The women are mentally ill and feminist possessed demons, the men celibate Catholics. The devil gets what he wants: no marriage, no children, no new souls for Christ.
This is what defeating the Church brings to formerly Catholic stronghold Poland today. In case you can’t figure out what’s going on here: feminism is an evil ideology that destroys the women it seduces.
By FR. KEVIN M. CUSICK
What is not of necessity has an extraneous agenda. Or a malign purpose.
Sex matters: “God made them male and female.” Our sexuality is not a secondary characteristic. It is constitutive of the person and enters into all we do. When a woman does anything, it is the act of a person who is a woman, a feminine action. And likewise for a man.
The sexuality of the acting person is manifested by the words and deeds, thoughts and actions along with the entire person who thinks, acts, and who speaks, never as an afterthought. The idea of neutral gender is pure fantasy, nonexistent in the human species.
Feminism brings with it the ideology that anything men do which is not also accessible to women is an injustice to be corrected. This is why we have the phenomenon of the “first woman pilot” or the first infantry or armor soldier, roles formerly limited to men. It is why we also have women dying in these roles. Sometimes the pressure and haste to right a perceived wrong and experience the excitement of seeing something new supplants the proper training and examination needed to ensure thoroughness and safety.
No one seems to be troubled that men cannot have babies. That never comes up in arguments about the injustice of denying some roles to some human beings. Thus the one-sidedness of feminism is exposed. Breaking glass ceilings is not truly about justice but rather the imperious will which must have whatever it wants regardless of the consequences.
Read the rest: https://thewandererpress.com/catholic/news/our-catholic-faith/a-leaven-in-the-world-transgendering-the-mass/
There’s nothing truly revolutionary about this because in the Christian faith one is to love everyone without exception, even one’s enemies.
As with many clerics today, the Pope, although he may have very good motives and I suspect he does, comes across sounding a little naïve because, the way it’s working today, sometimes it’s LGBTQ family members who condemn their Catholic families who are following the Church’s teachings in faith and morals. I wonder if the holy father has any words of advice for that situation.
Those who actually live this situation can tell the pope in quite vivid description that the reality is very often the opposite of what he describes. When good Catholic parents share the truth that same sex genital expression is a mortal sin they often feel completely without support, sometimes also from the Church where it should be found in the first place.
The Old Testament practice of shunning those who rejected community morals or customs is back in vogue, but not where you would suspect. It’s not Catholics who excommunicate those who reject God‘s agenda; now it’s LGBTQ individuals who shun family members for being ideologically impure.
“For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief.
Be ye not therefore partakers with them.
For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light.” Eph 5:5-8
The following link is to the story on the pope’s comments at the Wednesday audience today:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-says-parents-should-support-gay-children-not-condemn-them/
Irrational Indignation. On the very day the abusive abuse report commissioned by Munich Archdiocese was published by the law firm Westpfahl Spilker Wastl (WSW), a wave of indignation washed over the memory of Benedict XVI in Germany. At prime time, the verdict on Benedict XVI was pronounced in the public media: Guilty.
Pro-abortion “Catholics” projected an evil message promoting the legal murder of unborn human beings onto the Shrine exterior last night as authentic Catholics, who are always pro-life, worshipped inside.
Here is Cardinal Gregory’s response:
By FR. KEVIN M. CUSICK
There are many things we should fear; the inevitable is not one of them. It is a fact that death comes for all who live. We began this new year of 2022 with continued abuse of trust through lies and scaremongering on the Internet and social media in connection with the dangers of COVID.
There used to be a tight wicket through which potential news had to pass before it could appear in what was once a plentiful field of newspapers thriving in healthy and self-policing competition.
This paper is one which continues that gold standard of factual basis required before publication. Integrity also requires retraction when errors are discovered.
The Wild West of the Internet has made separating fact from fiction more difficult than ever. Complicating this phenomenon is the collapse into yellow journalism of once-trusted big city newspapers.
The fear of death and dying has been exploited by the mix of fact and fiction in the COVID 19 phenomenon. The restrictions, the lockdowns, the masks, the mandates have contributed to a pandemic of anxiety and mental illness.
Now we must add to this the civil rights violations of firing workers and expelling military members who refuse the experimental injection. Yes, vaccines often work; but no vaccine can prevent death. A disease with a 97 percent survival rate never warranted such an aggressive campaign playing so loosely with the facts. Hesitancy is warranted when one adds to this the thousands of unexplained deaths among the vaccinated.
So, death is a fact. We encounter it every day — in the tragedy of a New York apartment fire, in the death of the elderly from the flu together with pneumonia or other underlying morbidities and in the stillborn baby. We are free to deny the fact of death if we choose. The consequences, however, are equally inescapable.
Without acknowledgment of death, life itself is half-born. Denying death gives birth to a thousand and one pathologies some of which, ironically, can bring about the dreaded end more quickly.
And these are merely the natural consequences. The spiritual results are eternally dire. The ancient spiritual and psychological quest for answers continues bidden or not, because the human person yet faces the same death that has haunted mankind since Adam and Eve were banished from Eden.
The greatest library of books setting down the Revelation of God retains fascination for mankind. We see a sign of man’s continued relentless pursuit of answers to the ultimate questions of life and death in our own day. The “Bible in a Year” series by Ascension Press reached the status of number one overall podcast in the United States last year.
Read the rest: https://thewandererpress.com/catholic/news/our-catholic-faith/a-leaven-in-the-world-stop-fear-choose-faith/
Introit: Psalm verse.
REQUIEM + æternam dona eis, Domine: et lux perpetua luceat eis. Psalm 64. 2-3. Te decet hymnus, Deus, in Sion, et tibi reddetur votum in Jerusalem: exaudi orationem meam, ad te omnis caro veniet. Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine: et lux perpetua luceat eis.
ETERNAL + rest grant unto them, O Lord; and let perpetual light shine upon them. Psalm 64. 2-3. A hymn, O God, becometh Thee in Sion; and a vow shall be paid to Thee in Jerusalem: hear my prayer; all flesh shall come to Thee. Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord; and let perpetual light shine upon them.
Oration:
Incline Thine ear, O Lord, to our prayers, in which we humbly entreat Thy mercy; bring to the country of peace and light the soul of Thy servant James which thou hast summoned to go forth from this world and bid him to be numbered with Thy Saints. Through our Lord Jesus Christ …
Gospel: “ "Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask." Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." John 11
The priest and servers process out at the end of Mass.
James Anthony McGeogh
24 January 1942 - 2 November 2021
Requiscat in pace
This isn’t going to be pretty, folks. The downfall of a death cult rarely is. There is going to be wailing and gnashing of teeth, incoherent fanatical jabbering, mass deleting of embarrassing tweets. There’s going to be a veritable tsunami of desperate rationalizing, strenuous denying, shameless blame-shifting, and other forms of ass-covering, as suddenly former Covidian Cult members make a last-minute break for the jungle before the fully-vaxxed-and-boosted “Safe and Effective Kool-Aid” servers get to them.
Yes, that’s right, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, the official Covid narrative is finally falling apart, or is being hastily disassembled, or historically revised, right before our eyes. The “experts” and “authorities” are finally acknowledging that the “Covid deaths” and “hospitalization” statistics are artificially inflated and totally unreliable (which they have been from the very beginning), and they are admitting that their miracle “vaccines” don’t work (unless you change the definition of the word “vaccine”), and that they have killed a few people, or maybe more than a few people, and that lockdowns were probably “a serious mistake.”
I am not going to bother with further citations. You can surf the Internet as well as I can. The point is, the “Apocalyptic Pandemic” PSYOP has reached its expiration date. After almost two years of mass hysteria over a virus that causes mild-to-moderate common-cold or flu-like symptoms (or absolutely no symptoms whatsoever) in about 95% of the infected and the overall infection fatality rate of which is approximately 0.1% to 0.5%, people’s nerves are shot. We are all exhausted. Even the Covidian cultists are exhausted. And they are starting to abandon the cult en masse.
It was always mostly just a matter of time. As Klaus Schwab said, “the pandemic represent[ed] a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.”
It isn’t over, but that window is closing, and our world has not been “reimagined” and “reset,” not irrevocably, not just yet. Clearly, GloboCap underestimated the potential resistance to the Great Reset, and the time it would take to crush that resistance. And now the clock is running down, and the resistance isn’t crushed … on the contrary, it is growing. And there is nothing GloboCap can do to stop it, other than go openly totalitarian, which it can’t, as that would be suicidal. As I noted in a recent column:
“New Normal totalitarianism — and any global-capitalist form of totalitarianism — cannot display itself as totalitarianism, or even authoritarianism. It cannot acknowledge its political nature. In order to exist, it must not exist. Above all, it must erase its violence (the violence that all politics ultimately comes down to) and appear to us as an essentially beneficent response to a legitimate ‘global health crisis’ …”
https://consentfactory.org/2022/01/18/the-last-days-of-the-covidian-cult/
“Limited effectiveness, if any”. In the video below the head of Pfizer, CEO Bourla, uses the words “if any” to describe the usefulness of the “vaccine”. Not only is it a useless vaccine, the side effects are dangerous and, in thousands of cases, lethal.
So, why?
Now we know what they know, or already knew. The question now is, when did they know it?
https://rumble.com/vsopes-pfizer-admits-vaccines-dont-work-in-stunning-interview.html
Disclaimer: I do not condone any descriptions or recommendations of capital punishment in the above video.
UChicago continues to defy scientific and moral standards, dehumanizing us in the process.
Per the University of Chicago’s newly announcedbooster mandate, all students and employees must obtain a booster shot by January 24. Those who do not comply will be barred from campus and restricted from attending in-person classes, among other activities.
This booster mandate is demonstrably unsafe, ineffective, unnecessary, inconsistent, and unethical. We’ve struggled beneath UChicago’s draconian COVID decrees for years, but the university’s booster mandate reaches a new height of absurdity.
UChicago claims to rely upon “expert” opinion in structuring its COVID regime. Yet, even advisory committees at the FDA and CDC initially declined to recommend the COVID booster for those under the age of 65.
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee made an official recommendationto approve Pfizer’s application for boosters only for those 65 and older and certain high-risk populations after rejecting, in a 16-2 vote, Pfizer’s application for broader approval for the general population. The committee cited a lack of data on potential adverse effects, particularly the risks of developing myocarditis and pericarditis.
However, the FDA chose to cast aside this concern and granted “approval” anyways. But even this “approval” is itself questionable. The FDA only granted approval to Comirnaty, a legally distinct version of the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine that isn’t actually available in the United States. The version of the vaccine currently available in the US remains under Emergency Use Authorization, not formal approval.
Similarly, the CDC’s initial recommendation that Americans under the age of 65 receive boosters was made against the counsel of its own Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which voted to recommend boosters only for those over the age of 65 or who have underlying conditions. Director Rochelle Walensky overruled this vote in an unusual departure from agency protocol. The committee later reversed course, recommending a booster for 12-17 year olds. But the calculus behind its sudden 180-degree turn remains unclear, given that the initial concerns regarding myocarditis and pericarditis remain unresolved.
Vaccine-induced heart issues merit legitimate concern, especially for young males. A recent Danish study found that “pharmacovigilance reports, health system surveillance studies, and case series suggest an association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and myocarditis and myopericarditis. This association is thought to occur particularly after the second booster dose of mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna).” An analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine reached similar conclusions, particularly in males between the ages of 12 and 29.
Meanwhile, a new study published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology found a positive association between COVID vaccination and increased menstrual cycle length.
According to Diana Bianchi, director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, “Nobody expected [the COVID vaccine] to affect the menstrual system, because the information wasn’t being collected in the early vaccine studies.” The study’s authors note that “questions remain about other possible changes in menstrual cycles, such as menstrual symptoms, unscheduled bleeding, and changes in the quality and quantity of menstrual bleeding.”
Ironically, despite the speed with which the vaccine and booster have been infallibly declared “safe and effective” in disregard for potential long-term risks, the FDA is in no such rush to release its data on the vaccine.
According to the FDA’s statement on expanding eligibility for boosters to individuals 18 years of age and older, “Both Pfizer and Moderna are conducting post-authorization/post-marketing studies to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis.” However, a post-authorization study is useless if everyone has already been boosted 50 times by the time the study is complete.
The Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) filed a formal request to the FDA for the expedited release of all data on the Pfizer vaccine under the Freedom of Information Act. Members of PHMPT include well-established professors in the relevant fields from Yale, Brown, University of Maryland, UCLA, and other universities. The FDA denied this request, arguing the absence of a “compelling need.”
In fact, the FDA requested that a federal judge grant it until the year 2076 to release Pfizer’s data on the COVID vaccine, before it was recently ordered to release it all in eight months.
Despite the lack of transparency, and the booster’s observed and potential adverse health effects, UChicago forces its students and employees to accept its cost-benefit analysis: that the booster is “preferable” to the risk of contracting COVID while unboosted. In so doing, our anti-science university unsafely denies us the right to evaluate the cost-benefit analysis for ourselves.
If being “boosted” becomes a prerequisite for participation in normal life, the vaccine’s diminishing efficacy means the booster campaign will never end.
Comprehensive evidence suggests that the level of vaccination does not have a positive influence on lowering COVID cases. On these very lines, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky contended in August that vaccines no longer prevent transmission, despite confident promises she and many of her fellow “experts” previously made to the contrary.
Moreover, the original vaccine regime has proven ineffective over time, with another Israeli study showing that effectiveness declined from 95% in January to a mere 39% in June.
When first introduced, the boosters were posited as a way to rebuild the vaccine’s effectiveness. Yet, the COVID booster contains the same formula as the original, ineffective vaccinations, which means it, too, loses efficacy.
To this point, Cornell, which currently has both a mask and vaccine requirement, and a 97% on-campus vaccination rate, recently experienced a surge of COVID cases. In response, the administration declared an “Alert Level Red” zone, moved exams online, and shut down the campus. Out of the 930 confirmed cases, “Virtually every case of the Omicron variant to date has been found in fully vaccinated students, a portion of whom had also received a booster shot,” Vice President for University Relations Joel Malina stated.
If UChicago is planning to mandate recurring boosters (which is the only logical conclusion of its present decrees), then it should just own up and admit it immediately, rather than continue to deceive students with the false impression that these measures are temporary.
Mandates for the COVID vaccine and booster are unnecessary to protect the health of the UChicago community.
COVID has a survival rate of over 99.87% for individuals under the age of 65.
According to the CDC, only 5% of “COVID deaths” are solely attributable to COVID as the cause. The other 95% of “COVID deaths” involve, on average, almost 4 additional conditions (comorbidities) or causes per death.
We will not play pretend by accepting our university’s gross exaggerations of the public health risks of catching and transmitting COVID. We will not live in fear.
If slowing the spread of this glorified flu were the goal, UChicago would recognize natural immunity as a robust protection against reinfection—but it doesn’t.
As it stands, UChicago’s vaccine requirement cannot be satisfied with proof of T-cell immunity or a positive antibody or antigen test. This is unreasonable, as those who have been vaccinated not only have increased risk for infection, but an increased risk for symptomatic infection, in comparison to those possessing natural immunity.
This is made clear by a recent Israeli study, which “demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”
UChicago’s continued refusal to acknowledge natural immunity leads to only one conclusion: our university does not care about science, but only uses “science” as a guise for mandating recurring injections.
The Chicago Thinker recently confirmed that the university exempts University of Chicago Medical Center (UCMC) employees from the booster mandate, precisely because a significant number of doctors will resign if forced to get the jab. The university admittedto the Thinker that its UCMC exemption is an attempt to maintain medical staff, since presumably a significant number of UCMC’s 9,000-plus employees will resign if beholden to a booster mandate.
UChicago also exempts clinically active faculty and staff within its Biological Sciences Division (BSD) from its booster mandate, presumably for the same reason.
The lessons here are manifold.
First, UChicago is much less immune to protest than it pretends. If we speak out loudly now, we might just accomplish something.
Second, “the science” isn’t what the university claims and it’s actually bad business to pretend otherwise.
Consider that the UCMC’s total staff is larger than the total undergraduate population at UChicago. If our university truly believes the COVID booster is necessary to save lives, why are UCMC staff—who are arguably most at risk for catching and spreading the coronavirus—exempt from the booster mandate? The answer is clear: even the university itself doesn’t believe“the risks” posed by un-boostered employees outweigh the costs of losing crucial personnel.
Rather than allow all UChicago community members to engage in a cost-benefit analysis of our own, the university deceptively exploits tuition payers, in addition to countless employees, by forcing us to get the booster. Meanwhile, UChicago’s world-renowned medical health professionals and scientists get to live quietly by a different set of rules.
Moreover, the UCMC and BSD include some of the country’s top doctors and scientists, including experts in immunology. Take that in: Those who know the mostabout the booster are refusing to get it. What do these experts know about the booster that we don’t? And if they’re refusing to inject themselves with the booster, how is it remotely ethical to force us to inject ourselves? It’s not.
UChicago’s COVID caste system prioritizes the health and freedoms of a chosen few, while trampling on the rest. University instructors and tenured faculty members, University of Chicago police officers, dining hall workers, and twenty-something-year-old college students are all being coerced into getting the booster, but not doctors and select, “special” scientists.
Obviously, we need instructors in order to learn. Three UChicago community members were shot to death in Chicago in 2021 alone, so, clearly, we also need police officers to defend our community. Yet, by imposing such a discriminatory mandate, our university wrongly suggests some lives are more valuable than others. Or, at the very least, it shows it cares more about maintaining doctors and select scientists than professors and police officers, among others.
To be clear, we’re not calling for the UCMC and BSD to implement a booster requirement, but we do condemn UChicago for unethically discriminating against its employees and students. We’d expect such behavior from a Soviet committee, not a prestigious university purportedly dedicated to the production of knowledge in a free country.
UChicago directly violates established medical ethics by coercing its community members into experimental vaccination.
Free and informed consent is a precondition for allmedical treatments and procedures, including vaccination. For consent to be truly informed, the potential recipient must be proactively informed of all the observable and potential risks, side-effects, and dangers. And for consent to be truly free, the potential recipient must be made aware of all options, including the option to freely decline. Most importantly, this decision must be free of coercion, pressure, or threat of punishment.
For the first time in history, universities like our own are requiring experimental vaccination as a condition of attendance and employment.
The university’s threat of expulsion constitutes unjustifiable pressure, especially considering the vaccine’s experimental nature; this absolutely qualifies as an element of “duress,” “overreaching,” and “coercion.”
To make matters worse, we find ourselves in a position where those who wish to infringe upon our bodily autonomy have relieved themselves of the responsibility of even having to prove their scientific assertions. Instead, they’ve shifted the burden of proof onto us; we must conclusively demonstrate why their hypochondriacal impositions do not make sense, which is a total inversion of the normal process of scientific inquiry.
Rather than allow us to engage in the intimately personal and inherently subjective process of making our own risk-assessments concerning these novel injections, UChicago refuses to allow us to freelyconsent or decline. Instead, it treats us like lab rats.
The yes-men will try to interject that we can all apply for exemptions and disenroll from UChicago if denied, but this counterargument is as immoral as it is lousy.
First, universities across the country, including UChicago, have consistently announced their new COVID policies on a whim—not even leaving students the time or ability to create contingency plans. Second, choosing a college isn’t a game of plug-and-play. It’s a process that entails a significant investment of hard work, time, financial resources, and effort to find the right match.
To tell a student who has invested two or three years of hard work and over $100,000 in tuition to attend UChicago that he must suddenly find a way to transfer to a school in a different state—a school that might not even be able to properly accommodate his specific academic interests and career track—in the middle of his winter quarter is ludicrous.
For the past two academic years, we’ve endured mandatory weekly invasive COVID testing; a laundry list of restrictions on movement and socialization enforced by a suffocating surveillance-and-reporting apparatus; needless quarantines in dorm rooms, even after testing negative; lackluster online classes; barred access to countless campus amenities and resources, including libraries and gyms; and, now, vaccine and booster requirements with limited exemptions, all while footing the same $60,000+ in annual tuition.
We went along with these initial edicts for convenience’s sake, perhaps contending that compliance in the short term would mean a long-term return to normalcy.
We rationalized that after bearing one year of Zoom classes to “slow the spread,” we’d finally be able to enjoy the state-of-the-art research facilities, nerdy camaraderie, and beautiful campus we were attracted to when we first applied to UChicago.
If we got the vaccine, we thought we’d finally be able to take off our masks and breathe, sit in a classroom with our friends, hang out in our dorms, and go to parties.
Those who thought we’d be free to enjoy the normal college experience we so desperately wanted if we just got the first two vaccine doses were completely wrong. This isn’t over. It’s only just begun.
We’ve become lab rats in a perpetual war against a glorified flu—and there’s no end in sight. UChicago continues to defy scientific and moral standards, dehumanizing us in the process.
Clearly, this is not about saving lives. It’s about control. We will not be controlled.
Our demands are as follows:
1. We demand that the University of Chicago withdraw its unsafe, ineffective, unnecessary, inconsistent, and unethical vaccine and booster mandates.
2. We demand that the university name those responsible for creating and implementing its COVID decrees, especially with regards to vaccination. We also demand it name those responsible for reviewing and approving bothmedical and religious exemptions to vaccine and booster mandates.
3. We demand that the university make a public statement to all community members explaining whyUCMC staff and BSD personnel are not required to receive boosters, but students and other university employees are.
4. Lastly, we call on all members of our university community to fight back. This mandate is wrong. Do not allow University President Paul Alivisatos’s administration to pretend otherwise.
Signed,
The 2021-2022 Editorial Board of the Chicago Thinker:
Audrey Unverferth (Publisher & Editor-in-Chief, ’22)
Evita Duffy (Managing Editor, ’22)
Declan Hurley (Vice President, ’24)
Matthew Heck (Chief Newsletter Author and Senior Editor, ’22)
Chad Berkich (Senior Editor, ’24)
Sonni Fitzsimonds (Senior Editor, ’22)
Aidan Griffin (Senior Editor, ’23)
Eden Negussie (Senior Editor, ’24)
Mitchell Robson (Senior Editor, ’24)
Primary Author: Eden Negussie (Senior Editor, ’24)
