analysis of toxic elements in unknown water samples using ICP-MS instrumentation. Adams is also highly proficient in running liquid chromatography, ion chromatography and mass spectrometry time-of-flight analytical instrumentation. He has also achieved numerous laboratory breakthroughs in the programming of automated liquid handling robots for sample preparation and external standards prep.
The U.S. patent office has awarded Mike Adams patent NO. US 9526751 B2for the invention of “Cesium Eliminator,” a lifesaving invention that removes up to 95% of radioactive cesium from the human digestive tract. Adams has pledged to donate full patent licensing rights to any state or national government that needs to manufacture the product to save human lives in the aftermath of a nuclear accident, disaster, act of war or act of terrorism. He has also stockpiled 10,000 kg of raw material to manufacture Cesium Eliminator in a Texas warehouse, and plans to donate the finished product to help save lives in Texas when the next nuclear event occurs. No independent scientist in the world has done more research on the removal of radioactive elements from the human digestive tract.
Adams is a person of color whose ancestors include Africans and American Indians. He is of Native American heritage, which he credits as inspiring his “Health Ranger” passion for protecting life and nature against the destruction caused by chemicals, heavy metals and other forms of pollution.
Adams is the author of the world’s first book that published ICP-MS heavy metals analysis results for foods, dietary supplements, pet food, spices and fast food. The book is entitled Food Forensics and is published by BenBella Books.
In addition to his lab work, Adams is also the (non-paid) executive director of the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center(CWC), an organization that redirects 100% of its donations receipts to grant programs that teach children and women how to grow their own food or vastly improve their nutrition. Through the non-profit CWC, Adams also launched Nutrition Rescue, a program that donates essential vitamins to people in need. Click here to see some of the CWC success stories.
With a background in science and software technology, Adams is the original founder of the email newsletter technology company known as Arial Software. Using his technical experience combined with his love for natural health, Adams developed and deployed the content management system currently driving NaturalNews.com. He also engineered the high-level statistical algorithms that power SCIENCE.naturalnews.com, a massive research resource featuring over 10 million scientific studies.
About the author: Mike Adams (aka the “