| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 374 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 371 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google
|
| Latest Threads |
Pope Francis says Synod’s...
Forum: Pope Francis
Last Post: Stone
10 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 45
|
If We Want to Promote the...
Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
Last Post: Stone
10 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 48
|
Fr. Ruiz: Renewal of the ...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
10 hours ago
» Replies: 16
» Views: 1,312
|
Fr. Ruiz's Sermons: Last ...
Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons November 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:38 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 44
|
The Simulacrum: The False...
Forum: Sedevacantism
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:36 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 65
|
Interview with the Editor...
Forum: The Recusant
Last Post: Stone
11-24-2024, 07:15 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 140
|
Purgatory Explained by th...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
11-24-2024, 09:03 AM
» Replies: 37
» Views: 3,968
|
Last Sunday after Penteco...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
11-24-2024, 08:57 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 11,663
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Twen...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:30 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 105
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feas...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:27 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 136
|
|
|
| AP Interview: Pope says homosexuality not a crime |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-25-2023, 10:24 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
 |
AP Interview: Pope says homosexuality not a crime
Pope Francis has criticized laws that criminalize homosexuality as “unjust,” saying God loves all his children just as they are
Associated Press | January 25, 2023
VATICAN CITY -- Pope Francis criticized laws that criminalize homosexuality as “unjust,” saying God loves all his children just as they are and called on Catholic bishops who support the laws to welcome LGBTQ people into the church.
“Being homosexual isn’t a crime,” Francis said during an exclusive interview Tuesday with The Associated Press.
Francis acknowledged that Catholic bishops in some parts of the world support laws that criminalize homosexuality or discriminate against the LGBTQ community, and he himself referred to the issue in terms of “sin.” But he attributed such attitudes to cultural backgrounds, and said bishops in particular need to undergo a process of change to recognize the dignity of everyone.
“These bishops have to have a process of conversion,” he said, adding that they should apply “tenderness, please, as God has for each one of us."
Francis' comments are the first uttered by a pope about such laws, but they are consistent with his overall approach to the LGBTQ community and belief that the Catholic Church should welcome everyone and not discriminate.
Some 67 countries or jurisdictions worldwide criminalize consensual same-sex sexual activity, 11 of which can or do impose the death penalty, according to The Human Dignity Trust, which works to end such laws. Experts say even where the laws are not enforced, they contribute to harassment, stigmatization and violence against LGBTQ people.
In the U.S., more than a dozen states still have anti-sodomy laws on the books, despite a 2003 Supreme Court ruling declaring them unconstitutional. Gay rights advocates say the antiquated laws are used to harass homosexuals, and point to new legislation, such as the “Don’t say gay” law in Florida, which forbids instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade, as evidence of continued efforts to marginalize LGBTQ people.
The United Nations has repeatedly called for an end to laws criminalizing homosexuality outright, saying they violate rights to privacy and freedom from discrimination and are a breach of countries’ obligations under international law to protect the human rights of all people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Declaring such laws “unjust,” Francis said the Catholic Church can and should work to put an end to them. “It must do this. It must do this,” he said.
Francis quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church in saying gay people must be welcomed and respected, and should not be marginalized or discriminated against.
“We are all children of God, and God loves us as we are and for the strength that each of us fights for our dignity,” Francis said, speaking to the AP in the Vatican hotel where he lives.
Francis' remarks come ahead of a trip to Africa, where such laws are common as they are in the Middle East. Many date from British colonial times or are inspired by Islamic law. Some Catholic bishops have strongly upheld them as consistent with Vatican teaching, while others have called for them to be overturned as a violation of basic human dignity.
In 2019, Francis had been expected to issue a statement opposing criminalization of homosexuality during a meeting with human rights groups that conducted research into the effects of such laws and so-called “conversion therapies.”
In the end, after word of the audience leaked, the pope didn't meet with the groups. Instead, the Vatican No. 2 did and reaffirmed “the dignity of every human person and against every form of violence.”
There was no indication that Francis spoke out about such laws now because his more conservative predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, recently died. The issue had never been raised in an interview, but Francis willingly responded, citing even the statistics about the number of countries where homosexuality is criminalized.
On Tuesday, Francis said there needed to be a distinction between a crime and a sin with regard to homosexuality.
“It's not a crime. Yes, but it's a sin,” he said. "Fine, but first let's distinguish between a sin and a crime."
"It's also a sin to lack charity with one another," he added.
Catholic teaching holds that while gay people must be treated with respect, homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.” Francis has not changed that teaching, but he has made reaching out to the LGBTQ community a hallmark of his papacy.
Starting with his famous 2013 declaration, “Who am I to judge?” — when he was asked about a purportedly gay priest — Francis has gone on to minister repeatedly and publicly to the gay and trans community. As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he favored granting legal protections to same-sex couples as an alternative to endorsing gay marriage, which Catholic doctrine forbids.
Despite such outreach, Francis was criticized by the Catholic LGBTQ community for a 2021 decree from the Vatican’s doctrine office that said the church cannot bless same-sex unions.
In 2008, the Vatican declined to sign onto a U.N. declaration that called for the decriminalization of homosexuality, complaining the text went beyond the original scope. In a statement at the time, the Vatican urged countries to avoid “unjust discrimination” against gay people and end penalties against them.
|
|
|
| Abp. Viganò: Latin Mass and Novus Ordo cannot coexist, this is a ‘battle between Christ and Satan |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-24-2023, 02:27 PM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- Replies (3)
|
|
Abp. Viganò: The Latin Mass and Novus Ordo cannot coexist, this is a ‘battle between Christ and Satan’
I would not be 'surprised' if those 'abusing apostolic authority' soon 'prohibit' the Latin Mass 'altogether.'
Jan 24, 2023
(LifeSiteNews) — The following is an essay by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on the current debate about Traditionis Custodes.
“THE ONE THREAD BY WHICH THE COUNCIL HANGS”
A response to Reid, Cavadini, Healy, and Weinandy.
Et brachia ex eo stabunt,
et polluent sanctuarium fortitudinis,
et auferent juge sacrificium:
et dabunt abominationem in desolationem.
And arms shall stand on his part,
and they shall defile the sanctuary of strength,
and they shall take away the continual sacrifice:
and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation.
Dan 11: 31
I have followed with interest the ongoing debate about Traditionis Custodes and Father Reid’s comment (here) in which he refutes Cavadini, Healy, and Weinandy, without however reaching a solution to the problems identified. With this contribution, I would like to indicate a possible way out of the present crisis.
Vatican II, not being a dogmatic Council, did not intend to define any doctrinal truth, limiting itself to reaffirming indirectly – and in an often equivocal form – doctrines previously defined clearly and unequivocally by the infallible authority of the Magisterium. It was unduly and forcibly considered as “the” Council, the “superdogma” of the new “conciliar church,” to the point of defining the Church in relation to that event. In the conciliar texts there is no explicit mention of what was later done in the liturgical sphere, passing it off as the fulfillment of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. On the other hand, there are many critical issues with the so-called “reform,” which represents a betrayal of the will of the Council Fathers and of the pre-conciliar liturgical heritage.
We should rather ask ourselves what value to give to an act that is not what it wants to seem: that is, if we can morally consider as “Council” an act that, beyond its official premises – that is, in the preparatory schemes formulated at length and in detail by the Holy Office – showed itself to be subversive in its unmentionable intentions and malicious in the means to be employed by those who, as it turned out, intended to use it for a purpose totally opposite to what the Church instituted the Ecumenical Councils for. This premise is indispensable in order to be able to evaluate objectively also the other events and acts of governance of the Church that derive from it or that refer to it.
Allow me to explain. We know that a law is promulgated on the basis of a mens, that is, of a very precise purpose, which cannot be separated from the entire legal system in which it is born. These at least are the foundations of that Law which the wisdom of the Church acquired from the Roman Empire. The legislator promulgates a law with a purpose and formulates it in such a way that it is applicable only for that specific purpose; he will therefore avoid any element that could make the law equivocal with respect to its addressee, its purpose, or its result. The convocation of an ecumenical Council has as its purpose the solemn convocation of the Bishops of the Church, under the authority of the Roman Pontiff, to define particular aspects of doctrine, morals, liturgy or ecclesiastical discipline. But what each Council defines must in any case fall within the scope of Tradition and cannot in any way contradict the immutable Magisterium, because if it did so it would go against the purpose that legitimizes authority in the Church. The same applies to the pope, who has full, immediate and direct power over the whole Church only within the confines of his mandate: to strengthen his brothers and sisters in the Faith, to feed the lambs and sheep of the flock that the Lord has entrusted to him.
In the history of the Church, until Vatican II, it has never happened that a Council could de facto cancel the Councils that preceded it, nor that a “pastoral” Council – a ἅπαξ of Vatican II – could have more authority than twenty dogmatic Councils. Yet it happened, amidst the silence of the majority of the episcopate and with the approval of five roman pontiffs, from John XXIII to Benedict XVI. In these fifty years of permanent revolution, no pope has ever questioned the “magisterium” of Vatican II, nor has he dared to condemn its heretical theses or clarify its equivocal ones. On the contrary, all the popes since Paul VI have made Vatican II and its implementation the programmatic fulcrum of their pontificates, subordinating and binding their apostolic authority to the conciliar diktats. They have distinguished themselves through a clear distancing from their predecessors and a marked self-referentiality from Roncalli to Bergoglio: their “magisterium” begins with Vatican II and ends there, and the successors proclaim their immediate predecessors as saints for the sole fact of having convoked, concluded, or applied the Council. Theological language has also adapted to the ambiguity of the conciliar texts, going so far as to adopt as defined doctrines things that before the Council were considered heretical: we may think of the secularism of the State, today taken for granted and praiseworthy; the irenic ecumenism of Assisi and Astana; or the parliamentarism of the Commissions, the Synod of Bishops, and the “synodal path” of the German Church.
All this stems from a postulate that almost everyone takes for granted: that Vatican II can claim the authority of an ecumenical council, before which the faithful are supposed to suspend all judgment and humbly bow their heads to the will of Christ, infallibly expressed by the Sacred Pastors, even if in a “pastoral” and not dogmatic form. But this is not the case, because the Sacred Pastors may be being deceived by a colossal conspiracy that has as its purpose the subversive use of a Council.
What happened on the global level with Vatican II took place locally with the Synod of Pistoia, in 1786, where the authority of Bishop Scipione de’ Ricci – which he was able to legitimately exercise by convoking a diocesan Synod – was declared null and void by Pius VI for having used it in fraudem legis, that is, against the ratio which presides over and directs every law of the Church: because authority in the Church belongs to Our Lord, who is its Head, who grants it in vicarious form to Peter and his legitimate Successors only within the framework of Sacred Tradition. It is therefore not an impudent hypothesis to suppose that a gathering of heretics could have organized a real coup d’état in the ecclesial body, in order to impose that revolution that with similar methods was organized by Freemasonry, in 1789, against the monarchy of France, and that the modernist Cardinal Suenens praised as having been realized at the Council. Nor is this in conflict with the certainty of Christ’s divine assistance to His Church: non prævalebunt does not promise us the absence of conflicts, persecutions, apostasies; it assures us that in the furious battle of the gates of hell against the Bride of the Lamb, they will not succeed in destroying the Church of Christ. The Church will not be defeated as long as she remains as Her Eternal Pontiff commanded her to be. Moreover, the special assistance of the Holy Spirit upon papal infallibility is not in question when the pope has no intention of using it, as in the case of the approval of the acts of a pastoral Council. From a theoretical point of view, therefore, the subversive and malicious use of a Council is possible; also because the pseudochristi and pseudoprophetæ of which Sacred Scripture speaks (Mk 13:22) could deceive even the elect themselves, including most of the Council Fathers, and with them a multitude of clerics and faithful.
If, therefore, Vatican II was, as is evident, an instrument whose authority and authoritativeness was fraudulently used to impose heterodox doctrines and protestantized rites, we can hope that sooner or later the return to the Throne of a holy and orthodox pontiff will cure this situation by declaring it illegitimate, invalid, and null, like the Conciliabolo of Pistoia. And if the reformed liturgy expresses those doctrinal errors and that ecclesiological approach that Vatican II contained in nuce, errors whose authors intended to make manifest in their devastating scope only after their promulgation, no “pastoral” reason – as Dom Alcuin Reid would like to maintain – can ever justify any maintenance of that spurious, equivocal, favens hæresim rite, so utterly disastrous in its effects on God’s holy people. The Novus Ordo therefore does not deserve any amendment, any “reform of the reform,” but only suppression and abrogation, as a consequence of its irremediable heterogeneity with respect to the Catholic Liturgy, to the Roman Rite of which it would presumptuously claim to be the only expression, and to the immutable doctrine of the Church. “The lie must be refuted, as Saint Paul insists, but those who are entangled in its traps must be saved, not lost,” writes Dom Alcuin: but not to the detriment of revealed Truth and of the honor due to the Most Holy Trinity in the supreme act of worship; because in giving excessive weight to pastorality we end up putting man at the center of sacred action, when he should instead place God there and prostrate himself before Him in adoring silence.
In Bergoglio there is no desire to settle the disagreement between the lineage of Tradition and the lineage of Vatican II. On the contrary, the idea of provoking a rupture is functional to the exclusion of traditional Catholics, whether clerics or laity, from the “conciliar church” that has replaced the Catholic Church and that barely (and reluctantly) keeps its name.[/color] The schism desired by Santa Marta is not that of the heretical synodal path of the German Dioceses, but that of traditional Catholics exasperated by Bergoglian provocations, by the scandals of her Court, by her intemperate and divisive declarations (here and here). To obtain this, Bergoglio will not hesitate to carry to their extreme consequences the principles laid down by Vatican II, to which he unconditionally adheres: to consider the Novus Ordo as the only form of the post-conciliar Roman Rite, and to consistently abrogate any celebration in the ancient Roman Rite as completely alien to the dogmatic structure of the Council.
And it is very true, beyond any possible refutation, that there is no possibility of reconciliation between two heterogeneous, indeed opposed, ecclesiological visions. Either one survives and the other succumbs, or one succumbs and the other survives. The chimera of a coexistence between Vetus and Novus Ordo is impossible, artificial, and deceitful: because what the celebrant does perfectly in the Apostolic Mass leads him naturally and infallibly to do what the Church wants; while what the president of the assembly does in the Reformed Mass is almost always affected by the variations authorized by the rite itself, even if in it the Holy Sacrifice is validly realized. And it is precisely in this that the conciliar matrix of the new Mass consists: its fluidity, its ability to adapt to the needs of the most disparate “assemblies,” to be celebrated both by a priest who believes in transubstantiation and manifests it with the prescribed genuflections and by one who believes only in transignification and gives Communion to the faithful in their hands.
I would not be surprised, therefore, if, in the very near future, those who are abusing apostolic authority in order to demolish the Holy Church and provoke the mass exodus of “pre-conciliar” Catholics do not hesitate not only to limit the celebration of the ancient Mass, but also to prohibit it altogether, because in that prohibition the sectarian hatred against the True, the Good, and the Beautiful is summarized, which animated the conspiracy of the Modernists since the first Session of their idol, Vatican II. Let us not forget that, consistent with this fanatical and tyrannical approach, the Tridentine Mass was casually abrogated with the promulgation of the Missale Romanum of Paul VI, and that those who continued to celebrate it were literally persecuted, ostracized, made to die with broken hearts, and buried with funerals in the new rite, as if to seal a miserable victory over a past to be definitively forgotten. And in those days no one was interested in the pastoral motivations to derogate from the harshness of canon law, just as today no one is concerned with the pastoral motivations that could induce many bishops to grant that celebration in the ancient rite to which clerics and faithful show particular attachment.
Benedict XVI’s conciliatory attempt, praiseworthy in its temporary effects of liberalization of the Usus Antiquior, was destined to fail precisely because it arose from the illusion of being able to apply the synthesis of Summorum Pontificum to the Tridentine thesis and the antithesis of Bugnini: that philosophical vision influenced by Hegelian thought could not be successful because of the very nature of the Church (and of the Mass), which is either Catholic or not. And which cannot be at the same time firmly anchored to Tradition and also jolted by the waves of the secularized mentality.
For this reason, I am greatly dismayed to read that the Apostolic Mass is considered by Dom Reid as the “expression of that legitimate plurality that is a part of the Church of Christ,” because the plurality of voices is legitimately expressed in an overall symphonic unity, not in the simultaneous presence of harmony and screeching noise. There is a misunderstanding here that must be clarified as soon as possible, and which in all probability will be healed not so much by the timid and composed dissent of those who ask for tolerance for themselves while giving the same tolerance to those who hold diametrically opposed principles, but rather by the intolerant and vexatious action of those who believe they can impose their own will in opposition to the will of Christ the Head of the Church, presuming to be able to govern the Mystical Body like a multinational corporation, as Cardinal Müller correctly pointed out in his recent speech.
And yet, on closer inspection, what is happening today and what will happen in the near future is nothing other than the logical consequence of the premises established in the past, the next step in a long series of more or less slow steps, each of which many have been silent about and have been blackmailed into accepting. Because those who celebrate the Tridentine Mass habitually but continue to celebrate the Novus Ordo from time to time – and I am not talking about priests subject to blackmail but those who were able to decide for themselves or had the freedom to choose – have already yielded in their principles, accepting to be able to equally celebrate either one, as if they were both equivalent, as if – precisely – one was the extraordinary form and the other the ordinary form of the same Rite.
And is not this what has transpired, with similar methods, in the civil sphere, with the imposition of restrictions and the violation of fundamental rights, accepted in silence by the majority of the population, terrorized by the threat of a pandemic? Also in those circumstances, with different motivations but with similar purposes, citizens have been blackmailed: “Either get vaccinated or you cannot work, travel, or go to restaurants.” And how many, although knowing that this was an abuse of authority, have obeyed? Do you think that the systems of manipulation of consensus are very different, when those who adopt them come from the same enemy ranks and are led by the same Serpent? Do you think that the Great Reset plan devised by Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum has different purposes than those set by the Bergoglian sect? The blackmail will not be about health, but rather doctrinal: one will be asked to accept only Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae in order to be able to have rights in the conciliar church; the traditionalists will be branded as fanatics just like those who are called “no-vax.”
If Rome were to proscribe the celebration of the ancient Mass in all the churches of the world, those who believed that they could serve two masters – the Church of Christ and the conciliar church – will discover that they have been deceived, just as happened to the conciliar Fathers before them. At that point they will have to make the choice that they deluded themselves into believing that they could avoid: a choice which will force them either to disobey an illicit order in order to obey the Lord, or else to bow their head to the will of the tyrant while failing in their duties as ministers of God. Let them reflect, in their examination of conscience, about how many have avoided supporting the few, very few of their brother priests who have been faithful to their own Priesthood even though they have been singled out as disobedient or inflexible simply because they foresaw the deception and the blackmail.
Here it is not a question of “dressing up” the Montinian Mass like the Ancient Mass, trying to use vestments and Gregorian chant to hide the pharisaical hypocrisy that conceived it; it is not a question of cutting out the Prex eucharistica II or celebrating ad orientem: the battle must be fought over the ontological difference between the theocentric vision of the Tridentine Mass and the anthropocentric vision of its conciliar counterfeit.
This is nothing other than the battle between Christ and Satan. A battle for the Mass, which is the heart of our Faith, the throne onto which the Divine Eucharistic King descends, the Calvary on which the immolation of the Immaculate Lamb is renewed in an unbloody form. It is not a supper, not a concert, not a show to display eccentricities or a pulpit for heresiarchs, and it not a podium for holding rallies.
It is a battle that will be strengthened spiritually in the clandestinity of priests who are faithful to Christ, who are considered to be excommunicated and schismatics, while inside the churches, along with the reformed rite, infidelity, error, and hypocrisy will triumph. And also the absence: the absence of God, the absence of holy priests, the absence of good faithful souls. The absence – as I said in my sermon for the Chair of Saint Peter in Rome (here) – of the unity between the Chair (Cathedra) and the Altar, between the sacred authority of the Shepherds and their very reason for being, following the model of Christ, ready to be the first themselves to ascend Golgotha, to sacrifice themselves for the flock. Whoever rejects this mystical vision of his own Priesthood ends up by exercising his authority without the ratification that comes only from the Altar, the Sacrifice, and the Cross: from Christ Himself who reigns from that Cross over both spiritual and temporal sovereigns as King and High Priest.
If this is what Bergoglio wants in order to assert his overwhelming power amidst the clamorous silence of the Sacred College and the episcopate, may he know that he will face firm and decisive opposition from many good souls who are willing to fight for love of the Lord and for the salvation of their own souls, who, at a moment that is so dreadful for the fate of the Church and the world, are determined not to give in to those who wish to cancel the perennial Sacrifice, as if to facilitate the rise of the Antichrist to the leadership of the New World Order. We will soon understand the meaning of the terrible words of the Gospel (Mt 24:15), in which the Lord speaks of the abomination of desolation in the temple: the abominable horror of seeing the treasure of the Mass proscribed, our altars stripped, our churches closed, and our liturgical ceremonies forced into clandestinity. This is the abomination of desolation: the end of the Apostolic Mass.
When the 13-years old Agnes was led to her Martyrdom on January 21, 304, many among the faithful and priests had apostasized the Faith under the persecution of Diocletian. Should we fear the ostracism of the conciliar sect, when a girl has given us such an example of fidelity and fortitude before the executioner? Her heroic fidelity was praised by Saint Ambrose and Saint Damasus. Let us ensure that we, unworthy though we may be, will be able to merit the future praise of the Church while we prepare ourselves for those trials in which we testify that we belong to Christ.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
21 January 2023
Sanctæ Agnetis Virginis et Martyris
|
|
|
|
| A Posthumous Book by Benedict XVI |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-24-2023, 08:05 AM - Forum: The Architects of Vatican II
- Replies (3)
|
|
A Posthumous Book by Benedict XVI
JANUARY 23, 2023
SOURCE: FSSPX.NEWS
Entitled Che cos’e il Cristianesimo (What is Christianity?), this book collects 16 texts from the period following Benedict XVI’s resignation in 2013, most were written around 2018, with the last in 2022. It was published by Italian publisher Mondadori on January 18.
Opposition between Catholicism and Protestantism
In a previously unreleased text, Benedict XVI deplores that Vatican II “did not address the Reformation’s fundamental questioning of the Catholic priesthood in the 16th century.” It is a “wound that is felt today and which, in my opinion, must be addressed in an open and fundamental way.”
Benedict XVI sees Luther's original error as his vision of an irreconcilable opposition between the priestly concept of the Old Testament and the priesthood conferred by Jesus Christ. However, the early church had already connected the Old Testament priesthood with the New Testament ministries and did not view justification by faith and by works as opposed.
Protestant Worship and the Mass Are Fundamentally Different
Because of their opposing theological foundations, “it is quite clear that the [Protestant] Last Supper and the Mass are two fundamentally different, mutually exclusive forms of worship. Let those who preach intercommunion today remember this,” warns Joseph Ratzinger.
Benedict XVI points out that, in the liturgical reform, “Luther's theses played a certain tacit role, so that certain circles could claim that the decree of the Council of Trent on the sacrifice of the Mass had been tacitly abolished.”
He then expresses the suspicion that the harshness of the opposition to the Old Mass also stemmed in part from the fact that some saw in it an idea of sacrifice and expiation which was no longer acceptable.
The Modern World Accepts Luther
Finally, the late pope emeritus writes: “It is obvious that modern thought ... is more at ease with Luther’s approach than with the Catholic approach. For an explanation of Scripture that sees the Old Testament as a way to Jesus Christ is almost inaccessible to modern thought.”
Dialogue with Islam
Benedict XVI criticizes certain attempts at dialogue between Christians and Muslims, which emphasize that both the Bible and the Koran speak of the mercy of God. From this stems the imperative to love one's neighbor, but it is also claimed that both texts contain calls for violence.
The result is that, in a certain sense, we place ourselves above the two religions and we affirm that there is good and bad in both and that it is therefore necessary to read the Bible and the Koran with a hermeneutics of love and opposing violence taking both into account.
False Tolerance in the West
In another text, Joseph Ratzinger notes that the “great powers of tolerance do not grant to Christianity the tolerance they propagate,” he criticizes. With their “radical manipulation of man” and “distortion of the sexes through gender ideology,” they are clearly opposed to Christianity, he writes.
He adds: “The intolerance of this apparent modernity towards the Christian faith has not yet turned into open persecution, and yet it manifests itself in an increasingly authoritarian way with the aim of achieving, by a appropriate legislation, the eradication of what is essentially Christian.”
Finally, he refutes the criticism that the Christian faith is inherently intolerant because of its claim to truth and universality. This view is based on the suspicion that the truth is dangerous. But it is the societies that oppose the truth that are intolerant.
According to Elio Guerriero, co-editor, an imperative condition by Benedict XVI was to publish the book only after his death. “For my part, I do not want to publish anything in my lifetime. The rage of the circles against me in Germany is so strong that the appearance of the least of my words immediately provokes a murderous clamor on their part.”
|
|
|
|
| Cashless Society: Big Banks Prepare To Launch Digital Wallet To Compete With Apple Pay And PayPal |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-24-2023, 07:58 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
Cashless Society: Big Banks Prepare To Launch Digital Wallet To Compete With Apple Pay And PayPal
![[Image: wallet_0.jpg?itok=LarqiaI3]](https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/wallet_0.jpg?itok=LarqiaI3)
ZH | JAN 23, 2023
Major US banks, including Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan, and others, will push into the digital wallet space in the second half of this year to take on Apple Pay and PayPal.
Early Warning Services LLC (EWS), the bank-owned company that operates the money-transfer service Zelle, will be managing the new digital wallet, according to WSJ. The wallet has yet to be named but will be separate from Zelle and allow shoppers to pay at merchants' online checkouts with linked debit and credit cards.
EWS plans to offer the new digital wallet later this year and can handle up to 150 million debit and credit cards during the initial launch. Consumers in good standing with banks will be eligible for the new service.
The purpose of the digital wallet is to take on third-party wallet operators such as Apple and PayPal, according to people familiar with the matter. They said banks are concerned about losing businesses if a digital wallet is not released soon. Even though Goldman Sachs' consumer unit that manages the Apple Card is a money-losing business, there is a plan to launch a high-yield savings account and buy now, pay later program.
The move towards electronic and contactless payments has been gradual but could soon be thrown into hyperdrive if enough consumers adopt EWS' new wallet. It was during the Coronavirus pandemic when the government, Federal Reserve, and corporations urged people to avoid unnecessary physical transactions that increased the push toward a cashless society.
Recall the pivot toward a cashless society was clear as day. Perhaps the coin shortage during the pandemic was a test run. And anyone who dared mention a looming cashless society was deemed a 'conspiracy theorist.'
Just remember who is also shaping the world and influencing politicians and corporations away from a cash economy:
The dystopic view is that a cashless society could mean governments and corporations will have even more control over our wallets -- and that's frightening.
|
|
|
|
| St. Alphonsus Liguori: Daily Meditations for the Third Week after Epiphany |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-23-2023, 08:48 AM - Forum: Christmas
- Replies (6)
|
|
To secure a happy death the Saints abandoned all things. They left their country; they renounced the delights and the hopes the world held out to them and embraced a life of Poverty and Contempt. O ye sons of men, how long will you be dull of heart? Why do you love vanity and seek after lying?
I.
David calls the happiness of this life the dream of them that awake (Ps. lxxii. 20). In explaining these words, a certain author says: The goods of this world appear great, but they are nothing: like a dream that lasts but a little and afterwards vanishes, they are enjoyed but a short time. The thought that with death all ends, made St. Francis Borgia resolve to give himself entirely to God. The Saint was obliged to accompany the dead body of the Empress Isabella to Grenada. When the coffin was opened her appearance was so horrible and the smell so intolerable that all had to retire. St. Francis remained to contemplate in the dead body of his sovereign the vanity of the world; and looking at it he exclaimed: "Are you, then, my empress? Are you the queen before whom so many bent their knee in reverential awe? O Isabella, where is your majesty, your beauty gone?" "Thus, then," he said within himself, "end the greatness and the crowns of this world! I will henceforth serve a Master Who can never die!" From that moment he consecrated himself to the love of Jesus crucified; and he made a vow to become a Religious, should his wife die before him. This vow he afterwards fulfilled by entering the Society of Jesus.
Justly, then, has a person who was undeceived written on a skull these words: Cogitanti vilescunt omnia. To him who reflects on death, everything in this world appears contemptible. He cannot love the earth. And why are there so many unhappy lovers of this world? It is because they do not think of death. O ye sons of men, how long will you be dull of heart? Why do you love vanity, and seek after lying? (Ps. iv. 3). Miserable children of Adam, says the Holy Ghost, why do you not chase away from your heart so many earthly affections which make you love vanity and lies? What has happened to your forefathers must befall you. They dwelt in the same palace which you inhabit, and slept in your very bed; but now they are no more. Such, too, will be your lot.
My dear Redeemer, I thank Thee for having waited for me. What should have become of me had I died when I was at a distance from Thee? May Thy mercy and patience, which I have experienced for so many years, be forever blessed! I thank Thee for the light and grace with which Thou dost now assist me. I did not then love Thee, and I cared but little to be loved by Thee. I now love Thee with my whole heart, and nothing grieves me so much as the thought of having displeased so good a God. This sorrow tortures my soul; but it is a sweet torment, because it gives me confidence that Thou hast already pardoned me.
II.
Give yourself, then, to God before death comes upon you. Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it earnestly (Eccles. ix. 10). What you can do today, defer not till tomorrow; for a day once passed never returns, and tomorrow death may come, and prevent you from ever more being able to do good. Detach yourself instantly from everything which removes, or can remove, you from God. Let us instantly renounce in affection the goods of this earth, before death strips us of them by force. Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord (Apoc. xiv. 13). Happy they who at death are already dead to all attachment to this world. They fear not, but desire death, and embrace it with joy; for, instead of separating them from the Good they love it unites them to the Supreme Good, Who is the sole object of their affections, and Who will render them happy for eternity.
O my sweet Saviour, would that I had died a thousand times before I sinned against Thee! I tremble lest I should hereafter offend Thee again. Ah! make me die the most painful of all deaths rather than permit me evermore to lose Thy grace. I was once the slave of hell; but now I am Thy servant, O God of my soul! Thou hast said that Thou lovest those that love thee (Prov. viii. 17). I love Thee. Therefore I am Thine and Thou art mine. I may lose Thee at some future time; but the grace which I ask of Thee is, to take me out of life rather than suffer me ever to lose Thee again. Unasked, Thou hast bestowed upon me so many graces; I cannot now fear that Thou wilt not hear my prayer for the grace which I now implore. Do not permit me ever to lose Thee. Give me Thy love, and I desire nothing more. Mary, my hope, intercede for me.
Spiritual Reading
THE MARTYRS TEACH US TO ACCEPT DEATH ACCORDING TO THE GOOD PLEASURE OF GOD.
PRAYING TO THE HOLY MARTYRS
Death, which is the tribute that everyone must pay, is the greatest of all our tribulations and makes not only sinners but the just tremble. Our Saviour Himself as Man wished to show the fear that He felt in the face of death, so that He began to pray to His Father to free Him from it. But at the same time He teaches us to accept death according to the good pleasure of God, by saying: Nevertheless, not my will but thine be done (Matt. xxvi. 39). We can all acquire the glory of Martyrdom by accepting death to please God and conform ourselves to His will. For, as we have remarked with St. Augustine, it is not the pain, but the cause or the end for which one submits to death that makes Martyrs. It follows that he who in dying courageously accepts death and all the pains that accompany it, in order to accomplish the Divine will, though he does not receive death at the hands of the executioner, dies, however, with the merit of Martyrdom, or at least with merit very similar. It also follows that as often as any one offers himself to undergo Martyrdom for the love of God, so often does he gain the merit of Martyrdom. We have seen how St. Mary Magdalen de Pazzi, when she inclined the head at the Glory be to the Father, imagined at the same moment she was receiving the stroke of the executioner. Hence we shall see in Heaven a great number of Saints crowned with the merit of Martyrdom without having been martyred.
Finally we should be moved to recommend ourselves every day with great confidence to the intercession of the holy Martyrs whose prayers are most efficacious with God. When we suffer some grievous pain, or when we desire a special favour, let us make a Novena or a Triduum in honour of the holy Martyrs, and we shall easily obtain the grace we ask. Let us not fail to honour them, says St. Ambrose, for they are our Princes in the Faith and our powerful intercessors. If the Lord promises a reward to him who gives a drink of water to a poor man, what will He not do for those who for His sake sacrificed their lives in the midst of torments! Let us here observe that the Martyrs before receiving the mortal blow, without doubt prepared themselves many times for those many tortures and for death, so that when they closed their earthly career they died with the merit of not only one Martyrdom, but with the merit of all those Martyrdoms that they had already accepted and offered sincerely to God. Hence we may imagine with what abundance of merits they entered Heaven, and how valuable is their mediation with God.
A Prayer to the Holy Martyrs to Obtain their Protection
O ye blessed Princes of the Heavenly Kingdom! Ye who sacrificed to Almighty God the honours, the riches, and possessions of this life, and have received in return the unfading glory and never-ending joys of Heaven! Ye who are secure in the everlasting possession of the brilliant crown of glory which your sufferings have obtained! -- look with compassion upon our wretched state in this valley of tears where we groan in the uncertainty of what may be our eternal destiny. And from that Divine Saviour for Whom you suffered so many torments, and Who now repays you with such unspeakable glory, obtain for us that we may love Him with all our heart, and receive in return the grace of perfect resignation under the trials of this life, fortitude under the temptations of the enemy, and perseverance to the end. May your powerful intercession obtain for us that we may one day in your blessed company sing the praises of the Eternal God and, even as you now do, face to face, enjoy the Beatitude of His vision!
Evening Meditation
"GOD HIMSELF WILL COME AND SAVE YOU" (Is. xxxv. 1).
I.
God is that strong One Who alone can be called strong, because He is Strength itself; and whoever is strong derives strength from Him: Strength is mine, and by me kings reign (Prov. viii. 14), says the Lord. God is that mighty One Who can do whatsoever He will; and He can do this with ease; He has merely to wish it: Behold, thou hast made heaven and earth by thy great power, and no word shall be hard to thee (Jer. xxxii. 17). By a nod He created the Heavens and earth out of nothing: He spoke, and they were made (Ps. cxlviii. 5). And did He choose to do so, He could destroy the immense machinery of the universe by a nod, as He created it: At a beck he can utterly destroy the whole world (2 Mach. viii. 18). We know already how when he pleased, He burnt five entire cities with a deluge of fire. We know how, previously to that, He inundated the whole earth with a Deluge of waters, to the destruction of all mankind, with the sole exception of eight persons. O Lord, says the Wise Man: who shall resist the strength of thy arm? (Wis. xi. 22).
Hence we may see the rashness of the sinner who wrestles against God, and carries his audacity so far as even to lift up his hand against the Almighty: He hath stretched out his hand against God, and hath strengthened himself against the Almighty (Job. xv. 25). Suppose we should see an ant make an assault upon a soldier, would we not think it rashness? But how much more rash is it for a man to make an assault on the Creator Himself, and scorn His Precepts, disregard His threats, despise His grace, and declare himself God's enemy!
O great Son of God, Thou hast become Man in order to make Thyself loved by men; but where, then, is the love that men bear to Thee? Thou hast given Thy Blood and Thy life to save our souls, and why are we so ungrateful to Thee, that, instead of loving Thee, we despise Thee with such ingratitude? Alas! I myself, Lord, have been one of those who more than others have thus ill-treated Thee. But Thy Passion is my hope. Oh, for the sake of the love that induced Thee to assume human flesh, and to die for me upon the Cross, forgive me all the offences I have committed against Thee. I love Thee, O Incarnate Word. I love Thee, O my God.
II.
But these rash and ungrateful ones are the very men whom the Son of God has come to save, by making Himself Man and by taking on Himself the chastisement deserved by them in order to obtain pardon for them. And then, seeing that man from the wounds inflicted by sin continued very weak and powerless to resist the strength of his enemies, what did God do? The Strong and Almighty One became weak and assumed to Himself the bodily infirmities of man, in order to procure for man by His merits the strength of soul requisite to subdue the attacks of the flesh and of hell. And so, behold Him made a little Child in need of milk to sustain His life, and so feeble that He cannot feed Himself or move Himself.
The Eternal Word, in becoming Man, wished to conceal His strength: God will come from the south; there is his strength hid (Hab. iii. 3, 4). We find, says St. Augustine, Jesus Christ strong and feeble -- strong, since He created all things; feeble, since we behold Him made Man like us: "We find Jesus strong and weak; strong, by Whom all things were made without labour. Would you see Him weak? The Word was made flesh." Now this strong One has chosen to become weak, says the Saint, to repair our infirmity by His weakness, and so to obtain our salvation: He hath built us up by his strength, he hath sought us by his infirmity. For this reason He likens Himself to the hen, when He speaks to Jerusalem: How often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings! And thou wouldst not (Matt. xxiii. 37). St. Augustine remarks that the hen in rearing her chickens grows weak, and by this mark is known to be a mother; so was it with our loving Redeemer, by becoming infirm and weak, He showed Himself the Father and Mother of us poor weak creatures.
I love Thee, O Infinite Goodness, and I repent of all the injuries I have done Thee. Would that I could, for Thy sake, die of sorrow! O my Jesus, grant me the gift of Thy love; let me not live any longer ungrateful for the affection Thou hast borne me. I am determined to love Thee always. Give me holy perseverance. O Mary, Mother of God, and my Mother, obtain for me from thy Son the grace to love Him always even unto death.
|
|
|
|
| Please pray for the repose of the soul of Mrs. Bonnie Massett |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-23-2023, 07:55 AM - Forum: Appeals for Prayer
- No Replies
|
|
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F46%2F9f%2F0b%2F469f0b2ab708a4ad977fe5fae0ef4092.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Requiem aeternam dona ei Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace. Amen.
In your charity, please pray for the soul of Mrs. Bonnie Massett who passed away on January 21st. The Massetts were very close friends of Fr. Gruner and have been involved in the fight for Tradition and Our Lady of Fatima for a long time.
May her soul and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace. Amen.
✠ ✠ ✠
The De Profundis - Psalm 129
Out of the depths I have cried unto Thee, O Lord; Lord, hear my voice.
Let Thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplication.
If Thou, O Lord, shalt mark our iniquities: O Lord, who can abide it?
For with Thee there is mercy: and by reason of Thy law I have waited on Thee, O Lord.
My soul hath waited on His word: my soul hath hoped in the Lord.
From the morning watch even unto night: let Israel hope in the Lord.
For with the Lord there is mercy: and with Him is plenteous redemption.
And He shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.
Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon her.
|
|
|
|
| New York City begins distributing free abortion pills ‘to anyone’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-23-2023, 07:47 AM - Forum: Abortion
- No Replies
|
|
New York City begins distributing free abortion pills ‘to anyone’
'No other city in the nation, or in the world, has a public health department that has provided medication abortion,' Mayor Adams boasted. "We are the first.'
Jan 21, 2023
NEW YORK CITY (LifeSiteNews) — A clinic in the Bronx district of New York City has begun administering abortion pills without charge and available “to anyone,” regardless if they are from in or out of the city.
City Mayor Eric Adams announced Tuesday that the drugs used to kill unborn children in the womb will be made available at four public clinics across the city by the end of the year in response to the landmark overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision which falsely held that abortion was a constitutional right.
“Historically, women’s health has not been prioritized,” the Democrat mayor said and claimed that the overturning of Roe had “endangered women’s health across the nation.” “It was a decision about controlling women’s bodies, choices, and their freedom,” Adams said.
In direct response to Roe being overturned, and noting that this week marks the fiftieth anniversary of Roe’s passing, Adams announced that from January 18 “we will begin rolling out medication abortion at our city’s sexual health clinics.”
While the city already provides medical abortions at its eleven public hospitals, Adams noted, nevertheless “we are expanding the program to reach more New Yorkers,” he said.
“No other city in the nation, or in the world, has a public health department that has provided medication abortion,”Adams boasted. “We are the first.”
READ: Online sale of unauthorized abortion pills has skyrocketed since fall of Roe v. Wade
“For too long, health and health care has been centered around men… If men had periods, pap smears, and menopause, they would get a paid vacation. And if men could get pregnant, we wouldn’t see Congress trying to pass laws restricting abortion,” the mayor claimed.
The city’s health department is financing the expansion of abortion pills from a $1.2 million dollar “sexual health services” fund. Ashwin Vasan, the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene commissioner, said that the abortion pills will not only be free at the point of use, but will be “open to anyone,” a statement which introduces the question of a lower age limit on the procurement of the dangerous drugs.
On January 3, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) relaxed its guidelines on access to the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol, allowing the drugs to be purchased over-the-counter in retail pharmacies, provided those pharmacies “complete a Pharmacy Agreement Form.”
Although the drug still requires a prescription, medical professionals need only to become certified through the “modified” REMS program to prescribe, a qualification that has been simplified. The Pharmacy Agreement Form does not specify any medical supervision, meaning that a woman can receive a prescription for the abortion pill from a REMS-certified medic and pick up the pills at a local pharmacy without any further supervision.
According to government data collected by the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, between 2002 and 2015 hospital visits following use of the abortion pill increased over 500 percent, compared with a 315 percent rise in visits following surgical abortion.
Last November, a coalition of pro-life doctors and medical groups filed a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s approval of the two-drug chemical abortion regimen, citing the dangerous risks present for both mothers and their unborn babies.
In the year 2000 the FDA categorized pregnancy as an “illness” for which abortion pills could then be considered a remedy, leading to the initial approval of their use.
“Pregnancy is not an illness, and chemical abortion drugs don’t provide a therapeutic benefit,” the doctors’ lawyers argued.“They end a baby’s life, and they pose serious and life-threatening complications to the mother.”
“The FDA never had the authority to approve these dangerous drugs for sale. We urge the court to listen to the doctors we represent who are seeking to protect girls and women from the documented dangers of chemical abortion drugs,” they added.
Owing to the dangers associated with the abortion-inducing chemicals, 22 attorneys general signed a joint letter to the FDA on January 13, demanding that the agency overturn its new ruling.
“The Food and Drug Administration’s decision to abandon commonsense restrictions on remotely prescribing and administering abortion-inducing drugs is both illegal and dangerous,” the letter states. “In direct contravention of longstanding FDA practice and congressional mandate, the FDA’s rollback of important safety restrictions ignores both women’s health and straightforward federal statutes. We urge you to reverse your decision.”
The FDA has said it will issue a response directly to the attorneys general.
Following the FDA’s relaxation of its rules on abortion pills, pharmacy chains CVS and Walgreens announced they would begin stocking and dispensing the toxic drugs.
|
|
|
|
| WSJ Shreds Vaccine Makers, Biden Admin Over "Deceptive" Booster Campaign |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-23-2023, 07:21 AM - Forum: Health
- No Replies
|
|
WSJ Shreds Vaccine Makers, Biden Admin Over "Deceptive" Booster Campaign
ZH | JAN 22, 2023
Wall Street Journal editorial board member Allysia Finley has taken a flamethrower to vaccine makers over their "deceptive" campaign for bivalent Covid boosters, and slams several federal agencies for taking "the unprecedented step of ordering vaccine makers to produce them and recommending them without data supporting their safety or efficacy."
Quote:You might have heard a radio advertisement warning that if you’ve had Covid, you could get it again and experience even worse symptoms. The message, sponsored by the Health and Human Services Department, claims that updated bivalent vaccines will improve your protection.
This is deceptive advertising. But the public-health establishment’s praise for the bivalent shots shouldn’t come as a surprise. -WSJ
The narrative behind the campaign was simple; mRNA Covid shots could simply be 'tweaked' to to target new variants - in this case, the jabs were claimed to confer protection against BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron variants, along with the original Wuhan strain.
To call this wishful thinking would be extremely generous.
As Finley writes, three scientific problems have arisen.
- The virus is mutating much faster than vaccines can be updated.
- Vaccines have 'hard wired' our immune systems to respond to the original Wuhan strain, "so we churn out fewer antibodies that neutralize variants targeted by updated vaccines."
- Antibody protection wanes after just a few months.
Finley has brought receipts too...
Quote:Two studies in the New England Journal of Medicine this month showed that bivalent boosters increase neutralizing antibodies against the BA.4 and BA.5 variants, but not significantly more than the original boosters. In one study, antibody levels after the bivalent boosters were 11 times as high against the Wuhan variant as BA.5.
The authors posit that immune imprinting “may pose a greater challenge than is currently appreciated for inducing robust immunity against SARS-CoV-2 variants.” This isn’t unique to Covid or mRNA vaccines, though boosters may amplify the effect. Our first exposure as children to the flu—whether by infection or vaccination—affects our future response to different strains. -WSJ
Here's what happened
For those who took (or were forced to take) the original vaccine, our memory B-cells were trained to produce antibodies against the original Wuhan strain. And as a New England Journal of Medicine article notes, people who have taken said original vaccine were "primed" to respond to the Wuhan strain, and 'mounted an inferior antibody response to other variants.'
The studies directly contradict marketing information from Pfizer and Moderna, which asserted that the bivalent boosters produced a response to the new strains (BA.4 and BA.5) that's 4-6x that of the original boosters - which the WSJ says is "misleading."
For starters, neither Pfizer or Moderna conducted a randomized trial.
Quote:They tested the original boosters last winter, long before the BA.5 surge and 4½ to months after trial participants had received their third shots. The bivalents, by contrast, were tested after BA.5 began to surge, 9½ to 11 months after recipients had received their third shots. -WSJ
Here's the moneyshot: "The vaccine makers designed their studies to get the results they wanted. Public-health authorities didn’t raise an eyebrow, but why would they? They have a vested interest in promoting the bivalents."
In June, the FDA ordered vaccine makers to update the boosters against BA.4 and BA.5, and rushed the companies to push them out before clinical data was available. Meanwhile, Biden's CDC recommended the bivalents for all adults without evidence that they were effective or necessary.
Finley further notes that vaccine makers could have performed small, randomized trials last summer and early fall on the bivalents - with results available by the end of September. But the Biden administration didn't want to wait (and now we know why).
Quote:The CDC published a study in November that estimated the bivalents were only 22% to 43% effective against infection during the BA.5 wave—their peak efficacy. As antibodies waned and new variants took over later in the fall, their protection against infection probably dropped to zero.
Another CDC study, in December, reported that seniors who received bivalents were 84% less likely to be hospitalized than the unvaccinated, and 73% less likely than those who had received two or more doses of the original vaccine. But neither study controlled for important confounding factors—for one, that the small minority who got bivalents were probably also more likely than those who hadn’t to follow other Covid precautions or seek out treatments such as Paxlovid. -WSJ
We're amazed the Journal even put this out there... Kudos to them.
Fortunately for big pharma and the Biden administration, information overload is the new Soma, and Rachel Maddow et al. have everything under control.
|
|
|
|
| Mutiny erupts among WEF staff over role of ‘Mr Davos’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-22-2023, 07:34 AM - Forum: Great Reset
- No Replies
|
|
Mutiny erupts among WEF staff over role of ‘Mr Davos’
Founder and chair Klaus Schwab has run forum for 52 years but is now seen by some past and present staff as ‘a law unto himself’
![[Image: 4062.jpg?width=620&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/114acfb0870570ee1995b75c26ba1ab8684a5749/553_181_4062_2438/master/4062.jpg?width=620&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none)
Klaus Schwab has been at the helm of the WEF for 52 years. Photograph: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images
The Guardian | Wed 18 Jan 2023
The future of Klaus Schwab – Mr Davos for more than half a century – has become a talking point at this year’s meeting after World Economic Forum employees voiced strong criticism of their chair and the lack of a succession strategy.
A group of current and former WEF staff members who contacted the Guardian said the 82-year-old Schwab was a law unto himself and had surrounded himself with “nobodies” who were incapable of running the organisation he founded in the early 1970s.
“Klaus has been at the helm of the WEF for 52 years. When he was born [in 1938] 122 of the 195 states in the world right now did not even exist. He is completely unaccountable to anyone inside and outside the organisation,” the group said.
“We are a group of current and former employees of the WEF. We want to play our role in fostering debate about the role this organisation plays in the world.”
The group said it wanted to remain anonymous. “We are hesitant to come forward as Klaus is very well connected and can make life very difficult for us even after we leave the WEF.”
Speculation about Schwab’s future has intensified this week after a piece on the online publication Politico said the WEF’s strategic partners – the firms that bankroll the $390m (£315m) a year business – were unhappy about the lack of a succession strategy.
The group of WEF staff members said they had posted their criticisms on the social media platform LinkedIn but they had been removed at the request of the WEF, something the organisation denies.
The posts, shared with the Guardian, said: “There isn’t much of a future for the WEF beyond Klaus not just because there isn’t a clear successor but also because his managing board is such a viper’s nest that senior leadership will be at each other’s throats the moment the old man pops off.”
A WEF spokesperson said: “The board of trustees decides any future institutional leadership appointments. The forum has a strong institutional governance structure in place to ensure its continued ability to fully support its mission.”
Former UK prime minister Tony Blair is one of the leading international figures who has been linked with the role.
The group of past and current WEF employees questioned the ability of the organisation to function without Schwab at the helm.
“In most organisations the next generation of top leadership is faintly visible at the higher levels of management but at the WEF Klaus has surrounded himself with such a group of nobodies at the top that it’s hard to see how any of them could be taken seriously by anyone of consequence inside or outside the organisation.
“Klaus picks his leaders using the same criteria Putin uses to pick deputies for the state duma: loyalty, guile, sex appeal. The quality of people at the top is reflective of the type of people who work for the rest of the organisation.”
The head of one UK company agreed that there appeared to be no successor to Schwab lined up. “My impression is that he will die with his boots on,” the executive said.
Another longstanding Davos attender expressed surprise that Schwab had allowed speculation about his future to surface. “If I am honest I find it a bit disrespectful [given everything he has done] but he should have known it would happen and taken steps to head it off.”
The World Economic Forum is a Swiss foundation and does not have shareholders.
|
|
|
|
| Company genetically engineers fruit flies to be "biofactories" for fake meat production |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-22-2023, 07:22 AM - Forum: Health
- No Replies
|
|
Company genetically engineers fruit flies to be "biofactories" for fake meat production
![[Image: Drosophila-melanogaster-fruit-fly.jpg]](https://www.gmwatch.org/images/banners/Drosophila-melanogaster-fruit-fly.jpg)
Future Fields' EntoEngine insects have serious environmental and ethical downsides.
GM Watch [adapted] | 11 January 2023
Report by Claire Robinson; technical advice by Dr Michael Antoniou
The biotech company Future Fields has notified the Canadian authorities of its intention to commercialise EntoEngine, a genetically modified fly. The flies are engineered to produce foreign proteins – in this case, growth factors, which are cell signalling molecules that play important roles in cell proliferation and development, for use in what Future Fields calls "cellular agriculture" – what we call lab-grown or fake meat.
The public can comment on the application until 28 January 2023 and we encourage them to do so. In our view, EntoEngine flies poses serious environmental risks in the likely event that they will escape contained conditions.
The details
The company says, "The EntoEngine fly line has been genetically engineered to express a growth factor isolated from cows.... The gene sequence poses no known risks to either humans or animals. Expression of the gene encoding the growth factor is under the control of a gene expression regulator isolated from yeast."
Future Fields argues that the GM fly is needed to replace the usual way of producing growth factors – in bioreactors. The company confirms what GMWatch has long said – that bioreactor technology is expensive, resource and energy hungry and produces vast quantities of problematic waste. The company concludes, reasonably, that growth factors cannot be produced cost-effectively using bioreactor technology – so they aim to produce them in GM drosophila, or fruit flies.
The company makes grand claims for the fly's sustainability and environmental friendliness, compared with bioreactor protein production, based on lower input use and less greenhouse emissions. Drosophila, Future Fields says, "do not have these large operation costs and require only modest environmental controls to ensure optimal rearing... Drosophila can feed on organic side streams and byproducts from other processes (i.e. organic waste). In fact, insects are some of the most efficient organisms at converting nutrients into biomass."
However, the problem with this "solution" is that even with a cheaper source of cell growth factors in the shape of the flies, lab grown meat will still need to be produced in huge bioreactors, with the consequent vast running costs and environmental impacts.
Patent
Future Fields describes the status of the patent on EntoEngine as "pending". Our patent search on the Espacenet and USPTO databases only found one patent on a GM insect with Future Fields as an applicant. The patent, titled "Method for producing recombinant proteins in insects", describes the general concept patent but lacks the experimental data to prove that the system actually works. It's unclear whether other patents exist, but the details of this patent illustrate the types of process that would be used for EntoEngine protein production.
The patent focuses on heat stress (taking the temperature up to 35-40 degrees C) as the trigger that will activate expression of the transgenes in the flies to produce the desired growth factors.
The expression of the transgenes encoding for the desired protein (in this case, mammalian cell growth factors) is under the control of a "gene expression regulator" derived from yeast. So these flies would appear to contain two foreign transgenes: One encoding the desired protein to be expressed and isolated from the flies; and the other encoding the yeast gene expression regulator.
In all likelihood, the yeast-derived gene expression regulator is a member of the heat shock factor family of proteins. The function of these proteins is elevated upon heat stress and their role is to increase expression of genes that will help the organism protect itself from external stresses (e.g. heat, cold, UV light).
Torturing fruit flies
Regarding the heat stress trigger, the patent describes a gruesome and torturous process of gradually getting the flies used to the higher temperature of the heat stressor so that they don't die from the shock of a sudden rise, by applying the stressor interspersed with "rest" periods.
When the insects have exhausted their ability to produce growth factor, they are killed and "harvested", in the words of the Future Fields patent, then ground up into a mass, and the desired protein is extracted and purified out. It is unclear how well the purification process will work and GMWatch warns that native fly proteins could end up contaminating the final product.
Doubtful ethics
The company's patent and publicity make a big deal out of the supposedly superior ethics of using fruit flies to manufacture growth factors for "cellular agriculture", as opposed to extracting them from fetal bovine serum (FBS) taken "from fetuses of pregnant cows prior to slaughter". The patent says that cattle-derived FBS gives rise to "ethical concerns regarding the production of cultured meat products".
But the point on ethics is disingenuous and contradictory, as Future Fields itself justifies its GM flies approach as replacing growth factors produced in bioreactors and not as replacing FBS, because FBS is not used by the lab grown meat industry.
Along the same lines, Future Fields' use of language in its patent seems manipulative. While the cattle from which FBS is derived are subject to "slaughter", the GM fruit flies are merely "harvested", just like the crop plants that even vegans would be happy to eat.
But anyone concerned with the ethics around animal use in agriculture is unlikely to be impressed by Future Fields' description of its GM fly as "a standalone biofactory" – the ultimate reduction of a living creature to a machine.
At a time when prominent environmentalists, from Sussex University's Prof Dave Goulson to TV's David Attenborough, are trying to persuade the public to give insects the respect they deserve as key regulators of ecosystems, genetically engineering fruit flies and then characterising them as "biofactories" or as non-sentient beings on a par with a wheat or maize crop seems distasteful in the extreme.
By timely coincidence, recently published EU-funded research shows that fruit flies, though "tiny", are " amazingly smart". They are capable of attention, working memory and conscious awareness – abilities we usually only associate with mammals.
Environmental risks
The main risk posed by the GM flies is environmental. Containment facilities for GM animals are notoriously insecure – GM glofish have escaped from tanks and are breeding in the wild in Brazil and a whistleblower report paints a damning picture of lax attitudes and neglect of protocols at AquaBounty's GM salmon-producing facilities. The risk with GM flies is that they could escape and breed in the environment or cross-breed with natural flies, leading to the escape of growth factor-producing genes into wild populations.
This wouldn't pose a human health risk, as most of us don't eat living fruit flies and the proteins in dead flies would quickly degrade. But plenty of animals, including mammals, fish, amphibians, and birds, do eat living flies. Because the growth factors in the GM flies are mammalian, they will to some degree be active in any animal that ingests them. This could cause uncontrolled cell division in the animal consumer – potentially leading to cancer.
In evaluating environmental risk in the case of an escape, much depends on what triggers are used to make the growth factor-producing genes express. The heat stress triggers discussed in the patent are worrying because they are designed to spring into action at 35-40 degrees C – temperatures regularly reached in the climate conditions of many parts of the world. And this raises the question: What happens at 31 or 32 degrees? Nothing, or something? And if something, then what?
Conclusion
Future Fields' GM fly appears to be an invention of dubious utility that will do little to improve the sustainability of the environmental catastrophe-in-the-making that is lab grown meat. It poses unacceptable environmental risks in the event of an escape and the ethics around the GM fly's grim life and grimmer death are dubious, to say the least.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: cmb3dlh7bxjpq6e62lbveivwkj2eyb5sp4hdeso....ormat=webp]](https://assistant.gloria.tv/1z94gyaCTBei3D8MsGrYwjE6j/cmb3dlh7bxjpq6e62lbveivwkj2eyb5sp4hdeso.webp?secure=XfswcLSkKnZPJrQTzSC_HQ&expires=1675287672&format=webp)
![[Image: biden%20vax.jpeg?itok=zXzG-VIs]](https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/biden%20vax.jpeg?itok=zXzG-VIs)
