In the news release, the FDA has bulleted points on what “parents and caregivers” should know. Here they are:
Children 6 months through 5 years of age who received the original (monovalent) Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine are now eligible to receive a single booster of the updated (bivalent) Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine two months after completing a primary series with the monovalent Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.
Children 6 months through 4 years of age who have not yet begun their three-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine or have not yet received the third dose of their primary series will now receive the updated (bivalent) Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine as the third dose in their primary series following two doses of the original (monovalent) Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.
Children 6 months through 4 years of age who have already completed their three-dose primary series with the original (monovalent) Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will not be eligible for a booster dose of an updated bivalent vaccine at this time. Children in this age group who already completed their primary series would still be expected to have protection against the most serious outcomes from the currently circulating omicron variant. The data to support giving an updated bivalent booster dose for these children are expected in January. The agency is committed to evaluating those data as quickly as possible.
The Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccines include an mRNA component corresponding to the original strain to provide an immune response that is broadly protective against COVID-19 and an mRNA component corresponding to the omicron variant BA.4 and BA.5 lineages to provide better protection against COVID-19 caused by the omicron variant.
Individuals who receive the updated (bivalent) vaccines may experience similar side effects reported by individuals who received previous doses of the original (monovalent) mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
The fact sheets for both bivalent COVID-19 vaccines for recipients and caregivers and for healthcare providers include information about the potential side effects, as well as the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis.
So, let’s recap. There is NOTHING in the news release or the bulleted points that shows data that these injections are safe or effective for children four years old down to six months old. Side effects continue same as before – which means they are significantly higher than is expected for normal vaccines. This by the way, is the understatement of the year.
Then comes the next paragraph in the FDA News Release:
“The data to support giving an updated bivalent booster dose for these children are expected in January. The agency is committed to evaluating those data as quickly as possible.”
Yeh – so the FDA literally does’t have any data for this bivalent booster for this age cohort but they are making it available under emergency use authorization anyways. We do know based on the ACIP /CDC slide deck from the Sept 2022 ACIP meeting, that there were significant side effects of this vaccine in older children. THESE DATA ARE FROM THE CDC. Of course, there are many unbiased studies that show even more significant adverse events.
Some of the slides from CDC deck are as follows:
~25% OF CHILDREN WERE UNABLE TO PERFORM DAILY ACTIVITIES AFTER RECEIVING A BOOSTER.
ALMOST 20% WERE UNABLE TO ATTEND WORK OR SCHOOL AFTER RECEIVING A BOOSTER.
So three months after the CDC presented this data, and the FDA is recommending a THIRD booster for little children and babies…
The shiver up my spine – alerts me to the fact that this feels an awfully lot like child abuse.
Let’s recap: A total of less than 600 children in the last three years have died in this age cohort (CDC data), and according to peer reviewed scientific studies virtually none of these deaths were in the “healthy, normal” cohort…
Can our government get any more sick?
The News Release also states that the vaccine is “broadly protective.” I must say that I am not sure what that even means anymore to government scientists.
To me, “broadly protective” means that there are a wide range of proteins that immune system responds to. That immune evasion by the virus does not happen after vaccination. That the product clearly protects against infection, replication and spread of the virus. These mRNA vaccines only offer protection against one protein, which is easily evaded by the virus. So why is the FDA trying to deceive us again?
The FDA also writes that it “relied on immune response data that it had previously evaluated from a clinical study in adults of a booster dose of Moderna’s investigational bivalent COVID-19.” The bridging evidence of adult immune responses to the bivalent vaccines with what the FDA expects for children was lacking in depth and data. There is no validated immunologic correlate of protection. In other words, this is non-sensical scientific and regulatory gibberish. Frankly, it was sobering to realize just how thin their data is.
Please people – doctors around the country will be reading this news release and advocating that babies and children receive this new bi-valent mRNA vaccine. Be ready and armed with the facts. Do not comply.
I suspected the “safety and effectiveness” being reported about the j@b was a hoax from the very beginning. Not only that, but after spending my entire adult life defending babies in the womb and their moms, I was NEVER going to accept something developed or tested using cell lines from murdered infants. As things turned out, declining the shot was a prudent, life-saving decision. When I got the virus in March 2020, the ER did a workup, confirmed the virus and told me to “tough it out” – no recommendations for anti-viral meds or immune boosting vitamins. Nada! So I called the Frontline Doctors and got ivermectin. After that, I took care of virus sufferers twice without getting sick from the exposure. Meanwhile, Fauci and Birx told people to stay home and go to the hospital when they were so sick they were near death.
Despite all their deadly advice, true believers continue to deny that Fauci could possibly have misled us. (He IS SCIENCE after all.) And when they get the virus after multiple doses of the experimental gene therapy drug, they often say something to the effect that, “I’m so thankful I got the shot, because otherwise I probably would have died.”
REALLY? Are you that stupid?
When a friend of mine described the serious case of C-19 his multiple vaxxed daughter and her ditto spouse developed, followed by horrible long-COVID, I asked, “What good did they get from the shot?” I never got an answer.
We used to all know that we were vaccinated to PREVENT getting a disease. A small, usually dead, amount of the disease was in the vaccine that often resulted in mild symptoms followed by long, even lifetime, protection. The smallpox vaccine pretty much eliminated smallpox at least in the U.S. and the First World.
Did the gene-therapy j@b protect anyone from getting C-19. Uh…no! But Dr. Fauci promised us it would! AND HE’S SCIENCE!
Sensible people now recognize that Fauci is a liar, a damned liar, who benefited from all his “misinformation” with his cozy relationship with Big Pharma. He suppressed effective treatments with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and failed even to suggest taking Vitamin C and Vitamin D3 to boost immune response. Instead, he promoted the deadly drug Remdesivir which, combine with the ventilator, killed most of those put on the protocol. [See Dr. Paul Marik’s testimony here.] So why did hospitals make that bad protocol choice? Because the federal government gave a 20% bonus for Medicare patients treated with that protocol. When my sister went into the hospital I told her under no circumstances let them put her on Remdesivir and the ventilator. Check out if they try! She had them write the prohibition into her chart.
Excuse my cynicism, but why would the Feds push a deadly treatment?
Hello! Medicare is one of the most costly federal programs. Since the government stole money from the program which users paid for, it is unsustainable in the long term.
Hmm…what to do? Lightbulb moment! Encourage a treatment that will kill most of those costly, useless eater old folks.
Anyone who still believes that the government deeply cares about people is wearing blinders. Most of the global elitists who want reduced population are deeply immersed in health care, especially vaccines. What better way to get rid of lots of folks than to scare them into stretching out their arms for a weaponized shot.
It’s horrendous and deeply troubling, because this is exactly what is driving vaccine hesitancy. If you can’t know and trust what they are shooting into your body, you are unlikely to let them shoot you at all. I’ve never received a flu vaccine, and at this point I won’t get any vaccines period. I’m too aware of how they have used legitimate vaccines (tetanus) to do evil — like the tetanus vaccines used in the Third World that were tainted with HCG, the pregnancy hormone, to make women develop antibodies against their own babies. Hey, got to reduce those “people of color” who have too many children. Planned Parenthood needs help killing those black and Hispanic babies.
Do the research for yourselves, folks. The Highwire has multiple videos exposing the disastrous consequences of government policy on C-19. Dozens of videos show prestigious doctors outlining the health risks and consequences. They also have Congressman Ron Johnson’s Capitol Hill forums with impressive testimony about vax injuries, the deliberate deplatforming of doctors exposing the data that conflicts with the Fauci lies, etc.
DO THE RESEARCH. LEARN THE TRUTH. SPREAD THE TRUTH. SAVE LIVES!
The antichurch in full force, destroying Traditional orders, through “Cor Orans,” Archdiocese fully complicit.
My good friends Tom and Andrew appear in this video. Please pray for these men, pray for the Traditional Carmelites, and pray for the survival of Carmel in my native place, Philadelphia.
Thank you to Jim Hale and LifeSiteNews for the coverage.
Was the Immaculate Conception a proxy for the “Expanded Petrine Ministry?” Archbishop Gänswein seemed to think so.
Happy Feast of the Immaculate Conception!
We turn again to Archbishop Gänswein speaking at the presentation of a new book by Roberto Regoli entitled Beyond the Crisis of the Church — The Pontificate of Benedict XVI. This is the famous speech from 20 May 2016 at the Gregorian in Rome, of which I have posted excerpts with commentary several times in this space.
But it is helpful to read the whole thing, in order to appreciate how Gänswein “sets the table,” so to speak, for the bombshell concepts he delivers near the end. How do we know that even he himself considers the “Expanded Petrine Ministry” a bombshell? Because in describing the “decision” of Benedict to “resign”, “in such a way” as to fundamentally transform the nature the papacy, and reflecting on the appropriateness of the act… he equates it to God’s decision to create Mary immaculately.
Yes, he did that.
Quick reminder that in the Immaculate Conception, we are dealing with Mary being conceived without the stain of Original Sin, because Christ, being God, could in no way be commingled with sin. Mary was to be the Tabernacle, and God proactively applied the grace of Christ’s redemptive act on the Cross transcendently to Mary, in the instant she was created by God. Time is a construct, created by God, and He is not bound by it.
Now, you’ve probably heard the poetic traditional formulation from Duns Scotus in describing Mary’s Immaculate Conception in its appropriateness, its causality, and its reality:
“Decuit, potuit, fecit” (“It was fitting; He could do it; He did it.”)
Well, this is the same formulation Gänswein applies to Pope Benedict’s “decision” to institute, on his own authority, a new “quasi shared ministry.” If that doesn’t tell you how profoundly he, or rather both of them, believe this action has fundamentally transformed the ontological reality of the papacy, I got nothing else. It’s sheer madness, unless it is a strategic deception, in which case it may be sheer brilliance. Remember, there is eyewitness testimony that Benedict approved this text. I don’t know if this clears things up or adds to the confusion, but what I do know is that it’s right here in the open. Happy reading.
The following English translation was provided by Diane Montagna at Aleteia HERE.
I inject here no commentary, as the plain words of Gänswein stand on their own. But I couldn’t resist adding some emphasis.
_________________________________________ Eminences, Excellencies, dear Brothers, Ladies and Gentlemen! During one of the last conversations that the pope’s biographer, Peter Seewald of Munich, was able to have with Benedict XVI, as he was bidding him goodbye, he asked him: “Are you the end of the old or the beginning of the new?” The pope’s answer was brief and sure: “The one and the other,” he replied. The recorder was already turned off; that is why this final exchange is not found in any of the book-interviews with Peter Seewald, not even the famous Light of the World. It only appeared in an interview he granted to Corriere della Sera in the wake of Benedict XVI’s resignation, in which the biographer recalled those key words which are, in a certain way, a maxim of the book by Roberto Regoli, which we are presenting here today at the Gregorian. Indeed, I must admit that perhaps it is impossible to sum up the pontificate of Benedict XVI in a more concise manner. And the one who says it, over the years, has had the privilege of experiencing this Pope up close as a “homo historicus,” the Western man par excellence who has embodied the wealth of Catholic tradition as no other; and — at the same time — has been daring enough to open the door to a new phase, to that historical turning point which no one five years ago could have ever imagined. Since then, we live in an historic era which in the 2,000-year history of the Church is without precedent. As in the time of Peter, also today the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church continues to have one legitimate Pope. But today we live with two living successors of Peter among us — who are not in a competitive relationship between themselves, and yet both have an extraordinary presence! We may add that the spirit of Joseph Ratzinger had already marked decisively the long pontificate of St. John Paul II, whom he faithfully served for almost a quarter of a century as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Many people even today continue to see this new situation as a kind of exceptional (not regular) state of the divinely instituted office of Peter (eine Art göttlichen Ausnahmezustandes). But is it already time to assess the pontificate of Benedict XVI? Generally, in the history of the Church, popes can correctly be judged and classified only ex post. And as proof of this, Regoli himself mentions the case of Gregory VII, the great reforming pope of the Middle Ages, who at the end of his life died in exile in Salerno – a failure in the opinion of many of his contemporaries. And yet Gregory VII was the very one who, amid the controversies of his time, decisively shaped the face of the Church for the generations that followed. Much more daring, therefore, does Professor Regoli seem today in already attempting to take stock of the pontificate of Benedict XVI, while he is still alive.
The amount of critical material which he reviewed and analyzed to this end is massive and impressive. Indeed, Benedict XVI is and remains extraordinarily present also through his writings: both those produced as pope — the three volumes on Jesus of Nazareth and 16 (!) volumes of Teachings he gave us during his papacy — and as Professor Ratzinger or Cardinal Ratzinger, whose works could fill a small library.
And so, Regoli’s work is not lacking in footnotes, which are as numerous as the memories they awaken in me. For I was present when Benedict XVI, at the end of his mandate, removed the Fisherman’s ring, as is customary after the death of a pope, even though in this case he was still alive! I was present when, on the other hand, he decided not to give up the name he had chosen, as Pope Celestine V had done when, on December 13, 1294, a few months after the start of his ministry, be again became Pietro dal Morrone. Since February 2013 the papal ministry is therefore no longer what it was before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation which Benedict XVI has profoundly and permanently transformed during his exceptional pontificate (Ausnahmepontifikat), regarding which the sober Cardinal Sodano, reacting simply and directly immediately after the surprising resignation, deeply moved and almost stunned, exclaimed that the news hit the cardinals who were gathered “like a bolt from out of the blue.”
It was the morning of that very day when, in the evening, a bolt of lightning with an incredible roar struck the tip of St. Peter’s dome positioned just over the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles. Rarely has the cosmos more dramatically accompanied a historic turning point. But on the morning of that February 11, the dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano, concluded his reply to Benedict XVI’s statement with an initial and similarly cosmic assessment of the pontificate, when he concluded, saying: “Certainly, the stars in the sky will always continue to shine, and so too will the star of his pontificate always shine in our midst.”
Equally brilliant and illuminating is the thorough and well documented exposition by Don Regoli of the different phases of the pontificate. Especially its beginning in the April 2005 conclave, from which Joseph Ratzinger, after one of the shortest elections in the history of the Church, emerged elected after only four ballots following a dramatic struggle between the so-called “Salt of the Earth Party,” around Cardinals López Trujíllo, Ruini, Herranz, Rouco Varela or Medina and the so-called “St. Gallen Group” around Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy-O’Connor; a group that recently the same Cardinal Danneels of Brussels so amusedly called “a kind of Mafia-Club.” The election was certainly also the result of a clash, whose key Ratzinger himself, as dean of the College of Cardinals, had furnished in the historic homily of April 18, 2005 in St. Peter’s; precisely, where to a “dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires” he contrasted another measure: “the Son of God, the true man” as “the measure of true humanism.” Today we read this part of Regoli’s intelligent analysis almost like a breathtaking detective novel of not so long ago; whereas the “dictatorship of relativism” has for a long time sweepingly expressed itself through the many channels of the new means of communication which, in 2005, barely could be imagined.
The name that the new pope took immediately after his election therefore already represented a plan. Joseph Ratzinger did not become Pope John Paul III, as perhaps many would have wished. Instead, he went back to Benedict XV — the unheeded and unlucky great pope of peace of the terrible years of the First World War — and to St. Benedict of Norcia, patriarch of monasticism and patron of Europe. I could appear as a star witness to testify that, over the previous years, Cardinal Ratzinger never pushed to rise to the highest office of the Catholic Church.
Instead, he was already dreaming of a condition that would have allowed him to write several last books in peace and tranquility. Everyone knows that things went differently. During the election, then, in the Sistine Chapel, I was a witness that he saw the election as a “true shock” and was “upset,” and that he felt “dizzy” as soon as he realized that “the axe” of the election would fall on him. I am not revealing any secrets here, because it was Benedict XVI himself who confessed all of this publicly on the occasion of the first audience granted to pilgrims who had come from Germany. And so it isn’t surprising that it was Benedict XVI who immediately after his election invited the faithful to pray for him, as this book again reminds us.
Regoli maps out the various years of ministry in a fascinating and moving way, recalling the skill and confidence with which Benedict XVI exercised his mandate. And what emerged from the time when, just a few months after his election, he invited for a private conversation both his old, fierce antagonist Hans Küng as well as Oriana Fallaci, the agnostic and combative grande dame of Jewish origin, from the Italian secular mass media; or when he appointed Werner Arber, the Swiss Evangelical and Nobel Prize winner, as the first non-Catholic President of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Regoli does not cover up the accusation of an insufficient knowledge of men that was often leveled against the brilliant theologian in the shoes of the Fisherman; a man capable of truly brilliantly evaluating texts and difficult books, and who nevertheless, in 2010, frankly confided to Peter Seewald how difficult he found decisions about people because “no one can read another man’s heart.” How true it is!
Regoli rightly calls 2010 a “black year” for the pope, precisely in relation to the tragic and fatal accident that befell Manuela Camagni, one of the four Memores Domini belonging to the small “papal family.” I can certainly confirm it. In comparison with this misfortune the media sensationalism of those years — from the case of traditionalist bishop, Williamson, to a series of increasingly malicious attacks against the pope — while having a certain effect, did not strike the pope’s heart as much as the death of Manuela, who was torn so suddenly from our midst. Benedict was not an “actor pope,” and even less an insensitive “automaton pope”; even on the throne of Peter he was and he remained a man; or, as Conrad Ferdinand Meyer would say, he was not a “clever book,” he was “a man with his contradictions.” That is how I myself have daily been able to come to know and appreciate him. And so he has remained until today.
Regoli observes, however, that after the last encyclical, Caritas in veritate of December 4, 2009, a dynamic, innovative papacy with a strong drive from a liturgical, ecumenical and canonical perspective, suddenly appeared to have “slowed down,” been blocked, and bogged down. Although it is true that the headwinds increased in the years that followed, I cannot confirm this judgment. Benedict’s travels to the UK (2010), to Germany and to Erfurt, the city of Luther (2011), or to the heated Middle East — to concerned Christians in Lebanon (2012) — have all been ecumenical milestones in recent years. His decisive handling to solve the issue of abuse was and remains a decisive indication on how to proceed. And when, before him, has there ever been a pope who — along with his onerous task — has also written books on Jesus of Nazareth, which perhaps will also be regarded as his most important legacy?
It isn’t necessary here that I dwell on how he, who was so struck by the sudden death of Manuela Camagni, later also suffered the betrayal of Paolo Gabriele, who was also a member of the same “papal family.” And yet it is good for me to say at long last, with all clarity, that Benedict, in the end, did not step down because of a poor and misguided chamber assistant, or because of the “tidbits” coming from his apartment which, in the so-called “Vatileaks affair,” circulated like fool’s gold in Rome but were traded in the rest of the world like authentic gold bullion. No traitor or “raven” [the Italian press’s nickname for the Vatileaks source] or any journalist would have been able to push him to that decision. That scandal was too small for such a thing, and so much greater was the well-considered step of millennial historical significance that Benedict XVI made.
The exposition of these events by Regoli also merits consideration because he does not advance the claim that he sounds and fully explains this last, mysterious step; not further enriching the swarm of legends with more assumptions that have little or nothing to do with reality. And I, too, a firsthand witness of the spectacular and unexpected step of Benedict XVI, I must admit that what always comes to mind is the well-known and brilliant axiom with which, in the Middle Ages, John Duns Scotus justified the divine decree for the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God: “Decuit, potuit, fecit.” That is to say: it was fitting, because it was reasonable. God could do it, therefore he did it. I apply the axiom to the decision to resign in the following way: it was fitting, because Benedict XVI was aware that he lacked the necessary strength for the extremely onerous office. He could do it, because he had already thoroughly thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of popes emeritus for the future. So he did it. The momentous resignation of the theologian pope represented a step forward primarily by the fact that, on February 11, 2013, speaking in Latin in front of the surprised cardinals, he introduced into the Catholic Church the new institution of “pope emeritus,” stating that his strength was no longer sufficient “to properly exercise the Petrine ministry.” The key word in that statement is munus petrinum, translated — as happens most of the time — with “Petrine ministry.” And yet, munus, in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: it can mean service, duty, guide or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this ministry. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi shared ministry (als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst); as though, by this, he wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then Joseph Ratzinger took as archbishop of Munich and Freising and which he then naturally maintained as bishop of Rome: “cooperatores veritatis,” which means “fellow workers in the truth.” In fact, it is not in the singular but the plural; it is taken from the Third Letter of John, in which in verse 8 it is written: “We ought to support such men, that we may be fellow workers in the truth.” Since the election of his successor Francis, on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member. This is why Benedict XVI has not given up either his name, or the white cassock. This is why the correct name by which to address him even today is “Your Holiness”; and this is also why he has not retired to a secluded monastery, but within the Vatican — as if he had only taken a step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy which he, by that step, enriched with the “power station” of his prayer and his compassion located in the Vatican Gardens.
It was “the least expected step in contemporary Catholicism,” Regoli writes, and yet a possibility which Cardinal Ratzinger had already pondered publicly on August 10, 1978 in Munich, in a homily on the occasion of the death of Paul VI. Thirty-five years later, he has not abandoned the Office of Peter — something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005. By an act of extraordinary courage, he has instead renewed this office (even against the opinion of well-meaning and undoubtedly competent advisers), and with a final effort he has strengthened it (as I hope). Of course only history will prove this. But in the history of the Church it shall remain true that, in the year 2013, the famous theologian on the throne of Peter became history’s first “pope emeritus.” Since then, his role — allow me to repeat it once again — is entirely different from that, for example, of the holy Pope Celestine V, who after his resignation in 1294 would have liked to return to being a hermit, becoming instead a prisoner of his successor, Boniface VIII (to whom today in the Church we owe the establishment of jubilee years). To date, in fact, there has never been a step like that taken by Benedict XVI. So it is not surprising that it has been seen by some as revolutionary, or to the contrary as entirely consistent with the Gospel; while still others see the papacy in this way secularized as never before, and thus more collegial and functional or even simply more human and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.
In his overview of the pontificate, Regoli clearly lays this all out as never before. Perhaps the most moving part of the reading for me was the place where, in a long quote, he recalls the last general audience of Pope Benedict XVI on February 27, 2013 when, under an unforgettable clear and brisk sky, the pope, who shortly thereafter would resign, summarized his pontificate as follows:
“It has been a portion of the Church’s journey which has had its moments of joy and light, but also moments which were not easy; I have felt like Saint Peter with the Apostles in the boat on the Sea of Galilee: The Lord has given us so many days of sun and of light winds, days when the catch was abundant; there were also moments when the waters were rough and the winds against us, as throughout the Church’s history, and the Lord seemed to be sleeping. But I have always known that the Lord is in that boat, and I have always known that the barque of the Church is not mine, it is not ours, but his. Nor does the Lord let it sink; it is he who guides it, surely also through the men whom he has chosen, because he so wished. This has been, and is, a certainty which nothing can obscure.”
I must admit that, rereading these words can still bring tears to my eyes, all the more so because I saw in person and up close how unconditional, for himself and for his ministry, was Pope Benedict’s adherence to St Benedict’s words, for whom “nothing is to be placed before the love of Christ,” nihil amori Christi praeponere, as stated in rule handed down to us by Pope Gregory the Great. I was a witness to this, but I still remain fascinated by the accuracy of that final analysis in St. Peter’s Square which sounded so poetic but was nothing less than prophetic. In fact, they are words to which today, too, Pope Francis would immediately and certainly subscribe. Not to the popes but to Christ, to the Lord Himself and to no one else belongs the barque of Peter, whipped by the waves of the stormy sea, when time and again we fear that the Lord is asleep and that our needs are not important to him, while just one word is enough for him to stop every storm; when instead, more than the high waves and the howling wind, it is our disbelief, our little faith and our impatience that make us continually fall into panic.
Thus, this book once again throws a consoling gaze on the peaceful imperturbability and serenity of Benedict XVI, at the helm of the barque of Peter in the dramatic years 2005-2013. At the same time, however, through this illuminating account, Regoli himself now also takes part in the munus Petri of which I spoke. Like Peter Seewald and others before him, Roberto Regoli — as a priest, professor and scholar — also thus enters into that enlarged Petrine ministry around the successors of the Apostle Peter; and for this today we offer him heartfelt thanks.
Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Prefect of the Papal Household
20 May 2016
Today, we’re teaming up with reporter Aaron Sibarium and our friends at the Free Beacon to take a hard look at the American Academy of Pediatrics. The AAP is the nation’s leading organization of pediatricians. Millions of families follow its pronouncements on children’s health without skepticism or second-guessing.
Should they?
Thousands of pediatricians convened in Anaheim, Calif., in early October for the American Academy of Pediatrics’s (AAP) annual conference. The group, which boasts 67,000 members in the U.S. and around the world describes itself as “dedicated to the health of all children.”
So some audience members were shocked when Dr. Morissa Ladinsky, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, lauded a transgender teenager for committing suicide.
In an address about “standing up for gender-affirming care,” Ladinsky eulogized Leelah Alcorn, an Ohio 17-year-old who, in Ladinsky’s words, “stepped boldly in front of a tractor trailer, ending her life,” in 2014, after leaving a suicide note that “went viral, literally around the world.”
Ladinsky’s remarks were captured on video by a horrified onlooker, Oregon pediatrician Dr. Julia Mason, who expressed outrage on Twitter that Ladinsky was “glorifying suicide,” an act she described as “unprofessional and dangerous.”
That isn’t just Mason’s opinion. Technically speaking, it is also the official stance of the AAP, whose website for parents, healthychildren.org, explicitly warns that “glorifying suicide” can have a “‘contagious’ effect” and inspire others to take their own lives.
Reached for comment, Ladinsky expressed “regret” about her choice of words and said it was “never my intent” to glorify self-harm.
But how did this esteemed doctor wind up telling a group of physicians that a teen had, as she put it, “boldly ended her life”?
In any large organization, some members are bound to hold fringe views. But Ladinsky, who has devoted her career in part to facilitating the gender transition of teenagers, including by challenging state laws that restrict the kinds of treatment physicians can provide to them, is hardly an outlier at the AAP. And the AAP is an organization that matters a great deal.
Founded in 1930 as an offshoot of the American Medical Association, the AAP is first and foremost a standard-setting body. It outlines best practices for the nation’s pediatricians, advises policy-makers on public health issues, and, for many parents, is the premier authority on raising healthy kids.
In recent years, it has also become a participant in America’s culture wars. Judges have deferred to the group’s expertise in high-stakes court cases about children with gender dysphoria, who the AAP says can start socially transitioning at “any” age. During the height of Covid, schools masked toddlers—including toddlers with speech delays—based on the guidance of the AAP. Sports leagues and after-school programs mandated the Covid vaccine after the AAP strongly recommended it, even as concerns mounted about its association with myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, in young males.
Though the organization’s guidelines are framed as the consensus position of the AAP’s members, only a handful of physicians had a role in shaping them. Instead, insiders say, the AAP is deferring to small, like-minded teams of specialists ensconced in children’s hospitals, research centers, and public health bureaucracies, rather than seeking the insights of pediatricians who see a wide cross-section of America’s children.
They also say a longstanding left-wing bias—over two thirds of pediatricians are registered Democrats—has accelerated, turning the organization into a more overtly political body that now pronounces on issues from climate change to immigration. As rates of gender dysphoria exploded and the Covid-19 pandemic hit, that bias seeped into the organization’s medical policy recommendations, unchecked by discussion or debate.
This story is based on dozens of interviews with pediatricians, academics, and current and former AAP members, including several with leadership positions in the AAP. It shows how a small group of doctors with virtually unaccountable power can exert tremendous influence over public policy, especially when a new crisis—be it moral or virological—gives them an emergency mandate. A mandate affecting the lives of millions of families…
Remember that the biggest thrill is in the “openly getting away with it.”
Arizona certifies 2022 election results amid threat of more GOP challenges
Arizona officials certified the state’s vote canvass on Monday, officially declaring winners in the high-profile gubernatorial and Senate races, among other contests, as GOP figures vow to fight the election results in court.
The once low-profile certification process turned into a fierce battle between election officials, Republican candidates and some county boards as the GOP seized on printer malfunctions in the state’s most populous county, in part leading Arizona to become an epicenter for voter disenfranchisement allegations.
Election officials have acknowledged mishaps but insist no voter was disenfranchised. Some GOP figures and their supporters claimed officials were lying, unsuccessfully calling on county boards to not certify their canvasses in recent days before turning their ire to Monday’s state-level certification.
But Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D), who is now governor-elect, Gov. Doug Ducey (R), state Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) and Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Brutinel still met to canvass last month’s election on Monday, a timeline mandated by state law.
“Arizona had a successful election,” Hobbs said. “But too often throughout the process, powerful voices proliferated misinformation that threatened to disenfranchise voters. Democracy prevailed, but it’s not out of the woods. 2024 will bring a host of challenges from the election denial community that we must prepare for.”…
The Missouri v. Biden case is the one about government attacks on free speech via social media controls. Filings in the lawsuit are turning up some interesting nuggets, like this obnoxious email exchange showing Arizona’s Katie Hobbs telling Twitter what posts to cancel:
This is an example of the direct line that Ms. Hobbs’ office had into Twitter. So, politically-connected Democrats didn’t just report a tweet for violation of the terms of service by clicking the button, like all us deplorables have do. Instead, these connected politicians had a special customer service contact at twitter, to “handle” their requests.
Below is what a “report” of violation of the terms of service looked like.
In other words, the tweets were critical of the government.
I dare you to try getting an email response from Twitter or Facebook or Instagram. Good luck. That kind of access is only available to liberal politicians, apparently. Well, not anymore at Twitter, since all those “content moderators” have been laid off. But presumably this is still standard operating procedure at the other social media giants.
Today is the Second Sunday of Advent. The first portion of today’s Gospel is from Matthew 11, and goes like this:
At that time, when John had heard in prison the works of Christ: sending two of his disciples he said to him: “Art thou he that art to come, or look we for another?” And Jesus making answer said to them: “Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen. The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in me.”
Before we get to the reasons why John may have sent these disciples to question Christ, let us first get out of the way that this is definitely not John’s faith failing. John, in prison, perhaps only days from his earthly end, had perfectly fulfilled his mission as Forerunner. About to go to his reward, he still has his own disciples hanging out near him. So John sends them so that they too might believe in Christ. That’s the first interpretation.
The second, favored by St. Jerome, is that John sent them to find out if John was to yet continue his mission into the next life… to be the Forerunner to dead, announcing Christ’s coming even to them.
Either way, we can see that a theme is common to both: Care for souls. The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. Can you imagine if She still acted that way?
And as I’ve written many times before, Christ answers these disciples in a way that should make every Cardinal in attendance at the 2013 faux “Conclave” terrified. Why?
“Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen…”
What do your senses say? How do your senses inform your intellect? What is the evidence laid out before you? What do you hear? What do you see?
In short: “Examine the evidence”
Dear Cardinals of Feb/March 2013: Do you see two popes dressed in white, both living in the Vatican, both granting audiences, both addressed as His Holiness, both with their Fisherman’s Rings, both giving their Apostolic Blessing, etc, etc. Does the older pope seem to think he is still papal in some way? Is that possible? If that’s what Pope Benedict thought when he wrote his resignation, that he could somehow remain some way “papal,” doesn’t Canon 188 render the resignation invalid? It seems he was in Substantial Error, his mind giving assent to an erroneous notion regarding the essential nature of what he was doing. Isn’t there at least enough evidence to call for an investigation? Another piece of evidence, the cherry on top, is that the younger “pope” isn’t even Catholic. Maybe that is the first clue that something isn’t right. How many shall he scandalize out of the Church before you do something?
The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. Get cracking.
Miss B. reposted this essay of mine from several years ago (May, 2018). It concerns the mind of Pope Benedict, what role he now believes himself to be fulfilling, and what he was thinking when he… did what he did(n’t). How can we know the mind of Benedict? Because he tells us, over and over and over again. I want you to focus on something as you read through this.
As I’ve oft repeated on the podcast, proving that Pope Benedict was in Substantial Error (Canon 188) regarding his purported resignation, and thus retained the papacy in full, is a very LOW BAR to prove. Why is this true?
Because all that is needed is to show evidence that Pope Benedict intended to remain papal in any way. If he thought he could retain or share any portion of the papacy by only partially resigning, it is game, set, match. Tell me, is there any evidence at all that Pope Benedict still considers himself papal IN ANY WAY? But remember, Benedict’s mind is not the arbiter of reality. He isn’t still pope by direct causation of his own thoughts, he is still pope because his erroneous notions invalidated his resignation, leaving him not just partial pope but the one and only true pope.
(NonVeni Mark wrote this up several years ago, and it can’t be said any better, so I am shamelessly lifting and reposting it. -AB ’22)
“He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”
That headline was the response given by Abp. Ganswein to the question of certain irregularities in the papal abdication. Pope Benedict had supposedly decided to resign, yet had chosen to retain his vesture, retain his title as pope, albeit with ’emeritus’ added (which is impossible), retain his residency within the Vatican enclosure, and his form of address as remaining “His Holiness”. HERE
The press questioned, “Why?”
The answer, “He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”
In Pope Benedict’s mind (“he considers”) that the title “Pope (Emeritus)” and the formal address “His Holiness” corresponds to reality.
But hey, I’m the crazy one for pointing out obvious stuff. Just go ahead and try to suggest on the interweebs that Pope Benedict thinks he retained some portion of the papacy. YOU’RE TWISTING HIS WORDS! YOU’RE NOT A MIND READER! After all, we clearly had a conclave, and “Francis” was clearly elected, and this result seems to have been clearly greeted by peaceful universal acceptance by the cardinals, right?
Do you know what is coming up this Saturday? Everyone is talking about it… The Royal Wedding! Harry and Meghan! It will be televised all around the world, and tens of millions of people will watch. It will look spectacular. All the rituals will play out, the ceremony will unfold, vows exchanged, and the prince and princess will be husband and wife.
Except they won’t be. You see, Meghan is still married to her first husband, because divorce doesn’t exist. Divorce is anti-reality. (Markle is married to the Hollywood Jew Trevor Engleson, and as both were unbaptized at the time, the marriage is a totally valid marriage and as with any valid marriage, indissoluble. -AB ’22) So all that will take place on Saturday is the appearance of a wedding, but in reality is simply fancy formalized adultery and fornication. Even though everything will be done correctly according to formula, nothing will actually happen. It doesn’t matter that all the attendees and everyone watching on television will believe that a wedding just took place. The metaphysical reality of the situation is that nothing happened, because a prior event (her actual wedding) nullifies the “result” of Saturday’s proceedings. In the words of Louie Verrechio, “an act of deception, no matter how cleverly conceived or convincingly executed, cannot change the objective reality of a given situation.“ HERE
Which is exactly why the 2013 conclave didn’t actually happen. It looked like it happened, everyone believed at the time it was real, but now we know that the weight of the evidence points towards a prior event nullifying its occurrence: Pope Benedict intending to hold on to at least part of the papacy. And if that is true, which I believe with moral certainty to be the case, then he didn’t resign any of the papacy, because Canon 188 says he didn’t. No resignation, no conclave.
“He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”
Out of error, truth.
“The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.” – Pope Benedict
Archbishop Gänswein:
… Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”
“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” [Ganswein] said.
“…before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’.”
“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”
And lastly, Professor de Mattei:
“Benedict XVI had the ability to renounce the papacy, but consequently, would have had to give up the name of Benedict XVI, dressing in white, and the title of Pope emeritus: in a word, he would have had to definitively cease from being Pope, also leaving Vatican City. Why did he not do so? Because Benedict XVI seems to be convinced of still being Pope, although a Pope who has renounced the exercise of the Petrine ministry. This conviction is born of a profoundly-erroneous ecclesiology, founded on a sacramental and not juridical conception of the Papacy. If the Petrine munus is a sacrament and not a juridical office, then it has an indelible character, but in this case it would be impossible to renounce the office. The resignation presupposes the revocability of the office, and is then irreconcilable with the sacramental vision of the Papacy.”
The bill also stipulates a ban on selling merchandise, including imported items, which contain material that is administratively or criminally liable for disseminating any information of this sort
MOSCOW, November 24. /TASS/. The State Duma on Thursday approved the third reading of a bill prohibiting propaganda that promotes non-traditional sexual relations, pedophilia and information capable of causing someone to seek gender reassignment surgery.
The bill bans LGBT propaganda in the media, on the Internet, as well as in commercials, books and movies. Also, any calls for gender reassignment among minors on the Internet, in the media, and in books, audiovisual services, movies and commercials will be prohibited.
In addition to that, movies containing material with propaganda promoting non-traditional sexual relations or preferences will be banned from screening. Under the ban, children will have limited access to LGBT information on paid audio or video platforms. For example, viewers will be asked to enter a code or take some other steps to verfify their age. Those under 18 years of age will not be able to access LGBT information.
The bill also stipulates a ban on selling merchandise, including imported items, which contain material that is administratively or criminally liable for disseminating any information of this sort. A provision on propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations, pedophilia and information capable of causing minors to seek gender reassignment surgery will be added to the law protecting children from any information harming their health or development.
The Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) will have the right to formulate the procedure for online monitoring to detect any information access, which should be limited under the federal law on information. A special entity authorized by the government will be in charge of this monitoring.
About 400 legislators, including Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, are among the bill’s authors. As Volodin noted during a meeting earlier, the bill is being approved exclusively in the interests of Russians. “We are following a different path chosen by our grandparents and great-grandparents. We have traditions, and we have a conscience, and we understand that we should think about our children, our families, and our country in order to preserve and protect [the values that] our parents handed down to us,” he emphasized.
