Month: October 2021

This video was recorded on 31 August 2021, the day after the announcement of the “visitation” to the Philadelphia, Fairfield, and Valparaiso Carmelite OCDs. This is an anti-suicide note from Father Maximilian Mary Dean, released at this time in case he is murdered. Yeah, for real. Many thanks to Andrew Dunn for the following timestamps -DMD

---

EXCLUSIVE: ‘I am not suicidal’: Hermit Priest of Fairfield details Vatican attack on nuns

Aired October 4th, 2021 on the John-Henry Westen Channel on YouTubeFr. Maximilian Mary Dean, chaplain in Fairfield for the Carmelites is interviewed by LifeSiteNews’ Jim Hale.

Introduction:3:10 –  Fr. announces his intention to never commit suicide. If he “dies” this is documentation stating that he is not suicidal.6:30 – We have a virus in the Church right now that’s much worse than COVID-19. It’s attacking the heart of the Church… it is Modernism… There are people in the Church who have directed this disease to cloistered women.9:00 – The Latin Mass is just the tip of the iceberg. Using the example of what the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate went through, it wasn’t just the Latin Mass that was suppressed, their constitutions were re-written.

Warning of Abuses to Discalced Carmelites in 2017:10:45 – The Fr. General of the Discalced Carmelites called a mandatory meeting for the U.S. nuns in St. Louis in 2017. Representatives from all monasteries had to go, including Valparaiso and Fairfield. Under obedience they had to go and stay in hotels instead of monasteries which was disrespectful and bizarre. At the meeting the Fr. General was telling the nuns that the “times had changed and they need to adapt to the times… you can’t live like you’ve lived before.” 14:30 – Fr. General continues telling the nuns they had to get rid of the gates, the turn, the grill, the teaching. They have to “get with the times.” Nuns at this meeting were in tears after being told they couldn’t live within their carism.

Clarification on What Really Happened in Philadelphia:15:30 – That same year, before Cor Orans, Archbishop Chaput (former Archbishop of Philadelphia), reached out to Valparaiso and Fairfield and begged them to re-found the dying Carmelite Monastery in Philadelphia. With great sacrifice, Valparaiso sent six and Elysburg/Fairfield sent three of their best young nuns to Philadelphia. One nun said “Jesus needs to be loved there (Philadelphia)” and that’s why they went. 17:00 – The new (traditional) sisters were welcomed by the two elderly sisters in Philadelphia. When they got there, they found themselves being obstructed and interfered with, especially after Cor Orans. It turned out that monastery already belonged to an association of monasteries and they (they traditional sisters) didn’t plan to continue on with the association but the Archdiocese, Fr. General, the Association, the Vatican, etc. were forcing the nuns to be a part of the association. The association was trying to force the nuns to adopt the “spirit of Cor Orans”. Everywhere they turned, they found themselves blocked and a letter was circulated that an Apostolic Visitation was being scheduled for Philadelphia. The Prioress was being antagonized so the Mothers in Valparaiso realized that they could either watch their daughters in Philadelphia get destroyed or be united with them and do what any mother would do, not let their daughters be violated. A letter was therefore sent by the bishop of Lincoln NE (Bishop Connely) calling the nuns back to Valparaiso from Philadelphia. On April 9, a van showed up at the monastery. The nuns had to leave because they were not being permitted to live the life they had came to Philadelphia to live.21:00 – What’s being played out now in Fairfield and Valparaiso are the consequences of the departure from Philadelphia.

What Happens During Visitations and Some Examples of the Aftermath:22:10 – The visitations of today are not about dialog. The visitations today mean the Vatican has decided “you have a problem” and the the next steps are to assign a new superior (Apostolic Commission) from outside the order, or the community who is the new superior of the community.23:00 – Shifting to an example of The Poor Clares of Hanceville, AL: Mother Angelica had stepped down and a sub-prioress was in charge. They were booming with vocations at the time with additional locations in Phoenix and San Antonio. This was “a problem” so they had a Apostolic Visitation. The problem was presented to the Congregation for Religious Vocation by members of the community. The Congregation relishes that because it means there is division within that they can seize upon. The visitation was scheduled and the visitators met privately with the nuns. The nuns were instructed they had to  respond, respond honestly, and were not allowed to talk about the interview to members of the community. This can be toxic in the wrong hands because you’re taking all this information in and you can use this information to your agenda and no one is allowed to talk among themselves. 26:00 – Continuing on with Hanceville: Fr. describes visiting a priest in Phoenix where he was looking for a place to offer the Latin Mass for contemplative nuns while deciding where to ultimately go. It was suggested he stop by the Poor Clares to talk with the Prioriess to see if one of the three monasteries might want a “free chaplain” to offer the Mass. At the turn, the Prioriess wasn’t available so he went into the chapel to pray. An elderly nun came in who did not have a Poor Clare habit on (this was the commissioner). She waved him over and he went to talk to her where he pitched his idea of one of the three monasteries set up for the Latin Mass and letting the sisters who prefer the Latin Mass go there. The nun responded, “Oh no, we sent all those women home. They were fine women but none of them had a vocation.” He goes on to define a commissioner as a post-visitation, new superior to “fix the problem.” In the case of Hanceville, the prioress, sub-prioress and all the “fine women” were sent packing.31:30 – Hanceville went from 45-50 nuns before 2010, when he visited in 2013, they were down to 13. There aren’t any vocations allowed after so one location had to be closed.33:20 – There are two ways an Apostolic Visitation can happen. One way is the visitator comes and visits each member of the community. But with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate it started with a questionnaire that was sent. The questionnaire forbid them to inform anyone in the community. It was based on the complaints of 5 out of 400 friars so the Congregation felt there was a problem because of these five complaints. Fr. was naive at the time, not knowing about Hanceville so he thought Mother Church was coming to help the community. But, they didn’t come to help and dialog. They came to confirm there was a problem. They announced an apostolic commissioner: one morning they woke up to a decree that their superiors were no more and now they had new ones who would appoint formation directors and the general counsel. No explanation. No dialog. 36:40 – Continuing on with the Franciscan Friars, the next day, the first thing they were told was that the Latin Mass was forbidden unless special permission was given from the new commissioner. Going on to describe what the nuns now could potentially face: It was obvious from the outcome that the problem with the Franciscan Friars was their seminary. 60 young men from all over the world which took 40 years to get to that point. One day in November, all the seminarians were in class and a priest showed up at the door with a document that he, right now, was the rector of the seminary and the former rector was now gone. The seminarians were treated like criminals. They weren’t allowed to call their families; all letters they wrote were opened and reviewed. As a result, the order lost over 80% of the seminarians. 40:34 – Describes how he has told the Mother at Fairfield that if they come for an Apostolic Visitation, they’re not coming for a dialog, they’re come to isolate the sisters and get just the information they need to be on paper (i.e. why they are not interested in Cor Orans). The commissioning works in that one day, someone shows up at the turn from another monastery that they are now in charge of the monastery and you, the (current) prioress are now re-assigned to another monastery.41:00 – Jim Hale asks where are the bishops in all of this? Fr. explains that the major superior of the nuns are the Fr. General of the Discalced Carmelite Order who reports into the Congregation for Religious. Therefore the Vatican Congregation of the Religion trumps any bishop.

Spies Sent to Fairfield and Fr. Maximilian is Targeted:43:50 – A reliable and accurate source to the nuns informed them of the visitators. The priest, a European named Fr. Raphael was the official visitor. In addition, there were two nuns from two monasteries that are co-visitors that are part of the association that Philadelphia’s monastery was a part of. Our sisters heard from this source that these visitors were planning to also send spies. And they did indeed show up. Two young ladies who looked friendly with New York license plates showed up and were taking photos of the security gate and the caretaker’s home. One of the caretakers approached the two ladies and asked what they were doing and they immediately got in their car and drove off. Also, the co-visitor are planning to disrupt the benefactors of Fairfield. They want to dissuade the benefactors from giving financial contributions to the nuns. 47:30 – Fr. announces that part of the visitors’ mission is to stop him personally from offering the Sacraments to the nuns and there’s only two ways that could happen – death or suppression by his bishop. Fr. goes on to describe how Fr. Joseph Moreno, a Buffalo whistle-blower who was handing over a dossier of pedophilia and homosexual activity in the Buffalo diocese “suicided” himself the night before he was to hand the dossier over to the FBI. Fr. Moreno’s suicide, implied to be some type of trauma to the back of the head, happened despite him having a deformed hand. It was easy to figure out that he was murdered in cold blood. This is in the Church. This is the homosexual lavender mafia. That’s what we’re dealing with.

When Good Priests and Bishops Try to Help Targets of the Visitations:50:30 – Going back to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, showing the power these commissioners have, Fr. Volpi (perhaps mis-spelled) was seen at the Italian Conf. of Bishops walking around to the various bishops, telling them not to help the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who were leaving. One bishop willing to help was Bishop Olivieri who had three friaries who had the Latin Mass. The commissioner removed all three friars from those monasteries and Bishop Olivieri was willing to incardinate some of the Franciscan Friars in his diocese who wanted to leave. Within a year, he was removed as bishop.52:15 – In the Philippines, a bishop chose to sponsor a group of 30 former Franciscan Friar seminarians and ordained two of them. He found out one morning on the internet that he was “retired” at the age of 72 – three years before the official age.53:45 – There was a traditional priestly fraternity in Italy (Fagmilia Christi) and they had two monasteries. They got a call from one of the commissioners that they could not let the now homeless Franscian Friars stay in their communities. Fagmilia Christi responded that they were not part of their community anymore and they could let anyone stay there whom they chose. In 2018, they in turn had an Apostolic Visitation. In 2019, they were de-commissioned and in 2020 they were suppressed. Fagmilia Christi no longer exists.

Archbishop Perez of Philadelphia’s Thoughts on Cloistered Carmelites:56:24 – Speaking about the current Archbishop of Philadelphia (Nelson Perez): We know at the USCCB conference, he was telling other bishops that the nuns of Valparaiso and Fairfield are a “cult”.

How the Carmelites of Fairfield and Valparaiso are Responding:58:20 – All of the Fairfield sisters are united. None of them want to leave. They would rather live their life and suffer the consequences than let these people with an agenda come in with a wrecking ball.58:35 – The decree from Archbishop Carballo of the Congregation for Religious, announcing the Apostolic Visitation, was basically begging the Mothers to cooperate so they could “reach the desired outcome.” 59:40 – The Monastery in Valparaiso have decided not to welcome the visitation. They’re closing all their Masses and the chapel to the public and will live their life and suffer the consequences. Fr. speculates that when they don’t go along with the visitation, they’ll be assigned a commissioner and they won’t allow the commissioner in. They will trust in God and live their lives and if they have to do that in private vows outside the order, they will not compromise their life. These nuns will not finch. 

In Closing:1:01:40 – There are over 50 monasteries not on the radar right now who support Discalced Carmelites. These nuns (Fairfield and Valparaiso) are the tip of the iceberg. They want to destroy the whole iceberg.

That’s the First Commandment, folks.

Today is the two year anniversary of the opening ceremonies of demon worship being enshrined in the Vatican/St. Peter’s by an apostate, demon worshiping antipope.

Demon worshipers can’t be pope. It’s sort of automatically disqualifying. Furthermore, pledging obedience/loyalty to an apostate demon worshiper is a really bad idea. You will be held to account for that.

He’s not Catholic, and he has never been pope. The proofset grows larger by the day. But at the root, it’s because Benedict never validly resigned, and still reigns. Someone in authority needs to do something about it.

Try watching the first two minutes of this:

Aims of the study

Patient comprehension is a critical part of meeting medical ethics standards of informed consent in study designs. The aim of the study was to determine if sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID‐19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus.

Methods used to conduct the study

Published literature was reviewed to identify preclinical and clinical evidence that COVID‐19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus. Clinical trial protocols for COVID‐19 vaccines were reviewed to determine if risks were properly disclosed.

Results of the study

COVID‐19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID‐19 disease via antibody‐dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID‐19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications

The specific and significant COVID‐19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.Go to:

1. THE RISK OF ADE IN COVID‐19 VACCINES IS NON‐THEORETICAL AND COMPELLING

Vaccine‐elicited enhancement of disease was previously observed in human subjects with vaccines for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), dengue virus and measles. 1 Vaccine‐elicited enhancement of disease was also observed with the SARS and MERS viruses and with feline coronavirus, which are closely related to SARS‐CoV‐2, the causative pathogen of COVID‐19 disease. The immune mechanisms of this enhancement have invariably involved antibodies, from direct antibody‐dependent enhancement, to immune complex formation by antibodies, albeit accompanied by various coordinated cellular responses, such as Th2 T‐cell skewing. 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 Notably, both neutralising and non‐neutralising antibodies have been implicated. A recent study revealed IgG‐mediated acute lung injury in vivo in macaques infected with SARS that correlated with a vaccine‐elicited, neutralising antibody response. 8 Inflammation and tissue damage in the lung in this animal model recapitulated the inflammation and tissue damage in the lungs of SARS‐infected patients who succumbed to the disease. The time course was also similar, with the worst damage occurring in delayed fashion in synchrony with ramping up of the immune response. Remarkably, neutralising antibodies controlled the virus in the animal, but then would precipitate a severe, tissue‐damaging, inflammatory response in the lung. This is a similar profile to immune complex‐mediated disease seen with RSV vaccines in the past, wherein vaccinees succumbed to fatal enhanced RSV disease because of the formation of antibody‐virus immune complexes that precipitated harmful, inflammatory immune responses. It is also similar to the clinical course of COVID‐19 patients, in whom severe COVID‐19 disease is associated with the development of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 serum antibodies, 9 with titres correlating directly with the severity of disease. 10 Conversely, subjects who recover quickly may have low or no anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 serum antibodies. 11

The elicitation of antibodies, specifically neutralising antibodies, is the goal of nearly every current SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine candidate. The prior evidence that vaccine‐elicited, antibody‐dependent enhancement (ADE) of disease is likely to occur to some degree with COVID‐19 vaccines is vertically consistent from controlled SARS studies in primates to clinical observations in SARS and COVID‐19. Thus, a finite, non‐theoretical risk is evident in the medical literature that vaccine candidates composed of the SARS‐CoV‐2 viral spike and eliciting anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies, be they neutralising or not, place vaccinees at higher risk for more severe COVID‐19 disease when they encounter circulating viruses. Indeed, studies in mice of prior SARS vaccines revealed this exact phenotype, with four human vaccine candidates eliciting neutralising antibodies and protecting against SARS challenge, but viral re‐challenge of thus vaccinated animals resulting in immunopathologic lung disease. 5 Independently, SARS/MERS vaccine candidates, commonly exhibited ADE associated with high inflammatory morbidity in preclinical models, obstructing their advancement to the clinic. 4 , 12 SARS ADE of both disease in non‐human primates and viral infection of cells in vitro was clearly mapped to specific antibody‐targeted SARS viral spike epitopes. 6 This phenomenon was consistent across a variety of vaccine platforms, including DNA, vector primes and virus‐like particles (VLP), irrespective of inoculation method (oral, intramuscular, subcutaneous, etc). An unknown variable is how long this tissue damage lasts, possibly resulting in permanent morbidity (eg, diabetes from pancreatic damage 7 ).

Current data on COVID‐19 vaccines is limited, but does not so far reveal evidence of ADE of disease. Non‐human primate studies of Moderna’s mRNA‐1273 vaccine showed excellent protection, with no detectable immunopathology. 13 Phase 1 trials of several vaccines have not reported any immunopathology in subjects administered the candidate vaccines. However, these subjects were unlikely to have yet encountered circulating virus. 14 Nevertheless, all preclinical studies to date have been performed with the Wuhan or closely related strains of the virus, while a mutant D614G virus is now the most prevalent circulating form. Several observations suggest that this alternative form may be antigenically distinct from the Wuhan derived strain, not so much in composition, but in conformation of the viral spike and exposure of neutralisation epitopes. 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 Similarly, Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials of vaccine candidates have only been designed around immunogenicity as an efficacy end point and have not been designed to capture exposure of subjects to circulating virus after vaccination, which is when ADE/immunopathology is designed to occur. Thus, the absence of ADE evidence in COVID‐19 vaccine data so far does not absolve investigators from disclosing the risk of enhanced disease to vaccine trial participants, and it remains a realistic, non‐theoretical risk to the subjects.Go to:

2. CHALLENGES TO INFORMED CONSENT FOR COVID‐19 VACCINE STUDIES

Informed consent procedures for vaccine trials commonly include disclosure of very minor risks such as injection site reactions, rare risks from past, unrelated vaccines/viruses, such as Guillain‐Barre syndrome for swine flu (interest in which is likely behind the interest in Astra Zeneca’s recent vaccine transverse myelitis event) and generic statements about the risk of idiosyncratic systemic adverse events and death. Specific risks to research participants derived from biological mechanism are rarely included, often because of ambiguity about their applicability. 19

Signed consent forms from the COVID‐19 vaccine trials are not publicly available because of privacy concerns. They also vary from clinical site to clinical site, and sample consent forms on which they are based are not required to be disclosed until after the trial is over, if at all. However, these consent forms are usually very similar in content to the “Risks to participants” section of the trial protocols, which have been released publicly by Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson for their COVID‐19 vaccine trials ( 20 & Supplement). As these three vaccines are representative of the diversity of vaccines being tested, it is very likely that the consent form inferred from these protocols is similar or identical to those from any and all of the vaccine trials currently underway. All three protocols mention the risk of disease enhancement by the vaccine, but all three list this risk last or next to last in the list of risks, after risks from the Ad26‐Cov2 vector, adenovirus vectors in general, risks of vaccination in general, risks for pregnancy and birth control (which are said to be “unknown”), risks of blood draws and risks from collection of nasal swab samples (for the Johnson and Johnson vaccine), after allergy, fainting, local site injection reaction, general systemic adverse reactions and laboratory abnormalities for the Moderna vaccine and after local site injection reactions and general systemic adverse events for the Pfizer vaccine. In addition, both Moderna and Johnson and Johnson term the risk of vaccine‐elicited disease enhancement as “theoretical.” Finally, in citing the risk, Pfizer and Moderna note prior evidence of vaccine‐elicited disease enhancement with RSV and dengue, as well as feline coronavirus (Pfizer) and measles (Moderna), however, SARS and MERS are not mentioned. Johnson and Johnson discusses SARS and MERS, but make an unusual scientific argument that vaccine‐elicited disease enhancement is because of non‐neutralising antibodies and Th2‐skewed cellular responses and that Ad26 vaccination does not exhibit this profile.Blank consent forms for AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson are also available online at https://restoringtrials.org/2020/09/18/covid19trialprotocolandstudydocs/, and while the AstraZeneca form clearly discloses the specific risk of ADE, the disclosure is listed last among risks only in an attached information sheet. In all, the evidence from the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson protocols for their COVID‐19 vaccine trials and the sample consent forms, when contrasted with the evidence for antibody‐dependent enhancement of disease presented by this report and widely available to any skilled practitioner in the field, establishes that patient comprehension of the specific risk that receiving the COVID‐19 vaccine could convert a subject from someone who experiences mild disease to someone who experiences severe disease, lasting morbidity or even death is unlikely to be achieved by the informed consent procedures planned for these clinical trials.

Medical ethics standards required that, given the extent of evidence in the medical literature reviewed above, the risk of ADE should be clearly and emphatically distinguished in the informed consent from risks observed rarely as well as the more obvious risk of lack of efficacy, which is unrelated to the specific risk of ADE. Based on the published literature, it should have been obvious to any skilled medical practitioner in 2019 that there is a significant risk to vaccine research subjects that they may experience severe disease once vaccinated, while they might only have experienced a mild, self‐limited disease if not vaccinated. The consent should also clearly distinguish the specific risk of worsened COVID‐19 disease from generic statements about risk of death and generic risk of lack of efficacy of the vaccine.Go to:

3. CONCLUSION

Given the strong evidence that ADE is a non‐theoretical and compelling risk for COVID‐19 vaccines and the “laundry list” nature of informed consents, disclosure of the specific risk of worsened COVID‐19 disease from vaccination calls for a specific, separate, informed consent form and demonstration of patient comprehension in order to meet medical ethics standards. The informed consent process for ongoing COVID‐19 vaccine trials does not appear to meet this standard. While the COVID‐19 global health emergency justifies accelerated vaccine trials of candidates with known liabilities, such an acceleration is not inconsistent with additional attention paid to heightened informed consent procedures specific to COVID‐19 vaccine risks.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7645850/#ijcp13795-bib-0009

by Alex Berenson Oct 3

A reader tipped me to this fascinating paper in a peer-reviewed journal about a Covid outbreak in Israel that began in mid-July, just as vaccine failure was accelerating there.

A vaccinated dialysis patient was admitted to Meir Medical Center – a large Israeli hospital near Tel Aviv – with fever and cough. He remained on the dialysis unit for days, as his condition worsened. (One of many problems with overselling the vaccines is that it led to mistakes like this.)

By the time he was diagnosed with Covid-19, he had infected three fellow patients. He also had a PCR threshold of 13.6 – almost impossibly low, showing viral loads roughly 1 million times those in a lightly infected person. He was moved to a Covid-19 ward, where he eventually died (I say he, though the patient’s gender is not revealed; the paper refers to “they).

The paper, published in Eurosurveillance, a journal published by the European Centers for Disease Control, explains that the outbreak rapidly spread among both patients and staff of the hospital’s dialysis unit, the Covid-19 ward, and other wards. At the time, 238 out of 248 of exposed patients and staff had been fully vaccinated with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine.

Again, the fact that 96 percent of the people in this population had been vaccinated – a level far above early estimates of the percentages required for herd immunity – apparently made no difference.

Further, all patients and staff were required to wear surgical masks when they were in the same room, and staff on the Covid-19 unit wore N95 masks and face shields.

Ultimately, 39 out of the 238 exposed vaccinated people (16 percent) were infected, along with 3 out of 10 unvaccinated people – a difference that doesn’t reach statistical significance because the unvaccinated group is too small. Of the infected, 23 were patients and 19 staff. The staff all recovered quickly. But five patients died and another nine had severe or critical cases. All were vaccinated. The two unvaccinated infected patients both had mild cases.

As the authors explained:

“This communication… challenges the assumption that high universal vaccination rates will lead to herd immunity and prevent COVID-19 outbreaks… In the outbreak described here, 96.2% of the exposed population was vaccinated. Infection advanced rapidly (many cases became symptomatic within 2 days of exposure), and viral load was high.”

SOURCE:

eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.39.2100822#html_fulltext

From Father David Nix. This is excellent. Please consider a donation: https://padreperegrino.org/donate/

It’s 40 minutes, but you can easily listen at 1.5x speed.

Your Guardian Angel was assigned uniquely to you when God created the universe. Isn’t that cool? Your angel has already done more for you than you will ever know, until you are standing side by side at your Particular Judgment. The time for battle is upon us, and your angel is your fiercest ally. Happy feast!

Dear Archbishop, you are to be commended for this. But what would be really, really helpful is a declaration that this “Bergoglian church,” as you put it, is in fact the antichurch, lead by an antipope. That would be something that cures at the root, instead of raging against the thing that shall not be named. Excellency, Pope Benedict’s resignation was invalid. Bergoglio is a criminal usurper. Step up. -DMD

---

Marco Tosatti

Dear friends and foes of Stilum Curiae, we receive and gladly publish this statement from Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano in defense of women’s communities of contemplative life. Good reading

 §§§

Statement in Defense of Convents of Religious Sisters of Contemplative Life

With profound sorrow and strong indignation, I follow the events related to the Apostolic Visitations that the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life is carrying out in various Convents of contemplative women religious in the United States.

The manner in which these Apostolic Visitations are conducted, in violation of the canonical norms and the most elementary principles of the law; the intimidation and threats that characterize the interrogations to which the Nuns are subjected; and the psychological violence exercised over the members of these Convents, against the principles of charity and justice that ought to inspire the action of officials of a papal Dicastery – all of these reveal in all of its disturbing evidence the prejudice of the persecutory intentions of the Visitators, who are cynical executors of the orders already given by the Prefect Cardinal João Braz de Aviz and by the Secretary Archbishop José Rodriguez Carballo, following Bergoglio’s precise instructions. No matter which community is targeted, the mobbing or group bullying by the Visitators, with the purpose of dividing the sisters is always the same, as is the attempt to create strong psychological pressure, even to the point of violating their private conscience, and serious disturbance to individuals who are accustomed to living in silence, prayerful recollection, and penance.

Behind this purging operation, like everything that distinguishes the work of the Bergoglian church, there is a hatred and an iconoclastic fury towards the Communities of Contemplative Life, and in a particular way against those tied to Tradition and the Ancient Rite. This hatred has become commonplace with the infamous Instruction Cor Orans and its cruel and merciless application. What also stands out is an insane interest in the finances and donations that these communities receive, which the Vatican tries to grab for itself using any pretext it can.  

This hatred has no juridical or disciplinary justification, since these Convents targeted by the Vatican limit themselves to living according to the charism of their Order, in fidelity to their Holy Founders and in a spirit of sincere communion with the Church. The number of their vocations is increasing, as is happening for all the Institutes in which the Rule of the Founders is put into practice and the Tridentine Liturgy is celebrated. The “fault” of these Religious Sisters is that they want to remain faithful to the immutable Magisterium of the Church and her two-thousand-year Tradition, to her venerable Liturgy. In the end, this is the only “fault” of all of the secular and religious communities, both of men and of women, in the face of the ruthless destructive action of Bergoglio.

I consider it my precise duty as a Pastor to denounce in no uncertain terms the systematic work of demolition being carried out by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life, whose leaders make no secret of their aversion to any form of consecrated life, in perfect harmony with the one who has given them their mandate, and accompanied by the most disconcerting, inert silence of the Ordinaries, who are incapable of defending and protecting the most precious and vulnerable part of the Mystical Body.

We cannot forget that the merciless persecution of the Vatican has already struck other flourishing communities of religious women, which are now totally destroyed: I am thinking of the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate (Italy), the Little Sisters of Mary of Saint-Aignan-sur-Roe (France), the Sisters of Auerbach (Germany), and the Dominican Sisters of the Holy Spirit (France) – to name only a few.

I also mention that the ones responsible for this action are the first ones against whom a disciplinary action should have been undertaken, following the very serious financial scandals that involved Carballo when he was Minister-General of the Franciscan Friars Minor. His position is so compromised that he had to reside inside the Vatican, even though the Secretaries of the Congregation usually reside outside the Leonine Walls. Cardinal Braz de Aviz, a notorious follower of liberation theology, was appointed by Bergoglio as head of the Congregation for Religious precisely in order to “re-educate” the members of institutes of consecrated life, following the Stalinist methods that distinguish the government of the Bergoglian deep church. It is a purge worthy of the worst dictatorial regimes, in line with the climate of terror that has reigned in the Vatican since 2013.

I urge my brother Bishops, priests, and above all the faithful laity to raise their voices against the destruction of Convents of contemplative life and traditional religious Communities. It is necessary to give not only spiritual and moral support, but also material and media support to the victims of an attack that has been getting worse in recent weeks after the promulgation of the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes, so that the persecuted religious sisters may be defended and those who are responsible for this persecution that is hateful in the eyes of God and the entire ecclesial community may be exposed.

I understand well how difficult it is, in the face of the perversion of ecclesiastical authority, to combine one’s solemn Vow of Obedience to one’s Superiors with the evidence of the evil purposes they pursue, and how painful it is to have to resist those who should be exercising authority in the name of Our Lord. Nonetheless, any collaboration with them would constitute a form of complicity and culpable connivance. Obedience to God and fidelity to the Church cannot be linked to blind servility towards those who show themselves to be enemies of both: “We must obey God rather than men,” according to the words of Saint Peter (Acts 5:29). And this applies to Religious as well as to secular clergy, whose silence in the face of the dissolution of the ecclesial body cannot last any longer.

In consideration of this grave dilemma of conscience that troubles the Religious Sisters, I address a particular appeal to the faithful laity and to the benefactors of Convents, so that they actively work, also through adequate legal means, to assure and protect the independence of these Convents and their property.

I assure the persecuted Religious Sisters of my constant prayer, inviting them to resist firmly and to offer their suffering for the conversion of their persecutors. May these silent Brides of Christ unite themselves spiritually to the painful Calvary of the Carmelite martyrs of Compiègne, the sixteen nuns who were guillotined during the Terror because they did not want to abandon their Carmel or renounce their religious vows. May the heroic resistance of these consecrated women, persecuted in odium fidei by bloodthirsty revolutionaries, be an example to them in these times of apostasy, in which anti-Catholic persecution and ideological fury are put in motion by those who ought to be protecting the communities of Contemplative Life as the most precious treasure of the Church and the most effective barrier against the assaults of the enemy. If the constant prayer of these blessed souls fails, the ecclesial body will be even more disarmed at the very moment in which this epochal battle rages most fiercely.

Like the prudent virgins of the Gospel parable (Mt 25:1-13), may Religious Women remain faithful to their Divine Spouse and await Him with lighted lamps. These dark times will pass, and along with them the renegades who rage against them.

The highest levels of the Vatican, and in particular Jorge Mario Bergoglio, will have to answer to God for these very grave sins of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, which are not devoid of disturbing ideological connotations, as well as for the abuse of their authority against the good of the Church and the salvation of souls. May the Lord open the eyes of many who still do not want to recognize the apostasy that afflicts the Catholic Hierarchy.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States

October 1^st, 2021

https://www.marcotosatti.com/2021/10/01/vigano-in-defense-of-womens-monasteries-of-contemplative-life/