Au cours de l’Audience générale du 23 juin 2021, le pape François a entamé une série de catéchèses portant sur l’épître de saint Paul aux Galates.
Après avoir replacé le texte dans son contexte géographique et culturel, le pape décrit l’œuvre d’évangélisation telle que la pratiquait saint Paul dans ces régions païennes.
Il reprend ensuite un passage de cette épître, qui avertit les Galates, troublés par des théories judéo-chrétiennes, de ne pas se laisser tromper. La réaction de saint Paul est bien connue : il fait un reproche véhément à ses enfants de Galatie. Ces paroles sont à citer (Ga 1, 6-9) :
« Je m’étonne que si vite vous vous laissiez détourner de celui qui vous a appelés en la grâce de Jésus-Christ, pour passer à un autre Evangile : non certes qu’il y en ait un autre ; seulement il y a des gens qui vous troublent et qui veulent changer l’Evangile du Christ. Mais quand nous-mêmes, quand un ange venu du ciel vous annoncerait un autre Evangile que celui que nous vous avons annoncé, qu’il soit anathème ! »
Une application curieuse
Le pape fait alors une application à notre époque : « Aujourd’hui aussi ne manquent pas des prédicateurs qui, en particulier à travers les nouveaux moyens de communication, peuvent troubler les communautés.
« Ils [ne] se présentent (…) pour affirmer avec insistance, en vrais “gardiens de la vérité ” – c’est ainsi qu’ils s’appellent –, quelle est la meilleure façon d’être chrétiens.
« Et ils affirment avec force que le vrai christianisme est celui auquel ils sont attachés, souvent identifié avec certaines formes du passé, et que la solution aux crises actuelles est de revenir en arrière pour ne pas perdre l’authenticité de la foi. Aujourd’hui aussi, comme alors, il existe donc la tentation de se refermer sur certaines certitudes acquises dans des traditions passées.
« Mais comment pouvons-nous reconnaître ces personnes ? Par exemple, l’une des caractéristiques de leur manière de procéder est la rigidité. (…) Toujours la rigidité : on doit faire cela, on doit faire ceci… La rigidité est propre à ces personnes. »
L’application est curieuse, du fait qu’elle inverse le rôle du passé et du présent. Saint Paul affirme que ceux qui troublent la communauté des Galates enseignent un nouvel évangile, différent de celui qui leur a été annoncé.
Alors que le pape reproche à ces « gardiens de la vérité », de vouloir revenir au passé, ce qui est l’exact inverse de ce que saint Paul explique. Comme le dit saint Vincent de Lérins (mort vers 450), si un auteur récent enseigne une doctrine qui diverge du passé, qui faut-il croire ? Il faut, affirme-t-il « s’attacher à l’antiquité, qui, évidemment, ne peut plus être séduite par aucune nouveauté mensongère ».
La seconde curiosité est cette insistance sur la rigidité, et la sécurité que peuvent éprouver certains fidèles à s’attacher au passé qui « ne peut plus être séduit » par les nouveautés erronées. C’est la caractéristique de toute révolution de vouloir couper de leurs racines ceux qu’elle veut entraîner dans un futur nébuleux.
Et c’est exactement ce qu’ont fait les sectateurs du concile Vatican II : ils ont créé une « Eglise conciliaire » – le mot est de Mgr Giovanni Benelli – qui a une date de naissance. Ce qui la précède est passé et dépassé, et rigide selon François.
C’est ainsi que les catholiques sont déracinés du tronc de la Tradition et de sa sève, avec les résultats que nous pouvons constater aujourd’hui : la perte de la foi, malgré ce que peut penser le pape.
Français, belges… Des athlètes vaccinés allant aux J.O constatent une forte baisse des performances Le cas du sprinter médaillé français Christophe Lemaître dont les performances sportives ont chuté depuis sa vaccination anti-Covid – au point de probablement lui faire perdre la possibilité de représenter la France aux prochains Jeux olympiques
La nouvelle Blanche-Neige : une militante d’extrême-gauche obsédée par la censure Pendant que les médias s’extasient de voir l’héroïne de Disney incarnée par Rachel Zegler, une jeune femme métisse, cette dernière se fait surtout remarquer sur les réseaux sociaux, où elle multiplie les anathèmes politiques. Un condensé d’intolérances qui résume la génération « woke ».
EU approves report on ‘reproductive health,’ presents abortion as human right
The report qualifies a doctor’s objection to abortion ‘based on personal beliefs’ about the unborn as ‘the denial of medical care.’ Thu Jun 24, 2021 – 2:52 pm EST
BRUSSELS, June 24, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A March 25 report “on the situation of sexual and reproductive health and rights in the EU [European Union], in the frame of women’s health” has received the approval of the European Parliament, thereby adopting the report’s framing of abortion as an “essential health service” and a “human right” in a vote Thursday.
The “reproductive health” document, known as the Matić report from the name of its sponsor in the European Parliament, Croatian MEP Predrag Fred Matić, also qualifies a doctor’s objection to abortion “based on personal beliefs” about the unborn as “the denial of medical care.”
During a plenary session of the European Parliament, the legislative body of the EU, lawmakers voted in favor of the pro-abortion report, 378-255, with 42 abstentions. A press statement released by the Parliament after the vote declared that “sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR) [are] a fundamental pillar of women’s rights and gender equality that cannot in any way be watered down or withdrawn.” Accordingly, the Parliament urged EU member states “to ensure women are offered high quality, comprehensive and accessible SRHR, and to remove all barriers impeding them from using these services.”
The Parliament stressed that these services include “[a]ccess to abortion, contraception and sexuality education,” informing those EU countries with “highly restrictive laws prohibiting abortion [like Poland]” that they now violate a woman’s “human rights.” The report now requires “all member states to ensure universal access” to what the EU calls “safe and legal abortion, and guarantee that abortion on request is legal in early pregnancy, and beyond if the pregnant person’s health is in danger.”
Not satisfied with expanding the definition of abortion to become a human right, the report also diminishes conscience rights, framing objections to abortion as the denial of “care” and “a form of gender-based violence.” “MEPs regret that some member states allow medical practitioners, and even entire medical institutions, refuse the provision of health services because of a so-called conscience clause,” the Parliament’s statement reads. “This leads to the denial of abortion care on the grounds of religion or conscience and puts women’s lives in danger.”
MEPs also emphasized an apparent need to provide sexual education to “primary and secondary school children,” claiming that such instruction “can significantly contribute to reducing sexual violence and harassment.”
Matić commented on the success of the vote, saying that it “marks a new era in the European Union and the first real resistance to a regressive agenda that has trampled on women’s rights in Europe for years.”
Before the Matić report was approved, two alternative proposals were put to the chamber in a last ditch attempt to block the report, German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost reported. The Christian Democratic EPP parliamentary group and the euroskeptic ECR group both had their attempts thwarted earlier in the day, with the respective proposals voted out by 373-288 and 402-267. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Support 2-year-old’s right to remain on life support in UK
3,867 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 4,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
The bishops of the EU criticized the Matić report for its “one-sided perspective,” neglecting any concern for the rights of the unborn human being whose life is at stake. In a paper written in response to the pro-abortion proposal, the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE) contradicts the notion of a “human right to abortion.” “A medical intervention of such magnitude cannot and must not become a normal practice” and is “ethically untenable.”
“There is no international human rights, or other international treaty, that provides for such a general ‘human right to abortion’ or a corresponding obligation of States,” they stated. In fact, the bishops asserted that the report “disregards the responsibility of the Member States to define their health policy and the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care,” thus usurping the sovereign rights of those states.
Despite the many objections, “[a] majority of MEPs have made their position clear to member states and called on them to ensure access to safe and legal abortion and a range of other sexual and reproductive health services,” commented Matić.
FDA will add heart inflammation warning to COVID-19 vaccines after cases spike
‘We do agree that, based on the available data, a warning statement … would be warranted in this situation,’ FDA official Dr. Daron Fink said on Wednesday. Thu Jun 24, 2021 – 5:12 pm EST
June 24, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will place a heart inflammation warning label on fact sheets for COVID-19 vaccines made by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, the agency announced on Wednesday.
Dr. Doran Fink, deputy director of the FDA’s vaccine division, told an expert panel of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that the FDA plans to “move rapidly” to add the new warnings in light of increased reports of post-vaccine heart issues.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) convened on Wednesday to discuss data on higher-than-expected cases of heart inflammation among people who received doses of either the Pfizer or Moderna shot, both of which rely on messenger RNA technology. The CDC had planned an emergency meeting to address the reports last week, though that meeting was scrapped due to Juneteenth.
“We do agree that, based on the available data, a warning statement in the fact sheets for both healthcare providers and vaccine recipients and caregivers would be warranted in this situation,” Fink said. “We anticipate that following today’s ACIP meeting we would move rapidly to update the fact sheets with this information,” he added.
The warnings “would likely include information stating that these events have occurred in some vaccine recipients, particularly following dose two of mRNA vaccines, that the onset of symptoms typically have been several days to a week following vaccination,” Fink continued. While “most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms,” “limited information is available about potential long-term” complications, he noted.
The CDC announced at the ACIP meeting that more than 1,200 cases of heart inflammation following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to federal authorities as of June 11. The 1,226 reports involve myocarditis, a type of inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis, inflammation of the lining around the heart, according to the CDC. Common symptoms include chest pain, shortness of breath, and heart palpitations. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
More than 800 cases of heart inflammation occurred in patients who took a second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, while 267 cases were reported after an initial dose. Males made up the vast majority of patients, including 79% of those after dose two, based on data presented by Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of the CDC’s vaccine safety office.
Most cases followed use of the Pfizer vaccine, which has received emergency authorization from the FDA for children older than 12. Around 39% of all cases involve individuals under 30 years old, Shimabukuro’s presentation related. Among reports with young people, the CDC identified 323 that meet the agency’s case definition. Nearly all of those cases required hospitalization, and nine patients are still in the hospital.
Reports were submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a vaccine injury tracking program run by the FDA and CDC. Experts repeatedlyhave flagged VAERS, a passive surveillance system, for significantly undercounting injuries, as public commenters stressed at the ACIP meeting. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus
1,042,705 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 1,050,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Dr. Grace Lee, who co-chairs the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group, posited a “likely association” between myocarditis and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. “Data available to date suggest likely association of myocarditis with mRNA vaccination in adolescents and young adults,” she said on Wednesday, echoing similar findings by Israeli authorities.
“Clinical presentation of myocarditis cases following vaccination has been distinct, occurring most often within one week after dose 2, with chest pain as the most common presentation,” Lee added.
The new data unveiled by the CDC yesterday represents a sharp uptick in reported cases of post-vaccination heart inflammation from just two weeks ago, when the CDC announced that almost 800 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis had been submitted to VAERS through May 31.
Despite the “likely” link between heart inflammation and mRNA vaccines, ACIP said that the current vaccine policy would not change, even for young people, claiming that a risk-benefit analysis still favored the vaccines. Children and young adults have a COVID-19 death rate as low as 0.1%, if not lower, based on CDC estimates.
In April, the FDA recommended a pause on the COVID-19 vaccine made by Johnson & Johnson in response to six cases of blood clotting. The CDC has said that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which is especially connected to abortion, does not have a “similar reporting pattern” regarding heart inflammation.
LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
OTTAWA, Ontario, June 24, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – On the last day before Canada’s House of Commons left for summer break, the ruling Liberal Party under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau snuck in a new “hate speech” bill that one pundit cited as an “incredibly dangerous” attack on free speech.
If passed, the bill would theoretically allow a tribunal to judge anyone who has a complaint of “online” hate against them to be in violation of the new law.
Bill C-36, introduced by Justice Minister David Lametti, is titled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act and to make related amendments to another Act (hate propaganda, hate crimes and hate speech).” It was officially tabled in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
“Canadians expect their government to take action against hate speech and hate crimes. These legislative changes would improve the remedies available to victims of hate speech and hate crimes, and would hold individuals accountable. The actions we are taking today will help protect the vulnerable, empower those who are victimized and hold individuals to account for the hatred they spread online,” said Lametti about his bill in a press release.
Bill C-36 includes text to amend Canada’s Criminal Code and Human Rights Act to rather vaguely define “hatred” as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain (haine).” SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
The text clarifies that “for greater certainty, the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred, for the purposes of this section, solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”
One minister who spearheaded another bill targeting online user content promised earlier that the new bill will be “controversial.”
“People think that C-10 was controversial. Wait till we table this legislation,” Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault told an industry conference about the new bill last week, according to a National Post report.
Lametti’s new bill will not proceed any further in the house due to the summer break, but most likely will be used by Trudeau as a showpiece form of legislation to campaign for a possible late summer or fall election.
The ‘kind of legislation you would expect to see in an anti-democratic, Communist state’
Conservative opinion writer Spencer Fernando gave a scathing review of Bill C-36 in a report he posted today, saying “With Bill C-10, and now Bill C-36, there can be zero doubt that the Trudeau Liberal government is engaged in an attack on your freedom of expression.”
According to Fernando, Bill C-36 is “incredibly dangerous, goes against Canada’s values, and must be stopped.”
“This is the kind of legislation you would expect to see in an anti-democratic, Communist state that is seeking to create wide pretexts to arrest or punish whomever the government feels has ‘stepped out of line’ with the official government message,” opined Fernando.
“That’s why the vagueness of this is – in the eyes of the Trudeau government – a feature, not a bug. The more vague the definition of hate in Bill C-36 is, the more the government can abuse their power and apply that power in a politically biased way to chill and silence their opponents, while giving themselves and their ideological allies a free pass.”
If passed, Bill C-36 would join Guilbeault’s controversial Bill C-10, or “Act to amend the Broadcasting Act,” which has drawn fire for its targeting of user-generated content on social media platforms, on social media platforms.
The National Post report said Bill C-10 is not expected to be rubber stamped by the senate, as is common practice for cabinet bills.
According to a summary of Bill C-36, the enactment “amends the Criminal Code to create a recognizance to keep the peace relating to hate propaganda and hate crime and to define ‘hatred’ for the purposes of two hate propaganda offences. It also makes related amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.”
“In addition, it amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to provide that it is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. It authorizes the Canadian Human Rights Commission to accept complaints alleging this discriminatory practice and authorizes the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to adjudicate complaints and order remedies,” reads the summary.
If passed, Bill C-36 will resurrect Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 13 was a controversial hate speech law under the Human Rights Act that was abolished in 2013.
Under section 13, cease-and-desist orders with large fines could have been ordered by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal should a complaint leveled against an individual alleging “hatred” through “the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet” be found true by the tribunal.
The new bill amends the Human Rights Act by adding the following: “13(1)It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
Section 13 will not apply “in respect of a private communication” as well as to those with “a license to carry on a broadcasting undertaking, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Broadcasting Act; and (b) a person who carries on a distribution undertaking, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Broadcasting Act, if the communication in question is part of a programming service that the person does not originate.”
Bill C-36 will amend the criminal code to allow anyone with the Attorney General’s consent to “lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit (a)an offence under section 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2); (b) an offence under subsection 430(4.1); or (c)an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.”
Just recently, Guilbeault said he would soon introduce a new internet “content moderation” legislation to “address categories of online harms” in Canada.
According to the National Post report, Lametti’s parliamentary secretary, Arif Virani, told the publication in March that the new bill would look at codifying into law new definitions of online hate and introduce new rules for websites. This could include a “regulator” that would be tasked with enforcing taking down websites within 24 hours should they be deemed to have illegal content.
Virani also confirmed for the National Post that the government was “examining” the controversial section 13.
Contact information for respectful communication:
David Lametti Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada 284 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8 Email: mcu@justice.gc.ca
Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau Office of the Prime Minister 80 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2 Fax: 613-941-6900 Use online contact form here.
To contact your member of parliament (MP), click here.
To contact members of Canada’s senate, click here.
Largest healthcare union in US comes out against mandatory COVID vaccination
The leader of the Service Employees International Union vowed that ‘we are not going to just give in’ to threats to receive the shots or lose your job. Thu Jun 24, 2021 – 7:41 pm EST
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.
June 24, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The largest healthcare union in the United States said that its members should not be forced to take a vaccination against COVID-19.
“Whether there is a legal challenge that we can make, or whether it’s just a pure organizational challenge that we can make, we are not going to just give in,” George Gresham of SEIU Local 1199 said to New York publication Gothamist. The Service Employees International Union has been a key ally for the Democratic Party.
Gresham, president of the SEIU local, was reacting to news that New York Presbyterian Hospital would require all of its employees to receive a COVID vaccine, despite none of them having full FDA approval. Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently warned about heart inflammation risks to people under 30 who receive the vaccine.
Gresham had previously voiced his opposition to mandatory vaccinations.
“We are not in agreement with a mandate of the COVID-19 vaccine. A hard-handed approach will not work and will only create greater frustration for the healthcare heroes who have been battling this pandemic every day for the last 15 months,” Gresham, who has received the vaccine, said in a June 11 statement. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
A memo from the hospital said that “all employees must take at least one COVID-19 shot by September 1st to keep their jobs,” according to Gothamist’s paraphrase of the directive. “Those seeking a medical or religious exemption must apply for one by August 1st. About 70 percent of staff at NewYork-Presbyterian have been vaccinated so far,” the website reported. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus
1,042,699 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 1,050,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
“NYSNA strongly opposes the mandatory vaccination of health care providers for COVID-19 as a condition of employment or as a state or federal mandate,” the union said. “NYSNA calls for independent scientific reviews of all vaccine trial data at both the federal and state levels to assure those who wish to be vaccinated of the safety of all FDA approved COVID-19 vaccines.”
The pushback from unions is similar to what New York Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo faced when he tried to mandate COVID vaccines at public universities.
Cuomo, who is currently under investigation relating to COVID nursing home deaths, required all students at State University of New York and City University of New York to receive the jab.
However, he exempted faculty and staff from the requirements because of union contracts.
“It will be absolutely crucial in getting back to a sense of normalcy in our campus communities,” Fred Kowal, a leader in a teachers union, said in praise of the mandate. However, Kowal does not want the vaccine mandated for his own constituents.
“It would require negotiations with (his union),” The Buffalo News reported.
Gerald Harmon, president of the American Medical Association, has said his group opposes COVID vaccine mandates, at least for the time being.
He said such directives are “a blunt instrument and may carry the risk of eroding trust and undermining public health goals.
June 24, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Today, Bishop Georg Bätzing, the head of the German bishops’ conference, met with Pope Francis in a private audience, the second audience since his election as head of the German bishops. Right after this meeting, the German bishops published a statement by Bätzing, in which he states that the Pope “encourages” the German Synodal Path and even asks the Germans to “help shape” the three-year work of the Synod of Bishops on Synodality that the Pope announced.
Cardinal Gerhard Müller, in a statement requested by LifeSite (see full statement below), criticizes this new press release of the German bishops, calling it a “well-sophisticated self-praise.” He points out “that the agenda of the Synodal Path is diametrically opposed to the Catholic faith in form and content.”
Bishop Bätzing, in his official statement after his meeting with the Pope, explains that he has “extensively informed” Francis about the “state of the Synodal Path” and that he told him that “insinuations, according to which the Church in German is intending to enter independent, particular paths [‘Sonderwege’] are made up out of thin air.”
“The Pope encouraged us to continue the to walk the Synodal Path as chosen by us, to discuss openly and honestly the open questions and to come to recommendations for another conduct of the Church,” the German bishops adds.
“At the same time,” Bätzing says, “he invited the Church in Germany to help shape the Path of Synodality that will lead to the Synod of Bishops in 2023, as announced by him [Pope Francis].”
Unless Pope Francis issues a correction of this official German statement within a very short time – which is highly improbable – one may conclude from this meeting and message that which many concerned observers were worried about for years now: namely, that Pope Francis supports the German Synodal Path. And that Synodal Path is currently questioning many of the Church’s irreformable doctrines (such as on an all-male priesthood, the clerical governance of the Church, and the ban on blessings of homosexual couples, cohabitation, and contraception). SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
Only last month, a strange event took place: Cardinal Reinhard Marx offered his resignation as archbishop of Munich-Freising to Pope Francis, saying that he sees the Church at a “dead end” with regard to the sexual abuse crisis and the lack of reform. The Pope had met with Marx, discussed the matter with him, yet still allowed him to publish his letter offering his resignation which the Pope then rejected only a few days later.
As many observers said at the time: this very much seemed like a staged event that would give Pope Francis the chance to give Cardinal Marx an official approval for having started, in 2019, the controversial Synodal Path that has rocked the Catholic Church in Germany ever since.
Should anyone have had doubts as to where Pope Francis stood with regard to the German path of heterodoxy and worse, his approval of Marx, as well as his own decision to start an international Synodal Path for the entire Catholic Church – after starting a Synodal Path in Italy – should put any doubts to rest. No one, after seeing the recklessness of the German proposals for reform (including the blessing of homosexual couples, which provoked a statement from the Vatican rejecting it), would ever dare opening up more of those paths within the Church.
This new international Synodal Path, which will be multi-staged, was announced last month by Mario Grech, the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops. The bishops’ gathering will begin in Rome in October of this year, followed by six months of meetings at the diocesan level, next at the national level, and then at the continental level. These meetings will take in the opinions of religious communities, lay associations, and Catholic universities.
Should Pope Francis ever have been seriously concerned that the Synodal Path of the Catholic Church in Germany is proclaiming heretical ideas and practices, he would have had the moral duty of the Supreme Shepherd to stop them, for the good of the souls. And he certainly would not ask them to help “shape” the Church’s international Synodal Path.
There are many aspects of the Catholic faith at stake. As Cardinal Müller in today’s statement points out, “the agenda of the Synodal Path is diametrically opposed to the Catholic faith in form and content,” and he reminds us that the German Synodal Path is “on a collision course with the Catholic Faith.” Furthermore, the German prelates reminds us of the hierarchical-sacramental structure of the Catholic Church and also of an all-male priesthood.
“The threefold Sacrament of Holy Orders presupposes, among other criteria, the male gender of its recipient. This truth is definitive teaching of the Church and must not be secularized in the logic of prestige and power,” he explains.
Cardinal Müller also rejects the German Synodal Path’s claim that celibacy is one of the root problems of the current clerical sex abuse crisis. Finally, he calls for a genuine Catholic life and good shepherds, which is the only way for regaining strength and conviction in the Catholic Church.
Below is the full statement by Cardinal Gerhard Müller:
The press release of the German Bishops’ Conference (DBK) of June 24, 2021 on the visit of its chairman Bishop Bätzing to the Pope contains in diplomatic phrases well-sophisticated self-praise. It intends nothing other than the well-known tactic of appeasing the critics of the Synodal Way and concealing its anti-Catholic agenda. As always, one feels highly encouraged by the Pope and fully encouraged to continue on the previous path until the (blessed or bitter) end. Summa summarum: Much ado about nothing and all excitement in vain! For the Bishop of Limburg has finally « made it clear » to the successor of Peter, « whom Christ placed at the head of the Apostles and in him instituted a perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of faith and communion » (Lumen gentium 18), that circulated attributions according to which the Church in Germany wants to go down particular paths are made up out of thin air. »
So the warnings of a confrontational course concerning the unity of the Church and its revealed doctrine of the faith can only have been invented by devious or incompetent cardinals, bishops and theologians from all over the world in order to worry the Pope in Rome or even to instrumentalize him for a Catholicism that does not want to take note of the realities of life today?
But only those who enjoy the gift of infinite naiveté still believe in the fairy tale of the good, forward-pushing Pope and his evil, slowing-down collaborators (Ladaria, Koch and even Kasper). Does this mean that they just wanted to test how far they could go, or has the realization grown that the agenda of the Synodal Path is diametrically opposed to the Catholic faith in form and content? What is Catholic does not result from the combined majority of subjective opinions, but objectively from the binding doctrinal documents of the Catholic Church guided by the Pope and the bishops in communion with him (Lumen gentium 8).
In order that communion of the faithful may not « depart from the path of faith, » the bishops, as successors of the apostles, must « preserve the good entrusted to them » (1 Tim 6:20), i.e., remain in the « teaching of the Apostles. » (Acts 2:42). With regard to the agenda of the Synodal Path, which is on a collision course with the Catholic Faith, its most important points are mentioned once again for the sake of clarity:
The informal assembly of German bishops with representatives of lay organizations, called Synodal Way, has no teaching authority in matters of Catholic faith and is not above the sacramental (=hierarchical) constitution of the Church. (« Hierarchy » here is only the equivalent of sacramentality and has nothing to do with a political-sociological super- and subordination in a secular ruling body).
It is untruthful and dishonorable to attribute the sexual offenses of individual persons (clergy and laity in church service) causally to the celibacy of priests, the vows of religious orders and the sexual ethics of the Church rooted in the Christian image of man of the Commandments of God. Since the evangelical counsels are gifts of the Holy Spirit, the materialistic thesis of the irresistibility of the sexual instinct or its automatic discharge in perversions would mean that God himself would have to be declared the author of sin. The believer, however, is enabled by the grace of God to fulfill the Commandments of God in free will and to fulfill the promise of abstinence.
The apostolic authority of the pope, bishops and priests to teach, guide and sanctify the faithful does not come from a claim to power in the secular sense, but has been conferred upon them by Jesus as a participation in His Messianic Authority and mission. Priests and laity are united in Christ the High Priest and work together in building up the Body of Christ, the Church.
The threefold Sacrament of Holy Orders presupposes, among other criteria, the male gender of its recipient. This truth is definitive teaching of the Church and must not be secularized in the logic of prestige and power.
The Church can regain her credibility only through a genuinely Christian life of Catholics. The apostolic ministry becomes a witness to Christ when priests see themselves as good shepherds and live according to the example of Jesus, who gave his life for his sheep.
Dispatches from the War: the pharmaceutical medical troops occupy planet Earth How many drug scripts do doctors write per year? by Jon Rappoport (To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.) I wrote the following piece in 2017. It details the massively successful infiltration of pharmaceutical armies among the population. These men and women are war criminals. Here we go: Medical News Today reports that, in 2011, there was a modest uptick in the number of drug prescriptions written in the US. The increase brought the total to: 4.02 billion. Yes, in 2011, doctors wrote 4.02 billion prescriptions for drugs in America. That’s an average of roughly 13 prescriptions for each man, woman, and child. That’s about one new prescription every month for every American. (Update: the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that in 2016, 4,065,479,343 drug prescriptions were written by US doctors—an increase of 65 million.) The Medical News Today article concluded, “…the industry should be heartened by the growth of the number of prescriptions and spending.” Yes, I’m sure the drug industry popped champagne corks. We’re talking about prescriptions here. We’re not talking about the number of pills Americans took. We’re also not counting over-the-counter drugs or vaccine shots. Pharmacopoeia, a 2011 exhibition at the British Museum, estimated that “the average number of pills a person takes in his or her own lifetime in the UK is 14,000.” That’s as a result of prescriptions. Including over-the-counter drugs, the 14,000 number would swell to 40,000 pills taken in a lifetime. What are the effects of all these drugs? We are looking at a supreme Trojan Horse that is rotting out America and all other countries from the inside. Wars, no wars, economic deprivation, economic prosperity, the drugs continue to do their work, debilitating and ruining and terminating lives. Many sources can be cited to confirm this assessment. On January 8th, 2001, the LA Times published an article by one of the best medical reporters in the business, Linda Marsa: “When Good Drugs Do Harm.” Marsa quoted researcher Dr. David Bates, who indicated that, in the US, there are 36 million serious adverse reactions to medical drugs per year. On July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published the most stunning mainstream estimate of medical-drug damage in history: “Is US health really the best in the world?” The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a respected public-health researcher at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Starfield concluded that medical drugs were killing Americans at the rate of 106,000 per year. That’s a million deaths per decade. This is a conservative sketch of the Trojan Horse that has been placed in the center of every country in the world. The pharmaceutical juggernaut will continue, no doubt about it. The only question is, how many people will wake up and seek another way? The destruction of societies by medical drugs goes far beyond what some people call “over-prescribing.” This isn’t just a tilt in the wrong direction. It isn’t simply errors of judgment compounded by the number of doctors dispensing medicines. Those are all polite terms suggesting the situation can be corrected through a show of better professional judgment. That will never happen. Countries of the world are literally being assaulted by pharmaceutical companies and their foot-soldier doctors. It’s chemical warfare. To even begin to see light at the end of the tunnel, hundreds of millions of people must add themselves to the rolls of those who already are pursuing better health through natural means. Not even the Nazis and their dearly beloved cartel, the monster IG Farben, dreamed of the day when the citizenry would line up and demand to ingest more and more life-destroying chemicals. What about the FDA, the federal agency responsible for certifying all medical drugs “safe and effective,” before release for public use in the US? The FDA is completely aware of the monstrous death toll and the injuries stemming from the very drugs they’re approving—but they take zero responsibility. On an FDA website page, “Preventable Adverse Drug Reactions: A Focus on Drug Interactions,” the agency discusses the “problem”—but as you can see from the title, they’re framing the conversation in terms of “interactions,” as if drugs are maiming and killing people because they are accidentally combining effects. This is a gross lie. Here are quotes from the FDA page, which come just after trying to pawn off absurdly low drug-death and injury numbers: “However, other studies conducted on hospitalized patient populations have placed much higher estimates on the overall incidence of serious ADRs [adverse drugs reactions]. These studies estimate that 6.7% of hospitalized patients have a serious adverse drug reaction with a fatality rate of 0.32%.2 If these estimates are correct, then there are more than 2,216,000 serious ADRs in hospitalized patients, causing over 106,000 deaths annually. If true, then ADRs are the 4th leading cause of death—ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile deaths.” “These statistics do not include the number of ADRs that occur in ambulatory settings. Also, it is estimated that over 350,000 ADRs occur in U.S. nursing homes each year.3 The exact number of ADRs is not certain and is limited by methodological considerations. However, whatever the true number is, ADRs represent a significant public health problem that is, for the most part, preventable.” Yes, preventable, if any government were determined to neutralize the pharmaceutical armies ravaging humanity. But that is not the case. Governments are backing the killers.
By David McLoone
Dispatches from the War: the pharmaceutical medical troops occupy planet Earth How many drug scripts do doctors write per year? by Jon Rappoport (To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, 
naufrage/sauvetage 