In January of 2019, the LA Rams faced the New Orleans Saints in the NFC Championship game. The winner would move on to the Super Bowl, the loser to a long off-season of pondering what might have been.
With the score tied and less than two minutes remaining in regulation time, a Rams defender clearly interfered with a Saints receiver on a pass that had game-winning touchdown written all over it. The penalty was entirely obvious, but the referees failed to make the call. Quite simply, the rules of the game were not enforced, and the Rams went on to win in overtime.
Reporting for ABC News on the incident a few days later, journalist TJ Holmes said:
You don’t have to be a Saints fan to be upset by this. You don’t have to be a football fan, or even a sports fan, but just a fan of basic fairness. Are we gonna sit down in two weeks to watch the Super Bowl and wonder, is the right team in this game? Well, the integrity of the Super Bowl is in question.
If it’s not clear to readers already, this incident has come to mind thanks to the current controversy surrounding the U.S. Presidential Election. In the present case, the sentiments expressed by TJ Holmes are just as appropriate:
You don’t have to be a Trump supporter to be upset by this. You don’t have to be politically active, or even an American, but just a proponent of basic lawfulness. Are we gonna sit down in a few weeks to watch the Presidential Inauguration and wonder, is the right man in the White House? Well, the integrity of every U.S. Presidential Election is in question.
So-called “free and fair” elections, however, are no game. Nor is it the case that the outcome of Election 2020 has been marred by mere human error on the part of one or two men who failed in a fleeting moment. Rather, all indications are that the election results have been deliberately skewed by way of a well-planned, coordinated effort on the part of many bad actors with willful disregard for the law.
Election fraud in this case is entirely obvious to every intelligent person of goodwill willing to examine the facts, and yet there are any number of persons Hell bent on looking the other way and, ultimately, denying it.
First among them are the godless liberals. Given that these persons are so detached from reality as to insist that abortion is healthcare and males can become females – to say nothing of the fact that their candidate of choice is the one claiming victory – this comes as little surprise.
More unexpected, however, are the so-called “conservative” Catholic election fraud debunkers who are publicly repeating leftist talking points about gullible Trump supporters and conspiracy theories. Though they’re pleased to admit to the perennial existence of some fraudulent votes, they’re quick to add, but certainly not enough to sway an election.
These self-proclaimed voices-of-reason, some of them well-known in Catholic media circles, are scattered across my social media feed, haughtily looking down their noses at the riled up right.
At first glance, this may come as a shock given that such persons would never admit to casting a vote for a Democrat. In reality, however, it makes just as much sense for a conservative Catholic voter to take such a position as a godless liberal Biden supporter.
Before we get to that, we must first consider their ultimate go-to argument against the “deplorable conspiracy theorists,” which goes something like this:
I don’t know the extent of election fraud and frankly neither do you. So far, there have been many claims, but no credible evidence.
Eyewitness testimony is enough to justly condemn a murder suspect to death, and yet not even hundreds of sworn affidavits signed by citizens who are willing to risk jail time should they be caught in a lie are considered credible evidence to these people. All indications are that nothing short of an unassailable video of a crime being committed, or a tearful public confession, will suffice.
In cases concerning fraud, however, this type of evidence rarely exists. This does not mean that one cannot know with a high degree of certainty that a crime was actually committed.
By way of analogy, consider the CFO of a large corporation signing off on financial statements littered with entries that defy any reasonable explanation; e.g., expenses recurring at a frequency well above historical trends, the cost of common goods exceeding known market value, net deposits falling well short of reasonable expectations based on gross revenues, etc.
When confronted with the possibility of a forensic audit that could conclusively clear his good name, the CFO takes pains to prohibit it, while critical receipts that might set the record straight are destroyed.
In a case such as this – similar elements of which are present in Election 2020 – it’s not necessary to actually witness anyone in the act of embezzlement in order to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a crime has been committed and, furthermore, that the bottom line tallies are fake. The facts, the figures and the behavior of key personnel alone tell the tale.
Perhaps a better analogy would be a senior manager in a publicly held company who repeatedly purchases large numbers of shares of their stock just before major public announcements cause the stock price to soar. Imagine this same investor taking a short position in large numbers of shares just prior to negative news being released that causes the stock price to plummet.
Now, is it possible that this person may have played by the rules, using public information alone to make some wise investments, without any foreknowledge of future events?
Sure, one may argue that it’s within the realm of possibility, but if it’s statistically highly unlikely, you can be sure that the Securities and Exchange Commission isn’t going wait for a recording of the alleged wrongdoing to surface before seeking a conviction for insider trading. (Unless, of course, the trader is a member of Congress!)
In the case of Election 2020, readily available data measured against well-established statistical norms, along with the publicly known timeline of events and the evasive behavior of elections officials, plainly attest to the presence of substantial fraud in large Democrat strongholds located within a select group of swing states.
Even where the numbers are within the realm of the conceivable, the odds of multiple events aligning in the way they allegedly occurred are infinitesimal, that is to say, the scenario we are being asked to accept is statistically impossible – not because the Trump team says so, but because the objective data and historical record say so.
The debunkers can examine the facts for themselves (though few seem interested), with the following article being a good place to start: Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling
Thus far in my reading, however, I’ve not come across even one neo-con Catholic “debunker” who has delved into the data while offering a plausible explanation for the numerous glaring anomalies that plainly exist in the “official” election results; e.g., the unprecedented events that coincidentally occurred in multiple battleground states at roughly the same time.
Is it perplexing that a neo-con Catholic should stake out such an irrational position?
It may initially seem so to some, but it actually makes perfect sense based on their religious modus operandi.
You see, these are the very same persons who complain about the ecclesial implosion and doctrinal disfunction that has been taking place since the early 1960’s, but who adamantly deny any real connection to Vatican II, which they steadfastly insist was a valid ecumenical council of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
They also happen to be among those who are quick to downplay the many faithless and even heretical words and deeds of Jorge Bergoglio (stage name, Francis), while insisting that the man is not only a member in good standing of the Catholic Church, he is her visible head on earth and the Vicar of Christ!
For the neo-con Catholic, nothing short of Francis standing before the global media in blue jeans and a tee shirt to openly renounce the one true Faith will suffice to demonstrate that he is anything other than the Holy Roman Pontiff!
In this, they share something very basic in common with the godless liberals; each of them have, by an act of the will, chosen to distance themselves from objective reality, albeit in varying degrees. In so doing, they have relinquished a portion of the gift of reason and, with it, their ability to think clearly.
The bad news is that the blindness of neo-con Catholic election fraud debunkers is primarily the result of a spiritual malady; i.e., well reasoned arguments based on objective facts are of little or no avail.
The good news is that the dreadful circumstances under discussion here are drawing these spiritually depleted persons out of the shadows and putting them on display for all to see.
In January of 2019, TJ Holmes, commenting on the “integrity of the Super Bowl” vis-à-vis the NFC Championship game, rhetorically asked of the NFL, “What are you going to do about it?”
Two years later, we know the answer: Nothing that changed the result.
Election 2020 is in overtime. Let us pray to the Just Judge that the unadulterated truth, whatever it may be, will emerge and be embraced by all, so that confidence in the integrity of the outcome may be restored.
On Christmas Day, Jorge Bergoglio (stage name, “Francis”) delivered an Urbi et Orbi message and, as has been his custom since 2013, it was music to humanist ears.
Throughout the text of roughly 1,400 words, he invoked the theme of human fraternity more than half-a-dozen times, while repeatedly stressing that all people, regardless of their religion, are now brothers and sisters.
This, he insists, is what “the Church proclaims” in light of the birth of Jesus Christ. As for which church actually proclaims as much, stay tuned.
Jorge declared of Our Lord:
Thanks to this Child, all of us can speak to God and call him “Father” … Thanks to this Child, we can all call one another brothers and sisters, for so we truly are.
Those with even a passing knowledge of Sacred Scripture realize that this isn’t exactly true.
Is this the return thou makest to the Lord, O foolish and senseless people? Is not He thy father, that hath possessed thee, and made thee, and created thee? (Deuteronomy 32:6)
For thou art our Father, and Abraham hath not known us, and Israel hath been ignorant of us: thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Redeemer, from everlasting is thy name. (Isaiah 63:16)
Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us? Why then doth every one of us despise his brother, violating the covenant of our fathers? (Malachi 2:10)
These are just a few of the Old Testament citations whereby the inspired Word of God speaks of the Creator as the Father of all, and each man, therefore, as brother.
With this in mind, one comes to the horrible realization that Jorge Bergoglio, whom the naïve consider to be the Vicar of Christ, is essentially professing and leading others to believe that “this Child” changed absolutely nothing; at least, nothing of eternal significance.
Francis continued by providing insight into the false doctrine on redemption according to the counterchurch for which he speaks:
God has made this fraternal unity possible, by giving us his Son Jesus. The fraternity he offers us has nothing to do with fine words, abstract ideals or vague sentiments. It is a fraternity grounded in genuine love, making it possible for me to encounter others different from myself, feeling compassion for their sufferings, drawing near to them and caring for them even though they do not belong to my family, my ethnic group or my religion. For all their differences, they are still my brothers and sisters. The same thing is true of relationships between peoples and nations: brothers and sisters all!
Pay close attention to the way in which Francis and his kind imagine that the condition of mankind has been impacted by the birth of “this Child.”
He tells us that it concerns a flourishing of such things as fraternal unity, encounter, feeling compassion, drawing near, caring, relationships between peoples, and this explosion of human emotion misrepresented as “genuine love” is presently available to us because God made it possible. How? By giving us his Son Jesus.
As is often the case, Francis tells us what the church for which he speaks actually holds to be true, first, by denying it: In truth, theirs is a doctrine that has only “to do with fine words, abstract ideals and vague sentiments.”
NOTE: For the record, the Holy Catholic Church, by contrast, teaches that true human fraternity and divine sonship are conferred (that is, made possible) in the waters of Baptism; i.e., these things belong exclusively to the members of Christ.
The Roman Catechism (or Catechism of the Council of Trent), for example, tells us that it is by rebirth in Christ, through the Sacrament of Baptism, that “our souls are replenished with divine grace, by which we are rendered just and children of God and are made heirs to eternal salvation.”
No Urbi et Orbi message delivered by Francis, in this the Year of Our Lord Two-Thousand and Twenty, would be complete without a blatant shout out to globalism.
Ever the obedient son of the United Nations, he made it a point to condemn “the various forms of nationalism.”
Then, just as one would expect, he turned his attention to the COVIDS – the globalists’ current weapon of choice – by saying, “Nor can we allow the virus of radical individualism.” (See what he did there?)
“Today, in this time of darkness and uncertainty regarding the pandemic,” he continued, “various lights of hope appear, such as the discovery of vaccines.” He then made it a point to stress the necessity of “vaccines for all.”
The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light! For unto us a vaccine is born! Happy Coviday!
In a transparent attempt to provide his earthbound, purely humanistic message with the veneer of Catholic tradition, Jorge concluded with prayers ostensibly addressed to Our Lord under a litany of titles; e.g., Child of Bethlehem, Infant Jesus, Babe of Bethlehem, Son of the Most High, Divine Child, and Eternal Word of the Father.
He wrapped up his prayerful petitions (more appropriately, supplications to Satan) by invoking Christ under the title “King of Heaven,” not earth, mind you, just Heaven.
In this, the world was provided with catechesis on the kingship of the “diminished and distorted” Christ of the counterchurch that was born at Vatican Council II. (See Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique)
In conclusion, I’d have to say that Jorge hit it out of the park in his latest Urbi et Orbi message, for those who have ears to hear, at any rate.
On December 14, the USCCB (most accurately known as the United States Conference of Conciliar Bishops) issued a wide-ranging statement on COVID vaccines.
The statement is cosigned by Bishop Kevin Rhoades, Chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, and Archbishop Joseph Naumann, Chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities. Curiously missing from the list of signatories, however, are representatives of the Society of St. Pius X.
Be that as it may, insofar as COVID hysteria is concerned, the USCCB and SSPX are singing from the same song sheet, even if the latter pretends to be doing so in plainchant.
On the authority of Modernist Rome
Readers may recall that the Society issued the first of two statements on COVID vaccines on November 19 in which readers were assured:
The Church has provided steadfast, prudent guidance on this issue. As a result, Catholics have a firm foundation on which to stand in the morality of vaccines. [Emphasis in original]
When and how, according to the SSPX, has Holy Mother Church so nurtured the Catholic faithful?
In 2005, readers were told, by way of the “Pontifical Academy for Life, in a document approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
That’s right, the Society of St. Pius X is encouraging the faithful to place their trust in the same Conciliar Congregation that insists upon the Vatican II version of religious liberty, relations with the Jews, ecumenism, episcopal collegiality, liturgical reform, etc.
The Society’s initial foray into the COVID vaccine discussion was deleted from their website on November 24, one day after it was critiqued in this space (coincidentally or not) along with an announcement saying it had “convened a panel of priests, moral theologians, and medical experts to further study issue, under the guidance of the General House in Menzingen.”
The SSPX published the fruits of the panel’s efforts on December 4, and while this particular article does not contain any specific reference to documents produced by the Captains of Newchurch, their thinking still permeates the text.
As such, one will not be surprised to discover that the recent USCCB statement on COVID vaccines, although more aggressively pro-vaccine, is so similar to the articles published by the SSPX that one wonders if it was a collaborative effort.
Do it for others
For example, both treatments present issues surrounding the rubella vaccine as comparable to those related to COVID. The SSPX states:
A young woman who is to get married can thus receive the rubella vaccine, although such a vaccine is almost always prepared on fetal cells obtained by abortion. The reason is the danger for the child: if a woman contracts rubella during pregnancy, especially during the first trimester, the risk of birth defects – eye, hearing or heart – are significant. These malformations are permanent.
The USCCB approaches the COVID vaccine from the same angle, stating:
The most important danger posed by spread of rubella is that of congenital rubella syndrome, which affects unborn children when their mothers become infected while pregnant. Congenital rubella syndrome can cause miscarriages and a wide range of severe birth defects.
One notes that both statements present the rubella vaccine as a means of protecting the health of others. In their application to COVID, the Conciliar Bishops go a step further than the SSPX in stating that “it may be an act of charity” to receive the COVID vaccine for this reason. They even go so far as to say:
In this way, being vaccinated safely against COVID-19 should be considered an act of love of our neighbor and part of our moral responsibility for the common good.
Get that? The Conciliar Bishops (aka wolves) are instructing their poor sheep that they have a moral responsibility to get vaccinated!
In any case, in their effort to present the issues surrounding the rubella vaccine as precedent-setting for faithful Catholics, both the USCCB and SSPX have relied upon the same source; namely, the instructions given in the 2005 Pontifical Academy for Life document that was approved by the CDF.
Pass the Remote
As expected, therefore, the USCCB and SSPX treatments draw the same conclusions concerning acceptance of the COVID vaccine vis-à-vis cooperation with the evil of abortion. The former declares:
In this case the connection is very remote from the initial evil of the abortion … [there is a] remote connection to morally compromised cell lines … the connection between an abortion that occurred decades ago and receiving a [COVID] vaccine produced today is remote.
In similar fashion the SSPX concluded:
The doctor who vaccinates a patient, or the patient who is vaccinated, has only distant cooperation, for these acts only encourage and promote the sin of abortion in a very remote and very slight way … cooperation is only distant … it is possible in these cases to use such a [COVID] vaccine.
There is disagreement, even in Novus Ordoland, over whether or not this represents a faithful application of Catholic moral principles. Bishop Athanasius Schneider, along with a handful of other conciliar bishops, for example, have been outspoken in declaring that it is not.
Are they willing to lay blame where it belongs; namely, with the so-called “Holy See” that produced the document that states otherwise and upon which the USCCB and SSPX are relying?
One doubts it.
SSPX at odds with itself
On an undated FAQ webpage that remains on the SSPX website, Fr. Peter Scott addresses questions specifically concerning the rubella vaccine. While he also relied upon the 2005 Pontifical Academy for Life document, ultimately concluding that it is permissible to accept the vaccine, his emphasis is rather different.
For example, he plainly states that the rubella vaccine, given its remote connection with abortion, is “an immoral vaccination, and consequently only permissible in cases of real need.”
He also points out that rubella, unlike certain life-threatening diseases, “is in itself a minor and harmless disease” and natural immunity to it “is much more effective than the artificial immunity created by vaccination.”
The same can most certainly be said of COVID-19 for the overwhelming majority of persons. Had the SSPX applied the same reasoning in the present case, it would have repeated Fr. Scott’s concluding statement:
If it [the vaccine] is considered to be obligatory by public health authorities … it is perfectly licit in such a case to insist on an exemption of conscience on the grounds of religion.
You say “sufficiently serious” we say “serious enough”
In any case, what all can agree upon is that both parties have drunk the COVID Kool-Aid. For instance, the USCCB declared:
The risk to public health is very serious, as evidenced by the millions of infections worldwide and hundreds of thousands of deaths in the United States of America alone.
As any moderately well-informed individual knows, the COVID death tally is grossly and deliberately inflated. It is also widely known (see the NY Times, for example) that COVID tests generate false positives at a stunningly high rate.
And yet, the USCCB is pleased to cite “the gravity of the current pandemic,” alarming the faithful as to “the urgency of the crisis.” They even saw fit to stoke the flames of fear concerning the “additional burden on the health care systems, which in certain cities, states, and nations have been in danger of being overwhelmed,” another ruse.
It is based upon these lies that the USCCB has concluded that “the reasons to accept the new COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna are sufficiently serious.”
The SSPX, in its first stab at the topic, postured as if it is simply a given that exposure to COVID-19 presents “significant risks” and “considerable dangers” to one’s health.
In its follow-up piece, the Society alludes to the situation surrounding COVID as one that creates a “serious necessity,” whereby inoculation with a vaccination that is connected, albeit remotely, with abortion may be “required.” At the very least, the SSPX concedes that there are “compelling, grave, sufficient health reasons,” that are “serious enough” to warrant as much.
Meet the composers
The song sheet from which both the USCCB and SSPX are singing has obviously been composed by none other than the United Nations and the same globalists cabal that has been laboring to portray COVID-19 as a highly contagious, eminently deadly, worldwide pandemic that demands a drastic international response.
In spite of copious evidence plainly demonstrating that the official narrative is a monumental act of deception crafted specifically for the purpose of establishing a New World Order apart from the Kingship of Christ, the USCCB and SSPX are perfectly pleased not only to give it their imprimatur; they are willing to use their resources to spread it and, worse, to encourage the naïve to accept it.
If Archbishop Lefebvre were alive today to hear their duet, he’d likely repeat what he declared so long ago: They have uncrowned Him.
Reaction from around the world to the Vatican’s 2020 Nativity Scene was swift and highly critical. Conservative Catholics largely attached to the Novus Ordo rite (when government officials magnanimously allow them to attend) were among the most vocal. So-called traditionalists, by contrast, were more inclined to find the gargantuan cylindrical figures amusing.
In response, the Vatican beefed up the display with the addition of figures that officials hope will resonate more deeply with their critics.
“Pope Francis humbly decided that the 2020 Nativity Scene should be enhanced to contain more universally recognizable symbols of joy; in particular, those held dear by non-Christians,” said an anonymous member of the Dicastery for Promoting Secular Humanism.
“This, the Holy Father considered all the more urgent in light of the fact that the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade had to be cancelled this year due to the COVIDS,” continued the priest, his voice muffled by the damp, bacteria infested, cloth mask that was covering his face.
Below is footage of last evenings big reveal Part II. I think you will agree with me that the additional figures more accurately portray the disposition of present pontificate.