Guest Post: Christopher Robin – A Bad Catholic: an Open Letter to Archbishop Mark Coleridge

To the Most Reverend Mark Coleridge BA DSS,
Archbishop of Brisbane

Your Grace,

I am a bad Catholic. I have been to Mass only a handful of times since a little before Easter of 2020; that is, since your embrace of the restrictions on Church attendance and your lifting on the Sunday Mass obligation. I was amazed that media and political hysteria modelled on the example of China—an hysteria not present in advanced industrial countries like Sweden, Taiwan, Japan and Singapore—could, with the snap of your fingers, wipe away the very mortal sin into which most Catholics were at greatest risk of falling. It said to me, as I’m sure it did to others, that you didn’t take this mortal sin stuff very seriously at all. And neither, because you so readily denied them to the Catholics of your Archdiocese, did you take very seriously the Sacraments, and especially the Eucharist.

Ah, but people’s lives were at risk! Yes, a small percentage of the elderly, increasing with the number and severity of co-morbidities, were at risk of dying, as were a vanishingly small percentage of under-35s. The risk to children was so small as to be difficult to determine. In the face of these negligible risks to earthly life, you dispensed with the bulwarks of eternal life. It seemed to me than, as it does still, that you could treat the supports of our immortal life so cavalierly only if you had no belief yourself in the reality of life everlasting; or at the least, no belief that the Sacraments were our pathways to eternal life in the light of our Blessed Lord. To put it another way, you advertised to me that you regarded the ostensible rationale of your episcopacy as theatre—a costumed performance, a sham.

The seemingly uncertain foundations of your faith did not undermine mine. My conscience complained when I was required to book to attend Mass, or to sign in, or, later, to notify the State directly of my attendance. It complained when I was required to participate in the Kabuki theatre of masks. I grew up with the understanding that as an axis of tyrannies had been defeated, another had grown stronger; that accommodating tyranny does not end well; that, on  a personal scale, a bully must be confronted immediately of his (or her) power will grow and the fight you must eventually have will be tougher. I knew that we, and especially men, are called to confront and oppose bullying, thuggery and tyranny, one way or another, early or late. I, intermittently at first, have done what was within my capacity to resist. At the moment that means minimal and surreptitious attendance at Mass.

Had you, your Grace, fought on behalf of the faithful I would have followed, even to reluctant admissions of defeat. But you abandoned us, and now you attack your own charges on behalf of the tyrant State, and you do it using phrase like, grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, and, may the God of peace bless you and those entrusted to your care. With these phrases, you propose to crush the consciences of your religious by the threat to suspend their faculties, and of employees by effectively sacking them. You will be the willing agent of the State in shutting the doors of the churches to those like me who will not be vaccinated. And these egregious actions against those you have sworn to serve, protect and teach, you perform—so you would have us to believe—at the behest of your conscience.

In support of your demands of all clergy, you quote Canon 529 §1.

A pastor or assistant pastor in parish ministry is to know the faithful, visit families, care for the faithful strengthening them in the Lord and refresh the faithful with the sacraments. Diligently, he is to seek out the poor, the afflicted, the lonely and the exiled. He is to support spouses and parents in fulfilling their proper duties and to foster growth of Christian life in the family. That means that clergy engaged in parish ministry must be close to the people.

Aficionados of chutzpah can only smile in admiration at this brazen inversion. But better is to come.

I recognise that having a vaccination, including the COVID-19 vaccination, is a matter of personal choice.

If it were true, that would be all you would need to say. That it is not—that in fact you proceed to completely contradict your initial assertion—simply indicates that you did not mean it in the first place. Not for a moment did you consider it a matter of personal choice. You considered it to be your choice on behalf of all.

I owe the clergy of the Archdiocese (including those religious engaged in parish ministry) a significant duty in canon law…in these terms: A diocesan bishop is to attend to presbyters . . . He is to protect their rights and take care that they correctly fulfil the obligations proper to their state. (Canon 384)

What are those rights? Unfortunately, your Grace, you do not elaborate on—or even mention—the rights of presbyters subsequently. Happily, you are more expansive about obligations, as seen in your quoting Canon 529  §1, above.

For priests (and bishops) worth their salt, these obligations would be prized as rights. In any case, what became of these obligations when you blithely shut and severely restricted access to the churches and the sacraments at the behest of the same Government that legislated for abortion on demand, compulsion of medical staff to refer for abortions, prison sanctions for counselling teenagers against physical and biochemical mutilation, compulsory referring for medical homicide, sanctions against trying to dissuade those seeking such medical homicide, prison sentences for the Christian counselling of people seeking to escape destructive sexual obsessions, and violation of the seal of confession? To your credit, you stood publicly against such abuses. But where were you when the sacramental obligations of religious and the sacramental rights of laity were being trampled on by the same people?

Rights do get one mention.

I will not consider conscientious objection to receiving the vaccination… I fully respect the rights of conscience… But I too have a conscience; and it is not just legal obligation but conscience which has led to my decision. [Emphasis mine.]

Put another way; my conscience is bigger that your conscience.

Your formulation of  the novel doctrine of apex conscience is illuminating in another respect. Not only are all other Archdiocesan consciences lower down the food chain than yours, but yours pays obeisance to a still higher authority: legal obligation. Fortunately for you, the demands of your roaring lion of a conscience are comprehensively aligned with your legal obligations. What a relief that must be! How do you justify your imperial conscience?

Your argument follows two main tracks which intersect at various points. One is that you have certain legal obligations as the head of Brisbane Archdiocese Inc. The other is that you are independently obliged in Christian charity to take actions which coincide with the demands of the law. Your argument from charity rests on assumptions which are, at best, dubious.

…clergy engaged in pastoral ministry who are not doubly vaccinated put the faithful of the parish at risk. They present a risk to the faithful to whom they minister, as well as to their families. Clergy not doubly vaccinated are failing in their duty to care for the faithful.

To which of the faithful are the unvaccinated failing in their duty of care? It is absurd to  claim that they represent a threat to the vaccinated. To do so is to confess that the “vaccine” does not vaccinate.  Vaccine apologists contort themselves in pursuing such an argument. If the vaccine does not vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2 carried by the unvaccinated, what is it for? Apparently, for the few months of its effectiveness, it reduces the probability of severe infection. In this it mimics to some extent the protection enjoyed by those of the unvaccinated who have contracted and recovered from the disease. It does not prevent the vaccinee from contracting the virus; it does not reduce the viral load or transmissibility of the vaccinee relative to the unvaccinated carrier. The Queensland Government touts some such figure for the fully vaccinated as 75%.  Is it the, say, 25% of unvaccinated parishioners whom you purport to be protecting? Haven’t they made their own decision about the risks they are prepared to run with the virus rather than take the vaccine? What reasons do they have for refusing the vaccine? Do you absolve yourself of your responsibility to minister to their spiritual needs, for they will be excluded from the churches along with unvaccinated priests, will they not? Why not let the unvaccinated priests minister to the unvaccinated parishioners?

More concerning is the mounting toll of injuries and deaths from the vaccine itself. The suppression of this reality is a crime which must, we hope and pray, surely be called to account in Justice and Truth. Nonetheless, in spite of this suppression, two Coalition Senators are refusing to support any Government legislation until adequate recognition of and compensation for these casualties is forthcoming from the Government and the taxpayer, the purveyors of and profiteers from the vaccine having been totally indemnified. Five Coalition Senators crossed the floor to vote in favour of a Bill to override State segregation actions such as you are implementing. Are you unaware of these things, your Grace?

Someone who relied exclusively on the mass media for information about this never-ending pandemic would be ignorant of these realities. Such a wide-eyed innocent would take a vaccine in good faith, as he had his smallpox vaccination and his polio vaccination, initially expecting that the taking of two doses would be the end of the matter. Then the metaphor would seamlessly have melded into the likeness of a tetanus shot, which offered protection for only a certain period. Bit whereas a tetanus shot offered protection for five or six years, this “vaccine” offers protection for only five or six months, so that an indefinite and possibly unending series of booster shots are required in order to emulate the protection once expected of a single course of a genuine vaccine.

And your, your Grace, impose just such an indefinite and possibly unending series of injections on your priests and all employees of the Archdiocese.

The purpose…is…to enable me to ensure that all clergy in active parish ministry…comply with their obligations, which include receiving both doses of a COVID-19 vaccination by 15 December 2021 and subsequent booster vaccinations as directed by the government health authorities. [E.m.]

In this demoralising proclamation, you have washed your hands all of your obligations to your priests, religious and employees. Their consciences, physical and mental health you have thoughtlessly consigned to the whims of “government health authorities” for the unforeseeable future, irrespective of the mounting concerns and the mounting evidence of the dangers of these therapies.

Some of our bishops aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed. They might legitimately be characterised as wide-eyed innocents incapable of picking through the mass of misinformation and disinformation on both sides of the argument. I don’t believe that you, your Grace, are one of these. So, if you are naïve of these legitimate concerns for the health and safety of vaccinees, you are wilfully so. If you are aware of these things, then, quite apart from the horrible moral consequences of your arrogantly overriding the moral concerns of your priests, religious and employees, you are directly culpable for injury to or death of any person whom you obliged to take the vaccine.

If only the Archdiocese were able to negotiate indemnity, like the drug companies. Will the Archdiocese set up a compensation fund? It may also be useful to lay out a protocol for those good Catholics who might still trust you to negotiate compensation outside the adversarial processes of litigation. You might call it Towards Vaccine Healing.

The conclusion I am left with is the one you yourself pointed out.

As an employer, the Archdiocese needs to comply with the government health directions … I am the sole member and officer of the Archdiocesan Corporation which in civil law is the employer of Archdiocesan staff… I am therefore bound to take seriously compliance with health directions. Further, I have a legal obligation to ensure that the Archdiocesan Corporation meets its workplace health and safety obligations. …my duties and responsibilities in civil law as the sole officer and member of the Archdiocesan Corporation…it is not just legal obligation…

It is not just legal obligation, indeed. But it is, overwhelmingly, your concern with the civil law that underlies and motivates your discriminatory diktat. To suborn the consciences of so many who are under your protection is a grievous act, which will be applauded by corrupt secular authorities and institutions. The true state of your conscience and your true motivations, which I must attempt to excavate from your words, are known with certainty to the assessor who most matters, or so Catholics both good and bad believe.

As I sat down to consider this letter, I had in mind the readings for the Wednesday of Week 34 in Ordinary Time. It is the memorial of Saints Andrew D?ng-L?c and his companions. From the Universalis notes on the memorial comes this:

The evangelisation of Vietnam began in the 16th century… There are now about 6 million Catholics in Vietnam, some 10% of the population.

    This growth comes partly from the fact that since the earliest times the seed of the Faith has been watered by the blood of the martyrs of Vietnam … In the course of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries no less than 53 decrees, signed by the lords and emperors of the country from 1625 to 1886, launched one persecution of Christians after another, each one more savage than the last. Over the whole territory of Vietnam about 130,000 Christians were killed in these persecutions…

    Since the beginning of the 20th century 117 of these heroes (those whose sufferings were cruellest and best documented) were beatified, in four groups. They were all canonised together by Pope John Paul II on 19 June 1988.

    …with such a huge crowd one can only classify. By nationality, there were 96 Vietnamese, 11 Spanish and 10 French. By status, there were 8 bishops, 50 priests, and 59 laymen and women. By mode of death, 75 were beheaded, 22 strangled, 6 burned alive, 5 torn to pieces while still alive, and 9 died of torture in prison.

Fortunately, they did not fall foul of contemporary civil law in Queensland. How many would have recanted in our terrifying circumstances?

Finally, your Grace, I conceal my identity, not because of any concerns for myself, but for those good Catholics of my acquaintance who may be tarred by association, who would suffer more greatly than I from any hostility arising from this letter.

God bless and keep you, your Grace, and may God bless and sustain those in your care.

57 thoughts on “Guest Post: Christopher Robin – A Bad Catholic: an Open Letter to Archbishop Mark Coleridge”

  1. Powerful indeed, Dover. We have been betrayed by the very group we would have expected to stand by us.

    The Prince is an extremely lapsed Catholic but he is outraged by this Archbishop’s revolting ‘act of conscience’. Refusing the sacraments to anyone is the biggest mortal sin you can commit, in his view.

    Jesus ministered to the sick and unclean, this joker is in it for the robes and the acclaim of the powerful. God is probably as flabbergasted as I am.


    Report comment

    14
  2. Excellent and powerful letter.

    May God have mercy of the soul of Bishop Coleridge and indeed on all our Bishops of Australia as Coleridge is head of the ACCB.


    Report comment

    18
  3. The shepherd is cracking down on the sheep, not resisting the wolves. He is basically saying to them, here – have these. Now leave the rest of us alone.

    It is happening everywhere, not just in the Catholic part of the church.


    Report comment

    14
  4. Megan:
    Jesus ministered to the sick and unclean, this joker is in it for the robes and the acclaim of the powerful. God is probably as flabbergasted as I am

    Worth repeating.


    Report comment

    8
  5. The virus provided the churches with an opportune moment to consider going underground.

    Alas, they are too beholden to government funding for their various “ministries” (hospitals, schools aged care), to do so.

    Christians ought to consider their futures without their “leaders” and empires they value.


    Report comment

    15
  6. Stunning and powerful letter. So clear to see the corporatism and quite frankly the bureaucratic cowardice infiltrating the church. Faith and courage not strong in that one. Thanks for posting Dover.


    Report comment

    13
  7. “Is it incorrect to suggest that bishops wear purple in imitation of the sufferings of Jesus, or that cardinals wear red in witness of their willingness to die for the Faith? No, certainly not, but these pious explanations came centuries after the colors actually began to be worn by bishops and cardinals. Perhaps not the original reasons for selecting these colors, they are today the reasons these colors remain in use”.


    Report comment

    3
  8. “The risk to children was so small as to be difficult to determine”

    They want us to believe the early strains were not even infecting children, rather than children’s immune systems were smashing it so easily it gave the appearance of no infection. Government officials and the regime media have then talked up positive cases in children of subsequent strains as part of their fearmongering to promote experimental injections into ever younger children. I haven’t able to establish if that is to save thecchildren from a non-existent risk or to protect “a small percentage of the elderly, increasing with the number and severity of co-morbiditie”. Any rational older person would not be expecting such a sacrifice from the young, some selfish elements though may. Those people were always free to remove themselves from society and make the sacrifices the government and the Arch Bishop enforced on all of society.

    I can understand government not contemplating ‘what would Jesus do’ but the powers within the chrch too is disappointing.

    Great letter.


    Report comment

    8
  9. Manifestly unfair when in March 2020 we did not know how serious an illness covid was.
    Churches were closed during the Spanish flu epidemic and Catholics being unable to fulfil their mass obligations because of distance, disease, war or other valid reasons outside their control is commonplace throughout history.

    As for covid not dangerous, vax bad, naturally, as always, someone from Queensland is the expert.
    May God have mercy on the smug, the self satisfied, the hubristic.


    Report comment

    2
  10. rosie, March 2020 is a long time ago, now.
    Plenty of evidence since that covid was never a concern, except for very old people with co-morbidities. The present variant, omicron, barely causes the sniffles.
    If you can’t see by now that this has nothing to do with health, you are being wilfully ignorant.
    If you think that Chairman Dan saved Victoria, you need to seek urgent counselling for a case of Stockholm Syndrome, at the very least.


    Report comment

    33
  11. The problem with command Ms Rosie is that when one makes a decision one does it after considering all aspects to hand at that particular time, and if those conditions change as they did with this basic non event except the man made one by that nice Mr. Andrews that resulted in slaughter of old innocents, a good commander changes the decision or admits he/she was wrong. The Archbishop didn’t do that and hasn’t done that as the conditions have changed, hence the excellent letter of castigation, and in any case a commander is there to protect his command and not persecute them as the Archbishop has done.
    moderated

    6
  12. Yes, this letter rings very true.
    It is clear that the scamdemic is of a demonic nature, as one of the key outcomes was to close the churches and bend the knee of the church leaders to the law of man, over the law of God.
    But we all know who wins in the end.


    Report comment

    12
  13. You have inspired me to write my own (much shorter!) letter to the Archbishop.
    Perhaps others could do the same?

    Yes, I wrote to the archibishop a month ago and got a personal reply from his exec assistant, and it does look like he read my letter (effectively outlining the situation and how it’s evil). I would recommend the same as he does read the letters and the weight of the congregation can come to bear.


    Report comment

    10
  14. ‘May God have mercy on the smug, the self satisfied (sic), the hubristic.’
    Might be more appropriate to take that sentiment to confession, Rosie.


    Report comment

    8
  15. I can understand government not contemplating ‘what would Jesus do’ but the powers within the chrch too is disappointing.

    Don’t put your trust in powerful men, in mere mortals in whom there is no help.

    When they breathe their last and return to the earth their plans perish with them.

    Rather, happy is he who has the God of Jacob as his help and whose hope is in the Lord his God.

    Psalm 146:3-5


    Report comment

    8
  16. Coleridge’s statement on George Pell’s High Court acquittal – wherein he re-associates the Cardinal with child abuse – was a weird, mob-appeasing disgrace.

    Not a single word about what his brother in Christ had been put through by liars.


    Report comment

    21
  17. As an employer, the Archdiocese needs to comply with the government health directions … I am the sole member and officer of the Archdiocesan Corporation which in civil law is the employer of Archdiocesan staff… I am therefore bound to take seriously compliance with health directions. Further, I have a legal obligation to ensure that the Archdiocesan Corporation meets its workplace health and safety obligations. …my duties and responsibilities in civil law as the sole officer and member of the Archdiocesan Corporation…it is not just legal obligation…

    It follows logically that the Archbishop intends to allow murderers into Catholic hospitals from 1 January 2023 when the Palaszczuk government’s VAD law comes into full force.

    Right?


    Report comment

    16
  18. This freedom stuff is childish. You could not go into public places with a contagious disease in any normal situation. And you can pretend COVID isn’t a risk but the reality is that it is very widely accepted.
    So of course the churches and others will protect those in their property.
    Really is time for people to accept obligations with freedoms. I really am over all this nonsense.
    moderated

  19. This freedom stuff is childish. You could not go into public places with a contagious disease in any normal situation.

    Not having a vaccination that doesn’t work, isn’t a “contagious disease”.
    Dickhead!


    Report comment

    13
  20. Hi Rosie.

    Manifestly unfair when in March 2020 we did not know how serious an illness covid was.

    What’s your argument here? That any new disease, the seriousness of which we do not know, is reason to shut the churches, especially in Holy Week?

    That may not have been what you meant to write (I hope not) but if not, please clarify.
    moderated

  21. This freedom stuff is childish.

    The sort of thing ScoMo or Dictator Dan would say, and have said.

    Really is time for people to accept obligations with freedoms. I really am over all this nonsense.

    Freedom is immutable and no one’s – especially politicians and bureaucrats – right to give or take away.


    Report comment

    10
  22. Let go of the fear “Unbeliever”.
    The first step in doing this is to recognise that it was a deliberate fear campaign.
    If you are still watching and listening to mainstream crap, focus on the language they are using.
    It’s called “persuasive writing”. All the kiddies are taught it in school now. Everything you hear or see has been written first, with a purpose.
    Look and listen to the words like “exposure sites”; “reeling”, “infections surging” etc, etc, etc.
    Strip out the horror language and look at the actual numbers.
    Deprogram yourself from the fear.
    On the other side of it I have been careful to isolate myself from the vaccine fear mongering. “Kill shot”, “Clot shot”, “depopulation”.
    Not helpful either.
    In other words, use your brain and logic and stop being manipulated.


    Report comment

    11
  23. It follows logically that the Archbishop intends to allow murderers into Catholic hospitals from 1 January 2023 when the Palaszczuk government’s VAD law comes into full force.

    Right?

    M A R V E L O U S letter!!! Did you cc the Papal Nuncio? This archdemon needs lots of blots on his copybook.


    Report comment

    4
  24. Methinks the Archbishop should disrobe from the silks of office and don sackcloth and ashes for his sins. What a disgrace and yes

    May God have mercy on the smug, the self satisfied, the hubristic.

    and not forgetting the silent.


    Report comment

    9
  25. “You could not go into public places with a contagious disease in any normal situation.”

    Not having had an experimental vaccine does not equate to having a contagious disease.


    Report comment

    10
  26. Unbeliever

    This freedom stuff is childish. You could not go into public places with a contagious disease in any normal situation.

    Is HIV/AIDS contagious?


    Report comment

    6
  27. You could not go into public places with a contagious disease in any normal situation

    Codswallop. Prior to 2020 I could go anywhere I wanted to go even if I had a head cold or the flu. No one would have dreamed of stopping me.

    Even infections with more exotic horrors like Hep A wouldn’t have been policed.

    This is dumb on stilts.


    Report comment

    12
  28. Really is time for people to accept obligations with freedoms.

    Do you believe governments have an obligation to treat people humanely?

    Or even just to treat them as adults?

    The truth is the Australian public has been long-suffering over the last 19 motnhs while at almost every turn governments and their officials have abused their trust.


    Report comment

    6
  29. Really is time for people to accept obligations with freedoms.

    Another supporter of National Service.
    We’ll have it back up a running in no time at this rate. A real election winning policy, if the mandate support is anything to judge by.


    Report comment

    5
  30. You could not go into public places with a contagious disease in any normal situation

    Not only could you do so, you were encouraged (and in some cases compelled) to do so.

    If you were sick you were supposed to visit a hospital to either heal you or just to get a medical certificate.

    So you had dozens of people congregating together feeding each other their diseases (presumably). Babies, the elderly and the immune suppressed [aka already sick] were most targeted.


    Report comment

    1
  31. Not only could you do so, you were encouraged (and in some cases compelled) to do so.

    If you were sick you were supposed to visit a hospital to either heal you or just to get a medical certificate.

    So you had dozens of people congregating together feeding each other their diseases (presumably).

    Chad Thunderbrain, not everybody is as terrified of a Doctor’s office or hospital waiting room as you are.

    Which is kind of ironic, given that you think all disease is mental trauma, i.e. weakness in lesser human beings than yourself…


    Report comment

  32. Rex, why are you so determined to reinforce how stupid you are?

    Can you please confirm that you actually understand my argument?

    If diseases were contagious, then visiting a doctor would be extremely dangerous.

    Visiting a doctor is not extremely dangerous, ergo diseases are not contagious.

    Now could you please tell me which aspect of that argument (known as modus tollens) you don’t understand? You’re deeply stupid so I’m happy to walk through it slowly.


    Report comment

  33. If diseases were contagious, then visiting a doctor would be extremely dangerous.

    Visiting a doctor is not extremely dangerous, ergo diseases are not contagious.

    That’s a remarkable change from the consistent position you have held ever since you first appeared on this site, Chad Thunderbrain.

    Did you have to go sit in one recently?


    Report comment

  34. The Archbishop was fulfilling his civic obligation as required by the law. For that he should be applauded. If all the complainers followed his example and lived god lives, then I am sure your good Lord would look upon you with love and compassion.
    moderated

  35. That’s a remarkable change from the consistent position you have held ever since you first appeared on this site, Chad Thunderbrain.

    Well no. You’re just so astonishingly stupid you never worked it out – which is amazing because I’m pretty sure my 7 year old would have understood it just fine.

    But that’s ok. If I have ever, in your mind, held a different point of view please quote me (and the context) on this. Good luck!


    Report comment

  36. The Archbishop was fulfilling his civic obligation as required by the law. For that he should be applauded.

    This is the level of intellectual engagement you get with people who believe in vaccination. They’re all imbeciles. Every single last one of them. Vaccines are so toxic that even the belief in them poisons the mind.

    Tell me David, if it was the law that we should round up all the Jews and put them in concentration camps, would it be the “Godly” thing to obey this law?

    By the way, the correct answer you need to provide is: “I’m an evil moron who can’t even tie his own shoelaces and I should never have an opinion on any issue ever again”.


    Report comment

    1
  37. And, to top it all off, the Archbishop is violating paragraph 2295 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which insists on the free and informed consent of anyone who is asked to take part in a medical experiment:

    “2295 Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subjects’ potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject’s life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him.”
    moderated

    3
  38. I really am over all this nonsense.

    Good. Go away then. I am really over the gullible idiots who cannot think critically to save themselves. You are not in any way a solution. YOU are the problem.

    Compliance makes you complicit.


    Report comment

    3
  39. And just to be clear…compliance, in AfDanistan particularly, does not apply to anyone who was left with no choice but to comply because of government overreaching into oppression.

    Compliance, when you have other choices available, does not preclude you from continuing to fight against moral and ethical wrong. Which the Archbishop’s superior conscience has completely overlooked in this instance.


    Report comment

    3
  40. Oh, I am sorry, Chad Thunderbrain.

    It was actually crowded trains you were afraid of, wasn’t it?

    Though, given that in response to any suggestions you actually go sit in a doctor’s office to demonstrate your ambit that the human immune system will instantly collapse upon exposure to any and all pathogens, you demand in return that the other party receive every conceivable vaccine they might get in their lifetime all at once, one might think your fanaticism was based on a heady combination of ignorance and animal fear…


    Report comment

  41. A lot of heat but not much light. The fact that people are asked to not attend a church or some other public place isn’t an infringement of liberty. It’s a request to be responsible in the context of a hazard. An infringement of liberty is when elected government is removed by military force (Myanmar) or impeded by attacks on political opposition (Russia) or when political parties manipulate electoral regulation to remove voters from the rolls (US).
    moderated

  42. The fact that people are asked to not attend a church or some other public place isn’t an infringement of liberty. It’s a request to be responsible in the context of a hazard.

    Firstly, how can denying people access to a public place not be an infringement of liberty? Secondly, that you immediately defend it by reference to a ‘hazard’ is curious because you should feel no reason to justify the exclusion if it were not an infringement. Thirdly, given the absolute risk of transmission is miniscule from vaxxed or unvaxxed alike, the depravation of liberty is out of all proportion to the risk of transmission. Fourthly, anyone that raises this argument without being interested in quantity of risk is arguing in bad faith.

    Moreover, does it not occur to anyone making the ‘safety’ argument that the vast majority of the unvaxxed who they wish to exclude are NOT infected. How then is their exclusion a matter of ‘safety’?


    Report comment

  43. A perfectly perverse and despicable act. Coincides with incontrovertible proof about how dangerous these experimental gene-transfer-technology human trials are. Incontrovertible proof of the superiority as vaccines HCQ, Ivermectin etc are but were criminalised to save the wealth transfer and digitalID slavery project of the superrich. Without doubt Abp Coleridge is at risk of hell fire, his idiotic vainglorious brother bishops will join him if they do not repent immediately. They intend to let children be enrolled as research subjects in this latest genocidal compulsion of political modernity. Short term effects are 142 children maimed/killed by myocarditis to save 1. Medium/long term appalling and profound damage is expected, from sterility and serious disease from immune dysregulation.

    Yes, the Church is not indemnified the occupation government made sure of that in a specifically worded statute in the NSW parliament I know for sure. Yes ‘Toward Vaccine Healing’ costs will be an order of magnitude greater than from the wreckage of the sex revolt. (h/t Steve Kirsch, Dr McCullough). These bishops are perhaps the worst who have ever lived. Human carnage, generational ramifications….all over the most obvious lies. Construction union representing BHP workers were able to serve their people at a basic humane level. These bishops have sunk not just beneath the level of overseer/apostle or even the baptised, but beneath the human. Woe woe woe.
    moderated

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *