A Great Temptation or Testing has been set before us….

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

We are in a great spiritual test. And it is a test of discernment.

And the trial is not a complex one.

We are being asked, without words, “What does it mean to be a Christian?”

And if think the answer is, “Obey your superiors no matter what”. Then you are a NAZI, not a Christian.

And if you cannot discern when your pastor is a Nazi or Pagan or Satanist, and think being a Christian means obeying without questioning, then you will fail this test, get vaccinated and die within the next few months or years.

But if you know and believe with all your heart and mind that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, is God, and is the Lord of your life, and as Creator holds you in His hand against the forces of the world, the flesh and Satan, you will know that discernment is essential to remaining His faithful disciple. And then you will mistrust politicians, doubt journalists, refuse dangerous medical practices, not put your hope in hospitals or doctors who are paid by the State, and decline the Vaxx, refuse the Mask and ignore the Sanitary Dictatorships ludicrous pharaseism.

Alas, the majority of the Catholic world has already failed this test. And they will most likely find no salvation, because they won’t even admit that they did anything wrong. They have practiced the same false version of Christianity they have chosen and learned to live and love.

All around the world, the Catholic hierarchy and clergy are perfecting the perfidious betrayal of Christ, begun with the refusal to celebrate Easter in 2020, with the insistence their flocks take the Death Vaxx.  They really want you to drop dead and go down to hell with themselves. Such men are not vicars of Christ, but vicars of Lucifer.

But for us who still have eyes to see, Our Lord warns us to see and hear with discernment.

Finally, it is not a sin, but a work pleasing to God, to physically and morally separate yourself from false shepherds. Now more than ever, a Christian needs to take his prayers in private directly to Jesus Christ and ask for the light of salvation, knowing that FROM HIS THRONE OF MERCY AND GRACE one can obtain help in every need and light to solve all problems, IF WE BUT ASK WITH HUMILITY AND PERSEVERANCE.

Italy: Armed Sanitary Control Seize Citizen for not showing Vaxx Passport

Seen here in a rare published clip of the Italian municipal police, in a yet unidentified town, violating the constitutional and civil rights of an Italian citizen, when using armed force, in a band, they arrest him with handcuffs for not showing a Vaxx Passport, even though he affirms to have done a PCR test by swab that morning. Article 9, section 9 of the current DPCM requires only that a citizen be asked, but specifically forbids that he be discriminated against. He could be fined for a misdemeanor — which would have no force in law — however, he cannot be physically assaulted or handcuffed. Also, the police cannot ask his personal information unless he is violating a law, and the Vaxx Passport is not a constitutional provision of the law, since there can be no state of emergency without a military conflict on Italian soil, and thus, the legal presupposition for it does not exist.  Still this video shows how local police in Italy are turning into the Gestapo by the political insistence that they enforce the will of the Draghi government, even beyond the terms of its written decrees.

The police also violate the current decree, which does not require the Green Pass in public parks, but only in cultural events in enclosed areas or where masses of people are gathered.  This is thus, clearly being done to terrorize the general public.

The error of this citizen was not exercising his constitutional right to go limp and require the police to move him, which on account of weight and the distance to the parking would have required 6-10 persons.

USA: Public School Teacher caught teaching sin, vice and threats to children

Andrea Cionci: Benedict XVI’s was a Declaration of Impeded See, not a Renunciation

by Andrea Cionci

Authorized English Translation
Click the image above for the original Italian text which contains the hyperlinks.

Sometimes, in order to understand something from an intricate situation, it is necessary to change the point of view. The bullseye of Pope Ratzinger’s resignation remained standing for eight years: it took us two years to investigate it thoroughly. Here us out for a few minutes, it’s worth it. We will try to be very clear and you will find all the insights in the links. The key that explains everything lies in the Latin word “vacet”, up to now arbitrarily translated as “vacant seat”.

Since 2013, we have been used to speaking of Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaratio “of renunciation” which, as was definitively illustrated by the jurists Estefania Acosta and Antonio Sànchez HERE, is however legally invalid. Since we wrote, in March, Acosta’s book  was published with these contents, HERE nobody has denied it and we are thus forced to accept the fact. The proof is that even the “pope emeritus” never existed, as the major canonists said, so much so that now the Vatican is trying to give jurisprudence to this institute HERE.


The hypothesis of Plan B, which we have reconstructed HERE and never denied by Vatican circles, is that Pope Ratzinger has written a SPECIALLY INVALID resignation to trick his enemies, giving them time to reveal themselves as heretics, only to be canceled suddenly in the their offices and in their acts, to the discovery of the invalidity of his resignation.

The game – saving the Church from modernist heresy – was worth the risk, as we explained on Aldo Maria Valli’s blog HERE, but for many Catholics it was a bit hard to accept that the highly cultured and adamantine pope-theologian had declared a pure “nonsense”.

Instead, the meaning was there, and very coherent. Eventually, the last piece of the puzzle also fell into place in order to unravel a whole series of knots, starting with this one. As we will see, Pope Benedict, who, at the beginning of his pontificate, asked the faithful to pray so that he “would not flee from the wolves”, was most sincere, candidly obeying the precept of Christ: “Behold, I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be prudent as serpents, and simple as doves.

Meanwhile: WHO HAS DECIDED THAT THE DECLARATIO WAS A RENUNCIATION OF THE POPE? The document is simply called “Declaratio” HERE and not “Renuntiatio” as required, among other things, by the apostolic constitution Universi dominici gregis where the conclave can be convened “post Pontifici obitum vel validam RENUNTIATIONEM” – after the death of the pontiff or valid renunciation “.

In fact, card. Sodano, reading the explanation prepared immediately after Benedict’s speech HERE does not speak of renunciation, nor of the end of the pontificate, but of the end of the pontifical SERVICE. He stresses several times that Benedict will remain pope until the 28th and specifies, at the end, moreover: “His mission, Holy Father, will continue: She has said that she will always be close to us with her testimony and with his prayers. Of course, the stars in the sky always continue to shine and so the star of his pontificate will always shine among us ”. Benedict himself will then say: “The” always “is also a” forever “- there is no longer a return to private life. My decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this “and again:” I no longer carry the power of the office for the government of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of St. Peter “HERE.

Therefore, we must finally enter into the perspective according to which “OTHERS” decided that it had to be an abdication, while Ratzinger had declared quite the opposite.

In the face of the last interview with Prof. Sànchez QUI and following input from the Latinist Gianluca Arca who, on the basis of what was already intuited in 2019 by friar Alexis Bugnolo QUI, reads a completely different coherence in the text, a light bulb came on: the presumed and invalid Declaratio “di renunciation”, in reality, was a coherent DECLARATION OF “IMPEDITED SEE”, expressed in non-juridical language.

What is it about? According to Canon 412, “the episcopal see is understood to be” impeded “if the diocesan Bishop is totally prevented from exercising the pastoral office in the diocese due to imprisonment, confinement, exile or incapacity, not being able to communicate even by letter with its diocesans ”.

Two notes to understand the context: that Pope Ratzinger had the whole world against was excellently described by Paolo Flores d’Arcais HERE.

That there were many internal enemies of him, such as the lobby of modernist cardinals called the “Mafia of St. Gallen”, is confirmed by the never denied autobiography (2015) of card. Godfried Danneels HERE, and from the Vatileaks scandal (2012), where there was also talk of a project to kill the pope. That Benedict had enormous problems in exercising his authority is demonstrated by the immediate dismissal of the president of the IOR, his trusty Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, a provision made without him,the pope (!), knew nothing about it HERE.

Ratzinger himself alludes to this situation of impotence in “Ein Leben” (2020): “Towards the end of my pontificate I realized that the lack of adequate capacities for a correct performance of one’s office can manifest itself in various forms”.

They simply NO LONGER EDOBEY HIM. Therefore, that at a certain point, Benedict, cornered and unable to impose himself on him, freely decided to renounce DE FACTO (and not juridically) his practical power and become a “hermit” by exiling himself in the Vatican, is completely realistic.

Everything depends, in fact, ON HOW YOU READ THE LATIN TEXT TRANSLATED IN ITALIAN. We submitted the Declaratio to the scrutiny of SIX LATINISTS: three university professors, two high school teachers, a translator from medieval Latin (see note 1).

The university professors agreed that the Italian translation of the Vatican is substantially correct, but there is a verb, “VACET” which – according to all six – can in fact be translated very well in its literal, original sense of ” STAY FREE ”, and does not necessarily have to be translated with that“ vacant seat ”that we have been used to reading for eight years.

“… ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri VACET et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse”.

In fact, Prof. Arca quotes Cicero: “Ego filosophiae semper vaco” – “I always have free time for philosophy”.

And so, we have that Benedict XVI expresses the following key concepts in his Declaratio, (which we report at the bottom, in full):

– since I no longer have the strength to exercise practical power (ministerium) I declare to renounce it,

– so that the seat of San Pietro remains FREE (not “vacant” in the legal sense) starting from 20.00 on February 28, 2013.

-And I declare that the next new Pontiff must be elected by a conclave convened “by those who are competent”.

Why does he say “BY THOSE WHO ARE COMPETENT”, and not simply, “by the cardinals”? EVERYTHING RETURNS: we saw HERE that he, in order to abdicate, could not separate the munus from the ministerium. So Ratzinger, by separating them, DID NOT ABDICATE, but wanted to renounce to exercise his power of the former (since he was no longer able) leaving the seat of San Pietro FREE. In fact, precisely on February 28, 2013, Benedict leaves the Vatican headquarters EMPTY, flying away by helicopter to Castel Gandolfo (a choice certainly not justified by the summer holidays). Thus, at the stroke of 20.00, he does not sign anything, he does not confirm the renunciation of the ministerium, as the theologian Carlo Maria Pace explains HERE because it would obviously have been an invalid juridical act.

Thus, from February 28, 2013, the IMPEDED OFFICE situation announced on the 11th starts. From this point on, his enemies can do whatever they want with the see of St. Peter.

However, foreseeing the USURPATION of his throne through an illegitimate conclave (called to a living pope and not an abdicator), Ratzinger in the Declaratio specifies only one thing, but very clear and eloquent which we summarize as follows: the next true pope must be elected only by a conclave formed “by those who are competent”, or by those who have the right, that is, by the true cardinal electors, those appointed by me, Benedict XVI and, at most, by John Paul II.

And in fact, explains Prof. Sànchez HERE, given that Benedict did not abdicate and remained the only true pope, Francis is an anti-pope and has appointed 80 invalid cardinals who, mixed with the valid ones, would elect another in an upcoming invalid conclave. antipope. Consequently, the next true pope can ONLY be elected by a conclave made up of SOME cardinal electors, the real ones, “for which it belongs”, appointed before 2013, and not by other pseudo-cardinals.

Benedict, in fact, concludes the Declaratio with somewhat heartfelt accents: “Now, we entrust the Holy Church to the care of its Supreme Shepherd, Our Lord Jesus Christ”, since he had to abandon the see of Peter, now impeded, as a pope overwhelmed by anti-papal forces. Shortly after, he recommended the true “Cardinal Fathers” to the assistance of Our Lady because one day, it is not known how far – after his death, or after his regular abdication – they will be able to elect a next true pope.

He had left the true cardinals a good 17 days (11-28 February 2013) to check on the code of canon law how a legitimate resignation was to be carried out, under Article 332. § 2. Two weeks to think, to ask for clarifications and / or corrections to the legally invalid renunciation of the ministerium, but none of them had grasped. Just as no one has ever bothered to ask him for a sanatio (legal correction) of the alleged renunciation, when in 2014 Antonio Socci was the first to publicly highlight the invalidity of the renunciation HERE. However, Benedict never granted any sanatio HERE.

But now comes what is beautiful. We have seen above that, understood as renunciation, the Declaratio is “implosive” and therefore must be discarded. On the other hand, the situation of “See impeded” is also confirmed by a whole series of VERY HEAVY CLAIMS – if not completely PROBATIVE – in the subsequent behavior of Benedict XVI and in the interview books written with Peter Seewald. In “Last Conversations”, of 2016, Ratzinger replies in this way regarding his resignation: “No pope resigned for a thousand years and even in the first millennium he was an exception”. HERE Given that 6 popes abdicated in the first millennium and 4 in the second, he necessarily makes a precise historical reference to the “exception” of the medieval pope Benedict VIII who, in the first millennium, was expelled from Rome by an anti-pope and who then, coincidentally, his seat was prevented: his ancient predecessor had to renounce the exercise of his practical power due to a forced “exile”, as reported today in canon 412.

Ratzinger writes again in “Ein Leben” (2020): “Celestine V’s situation was extremely peculiar and cannot in any way be invoked as a precedent (at my resignation)”. In fact, he did not abdicate – as legally did by Celestine V – but voluntarily went “into self-exile” in the Vatican, effectively resigning from the ministerium and therefore remaining – as it was for Benedict VIII – the only true pope.

This also explains why Ratzinger keeps the white robe and the other papal prerogatives HERE, the papal coat of arms with the dicussed keys HERE and above all why for eight years he has been repeating that “THE POPE IS ONE” without NEVER specifying which of the two, what just confirmed by Archbishop Ganswein HERE

That only pope is himself, but HE CANNOT SAY IT OPENLY BECAUSE HIS HEAD OFFICE IS IMPEDED and “he cannot communicate (freely editor’s note) even by letter” (Can. 412).

This is why he was morally justified in shielding himself behind the NON-EXISTING INSTITUTE OF “POPE EMERITUS”: legitimate defense to remain the pope in the Vatican.

Clarified why Ratzinger, in 2016, in Corriere claims to have written the Declaratio in Latin precisely “so as not to make mistakes”, despite the fact that he had included some, and serious, syntax: being now “prevented” from communicating, he had to use a subtle language, and it prompted us (successfully) to investigate the Latin translation thoroughly to find the most correct and revealing one. HERE

This explains why the Holy Father Benedict XVI has maintained for eight years his continuous and perfect ambiguity HERE and the subtle language that we also find in his last interview HERE

Many, in fact, impatiently ask themselves: “But why don’t you speak clearly?”. We repeat: HE CANNOT DO IT, BECAUSE HIS HEADQUARTERS WAS OVERRUN, HE IS NOT FREE TO EXERCISE HIS POWER!

In conclusion, check the original of the Declaratio in Italian. In capital letters, the only word translated in a lawfully different way from the Vatican version HERE and, in bold type, the significant expressions, with the original meanings of the word “ministry”, with which both munus and ministerium have been translated into Italian.

“Dear Brothers,

I have summoned you to this Consistory not only for the three canonizations, to communicate to you a decision (notes 2,3) of great importance for the life of the Church.

After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strength, due to advanced age, is no longer suitable for exercising the Petrine munus adequately. I am well aware that this munus, by its spiritual essence, must be accomplished not only with deeds and words, but no less by suffering and praying. However, in today’s world, subject to rapid changes and agitated by issues of great importance for the life of faith, in order to steer the boat of St. Peter and proclaim the Gospel, vigor of both body and soul is also necessary, vigor which, in recent months, has diminished in me in such a way that I have to recognize my inability to administer well the ministerium entrusted to me. For this reason, well aware of the gravity of this act, with full freedom, I declare that I renounce the ministerium of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the cardinals on April 19, 2005, so that, from February 28, 2013 , at 20.00, the See of Rome, the See of St. Peter, REMAINS FREE and the Conclave for the election of the new Supreme Pontiff must be convened by those in charge.

Dear Brothers, I sincerely thank you for all the love and work with which you have carried the weight of my ministry with me, and I ask forgiveness for all my faults. Now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of her Supreme Shepherd, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and we implore her holy Mother Mary, so that she will assist the Cardinals with her maternal goodness in electing the new Supreme Pontiff. As for me, even in the future, I will want to serve wholeheartedly, with a dedicated life to prayer, the Holy Church of God ”.

Why choose this version of “vacet”, with all the annexes and legal connections? This Declaratio, in addition to being supported by TENS OF VERY CLEAR INDICATIVE ELEMENTS, has a subtle but coherent and literal meaning, the other one does NOT, since the See of St. Peter, for canon law (can. 332 § 2) DOES NOT CAN REMAIN VACANT with the renunciation of the ministerium alone, the practical exercise: the renunciation of the munus is required. Therefore, the Declaratio of 2013 was ABUSIVELY proposed as a “renunciation of the papacy” only BY THOSE WHO WANTED TO INTERPRET IT THIS, either out of naivety, or to grab the seat now vacated.

The alleged renunciation, given that it is a legal oxymoron, was first badly arranged in the translations, with the shameless abolition of the fundamental legal dichotomy munus / ministerium (note 4) and, subsequently, covered by heavy media propaganda operations, as when Vatican News illegally attributed to Ratzinger the phrase “The pope is one and he is Francis” HERE

Only with a Declaratio intended as an announcement of an impeded See do all the accounts come back: logical, canonical, theological, circumstantial and testimonial.

Let’s say that “Plan B” has been updated and corrected in “Plan V”, by “Vacet” and, above all, by “Truth”.


1) These are the professors of Latin language and literature Alberto Canobbio, (Univ. Of Pavia), Giorgio Piras and Francesco Ursini (Univ. “La Sapienza” of Rome), Gianluca Arca (Liceo Ginnasio Statale “SA De Castro” in Oristano ), Matteo Corrias (Technological High School of Oristano) and the Franciscan friar Alexis Bugnolo. The university professors interviewed were unaware of the legal question.

2) Prof. Arca recalls that the word decisio, like the corradical verb “to decide”, implies the idea of cutting, splitting and settling disputes and diverging views through the acceptance on both sides of the renunciation of something (cites a in this regard Cic. Pro Roscio, 40: cum de tota re decidisset cum Roscio), therefore it can be translated with the value of “compromise” and perhaps the compromise to which Benedict XVI bends is that of the separation between munus and ministerium. Note that, even in Italian, a meaning of “decisione” can be that of separation of a part from the whole HERE.

3) For the Latinist Frà Alexis Bugnolo, translator of medieval Latin, the reference of decisionem is even more precise, that is “I communicate a separation (of the Petrine ministerium) from you” that is, from the cardinals, with a particular use of the dative “vobis” found in San Bonaventura (well known by Joseph Ratzinger) and which would be consistent with the illustrated contents. Furthermore, for Frà Bugnolo, vacet translates even better with “remains unused”.

4) Prof. Corrias, barely able on decision as “separation”, fully confirms that munus and ministerium had to be absolutely left in the original Latin.

How to refuse the Vaxx, scientifically

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

When asked or threatened with loss of rights, benefits, job, so as to take the Vaxx perhaps responding like this will end up getting you an exemption.

“I think I have antibodies already to Covid-19, and if I do, then taking such a vaccine might cause an antibody enhanced reaction, which could be lethal. So, before being required to take one of these vaccines, I demand that I be tested for antibodies to Covid-19.  Naturally, to make sure you are not liable for my death, I demand that my antibodies be tested from a live culture of Covid-19, isolated from someone known to have the symptoms. I believe such a test will prove that I do have such antibodies, and thus have no need of the vaccine.”

Now since no laboratory in the world has isolated the virus, you can wait until they do, which, if it does not exist, will be for the rest of your natural life!

If they offer to do any other kind of antibody testing, refuse that on the grounds that it is scientifically uncertain and medically unreliable. If asked if you are refusing the Vaxx, respond,

“I am not refusing the Vaccine and do think that it is necessary, but only for those who do not have the natural immunity already, as I believe I do. And I am not going to risk my life because of your unscientific and medically dangerous presumption that I do not have antibodies to Covid-19 or that any other kind of test provides proof positive scientific confirmation of the presence of antibodies to this particular coronavirus species.”

If asked why you think you have antibodies, say:

“Coronaviruses are by nature highly transmissible and usually infect the entire human population in 12 weeks. Therefore, since this coronavirus has been out there for nearly 2 years and since many persons in my (city, state, province, county, workplace etc.) have tested positive and recovered, I believe that it is statistically impossible that I do not already have antibodies for the disease, especially since I am in good health.”

Catholics at Rome, pray in public in Communion with Pope Benedict: Schedule

The Catholics at Rome know that Pope Benedict XVI is their pope, since he never resigned the papacy, only retired from the ministry. As a public witness, the Church of Rome has gathered in prayer for Pope Benedict XVI for the past 18 months, nightly. Now, with increasing requests for moments of prayer in public, Catholics in Rome will be able to gather at 9 AM local time for the recitation of the Divine Office in Latin at the Basilica of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, where the relics of the True Cross, Christ’s Crown of Thorns, and Holy Nails are kept. They will pray the ancient office to show that the true Church embraces Her ancient liturgy. Click the image above for the official announcement of times, at the official website of the Roman Catholic Church in communion with Pope Benedict: ChiesaRomana.Info.

13 Italian Senators call upon Draghi Government to stop Vaxx program for under 18 years of age

Here is a mechanical English translation of the Full TEXT of the Above Motion by the Opposition Party, Fratelli d’Italia
For the original Italian, click the image above.

Act No. 1-00388

Posted on June 16, 2021, in session No. 337


The Senate,


in Italy the phase of the vaccination campaign that provides for the vaccination also of the “over 16” was recently launched, while in recent days the green light arrived from the EMA and AIFA agencies for the vaccination also of people in the age group between 12 and 15 years, for which the so-called open days for the administration of the Comirnaty vaccine (Pfizer/Biontech) have already been scheduled and started;

in Germany, the Standing Committee on Vaccinations (Stiko) of the “Robert Koch Institut” does not recommend the administration of Pfizer to very young people and even, in the official recommendations disseminated on the website of the Robert Koch Institut, which is the equivalent of the Italian Institute of Health, states that “The use of Comirnaty in children and adolescents aged 12 to 17 years without previous diseases is currently generally not recommended” and that “for this age group, vaccination is therefore possible only after medical advice and if the child or adolescent or guardians accept the individual risks.”

in Israel and the United States vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for the very young 12-16 years of age and over 16 years of age began some time ago, and it is recent news that in Israel 275 myocarditis have been reported in young people between 16 and 30 years of age;

to this evidence was added the concern aroused by the latest vigilance report of the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the USA, according to which, after the vaccinations with Pfizer and Moderna, in subjects between 16 and 24 years old were found myocarditis in higher numbers than expected;

on May 20, 2021 an open letter appeared on the HART (Health advisory & recovery team) website, signed by a group of British doctors, addressed to the MHRA (Medicines & healthcare products regulatory agency), the equivalent of the Italian AIFA;

the contents of the appeal raise serious doubts, both from the ethical and scientific point of view, with respect to the choice of administering vaccines to “under 18”;

it is considered appropriate to report some significant passages of the letter, the content of which is still fully viewable on the website of HART: the petitioners state that “it is irresponsible, unethical, and indeed unnecessary to include children under 18 in the national launch of the COVID-19 vaccine,” and it is made clear that clinical trials in children pose enormous ethical dilemmas because of the unknown risks, adding that one would have to wait until the end of the current phase 3 studies and several more years to receive all safety data in adults in order to rule out or quantify all potential adverse effects;

specifically, it states that “All phase 3 studies of COVID-19 vaccines are ongoing and are not expected to conclude until late 2022/early 2023. The vaccines are, therefore, currently experimental with limited short-term adult safety data unavailable (…). Completely new mRNA vaccine technology that has never previously been approved for use in humans (…). Potential late-onset effects may take months or years to manifest. The limited trials in children undertaken to date are totally underpowered to rule out uncommon but serious side effects. Children have a life ahead of them and their immunological and neurological systems are still developing, making them potentially more vulnerable to adverse effects than adults. A number of specific concerns have already been raised, including autoimmune diseases and possible effects on the placenta and fertility. A recently published article raised the possibility that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines may trigger prion-based neurodegenerative diseases. All potential risks, known and unknown, must be balanced against the risks of COVID-19 itself, so a very different risk/benefit ratio will apply to children than to adults.”

On protection from COVID in children it adds that “Healthy children are at almost no risk from COVID-19, with a risk of death of just 1 in 2.5 million. No previously healthy children younger than 15 years of age died during the pandemic in the United Kingdom, and hospitalizations or intensive care admissions are extremely rare and most children have no or very mild symptoms. Although Long-Covid has been cited as a reason to vaccinate children, there is little hard data. (…) The inflammatory condition, PIMS, was listed as a potential adverse effect in the Oxford AstraZeneca Children’s Study. Naturally acquired immunity will give a? wider and longer-lasting immunity than vaccination. In fact, many children will already be immune while individual high-risk children may already receive the vaccination.”

the physicians also specify that the potential benefits are clear for the elderly and vulnerable, however, for children, the balance between benefit and risk would be very different and that we need to “ensure that there is no repeat of past tragedies that have occurred especially when vaccines are brought to market,” citing the example of the swine flu vaccine, Pandemrix (2010), which resulted in over a thousand cases of narcolepsy (a devastating brain injury), and Dengvaxia, the new Dengue vaccine, which resulted in the deaths of 19 children due to a possible “ADE effect” (“antibody-dependent enhancement”) before the vaccine was withdrawn;

the appeal concludes with the observation that “There is important wisdom in the Hippocratic oath that states, ‘First do no harm.’ All medical interventions carry a risk of harm, so we have a duty to act with caution and proportionality. This is especially true when considering mass intervention in a healthy population, in which situation there must be strong evidence of benefits far outweighing harms. The current available evidence clearly shows that the calculation of risk versus benefit does not support the hasty and experimental administration of COVID-19 vaccines to children, who have virtually no COVID-19 risk, but face known and unknown risks from vaccines. The Declaration of the Rights of the Child states that ‘the child, because of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including adequate legal protection.’ As adults, we have a duty to protect children from unnecessary and foreseeable harm. We conclude that it is irresponsible, unethical, and indeed unnecessary to include children under the age of 18 in the national launch of the COVID-19 vaccine.”

with reference to the ethical aspects of the issue raised, it is considered necessary and not postponeable the intervention of the Ethics Committee;

to this end, it seems useful to recall that, pursuant to Article 10 of the Decree of the Minister of Health of October 24, 2014, approving the Statute of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, the Ethics Committee “operates as a guiding and evaluating body from the ethical point of view for research and experiments , in accordance with the regulations in force,” and that, pursuant to the Decree of the Minister of Health of February 8, 2013, setting forth the criteria for the composition and functioning of ethics committees, they are responsible for ensuring the protection of the rights, safety and well-being of persons undergoing trials and for providing public assurance of such protection;

the Ethics Committee has an advisory function to ISS in relation to ethical issues related to scientific, welfare, educational and administrative activities, in order to protect and promote ethical values and respect for the person;

the epidemiological reports available so far show that there is little evidence of secondary infection from children to others in the transmission pathways of COVID-19 and therefore vaccination of children cannot be justified if it is to provide direct protection despite the minimal burden of disease or to help stop transmission if children do not constitute a substantial reservoir for transmission;

a meta-analysis published in Clinical Infectious Disease on December 6, 2020 (“A meta-analysis on the role of children in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in household transmission clusters”) documented that children would be significantly uninfectious;

the authors observed 90,000 children in all North Carolina schools during the pandemic and could not demonstrate a single case of transmission of the virus from children to teachers;

if for other infections that can be prevented by the vaccine, such as meningococcal disease, the immunization of children has not only prevented infections in children, but has also conferred indirect benefits, decreasing the disease in the elderly, because of its effect on reducing carriage and blocking transmission, for COVID-19 it could be the opposite case, with adults having to be vaccinated to confer protection to young children;

with reference to the lack of data on adverse effects in children under 18, it is useful to highlight that in the summary of the technical characteristics of Comirnaty, published by AIFA, in the paragraph “Efficacy and immunogenicity in adolescents aged 12 to 15 years”, it is noted that the participants analyzed in study 2 were just 1,005, incredibly small number to assess, with due certainty, the relationship between benefits and risks in the face of an authorization for mass vaccination of the age group in question;

always in the same section of the technical data sheet, is perplexing the provision according to which “This medicinal product has been authorized with procedure ‘subject to conditions’. This means that further data on this medicinal product must be provided. The European Medicines Agency will review new information on this medicinal product at least annually and the summary of product characteristics (SPC) will be updated as necessary.”

the numerous cases of myocarditis reported in countries where vaccination of the under 18s is well advanced, together with the small number of subjects in the 12-15 age bracket analysed in study 2 on Comirnaty, do not appear compatible with the provision of “at least annual analysis of data on the vaccine” as a condition for its administration;

as is well known, the strengthening of systems for monitoring reports of suspected adverse reactions (ADRs – adverse drug reactions) is a very important source of information for pharmacovigilance activities, as it allows early detection of potential warning signs related to the use of medicines, so as to make them safer, to the benefit of all patients;

it is no longer postponeable the creation of a pharmacovigilance mechanism specifically for adverse effects related to the administration of COVID-19 vaccines, a monitoring network that is able to monitor in real time and in a sustained and systematic way, providing disaggregated and public data, the adverse effects of vaccinations to allow scientists a proper assessment of risks and benefits and the Ethics Committee a proper evaluation from the ethical point of view of the administration of vaccines to “under 18”;

the current reports made by AIFA are a useful piece, but not sufficient with respect to the need to adapt the current system of pharmacovigilance to the new health reality dominated by COVID-19, a reality in which a vigilance still calibrated, for timing and mode, on the monitoring of adverse effects of influenza vaccines, seems totally inadequate to intercept in an organic, systematic and complete adverse effects related to the administration of vaccines COVID-19;

the Decree of the Minister of Health of April 30, 2015 reiterated the obligation to promptly report suspected adverse reactions from drugs and vaccines, but in Italy there are no vigilance systems dedicated to COVID-19 vaccines;

based on European pharmacovigilance regulations (in particular, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 520/2012 of June 19, 2012, on the performance of pharmacovigilance activities provided for in Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council), medicinal products containing new active substances, not present in medicinal products authorized in Europe on January 1, 2011, should be subject to additional monitoring, in particular products whose authorization is conditional on or authorized under exceptional circumstances, as in the case of authorized coronavirus vaccines. In these cases, the regulations also provide for the possibility of requiring companies holding MAs to conduct additional studies on the safety or efficacy of the drug;

in England the MHRA has dedicated a dynamic surveillance system in the administration of COVID-19 vaccines, through a dedicated site, the “Coronavirus yellow card”, launched in May 2020 specifically for drugs and medical devices and for vaccines used for COVID-19;

the information collected in this database is composed of reports that can be made by anyone: patients, manufacturers and healthcare professionals. These reports are categorized and statistically processed at the national level, as well as in a European system managed by the EMA and in a worldwide system managed by the WHO;

Italy does not yet have a pharmacovigilance system dedicated to COVID-19 and implementable, which would allow such categorization and statistical processing of data at the national level and in a European system managed by the EMA or in a worldwide system managed by the WHO,

commits the Government:

1) to urgently activate the Ethics Committee of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità to assess the benefits and risks of the administration of COVID-19 vaccines to the under 18s;

2) to suspend the mass vaccination of under 18, unless there are specific indications for individual cases, until the scientific community has sufficient data to resolve the doubts related to adverse events made known, for example, by the CDC and the Israeli surveillance system;

3) to strengthen the pharmacovigilance network with a system dedicated to COVID-19 and implementable, which allows a categorization and statistical processing of data at the national level and within a European system managed by the EMA, as well as in a global system managed by WHO, as done for example by England.

Official Press Release on Cardinal Burke’s Status

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. (Jn 14:27)

The outpouring of love, prayers and support during His Eminence’s hospitalization has greatly consoled his family, edified those who serve him at the Shrine and elsewhere, and testified to the character and virtue of the man whom so many consider a spiritual father. We deeply and abundantly appreciate this charity, and we give praise and thanks to our Heavenly Father, especially for the brilliant and faithful service of Cardinal Burke to the Church he loves so profoundly.

As of August 17th, His Eminence remains in serious, but stable condition. His family, who with a team of doctors, is responsible for all medical decisions while the Cardinal remains sedated and on a medical ventilator, has great confidence in the care he is receiving. The Cardinal has received the Sacraments from priests nearby to him. There are several relics in his room.

While the Cardinal’s family appreciates the good intentions of those who have suggested treatments, consultations, etc., they ask that people refrain from sending anything further. They also ask that you not contact them, members of the Shrine staff, or the Cardinal’s residence in Rome to discuss his condition. Texts, phone calls and emails—while certainly solicitous and often gracious—can, inadvertently, become a burden. The family does not plan to disclose His Eminence’s location to avoid the obvious difficulties that might cause.

To provide a secure source for updates about the Cardinal’s health, the family has asked that the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe—in addition to the Cardinal’s personal media—be the only authorized platforms for accurate, timely information. Other reports may be incomplete or false and so may unnecessarily disturb the minds and hearts of those devoted to His Eminence.

The Cardinal’s family has also requested that only updates of significant changes in His Eminence’s condition be posted on the authorized platforms. In humility, we understand that it is not necessary for us to know every detail of the Cardinal’s treatment. Though his family realizes that the Cardinal “belongs” to the Church, they also ask that we respect his privacy. The period of hospitalization, and for now isolation because of the COVID virus, may be prolonged as His Eminence’s body fights the infection and recovers strength. For the time being, the sedation assists his own peace and rest.

Nothing falls outside of God’s providence. Nothing falls outside the reach of His grace. These are spiritual truths we know and that the Cardinal has taught us by his own example of fidelity in trust and surrender to the Good God. Confidence in these truths opens us to the peace the world cannot give or take. Were he able to speak with us now, he would tell what he has always taught us: that Our Father in Heaven is good, merciful, just, provident and sovereign; that we are His beloved children and that He will never leave us orphans; that we should not be afraid of the Cross as the way to eternal life; that the Sacraments are the most direct channels of grace and that we do the soul the greatest good by receiving Holy Communion often and by going to Confession regularly; that we should say our daily prayers; and that we should love one another as Jesus Christ has loved us: generously, even to the point of heroic sacrifice.

And one more thing so important and so dear to His Eminence: that we should pray the Rosary frequently and fervently, and so place ourselves under the mantle of Our Lady, confident in her maternal love and intercession.

Please continue your prayers for Cardinal Burke and for his family, particularly at the Holy Mass and in the praying of the Rosary.  We are filled with gratitude for the abundance of prayers and love for this faithful son and servant of the Church.

God bless you.

Rev. Paul N. Check
Executive Director
Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe