Revolution is in the air

Revolution seems to be “in the air” and this has been true during much of 2020.  There were riots, burning, destruction, and looting across the U.S. (and in other places in the world) especially in the Summer 2020. 

Here is one account of the leftist demonstrations in Seattle on January 20, 2021, the day Joe Biden was sworn in as U.S. president:

The demonstrators, mostly clad in black, spray-painted anarchy symbols on buildings, broke windows and marched under a banner that read, “We are ungovernable.”

“We don’t want Biden – we want revenge for police murders, imperialist wars, and fascist massacres,” read another banner that the group marched under.  …  The crowd called for the abolition of ICE[1] and, outside the federal immigration court, several people set fire to an American flag ….[2]

There was not only burning and looting during the leftist riots in 2020 but anarchists even established a long-term violent occupation of part of Seattle, Washington, excluding police from the area, and re-naming the captured territory “the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone” (a/k/a “CHAZ”).

Further, six men reportedly planned to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, the leftist governor of Michigan who was infamous for her abusive lockdowns of her state.[3]

Also, the mainstream media, the Democrats, and some others blame then-President Trump for inciting a supposed “coup attempt” on January 6, 2021.[4]  They blame Trump, despite him telling his followers that day to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”[5] about the election fraud.  

On January 6, 2021, while Trump was speaking to his supporters at a different location, some hooligans already began some lawless activity at the U.S. capitol building.[6]  It appears that leftist activists[7] led the violence and successfully got a tiny percentage of Trump supporters to follow their lead, e.g., following those leftists into the Capitol building through a smashed window.  One of the Black Lives Matter founders had previously put out a call on her Twitter feed telling her followers that they should disguise themselves as Trump supporters at post-election events.[8]

All these events raise the general question:

Is it ever permissible for Catholics to be revolutionaries?

Let us examine the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on this question.

We must distinguish between resisting and revolting. 

When someone in authority commands something evil, we must never “obey” that evil command.[9]   But it is one thing to resist that evil command (as we must) and it is a further step to use that evil command as a basis for rejecting the ruler’s lawful authority as such.  This further step is to revolt.

For example, the American revolutionaries considered it evil that King George III imposed taxes on them without their consent, and that he did many other things to which they objected.  But the American revolutionaries not only resisted such commands of King George but also used the commands as a (purported) “justification” for their revolution. 

In their Declaration of Independence, the revolutionaries objected to many things such as their king “quartering large bodies of armed troops among us”; “imposing taxes on us without our consent”; and “depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury”.

After listing their grievances, the American revolutionaries then did what all revolutionaries do: they said that their ruler was to blame for their own revolution because his conduct caused him to lose his status as their king.  The American revolutionaries declared that King George III, “whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”[10]

The American revolutionaries did what revolutionaries always do: they declared that their ruler had lost all authority over them.  Here are their words:

[T]hese United Colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.[11]

Finally, the American revolutionaries then did something else which revolutionaries always do: they declared that it was their right and duty to revolt:

[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations … evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is [the colonies’] right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.[12]

This is what it is to be a revolutionary: to reject and resist not just particular (perhaps evil) commands but to also reject the very authority of his ruler.

The American revolutionaries followed the same pattern as countless other revolutionaries, e.g., in France, Russia, and Latin America.[13]  In all human history there is not even one revolution[14] which the Catholic Church recognizes to have been praiseworthy and not sinful.[15]

In summary, revolutionaries follow a common pattern:

1.    they assert that their ruler committed wrongs (whether actual wrongs or merely imagined); and then

2.    they use such wrongs as a basis to declare that their ruler’s own conduct has resulted in his losing his authority to rule them.

The Cristeros were Not Revolutionaries

On a superficial level, a person might have the false impression that the Mexican Cristeros were revolutionaries because they took up arms against the anti-Catholic Mexican government in the 1920s.  But the Cristeros’ goal was to defend their priests, their churches, and the Catholicism of their families.  The Cristeros resisted the many wrongs committed by their anti-Catholic, Masonic government.  By successfully taking up arms, the Cristeros prevented the anti-Catholic government from further harming them unjustly (arresting them, killing them, etc.). But unlike persons who are revolutionaries, the Cristeros never used their government’s wrongs as a basis to declare that their government had lost all authority over them.[16]  Instead, by taking up arms, the Cristeros merely prevented their lawful but anti-Catholic government from doing the harm it intended.

The American Revolutionaries could have – but did not – take the same approach as the Cristeros.  That is, the American Revolutionaries could have resisted even by force of arms any wrongs that were severe enough while still acknowledging King George of England as their rightful king.

Revolution is Always Wrong

It is un-Catholic to be a revolutionary.  All authority comes from God, regardless of the method by which a ruler is chosen to wield civil or religious power.  Here is how St. Paul teaches this truth:

[T]here is no power but from God:  and those [powers] that are, are ordained of God.  Therefore, he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.  And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.  …  For [the ruler] is God’s minister.  …  Wherefore, be subject of necessity, not only for [the ruler’s] wrath, but also for conscience’s sake

Romans, ch.13, vv. 1-2 & 4-5 (emphasis added).[17]

Pope Pius IX faithfully echoed St. Paul:

[A]ll authority comes from God. Whoever resists authority resists the ordering made by God Himself, consequently achieving his own condemnation; disobeying authority is always sinful except when an order is given which is opposed to the laws of God and the Church.

Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846, §22.

Pope Pius IX taught this same doctrine in his infallible condemnation of the following proposition:

It is permissible to refuse obedience to legitimate rulers, and even to revolt against them.

Quanta Cura, proposition #63 (emphasis added).[18]

Pope Leo XIII taught the same doctrine as St. Paul and Pope Pius IX:

If, however, it should ever happen that public power is exercised by rulers rashly and beyond measure, the doctrine of the Catholic Church does not permit rising up against them on one’s own terms, lest quiet and order be more and more disturbed, or lest society receive greater harm therefrom.[19]

Because it is sinful to even willfully desire to sin, Pope Leo XIII taught that even the “desire for revolution” is a “vice”.  Auspicato Concessu, §24. 

Although revolution is forbidden, Pope Leo XIII gave us the remedies of patience, prayer, and resistance to the particular evil commands of a bad ruler.  Here are his words:

Whenever matters have come to such a pass that no other hope of a solution is evident, [the doctrine of the Catholic Church] teaches that a remedy is to be hastened through the merits of Christian patience, and by urgent prayers to God. 

But if the decisions of legislators and rulers should sanction or order something that is contrary to divine and natural law, the dignity and duty of the Christian name and the opinion of the apostles urge that “we ought to obey God, rather than men” (Acts 5:29).[20]


St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Church, offers the same remedy to persons who suffer the evil of a bad ruler:

[S]ometimes God permits evil rulers to afflict good men.  This affliction is for the good of such good men, as St. Paul says above [ch.8, v.28]: “All things work for the good, for those who love God.”[21] 

The Example of the Saints shows Revolution is Wrong

Look at the example of Catholics, including great saints like St. Sebastian, who served bravely and faithfully even in the army of the pagan emperors of Rome.  They did not revolt, even when their emperor openly sought to kill all Catholics (although, of course, those soldier-saints did not aid in the persecution of Catholics). 

Here is Pope Gregory XVI’s praise for those Roman soldier-saints, who were faithful to God first, but also to their emperor (whenever the emperor’s commands were not themselves evil):

[T]he early Christians … deserved well of the emperors and of the safety of the state even while persecution raged.  This they proved splendidly by their fidelity in performing perfectly and promptly whatever they were commanded which was not opposed to their religion, and even more by their constancy and the shedding of their blood in battle. “Christian soldiers”, says St. Augustine, “served an infidel emperor.  When the issue of Christ was raised, they acknowledged no one but the One who is in heaven.  They distinguished the eternal Lord from the temporal lord, but were also subject to the temporal lord for the sake of the eternal Lord.” 

St. Mauritius, the unconquered martyr and leader of the Theban legion had this in mind when, as St. Eucharius reports, he answered the emperor in these words: “We are your soldiers, Emperor, but also servants of God, and this we confess freely . . . and now this final necessity of life has not driven us into rebellion.”  … 

Indeed, the faith of the early Christians shines more brightly, if we consider with Tertullian, that since the Christians were not lacking in numbers and in troops, they could have acted as foreign enemies.  “We are but of yesterday”, he says, “yet we have filled all your cities, islands, fortresses, municipalities, assembly places, the camps themselves, the tribes, the divisions, the palace, the senate, the forum.  …  For what war should we not have been fit and ready even if unequal in forces – we who are so glad to be cut to pieces – were it not, of course, that in our doctrine we would have been permitted more to be killed rather than to kill?  …  [Y]ou have fewer enemies because of the multitude of Christians.”

These beautiful examples of the unchanging subjection to the rulers necessarily proceeded from the most holy precepts of the Christian religion.[22]

Summary of this article so far

As shown above, it is Catholic dogma that revolution is always wrong but that resisting the particular evil commands of our ruler is permitted and is sometimes necessary.  When resisting is just, such resistance might include taking up arms and fighting the government soldiers who seek to enforce the ruler’s evil orders.  The Cristeros did this in Mexico.

If the evil is great enough, the resisters may even place themselves beyond the reach of the harm which the ruler seeks to unjustly inflict on them.  The Cristeros did this, succeeding in defending three-quarters of Mexico from the anti-Catholic harm attempted by Mexico’s Masonic government.[23]

However, even when strong resistance is justified by the greatness of the evil attempted by the ruler, those persons resisting the evil are not permitted to revolt, i.e., to declare that the ruler has ceased to be their ruler.  The ruler does not lose his authority in principle, even when the resisters prevent him by force of arms from accomplishing in practice the evil he wishes to do.  This is the meaning of Quanta Cura’s infallible condemnation of the assertion that “It is permissibleto revolt”.  (See above.)

Regarding the early soldier-saints fighting in the Roman army (see above) even while the emperor martyred Catholics: those Catholic soldier-saints served their emperor faithfully in honorable activities but never aided the Roman persecution of Catholics.  In those quotations above, St. Augustine, Pope Gregory XVI, and the other authorities praise those soldier-saints for not revolting but do not address the option of armed resistance since those soldier-saints of Rome did not choose to do what the Cristeros did, viz., defend themselves by force of arms, (although without revolting). 

A note about a different but related issue: determining whether a ruler is the legitimate ruler

Above, we see that Catholics must never revolt against their legitimate ruler (although they must resist his evil commands).  However, a person can ask: “how do we know when a ruler is legitimate?”

This article does not lay out principles from which we can know in all cases if a ruler is legitimate (and thus has authority over us).  There are many ways a ruler might not be the legitimate ruler.  Here is an easy case of a ruler being illegitimate:

When the head of a foreign, attacking army first lands on a country’s soil and immediately declares himself the legitimate ruler of the country simply because he is there and is strong, it is easy to see that he is a usurper and not a rightful, legitimate ruler of the country he is attacking.  The people of that country can justly deny his authority over them and fight against him to try to expel him from their country.

Is Biden our legitimate president (with authority over us)?

The legitimacy of a ruler is currently a very pertinent question because there is much evidence from which to conclude that Joe Biden and the leftists stole the 2020 presidential election from President Trump.[24]  So then is Joe Biden the legitimate U.S. president wielding the executive authority of the presidency?

That is a difficult question, involving many facts of which we have incomplete knowledge.  However, it seems that he is the U.S. president, wielding the authority of a president because:

  A person becomes president by being sworn in as provided by the U.S. Constitution.  Joe Biden has been sworn in as president.

  Even with the apparent election fraud, it seems more accurate to say that Biden has become president through fraudulently stealing the election, rather than that he is an imposter who falsely poses as president.

  If Biden weren’t the president, then who would be president?  Trump does not claim to be president and does not claim that Biden is not president.  Rather, Trump claims (apparently correctly) that Biden stole the presidency (i.e., he became president) through fraud. 

Further, whatever Biden does while acting as president would be enforced and implemented by other, lower government officials who do have lawful authority over us.  We would have to recognize their lawful authority (when they are not commanding something sinful, of course).


Faithful and informed Catholics are not revolutionaries.  We must obey those in authority over us when they command something which is not sinful.

Any abuse we cannot avoid from our legitimate authorities we should face with prayer, patience, and our best efforts to vote, stay informed, instruct our children and fellow citizens, as well as work in other ways to improve the quality of our leaders.

However, our obedience extends only to those who legitimately have authority over us.  We do not have to obey those who falsely claim to have authority.

Even though Biden (apparently) stole the 2020 presidential election, he is apparently still the legitimate U.S. president, wielding the authority of the U.S. presidency.

May God help us!

[1]           “ICE” in an acronym standing for the U.S. agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

[9]           For a careful examination of true and false obedience, read this article:


[10]         Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

[11]         Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

[12]         Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

[13]         To read how Masonic revolution swept throughout Latin America, read the sketches of the political histories of the individual countries, in this book: Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, ©2016.

[14]         Generally, political revolt is called by the name “sedition”, whereas revolt against the Catholic Church is called “schism”.  But at the root of all such revolts, there is the same “non serviam! which echoes that of Satan, the father of all revolutionaries.


[15]         If there could ever have been a place and circumstances where revolution could have appeared justified, it would have been a civil revolution by Catholics in newly-apostate England, where the English government inflicted horrors and injustices of every type upon the Catholics.  The torture, imprisonment, extreme suffering, and martyrdom inflicted on Catholics and the outrageous confiscation of Catholic property seemed to many as something impossible to bear.  See, e.g., Chapters 1-3 of Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot, by Fr. John Gerard, S.J., Quanta Cura Press.  This book is a fascinating contemporaneous account of the Anglican and Puritan persecutions of Catholics during the reign of King James I, which is the context of the Gunpowder Plot.


Because of the Anglicans’ and Puritans’ shocking treatment of Catholics, Guy Fawkes and a few other Catholics devised the Gunpowder Plot to blow-up the Parliament Building when King James I was there with the rest of England’s political leaders.  However, the two consecutive popes of the time, as well as all of the Jesuit superiors and priests in England all strongly forbade Catholics to take part in such plots or otherwise to revolt against their rightful (but bad) king, James I. 


In his contemporaneous account of the Gunpowder Plot and the savage persecutions leading up to this plot, Fr. John Gerard explains:


All Catholics received strict commandment from the See Apostolic, that in no case they should stir or attempt anything against His Majesty [viz., King James I of England] or the State [viz., England], and this both from Pope Clement VIII, of pious memory, and from Paulus Vtus [viz., Pope Paul V] that now sitteth in the Chair, who both before and since his assumption to that supreme dignity of governing the Church of Christ, hath showed [sic] himself most earnest to procure the quiet, safety, and security of our Sovereign [viz., King James I], … [and by ordering] that no Catholic people should go about to interrupt or trouble the same [viz., King James I of England] by their impatient proceedings ….


Id., page 120 (bracketed words added for clarity; note: In this quotation, Fr. Gerard uses “Vtus” which is the Roman numeral “V” (five) plus the last three letters of the Latin word “Quintus”, meaning “fifth”).                                                             

[16]         To read more on the Cristeros resistance to their anti-Catholic government’s oppression, read Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, pp. 40-42, ©2016.

[17]         God also declares: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things; by Me princes rule, and the mighty decree justice.”  Proverbs, 8:15-16.


[18]         Pope Pius IX used his ex cathedra (infallible) authority to condemn this error as part of a list of errors contained in the syllabus of Quanta Cura.  Regarding these condemnations, the pope said:

We, truly mindful of Our Apostolic duty, and especially solicitous about our most holy religion, about sound doctrine and the salvation of souls divinely entrusted to Us, and about the good of human society itself, have decided to lift our voice again.  And so all and each evil opinion and doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed and condemned by all the sons of the Catholic Church.

Thus, Pope Pius IX’s condemnation fulfills the conditions for infallibility set out in Vatican I’s document, Pastor Aeternus, because the pope was: 1) carrying out his duty as pastor and teacher of all Christians; 2) in accordance with his supreme apostolic authority; 3) on a matter of faith or morals; 4) to be held by the universal Church.

[19]         Encyclical, Quod Apostolici muneris, December 28, 1878, §7
(emphasis added).


[20]         Quod Apostolici muneris, December 28, 1878, §7 (bracketed words added to show context).

[21]         St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Romans, ch.13, lect.1.


[22]         Encyclical Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, §§ 18-19 (emphasis added), quoting and relying on the teaching of St. Augustine (Doctor and Father of the Church), as well as St. Mauritius, and Tertullian (a Father of the Church).

[23]         To read more on the Cristeros resistance to their anti-Catholic government’s oppression, read Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, pp. 41, ©2016.

Reject the COVID vaccines!

Catholic Candle note:  This article is about the particular COVID-19 vaccines which have been researched, produced, or tested in some way by using human cells obtained from an abortion.

As Catholic Candle showed in a previous article, the corona “pandemic” is overblown and is in the “same ballpark” as a bad annual flu.[1]  Therefore, a COVID vaccine, if a moral and safe one were available, would only be a good idea for those for whom a flu vaccine would be a good idea, e.g., someone with multiple co-morbidities.

We must not accept the COVID vaccines which are being offered to us.  Below, we present five aspects of the COVID-19 vaccine issue:

1.    The first part of this article concerns the sinfulness of all abortion-connected vaccines as a general principle;

2.    The second part examines the current COVID-19 vaccines in particular and shows that the current COVID-19 vaccines are all abortion-connected and so they are sinful;

3.    The third part surveys the approval given by the Vatican and several conferences of Catholic (supposed) “bishops” and also contrasts the N-SSPX’s new position concerning abortion-connected vaccines and how the N-SSPX’s new position contradicts its old position;


4.    The fourth part examines the grave health risks presented to the recipients of the current COVID-19 vaccines and so, in addition to those vaccines being sinful because they are abortion-connected, those vaccines would also seem to be a sin against prudence because they are too risky to our own health; and

5.    The fifth part examines the lack of lasting immunity obtained from these vaccines.

In the remainder of this article, we examine each of these aspects.


Part 1: The Evil of using Vaccines made through the Murders of Babies

We live in a godless society and there are countless evils around us.  For example, in some places, for some diseases (like chickenpox), a person can only obtain vaccines whose manufacturers used cell lines from murdered babies, to develop the vaccines or as disease cultures for manufacturing them.[2]

The conciliar church is lax and liberal and approves receiving vaccines which come from the cell lines of murdered babies, unless there is an alternative vaccine which does not use murder.  But there are three reasons it is wrong to accept these vaccines developed or manufactured using the cell lines of murdered babies:

1.    Using those vaccines promotes future murders.

2.    Using those vaccines rewards persons connected with the murders.

3.    We incur guilt for those murders, by our consenting to use those vaccines.

Below, we discuss each of these reasons.

1.   Using abortion-connected vaccines promotes future murders.

Using the cell lines from murdered babies encourages future murders whenever pharmaceutical companies deem it to be convenient and profitable to commit more murders for use in vaccine research or production. 

Because people did not refuse vaccines coming from the 1960s-era cell lines taken from murdered babies, drug companies, labs, and researchers felt “free” to commit more murders to create new cell lines.  For example, a new cell line from a new murdered baby, was announced in 2015.[3] 

Accepting those vaccines manufactured through murdered babies, promotes future murders (and every murder of an innocent human is a murder too many)!  Thus, when you use a vaccine produced through murder, the drug companies are encouraged to commit additional murders to keep vaccine production high.

2.   Using those vaccines rewards persons connected with the murders.

It is wrong to use vaccines produced from murdered babies because using these vaccines enables manufacturers to profit through the murders.  We should not help drug companies make wickedness profitable!

3.   We incur guilt for the babies’ murders by our consenting to use those vaccines.

We become culpable for someone else’s sin by consenting to it.[4]  When St. Paul teaches us this truth about sharing someone else’s sin by consent, he mentions murder in particular.  Here are his words:

Being filled with … murder, …  they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

Romans, 1:29-32 (emphasis added).[5]

St. Paul shows that consenting to murder is a grave sin and shows this by teaching that such consent makes us “worthy of death”.

A person is guilty of a murder by his consent when he acquiesces[6], even passively[7], or accedes, even reluctantly,[8] to the murder.  When we use vaccines which come from murder, we are (at least) passively accepting – i.e., giving in[9] to – the murders that make those vaccines available. 

A person can incur guilt by consenting even after the murder.

Some ways of sharing in someone else’s sin can only occur before the sin is committed, e.g., commanding or advising that the sin should be committed.  See, the above list (from The Penny Catechism) of ways to share someone else’s sin. 

However, consent to the sin is different.  A person can consent to (i.e., acquiesce in) a murder either before or after it is committed, and so can incur guilt either way.

St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, teaches that a person can incur guilt by consenting to a murder which has already been committed.  He applies this principle (of guilt through post-murder consent) to a person who joins the Jewish religion after Christ’s murder.  Here are St. Thomas’ words:

When a person becomes a Jew, he becomes a participant in the killing of Christ. 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel, ch.23, §1861 (emphasis added).

By using those vaccines manufactured through the murders of babies, a person thus incurs guilt by consenting to (i.e., acquiescing in) the murders of those babies even though those murders were already committed.

The passage of time does not make it no longer sinful to consent to those murders.

A superficial objection could be raised that the vaccines were made from murdered babies more than five decades ago and surely that is “so long ago” that we should disregard the murders because they are too distant in time.

That is wrong.  God does not cease to treat a murder as murder merely because of the passage of time.[10]  Those who commit murder and those that consent to it, remain culpable.  The mere passage of time does not remove the inherent guilt.  The punishments of hell are forever because the damned do not repent and the simple passage of time does not erase guilt (even a billion years in hell).

Just as God does not overlook culpability for murder simply because of the passage of time, man does not do so either.  In the civil society, there is typically no statute of limitations for murder.[11]  In other words, no murder is ever so remote in time that it is no longer culpable and punishable.

The murdering of the babies which was committed in order to “harvest” their cell lines, was premeditated and is first degree murder.  The passage of time does not change the guilt of those murders and does not eliminate the guilt of a person who consents to them.

No matter how much time passes, faithful and informed Catholics will never accept a vaccine developed through the murder of a baby!

The end does not justify the means

Another superficial objection could be raised that vaccines do much good and that they save so many lives that this “outweighs” the murders through which the vaccines are produced.  However, faithful and informed Catholics must never be complicit in evil because of “good” that can come from it.  The end does not justify the means!

Discerning God’s Will through standing up for principle.

A similar, superficial objection is that without receiving these sinful vaccines, I will

lose some opportunity, for example, the chance to enter (or send my dependents to) a particular school.  Again, the end does not justify the means!

If, despite your best efforts, you cannot receive a “conscience waiver” or “religious exemption” to attend (or send your dependents to) the school without receiving a sinful vaccine, that merely shows you that God does not want you to attend that particular school, etc

We are not justified in consenting to even the smallest of sins, much less, consenting to murder.

The evil at issue here is murder.  That is a very grave evil.  But even if a person were to suppose that receiving vaccines derived from the cell lines of murdered babies were “only” a venial sin, even the very smallest sin is an infinite evil in three ways.[12]  We should be ready to die rather than commit any sin. 

Here is how St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, warns against committing even the smallest sin:

A single venial sin is more displeasing to God than [i.e., outweighs] all the good works we can perform.

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Uniformity with God’s Will, §6 (bracketed word added for clarity).

Here is how St. John of the Cross, Doctor of the Church, warns us that the road to hell begins with small sins:

Our Lord said in the Gospel: “He that is unfaithful in little will be unfaithful also in much.”  For he that avoids the small sin will not fall into the great sin; but great evil is inherent in the small sin, since it has already penetrated within the fence and wall of the heart; and as the proverb says: Once begun, half done.

Ascent of Mount Carmel, Book III, ch.20, section 1.

Here is how John Henry Cardinal Newman declares that the smallest sin is worse than all the physical suffering in the world:

The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one willful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.

 Apologia Vita Sua, by John Henry Cardinal Newman, Image Books, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, © 1956, p.324.

Conclusion of this section

In summary, some vaccines are produced through cell lines obtained from murdered babies.[13]  There are three reasons getting these vaccines is a sin:

1.    Using these vaccines promotes future murders.

2.    Using these vaccines rewards those connected with the murders.


3.    We become culpable for the murders, by our consent.

We should stand up for Christ and reject these sinful vaccines.  We should also urge others to stand against these vaccines which break God’s Law (including the Natural Law).  At our Judgment we would want to have done so!

Part 2: The Currently Available COVID-19 Vaccines are all Abortion-Connected and are all sinful to receive.

  The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is tested using the HEK293 cell line.[14]  The abbreviation “HEK293” refers to “Human Embryonic Kidney 293, identifying the organ of the particular murdered baby, who in this case was a baby girl aborted in the Netherlands in the 1970s.[15]  Although each “cell line” is from a particular murdered baby, the cell line production process requires many babies dissected alive without anesthetic to successfully obtain a single such human “cell line”.[16]

  The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine used the parts grown from the same kidney from the same murdered baby girl.[17]

  The Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine used the parts of the same kidney from the same murdered baby girl.[18]


  The coming Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine which is being developed, uses the PER.C6 cell line.  This is the body of a different murdered baby.  This vaccine uses the retinal tissue of an 18-week baby boy who was murdered in the Netherlands in 1985.[19]

  The coming COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Sanofi/Translate Bio uses the parts of the kidney from the murdered baby girl identified as HEK293.[20]

Catholics would commit a serious sin by accepting any of these COVID-19 vaccines because they were developed using abortion.

Part 3: The Vatican and several conferences of Catholic (so-called) “bishops” approve of the abortion-connected vaccines and the N-SSPX contradicts its prior rejection of abortion-connected vaccines.

The Vatican[21]  and the national conferences of Catholic (so-called) “bishops”[22] for the U.S. [23], Canada,[24] and the UK[25] all approve receiving the COVID-19 vaccine based on the false reasoning that a few decades passage of time makes it acceptable to cooperate and consent to these murders by accepting these abortion-connected vaccines.  Those conciliar leaders also assert the evil argument that the end justifies the means, i.e., we need to accept the abortion-connected vaccines because our health is so important.  These false arguments were answered above. 

Pope Francis even went so far as to assert that Catholics have a moral duty to receive one of the abortion-connected vaccines.  Here are his words, as quoted in a news report:

“I believe that, ethically, everyone should take the vaccine,” he said, according to a transcript released in advance of the airing of the interview.[26]

Although the vast majority of the conciliar hierarchy accepts the abortion-connected COVID-19 vaccines, a few members of the hierarchy do stand for the truth and oppose the COVID-19 vaccines.  Among these are three cardinals (Mueller, Zen, & Pujats)[27] and five (so-called) “bishops”.[28]  One of them declared (correctly) that we must accept martyrdom rather than accept any of the current COVID-19 vaccines.[29]  He added that:

The crime of abortion is so monstrous that any kind of concatenation[30] with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances by a Catholic once he has become fully aware of it.[31]

These cardinals and (so-called) “bishops” are conciliar, not traditional.[32]  They are in “good standing” in the conciliar church and all of them accept various conciliar errors, e.g., religious liberty for false religions.  However, even they clearly see the sinfulness of these abortion-connected vaccines, in contrast to the liberal N-SSPX (as shown next).

The N-SSPX’s approval of the abortion-connected vaccines

In its recent statement which approves using the abortion-connected COVID-19 vaccines, the N-SSPX merely parroted the conclusory “justifications” of the Vatican, and the conciliar “bishops” conferences of the U.S., Canada and the UK.

The N-SSPX starts out by disparaging its own prior position (viz., that all abortion-connected vaccines are sinful) as supported by “rumor”.  Here are the N-SSPX’s words:

[M]any rumors circulate about those vaccines that suggest a moral impossibility to use them [viz., using the COVID-19 vaccines now available].[33]

Because no one wants to act based on “rumors”, the N-SSPX tries in this way to undermine its readers’ resistance to accepting the current COVID-19 vaccines.

Concerning all of these abortion-connected COVID-19 vaccines, the N-SSPX then concludes that “it is possible … to use such a vaccine.”[34]

One of the flaws in this liberal N-SSPX article, is that it focuses only on the sinfulness of actually taking part (in one way or another) in the actual abortion itself.  The N-SSPX article does not explicitly consider the sin committed by consenting to this sinful act (murder) already committed.  See above, the nine ways a person can share in someone else’s sin. 

Another flaw in the article is that the N-SSPX simply declares the conclusion that the abortion used in the development of the vaccine was too long ago (“remote”) to be sinful, but fails to make any comparison between:

·         the length of time since these abortions only a few decades ago;


·         other murders – even hundreds of years ago – where passage of time has still not removed the sinfulness of cooperation with those ancient murders.[35] 

A third flaw in the N-SSPX’s current position is that the N-SSPX fails to address the continued compensation of all of those persons (e.g., the pharmaceutical companies) who are continually profiting from these murders.

A fourth flaw in the N-SSPX’s current article is that it does not address the fact that the profitability of using the bodies of murdered babies gives researchers the incentive to murder more babies.

Twenty years ago, the SSPX used to teach the Catholic truth about abortion-connected vaccines.  In a June 2000 Angelus Magazine article, the SSPX stated: “Consequently, it would be immoral to use a vaccine that one knew was developed in fetal cells, no matter how great the advantage to be procured.”[36]  In other words, the SSPX’s older article correctly warns that the end does not justify the means.

This earlier SSPX article condemns using all abortion-connected vaccines, but specifically warns about the evil of accepting the abortion-connected rubella vaccine.  Now, however, the N-SSPX’s new article specifically justifies accepting this same abortion-connected rubella vaccine (a bad means) because of a good end (avoiding birth defects caused by rubella).  Here are the N-SSPX’s words in 2020 advocating the end justifying the means:

A young woman who is to get married can thus receive the rubella vaccine, although such a vaccine is almost always prepared on fetal cells obtained by abortion.  The reason is the danger for the child: if a woman contracts rubella during pregnancy, especially during the first trimester, the risk of birth defects – eye, hearing or heart – are [sic] significant.  These malformations are permanent.[37]

Part 4: The grave health risks of the current COVID-19 vaccines would seem to make receiving this vaccine a sin against prudence because those vaccines are too risky to our own health.

In addition to the COVID-19 vaccines being mortally sinful because recipients of the vaccines consent to their development through use of murdered babies, these vaccines would seem to also be a sin against prudence because they are a grave risk to the health of those receiving the vaccines.

The U.S.’s chief scientific adviser for the American COVID-19 vaccine rollout admitted that the number of adverse reactions is higher than he expected it would be.[38]  So far, severe adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines occur at a rate about 8.5 times higher than for flu vaccines.[39] 

One of the severe reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine is anaphylactic shock, suffered even by people who never previously had an allergic reaction to anything.[40]  This anaphylactic shock can occur as a reaction to other vaccines, but it occurs 22 times more frequently in the COVID-19 vaccine.[41]  Because of the unexpectedly high rate of dangerous reactions, the British medicines regulator (the MHRA) recommends that locations administering these vaccines have emergency resuscitation facilities on site.[42]  One news report includes video footage of a nurse collapsing after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, as she stepped up to the podium to tell people how great it was to receive the vaccine.[43]

In addition to anaphylactic shock, the U.S. FDA’s warning of severe adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine, includes, but is not limited to:



  convulsions and seizures[45];

  heart attacks[46];

  “Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis,” which is a “rare inflammatory condition that affects the brain and spinal cord”[47];

  “Transverse myelitis” which is a neurological disorder which inflames the spinal cord, causing “pain, muscle weakness, paralysis, sensory problems, or bladder and bowel dysfunction.”[48]

  auto-immune disease[49]; (One such disease is “Guillain-Barré syndrome,” described as “a rare disorder in which your body’s immune system attacks your nerves.”  The syndrome has “no known cure,” and its mortality rate is “4% to 7%.”)[50]

  birth defects[51];

  harm to nursing babies[52];

  infertility of an indefinite duration[53];

  Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in children[54];

  facial paralysis, (Bell’s Palsy) [55]; and

  Kawasaki disease.[56]  

There are also other severe risks as well as common, less severe side effects from receiving the COVID-19 vaccines.[57]

Here is one catalog of less severe side effects, together with their likelihood of occurring with any single injection of the COVID-19 vaccine:

In clinical studies, the adverse reactions in participants 18 years of age and older were pain at the injection site (92.0%), fatigue (70.0%), headache (64.7%), myalgia (61.5%), arthralgia (46.4%), chills (45.4%), nausea/vomiting (23.0%), axillary swelling/tenderness (19.8%), fever (15.5%), swelling at the injection site (14.7%), and erythema at the injection site (10.0%).[58]

As of December 18, 2020, hundreds of people have been admitted to the emergency rooms shortly following their receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine[59] and thousands of people have suffered adverse reactions.[60]  There has also been unexplained deaths of people believed to be healthy before receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.[61]

The novelty and lack of testing of this vaccine presents possibly-grave additional risks.

The current COVID-19 vaccines have been rushed out without the usual vaccine testing and trial periods.  The vaccines have been approved only for “emergency use”.[62]  The vaccine makers are immune from legal liability no matter how much harm is done by their poorly tested vaccines.[63]

The current COVID-19 vaccines are a completely new type of vaccine never tried before.  All previous vaccines introduced a weakened or neutralized part of the disease-causing substance into the body and the body of the recipient then “learned” to fight this substance so that it would be prepared to fight a virulent form of this same disease.[64] 

The new COVID-19 vaccines are much different.  They use “messenger RNA” to change the “commands” or “instructions” given to our bodies’ own cells to cause those cells to produce spike proteins that they would never naturally produce, so that our own bodies would then fight these spike proteins produced by our bodies.[65]  Moderna, one of the COVID-19 vaccine makers, likens this overriding of our bodies’ cellular processes to introducing a new software program into a computer.[66]

This is a revolutionary and invasive procedure and has had only months of testing, skipping much of the normal, much-longer testing process usually used to help assure the vaccine is safe.[67]  What are the long-term effects?  We don’t know.  No one knows.  Among many other grave potential harms, is the harm of a fatal, exaggerated immune reaction when encountering the “wild” virus itself.[68] 

Yet the world is injecting this vaccine into hundreds of millions (or even billions) of people.  Should we trust the pharmaceutical companies to be honest with us?  Hardly.  Those companies are:

  earning trillions of dollars selling whatever COVID-19 vaccine they can come up with;

  using a brand-new technology;

  after an extremely short and inadequate testing process; and

  shielded from legal liability no matter how much harm they cause to us by these vaccines.

The imprudence of trusting the pharmaceutical companies entirely leaves aside the past history of pharmaceutical companies violating health and safety laws, and/or committing massive fraud.[69]

The mainstream media declares that COVID-19 is an extreme emergency and so the media tells people how “alarming” it is that so many “frontline” workers refuse to accept the vaccine.  For example:

  About 60% of Ohio nursing home workers refuse this vaccine.[70]

  About 50% of frontline workers in Riverside County, California, refuse it.[71]

  Over 50% of New York firefighters reject the vaccine.[72]

For all of the above reasons in this section, the COVID-19 vaccines are too risky even if it were not a mortal sin to receive them because they were developed using murdered babies. 

Part 5: The Immunity obtained from the COVID-19 Vaccine is likely of short duration.

All viruses constantly change.[73]  The viruses’ continual mutations is one reason why there is no permanent vaccine for the flu (or colds) and why vaccines even for the current version of the flu are only partially successful – because the flu vaccine is being developed months ahead of time and, before the flu season even begins, the flu virus is already changing away from the current version of the flu at which the current vaccine was targeted.[74]

Another reason a single injection of the flu vaccine does not give lasting, multi-year immunity, is because our bodies’ immunity does not last even against the same strain of the flu.[75]  That is why coronavirus immunity from either contracting COVID-19 or from a vaccine is called “transient immunity”, because the immunity does not last.[76]

Therefore, whatever coronaviruses are presently spreading will continually change and whatever immunity we have through having contracted this (generally mild) disease or through a vaccine, will probably not last long.[77]


It is a mortal sin to accept any vaccine developed using murdered babies.  The current COVID-19 vaccines are of this type and are gravely wrong to receive, consent to, or to cooperate with.  Further, these vaccines gravely endanger many people because of their many grave and less-grave side effects.  Those vaccines are revolutionary and are invasive in a way never before tried because they change the instructions used by our own cells.  These vaccines have unknown long-term side effects and provide an immunity which probably does not last long.

[2]           Here is a list of vaccines connected with murder and a list of ethical alternatives, if they exist:


[4]              Here is summary of this basic truth from a common catechism:


328. When are we answerable for the sins of others? 

We are answerable for the sins of others whenever we either cause them, or share in them, through our own fault. 

329. In how many ways may we either cause or share the guilt of another’s sin? 

We may either cause or share the guilt of another’s sin in nine ways:


1.    By counsel.


2.    By command.

3.    By consent.

4.    By provocation.

5.    By praise or flattery.

6.    By concealment.

7.    By being a partner in the sin.

8.    By silence.

9.    By defending the ill done.


Quoted from The Penny Catechism, Nihil Obstat, Joannes M.T. Barton, S.T.D., L.S.S., Censor deputatus, Imprimatur, Georgius L. Craven, Epus Sebastopolis, Vicarius Generalis, Westmonasterii, die 20a Junii, 1958, p.57 (emphasis added).


[5]           Here is the longer quote from St. Paul:


Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.  Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.


Romans, 1:29-32


[6]           One of the definitions of consent is: “acquiescence to or acceptance of something done or planned by another”.

[7]           One of the definitions of acquiescence is: “passive assent or agreement without protest”.


[8]           Two of the definitions of accede are: “to consent” and “to give in”.

[9]           Two of the definitions of accede are: “to consent” and “to give in”.

[10]         St. Thomas Aquinas teaches the principle that a person is culpable for consenting to a murder even when that murder had been committed many centuries earlier.  St. Thomas applies this principle to a person who joins the Jewish religion long after Christ’s murder.  Here are St. Thomas’ words:


When a person becomes a Jew, he becomes a participant in the killing of Christ. 


St. Thomas Aquinas, Lectures on St. Matthew, ch.23, §1861.


Thus, St. Thomas teaches that even the passage of a long, long time (1200 years, in St. Thomas’ time) after the murder, does not remove the culpability for consenting to it.  In other words, there is no “end date” for culpability by consenting to murder after it was committed. 


Note also regarding St. Thomas’ own example, that he places culpability upon consent to the murder of Christ (through conversion to Judaism), not upon ethnic lineage of a person.  Thus, this culpability does not touch the Apostles or any other ethnically Jewish persons who did not (do not) consent to the murder of Christ.


[11]            Here is how one legal commentary summarized the state of the law:


               Some crimes have no statutes of limitations.  As an example, murder typically has



Here is how the New York courts explain that murder does not become a non-prosecutable crime because of the passage of time:


Statutes of limitations are laws which say how long, after certain events, a case may be started based on those events.  If the statute of limitations has run out, a case should not be started in court. If a case is started after the statute of limitations has run out, it is called time barred.  A defendant or respondent can ask the court to dismiss the case if it is time barred by the statute of limitations.


Statute of limitations laws are based on fairness. Over time, memories fade, evidence is lost, and witnesses disappear.  People get on with their lives and don’t expect court cases from events in the past – unless a really horrible crime has been committed.


The amount of time by when a person or agency can start a case is different depending on the claim. For example, cases about real property have a long time period, while slander and libel have short time periods.  Some crimes, like murder, are so terrible that they often have no limitations period.


Except for when a government agency is sued, there is almost always at least one year from the date of an event to start a case no matter what type of claim it is. You should have no statute of limitations worries if you file your case within this one-year period.

[12]         For a full explanation of this truth that all sin is an infinite evil in three ways and mortal sin is an infinite evil in a fourth way too, read this article:


[13]         Here is a list of vaccines connected with murder and a list of ethical alternatives, if they exist:


[22]         For an explanation why the validity is doubtful using the conciliar rite of consecration of a bishop (now called “ordination of a bishop”), read Catholic Candle’s comparison of the new rite and the Traditional Episcopal rite.  This comparison is available here:

[30]         Definition of concatenation: “a group of things linked together or occurring together in a way that produces a particular result or effect”.

[32]         Here, e.g., is an analysis of some of so-called “bishop” Athanasius Schneider’s liberalism:


As another example, here is a news report of so-called “archbishop” Vigano’s prayer at an ecumenical prayer event: at which a rabbi gave his “prayer” at the same event:

[33] (initial letter capitalized).


Here is the longer quote:


As several manufacturers announce the imminent development of a vaccine against Covid-19, many rumors circulate about those vaccines that suggest a moral impossibility to use them.


[34]  The only pretense at “conservativism” in the position of the N-SSPX, is to say that we should choose a non-abortion-connected vaccine if one were available (although none is available).  The Vatican says this too.

[35]         See the analysis above, especially related to Our Lord’s murder 2,000 years ago concerning which a person is still not exonerated who consents to His being murdered, by joining Judaism.

[36]           June 2000 Angelus Magazine, p.40 (emphasis added).


[49]         James Lyons-Weiler, Pathogenic Priming Likely Contributes to Serious and Critical Illness and Mortality in COVID-19 via Autoimmunity, Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, 2020, 100051, ISSN 2589-9090, &  (

Problems with Face Masks

This present note (immediately below) was previously published in the

October and November 2020 issues of Catholic Candle

We usually focus directly on Faith and morals.  However, sometimes issues in society have a severe indirect impact on Faith and morals and should be addressed.  Below, we examine one of those issues which has a severe indirect impact on Faith and morals, viz., the overblown corona-scare.  We put COVID-19 in perspective, to help readers face this challenge in which Providence has lovingly placed us, for the glory of God and for our good.

In our current corona-crazy world, people are acting strangely because they are frightened by (supposed) imminent death from COVID-19, or they are intimidated by abusive governmental lockdown and mask-wearing orders.  People have been bludgeoned into letting go of their humanity and are fearfully acting as if their fellow man was a threatening virus-culture rather than a fellow child of God and fellow soldier in the Church Militant.

Lastly, another reason to examine the abusive mask mandates is because they are a prominent example showing (for anyone who needs further proof) that the mainstream media and the liberal “deep state” establishment (which is entrenched in the government), are unreliable as sources of the truth concerning what is going on in the world.  It is Catholic Candle’s hope that this present article is a helpful reminder to our readers that they should distrust the mainstream media and entrenched liberals in government because they lie and “spin” the truth.

This article was up to date when it was written in October and November, 2020.  The article mostly uses evidence from the U.S. because there is so much of it available.  However, the evidence we have from other countries supports the theses of this article.  Such support makes sense because human nature is the same in all countries, COVID-19 is (apparently) the same everywhere, and the effects of mask-wearing are the same.

Face masks present grave health risks & are to control people, not a virus

We previously saw the COVID-19 scare is overblown.
[1]  We also saw that lockdowns don’t work, and that their real purpose is to control the population, not the virus.[2]

In this present article, we will see that:

1.    masking everybody is not effective to protect people from COVID-19;

2.    it is a health hazard for healthy people to wear masks; and

3.    the real purpose of imposing masks is to dehumanize and control the population.

Below, we examine each of these points.

1.   Masking everybody is not effective to protect people from COVID-19.

Before we examine medical studies and medical authorities, let’s start by using common sense.

  If masking everybody in a pandemic is such a good idea, why has it never been done before, in the history of the world?  Masks are not new and are “low tech”.  They have been available for thousands of years.

  If masking everybody is such a good idea, why is it promoted and required by those who are most hostile to God and to the worship of God (viz., liberals)?  In other words, if God’s enemies promote it, why would we suppose it is good?

  If it is such a good idea, why is it that those who promote masking everybody “even if it only saves one life” (as they say), are the same people who promote murdering innocent babies (abortion and infanticide) and killing the elderly (euthanasia)?


  If everybody should wear a mask because simply breathing near someone can infect him with a virus, why do the (supposedly more reliable) COVID-19 tests require sticking a long rod/swab up your nose, into your skull (popularly called a “brain-poke”) in order to get a good test sample?  Why couldn’t the test be done by breathing into a bottle or onto a swab or at most supplying a drop of saliva?

  If masking everybody is such a good idea, why is it promoted through emotion but not reason?  For example, when Georgia opened back up (after a briefer and less-abusive lockdown than in many other states) the liberals attacked the state and called it “Georgia’s Experiment in Human Sacrifice”.[3]

  The liberals and mainstream media continually talk about following “science” but their position is not supported by science and they don’t cite any supporting science.

Masking everybody is not supported by any science.

There are no studies showing that masking everybody works to prevent viral infection.  The closest thing we could find is a hamster study.  This study is a non-peer-reviewed study of hamsters in Asia, in which a fan blew air from COVID-infected hamsters into a cage of healthy hamsters.  The study concluded that there was a reduction in infection of healthy hamsters when there was a cloth barrier erected between the cages, preventing the continual blowing of the air – day and night, for weeks – from the infected hamsters, into the cage of healthy hamsters.  The researchers concluded that this study “implied” that masking everybody would help humans.[4]

The fact, of course, is that the hamsters were not wearing masks and the study does not show what the mainstream media says it does.  The study merely indicates what we already know: erecting a barrier/wall to separate sick animals from healthy ones is a good thing and that it is a bad idea to blow the air from sick animals – for weeks at a time, day and night – into the living space of healthy animals.  That study’s result is neither surprising nor particularly helpful.  The liberals and mainstream media tout this study because they have no relevant science to support their policy of masking everybody.  Id.

Before masking everybody became a liberal political cause, all medical authorities declared that masks are ineffective to prevent a viral infection.

Before we see what real medical studies say, let’s look at what all medical authorities recommended all of the way up to last spring, on the issue of whether the healthy public should wear masks to prevent infections.

In March 2020, the CDC was still following the infectious disease protocols in place through earlier this year – before the liberals began to use masks as a political tool.  The CDC stated it “does not recommend that people who are well wear a facemask to protect themselves from respiratory diseases, including COVID-19”.[5]

The CDC’s own journal, Emerging infectious Diseases, published a May 2020 meta-analysis of masking in “non-healthcare settings”.  This analysis of prior randomized controlled trials (undertaken between 1946 and 2017) concluded:

Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.[6]

The CDC’s infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, stated:

No, right now, people should not be wearing – there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.[7]

Fauci is a liberal.  It is not that he was conservative in March 2020 and then became a liberal.  Liberals (and everyone else) agreed last March that masking everybody is not effective against a virus.  Fauci changed his position when the liberals began using masks as a political tool.

On February 29, 2020, before masking everyone became a political tool, the U.S. Surgeon General, Jerome Adams, MD, did his best to discourage the public from wearing masks.  He stated:

Seriously people – STOP BUYING MASKS!  They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus.[8]

In a May, 2020 study entitled: Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era, The New England Journal of Medicine stated:

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.[9]

California’s OSHA regulations state:

Cloth face covers are not protective equipment and do not protect the person wearing a cloth face cover from COVID-19.[10]

In March 2020, Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the United Nation’s WHO (World Health Organization) health emergencies program, stated:

There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit.[11]

Before the liberals began using masks as a political tool, the World Health Organization advised against everyone wearing masks.  Here is what the WHO stated:

[T]here is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19. …  [T]he wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks.[12]

Dr. Eli Perencevich, MD, is an infection prevention specialist and a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa’s College of Medicine.  Here is how he recommended against healthy people wearing masks:

The average healthy person does not need to have a mask, and they [sic] shouldn’t be wearing masks.  …  There’s no evidence that wearing masks on healthy people will protect them.  They wear them incorrectly, and they can increase the risk of infection because they’re touching their face more often.[13]

Before the liberals began using masks as a political tool, everyone agreed that masks were not effective to prevent the public from catching a virus.  One of the reasons for this universal agreement is because the studies concluded this.

For example, the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy published a 2020 study entitled: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy.  Here are conclusions from that study:

We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because there is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.  … 

Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control [i.e., by a sick person] or as PPE [i.e., by a healthy person].  …

[G]iven the paucity [i.e., scarcity] of information about their performance as source control in real-world settings, along with the extremely low efficiency of cloth masks as filters and their poor fit, there is no evidence to support their use by the public or healthcare workers to control the emission of particles from the wearer.  …

We were able to identify only two household studies in which surgical masks were worn by the index patient [i.e., sick person] only, as source control.  Neither of these found a significant impact on secondary disease transmission [i.e., infecting others], although both studies had important limitations.

Clinical trials in the surgery theater have found no difference in wound infection rates with and without surgical masks.  Despite these findings, it has been difficult for surgeons to give up a long-standing practice. …[14]

In a meta-study of 17 earlier studies concerning wearing a mask to protect against the flu, the study concluded:

None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.[15]

A 2009 study found that mask-wearers had more headaches and no benefit avoiding contraction of cold viruses.[16]

A 2010 review of studies on mask wearing outside a hospital setting, showed that masks did no good preventing the flu.  Here[17] is a summary chart with the findings:

A 2017 study conducted a meta-analysis of mask effectiveness among healthcare workers.  Here[18] are key findings of the study:

  The meta-analysis suggested mask wearing provides a protective, but non-statistically significant, effect against laboratory-confirmed viral infections.

  There is no evidence cloth masks provide protection and they might facilitate transmission of pathogens when used repeatedly without adequate sterilization; and

  There is no protective effect against SARS for disposable, cotton, or paper masks.

On November 18, 2020, a new randomized controlled study was published.  It is the first study in the world to test whether face masks were effective in preventing wearers from contracting the coronavirus.  The study found there was no statistically significant difference in COVID-19 cases between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers.[19]

It is impossible for masks to be effective because viruses are far too small.

Masking everyone is not effective to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory viral illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.  This is because the principal transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles which are between 10 – 80 nm[20] in size.[21] 

Trying to stop tiny virus particles with a mask is like trying to stop mosquitos with chicken wire (poultry netting).  It is not effective.  Virus particles are far too small to be trapped by even the oppressively uncomfortable N95 masks.  Here is how one review of the research explains this fact:

[T]he filtration material itself of N95 (average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm) does not block virion [i.e., individual particles of virus] penetration, not to mention surgical masks.[22]

This means, e.g., that with a virion of 10 nm and a mask pore of 0.3 μm, 30 of those virions could fit through the same mask pore at the same time.  Hence, it is roughly like 30 mosquitos going through the same hexagonal hole in the chicken wire at the same time.  It is unreasonable to stop mosquitos with chicken wire and is unreasonable to stop viruses with a face mask.  They are not effective and all medical authorities agreed about this before the liberals made the corona-scare political.


The conclusion is plain: masking everyone is not effective against the coronavirus. 

2.   It is a health hazard for everyone to be wearing masks

In part one (above), we saw that masks are ineffective against a virus and no one recommended masks for healthy people in the general population until the liberals made the issue political in the Spring of 2020.

Masks are not only ineffective they also pose significant risk of harm.  This is why – before the liberals made the issue political – the U.N.’s World Health Organization warned:

[T]he wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks.[23]

Among the known critical risks to a healthy general population, are that mask-wearing:

1.    Reduces a person’s oxygen supply;

2.    Increases the risk of carbon dioxide toxicity;


3.    Reduces a person’s immune protection against diseases;


4.    Disposes a person to “brain fog” and can reduce the clarity of his thinking;


5.    Causes headaches, dizziness, difficulty breathing, and shortness of breath (dyspnea);


6.    Causes a person to re-breathe contaminant particles trapped in his mask;


7.    Forces a person to breathe through a moist, warm material perfect for growing whatever pathogens are present in his surroundings; and


8.    Typically causes a person to touch his face more frequently.

Below, we discuss each of these critical risks caused by mask-wearing.

1.   Mask-wearing reduces a person’s oxygen supply.

Mask-wearing decreases the oxygen level in a person’s blood.  A mask increases the risk of hypoxemia (which is a critically-low level of oxygen in the blood).[24]

In this study, researchers examined the blood oxygen levels in 53 surgeons using an oximeter, measuring blood oxygenation before and after surgeries (during which they wore masks).  Id.  The researchers found that the masks reduced the surgeon’s blood oxygen levels significantly.  Id.  The longer the duration of wearing a mask, the greater the fall in the blood oxygen level.  Id.

2.   Mask-wearing creates the risk of carbon dioxide toxicity.

Mask-wearing increases the carbon dioxide in a person’s blood and increases the risk of hypercapnia (which is a harmful elevation in the blood’s carbon dioxide level).

In a study conducted in a medical setting using a capnometer (used to test CO2 blood levels) mask-wearing anesthetists were tested before wearing their masks and then after wearing a mask for twenty minutes.  All anesthetists showed elevated CO2 blood levels after this twenty-minute period.[25]

The results of these studies are common sense and are predictable since masks trap some of the CO2-rich breath in the mouth/mask inter-space.  Thus, a part of the carbon dioxide previously exhaled is inhaled again during each respiratory cycle.

Not only are the resulting oxygen deprivation and elevated CO2 blood levels common sense and predictable, but the consequences are also.  For example:

  A New Jersey man passed out when driving while wearing a mask and crashed.[26] 

  Two healthy Chinese teenagers dropped dead while wearing masks during a run.[27]

3.   Mask-wearing reduces a person’s immune protection against diseases.

Habitual wearing of masks decreases a person’s natural immune response which fights off diseases.  This is because a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity.  Such impaired immunity places a person at greater risk of contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and also makes the consequences of any infection graver.  In other words, mask-wearing can place a person at an increased risk of infections and likelihood of a worse outcome.  Here are four studies which show this:

1.    Shehade H. et al. study entitled: Cutting edge: Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 negatively regulates Th1 function published in: J Immunol 2015;195:1372-1376;

2.    Westendorf AM et al. study entitled: Hypoxia enhances immunosuppression by inhibiting CD4+ effector T cell function and promoting Treg activity, published in: Cell Physiol Biochem 2017;41:1271-84;

3.    McMahon, et al., Hypoxia-enhanced Expression of the Proprotein Convertase Furin Is Mediated by Hypoxia-inducible Factor-1: 10.1074/jbc.M413248200, 2004, published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry and available here:


4.    Sceneay J et al., study entitled: Hypoxia-driven immunosuppression contributes to the pre-metastatic niche, published in: Oncoimmunology 2013;2:1 e22355,

COVID-19 is more technically named “SARS CoV-2”.  This is significant because one medical study showed that mask-wearing increased the risk of contracting Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in particular.[28] 

This weakening of the immune system is apparently why Surgeon General Jerome Adams told the public in March 2020 that wearing a mask “can increase your risk of getting it [viz. COVID-19]”.[29]

However, low oxygen blood levels don’t make a person more susceptible to only respiratory viruses, but also to a whole host of other diseases.  For example:

  Cancer invades, grows and spreads more readily in a low-oxygen environment.[30]

  Atherosclerosis, cardiovascular (heart attacks), and cerebrovascular (strokes) disease risks are enhanced by a low-oxygen environment.[31]


4.   Mask-wearing disposes a person to “brain fog” and can reduce the clarity of his thinking.

In a 2008 study, mask-wearing was shown to cause anxiety, brain fog, and difficulty concentrating.[32] 

In another 2008 study, mask-wearing was shown to cause reduced work efficiency and the decreased ability to make correct decisions.[33]

Two of the Catholic Candle Team saw a striking instance of “brain fog” during the oxygen deprivation suffered by a woman they knew in a nursing home.  She was not wearing a mask but as she got closer to death, her lungs were less effective, so her blood oxygen level decreased.  She suffered an oxygen-deprivation incident which is instructive concerning what can happen when a person’s blood-oxygen level goes down a few points.  (The oximeter registered that her oxygen blood level was down 5%). 

One of the incidents which caused her nursing home to place her on supplemental oxygen, was her insisting that one of the two of us had visited her earlier on that particular day.  In fact, this did not happen.  That day, she also showed her confusion by saying various incoherent things.  When she was given supplemental oxygen, she (with her mind and memory) returned to normal and she was kept on oxygen for the remaining weeks of her life. 

5.   Mask-wearing often causes headaches, dizziness, difficulty breathing, and shortness of breath (dyspnea).

A 2020 study involved 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years.  It found that 81% of the workers developed headaches from wearing a face mask.  The research study concluded:

Most healthcare workers develop de novo PPEassociated headaches or exacerbation of their preexisting headache disorders.[34]

In a 2014 study of headaches caused by mask-wearing, researchers surveyed 212 healthcare workers (47 males and 165 females) and asked them about presence of headaches with N95 mask use, the duration of the headaches, the type of headaches, and if the person had preexisting headaches.  The researchers found that about a third of the workers developed headaches when they wore a mask; most of these workers had preexisting headaches that were worsened by mask-wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief.[35] 

In a 2008 study, mask-wearing was shown to cause headaches, difficulty breathing, shortness of breath, and other adverse symptoms.[36]

In another 2008 study, mask-wearing was shown to cause headaches, dizziness, and shortness of breath.[37]

6.   Mask-wearing causes a person to re-breathe particles trapped in his mask.

Mask-wearing not only increases the amount of CO2 a person re-breathes (as explained above) but also causes a person to re-breathe particles that his lungs have exhaled, whether those particles are pollen, dust, or various infectious particles which are trapped in the mask.  On the very next inhalation the person breathes them back in, increasing infectious particles in the airways and lungs.[38]  In this way, medical masks cause self-inoculation, an increase in particle load, and an increase in disease severity.

7.   Mask-wearing forces a person to breathe through a moist, warm material perfect for growing pathogens present in his surroundings.

Bacteria, protozoa, fungi and other pathogens are all around us in our environment.  This is normal.  Those pathogens do not cause disease unless they infect a person in sufficiently large numbers. 

For many of those pathogens to increase in number, they need a moist, warm environment.  This environment is supplied by a mask through which a person exhales his moist, warm breath.  Those masks become saturated and pathogens from the environment around us then can opportunistically multiply there.[39]

8.   Mask-wearing often causes a person to touch his face more frequently.

Every day, we see mask-wearers constantly fiddling with their masks.  Although COVID-19 is in the “same ballpark” as the annual flu and not dangerous to most people, nevertheless, if a person is supposedly trying to protect himself from colds, flu, COVID-19, or any other infectious disease, it can’t be helpful for him to be continually touching his face.

Eli Perencevich, MD, is an infection prevention specialist and a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa’s College of Medicine.  Here is how he warned how increased touching of one’s face increases a risk of infection anytime there is a pathogen present:

The average healthy person … shouldn’t be wearing masks.  …  [People] can increase the risk of infection because they’re touching their face more often.[40]

Further, continually fiddling with a mask is a sign of the discomfort of wearing a mask and how it also distracts a person from thought and from his focus on other parts of life.

The above problems are made worse by the almost universal practice (in the mask-wearing general public) of wearing the same mask repeatedly and for long periods, rather than continually replacing masks every hour or so.

In the medical setting, masks are continually replaced by new masks.  Here is how one surgeon explained this practice:

Medical masks are single use devices designed to be worn for a relatively short period of time.  Once the mask becomes saturated with moisture from breath, which, if properly fit, takes about an hour, they should be replaced.  The more moisture-saturated the mask becomes, the more it blocks oxygen, increases re-breathing of carbon dioxide, re-breathing of viral particles, and becomes a breeding ground for other pathogens.[41]

As we see in daily life, almost every mask-wearer uses the same mask, day after day.  He stores it in an unsanitary location, e.g., at the grungy bottom of his backpack, where it accumulates other foreign grime which is then available for his inhalation on the next occasion when he wears it.  This is a further inevitable problem with the harmful idea of having the healthy general population wear masks.

: As everyone agreed before the liberals made mask-wearing a political tool:

  Mask-wearing “carries uncertainties and critical risks” for the general public (WHO); and

  Mask-wearing “can increase your risk of getting it [viz. COVID-19]” (U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams).

3.   The real purpose of imposing masks is to dehumanize and control the population

As is true of the corona-lockdowns, the mask-mandates are for controlling the people, not a virus.

Let’s start by summarizing the background of these mask-wearing mandates.

As we showed above, until the Spring 2020, every medical authority and medical study agreed that masks are ineffective against a virus and that masks themselves present a serious health risk to the general population.  Then the liberals completely reversed their position – although they did not support their new position with any serious studies or reasoning. 

Starting with the liberals’ reversal of position, masks instantly “became” the safe and prudent garb that everyone was told to wear.  Those who didn’t reverse their own position and their own practice in order to follow the liberals and mainstream media, were mocked and attacked as being rash, stubborn, unfeeling, “science deniers” who endanger the lives of other people.  People felt peer-pressure to conform.  By wearing a mask, people engage in “virtue signaling” to show that they are not backward, unfeeling, or “science deniers”.

The liberals and mainstream media leave no room for calm, rational discussion of the many reasons and studies against mask-wearing.  For example, social media sites immediately remove any rational discussion, calling it “disinformation”.  The liberals and mainstream media declared that it is completely unacceptable to continue to follow what everyone – even Fauci, the CDC, the WHO, and the rest of the liberal medical “authorities” – had continually said for years until they contradicted themselves in the Spring of 2020.  People are given no other choice: either conform or be mocked and vilified.

Mandatory mask-wearing began in the summer of 2020, as the evidence then showed increasingly plainly that the COVID-19 death scare was overblown.

Early in 2020, the liberals and mainstream media terrorized the people by predicting a catastrophic corona-death toll.  For example, in March 2020, the widely-cited Imperial College COVID-19 death model predicted that COVID-19 could cause as many as 2.2 million people to die in the U.S.[42]

But as the weeks passed, it became increasingly clear that this scare was false and that COVID-19 was not nearly as fatal as the scaremongers claimed.  People became less afraid and were demanding that society be opened up and that the lockdowns end. The “spell” of corona-terror was dissipating.  At that point, many governments ordered mandatory mask-wearing. 

Masks cause people to be disoriented, frightened, and anxious (both emotionally and physically).  This effect of masks is not only common sense – and we observe every day in our current, bizarre times – but it is shown by all of the medical studies on the subject.  For example, a 2008 study showed that mask-wearing caused anxiety, brain fog, and difficulty concentrating.[43]

For the liberals to accomplish their totalitarian goals, it is crucial that the people be anxious and disoriented.  This was admitted, for example, by billionaire, far-left promoter of socialism and revolution, George Soros, who remarked how the people’s fear and disorientation were crucial for accomplishing his goals.  Here are his words:

I would describe it as a revolutionary moment when the range of possibilities is much greater than in normal times ….  What is inconceivable in normal times becomes not only possible but actually happens.  People are disoriented and scared.[44]

The leftists and New World Order promoters are using mask-wearing mandates to prevent people from going back to normal life and to keep them in a state of corona-disorientation.

No medically-effective mask is demanded but only outward conformity.

Because mask-wearing is about controlling the people, and not controlling a virus, there are no minimum medical standards for the masks.  A face-covering is demanded, but any face-covering is acceptable.  It doesn’t matter what the face-covering is, as long as it conceals a person’s face.  Any kind of bandana or strip of cloth is fine – no matter what it is made of and no matter how ill-fitting it is.

Mask-wearing destroys human interaction.

All that tyrants need in order to succeed in enslaving the people is to prevent the people from joining together.  As Benjamin Franklin famously said while he and other American colonial leaders were opposing King George III of England: “If we don’t all hang together, we will all hang separately.” 

Mask-wearing is all about dividing and isolating people from each other because masks disrupt social connections and impede social interactions.  This is because masks hide the most distinct, unique, human aspect of people – their faces.  The two main means of human communication are our mouths and our eyes.  Masks obscure our expressions and impede normal human, social interaction, dialogue and therefore, friendships and community.

Masks de-humanize persons and weaken the human connection of persons who are talking together.  They cannot see each other’s expressions, so they are less sure they know what the other person is thinking, whether he understands correctly, etc.  For example, when a person tells a joke, it is harder to know if the other person knows he is joking and whether the other person understands the joke being told.

When people have their mouths and noses covered, they cannot readily speak.  This is why placing something over the mouth is a universal symbol of suppression of speech.  It is a common sight to see two masked persons come together and pull down their masks so they can speak to each other.

Not only can’t people readily talk, they also cannot readily understand the muffled words which other people are trying to communicate.  The psychological impact of these impediments to communication, is huge.

Government mask-mandates push people to watch their neighbors and report on them.

One hallmark of communist countries is pushing people to report their neighbors if those neighbors do not conform to government regulations.  The U.S. has had comparatively little of such a report-your-neighbor, tattletale mentality in its history.  But the government is encouraging this mentality now.  Some governments have set up hotlines on which a person can report his neighbor for not wearing a mask.  Here are three examples:

  In Ohio:

  In New York:

  In Los Angeles:

Vermont schools interrogate their students whether the students’ families had Thanksgiving dinner with anyone outside their family circle.[45]

Some people are officious meddlers and so they will gladly report their neighbor for not wearing a mask.  Others are jealous of non-mask-wearers: “if I have to wear this, why don’t they?”  This jealous friction harms the cohesiveness of a free people.

Mask orders are helping to turn the U.S. – which has been one of the freest countries on Earth – into a regimented, conformist society, under perpetual surveillance, in which a subservient people scurries about under the severe eyes of authority.

Mask-wearing is a further part of the liberals’ vision of a “nanny state”.

A mature and free person takes personal responsibility for his own actions.  For example, he decides whether to buy flood insurance for his home – for his use in the event that his home suffers a catastrophic flood.  If he decides not to buy this insurance, then he suffers the consequences of his own decision if his house floods.  He “made his bed and now must lie in it”.

This is a conservative mentality.  This is the position of freedom, maturity and virtue.  This is the Catholic position.  So, although there are hurricanes and floods every year, the government does not command a person to buy flood insurance.  This was more the position of our nation in the past (compared to the present). 

Likewise, there is flu and there are other sicknesses every year.  In the past, no one ordered healthy people to lockdown, wear a mask, and take other such measures.  An adult was expected to take personal responsibility for his own health and for his family.

By contrast, the liberals seek (and have long sought) to make the U.S. into a “nanny state”, in which adult citizens are not free but must conform to everything the government tells them to do for their (supposed) “own good”.  For example, the Obamacare statute has a health insurance mandate to compel people to buy health insurance “for their own good” and which includes the specific minimum coverage which the government decides those people must buy.  This is like the government demanding that all people eat a certain minimum quantity of broccoli “for their own good”. 

This is the same mentality as in communist countries, where the government manages everyone’s life and, e.g., tells factories what (and how much) to produce and tells farmers what (and how much) to grow.  Pope Pius XI warned about this communist control of the people, in these words:

Communism, moreover, strips man of his liberty, robs human personality of all its dignity ….[46]

Part of that dignity which Pope Pius XI speaks of, is the dignity of a person taking personal responsibility and being provident for himself and his family. 

Mask-wearing is all about the government controlling the people through power and fear.  Face masks turn people into voiceless submissivesIn mask-wearing, we see an example of government abuse and a furtherance of the “nanny state”.  The “nanny state” mandates (such as mask mandates) are very visible ways in which Russia is spreading her errors to the Western World, as Our Lady of Fatima predicted would occur.[47]

The liberals and mainstream media make a pretense of tolerance but are completely intolerant when they are in control and when people don’t make the same “safety decisions” those liberals demand, because liberals assume that people will not do what is reasonable unless the government compels them to do so.

Mask-wearing promotes evil conduct.

Revolutionary change can only occur in a destabilized society, as George Soros recognizes in the quote above.  Mask-wearing destabilizes society because it emboldens people to commit evil they would not otherwise commit.  That is why the (anti-Catholic, anti-black, bigoted) Klu Klux Klan members wear masks to embolden them in the evil they commit.  Similarly, criminals wear masks because it makes them anonymous. 

That is why many states make it a felony to wear a mask or conceal one’s face in public (with a few exceptions for which masks are permitted).  Here, for example, is the relevant part of Virginia’s criminal mask-wearing statute:

It shall be unlawful for any person over 16 years of age to, with the intent to conceal his identity, wear any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place ….  The violation of any provisions of this section is a Class 6 felony.[48]

The anonymity of actions committed while wearing a mask is like the anonymity of conduct committed in darkness.  That is why Our Lord declares that evildoers love the darkness:

[M]en loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil.  For everyone that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.[49]

Similarly, broad public mask-wearing de-stabilizes society by encouraging the protestors and rioters to commit crimes they would not otherwise commit.  This mask-wearing obstructs the relationships between people and makes people’s interactions more anonymous.

Face-covering promotes aggressive (and unfriendly) conduct against another person whose face is covered.

Not only does wearing a mask encourage a person to act evilly or irresponsibly, but also, when the person acted upon has his face covered, this further encourages aggressive or unfriendly conduct because it dehumanizes the recipient of that conduct.  This is why from time immemorial, executioners covered the faces of the criminals who were being executed (whether by firing squad, lethal injection, electric chair, hanging, etc.).  Covering the criminal’s face de-humanizes the man whom the executioners are about to kill.

The incentive offered to the people for this conformity, is receiving back a part of the normal life that the government stole from the people.

As long as people conform to the mask requirement and wear something that covered their faces, they are not harassed.  They are given the “privilege” of shopping at those stores which are, in turn, granted the “privilege” of being allowed to be open.  (The permissible stores are mostly the big-box stores, to the destruction of the nation’s “mom and pop” businesses.  These big-box corporations almost uniformly promote and support liberal causes.)

Thus, people learned that if they conformed to the mask-wearing order, they could receive the “privilege” of having part (but only part) of their normal life restored to them again.  This is like in communist countries, the government allows the people the “privilege” of working and living with less government harassment if they conform and don’t dissent.  People in communist countries learn that by conforming, they can have at least some aspects of a normal life (at the cost of their soul and their character).  In other words, people are taught that if they want to live a life which is at least partly normal, they have to accept abnormality.

The character of mask mandates as executive orders, does further harm.

The harm to our country is not only caused by ordering everyone to wear masks but also because this is done by “emergency” executive order.  The justification of those orders, in principle, is that they are necessary when an emergency is so urgent that action must occur immediately and there is no time to wait for the legislature to act.  However, the months tick by, one by one, and there is no legislative action, as there would be if this were a true emergency.

This is an important and evil precedent which twists our established form of government.  The abusive executive orders continue without checks or balances, month after month, long after the legislatures could have enacted a law but chose not to.  In fact, some legislatures, e.g., Wisconsin’s, both did not enact any law and also challenged their governor’s lockdown as unconstitutional.[50]

Those who voluntarily promote this societal upheaval and revolution also share the guilt for it.

A person is culpable for the sin of another person when he: 1) consents to that sin; 2) remains silent when he should speak up; or 3) is a partner in that sin.[51] 

All of us, in our own circumstances, must make sure that we do not consent to or voluntarily cooperate with this evil now committed through this corona-scare which is ushering in what the globalists call “rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence”[52] and the “Great Reset” of the world’s “economic and social system” in the wake of the “global health crisis”, requiring a “new social contract” focusing on “social justice”.[53]

Some people have more options than others do to effectively resist the jack boot of the New World Order, firmly pressing on society’s neck.  Plainly, as much as possible, we should avoid scandalizing other people by giving them the impression that we support the liberal agenda. 

Whereas the liberals follow their leaders such as former vice president Joe Biden, in “religiously” wearing masks, conservatives tend to be mask sceptics, like President Trump.  As even the liberal media notes, there is an element of political allegiance displayed in wearing a mask in public.[54]

Further, Our Lord is the Truth.  St. John’s Gospel, 14:6.  We all have a duty to be devoted to the truth and reflect the truth by our outward actions.  If a person is persuaded that the present universal mask-wearing is not a health necessity but rather is a leftist political ruse, then he would avoid voluntarily wearing a mask so that his outward actions would reflect these truths that he knows.  Each such instance of not being cowed by human respect and pressure can help timid Catholics gain strength to join the fight for Christ the King.

We are first and foremost Catholics!  We are subjects of Christ the King!  Everything else we are, is secondary!

[4]           Here is where to find the report promoting this study as important “proof” that masks work as disease control:


[6]           This report can be found here:


[7]           CBS’s 60 Minutes on March 8, 2020, quoted from here:


[8]  (emphasis in the original).


[9]  (emphasis added).

[10]         This California’s Occupation Safety and Health Administration regulation can be found here: (accessed October 28, 2020).


[12]         Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19 – Guidance, World Health Organization (April 6, 2020), found here:


[14]         2020 study by the University of Minnesota, entitled: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy, found at this link: (bracketed words added for clarity).

[15]         Quoted from: bin-Reza F et al. study entitled The use of mask and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: A systematic review of the scientific evidence.  Published in: Resp Viruses 2012;6(4):257-67; available at this link:

[16]           Study:
Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial, published in the American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419, available at this link:

[17]         This chart came from the Cambridge University study entitled:
Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review, published here: Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456.  doi:10.1017/S0950268809991658, and available at this link:


[18]         Offeddu, V. et al. (2017), in a study entitled: Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, found at this link:


[19]         Henning Bundgaard, et al., in a study entitled: Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers, Annals of Internal Medicine, also available at this link:


[20]         “Nm” is the abbreviation for a nanometer, i.e., a billionth of a meter.  Contrast a nanometer to a “μm”, which is a micrometer, i.e., a millionth of a meter.  This means that a μm is one thousand times greater than an nm.

[21]         Balazy, et al., in a study entitled: Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?, published in

Am J Infect Control, 2006 Mar;34(2):51-7, doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2005.08.018, found here:


[22]         Masks Don’t Work: A review of science relevant to COVID-19 social policy by D. G. Rancourt, PhD, 25 June, 2020, (bracketed words added for clarity). 

[23]         Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19 – Guidance, World Health Organization (April 6, 2020), found here: (emphasis added).


[24]         Bader A. et al., Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery, published in: Neurocirugia 2008;19:12-126.


[25]         S. J. Fletcher, et al., Carbon dioxide rebreathing with close fitting face respirator masks, 2006, published in Anaesthesia, and available here:

Article entitled: Driver in crash may have passed out from wearing N95 mask too long: Police, report published here:

Article entitled: Two boys drop dead in China while wearing masks during gym class,  NY Post (May 6, 2020), published here:

[28]         National Taiwan University Hospital, The Physiological Impact of N95 Masks on Medical Staff, 2005, published here:

[29]         Here is the report from left-leaning news outlet, Politico:


“You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider,” Surgeon General Jerome Adams said during an appearance on “Fox & Friends” earlier this month.


[30]         Blaylock RL, Immunoexcitatory mechanisms in glioma proliferation, invasion and occasional metastasis, published in: Surg Neurol Inter 2013;4:15;

Savransky V et al., Chronic intermittent hypoxia induces atherosclerosis, published in: Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2007;175:1290-1297,

[32]         Bader A. et al., Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery, published in: Neurocirugia 2008;19:12-126.


[33]         National Taiwan University Hospital, The Physiological Impact of N95 Masks on Medical Staff, 2005, published here:


[34]         Ong JJY et al. study entitled: Headaches associated with personal protective equipment- A cross-sectional study among frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19, published in: Headache 2020;60(5):864-877,


[35]         Zhu JH et al. in a study titled: Effects of long-duration wearing of N95 respirator and surgical facemask: a pilot study. Published in J Lung Pulm Resp Res 2014:4:97-100,


[36]         Bader A et al., Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery, published in: Neurocirugia 2008;19:12-126.

[37]         National Taiwan University Hospital, The Physiological Impact of N95 Masks on Medical Staff, 2005, published here:

[38]         This is explained further by Dr. Kelly Victory, MD, at this link:


[43]         Bader A et al., Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery, published in: Neurocirugia 2008;19:12-126,

[46]         Divini RedemptorisOn Atheistic Communism, Pope Pius XI, 1937, §10.


[47]         Our Lady of Fatima warned in 1917 that, when she came in the future (viz., in 1929) to ask for the consecration, if the pope delayed this consecration, his delay would cause great harm throughout the world.  Here are Our Lady’s words:


I shall come [viz., in 1929] to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, by the Holy Father and all the bishops of the world.  If my request is heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace.  If not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecution against the Church.


This is a portion of Our Lady’s message during the Third Apparition of Fatima, July 13, 1917 (emphasis added; bracketed words added to clarify the timeline), quoted from The Whole Truth About Fatima, Frére Michel de la Sainte Trinité, translator John Collorafi, vol. II, Immaculate Heart Publications, Buffalo, NY, © 1989 for English translation, pp.281-282.

[49]         St. John’s Gospel, 3:19-20.


[51]            Here is summary of this basic truth about the various ways we can be responsible for another’s sin:


328. When are we answerable for the sins of others? 

We are answerable for the sins of others whenever we either cause them, or share in them, through our own fault. 

329. In how many ways may we either cause or share the guilt of another’s sin? 

We may either cause or share the guilt of another’s sin in nine ways:


1.    By counsel.


2.    By command.

3.    By consent.

4.    By provocation.

5.    By praise or flattery.

6.    By concealment.

7.    By being a partner in the sin.

8.    By silence.

9.    By defending the ill done.


Quoted from The Penny Catechism, Nihil Obstat, Joannes M.T. Barton, S.T.D., L.S.S., Censor deputatus, Imprimatur, Georgius L. Craven, Epus Sebastopolis, Vicarius Generalis, Westmonasterii, die 20a Junii, 1958, p.57 (emphasis added).


The Overblown Corona-Scare

Catholic Candle note: Catholic Candle usually focuses directly on Faith and morals.  However, sometimes issues in society have a severe indirect impact on Faith and morals and should be addressed.  Below, we examine one of those issues which has a severe indirect impact on Faith and morals, viz., the overblown corona-scare.  We put COVID-19 in perspective, to help readers face this challenge in which Providence placed us, for the glory of God and for our good.

In our current corona-crazy world, people are acting strangely because they are frightened by (supposed) imminent death from COVID-19, or they are intimidated by abusive governmental lockdown orders.

People have been coerced into failing to gather to sanctify the Sunday together (which is important, even in the present Great Apostasy, when we have no Masses and no uncompromising priests, at least in most places in the world).  People have been bludgeoned into letting go of their humanity and are fearfully acting as if their fellow man was a threatening virus-culture rather than a fellow child of God and fellow soldier in the Church Militant.

Lastly, another reason to examine the exaggerated corona death toll is because it is a prominent example showing (for anyone who needs further proof) that the mainstream media is unreliable as a source of the truth concerning what is going on in the world.  It is Catholic Candle’s hope that this present article is a helpful reminder to our readers that they should distrust the mainstream media because it lies and “spins” the truth.

This article uses the statistics which were current when the article was written in August and September, 2020.  The article mostly uses data from the U.S. because there is so much of this data available.  For the most part, we do not include the data from the rest of the world because that information is less available to us and also in order to avoid this article becoming too cumbersome. 

However, the data we have from other countries supports the theses of this article.  That support makes sense because human nature is the same in all countries, COVID-19 is (apparently) the same everywhere, and the lockdowns are broadly similar, although more severe and abusive in some places than in others.

There are three aspects to the COVID-19 (so-called) “pandemic”, which help us to put the “COVID-19 death” totals in perspective:

1.    COVID-19 is in the same “ballpark” with (and has the same fatality profile) as the annual flu;

2.    The collateral deaths caused by the government lockdowns likely greatly exceed the deaths caused by COVID-19, even if the inflated COVID-19 death tolls were the true ones; and

3.    The COVID-19 death numbers are unreliable and inflated

Below, we examine each of these points.


1.   COVID-19 is in the same “ballpark” with (and has the same fatality profile) as the annual flu

There are almost no deaths of younger and healthier people.  For example, the latest CDC numbers (from August 15, 2020) show 309 deaths of persons 24 years of age and younger.[1]  More than 90% of COVID cases are asymptomatic and people usually don’t know they ever had the virus.[2]

Almost all persons who were listed as “COVID-19 deaths” were retirement age (65 or older), especially over 85 years old.[3]  Almost all of them (94%) had co-morbidities, meaning they were being treated for something else which was a known lethal condition.[4]

In fact, the persons who were counted as “COVID deaths” had an average of 2.6 co-morbidities – meaning that more than half of them had three co-morbidities (compared to the number who had 2 co-morbidities).[5]

A person who receives only the slanted, deceptive news of the mainstream media would not be aware of the truth concerning the relative lack of danger for most people.  Instead, people are given the impression that everyone is in great danger of dying at any time from COVID-19.  A recent Gallup poll reveals how ignorant and scared the American people are (because of the mainstream media’s and Democrats’ fear-mongering).  Look at these two graphs of Gallup Poll results, comparing reality and misperception:

This graph is found here:

This graph is found here:

Despite the false perception promoted by the mainstream media and the Democrats, the reality is that COVID-19 is in the same “ballpark” with, and has the same fatality profile as the annual flu, viz., it is usually something that does not affect most people and, if it does affect us, it is usually a little “blip” in our month.  (See, the two graphs above.)  However, older people in poor health have to take extra precautions for COVID-19, just like they should regarding the annual flu. 

To put this in perspective, there were 80,000 U.S. fatalities in the 2017-2018 annual flu season, and this number was so unremarkable that this death toll passed virtually unnoticed at the time.[6]


No one was locked down in 2017-2018 because of 80,000 flu deaths.  The economy was not destroyed because of that annual flu.  There were no masking orders, no churches closed, and no other oppressive government orders.  In a country the size of the U.S., with over 330 million people, a lot of people die every day and every year. 

Not only is the current COVID-19 scare overblown, but even now, some years of the annual flu, e.g., 1968, have killed more people per capita than COVID-19.  (We do not even mention the far-worse 1918 flu season.) 

It goes without saying that in none of those years – which were worse than the current year – was there a lockdown or other over-reaction, such as we see in the current year.


2.   The collateral deaths caused by the government lockdowns likely greatly exceed the deaths caused by COVID-19, even if the inflated COVID-19 death toll were the true one

In the section above, we saw that COVID-19 is in the same “ballpark” with (and has the same fatality profile as) the annual flu, viz., it is usually something that does not affect us and if it does affect us, it is usually a little “blip” in our month.  However, older people in poor health (especially with multiple co-morbidities) have to take extra precautions for COVID-19, just like they should regarding the annual flu. 

That older, sicker persons are in a different situation than the general population, is underscored by the fact that 42% of all U.S. “COVID-19 deaths” occur in nursing homes, although those facilities contain only 0.62% of the U.S. population.[7]

In the U.S., the states controlled by the (more liberal) Democratic party locked down more severely their general populations of younger and healthier people (compared to Republican states).  However, the Democratic governors of four of these states killed thousands of their most vulnerable people (who were in nursing homes) by forcing those nursing homes to receive other persons who tested positive for COVID-19.[8]

This is exactly the opposite of what should have happened!  Younger, healthier people should have been allowed to go on with their lives, while the government should have allowed nursing homes to protect the most vulnerable people, like those nursing homes protect their residents every year from the annual flu. 


Self-inflicted harm and the deaths from delayed medical care, during the corona-isolation

Among the many severe tolls taken by the corona-scare is the increases of suicides, drug overdoses, and deaths from delayed care for other serious illness because of the draconian corona-lockdowns.

It is obvious to any person of common sense that the severe lockdowns would cause great collateral harm.  Here are how more than 500 doctors described this harm in their public letter to President Trump:

It is impossible to overstate the short, medium, and long-term harm to people’s health with a continued shutdown. …  Losing a job is one of life’s most stressful events, and the effect on a person’s health is not lessened because it also has happened to 30 million other people.  Keeping schools and universities closed is incalculably detrimental for children, teenagers, and young adults for decades to come.

The millions of casualties of a continued shutdown will be hiding in plain sight, but they will be called alcoholism, homelessness, suicide, heart attack, stroke, or kidney failure.   …  In youths it will be called financial instability, unemployment, despair, drug addiction, unplanned pregnancies, poverty, and abuse.[9]

Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security examined the idea of “Large-Scale Quarantine Measures” in its November 4, 2006 study entitled: Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza.  Here is what that university study concluded:

The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration.[10]

Although many people gullibly accept the false narratives of the mainstream media, we see now – by looking at the results of the lockdowns around us – why rational studies and doctors (like those quoted above) have rejected/opposed such lockdowns.

Before discussing the dramatic increase in suicides during the corona-scare, we note that this suicide increase was paralleled by a dramatic increase in help calls to suicide hotlines.  Here are some examples of different suicide hotlines with different increases:

  Two national hotlines had increases of 47% and 300% respectively.[11]

  Another national suicide hotline had a 40% increase.[12]

  Another national suicide hotline had an increase of 891% in March 2020, compared to March 2019.[13]

  Two other suicide hotlines had an 800% increase in call volume.[14]

These increased suicide “help” calls are attributed by those hotline organizations to “social distancing” and “social isolation” suffered because of the lockdowns.[15]

Indeed, common sense makes predictable the severely negative effects of the lockdowns, because we are human.  These lockdowns are inhuman and have never been tried before in the history of mankind: viz., isolate everyone in a nation from all his friends and fellow humans – and isolate each nation throughout almost the entire world.  This is rash and foolish in the extreme!

It is no wonder that one of the epidemiologists who advises the British government called the lockdowns a panic response.  Here are his words:

Lockdown was a panic measure and I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale, the cure was worse than the disease.  …  It was always a temporary measure that simply delayed the stage of the epidemic we see now.  It was never going to change anything fundamentally; however low we drove down the number of cases …. 

We absolutely should never return to a position where children cannot play or go to school.  …  I suspect right now more people are being harmed by the collateral effects of lockdown than by Covid-19.  … 

Any restrictions imposed should be considered measures and should protect those who needed it while letting everyone live more freely.  …  Instead of concentrating on schools, we should have been concentrating on care homes. We were not really thinking about where the risk lies, just on suppressing the virus.[16]

Regarding the suicide death toll, obviously, the 2020 suicide death toll will not be certain until after the end of 2020.  However, the current projection for suicide/drug overdoses deaths is about 150,000 in the U.S.[17]  To estimate how many of these deaths are due to the extreme corona-isolation, we subtract the total for the latest year for which there is data: 2018.  In 2018, there were 48,344 self-inflicted deaths (suicides and drug overdoses) in the U.S.[18]

Let’s round that 2018 number up to 50,000 deaths.  Thus, according to the best projections we have, suicides and drug overdoses in our times of extreme corona-isolation are estimated to be about 100,000 greater this year than before this corona-scare.  In other words, self-inflicted deaths are 300% of the 2018 number!

The death toll from COVID-19 is extremely inflated, as we see in section three of this article.  However, this death toll is supposedly estimated to be about 183,000.  One way to put this supposed death toll in perspective, is that if we take this number and subtract the increase in self-inflicted deaths because of the corona-isolation, we get 83,000 (i.e., 183,000 – 100,000 = 83,000).  This is approximately the fatality total from the 2017-2018 annual flu which was so unremarkable that this flu death toll went almost unreported then.  Yet, politicians over-react in 2020 and ruin the country’s life.

But there is more: What is not evident in the above comparison of the numbers (viz., “COVID deaths” vs. collateral deaths), is that the deaths blamed on COVID-19 are almost entirely of older, retired people with multiple co-morbidities, most of whom are given only a relatively short time to live even without COVID-19.  By contrast, the suicide and drug overdose deaths occur in the younger and otherwise healthier people who have a far longer life expectancy.  In other words, each “COVID death” represents a far smaller number of years of life lost compared to the suicide/drug overdose deaths. 

Of course, we don’t want anyone to die, but we recognize that a sick, older person losing the last year of his life – as tragic as that is – is not the same as a high schooler losing that last 60 years of his life.

Below, we quote how the U.S. Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) sounded the alarm about the current suicide/drug overdose rate for high schoolers during our corona-isolation.  These COVID-19 lockdown death tolls are far greater than the corresponding “COVID-19 death” toll:

But there has been another cost that we’ve seen, particularly in high schools. We’re seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than we are deaths from COVID.  We’re seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose that are above that we had as background than we are seeing the deaths from COVID.[19]

Similar spikes in suicide are occurring elsewhere in the world, e.g., in Australia.[20]

Another of the many great harms inflicted by the lockdowns (which are especially extreme in Democratic states) is deaths that occurred because of postponing medical treatment for other diseases, due to the COVID-19 lockdowns.  Those lockdown deaths – which would not have otherwise occurred – are from a variety of causes, e.g., heart attacks, strokes, and cancer.

We don’t know of a comprehensive estimated total of non-COVID-19 deaths which would have been prevented, in the absence of the corona-scare and lockdowns.  However, here are some datapoints:

  Looking at only two of the many types of cancer (breast cancer and colorectal cancer) the National Cancer Institute predicts there will be 10,000 excess deaths in the U.S. over the next 10 years because of pandemic-related delays in diagnosing and treating these tumors.[21]

  Looking at only the drop in cancer referrals, admissions, and diagnoses, compared to pre-COVID levels, one study (using what it called “conservative assumptions”) estimated that there will be 33,890 additional (i.e., excess) cancer deaths during the next year, in the U.S. because of that delayed treatment.[22]

  Although we do not have non-COVID increased-fatality numbers for the entire country for heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease, we did find statistics of percentage increases in deaths (of persons who did not have COVID-19) from these four diseases, in five Democratic states (Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania).  These five states were among the most extremely locked down.  In these states, in March and April 2020, compared to January and February 2020, there was a:


·         96% increase in diabetes deaths;


·         89% increase in heart disease deaths;


·         64% increase in Alzheimer’s disease deaths; and


·         35% increase in stroke deaths.[23]

Also, in New York City (which suffered a more severe lockdown than almost anywhere), there was a 398% increase in heart disease deaths and a 356% increase in diabetes deaths.[24]

With this data, let’s do our best to estimate, in a rough way, how many deaths these percentages (of additional deaths) would mean throughout the United States.  Let us use the latest national numbers (from 2018) for these four causes of death and let us suppose those percentage increases in deaths from lockdown-delay-in-treatment were the same nationwide.  In other words, let’s use the 2018 national total deaths from each of those four causes, multiplied by the percentage increases given above, to calculate the excess lockdown deaths from each of those four causes.

This formula means that the lockdown-delays-in-treatment caused:

  81,548 additional diabetes deaths (84,946 deaths x 96% = 81,948)

  583,289 additional heart disease deaths (655,381 x 89% = 583,289)

  78,092 additional Alzheimer’s disease deaths (122,019 x 64% = 78,092)

  51,734 additional stroke deaths (147,810 x 35% = 51,734)[25]

Thus, we see, as a “ballpark” number, that the total of these lockdown-delay-in-treatment deaths is 794,663 additional deaths in the United States.  Let’s be clear about these numbers.  They are only rough.  On the one hand, they would seem to be overstated because they use the data of five Democratic states, whereas other (Republican) states exercised a much “lighter touch” in their lockdowns.  So, we would expect that the percentages (of increased deaths) in these Democratic strongholds would be higher than in other parts of the country.  This would mean that the national percentages for these lockdown-delay-in-treatment deaths would be lower than in those five Democratic states.

On the other hand, these numbers undercount the lockdown-delay-in-treatment deaths in another way: viz., those percentages only pertain to the increased death from four causes.  Since there are roughly 100,000 self-inflicted deaths, plus cancer lockdown-delay deaths, and delay-deaths from other causes too, all those numbers should be added to the total of the lockdown-delay deaths from these four causes (794,663) to approximate the additional U.S. deaths.  We see similar collateral deaths from corona-isolation in other countries too.[26]

For the present purpose, we are not trying to get an exact number of the collateral, lockdown-isolation deathsNor are we saying that we know there are 800,000 additional deaths.  Rather, we are pointing out that these collateral deaths from the corona-lockdowns provide a valuable context to our assessment of the current corona-scare. 

It is easy to see how the collateral deaths caused by the government lockdowns could easily exceed – even very greatly exceed – that inflated 183,000 COVID death number which is claimed.  Moreover, when comparing those collateral “lockdown deaths” with supposed “COVID-19 deaths”, the comparison is even more dramatic when we consider the number of years lost by people, compared to the number of lives lost (as shown above).

Perhaps someone might suppose that the “COVID-19 deaths” would be far more numerous if the governments did not order the harsh lockdowns which caused the huge numbers of collateral deaths.  That supposition is false, as will be shown in a future Catholic Candle article.  In fact, those lockdowns were unnecessary and did not help.


3.   The COVID-19 death numbers are unreliable and inflated

Above, we saw that the collateral deaths caused by the government lockdowns could easily exceed – even very greatly exceed – that inflated 183,000 “COVID-19 death” number which is claimed.

Now, we examine that “COVID-19 death” total and see if it is reliable. 


The overcount of “COVID-19 deaths”

There is a huge difference between dying with COVID-19 and dying from (i.e., because of) COVID-19.  Let’s illustrate the difference: the CDC estimates that adults will come down with 2-3 common colds every year.[27]  With colds being so common, it is common to die with a common cold, even though not because of a common cold.  If someone died while he had a common cold, we would not say he “died from the common cold”.

Well, “COVID-19 deaths” are counted to include anyone who dies with COVID-19 even though not because of (from) COVID-19.  This is similar to counting a person as a “common cold death” if the person died while he had a common cold.

Here is how Dr. Deborah Birx (coordinator of the coronavirus taskforce) explained this U.S. method of counting COVID-19 deaths:

There are other countries that if you had a preexisting condition and let’s say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem some countries are recording [this] as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death. … [In the US] if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.[28]

With this foolishly broad overcounting, which no one ever uses for other sicknesses, there is a greatly exaggerated COVID-19 death toll.  There is not only the everyday overcount we would expect, of sick, frail, elderly people who have multiple co-morbidities, who die of something else (like a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, etc.) but who are counted as a “COVID-19 death” because they died with COVID-19. 

But there are also striking absurdities which are consistent with this official policy of counting every death as a “COVID-19 death” as long as the person had COVID-19 when he died, e.g.,

  A person who died in a motorcycle accident was listed as a COVID-19 death.[29]

  A person who died of suicide was listed as a COVID-19 death.[30]

But the COVID-19 overcount is even more exaggerated because a person need not even be known to have COVID-19.  Rather, current CDC protocols allow a person to be reported as a “COVID-19 death” as long as there is an assumption that COVID-19 somehow contributed to the death.  Here is the CDC’s instruction:

COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.[31]

Thus, when the death certificate lists COVID-19 on it, the CDC and the mainstream media report the person as if COVID-19 caused that person’s death.  For example, here is one instance of this type of falsification (this one from National Public Radio):

Today, more than 6 million Americans have been infected with the coronavirus and some 183,000 have died from it ….[32]

Here is another example of this type of falsification (this one from the Washington Post):

At least 191,000 people have died of the coronavirus in the United States


The truth is that the COVID-19 death total is really of people who died in some way connected with COVID-19, but not because of COVID-19.  These people did not all have pneumonia-type COVID-19 symptoms, nor were they all even known to have ever had COVID-19.

In fact, the “COVID-19 death” toll includes many people based on statistical suppositions.  For example, early on, New York adopted the policy of counting as “COVID-19 deaths” the number of people who died in excess of a statistically average year, even though those people never tested positive for COVID-19 or had any symptoms suggesting COVID-19.[34]  The unreasonableness and inaccuracy of this policy is obvious, since “half the time” (even without COVID-19) the fatalities will be above average – maybe even far above average – to offset the other “half” of the years when the death toll is below average.


Perverse financial incentives to count persons as “COVID-19 deaths”

We see (above) that the CDC authorizes hospitals to count as “COVID-19 deaths” all people whom they “assume” had COVID-19 which somehow contributed to the deaths.  These assumptions are made more common by the perverse financial incentives pressuring cash-strapped hospitals to “assume” that COVID-19 had some role contributing to patients’ deaths.  For example, the U.S. government pays hospitals a 20% premium in Medicare payments if the hospital “assumes” that a patient was a “COVID-19 death”.[35]

Any reasonable person would know that under these circumstances, there will be lots of “assuming” that COVID-19 had some connection to the death.  In fact, some whistleblower doctors have publicly complained that their hospitals pressure them to add COVID-19 as an assumed “contributing cause” on their patients’ death certificates.[36]


Summary of this section so far, of the reasons “COVID-19 death” numbers are inflated

The “COVID-19 death” totals are inflated because a person can be counted if:

  The person had COVID-19 when he died (regardless of what actually caused his death); or

  The person was assumed to have had COVID-19 when he died; or

  There was a statistical increase in deaths above the expected average, regardless of how the persons died.

Further, we see (above) that there is a large perverse incentive for hospitals to lie and to say that a person was a “COVID-19 death” so the hospital would get more money.


Let’s try to estimate the true number of persons whose deaths were caused by COVID-19

How do we figure out how many so-called “COVID-19 deaths” were really caused by COVID-19?  One way to roughly approximate this number is to consider what COVID-19 is and then look at the CDC numbers.

COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by the virus named SARS-CoV-2. The “SARS” in “SARS-CoV-2” stands for “severe acute respiratory syndrome” (which is sometimes also referred to as acute respiratory distress syndrome or adult respiratory distress syndrome).[37]

The CDC explains that sometimes COVID-19 is severe enough that it leads to death by progressing to pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).[38] 

Here is another way this causation is stated:

The virus that causes COVID-19 is designated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The major morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 is largely due to acute viral pneumonitis that evolves to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).[39]

This is why, last spring, the CDC directors used a “case definition of COVID-19 requiring a diagnosis of pneumonia” in an article they wrote for the New England Journal of Medicine.[40]

Thus, let’s look at the death toll of persons whose death certificates at least mentioned pneumonia (regardless of what they died of).  In the CDC chart below[41], you see that there are 71,700 persons who died between February 1, 2020 and August 31, 2020, who at least had influenza or pneumonia when they died (regardless of the actual cause of their death).

Again, this total is 71,700 deaths.  Let’s count that as a rough proxy for how many people with COVID-19 actually died from it, since these people at least had influenza or had the pneumonia which accompanies COVID-19 when people actually die from the disease.

This data is the best we have although, obviously, to the extent that persons had COVID-19 and pneumonia but died of something else, such as a heart attack, these persons would be included in this total and would overcount COVID-19 deaths.  Further, to the extent that these persons had influenza and not pneumonia, they also would be an overcount.  But let’s “be generous” and count them all, to approximate a real COVID-19 death toll.  That number (71,700) is still only 40% of the claimed total of COVID-19 deaths (183,000).

It might seem that 71,700 is a big number.  However, the U.S. is a country of 330 million people.  In fact, about 2.8 million people die in the U.S. during a typical year.[42]

So, although we don’t want anyone to die, nonetheless pneumonia (and influenza) deaths are currently average for the entire country, not above average.  See the current CDC map below.


Map taken from:



We could talk about other countries too.  However, we will only briefly talk about one other country, Italy, because it has been mentioned so often in the mainstream media’s corona-scare.  Italy has the second-oldest population in the world.[43]  Just as the annual flu strikes more severely in elderly people with co-morbidities, so does COVID-19 too, as we saw in section one of this article. 

However, there is a dishonesty in the reporting of Italy’s COVID-19 fatalities, just as is true in the statistics for the U.S. and other countries.  Like for the U.S., the mainstream media attributes to COVID-19 all deaths in which the persons had some connection to the virus.  In other words, Italy’s COVID-19 fatality statistics include all the people who died with COVID-19, even when they die of something else and their deaths are not caused by COVID-19.

Here is how this is explained by Prof. Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health:

The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.  On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three ….[44]

Thus, looking at how many people – even among Italy’s more elderly population – have died from COVID-19 as the cause, only 12% of those attributed in Italy as “COVID-19 deaths” showed a “direct causality from coronavirus”.  In other words, Italy’s “COVID-19 death” toll is inflated by 800%!


Summary of this article

There are many reasons that it is plain that the corona-scare is overblown.  The reality is that:

  COVID-19 is in the same “ballpark” with (and has the same fatality profile as) the annual flu;

  The collateral deaths caused by the government lockdowns likely greatly exceed the deaths caused by COVID-19, even if the inflated “COVID-19 death” toll were the true one; and

  The “COVID-19 death” numbers are unreliable and inflated.


Lastly, beware of the lies and “spin” in the reports of the mainstream media!

[16]         Assessment by Professor Mark Woolhouse OBE, University of Edinburgh professor of infectious disease epidemiology and member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours that advises the British Government.


[19]         Robert Redfield, MD, Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

[25]         All of the above death total data was taken from:

[28] (emphasis added).


[33]         Washington Post Evening Edition, September 15, 2020, article entitled: Trump health appointee apologizes to HHS staff after accusing scientists of ‘sedition’ (emphasis added).


[36]         See, e.g., one doctor telling a major new outlet this:

[40]         Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted, by Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., H. Clifford Lane, M.D., and Robert R. Redfield, M.D., New England Journal of Medicine, (emphasis added).


Should nations be run by specialized “experts”?

In our “corona-crazy” time[1], our political leaders receive much advice from medical “experts”.  Some leaders are attacked in the media for not following the advice of the “experts”.  For example, radical Democrat, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, attacked President Trump for not “listening to the medical experts”.[2]  Pelosi means Trump was not making decisions which followed the opinions of the “experts”.

Even if we assumed that the medical “experts” all agree (which they do not) concerning how to respond to the current corona-craziness, who should run the country?  Should Trump (or any political leader) simply do whatever the health “experts” tell him to do?

In other words, should specialized “experts” run the government and the nation?  No!  A nation (and other political bodies) should no more be run by specialized “experts” who are focused on a particular field than an individual man should make all of his decisions based on one of his passions which is focused on a particular desire.


Let’s look at how an individual man should weigh competing concerns when making his decisions

A man has many desires such as food and sleep.  He has many passions such as fear and anger.  These passions and desires are good and are part of the nature God gave him.  But a man should not be ruled by those desires and passions.  For example, he should not allow his fears to rule him. 

Instead, man should be ruled by reason, while taking reasonable account of “advice” he receives from his passions.  So, e.g., a man should “consult” his fears while his reason is weighing what decision to make.  But if a man’s fear rules him then he acts wrongly because he acts as if nothing is more important than to be safe.  He lives (and wastes his life) locked up in safety, whereas there are many things more important than safety.

If a man’s desire for food ruled him, then he acts as if nothing is more important than eating.  His decisions would lack balance (and temperance) and all of his decisions and actions would serve the goal of eating.

If a man’s desire for sleep ruled him, then he would act as if nothing is more important than sleeping and his need for sleep would not be balanced with other parts of life.  The man would get a full night’s sleep every night but would lose his job because he does not come to work on time.

If a man’s desire for health (or fear of disease) is allowed to rule him, then he would stay away from all possible health risks and he would waste his life in useless fear.  Here is how billionaire Howard Hughes allowed himself to be ruled by the desire for health (or the fear of disease):

Howard Hughes – the billionaire aviator, motion-picture producer and business tycoon – spent most of his life trying to avoid germs.  Toward the end of his life, he lay naked in bed in darkened hotel rooms in what he considered a germ-free zone.  He wore tissue boxes on his feet to protect them.  And he burned his clothing if someone near him became ill.  …

He wrote a staff manual on how to open a can of peaches – including directions for removing the label, scrubbing the can down until it was bare metal, washing it again and pouring the contents into a bowl without touching the can to the bowl.[3]

This is unreasonable!  The correct course is for a man’s intellect to rule him and to make decisions which take into account all of the various desires and passions as far as they are reasonable.  A person should take risks, act reasonably, weigh the different competing concerns, the advantages and disadvantages, all in light of his Final End and the Common Good.


Now let’s apply this principle to see how a leader must make decisions for a nation

A nation’s leader should act like a man consulting his passions as far as they are reasonable, but making his decisions with his intellect.  A nation’s leader should be a man of reason and prudence, analogous to the intellect in that individual man (in the example above).  This nation’s leader (just like the intellect of an individual man) must balance competing concerns, advantages and disadvantages of different courses of conduct, and make decisions for the Common Good.

This leader should take into reasonable account the advice of “specialists” and “experts” but he should not necessarily follow their advice.  This is analogous to an individual man taking into account the “advice” of his other faculties (such as the desire for food which reminds him that he should maintain his strength and his health by eating when reasonable and appropriate).

So, a nation’s leader should receive advice from military experts.  But these military advisors tend to elevate the importance of military concerns – which is the focus of their careers – often downplaying other important aspects of life.  The nation’s leader should no more slavishly follow the advice of such an expert than an individual man should slavishly follow one of his passions, e.g., fear – whose single-focus is avoiding danger. 

The advice of this military expert (like the individual man’s passion of fear) should be weighed by reason and then the nation’s leader should make an independent judgment what is best for the nation. 

Likewise, other specialized “experts” (e.g., doctors), tend to focus mainly on the concerns of their own specialized field (e.g., medicine).  So, a nation’s leader should no more follow – slavishly – the advice of an expert in infectious disease prevention, than a man should slavishly follow his passion whose single-focus is food.  Instead, the advice of the experts should be weighed by the leader before he makes an independent judgment what best promotes the Common Good of the nation.



If a nation’s leader is not “listening to the infectious disease experts”, this does not tell us that he is wrong.  It might be better not to follow them in the particular circumstances.

A nation’s leader should not be singularly focused on disease prevention or any other single aspect of national life.  He must weigh competing concerns and make a prudential judgment what is best for the country, based on the Common Good.

[1]           There is evidence that the danger of the coronavirus (COVID-19) is greatly exaggerated in order to justify heavy–handed government intrusion and destruction of rightful liberty.  However, even if this virus were terrifying and not exaggerated, this virus presents the issue of whether our leaders should simply follow “the experts” in making their decisions.

Climate-Change serves to usher in the New World Order

Catholic Candle note:  This article pertains to the hoax that there is a human-caused, climate-change emergency.  The article does not pertain to the natural cycles of the climate which result in no year’s weather being identical to any other year’s weather, nor any century’s weather being identical to any other century’ weather.  Those natural fluctuations have always occurred and always will occur.  There are long-term cycles and short-term cycles.  That is how God created the world.

The second half of the article (below) discusses how the conciliar popes have promoted an important goal of the enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  However, a reader would be mistaken if he assumed that these popes’ cooperation in this evil somehow means that they lost the papacy.

Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism.  Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist.  On the contrary, we published a series of articles showing that sedevacantism is false (and also showing that former Pope Benedict is not still the pope).  Read the articles here: 


In the 1970s, the government and media hyped a global-cooling climate scare which they called “the new ice age” – until it became too clear to everyone that the world was not cooling in any relevant way.[1]

Then, beginning in the 1980s, the climate scare was global-warming – until it became very clear that the evidence did not support this hoax.[2]


Consequently, the New World Order elites (working for a one-world government) began promoting “climate change” as their preferred climate “emergency” because this allows them to use all bad weather to further their power-grab agenda. 

Moreover, normal “bad” weather is now often hyped in the extreme.  Here are the words of one Time magazine writer who contrasts this current hype to earlier times when routine “bad” weather was merely treated as routine:

Now, every cold front that threatens to slicken roads and cause airport delays along the Eastern corridor (where, not merely coincidentally, almost all network TV news executives live and work) has become urgent news.  And not just in winter.  Springtime thunderstorms, summer heat waves, the first cold snap of the fall — all of them get breathless treatment, often accompanied by a barrage of scary stats: “14 states under severe weather watches”; “24 million people at risk for the possibility of tornadoes”; “43 million people at risk for flash flooding.” I grew up in Kansas City, Mo., in what used to be known as Tornado Alley.  In the late spring and early summer, we were always at risk.  It never seemed to make the national news.[3]

Not only is routine bad weather now hyped in the extreme, but the climate catastrophes of the past are ignored.  The examples are too numerous to count.  For example, in the Central American Country of Belize:

In 1931 an unnamed hurricane destroyed over two-thirds of the buildings in Belize City and killed more than 1,000 people.  In 1955 Hurricane Janet leveled the northern town of Corozal.  Only six years later, Hurricane Hattie struck the central coastal area, with winds in excess of 186 mph and a storm surge (ocean tide) of more than 13 feet.  Hattie was the second hurricane to devastate Belize City, in only thirty years.[4]

Who could doubt that, if those catastrophes occurred now, they would be used as “proof” that climate change is real?

Further, our fallen human nature makes it easy for the New World Order elites to succeed in this climate-scare fraud because fallen man has always been quick to exaggerate any current weather problems and to suppose that the weather was better in the past.  Here is how St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, explained 1600 years ago how fallen man unreasonably tends to suppose that the weather is becoming more extreme:

Not only did our elders complain about their days, their grandparents too complained about their [own] days.  People have never been pleased with the days they lived in.  But the days of the ancestors please their descendants, and they too were pleased with the days they hadn’t experienced – and that’s precisely why they thought them pleasant.  It’s what’s present that is sharply felt.  I don’t mean it comes nearer, but it touches the heart every day.  Practically every year when we feel the cold we say “It’s never been so cold.”  “It’s never been so hot.”  “It,” “it” – “it” is always in our minds.  But blessed is the man whom You instruct, Lord, to claim him from baleful days, while a pit is being dug for the sinner.[5]


The climate change scare aims at ushering in the power-grab of the New World Order

The purpose of the climate-change hoax is a power-grab.  This hoax aims at destroying what remains of freedom and capitalism[6] in the world’s largest capitalist nation (the U.S.) and destroying national sovereignty to pave the way for a New World Orderi.e., global governance.

This truth was admitted by Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, in February 2015.  At a news conference in Brussels, she admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.  Here are her words:

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change [i.e. get rid of] the economic development model [i.e., capitalism] that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.[7]

Referring to the Paris Climate Accord which she was promoting, Figueres added:

This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.[8]

Another of the U.N.’s top climate officials, Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer, also admitted that the climate-change scare is not to save the environment but to redistribute the world’s wealth.  Edenhofer, who was co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group III, made this admission in an interview with the Swiss Newspaper, Neue Zürcher Zeitung.  Here are Edenhofer’s words:

One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dying or ozone hole.  …  [O]ne has to say clearly: we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy.[9]

Currently, in the U.S., one aspect of the climate-change hoax (and socialist power-grab), is the Democratic Party’s Green New Deal proposal.  Here is how this proposal is described by the (liberal) New York Times: 

What is the Green New Deal?

The Green New Deal is a congressional resolution that lays out a grand plan for tackling climate change.  Introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, the proposal calls on the federal government to wean the United States from fossil fuels and curb planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions across the economy.[10]  …

The resolution uses as its guide two major reports issued last year by the United Nations and by federal scientists who warned that if global temperatures continue to rise, the world is headed for more intense heat waves, wildfires and droughts.[11]

Sponsor, U.S. Representative Ocasio-Cortez, declared that our continued existence requires the Green New Deal.  Here are her words:

Our goal is to treat Climate Change like the serious, existential threat it is by drafting an ambitious solution on the scale necessary – aka a Green New Deal – to get it done.[12]

Examining the Green New Deal shows that it is a collection of goals long sought by the socialists and communists.  It requires Federal Government control throughout many broad parts of people’s lives.  Among many other evils, this proposal mandates the Federal Government to pass many unattainable socialist laws requiring:

·         all carbon emissions are eliminated;

·         all people in the United States have a free higher education;

·         to enforce the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;


·         all people of the United States have free high-quality health care;


·         all people of the United States have affordable, safe, and adequate housing;


·         all people of the United States have healthy and affordable food;


·         all people of the United States have access to nature;


·         all employers are forced to give paid leave and paid vacations to their employees; and


·         many other mandates of socialism.[13]

As explained above, the Green New Deal’s principal sponsor in the U.S. House of Representatives is liberal New York Democrat, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  Concerning this Green New Deal, her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, (who has since left his job) revealed that the Green New Deal is not about “saving the planet”.  Here are his words about the Green New Deal:

It wasn’t originally a climate thing at all … we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.[14]

The New World Order elite is marshalling all of its forces to push the climate-change scare as a means of convincing the world’s population that the climate emergency gives people no choice but to accept unprecedented government control – especially globalist control – of all aspects of life.[15] 


The conciliar popes declare we need a world government to solve our climate emergency

The New World Order elites have been tirelessly working to install on the papal throne a pope who furthers their goal of one-world government.  This allows those elites to use the incomparable power of the papacy to advance the New World Order power-grab.

Here is how the Carbonari (the Italian Masons) described their plan to subvert and harness the power of the papacy:

[W]e can conspire at our ease, and arrive little by little at the end we have in view.  … 

The Pope, whoever he may be, will never come to the secret societies. It is for the secret societies to come first to the Church, in the resolve to conquer the two.  The work which we have undertaken is not the work of a day, nor of a month, nor of a year. It may last many years, a century perhaps, but in our ranks the soldier dies and the fight continues.  … 

That which we ought to demand, that which we should seek and expect, as the Jews expected the Messiah, is a Pope according to our wants.  Alexander VI., with all his private crimes, would not suit us, for he never erred in religious matters. Clement XIV., on the contrary, would suit us from head to foot.  Borgia was a libertine, a true sensualist of the eighteenth century strayed into the fifteenth.  He has been anathematized, notwithstanding his vices, by all the voices of philosophy and incredulity, and he owes that anathema to the vigor with which he defended the Church.  … 

We have the little finger of the successor of St. Peter engaged in the plot, and that little finger is of more value for our crusade than all the Innocents, the Urbans, and the St. Bernards of Christianity.  We do not doubt that we shall arrive at that supreme term of all our efforts; but when? but how? The unknown does not yet manifest itself.  Nevertheless, as nothing should separate us from the plan traced out; as, on the contrary, all things should tend to it, — as if success were to crown the work scarcely sketched ….

You will have fished up a Revolution in Tiara and Cope, marching with Cross and banner—a Revolution which it will need but to be spurred on a little to put the four quarters of the world on fire.[16]

This Masonic plan having largely succeeded, the post-Vatican II popes promote the globalist agenda in many ways, including promotion of the climate-change scare.

Shortly after Pope Francis’ election, the Masons declared that he was a plan (i.e., “a design”) fulfilled.  Here are the words of Nicola Spinello, Adjunct-Vicar Grand Master of the Masons of Piazza del Gesù:

I believe that this pope [viz., Francis] is the realization of a design that has long wanted to be adopted.[17]

Pope Francis has hopped onto the climate-scare bandwagon.  He declared that “one of the most serious and worrying phenomena of our time [is] climate change.”[18]  To respond to the supposed climate emergency, Pope Francis declared the need for a global government.  Here are his words:

The twenty-first century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of the nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tends to prevail over the political.  Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, which functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments and empowered to impose sanctions[19]

Former Pope Benedict XVI likewise promoted a global government to protect the environment.  Here are his words:

In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.  One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.[20]



We see the climate-change hoax being used to scare people into allowing destruction of national sovereignty and control of the world’s population.  Unbeknownst to most people, the ultimate goal is to prepare conditions for the coming of the antichrist.

Not only is this climate-scare a fraud, but it is a complete reversal of the priorities we should have.  Modern man cares nothing for his soul and focuses entirely on the material world. 

Even if the climate scare were not a fraud (as it is), nonetheless worldwide environmental catastrophe is much better than even a single venial sin.  Here is how Cardinal Newman states this truth:

The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one willful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.[21]

Even if climate-change were not a hoax, we should put more effort into preventing one venial sin than stopping climate-change.

Let us not be deceived by the climate-change scare! 

Let us remember that the only true evil is sin!

[2]           Here is a small sample of information showing that the global-warming scare is a fraud:


·         Volcanoes under Antarctic glaciers are cause of melting; explanation why this melting won’t cause rise in ocean levels.


·         Leaked emails by global warming alarmist scientists show attempt to explain-away the data because it contradicts them.


·         So-called “greenhouse” gas, CO2, is only .04% of the composition of the air.
































[3]           When did routine bad weather become such big news?, by Richard Zoglin, Time magazine contributor and author. (emphasis in the original).


[4]           Quoted from: Latin America, A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, © 2016, p.59.

[6]           In a capitalistic economy, there is an absence of the government control which the socialists and the communists insist upon.  Thus, socialists and communists hate capitalism.  In capitalism, there is relative freedom – which is why the New World Order elites seek to destroy capitalism because it is incompatible with their vision of world control.


However, the pre-Vatican II popes reminded the world that, even in a capitalist economy, bosses and workers must fulfill the duties of justice and charity that those groups have to each other.  See, e.g., Quadragesimo anno the encyclical issued by Pope Pius XI on 15 May 1931 and Rerum Novarum the encyclical of Leo XIII issued forty years before that.  Thus, unlimited capitalism (doing whatever we can to succeed in business) is also immoral because that would disregard justice and charity.

[7]           Quoted in the daily financial newspaper, Investors Business Daily, available here:

(emphasis added; bracketed words added for clarity).


[8]           Quoted in the daily financial newspaper, Investors Business Daily, available here: (emphasis added; bracketed words added for clarity).


[9]           This interview was published on 11-14-10 and is available here:


Here is the original German:


Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.  …  Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um.

[13]         116th Congress, House Resolution 109.

[15]         Climate-change fraud is promoted in countless ways, by countless “foot soldiers” who aid this effort knowingly or unknowingly.  For example, The Oxford Dictionary promotes the climate scare by (among other things) having made the two-word phrase “climate emergency” its Word of the Year for 2019.


[16]         The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita, drafted by the Carbonari (the Italian Masonry) publicly published by the orders of Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII who vouched for its authenticity.  This document is found in The War of Anti-Christ with the Church, by Msgr. George Dillon, D.D., Gill & Son, Dublin, 1885, Ch.13.


[17]         Quoted in the book, Vaticano massone. Logge, denaro e poteri occulti: il lato segreto della Chiesa di papa Francesco, by Giacomo GALEAZZI – Ferruccio PINOTTI, Edizioni Piemme, Milano 2013, p.83, as quoted here: (bracketed word added to show the context).

[19]         Laudato Si, section 175 (emphasis added).

[20]         Caritas in Veritate, (former) Pope Benedict XVI, 6-29-09, §67 (emphasis added).


[21]         Apologia Vita Sua, by John Henry Cardinal Newman, Image Books, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, © 1956, p.324.