Guarding the Tradition

When I walk into that quiet church on Sunday afternoon before Holy Mass, it is as if I have entered a different world. There are already several people kneeling silently in prayer, and from one corner of the church I can hear the muted murmur of others at confession. As I kneel and face the Tabernacle, the cares and concerns that were racing around inside my head begin to slow and drop away, and instead I begin to feel that hunger in my soul that only He can satisfy. I am so very glad to be here, a soul desperately in need of His grace, in a place where I know that I can find Him. “I will go in unto the altar of God . . .” As the ancient rite begins, those solemn prayers somehow draw me deeply into a sublime experience of the worship of God Himself, as they have for countless Christians before me.

I do not want to face the imminent loss of this most precious privilege, this treasure, of Catholic life. There is no doubt that the intent of Traditionis Custodes is to bring about the complete and total demise of the Mass that for 15 centuries was the principle form of worship of all Roman Catholics. [1] It is nothing less than a terrible tragedy. The question that begs to be answered is “Why?”

The Holy Father, citing a survey of the bishops, tells us that those who participate in the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) are causing disunity in the Church, and are undermining the teaching of Vatican II. [2, 3] But TLM attendees around the globe constitute only only a tiny fraction of Pope Francis’ flock – how could such a small number of souls have any substantial impact on the Church at large? Even if they have somehow covertly multiplied, the great majority of these people are not customarily disgruntled folks: on the contrary, they are humbly grateful and joyful to be able to worship within the solemn beauty and reverence of the Mass of the Ages. The last thing they would do would be anything to disrupt that joy. They have no reason to engage in conflict with their fellow parishioners who attend the Novus Ordo.

Yet we must accept that Pope Francis perceives in the TLM and its adherents a real, substantial threat to the Church. Perhaps the bishops responded to the survey with new data, not previously recognized in the aggregate, indicating rapid TLM growth. It is hard to find research in this area, although there are some indicators of growth, such as the compilation of TLM sites at the Latin Mass Directory[4] and the recent survey by Crisis Magazine. [5] Pew Research [6, 7, 8, 9], Gallup [10] and CARA [11] can tell you about the unfortunate declines in foundational beliefs, practice, and membership within the U. S. Church, but this information is not sorted by TLM and Novus Ordo categories. Since neither the motu proprio itself, nor the accompanying letter, provide evidence which would help us understand the specifics of the threat, the question remains: exactly what is it that this small group of Catholics is doing that is so dangerous to the Faith? How are they manifesting their disunity, and how are they expressing their lack of fidelity to the teachings of Vatican II?

One way to gain some insight into Traditionis Custodes is to examine it in light of Pope Francis’ consistent prior teaching. A key aspect of that teaching which immediately comes to mind with respect to the TLM is the emphasis on the concept of “rigidity:”

“According to one of his closest advisers, Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro, for Francis both the Church and the world are in constant flux, and so his pontificate is one of ‘discernment, of incomplete thought’ for which the rigidity of rules is an obstacle. The Holy Father, he added, doesn’t want to teach “a definitive or complete word on every question which affects the Church and the world.” For him, Father Spadaro said, “neither the Pope nor the Church have a monopoly on the interpretation of social realities or the proposal of solutions to contemporary problems.” [emphasis added] [12]

It is important to note that the term “rigid,” as customarily used by Pope Francis, is not consistent with the normal usage of the word. In normal usage, identification of someone as rigid carries a negative connotation, implying that such a person is too rigid. The normal usage means unreasonably strict adherence to some belief or practice. In the context of morality, for example, rigidity could describe a person who has such a grim focus on sin that he engages in unhealthy scrupulosity, and is therefore unable to discern God’s will accurately.

Pope Francis, however, sees rigidity as any consistent and unchanging adherence to “rules,” regardless of the validity or reasonableness of those rules. Therefore, all rules which are inflexible and which do not admit of exceptions, are by definition rigid, and carry that negative characterization. This thought process is clearly illustrated in a homily from June 2016:

“Jesus always knows how to accompany us, he gives us the ideal, he accompanies us towards the ideal, He frees us from the chains of the laws’ rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable.’ And he understands us very well. He is our Lord and this is what he teaches us.” [13]

“ . . . He frees us from the chains of the laws’ rigidity.” With this mode of thought, then, it is not much of a stretch to view the Commandments as mere ideals, which are no longer standards of Christian morality which must be followed. This concern with rigidity extends to religious practice as well. In the Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate, for example, Pope Francis voices his dismay with “a punctilious concern for the Church’s liturgy,” some groups of Christians giving “excessive importance to certain rules, customs or ways of acting,” and complicating the Gospel by becoming “enslaved to a blueprint that leaves few openings for the working of grace.” [14]

Viewed from this perspective, the Traditional Latin Mass is the quintessential example of rigid religious practice. The TLM has indeed been unchanging – although incremental modifications have been made over the centuries, it has remained essentially the same since the reign of Pope St. Gregory the Great. [15] The people who prefer that unchanging TLM tend to be willing to accept unchanging standards of morality even though they may find them difficult, and even though they might find it necessary to make frequent use of the Sacrament of Penance when they fail. If the bishops’ responses to the survey did in fact suggest strong growth and increasing influence of the TLM, then that TLM and its adherents represent a bastion of rigidity among the faithful, which by its very nature is opposed to the direction in which Pope Francis is trying to take the Church. A threat such as this, therefore, must be dealt with firmly and decisively – and that is exactly what Pope Francis has done with Traditionis Custodes.

However, in the near term the fate of the TLM will depend on the bishops, who may have sufficient latitude to allow it to survive. Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco thinks so, [16] and there are Canon Law authorities who believe that bishops can permit dispensations from the requirements of this motu proprio. [17] There has already been a wide spectrum of responses from various bishops, ranging from complete termination of the TLM in some dioceses to various limitations and even full approval to continue as before in others.

It might help the bishops as they consider their decisions to take a look back at what the Council actually required for the reform of the Mass. Laity who are not familiar with Sacrosanctum Concilium [18] may be surprised. While Pope Francis has emphatically declared the Novus Ordo to be the intended product of the reform of the liturgy directed by Vatican II, the specific liturgical mandates of the Council were relatively minimal, and, as pointed out by Father Fessio more than twenty years ago, bear little resemblance to many of the innovations we now experience in the Novus Ordo. [19] Here is a brief summary of the nine specific mandates of Sacrosanctum Concilium:

  • More readings from the Bible.
  • Better homilies.
  • Restoration of the Prayers of the Faithful.
  • A suitable place allotted to the mother tongue.
  • Hosts consecrated at the same Mass.
  • Communion under both species – in limited circumstances.
  • Attendance for the entire Mass by the congregation.
  • Concelebration permitted on a limited basis.
  • The congregation to sing or say together the ordinary parts of the Mass in Latin.

Here are innovations characteristic of the Novus Ordo which are not directly mandated in Sacrosanctum Concilium:

  • The removal of the many beautiful and inspiring prayers and parts of the Mass which are present in my 1962 Missal but have disappeared from the Novus Ordo.
  • The addition of the three new “Eucharistic Prayers.”
  • The priest facing the congregation.
  • Reception of Holy Communion in the hand and the removal of the Communion rail.
  • The banishment of the Tabernacle from the center of the altar.
  • The general lack of reverence often displayed in the Novus Ordo environment, expressed most clearly by dress only slightly more formal than beachwear.
  • Music “ministers” performing at the front of the Church.
  • The inferior music routinely presented by said music ministers.
  • Lectors.
  • Altar girls.
  • Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist.
  • The kiss of peace in the congregation.
  • Other miscellaneous practices which have crept in, like the holding of hands during the Our Father, or the congregation’s use of the orans posture for prayer.

Sacrosanctum Concilium did call for simplification of the Mass, and also sought as a priority “active participation” by the congregation. But that simplification was limited to removal of redundancy or “additions of little advantage.” Moreover, the reform was to be exercised with caution:

“Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” [emphasis added] [18]

It is difficult indeed to make the case that the Novus Ordo innovations listed above grow organically from anything in the TLM. The wholesale changes evident in the Novus Ordo certainly exceed the measured approach to reform described in Sacrosanctum Concilium. It was not necessary to make sweeping changes to the structure and prayers of the Mass in order to meet the intent of the reform. For example, active participation can be accomplished in a variety of ways, even without any changes to the Mass at all. Pope St. Pius X eloquently described how the faithful should pray the Mass, in this beautiful instruction which appears in the 1962 Roman Missal:

“The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. It is the sacrifice, dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the altar. If you wish to hear Mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart, and mouth all that happens at the altar. Further, you must pray with the Priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him. You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens at the altar. When acting in this way you have prayed Holy Mass.” [20]

Does this not reflect active participation at its best?

The fascinating thing here is that the TLM without any changes is actually much more closely related to the intent of the Council Fathers as reflected in the document Sacrosanctum Concilium than is the Novus Ordo with all of its changes. A look at a side by side comparison of the Novus Ordo to the TLM is astonishing in the contrast it presents. [21] It is as if the original, full strength, adult edition of the Mass was vigorously pruned to make it as simple as possible. The Novus Ordo is what remained after the Traditional Rite had been stripped down and reduced to its bare bones.

On the other hand, the Missa Cantata which I am fortunate to attend every Sunday due to the fervor of two holy parish priests, employs Gregorian Chant as a routine and integral component of Holy Mass. Gregorian chant, by the way, was not only the preferred musical form but also the primary means of active participation envisioned in Sacrosanctum Concilium. With respect to “a suitable place for the mother tongue,” I am able to pray every single word of every single prayer in that Mass in my native language, since the Missal incorporates English and Latin on facing pages. I am also able to join Father in his recitation of the Ordinary prayers in Latin as well, if that were to be required. Active participation in both the vernacular and Latin is therefore readily accommodated in the TLM. Regarding attendance for the entire Mass – I simply advise that if you wish to select a preferred seat, you should arrive early, because most people arrive well before Mass starts. And if you desire to leave the church immediately after Mass without hindrance, then you should position yourself at the end of a pew, since those TLM devotees almost universally kneel immediately after Mass is over and continue their contemplation, no doubt because they are profoundly conscious of the enormous significance of the Holy Eucharist they have just received, and wish to fully embrace that Real Presence before they head back out into the world. The Traditional Latin Mass as it is practiced today, before any changes to the structure, prayers, or form of the Mass have been made, is already compliant with most of the mandates of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

The bishops, while conducting their deliberations, should rest assured that Catholics who love the Traditional Latin Mass have no interest in fostering disunity with their Novus Ordo brethren. And in their devotion to the traditional form of Holy Mass they are endorsing, rather than rejecting, the teachings of Vatican Council II – and guarding the Tradition.

References.

1. Bermudez, Alejandro. “Cardinal Burke questions Pope Francis’ authority to eliminate the Traditional Latin Mass.” Catholic News Agency. July 22, 2021. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248472/cardinal-burke-questions-pope-francis-authority-to-eliminate-the-traditional-latin-mass

2. Francis. “Traditionis Custodes. APOSTOLIC LETTER ISSUED “MOTU PROPRIO” BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF FRANCIS On the Use of the Roman Liturgy Prior to the Reform of 1970.” The Vatican. July 16, 2021. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.htmlFrancis.

3. “Letter of the Holy Father Francis to all bishops worldwide to present the Motu proprio “Traditionis custodes” on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the Reform of 1970.” The Vatican. July 16, 2021
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2021/07/16/210716c.html

4. “Find Traditional Latin Masses Around the World.” Latin Mass Directory. Accessed August 6, 2021. https://www.latinmassdir.org/

5. “The Growth of the Latin Mass: A Survey.” Crisis Magazine. July 26, 2021
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/the-growth-of-the-latin-mass-a-survey

6. Masci, David and Smith, Gregory A. “7 Facts About American Catholics.” Pew Research Center. October 10, 2018.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/10/7-facts-about-american-catholics/esearch Center. October 10, 2018.

7. Fahmy, Dalia. “8 Key Findings about Catholics and Abortion.” Pew Research Center. October 20, 2020.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/20/8-key-findings-about-catholics-and-abortion/

8. Diamant, Jeff. “How Catholics around the world see same-sex marriage, homosexuality.” Pew Research Center. November 2, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/02/how-catholics-around-the-world-see-same-sex-marriage-homosexuality/

9. Smith, Gregory A. “Just one-third of U.S. Catholics agree with their church that Eucharist is body, blood of Christ.” Pew Research Center. August 5, 2019.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/05/transubstantiation-eucharist-u-s-catholics/

10. Saad, Lydia. “Catholics’ Church Attendance Resumes Downward Slide.” Gallup. April 9, 2018.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/232226/church-attendance-among-catholics-resumes-downward-slide.aspx

11. “Frequently Requested Church Statistics.” Center for Applied Research In The Apostolate. Accessed August 5, 2021.
https://cara.georgetown.edu/frequently-requested-church-statistics/

12. Pentin, Edward. “Pope Francis: Rigid People Are Sick.” National Catholic Register. October 24, 2016. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/pope-francis-rigid-people-are-sick

13. Westen, John-Henry. “Pope Francis: ‘Rigid… this or nothing’ Catholics are ‘heretical’ and ‘not Catholic.’” Lifesite News. June 9, 2016. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-rigid-this-or-nothing-catholics-are-heretical-and-not-catholic/

14. Francis. “Gaudete et Exsultate. Apostolic Exhortation on the Call to Holiness in Today’s World.” The Vatican. 19 March 2018. Sections 57, 58, 59. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20180319_gaudete-et-exsultate.html

15. Williams, Brian. “Busting the Myth of the Tridentine Mass.” Liturgy Guy. July 23, 2021. https://liturgyguy.com/2017/07/23/busting-the-myth-of-the-tridentine-mass/

16. Rousselle, Christine. “Archbishop Cordileone: Traditional Latin Mass Will Continue in San Francisco.” Catholic News Agency. July 16, 2021.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248400/archbishop-cordileone-traditional-latin-mass-will-continue-in-san-francisco

17. Boniface. “Cardinal Cicognani on Canonical Dissimulation.” Unam Sanctam Catholicam. August 2, 2021.
https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2021/08/cardinal-cicognani-on-canonical.html

18. Paul VI. “CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM.” The Vatican. December 4, 1963. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

19. Fessio, Joseph. “The Mass of Vatican II.” Catholic World Report. July 23,2021. Editor’s note: This essay appeared originally in the September/October 2000 issue of Catholic Dossier and is based on a lecture on the liturgy given by Father Fessio in May, 1999.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/07/23/the-mass-of-vatican-ii/

20. The Roman Catholic Daily Missal, 1962. Angelus Press. 2004, 835.

21. “New and Traditional Side by Side – A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TEXTS OF THE TRADITIONAL MISSAL AND THE NEW MISSAL OF 2011.” Latin Mass Society of England and Wales. Accessed August 8, 2021.
https://lms.org.uk/missals

Vaccine Hesitancy? Or Experimental Vaccine Gullibility

One artifact of the ongoing Corona virus vaccine controversy has been the distress exhibited in various quarters patronizingly worrying about those of us who are thought to be afflicted with the dreaded “Vaccine Hesitancy.” That disparaging characterization implies that anyone who is concerned about allowing themselves to be infected with one of the SARS-CoV-2 so-called vaccines has somehow fallen victim to misinformation, or is unable to make a mature decision because, after all, the conventional wisdom tells us that the vaccines are perfectly safe.

The following comment from an article in Townhall.com is a typical example of the disdainful attitude exhibited by those who have managed to rise above such simple-mindedness:

“I talked to Adam Bruggeman, M.D., a San Antonio physician, and he told me vaccine hesitancy is not the same problem as the logistics of making vaccines available to everyone. He believes vaccine hesitancy is mostly due to poor leadership, inconsistent messaging and hyper-partisanship. To educate those exposed to misinformation about the vaccine he set up a website, GetMyCovidVaccine.org to hopefully set the record straight.” [1]

So, whatever the reason, according to the good Doctor Bruggeman, the resistance to SARS-COV-2 inoculation is certainly not based on anything like knowledge, logic, prudence, or any sort of rational thinking. We, the unwashed, should stop trying to think for ourselves, and let our intellectual betters tell us what to do.

But just in case there are some citizens out there who still have an open mind, and who also brazenly dare to question the government and medical establishment, here are some simple facts that even a politician or a government bureaucrat, burdened as they are with preconceived “knowledge” which prevents them from seeing the truth, can understand.

1. None of the SARS-CoV-2 experimental vaccines have been fully tested.

The so-called vaccines are actually nothing more than experimental biological agents. They have not been determined to be safe according to the standards required for the completion of the normal vaccine approval process:

“A typical vaccine development timeline takes 5 to 10 years, and sometimes longer, to assess whether the vaccine is safe and efficacious in clinical trials, complete the regulatory approval processes, and manufacture sufficient quantity of vaccine doses for widespread distribution.” [2]

There simply has not been enough time elapsed to conduct any sort of long term evaluation of the effects of the vaccines. They have only been approved via “Emergency Use Authorizations” (EUA), which the FDA uses to authorize medical countermeasures based on a preliminary risk-benefit analysis. [3] The initial EUA Review Memorandum for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine cited a safety follow-up time period of “a median of two months.” [4] That safety follow-up period has not increased with even recent EUA re-issuances. [5] The Fact Sheet for the June 25, 2021 re-issuance of the Pfizer-BioNtech EUA is remarkable for how weak it is with regard to safety. [6] It includes no definitive safety declaration – it merely calls the probability of allergic reactions and side effects“remote,” and it warns about a “very low” risk of myocarditis and pericarditis. It does not provide any perspective as to how the clinical trials it references would compare to those normally required for vaccines. To date, this sort of inadequate safety information has been the only information available to assist Americans who have made the decision to receive the COVID-19 inoculation.

2. The corona virus experimental vaccines employ new technologies and therefore represent unknown risks.

Vaccines utilizing mRNA technologies and the Corona virus spike protein never achieved approval for general use prior to this pandemic. [7,8] Further, the interactions of the spike protein within the human body have not been thoroughly studied and completely understood, and there is now evidence that this protein may be harmful. [9] The inventor of the mRNA vaccines himself has warned of the dangers of the spike protein, [10,11] Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, UCLA Pediatric Immunology, cited multiple studies in December 2020 to warn the FDA that the spike protein produced as a result of the inoculations is dangerous:

“.. . it appears that the viral spike protein that is the target of the major SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is also one of the key agents causing the damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung, and kidney.” [12]

These vaccines constitute a magnified risk: it is not as if the timeline of a typical vaccine has been accelerated. Risk has been piled upon risk, with an accelerated timeline amplifying the risk of an experimental vaccine technology incorporating new delivery methods and a new type of antigen.

Messenger RNA vaccine promoters like to say that these new vaccines are really not all that new or dangerous. [13, 14, 15] However, responses such as these do not mention that prior attempts to produce Corona virus vaccines have failed, particularly due to the phenomenon of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE), a delayed reaction which may well not appear in accelerated trials:

“Given past data on multiple SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV vaccine efforts have failed due to ADE in animal models . . . it is reasonable to hypothesize a similar ADE risk for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and vaccines. ADE risks may be associated with antibody level (which can wane over time after vaccination) and also if the antibodies are derived from prior exposures to other coronaviruses.” [16]

Evidence of harmful effects from the vaccines is beginning to emerge: myocarditis and pericarditis, [17,18] amplified death rates from the Delta COVID-19 variant for the vaccinated, [19] vision disorders including blindness, nervous system disorders, blood disorders, and gastrointestinal disorders. [20] Initial indications are that adverse occurrences resulting from these vaccines are far greater in scale than has been previously experienced. [21] The CDC reported that as of June 30th, 5,718 deaths have been reported in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting system following COVID-19 inoculation. [22] While the CDC will not admit that all of these deaths are caused by the vaccines, when viewed in context this number of deaths is beyond anything ever experienced with prior vaccines. When compared to adverse events following vaccinations for other diseases,

“The number of deaths recorded following the experimental COVID injections now equals the total number of recorded deaths following vaccines for the past 20 years. [23]

3. This pandemic does not constitute an emergency for the majority of the population.

For roughly two thirds of the population (ages 0–49), [24] the risk of fatality from COVID-19 is no greater than that of the seasonal flu, which for the 2018-2019 flu season was about 0.1 percent. [25] Data from the CDC Covidtracker site as of June 28th, 2021 indicates that for this age group, the Case Fatality Ratio is 0.13 percent. [26] The Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR) is even less, since the Case number does not include infections without symptoms that are not recorded. So for this sector of the population, the risk of fatality from COVID-19 is about the same as that of the annual flu season. Yet mass vaccinations incorporating experimental technologies on an emergency basis are not considered necessary for the flu. But in this pandemic the government is aggressively insisting that everyone over 12, a majority of whom have very low vulnerability to the disease, be injected with an experimental vaccine involving a new anti-viral method with unknown long term risks. There is a clear disconnect between the relatively low severity of the disease for most of the population and the drastic measures undertaken to overcome it.

4. The Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR) data for this pandemic has been deliberately overstated.

Back near the beginning of the pandemic, the CDC suddenly changed the rules for how fatalities should be listed if a patient had COVID-19. [27] The new rules required “listing COVID-19 in Part I of the death certificate as a ‘cause of death’ even if COVID-19 was only suspected as being a contributing factor.” [28] This is a major change: a contributing factor is not necessarily a cause of death. That judgment should be made by the responsible health professionals involved, and should not be automatically determined for all cases. “The end result of this change was to shift what is very likely a large number of fatalities into the COVID-19 tally that would not have been in the tally under the previous standards.” [28] This means that the foundational data upon which pandemic decision-making and reporting is based is severely flawed, and calls into question both the rationale and the urgency for SARS-CoV-2 mass inoculations.

5. The use of readily available drugs with anti-viral properties was not seriously considered in the U. S as a viable approach for fighting the pandemic.

There is now substantial evidence that drugs like Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Ivermectin, especially in concert with certain other agents, can be used to effectively treat or prevent COVID-19. As of June 25th, 2021, a database of 311 HCQ COVID-19 studies, “229 peer reviewed, 259 comparing treatment and control groups” showed “HCQ is not effective when used very late with high dosages over a long period,” but that “effectiveness improves with earlier usage and improved dosing”, and “Early treatment consistently shows positive effects.” [29] A review published on June 17, 2021 in the American Journal of Therapeutics, presented similar conclusions about Ivermectin. [30]

An article published in the January 2021 edition of the American Journal of Medicine by Dr. Peter McCullough and a large group of associated physicians described how HCQ can be implemented as one element of a comprehensive treatment algorithm. [31] A similar thought process is reflected in the MATH+ and I-MASK+ protocols using Ivermectin developed by the doctors of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. [32,33] The MATH+ protocol includes Ivermectin as a key component which works in concert with several other powerful medications to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19, and the I-MASK+ protocol, also employing Ivermectin as part of a detailed program, is targeted toward early treatment and prevention of COVID-19.

These methodologies based on HCQ and Ivermectin demonstrate simple common sense. It is eminently reasonable for physicians to treat patients with the readily available tools and do the obvious things, such as inhibiting the activity of the virus, stabilizing the immune system, and relieving dangerous symptoms such as blood clotting and inflammatory response, using drugs with known capabilities and safety profiles. These comprehensive approaches offered in the face of an aggressive and extremely contagious disease present a stark contrast to the myopically rigid focus on experimental vaccines exercised by the government and medical establishment.

It is puzzling that the United States, the most advanced country in the world, with all of its massive technological advantages, leads the world in COVID-19 fatalities, even when compared with countries with much larger populations. [34] Is this disparity due to the inflated COVID-19 fatality reporting in the U. S.? Or could it be that other countries successfully fought the disease with repurposed drugs like HCQ and Ivermectin? Consider this:

“Countries where HCQ is widely available, which are typically third world countries that have malaria or citizens who travel to malaria-endemic regions, have 1-10% of the death rates first world nations where HCQ is severely restricted.” [8]

Conclusion

The trauma of the last year and a half bears the unmistakable stench of progressivism, wherein the populace is browbeaten into submission by the groupthink and scorn of those who obfuscate and manipulate the truth while claiming they have superior knowledge. Vaccine hesitancy is not the problem. Vaccine gullibility is the problem. The American people have been entirely too submissive and unquestioning in their sheeplike response to the government and medical establishment.

That docility is a far greater concern than the pandemic.

But assuming Americans are somehow able to recover at least some of their backbone, then it is essential that the response to the SARS-CoV-2 attack be objectively assessed, and that assessment should recognize that the response was miserably inadequate. The government’s single-minded focus on vaccines worked to prevent successful implementation of therapies using drugs which were readily available at the beginning of the pandemic. A stronger and more vigorous strategy for responding to biological attacks must be developed. Reliance on the hidebound, slow, and bureaucratic processes of the FDA for approval of every use of every drug is not a sufficiently responsive method for developing counters to biological attacks. Let’s face it – we dodged a bullet this time. The virus was not extremely dangerous to the vast majority of the population. What happens when the Peoples Republic of China manages to engineer and deploy a truly dangerous virus which is also extremely contagious? Feeble responses like emergency vaccines with unknown safety characteristics will not do the job. The country must figure out how to harness the tremendous expertise of the entire U. S. medical community – especially front line physicians, and not just drug companies and government bureaucrats – to bring effective therapies to bear rapidly in the event of future attacks.

References.

1. Herrick, Devon. “What’s Behind the Vaccine Slowdown?” Townhall.com. June 1, 2021. https://townhall.com/columnists/devonherrick/2021/05/31/whats-behind-the-vaccine-slowdown-n2590174

2. HOW CAN COVID-19 VACCINE DEVELOPMENT BE DONE QUICKLY AND SAFELY? Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center: Vaccine Research & Development. Accessed June, 2021. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/vaccines/timeline

3. “Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained” U. S. Food and Drug Administration: Vaccines. Updated November 20, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained

4. “Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer-BionTech COVID-19 Vaccine Review Memo.” fda.gov. https://www.fda.gov/media/144416/download

5.Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine EUA Letter of Authority June 25 2021.” fda.gov. https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download

6. “FACT SHEET FOR RECIPIENTS AND CAREGIVERS EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) OF THE PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE TO PREVENT CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) IN INDIVIDUALS 12 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER.” U. S. Food and Drug Administration: Press Announcements. June 25, 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download

7. Siler, Thomas. “A Doctor’s View About the New mRNA Vaccines.” American Thinker. February 15, 2021. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/02/a_doctors_view_about_the_new_mrna_vaccines.html

8. Gold, Simone, et. al. “America’s Frontline Doctors White Paper On Experimental Vaccines For COVID-19.” America’s Frontline Doctors. Accessed June, 2021. https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/6076e4fd8bde421370729e47_Vaccine-PP.pdf

9. Bridle, Byram. “A Parental Guide to COVID-19 Vaccination: English Summary.” Canadian Covid Care Alliance. June, 2021. https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Guide_to_COVID19_vaccines_for_parents_v5.pdf

10. Redshaw, Megan. “Inventor of mRNA Technology_ Vaccine Causes Lipid Nanoparticles to Accumulate in ‘High Concentrations’ in Ovaries.” The Defender: Children’s Health Defense News and Views. June 17, 2021. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mrna-technology-covid-vaccine-lipid-nanoparticles-accumulate-ovaries/

11. Publius. “Inventor of mrna Tech Says FDA Was Aware of Spike Protein Dangers Before Granting ‘Emergency Use,’ Possible Shot-Related Deaths Skyrocket.” Coronavirus News. June 17, 2021. https://coronanews123.wordpress.com/2021/06/17/inventor-of-covid-mrna-vaccine-platform-says-new-data-shows-danger-blames-lack-of-long-term-animal-trials-full-transcript/

12. Shula. “Covid-19 vaccine & Microvascular Injury.” Talking About The Science:Bringing you the research on the relationship of diet (and toxins) to behavior and health. March 11, 2021. https://www.talkingaboutthescience.com/whelan2020/

13. “Are the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna safe?” GetMyCovidVaccine.org. February 6, 2021. https://getmycovidvaccine.org/are-the-mrna-vaccines-from-pfizer-biontech-and-moderna-safe/

14. Seddighzadeh, Bobak. “How Safe Are the mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines? We asked the Experts.” Men’s Health. December 9, 2020. https://www.menshealth.com/health/a34909218/mrna-covid-vaccine-safety/

15. Fiore, Kristina. “Want to Know More About mRNA Before Your COVID Jab? MedPage Today. December 3, 2020. https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/89998

16. Ricke, Darrell O. “Two Different Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) Risks for SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies.” Frontiers in Immunology. February 24, 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7943455/

17. Redshaw, Megan. “CDC finds ‘likely’ link between heart inflammation and Pfizer, Moderna COVID vaccines.” Lifesite News. June 24, 2021. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc-finds-likely-link-between-heart-inflammation-and-pfizer-moderna-covid-vaccines

18. Redshaw, Megan. “Pfizer vaccine ‘probably’ linked to heart inflammation, Israeli panel of experts concludes.” Lifesite News. June 7, 2021. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pfizer-vaccine-probably-linked-to-heart-inflammation-israeli-panel-of-experts-concludes

19. McGovern, Celeste. “Death rate from variant COVID virus six times higher for vaccinated than unvaccinated, UK health data show.” Lifesite News. June 18, 2021. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/death-rate-from-variant-covid-virus-six-times-higher-for-vaccinated-than-unvaccinated-uk-health-data-show

20. Solway, David. “Coronavirus vaccines may be the worst mistake we’ve ever made.” Lifesite News. June 30, 2021. https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/covid-vaccines-may-be-the-worst-mistake-weve-ever-made

21. Chaves, Antonio R. “A massive surge in COVID vaccine deaths.” American Thinker. June 16, 2021. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/06/a_massive_surge_in_covid_vaccine_deaths.html

22. “Reported Adverse Events.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: COVID-19. Updated June 30, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

23. Shilhavy, Brian. “CDC: 4,178 Americans DEAD Following Experimental COVID Injections – Deaths from COVID Shots now Equal 20 Years of Recorded Deaths Following Vaccines Since 2001.” Vaccine Impact. May 5, 2021. https://vaccineimpact.com/2021/cdc-4178-americans-dead-following-experimental-covid-injections-deaths-from-covid-shots-now-equal-21-years-of-recorded-deaths-following-vaccines-since-2001/

24. “Table 1: Population by Age and Sex:2019. United States Census: Age and Sex Composition in the United States: 2019. April, 2020. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2019/demo/age-and-sex/2019-age-sex-composition.html

25. “Estimated Influenza Illnesses, Medical visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the United States — 2018–2019 influenza season.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Influenza. Last Reviewed: June 2, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html

26. “Demographic Trends of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Covid Data Tracker. Accessed July 3, 2021. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics

27. “Vital Statistics Reporting Guidance: Guidance for Certifying Deaths Due to Coronavirus Desease 2019 (COVID-19).” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National Center for Health Statistics: National Vital Statistics System. April, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf

28. Hunt, Tam. “How many deaths counted as Covid-19 deaths are actually from the virus?” Tam Hunt. August 12, 2020. https://tamhunt.medium.com/data-quality-issues-and-the-coronavirus-pandemic-db0356373fc2

29. “HCQ for COVID-19.” @CovidAnalysis: Global HCQ/CQ Studies. Accessed July 5, 2021. https://c19hcq.com/

30. Bryant, A. and Lawrie, T. A. “Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines.” American Journal of Therapeutics. June 17, 2020. https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.pdf

31. McCullough, Peter, et al. “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection.” American Journal of Medicine. January 1, 2021. https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext

32. “MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19.” Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance: Prevention and Treatment Protocols for COVID-19. Updated June 30, 2021. https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FLCCC-Alliance-MATHplus-Protocol-ENGLISH.pdf

33. “IMASK+ PREVENTION & EARLY OUTPATIENT TREATMENT PROTOCOL FOR COVID-19. Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance: Prevention and Treatment Protocols for COVID-19. Updated June 30, 2020. https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Alliance-I-MASKplus-Protocol-ENGLISH.pdf

34. “COVID-19 CORONA VIRUS PANDEMIC: Reported Cases and Deaths by Country or Territory.” Worldometer. Data accessed July 2, 2021. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

The Great Holy Communion Debate of 2021

In the Year of our Lord 2021, in the 8th year of the pontificate of Francis, many centuries after the reign of the last Roman Emperor, and half a millenium after the Council of Trent, in the far western reaches of the One Holy Roman Catholic Church, in a region known as the New World, and during the chaos which had consumed that Church for more than half a century since the close of the Second Vatican Council, a new controversy erupted among the bishops of that region.

It seems that the Caesar of that region of the New World stridently declared himself a Catholic of the greatest devotion, more than worthy of the title “devout.” However, certain bishops, who were apparently not aware of the pastoral presumption toward inoffensiveness holding sway in the Church in those days, decided that Caesar’s political positions and decisions were not in accord with the teachings of the Church: in fact, these bishops thought that Caesar typically acted in direct contravention of the requirements of faith and morals held to be compulsory by the Church. These bishops were particularly concerned with the Catholic Caesar’s adamant support of the malodorous practice of the taking of innocent life in the womb, a behavior tragically prevalent in that era, and they therefore sought to deny Caesar the reception of Holy Communion. One such bishop proclaimed:

“Persons who do not believe in the Real Presence, who ignore or do not accept Church teaching, or who are otherwise objectively in a state of serious sin, should not present themselves for Communion. It’s that simple and that serious. If they do, they not only put their own souls in grave jeopardy, but—just as grievously—they also violate the rights of Catholics who do seek to live their faith authentically. This Eucharistic discipline, the coherence of Catholic belief and the behavior it requires, is rooted both in Scripture and constant Church practice. It applies to all Catholics, not merely public officials, and it applies all the time and everywhere.” [1]

Other bishops, those who possessed greater social awareness and pastoral delicacy, and were wise in the ways of progressivism, demurred in making such a harsh judgment, and instead argued that the Church cannot be seen to be lacking in diversity, inclusiveness, and willingness to engage in dialogue. The One Holy Roman Catholic Church must be a welcoming Church, they said, accepting of many viewpoints, merciful, always willing to exercise restraint, and eager to accompany all, even those who find it difficult to accept wholeheartedly the authority of the Church. To bar the Catholic Caesar from Holy Communion would be to politicize and degrade the Eucharist:

Continue reading “The Great Holy Communion Debate of 2021”

The Escalation of the Progressive Attack on Speech

The progressive assault on speech is entering a new and more sinister phase, advancing beyond censorship by social media companies and crossing the line into government censorship. This new phase is aptly characterized in a January article found in Defense One, entitled “Regulate Social Media Companies.” The article commingles many different errant ideas, but its most disturbing attribute is the reckless way in which various sorts of speech formerly considered to be free are suddenly judged to be subject to progressive discipline. Take the very first sentence, for example:

“The events of January 6 showed existing approaches to quell disinformation and incitements to violence on social media platforms have failed, badly.”

[1]

The first thing to be noted in this sentence is the mischaracterization of the origins of the January 6th Capitol protests and the dismissal of the legitimate concerns with election fraud held by much of the U. S. electorate. But beyond that bit of chicanery, of greater concern is the underlying mindset displayed here, which conflates both disinformation and incitements to violence as examples of prohibited speech. While incitement to violence is clearly prohibited in the U. S., disinformation is nothing of the sort. Terms like disinformation suffer from a critical malady, which is that someone must define them for any given issue. And since every issue has at least two sides, then one side’s definition is not by itself sufficient. All sides must be represented in the free and public exchange of views.

Continue reading “The Escalation of the Progressive Attack on Speech”

The U. S. Catholic Bishops and the Equality Act

It must be rough to be a Roman Catholic bishop in America these days. Seriously, half the flock is in open rebellion. Then there’s that other problem that won’t go away, having to do with clerical abuse, which has caused so much damage to the lives and souls of Catholics. And now the bishops have to deal with the Equality Act, a concerted attack upon Christianity by the U. S. government, which is paradoxically and painfully led by a Catholic President and a Catholic Speaker of the House. In my humble opinion, a calamity like this deserves a hard-nosed response, but it is difficult to envision the bishops as an aggressively outspoken group. They typically approach conflict as nice avuncular gentlemen, who would prefer to dialogue rather than forcefully preach. Such a genial strategy is not seen by all as effective – in fact, one priest recently characterized the ministry of the Catholic bishops over the last several decades as one of “bad catechesis and cowardice.” [1] While “cowardice” might be a somewhat harsh characterization of the bishops’ performance, it is fair to say that their recent statement to Congress opposing the Equality Act was certainly not as vigorous as it could have been.

The Equality Act, [2] pending now in Congress, has far-reaching and disastrous implications not only for religious and faith-based organizations, but also for the foundations of our society itself. The scope of the Act was characterized well by Mary Beth Waddell of the Family Research Council:

“The Equality Act is legislation that would massively overhaul our federal civil rights framework in order to mandate special privileges for sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), expand abortion access, and gut religious liberty—leaving many to suffer the consequences, including women, children, medical professionals, parents, teachers, students, families (including small business owners), the unborn, churches, religious organizations and schools, people of faith, and even those members of the LGBT community it claims to protect.” [3]

But the broad reach of the Act is not its most dangerous aspect: it is a threat not just to persons and religious organizations, but more importantly, to Christianity itself. Catholic League President Bill Donahue understands this:

“ . . . its effect is to promote the most comprehensive assault on Christianity ever written into law.” [4]

This is because the Act is really an attempt to force everyone to accept a disordered vision of human sexuality. As described by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council,

“This is a radical bill that uses the government to control, through coercion, how every American thinks, speaks, and acts on human sexuality.” [5]

While the progressive attack on the Christian faith is nothing new – the Supreme Court in particular has been instrumental for decades now in removing the Christian understanding of human sexuality from U. S. law with decisions such as Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Obergefell – never before in the U. S. has the destruction of God’s design been so systematically codified into law. This law affects marriage. It affects the family. It affects children. And as Amy Welborn writes, it is particularly dangerous for women:

“Many aspects of life call for sexually integrated spaces — but not all. Women deserve their own spaces when they are escaping from abuse, when they are imprisoned, when they are under medical care, when they are tending to personal physical needs, and if they desire, when they are educated, just to name a few. Women deserve to be safe in those spaces, and the Equality Act, as written, would open up those spaces to the presence of men – the worst men, who for whatever reason, cannot or will not leave vulnerable women alone, or who are sexually aroused by pretending to be women in women’s spaces.” [6]

This Act exploits the human misery experienced by those afflicted with homosexual or gender confusion, using the force of law to foster the propagation of their illness throughout all of our society. This is clearly not legislative business as usual. We stand two Democrat senators away from losing the filibuster, and therefore failing to defeat this Act. This dire circumstance requires an emphatic and courageous counter-attack.

Yet on February 23rd, 2021, five bishops representing the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops could muster nothing more than what amounts to a rather mild reproach to U. S. Congress, with a bottom line stating “We oppose this legislation.” Although the letter did note that “the bill represents the imposition by Congress of novel and divisive viewpoints regarding “gender” on individuals and organizations,” and did instruct the Congress that gender differences are real and not merely “social constructs,” it avoided drawing the obvious conclusion that both Christianity and the stability of society are at significant risk. [7]

Instead, the bishops chose to focus on a number of ways in which the Act will discriminate against Christians and and their organizations. But even here the bishops understated the case. For example, several of the social harms listed in their letter predict that people will be forced to act against their religious beliefs. But if “faithful” people act against the tenets of their faith, that is not a problem with the Equality Act – it is actually a problem with the inherent weakness of the Church and her faithful. The bishops should have argued that faithful Christians and their organizations will not comply with such an unjust and unconstitutional law, and will therefore be stripped of the functions they have been performing in society. The consequence, assessed with that perspective, is then seen to be much more than mere discrimination: the real damage is that Christianity itself will be expelled from society – Christianity as it influences and is exercised in all societal arenas – including charities, schools, businesses, health care, and churches.

The bishops failed to mention the potential devastation to schools, except for the loss of exclusively female sports competitions and facilities. It is bad enough that there exists a very real potential loss of Christian schools which refuse the implementation of the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity curriculum. Beyond that, however, the Equality Act will ensure the indoctrination of public school children in this evil ideology. Concerned parents should read the Heritage Foundation’s detailed analysis, which provides the following key point, among others, about the Sexual Ideology Indoctrination that is coming with the Equality Act:

“Under the Equality Act, schools would, in effect, be forced to propagate the view that traditional beliefs regarding marriage, sexuality, and gender are bigoted and discriminatory—regardless of objections from parents.” [8]

Schools are just one sector of society in which this law will operate. When it comes to fundamentals, let’s consider the family, another institution not mentioned in the statement by the bishops. Think about how the diseased view of human sexuality mandated by this Act would affect the family, in light of the following description of the family and its role in society from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2207:

“The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into life in society.” [9]

The mandates of the Equality Act are directly at odds with this vision, God’s vision, of the family. And given its expansive scope, no one yet completely grasps the extent to which the tentacles of this nasty law will mutilate the American community.

With this Act the Democrat Party is setting in place the infrastructure for persecution of the Christian Church. If anyone can lead the fight against this assault, it is the bishops – because, after all, they are the successors of the Apostles. As prescribed in the 2004 Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops:

“Foremost among the different ministries of the Bishop is that of proclaiming the Word of God, as did the Apostles (cf. Rom 1:1) (351), announcing it with courage (cf. Rom 1:16) and defending the Christian people against errors that threaten them (cf. Acts 20:29; Phil 1:16). The Bishop, in communion with the Head and members of the College, is an authoritative teacher, invested with Christ’s own authority, both when he teaches individually and when he teaches in union with the other Bishops.” [10]

It would no doubt be a novel and salutary experience for the “whited sepulchres” in Congress to encounter Apostles who speak with authority, as Jesus did in the following instance with the Pharisees and Sadducees:

“Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness. So you outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”

– Mt 23:27-28 Douay-Rheims Version

An authoritative exhortation to Congress in defiance of this ominously pagan monstrosity masquerading as law requires a response far stronger than the meek objection that “We oppose this legislation.” The bishops should persist in the fight against this sinister Act, and challenge the Congress in no uncertain terms:

– “We will not comply with this unjust and immoral law.”

– “We will fight this legislation with every means at our disposal.”

– “We will urge our faithful to do the same.”

References.

1. LaChance, Mike. “Catholic Priest Goes Off On Joe Biden In Viral Rant (VIDEO).” Gateway Pundit. March 21, 2021. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/03/catholic-priest-goes-off-joe-biden-viral-rant-video/

2. U.S. Congress. House. EQUALITY ACT. HR 5. 117th Cong., 1st sess. Introduced in House February 18, 2021. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5/text

3. Waddell, Mary Beth. “How the ‘Equality Act’ Is Actually Unequal, Unfair, and Unjust.” Family Research Council. February 2021. https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF19D32.pdf

4. Donahue, Bill. “Equality Act is Anti-Christian.” CNS News. February 22, 2021. https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/bill-donohue/equality-act-anti-christian

5. “FRC urges US House of Representatives to reject the far-Left Equality Act.” Family Research Council. February 24, 2021. https://www.frc.org/pressrelease/frc-action-urges-us-house-of-representatives-to-reject-the-far-left-equality-act

6. Welborn, Amy. “The foundational (but largely ignored) problem with the Equality Act.” Catholic World Report. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/03/23/the-foundational-but-largely-ignored-problem-with-the-equality-act/

7. “Letter to Congress on Equality Act.” USCCB:Resources. February 23, 2021. https://www.usccb.org/resources/letter-congress-equality-act-february-23-2021/

8. Jones, Andrea and Kao, Emilie. “Sexual Ideology Indoctrination: The Equality Act’s Impact on School Curriculum and Parental Rights.” The Heritage Foundation: Backgrounder. May 15, 2019. https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/report/sexual-ideology-indoctrination-the-equality-acts-impact-school-curriculum-and

9. United States Catholic Conference, Inc. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Catechism of the Catholic Church, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994, paragraph 2207. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a4.htm

10. Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, “APOSTOLORUM SUCCESSORES.” Congregation for Bishops, No. 119. Vatican Website, 2004. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20040222_apostolorum-successores_en.html

Misguided Guidance: The Failure of the U. S. Response to the China Virus

When a theory no longer fits the facts, then the reasonable thing to do is to reassess that theory, and adjust it or adopt a new one. For many months now, the theory for defeating the corona virus has incorporated these fundamentals: mask-wearing and social distancing, hand-washing, and lockdowns. [1] But after nearly a year of employing these methods to fight the virus, there has been no improvement in control of the virus: instead, the end of 2020 saw a resurgence of the virus to levels as severe as were seen in April 2020. [2] This, in spite of all the mask-wearing, social distancing, hand-washing, and lockdowns.

Is it not past time that we rethink these approaches to defeating the virus, and implement better ones?

Let’s take a look at the concepts underlying each of these anti-viral measures of the conventional wisdom.

Continue reading “Misguided Guidance: The Failure of the U. S. Response to the China Virus”

The Demise of the Republican Establishment

The mainstream media, big tech, and the establishment political parties are spending the day today expressing their outrage against President Trump for continuing to attack the 2020 election fraud and encouraging his supporters to demonstrate at the capitol yesterday. While such anger is a popular and entirely predictable preoccupation for these groups, it really has nothing to do with holding the President accountable for dangerous rhetoric.

That stentorious wrath is actually all about two things: pure and unadulterated vengeance against President Trump for managing to disrupt the political establishment for four years; and the effort to damage him for the future. Why an effort to damage him for the future? Because Democrat and Republican establishments alike realize that the President is the single most formidable candidate for the 2024 elections, and anything they can do now to remove him from the scene is to their political advantage.

Amidst all of this indignation, one important fact is being missed: the frustration expressed by President Trump is not simply his alone. The establishment elites completely fail to understand this. President Trump speaks for a very large percentage of the country, and therefore, the baseless attacks proceeding against him today are also attacks upon those who support him. Among those supporters must be realistically included the 80 million or so (I am counting the votes which were fraudulently deprived from the President) citizens who voted for him (since we all know that non-citizens voted exclusively for Biden).

Continue reading “The Demise of the Republican Establishment”

Blank Stare Jurisprudence, Lethargic Law Enforcement, and Blind-eye Journalism: The 2020 Presidential Election

If you had the misfortune to be a long-time San Diego Chargers fan, you know well the sick feeling you got when the Chargers began to sit on a lead in the fourth quarter, and they commenced three and out run plays on offense, along with something called the “prevent defense.” And you knew before it happened: they were going to lose again.

The very same feeling engulfed me on election night, when the vote counts in the key swing states mysteriously stopped updating, and then later, on the morning of November 4th as huge numbers of votes came rolling in for Biden, and suddenly the President’s commanding lead in those swing states was lost. You didn’t want to acknowledge it, but you couldn’t avoid the certainty: something had gone grievously wrong, and your team was going to lose.

It is apparent now, two months later, that massive fraud [1] happened that night, on a scale never before attempted in an American election. The evidence is overwhelming, including: a thousand affidavits [2] signed under penalty of perjury by election observers describing every type of election malfeasance imaginable; video evidence [3] of hidden ballots counted in Georgia without observers present; statistical analyses of wildly improbable vote spikes and vote ratios [4] in Biden’s favor coming late in the morning after those inexplicable voting shutdowns [5] in the key swing states; and computer forensics analyses [6] of Dominion Systems in Antrim County, Michigan, revealing a system which flagged 68% of all votes as having errors. The implications of such a high error level are devastating to the integrity of the election:

Continue reading “Blank Stare Jurisprudence, Lethargic Law Enforcement, and Blind-eye Journalism: The 2020 Presidential Election”

Trafalgar 2020 Swing State Polls Signal Election Fraud

In 2020, as in 2016, the Trafalgar Group provided accurate presidential election polls for the swing states. However, despite remarkably consistent precision, Trafalgar’s win predictions for the swing states were, on average, incorrect. At the same time, the conventional pollsters, even though far less precise, were correct as to their predictions for the winner in the swing states. This seems on the surface to be rather anomalous: why would the more precise pollster get the wrong overall answer?

One answer to this question could be that fraud conducted during the election occurred on such a large scale that the resulting distortion of the vote caused otherwise very accurate polling to appear to be wrong, when it really was not. There is already plenty of evidence that substantial election fraud occurred, especially in the swing states. [1,2] In particular, the numerical analyses of voting patterns are quite disturbing. [3,4,5] The purpose of this article is to show that Trafalgar polling was better in the swing states Trump won, and significantly worse in swing states Trump lost. Similarly, the reverse was true for the conventional pollsters. Both of these circumstances support the hypothesis of election fraud, since this sort of polling dichotomy would not be expected for pollsters who routinely produce consistent results. Election fraud could explain this unanticipated difference, because it would cause the “actual” vote to depart significantly from accurate pre-election polls.

Continue reading “Trafalgar 2020 Swing State Polls Signal Election Fraud”

Is President Trump Really That Far Behind?

Updated 11/02/2020

It is now the day before the election, and the professional progressive political prognosticators are still predicting an overwhelming victory for the Democrat candidate, just as they so wrongly did in 2016. And once again, that pesky Trafalgar Group, which correctly predicted almost the exact electoral college vote in 2016, is producing swing state polls which are not in line with the main stream polling consensus. But how do the electoral vote totals look if the main stream polling consensus is adjusted to take the Trafalgar results into account?

Continue reading “Is President Trump Really That Far Behind?”