I have mixed feelings about Abp Vigano, but I think you should have learned by now that statements like “…everything from COVID vaccines to election results in 2020 should, I think, give anyone pause about his rational capacity” might not age well. Remember when the Wuhan wet market, Russiagate and Hunter Biden’s laptop= Russian disinfo were the approved opinions? Legit lawsuits are being filed re Covid jab harms, and if you don’t find shenanigans around the 2020 election dodgy, I don’t know what else to tell you.
Here's the issue: Abp. Viganò wasn't taking a measured or thoughtful approach on any of those things. He consistently came in hot with extreme and inflammatory statements. The fact that some of his rants turned out to have a grain (and only a grain) of truth in them doesn't mean that he's been vindicated. The adage about broken clocks being right twice a day applies here.
I have beliefs about Covid and the 2020 election that seem to differ from other people in the section of the comments, but this thread isn't about arguing those. I like your comment that how he was talking about these topics is as important as what he may have said
I gave up on the idea that some theories are too insane to possibly be true when the CIA admitted to doing mind control experiments on US children (using drugs). And then again when I saw the BBC documentary on the healthy US foster children, with no medical representative, being forced into taking AIDS drugs to see what the side effects were, funding approved by Dr. Fauci.
Sometimes you have enough evidence to come to a conclusion for or against, sometimes you don't, but they can't be falsified for sounding weird.
If your concern is with media bias and propaganda, that's one thing. Many people, when talking about time 2020 election, refer to outright fraud and changing vote tallies, of which not one shred of credible evidence has been presented.
It is established that government agencies conspired with social media platforms to repress certain points of view and to promote others; I don’t see how that doesn’t constitute election interference.
The credible evidence that government agencies conspired with social media platforms to repress certain points of view and to promote others should disturb you, if you care about integrity, honesty and truth.
No, there’s nothing dishonest, etc., about it. For as long as there have been government and media, the government has engaged with the media to assert its point of view. The government - any government - gets to contact the media and tell the media that it thinks there’s something wrong or dangerous on this or that platform. What in the world is wrong with that?
As far as I'm aware, the most the government ever did was ask that something be taken down under a platform's terms of service. In the old days, the government would ask a newspaper for a retraction. That has happened on a practically daily basis, always. That's not censorship.
"the most the government ever did was ask that something be taken down...." I invite you to read the District and Circuit Court decisions in Missouri v. Biden.
Well written. There are many of us who have done a lot of research into Covid, the vaccines, the lockdowns, the forced immunizations, and the aftermath, as well as allegations of irregularities in the 2020 election, from both sides of the opinion spectrum.
I want to be able to think as clearly as possible when forming my beliefs about such important issues, and like just about everyone, I would prefer to stick toward my own natural inclinations in beliefs and opinions. In my mind, that necessarily means stepping over the fence to try to overcome my own bias.
Like you said, it won’t age well. The truth usually lies somewhere in between sides, and none of us can see it clearly, but I am disappointed in what I perceive to be close minded thinking on the part of The Pillar. I have too much respect for them not to be disappointed.
I should clarify here. I have a problem with the statement from the post, “everything from COVID vaccines to election results in 2020 should, I think, give anyone pause about his rational capacity,” not the coverage here, nor the charges against Vigano. I have long thought he was out of control.
I certainly know that there was an 83% miscarriage rate for pregnant women in the covid vaccine trials. I worked in a public school and pregnant teachers were encouraged not to get the vaccine until after they had delivered, so someone was certainly trying to keep that misccarriage information from the general public.
I read about a peer reviewed, published study that put the miscarriage rate at 14%. Quite impressive, given that the typical rate is 20%. But if 3/4 of your study participants are in the third trimester, de facto incapable of a miscarriage, you can get impressive numbers.
I tried to look into this, and it seems as if both sides were trying to manipulate the numbers in a way that made the truth unclear. But basing anything on this one study is still treating the vaccine as an unknown quantity when it isn't. If American mothers in 2021/22 had miscarried at an 80% rate, don't you think people would have noticed?
This is anecdotal, which I know isn't data, but almost every woman I know including me, who had at least one Covid vaccine dose, had something very strange and completely unexpected happen to them with regards to their cycle. First we were told that we were making it up (this is a common experience for women in health care, unfortunately), then we were told that it was real but it was fine and normal, actually, and then finally we were told that maybe something was wrong after all but who can even tell, anymore, it was so long ago.
I did conceive in 2021 after that and had a healthy pregnancy and delivery, but those months of charting make absolutely no sense at all. I still don't know why, and it's annoying to have it swept under the rug, but as I alluded to above, it's not new with regards to attitudes about women's health. Even so, pre-2020 I was not especially inclined to skepticism regarding public health and not at all for vaccines. I assumed "mistakes" were a matter of benign neglect and blind spots, and not willful and deliberate, and now I feel very stupid and naive for having ever believed that. I'm still not sure what I think, except that quackery isn't apparently just a fringe thing but well and alive in the mainstream, too.
There was a group of Orthodox Rabbis that noticed the trend in cycle problems that Penguin Mom mentioned, consulted with a bunch of research-level physicians, and banned the vaccine in their congregations because they expected it to cause miscarriages and fertility problems. There's a strong link between cycle problems and miscarriages. For obvious reasons: both cycles and fetal care are driven by the same hormones and other physical conditions.
We live in a society where women shout their abortions and hide their pregnancies from everyone but their husband for the first trimester. Also in a society where doctors routinely tell women they are making up their problems (one friend of mine was told her thyroid and immunodificiency symptoms were psychological, I could list more). Also in a society were doctors treat nearly every cycle problem with birth control, because they don't actually care to make the system function properly. The effect of the vaccine is generally not permanent, and it wouldn't be happening to all women for the same 3-12 months. Women who got the vaccine later in pregnancy were considerably less likely to miscarry (and after 4.5 months it's called a stillbirth). Women who got it before they were pregnant were considerably less likely to conceive until they recovered. So it's not like 80% of women were miscarrying all at once. 80% of women who got vaccinated in their third trimester lost the baby. So no, I don't think people would notice.
Side note: Orthodox Rabbis have an enviable pool of data for this particular problem. They have ritual purity requirements regarding women's cycles, so they get told about them, for their entire congregation. They also only allow birth control in very limited circumstances, so they have a lot of data about what right looks like, and also the connections between healthy cycles, miscarriage, fertility, and such. The women are also more likely to be pregnant, as sexually active, fertile women tend to get pregnant once every 2-3 years if there are no efforts to prevent it.
I was in medical residency during the early pandemic, and they were all recommended to get the vaccine as soon as it came out. It's only anecdote, not data, but none of them miscarried, none of them have had fertility issues
Did this anecdotal data include questions about who was on birth control and who was sexually active, and who was in their first trimester when they got the vaccine?
Anecdote can be somewhat useful if it contains sufficient context. This does not.
I was responding to someone who said that pregnant teachers were encouraged to not get the shot. So I was responding with anecdote to anecdote.
But if you want data, there was a Dutch study that came out in 2024 using 2021 and 2022 data. For women who got vaccinated between 2-20 weeks gestation there was no increase in miscarriage rate. For women vaccinated before pregnancy, they found a decreased miscarriage rate
I would have to see the study. There are an awful lot of moronic studies that have been peer reviewed and published. Makes me wish a statistician's approval was required. For example, if one were to take the average miscarriage rate of a pregnancy for all 20 weeks of possible miscarriage, and compare that overall miscarriage rate of women in the Dutch study, the data would be quite skewed if the women were vaccinated later in pregnancy. This is because 95% of miscarriages occur in the first trimester, the earlier you go, the more vulnerable the child. It's almost as bad as including third trimester women, though not quite. So including women in the study who've already gotten through 3 months of pregnancy before they are vaccinated will skew things (kind of analogous to the Monty Hall problem). One could hypothetically adjust for this, but there is no guarantee that the researchers actually did, and I don't know if there is enough data on week by week miscarriage rates to do that, or enough participants in the study for it to be statistically valid at that level of resolution.
I don't want to be dragged into this, so although I can question some of the actual claims made by others in this this thread, all I will say is - why it is a retired Italian prelate's business to make thundering claims about U.S. political minutiae in the first place? Would anyone find it normal if an American bishop gave the world his passionate thoughts on Italian politics? (Yes, Vigano spent several years in the U.S., but many American prelates have spent substantial time in Italy.)
When someone declares himself general oracle to the world with no credentials and acts like a fool about it, anyone has the right to judge whether this is the proper business of a bishop.
To what “dodgy shenanigans” around the 2020 election do you refer?
The loser of that election, Donald Trump, had every opportunity to challenge the election results in court at the appropriate time. And he did. And he lost those challenges - all of them. Joe Biden got 36 more electoral votes than he needed to become president. He got 7 million more popular votes than Donald Trump. If that were the result of a “dodgy shenanigan,” that’s one heck of a “dodgy shenanigan”!
If you aren’t able to accept the simple, objective truth that the 2020 presidential election was free and fair and that the rightful winner of that election was lawfully sworn in as president thereafter, then “I don’t know what else to tell you.”
There’s not enough space here, but you could start with the coordinated effort to suppress Hunter Biden’s laptop and frame it as “Russian disinfo,” when its authenticity has been validated. That and “Russiagate” (also disproven, and not just by conservatives) should give you pause for consideration. Thank you.
The Pillar didn’t say “voter fraud” and neither did I; as with cat skinning, there’s more than one way to interfere with fair and free elections. Thank you, I appreciate having civil conversations about controversial topics.
If I recall correctly Trump filed 72 separate challenges. It is not insignificant that all were dismissed on procedural grounds rather than decided on the merits. Make of that what you will. That is to say nothing of Murthy v. Biden currently pending before the SC.
Yes. Today's nearly universal agreement on anything is in no way guaranteed to last. Tomorrow's disagreement also may evaporate with another change in the Weltanschauung.
I agree about the shenanigans, and I'm glad those who did the shenanigans are, for the my most part, being prosecuted and some have even pled guilty already
It is a rare swing and a miss on the Pillar's part. I'm sure they would be the first to concede politics and science are a bit outside their ken but they still have the best batting average in the industry.
Agreed; that’s why I was put off by the way they framed that criticism of Abp Vigano. Nobody gets it right all the time, with my name at the top of that list.
"There is a fairly full slate of news to get through this morning, ..."
--> Fairly full? Fairly?? This past week's been so packed with news that I've had trouble keeping up with it all, and I just have to read it, not write it. And, though I'm not finished reading all the articles, the ones I've had time to read are really well done. Keep up the good work!
"OK, is gavage something the geese would choose for themselves...?"
--> Now, if were an Ameglaian Goose, I'd have to say, Yes, it would. And you could wash it down with a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster (but, very carefully).
--> Your essay on foie gras (a "Best of" candidate, btw) clearly shows that you enjoy not brooking certain social conventions, but are you ready for the heat that will be generated by your song selection?
Great writing Ed ! First the content. The never ending love affair and conflict between "schism" groups and the "Synodality" (lets all stay together and really be one.except for those opposed proposing something else) Second your style of delivery.. I can almost "taste" foie gras ! and the humor of it all very nicely served up with a serious undertone ( subliminal message?) " are we really ready to be led by youth seeking to ensure we get back Nature as known to all living before the stone age - down to when peoples were dancing with Wolves, swimming with sharks and really trying to understand what Ducks Eagles Doves and Geese were telling us about how they feel. After the 20th Century no more "Mother Goose" Rhymes and reasons for "the Nursery" -that disappeared as did Royal British English Language Imperial Colonial Themes - in favor of modern alternatives better suited to us in the US.
One of my prized take-aways from my Lutheran upbringing was Luther's explanation of the 8th commandment: "We should fear and love God that we do not belie, betray, slander nor defame our neighbor, but defend him, speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything."
With that said, I believe this theoretical defense of Vigano is indeed putting the best construction on it.
I just hope and pray that the people I used to see sporting Vigano buttons (think candidate lapel pins) feel absolutely zero attraction to follow him now.
Vigano's downfall was in his initial decision to be not just witness but also judge in the McCarrick affair. I believe that he really did try to warn Frances about McCarrick, and it was a service to tell us that he did so. But his decision to call for the pope to resign was the seed that led to his ugly downfall by opening himself up to all sorts of nefarious forces
If a bishop takes a priest that he knows is a serial sexual abuser and reassigns him continually, promotes him, and gives him high-profile, important assignments, do you think that bishop should remain in office?
There've been a fair number with that behavior who've had their resignation requested by Pope Francis, after many people, bishop, priest, lay, and non-Catholic called for it.
There is a difference between judging that a person ought to do something as a result of their wrong deed, and taking it upon themselves to enforce that. It's one thing to call for the Pope's resignation, and another to say that he is not the Pope.
“…it tends to be opposed by the sort of people for whom sincere human enjoyment is an alien concept — the kind who get their jollies blocking traffic in rush hour, think spray painting Stonehenge is righteous, and argue that having kids is a crime against Mother Earth. ..”. Amen to that!
Thank you for your “take” on Archbishop Vigano! As someone who has considered basically everything Vigano has said since his initial McCarrick testimony to be increasingly unhinged I have wondered if the case weren’t exactly what you describe. Being stone walled, excluded, or constantly undermined by your brother bishops (especially without family support as you suggest might be the case) could certainly precipitate a slide into some tragic paranoia for certain personalities. I feel bad for him and hope that somehow through this canonical process he could get some help and reconcile to the Church.
Regarding your hypothetical defense of Vigano as suffering some form or degree of mental capacity. Are you assuming Vigano would consent to that defense ? I don’t. If you think he is entitled to have you argue that defense against his wishes because his opposition to you arguing that defense is owing to his mental incompetence would Canon law permit you to do that? It is my impression that he will gain more satisfaction from separation than inclusion.
> I think there’s a real case to be made here that Viganò’s been operating with an imperfect use of reason for a while
It has looked that way to me for a while even without knowing his personal history. He needs help but first he has to admit that he needs help which seems unlikely to happen (because he thinks he is sane). If the light in you is darkness how great will the darkness be!
I'm disinclined to diagnose people over the internet, given that Alex Jones is supposedly perfectly sane when he's not doing a show. But if he does need help, he doesn't merely have to admit that he needs help. He also has to find someone trustworthy and trusted to provide it. That's 3 hard things before he can get started.
Interesting, Ed, your choice of the word, "madness" in the headline re: the Vigano situation. I used the same word when I attempted, earlier this morning, to share my thoughts discussing this topic on another Catholic website and, for reasons unknown, it would not post. So, I'm sharing here, unaltered: To try to go back to what the Catholic Church was before Vatican II is madness. Archbishop Vigano is literally attempting to do that. Even though he knows that before Vatican II, ours was a very insular faith that left too many Judeo-Christian believers, and just unaffiliated people seeking to find God, outside the realm of salvation. Prior to Vatican II, our Church in the west was not evangelizing in the least where we lived. Catholics were doing any manner of prayer/reading at Mass, but too often, were not participating due to the quiet/Latin aspects of it. These are a few 'off the top of my head' examples of the problems we faced and may well face again if Vatican II is eradicated, as AB Vigano seems to desire.
What we really needed when the Council was adjourned, was a better explanation of what Vatican II was trying to accomplish. I think, in the US Catholic Church, the "powers that be" failed us miserably.
There is such beauty in the concepts and, yes, the ideals of, the Vatican II documents. We should all be reading them, studying them. In many ways the Council was trying to 'go back' to where the Church was when it began! That's the irony for me. The laity had a much larger role in the early Church. By the late 1950's/early 1960's, the faithful were just learning by rote and going through the motions.
No one explained the "why" of things anymore; you just trusted the priest or the bishop. Yikes. Yes, it's messier when the laity are involved, but everything becomes more vital and more comprehensible for the people who are not ordained. We needed Vatican II, imho.
Many of our bishops may have failed us in the rollout of Vatican II, but we are the Church, too. We need to be proactive and inquisitive about what our faith teaches. We must learn about the documents on which we are now anchored, whether we like the Pope or not. (Looking at you, AB Vigano.)
Sorry to go on. I have a lot of opinions and this is probably not the right platform.
Anyway, this too shall pass. God's got a plan. I'll just say that schism is no different than the Protestant Reformation, with some of us going off in our own direction because "we" know better than the Magisterium. That is bound to lead to a dissolution into thousands of "true" churches. But which one really is?
You know, I think this is the first bit of writing about Abp Vigano where I saw him treated like an actual human being. Whether he's treated as a brave martyr speaking truth to power, or a grifting whack job who represents everything wrong with a certain segment of the Church, he's always treated as a symbol or proxy so the author can self-importantly bloviate about culture war opinions he or she already had. I am sincerely impressed by your ability to keep an eye on his humanity, in the midst of our inhuman political discourse about him.
We definitely need to defend pleasure as a holy part of life, but not at the expense of animals.
Frankly, I am deeply ashamed of what we do to animals, but I am still a meat eater. I regard that as a shameful weakness, not as virtue. I do not want my pleasures to come at the slightest pain to any animal with nerve endings. So, I'm planning NOT to eat foie gras, and I have been slowly reducing my meat consumption over the decades.
As Ed said, animal cruelty is horrible, but I am not sure that I agree with you that meat eating is only a pleasure. It might not be strictly *necessary*, but I think it's pretty clear that humans are intended to consume some kind of animal protein for optimal health. Avoiding it without health consequences depends on pretty recent technological innovations and a global economic system that have their own moral and ethical quandaries to consider (or in the case of some saints who have done things like subsist entirely on the Eucharist, miraculous intervention). You're not necessarily saying this, but I have recently encountered a lot of arguments to the extent of "*Obviously* any meat eater isn't as morally advanced as I am, or they wouldn't eat meat or would at least feel bad about it," and I have to be frank, too: I don't find it obvious at all.
There's a lot to be mad about with how animals are treated in what's now conventional "farming." But there *are* options to avoid that. Most of the meats (and milk, and eggs) our family eats are raised locally and we know the farmers personally. We eat as much of the animals as are fit for human consumption, organs and all, and use the bones and fats too for other things. This used to be the way everybody did it. I do have some luxury here because it isn't out of our budget - if I was buying this kind of meat at the grocery store it would be a lot more, but since we have a large family and a chest freezer, I can buy in bulk at butchering time and it's actually quite a bargain when I look at the price per pound.
That said, I have also reduced our consumption of meat per person, partially for health, partially for cost, partially as a penitential practice especially for Advent and Lent. I have no issue if you feel personally called to severely limit or even eliminate meat entirely. Many saints have done so. But people who continue to eat meat without reservations are not morally lacking.
There is also evidence that plants experience pain, FWIW. That isn't meant as a "gotcha," it's just that I think any line imposed that isn't by God is going to be somewhat arbitrary. Which is fine, there are things I don't do that are fine for other people and I accept that my line is arbitrary, but it's also just for me. God's fine with people eating meat.
We have teeth that are specialized for cutting and tearing, and while I guess that can apply to non-meat foods like bread or light-bodied produce, I don’t know anyone who eats carrots or nuts, beans, or eggs with his front teeth. Those are ground by molars.
The canine and incisor teeth, while they can tear bread, seem to me mostly designed, by the Lord, for tearing the prepared flesh of land and air dwelling animals. Maybe if one is being polite he eats a nibble of a shrimp with the front teeth. Certainly not crab or filleted fish. Nope, the front of the mouth is made to receive animal-derived food.
I have a relationship with my meat farmer. I see her every month and talk with her and all of us are connected to her via email updates of happening on the farm
Her cows and pigs and chickens and goats are quite well cared-for and loved. And she goes out of her way to find a harvester that makes it quick and without stress.
If more people in the US were willing to pay more for their food, like the rest of the West, more farmers could survive the economy.
Her (and therefore the rest of us) gratitude for God's creation and how he provides for us is inspiring.
There's are ways to do this right. But we have to demand it. I'd hate to see real cattle farmers go the way of all other things technology tramples.
The agriculture business today (fruits and vegetables) are polluting and poisoning our nature as well. I didn't see it as any ethical solution. Unless making Monsanto and the like super-rich is ethical.
We need to get back to the basics of tending and keeping the Temple of Creation as good stewards. THEN maybe we can see our priesthood (the deeper meaning of tending and keeping the Temple) grow further in depth.
This is the sort of thing that I'd like to do. However, in order to store half a steer, I'll have to buy a freezer first.
From what I've heard, the regulations on slaughterhouses require that the animals be carted halfway across the state to get to an officially approved slaughterhouse. It's atrocious for small farmers, and stressful for the animals.
So ‘force feeding’ birds is not nearly as traumatic as it would be for a mammal. (I’ve helped ‘force feed’ horses through the nose in order to treat severe dehydration and choke, it got a bit bloody, but without it, this horse was in for a slow, painful death). Birds possess a pouch in their necks called a croup from which they store extra food, usually for the feeding of their chicks by regurgitating. I’ve done it to a poor little budgie that had its own beak torn off by its mother and gently tubing it and filling its croup with food was the only way the poor thing could eat. There was a risk of injury of course if I was too rough, but the little guy survived and learned how to eat with its half mangled beak on its own and lived a happy budgie life.
I suspect the actual technique for geese is doing something similar. Fill their croup with food adds more calories than they’d naturally consume when they’re not raising chicks and thus giving them fatty liver needed for foie gras. A lot of people who don’t understand animal anatomy and behaviour naturally anthropomorphise and draw conclusions of cruelty from necessary harnessing of an animal’s unique nature to for both safety and quality of the desired food, fibre etc product it is being raised for. Most farmers at the coal face are not heartless sociopaths, they do want to give their animals the best life they can until their ‘one bad day.’ Goose farmers would be no different.
Mine was a serious question. I've spent about 8 weeks total in France and never saw goose on a restaurant menu. So apparently we are raising geese for foie gras and a mystery purpose unknown to all of us.
It's my understanding (this is secondhand, I will admit I have never been to France) that in traditional French cooking many dishes are cobbled together from a lot of different sources. Things that are considered fancy or delicacies are often just very well executed and pleasantly plated peasant food. Which I'm all for if it's true.
Or they just sell the liver to restaurants and the rest of the goose for home cooking? I wouldn't be quick to assume they just throw the rest out. Goose feathers, I know, get used.
Vigano reminds me of Mel Gibson's character in the 1997 movie "Conspiracy Theory." He's a damaged person who's spouting some crazy, fantastical theories. BUT... plot twist... mixed in with the crazy are some truths that are uncomfortable for some very powerful people. Vigano has been spouting quite a bit of "crazy" for half a decade or so and the Vatican pretty much ignored him, but then on May 29, 2024, on X/Twitter, he made an uncorroborated accusation against the person of Pope Francis. And, voila, now the hammer is coming down on him. Coincidence?
While I can see where you're trying to go with this, who's to say that the Vatican hasn't been trying to reign him in or contact him to try to get him to stop? Frankly, calling the Pope cancerous (in addition to everything else he has said) means that, charitably to the Vatican here, that his most recent missive was the nail in the coffin.
First the whales, now the geese
I have mixed feelings about Abp Vigano, but I think you should have learned by now that statements like “…everything from COVID vaccines to election results in 2020 should, I think, give anyone pause about his rational capacity” might not age well. Remember when the Wuhan wet market, Russiagate and Hunter Biden’s laptop= Russian disinfo were the approved opinions? Legit lawsuits are being filed re Covid jab harms, and if you don’t find shenanigans around the 2020 election dodgy, I don’t know what else to tell you.
Here's the issue: Abp. Viganò wasn't taking a measured or thoughtful approach on any of those things. He consistently came in hot with extreme and inflammatory statements. The fact that some of his rants turned out to have a grain (and only a grain) of truth in them doesn't mean that he's been vindicated. The adage about broken clocks being right twice a day applies here.
I have beliefs about Covid and the 2020 election that seem to differ from other people in the section of the comments, but this thread isn't about arguing those. I like your comment that how he was talking about these topics is as important as what he may have said
I honestly don't know what I believe about those things anymore other than that there are some theories so insane I know not to believe them.
I gave up on the idea that some theories are too insane to possibly be true when the CIA admitted to doing mind control experiments on US children (using drugs). And then again when I saw the BBC documentary on the healthy US foster children, with no medical representative, being forced into taking AIDS drugs to see what the side effects were, funding approved by Dr. Fauci.
Sometimes you have enough evidence to come to a conclusion for or against, sometimes you don't, but they can't be falsified for sounding weird.
Should he be condemned theologically or canonically because of his tone of voice?
These comments were about his US political speech, not his attacks on the Vatican II council or Pope Francis.
What did he say that only had a “grain” of truth?
You figure it out.
" if you don’t find shenanigans around the 2020 election dodgy, I don’t know what else to tell you."
That's how I feel about the folks who insist there is anything there, so I don't know what else to tell you.
Please explain the concerted effort to suppress Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell.” That alone was election interference.
If your concern is with media bias and propaganda, that's one thing. Many people, when talking about time 2020 election, refer to outright fraud and changing vote tallies, of which not one shred of credible evidence has been presented.
It is established that government agencies conspired with social media platforms to repress certain points of view and to promote others; I don’t see how that doesn’t constitute election interference.
You seem to be completely missing my point. I am talking about the accusations of vote fraud and fake tallies, of which there is no credible evidence.
The credible evidence that government agencies conspired with social media platforms to repress certain points of view and to promote others should disturb you, if you care about integrity, honesty and truth.
No, there’s nothing dishonest, etc., about it. For as long as there have been government and media, the government has engaged with the media to assert its point of view. The government - any government - gets to contact the media and tell the media that it thinks there’s something wrong or dangerous on this or that platform. What in the world is wrong with that?
I would agree with you if the public were informed of the government’s effort to tip the scales of public opinion.
And as long as disfavored speech is not censored.
But that’s not what is happening here.
What's the censorship? Please describe.
As far as I'm aware, the most the government ever did was ask that something be taken down under a platform's terms of service. In the old days, the government would ask a newspaper for a retraction. That has happened on a practically daily basis, always. That's not censorship.
I'm afraid we are too far apart for this discussion to be productive.
"the most the government ever did was ask that something be taken down...." I invite you to read the District and Circuit Court decisions in Missouri v. Biden.
District Court:
https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/missouri-v-biden-ruling.pdf
Circuit Court:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30445-CV0.pdf
Well written. There are many of us who have done a lot of research into Covid, the vaccines, the lockdowns, the forced immunizations, and the aftermath, as well as allegations of irregularities in the 2020 election, from both sides of the opinion spectrum.
I want to be able to think as clearly as possible when forming my beliefs about such important issues, and like just about everyone, I would prefer to stick toward my own natural inclinations in beliefs and opinions. In my mind, that necessarily means stepping over the fence to try to overcome my own bias.
Like you said, it won’t age well. The truth usually lies somewhere in between sides, and none of us can see it clearly, but I am disappointed in what I perceive to be close minded thinking on the part of The Pillar. I have too much respect for them not to be disappointed.
I should clarify here. I have a problem with the statement from the post, “everything from COVID vaccines to election results in 2020 should, I think, give anyone pause about his rational capacity,” not the coverage here, nor the charges against Vigano. I have long thought he was out of control.
Thank you for clarifying; I was only referring to the Pillar’s framing of the issue.
I certainly know that there was an 83% miscarriage rate for pregnant women in the covid vaccine trials. I worked in a public school and pregnant teachers were encouraged not to get the vaccine until after they had delivered, so someone was certainly trying to keep that misccarriage information from the general public.
I read about a peer reviewed, published study that put the miscarriage rate at 14%. Quite impressive, given that the typical rate is 20%. But if 3/4 of your study participants are in the third trimester, de facto incapable of a miscarriage, you can get impressive numbers.
I tried to look into this, and it seems as if both sides were trying to manipulate the numbers in a way that made the truth unclear. But basing anything on this one study is still treating the vaccine as an unknown quantity when it isn't. If American mothers in 2021/22 had miscarried at an 80% rate, don't you think people would have noticed?
This is anecdotal, which I know isn't data, but almost every woman I know including me, who had at least one Covid vaccine dose, had something very strange and completely unexpected happen to them with regards to their cycle. First we were told that we were making it up (this is a common experience for women in health care, unfortunately), then we were told that it was real but it was fine and normal, actually, and then finally we were told that maybe something was wrong after all but who can even tell, anymore, it was so long ago.
I did conceive in 2021 after that and had a healthy pregnancy and delivery, but those months of charting make absolutely no sense at all. I still don't know why, and it's annoying to have it swept under the rug, but as I alluded to above, it's not new with regards to attitudes about women's health. Even so, pre-2020 I was not especially inclined to skepticism regarding public health and not at all for vaccines. I assumed "mistakes" were a matter of benign neglect and blind spots, and not willful and deliberate, and now I feel very stupid and naive for having ever believed that. I'm still not sure what I think, except that quackery isn't apparently just a fringe thing but well and alive in the mainstream, too.
There was a group of Orthodox Rabbis that noticed the trend in cycle problems that Penguin Mom mentioned, consulted with a bunch of research-level physicians, and banned the vaccine in their congregations because they expected it to cause miscarriages and fertility problems. There's a strong link between cycle problems and miscarriages. For obvious reasons: both cycles and fetal care are driven by the same hormones and other physical conditions.
We live in a society where women shout their abortions and hide their pregnancies from everyone but their husband for the first trimester. Also in a society where doctors routinely tell women they are making up their problems (one friend of mine was told her thyroid and immunodificiency symptoms were psychological, I could list more). Also in a society were doctors treat nearly every cycle problem with birth control, because they don't actually care to make the system function properly. The effect of the vaccine is generally not permanent, and it wouldn't be happening to all women for the same 3-12 months. Women who got the vaccine later in pregnancy were considerably less likely to miscarry (and after 4.5 months it's called a stillbirth). Women who got it before they were pregnant were considerably less likely to conceive until they recovered. So it's not like 80% of women were miscarrying all at once. 80% of women who got vaccinated in their third trimester lost the baby. So no, I don't think people would notice.
Side note: Orthodox Rabbis have an enviable pool of data for this particular problem. They have ritual purity requirements regarding women's cycles, so they get told about them, for their entire congregation. They also only allow birth control in very limited circumstances, so they have a lot of data about what right looks like, and also the connections between healthy cycles, miscarriage, fertility, and such. The women are also more likely to be pregnant, as sexually active, fertile women tend to get pregnant once every 2-3 years if there are no efforts to prevent it.
I was in medical residency during the early pandemic, and they were all recommended to get the vaccine as soon as it came out. It's only anecdote, not data, but none of them miscarried, none of them have had fertility issues
Did this anecdotal data include questions about who was on birth control and who was sexually active, and who was in their first trimester when they got the vaccine?
Anecdote can be somewhat useful if it contains sufficient context. This does not.
I was responding to someone who said that pregnant teachers were encouraged to not get the shot. So I was responding with anecdote to anecdote.
But if you want data, there was a Dutch study that came out in 2024 using 2021 and 2022 data. For women who got vaccinated between 2-20 weeks gestation there was no increase in miscarriage rate. For women vaccinated before pregnancy, they found a decreased miscarriage rate
Ah, my apologies, I got the comments mixed up.
I would have to see the study. There are an awful lot of moronic studies that have been peer reviewed and published. Makes me wish a statistician's approval was required. For example, if one were to take the average miscarriage rate of a pregnancy for all 20 weeks of possible miscarriage, and compare that overall miscarriage rate of women in the Dutch study, the data would be quite skewed if the women were vaccinated later in pregnancy. This is because 95% of miscarriages occur in the first trimester, the earlier you go, the more vulnerable the child. It's almost as bad as including third trimester women, though not quite. So including women in the study who've already gotten through 3 months of pregnancy before they are vaccinated will skew things (kind of analogous to the Monty Hall problem). One could hypothetically adjust for this, but there is no guarantee that the researchers actually did, and I don't know if there is enough data on week by week miscarriage rates to do that, or enough participants in the study for it to be statistically valid at that level of resolution.
I don't want to be dragged into this, so although I can question some of the actual claims made by others in this this thread, all I will say is - why it is a retired Italian prelate's business to make thundering claims about U.S. political minutiae in the first place? Would anyone find it normal if an American bishop gave the world his passionate thoughts on Italian politics? (Yes, Vigano spent several years in the U.S., but many American prelates have spent substantial time in Italy.)
// why it is a retired Italian prelate's business to make thundering claims about U.S. political minutiae in the first place? //
His "business"? Who determines what he must and must not think and say about anything?
When someone declares himself general oracle to the world with no credentials and acts like a fool about it, anyone has the right to judge whether this is the proper business of a bishop.
To what “dodgy shenanigans” around the 2020 election do you refer?
The loser of that election, Donald Trump, had every opportunity to challenge the election results in court at the appropriate time. And he did. And he lost those challenges - all of them. Joe Biden got 36 more electoral votes than he needed to become president. He got 7 million more popular votes than Donald Trump. If that were the result of a “dodgy shenanigan,” that’s one heck of a “dodgy shenanigan”!
If you aren’t able to accept the simple, objective truth that the 2020 presidential election was free and fair and that the rightful winner of that election was lawfully sworn in as president thereafter, then “I don’t know what else to tell you.”
// If you aren’t able to accept the simple, objective truth that the 2020 presidential election was free and fair //
Very few things in life are simple and objective truths. We are born, live, and die in uncertainty.
There’s not enough space here, but you could start with the coordinated effort to suppress Hunter Biden’s laptop and frame it as “Russian disinfo,” when its authenticity has been validated. That and “Russiagate” (also disproven, and not just by conservatives) should give you pause for consideration. Thank you.
Again, none of that had anything to do with actual vote fraud.
The Pillar didn’t say “voter fraud” and neither did I; as with cat skinning, there’s more than one way to interfere with fair and free elections. Thank you, I appreciate having civil conversations about controversial topics.
If I recall correctly Trump filed 72 separate challenges. It is not insignificant that all were dismissed on procedural grounds rather than decided on the merits. Make of that what you will. That is to say nothing of Murthy v. Biden currently pending before the SC.
Yes. Today's nearly universal agreement on anything is in no way guaranteed to last. Tomorrow's disagreement also may evaporate with another change in the Weltanschauung.
I agree about the shenanigans, and I'm glad those who did the shenanigans are, for the my most part, being prosecuted and some have even pled guilty already
It is a rare swing and a miss on the Pillar's part. I'm sure they would be the first to concede politics and science are a bit outside their ken but they still have the best batting average in the industry.
Agreed; that’s why I was put off by the way they framed that criticism of Abp Vigano. Nobody gets it right all the time, with my name at the top of that list.
"There is a fairly full slate of news to get through this morning, ..."
--> Fairly full? Fairly?? This past week's been so packed with news that I've had trouble keeping up with it all, and I just have to read it, not write it. And, though I'm not finished reading all the articles, the ones I've had time to read are really well done. Keep up the good work!
"OK, is gavage something the geese would choose for themselves...?"
--> Now, if were an Ameglaian Goose, I'd have to say, Yes, it would. And you could wash it down with a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster (but, very carefully).
--> Your essay on foie gras (a "Best of" candidate, btw) clearly shows that you enjoy not brooking certain social conventions, but are you ready for the heat that will be generated by your song selection?
Same thoughts on that particular song
Great writing Ed ! First the content. The never ending love affair and conflict between "schism" groups and the "Synodality" (lets all stay together and really be one.except for those opposed proposing something else) Second your style of delivery.. I can almost "taste" foie gras ! and the humor of it all very nicely served up with a serious undertone ( subliminal message?) " are we really ready to be led by youth seeking to ensure we get back Nature as known to all living before the stone age - down to when peoples were dancing with Wolves, swimming with sharks and really trying to understand what Ducks Eagles Doves and Geese were telling us about how they feel. After the 20th Century no more "Mother Goose" Rhymes and reasons for "the Nursery" -that disappeared as did Royal British English Language Imperial Colonial Themes - in favor of modern alternatives better suited to us in the US.
One of my prized take-aways from my Lutheran upbringing was Luther's explanation of the 8th commandment: "We should fear and love God that we do not belie, betray, slander nor defame our neighbor, but defend him, speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything."
With that said, I believe this theoretical defense of Vigano is indeed putting the best construction on it.
I just hope and pray that the people I used to see sporting Vigano buttons (think candidate lapel pins) feel absolutely zero attraction to follow him now.
Vigano's downfall was in his initial decision to be not just witness but also judge in the McCarrick affair. I believe that he really did try to warn Frances about McCarrick, and it was a service to tell us that he did so. But his decision to call for the pope to resign was the seed that led to his ugly downfall by opening himself up to all sorts of nefarious forces
If a bishop takes a priest that he knows is a serial sexual abuser and reassigns him continually, promotes him, and gives him high-profile, important assignments, do you think that bishop should remain in office?
There've been a fair number with that behavior who've had their resignation requested by Pope Francis, after many people, bishop, priest, lay, and non-Catholic called for it.
There is a difference between judging that a person ought to do something as a result of their wrong deed, and taking it upon themselves to enforce that. It's one thing to call for the Pope's resignation, and another to say that he is not the Pope.
I am scandalized by your treatment of Archbishop Vigano.
Why?
go to the catholic news agency website and do a search on Archbishop Carlo Vigano.
www.catholicnewsagency.com
“…it tends to be opposed by the sort of people for whom sincere human enjoyment is an alien concept — the kind who get their jollies blocking traffic in rush hour, think spray painting Stonehenge is righteous, and argue that having kids is a crime against Mother Earth. ..”. Amen to that!
Interesting times.
Thank you for your “take” on Archbishop Vigano! As someone who has considered basically everything Vigano has said since his initial McCarrick testimony to be increasingly unhinged I have wondered if the case weren’t exactly what you describe. Being stone walled, excluded, or constantly undermined by your brother bishops (especially without family support as you suggest might be the case) could certainly precipitate a slide into some tragic paranoia for certain personalities. I feel bad for him and hope that somehow through this canonical process he could get some help and reconcile to the Church.
Regarding your hypothetical defense of Vigano as suffering some form or degree of mental capacity. Are you assuming Vigano would consent to that defense ? I don’t. If you think he is entitled to have you argue that defense against his wishes because his opposition to you arguing that defense is owing to his mental incompetence would Canon law permit you to do that? It is my impression that he will gain more satisfaction from separation than inclusion.
"It is my impression that he will gain more satisfaction from separation than inclusion."
-Seems like pretty compelling evidence that a high-ranking Shepherd of the Church isn't in full command of his faculties. I rest my case your honor!
> I think there’s a real case to be made here that Viganò’s been operating with an imperfect use of reason for a while
It has looked that way to me for a while even without knowing his personal history. He needs help but first he has to admit that he needs help which seems unlikely to happen (because he thinks he is sane). If the light in you is darkness how great will the darkness be!
I'm disinclined to diagnose people over the internet, given that Alex Jones is supposedly perfectly sane when he's not doing a show. But if he does need help, he doesn't merely have to admit that he needs help. He also has to find someone trustworthy and trusted to provide it. That's 3 hard things before he can get started.
Interesting, Ed, your choice of the word, "madness" in the headline re: the Vigano situation. I used the same word when I attempted, earlier this morning, to share my thoughts discussing this topic on another Catholic website and, for reasons unknown, it would not post. So, I'm sharing here, unaltered: To try to go back to what the Catholic Church was before Vatican II is madness. Archbishop Vigano is literally attempting to do that. Even though he knows that before Vatican II, ours was a very insular faith that left too many Judeo-Christian believers, and just unaffiliated people seeking to find God, outside the realm of salvation. Prior to Vatican II, our Church in the west was not evangelizing in the least where we lived. Catholics were doing any manner of prayer/reading at Mass, but too often, were not participating due to the quiet/Latin aspects of it. These are a few 'off the top of my head' examples of the problems we faced and may well face again if Vatican II is eradicated, as AB Vigano seems to desire.
What we really needed when the Council was adjourned, was a better explanation of what Vatican II was trying to accomplish. I think, in the US Catholic Church, the "powers that be" failed us miserably.
There is such beauty in the concepts and, yes, the ideals of, the Vatican II documents. We should all be reading them, studying them. In many ways the Council was trying to 'go back' to where the Church was when it began! That's the irony for me. The laity had a much larger role in the early Church. By the late 1950's/early 1960's, the faithful were just learning by rote and going through the motions.
No one explained the "why" of things anymore; you just trusted the priest or the bishop. Yikes. Yes, it's messier when the laity are involved, but everything becomes more vital and more comprehensible for the people who are not ordained. We needed Vatican II, imho.
Many of our bishops may have failed us in the rollout of Vatican II, but we are the Church, too. We need to be proactive and inquisitive about what our faith teaches. We must learn about the documents on which we are now anchored, whether we like the Pope or not. (Looking at you, AB Vigano.)
Sorry to go on. I have a lot of opinions and this is probably not the right platform.
Anyway, this too shall pass. God's got a plan. I'll just say that schism is no different than the Protestant Reformation, with some of us going off in our own direction because "we" know better than the Magisterium. That is bound to lead to a dissolution into thousands of "true" churches. But which one really is?
Your thoughts are one of the best expressions I’ve read on the Vatican II issue with Trad Catholics. Thank you.
I found this quite helpful, as one who feels caught up in the pre- vs. post- Vatican II confusion
You know, I think this is the first bit of writing about Abp Vigano where I saw him treated like an actual human being. Whether he's treated as a brave martyr speaking truth to power, or a grifting whack job who represents everything wrong with a certain segment of the Church, he's always treated as a symbol or proxy so the author can self-importantly bloviate about culture war opinions he or she already had. I am sincerely impressed by your ability to keep an eye on his humanity, in the midst of our inhuman political discourse about him.
I agree, I think Ed’s take is very humanizing and more sympathetic than most.
We definitely need to defend pleasure as a holy part of life, but not at the expense of animals.
Frankly, I am deeply ashamed of what we do to animals, but I am still a meat eater. I regard that as a shameful weakness, not as virtue. I do not want my pleasures to come at the slightest pain to any animal with nerve endings. So, I'm planning NOT to eat foie gras, and I have been slowly reducing my meat consumption over the decades.
As Ed said, animal cruelty is horrible, but I am not sure that I agree with you that meat eating is only a pleasure. It might not be strictly *necessary*, but I think it's pretty clear that humans are intended to consume some kind of animal protein for optimal health. Avoiding it without health consequences depends on pretty recent technological innovations and a global economic system that have their own moral and ethical quandaries to consider (or in the case of some saints who have done things like subsist entirely on the Eucharist, miraculous intervention). You're not necessarily saying this, but I have recently encountered a lot of arguments to the extent of "*Obviously* any meat eater isn't as morally advanced as I am, or they wouldn't eat meat or would at least feel bad about it," and I have to be frank, too: I don't find it obvious at all.
There's a lot to be mad about with how animals are treated in what's now conventional "farming." But there *are* options to avoid that. Most of the meats (and milk, and eggs) our family eats are raised locally and we know the farmers personally. We eat as much of the animals as are fit for human consumption, organs and all, and use the bones and fats too for other things. This used to be the way everybody did it. I do have some luxury here because it isn't out of our budget - if I was buying this kind of meat at the grocery store it would be a lot more, but since we have a large family and a chest freezer, I can buy in bulk at butchering time and it's actually quite a bargain when I look at the price per pound.
That said, I have also reduced our consumption of meat per person, partially for health, partially for cost, partially as a penitential practice especially for Advent and Lent. I have no issue if you feel personally called to severely limit or even eliminate meat entirely. Many saints have done so. But people who continue to eat meat without reservations are not morally lacking.
There is also evidence that plants experience pain, FWIW. That isn't meant as a "gotcha," it's just that I think any line imposed that isn't by God is going to be somewhat arbitrary. Which is fine, there are things I don't do that are fine for other people and I accept that my line is arbitrary, but it's also just for me. God's fine with people eating meat.
We have teeth that are specialized for cutting and tearing, and while I guess that can apply to non-meat foods like bread or light-bodied produce, I don’t know anyone who eats carrots or nuts, beans, or eggs with his front teeth. Those are ground by molars.
The canine and incisor teeth, while they can tear bread, seem to me mostly designed, by the Lord, for tearing the prepared flesh of land and air dwelling animals. Maybe if one is being polite he eats a nibble of a shrimp with the front teeth. Certainly not crab or filleted fish. Nope, the front of the mouth is made to receive animal-derived food.
I have a relationship with my meat farmer. I see her every month and talk with her and all of us are connected to her via email updates of happening on the farm
Her cows and pigs and chickens and goats are quite well cared-for and loved. And she goes out of her way to find a harvester that makes it quick and without stress.
If more people in the US were willing to pay more for their food, like the rest of the West, more farmers could survive the economy.
Her (and therefore the rest of us) gratitude for God's creation and how he provides for us is inspiring.
There's are ways to do this right. But we have to demand it. I'd hate to see real cattle farmers go the way of all other things technology tramples.
The agriculture business today (fruits and vegetables) are polluting and poisoning our nature as well. I didn't see it as any ethical solution. Unless making Monsanto and the like super-rich is ethical.
We need to get back to the basics of tending and keeping the Temple of Creation as good stewards. THEN maybe we can see our priesthood (the deeper meaning of tending and keeping the Temple) grow further in depth.
This is the sort of thing that I'd like to do. However, in order to store half a steer, I'll have to buy a freezer first.
From what I've heard, the regulations on slaughterhouses require that the animals be carted halfway across the state to get to an officially approved slaughterhouse. It's atrocious for small farmers, and stressful for the animals.
So ‘force feeding’ birds is not nearly as traumatic as it would be for a mammal. (I’ve helped ‘force feed’ horses through the nose in order to treat severe dehydration and choke, it got a bit bloody, but without it, this horse was in for a slow, painful death). Birds possess a pouch in their necks called a croup from which they store extra food, usually for the feeding of their chicks by regurgitating. I’ve done it to a poor little budgie that had its own beak torn off by its mother and gently tubing it and filling its croup with food was the only way the poor thing could eat. There was a risk of injury of course if I was too rough, but the little guy survived and learned how to eat with its half mangled beak on its own and lived a happy budgie life.
I suspect the actual technique for geese is doing something similar. Fill their croup with food adds more calories than they’d naturally consume when they’re not raising chicks and thus giving them fatty liver needed for foie gras. A lot of people who don’t understand animal anatomy and behaviour naturally anthropomorphise and draw conclusions of cruelty from necessary harnessing of an animal’s unique nature to for both safety and quality of the desired food, fibre etc product it is being raised for. Most farmers at the coal face are not heartless sociopaths, they do want to give their animals the best life they can until their ‘one bad day.’ Goose farmers would be no different.
What happens to the rest of the goose? Gound up for dog kibble?
Hopefully it’s Christmas dinner actually. Goose is a lovely bird.
Mine was a serious question. I've spent about 8 weeks total in France and never saw goose on a restaurant menu. So apparently we are raising geese for foie gras and a mystery purpose unknown to all of us.
It's my understanding (this is secondhand, I will admit I have never been to France) that in traditional French cooking many dishes are cobbled together from a lot of different sources. Things that are considered fancy or delicacies are often just very well executed and pleasantly plated peasant food. Which I'm all for if it's true.
Or they just sell the liver to restaurants and the rest of the goose for home cooking? I wouldn't be quick to assume they just throw the rest out. Goose feathers, I know, get used.
I did some research on the foie gras industry, and it turns out that 95% is made from ducks these days and only 5% from geese
It turns out that cured duck meat is a big snack in France (think ham or jerky).
I agree that traditional French farm cooking throws everything available into the pot. It would be silly not to.
Vigano reminds me of Mel Gibson's character in the 1997 movie "Conspiracy Theory." He's a damaged person who's spouting some crazy, fantastical theories. BUT... plot twist... mixed in with the crazy are some truths that are uncomfortable for some very powerful people. Vigano has been spouting quite a bit of "crazy" for half a decade or so and the Vatican pretty much ignored him, but then on May 29, 2024, on X/Twitter, he made an uncorroborated accusation against the person of Pope Francis. And, voila, now the hammer is coming down on him. Coincidence?
While I can see where you're trying to go with this, who's to say that the Vatican hasn't been trying to reign him in or contact him to try to get him to stop? Frankly, calling the Pope cancerous (in addition to everything else he has said) means that, charitably to the Vatican here, that his most recent missive was the nail in the coffin.
"Rein" him in.
Thanks for the correction!