USA: Mob Rule ‘New Normal’ – Could This Happen In Increasingly Secular UK? 

Comment: 

Quite openly now, some Americans appear to be of the opinion that they hate Trump more than they love a peaceful, ordered, law-abiding lifestyle.  Ridiculous calls to defund the police and abolish prisons underline this lunacy.  There’s clearly – it seems to me – a demonic input here.  

However, shouldn’t we be sitting up and paying attention in the UK? One doctor interviewed on TV this morning, divulged the fact that those in the health advisory business awaited with bated breath to see just how compliant the people of the UK would be under lockdown and continuing restrictions.  They were, apparently, amazed.  Little wonder, as the majority were, indeed, compliant.  All talk about “blind faith” and “unquestioning obedience” – once applied sarcastically to religious people, specifically Catholics – were now applicable to… well…  just about the entire population. 

With talk now of a second (and more) wave of the virus, with the possibility of more lockdowns, whether local or national, that blind faith just might, who knows, give way to a lot of questioning and, albeit belated, fact-finding, which may lead to civil unrest across the four nations…

But here’s a thought: both the SNP Government in Scotland and the Westminster Government in England were very sympathetic to the thousands who turned out to support the Black Lives Matter protests – where neither social distancing nor face-mask rules were enforced; with the police generally turning a blind eye to all that “keep safe” stuff.  So, what do you think – might we find ourselves in an equally lawless situation, as lockdown frustrations boil over, not least when people begin to feel the financial pinch, and perhaps find themselves unemployed?  We all sincerely hope not, I am sure, but is it a possibility?  And if so, who will the politicians (and the clergy)  support – the police or the protesters?  

SNP: Incredible Hate Crime Law – Free to Disagree Campaign in Scotland…

Comment: 

Here’s a commentator from Youtube on the above interview…

Joke of the day: There was an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman who….. What? I’m under arrest?

Laugh while  you may but the points made in the above interview should be sufficient to ensure that the SNP are never again voted into high office. A more authoritarian government does not exist outside of the known totalitarian regimes such as North Korea – a point made in the interview. 

Catholics who have voted  for such an obviously Marxist Party in the past, such as the Spokesman for the Scottish Bishops (Peter Kearney), surely need to think again. Or do you disagree?  Maybe you think love of country (i.e. a “nationalist” type of love) is more important that love of God and Morality?  

To find our more about the Free to Disagree Campaign click here

Wuhan Virus: Is it immoral to force people to wear masks when they are not safe?

Comment: 

Scots are to be forced to wear face masks/coverings when going into shops as from Friday 10 July (it’s already mandatory to wear them on public transport).  Those who fail to comply, will be liable to a £60 fine.

Me, I’d prefer to have my freedom, thank you very much.  I’ve yet to hear any expert claim that wearing a face mask will protect me from becoming infected. Indeed, it may, on the contrary, cause me to become sick.  This because what I am breathing out is trapped in the mask, and will re-enter my body.  No place else to go.  

Consistently, over weeks and weeks, we were told (by none other than the World Health Organisation) that wearing masks was pointless for the mass of the population. Now we’re being fined if we don’t wear one on public transport or in shops.  How long before we are forced to wear them all the time – after all, it’s a very simple, easy and visual way for a Government to gauge the obedience, the compliance of its population with the very new normal. 

I’m sick, all right.  Not due to any virus but sick of watching a fearful, almost feverish population who don’t know the facts about any of this, from the truth about the infection and death rates, to the uselessness of wearing face masks.  Sick of watching the unthinking compliance. 

This pointless fear has affected every part of our lives – our daily travel, shopping, already a chore due to lengthy queues, signposting, (anti)-social distancing and now face masks.   Shockingly this same irrational fear has struck the clergy from the top down, so that we are denied the Sacraments, and God is denied the public worship due to Him.  This cowardly behaviour on the part of priests and bishops will not be easily forgotten by the scandalised laity. 

It’s painfully obvious that this is not going to end. The “easing” of restrictions means, in effect, nothing more than a change of restrictions.  Face masks are simply the latest totalitarian measure to control us. Talk of a “second wave” is already all the rage.  The erratic World Health Organisation – in a panic because the economy of the USA shows amazing signs of recovery already – is bleating on with its “warning” of a second wave which means, of course, more lockdowns.

Either we sleep-walk – or, more accurately, continue to march – into permanent authoritarian governance, or we refuse to go along with this charade. Are we really to be criminalized for refusing to wear a face mask?  When it really makes no difference in the matter of safety from the Wuhan virus, and can, on the contrary, cause us to become ill? Isn’t it immoral –  sinful – to risk abusing our bodies in this way?   

Contrived Coronavirus Crisis: Has UK Population Drifted into a Police State?

Police forces are planning their own contact tracing system over concerns the government’s test and trace scheme could place officers in danger, Sky News has learned.

Under the plans, police officers who test positive for COVID-19 would not give their contacts to NHS contact tracers, but would instead inform their police force who would take over contact tracing to identify anyone at risk of catching the virus.

The plans, which are being developed by the Police Federation and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, could see police forces take over all contact tracing for police officers and staff, according to a source close to the matter…   

Public health experts said the news raised questions about the entire test and trace system, which is being run by a collection of private companies overseen by PHE. [Public Health England]. 

“Contact tracing systems are based on trust,” said Allyson Pollock, director of Newcastle University’s Institute of Health and Society. “This tells you that the police don’t trust the system and don’t believe data will not be shared more widely, not just with the call handlers but the whole system.

“I think the public needs to be asking very serious questions about this.”   Source – Sky News

Comment: 

The key “serious question” here is, clearly – have we, by being so compliant with the lockdown regulations, drifted into accepting a full blown police state?  Is this latest development in the contrived [check the statistics] Coronavirus “crisis” merely evidence that we are now, effectively, living in a police state?   While, at this stage, this is supposedly about the police tracing people with whom they have been in contact – a restricted level of contact tracing – it’s not difficult to see how easily this could be extended. If contact tracing is already in the hands of private companies, as revealed above, what’s to prevent the current limited police powers being extended?  These days, anything is possible.  I mean, who would have imagined just six months ago, that the entire countries of the UK (and, indeed, the entire world) would be forced to live under the current lockdown restrictions, with the loss of our civil and religious freedoms?  

In which case, the concept of being suspected of a crime being the prerequisite  to “becoming known to the police” would be a thing of the past.  We’d just need to have been ill or physically in the presence of someone who had the virus.  If we accept this without a murmur, we can say “goodbye” permanently to our freedom to practice our religion.

And it’s all very well Allyson Pollock saying the public needs to be asking very serious questions about this – but how? Who do we ask? We can’t organise meetings due to the lockdown rules, we have been silenced and required to obey the State.  There is no dissent from the “new normal” permitted because the news broadcasters have become an arm of the State. Even in supermarkets we have to obey rules designed to keep communication with others at a minimum  – “stand here until the person in front moves forward” … It’s all very sinister.

So, share your thoughts – have we drifted into a full-blown police state?   

Coronavirus Cure: Should Catholics Refuse Forced or Unethical Vaccine?

Comment: 

A reader emailed over the weekend to express concerns about the possibility of a vaccine being produced using material from aborted babies, and she included the following extract from an email reply from an SSPX priest, to an enquiry about this subject [note: she was not the immediate recipient of the email from the priest, but a friend forwarded it to her, and she sent it on to me…]:

“…Voluntarily using a vaccine made from aborted babies is a material, remote cooperation in an abortion. The principle of double effect shows that this is a grave sin…”    [A priest of the Society of St Pius X – SSPX]

On those grounds, then, that we would be co-operating in abortion, Catholics should, surely, refuse the vaccine if it has been made using material from aborted babies. 

There are other issues, too, arising from the possibility of the Government requiring or forcing us to have the vaccine…

The following extract from The New American examines this issue. While referring to America, its thesis is also applicable to the UK:

Conditioning, Then Control

A first step toward implementing a vaccine-based ID scheme is conditioning people to accept the idea that they will need to prove their vaccination and health status before being allowed by government to engage in any activities that, heretofore, were exercised without restriction by a free people. This is perfect for the age of COVID-19, when mainstream media organs and government “experts” have worked overtime to instill extreme levels of fear into the American people, forcing them into what amounts to house arrest to fight the “war” on the virus. Now, to regain freedom, it has been suggested that people will need to prove that they have gained immunity to the virus. To this end, Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and a key member of the Trump administration’s coronavirus task force, admitted that the federal government is considering forcing citizens to use coronavirus immunity cards.
“You know, that’s possible,” Fauci told CNN. “I mean, it’s one of those things that we talk about when we want to make sure that we know who the vulnerable people are and [are] not,” he continued. “This is something that’s being discussed. I think it might actually have some merit, under certain circumstances.”   Click here to read entire article 

Share your thoughts about whether or not you would (a) accept a vaccine made from material taken from aborted babies, despite clear Catholic teaching about the immorality of doing so and (b) whether or not you would refuse a forced vaccine – that is, if the Government requires us to take the vaccine and/or decides to link having the vaccine with our freedom to engage in previously unrestricted activities.  

Finally, if there are statements from any UK bishops – or from Pope  Francis – on the concerns surrounding the ethics of a Coronavirus vaccine, please let us know in the comments below.  So far, the US Bishop in the video above seems to be the only one expressing concerns on the record – in other words, he seems to be the only Bishop proclaiming Catholic morality in the matter of the proposed vaccination programme.  If that changes, let’s record it for posterity.  Not that posterity has ever done anything for us 😀 

Are We Morally Bound To Obey Coronavirus Restrictions / Laws? 

Comment:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on the duty of citizens towards the authorities in civil society:

The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”:
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.
  (# 2242)

The question here, therefore, is this:  are the Governments of the UK overstepping their authority by requiring us to accept some very serious restrictions on our personal liberty, in the name of “saving lives” – when by all accounts, the majority of those who become infected with Covid-19 recover from it? A relative of mine believes he had the virus back in January;  he was sure it was simply flu, but because it was the worst-ever flu attack he’d ever experienced, he decided to visit his doctor.  He said the doctor asked him “a strange question” – had he been in China recently!  The answer was “no” and that is where that conversation ended.  This relative – who is very elderly, in his 80s – made a full recovery.  

There is concern, therefore, that perhaps the lockdown restrictions are not only unnecessary (who quarantines the healthy?) but also too stringently enforced. The full force of the law…Really?  People stopped in the street, or pulled over in their car by the police, and asked to explain why they are outside of their home, destination etc.  Do we have to answer? Should we pay any fines imposed?  Is this a conscience issue, or would we be doing wrong to flout the State?  

English Bishops’ Advisor, Convicted Thief/LGBT Activist, Played Key Role in Decision to Close Churches… 

English bishops’ senior health advisor is a convicted thief and lifelong LGBT activist  – Jim McManus [a Scot] was awarded a Vatican medal in 2011 despite his criminal conviction and LGBT advocacy.

HERTFORDSHIRE, England, May 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A man who helped lobby the UK government on behalf of the Catholic bishops to close their churches to private prayer is a convicted thief and lifelong LGBT activist who once left his Catholic faith and served as a Protestant minister.

A LifeSite investigation has uncovered that Jim G. McManus, 54, the Vice-Chair for the Healthcare Reference Group for the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW), is James Gough McManus, the former minister of an LGBT church who was convicted in 1999 of 11 counts of theft against Northern Counties Trust, a HIV/AIDS charity he reportedly helped to found. He also was named in a legal investigation into his role at the National Health Service’s Barking and Dagenham Primary Care Trust.

After LifeSiteNews contacted McManus about these and other aspects of his multifaceted career, he did not respond personally. Instead we received an email from his solicitor Shubha Nath. An article at the Barking and Dagenham Post about McManus’ 2010 trial was also taken down. (At time of publishing this article, it was still available on Google cache here, but that has now been removed. LifeSite has saved a copy here.)

In late March the CBCEW explained that McManus played a key role in convincing the government to close churches after guidance from the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government directed that “places of worship should remain open for solitary prayer” during the current coronavirus lockdown. In addition to serving as Vice-Chair of the CBCEW Healthcare Reference Group, McManus is the Director of Public Health for the Hertfordshire County Council.

“Professor [sic] Jim McManus has spoken with a senior civil servant and it was quite clear they just had not thought through the issues of infection and security of churches and when he made these points clear, they were appalled and agreed they had made a mistake,” the Archdiocese of Westminster stated.

In an April 1 article on the church closures, published in The Tablet, McManus explains that he had attended a briefing with U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson less than a week before the churches were closed.    Click here to read the rest of this bombshell report…

Comment: 

Jim McManus is from Fife, in Scotland. In 1985 he was the Secretary of the Scottish Homosexual Rights Group, and he has been a devoted LGBT activist for, as they say, ever.   But if you think that might have held him back in his advance within the Church, think again.  The New Morality, like the New Everthing Else is embedded in the Church in this part of the world.  Thus, this lifelong LGBT activist and convicted thief has risen to the giddy heights of being an advisor to the English Bishops, influential enough to be responsible for convincing the UK Government that – in accordance with the Bishops’ wishes – churches should be closed down as part of the Coronavirus restrictions.  A real Prince Judas.   Share your thoughts – with  a mind to your next Confession…   

SSPX: Church Militant Guilty of Peddling Sleaze – Catholic Truth


       

Michael Voris, Church Militant

Editor, Catholic Truth, writes…

Our blogger, Athanasius, has now studied the recent articles about the SSPX published by the American organisation known as Church Militant (CM), which were brought to our attention recently. 

To describe those articles as “sleaze” is an understatement, by any standards. Their most recent piece can be read here but we warn readers that there are descriptions of graphic sexual deviancy published therein, and so, since Athanasius’s article below is perfectly understandable without the need to read the CM articles, we do not recommend visiting the link; we supply it only in the interests of necessary documentation for those who require to see the writings at source. 

A Response to the Church Militant Reports on Former SSPX Priests Accused of Homosexual Abuse…

Having read the sexual abuse trilogy produced by Church Militant against the SSPX, one question above all remains to be answered: Has this been a noble cause for justice or an exercise in vengeance?

The first step to answering this question is to ask another… Given that this handful of accused homosexual abuser priests are no longer in the SSPX, and given the new, very strict guidelines that all religious communities are obliged to follow concerning child safety, is there anything constructive to be gained from this trilogy?

The answer is clearly and emphatically no;   there are no young men or children presently at risk in the SSPX and no predators presently at large within its priestly structure of 500 – 600 clerics. Hence, it seems more likely that this is a set of historical accounts written up with a view to doing more harm than good.

I think anyone with a knowledge of Church Militant’s very deep seated hatred for the SSPX over many years will be hard pushed to imagine that justice was ever the motive here, bearing in mind that Michael Voris is himself a former sexual pervert who, unjustly in my opinion, was forced to admit as much in public before others revealed his past sins with a view to discrediting him.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Founder, SSPX

I mention this because it seems strange to me that a man who had himself suffered such injustice would be so ready to reveal the sins, or perceived sins, of SSPX superiors, not even sparing the holy memory of the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre.

That superiors within the SSPX may have failed in the past to adequately address predator priest issues is sadly all too familiar in the Church. How many times have we heard of superiors failing to take appropriate action against abusers for fear of scandalising the faithful, or simply because they were negligent due to incredulity, failing to believe what the victims’ parents themselves were apparently failing to believe from their own children’s accounts? Sadly, it is a very common theme.

Whatever the reason for past failures in the SSPX, scandalous as they are, it is fairly certain that the superiors themselves were not sexually deviant men intent on enabling abusive priests. At worst they were irresponsible, perhaps even criminally so, God alone knows. No one will escape the divine justice, that’s for sure, although, thankfully, God judges by intent and not by perception.

Speaking of which, I am fairly sure that Church Militant did not intend by its graphic revelations to enable paedophiles, as I suspect its detailed descriptions may well do. I am no psychiatrist but it seems to me that such deviants may be drawn like magnets to stories revealing graphic accounts of child sexual abuse, if only to pleasure their sick minds with whatever images the Church Militant accounts conjure up for them.

Has anyone thought about this? Do these people not realise that the Church has a very good reason for referring simply to impure acts rather than detailing those acts in a graphic way? But then I suppose when the end is vengeance you really have to be graphic enough in detail to elicit an emotional response from readers, even if some happen to be deviants whose emotional response is altogether different from that which was intended! Graphic details of child sexual abuse are for courts of law, not for public platforms where anyone can read them and be incited to offend.

Worse still is the possibility that weaker souls could be lost to the faith as a result of such revelations, as happened en masse in Ireland when the secular media reported its stories on clerical abuse and the failures of superiors, demanding severe and immediate punishment for all who failed.


I wonder if the authors at Church Militant have considered that if just one immortal soul is lost as a result of the utterly depressing and demoralising stories they have published, stories that will result in no natural or supernatural good whatsoever, then there is every possibility that they themselves may lose their souls as a result.

Had children still been at risk in the SSPX then there would have been every good reason for Church Militant to highlight the fact, but that’s not the case and they know it.

So what is the motive? Well, given that Our Lord suffered the ultimate injustice in this world, even to the point of being betrayed by one of His own, the motive is clearly not justice in the Catholic sense that teaches us that divine justice is unavoidable, infallible and far stricter. No, this is vengeance, a desire to do harm to a priestly fraternity which, while it has suffered its share of “filth in the Church”, to quote Pope Benedict XVI, is nevertheless in general a good and holy institution founded by God through His servant Archbishop Lefebvre in a time of great crisis in the Church.

If it were not for the SSPX there would be no Traditional Mass in the Church today, no Traditional priesthood, no Traditional doctrine, all would have been swept aside by now. Had Church Militant included this vital objective observation, along with a balancing reminder that the greater majority of SSPX priests are good and holy priests, then I might have been inclined to believe that the intention is to serve some form of natural justice. But no, it is a biased piece of sleaze reporting that benefits no one other than bitter people and perhaps the aforementioned paedophiles who may enjoy, if such is the word, the filth CM has printed for their deviant pleasure.

That natural justice for genuine victims of clerical abuse within the SSPX or anywhere else may yet be possible, is for the proper legal authorities to assess, for they, not Church Militant, are solely empowered to investigate and report in such criminal matters.

In the meantime, anticipating the response of Church Militant and anyone foolish enough to trust its motives, I lay down the following challenge:

Show me one good to come from this sleaze story that will truly benefit victims, the Church or any individual soul, naturally or supernaturally, which could be said to equate with true Catholic justice.

That’s all I ask, just one concrete proof that this was about true Catholic justice and not the secular worldly parody of justice that convicts without trial and demands public humiliation for all who are perceived to have failed in their duty to protect.  The author of the above article is Martin Blackshaw, who lives in Scotland  –  aka our blogger, Athanasius. 

Comment:

 The traditional calendar, names today, Friday 8th May, as the Feast of the Apparition of St Michael the Archangel. Our editorial comment on this subject concludes, therefore, with the recitation of the prayer to  St Michael, which we suggest be offered for Michael Voris and his team, i.e. all those involved in the work of his organisation, Church Militant…

Holy Michael, Archangel, defend us in the day of battle.
Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of he Devil;
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Hosts,
by the power of God, cast down into Hell, Satan, and all wicked spirits,
Who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.

 

Is it a sin to break lockdown rules? 

Comment: 

Shelley Luther, the salon owner in the above video told the Judge in court that she had broken the rules because she had to feed her family.  He was adamant that the rules  had to be followed, no exceptions.   7 days in jail and a $7,000 fine were imposed, with an additional $1,000 fine added for every day that her salon remains open.   We don’t know Shelley’s religion, but if she’s a Catholic, should she be going to Confession, with her sin of “disobedience” writ large on the list?