Nativity School of Worcester needs to abide by the prescripts of Bishop Robert McManus

 Can. 806 §1. The diocesan bishop has the right to watch over and visit the Catholic schools in his territory, even those which members of religious institutes have founded or direct. He also issues prescripts which pertain to the general regulation of Catholic schools; these prescripts are valid also for schools which these religious direct, without prejudice, however, to their autonomy regarding the internal direction of their schools.

Apparently this truth has been forgotten by some.  As noted here, "A Worcester Jesuit middle school and the Diocese of Worcester are at odds over Black Lives Matter and gay pride flags flying on the school’s campus.

Diocese Bishop Robert J. McManus said the flags symbolize messages that conflict with Catholic teaching, and suggested the Nativity School of Worcester could risk losing its Catholic identity if administrators don’t take the flags down.

In response, the Nativity School said the flags are meant to show that all students 'do matter and deserve to be respected as Christian values teach us.' Although the school said it operates within the diocese, officials made the distinction that it’s not a diocesan school. The Nativity School is an accredited tuition-free, all-boys school mainly serving students of color from low-income communities.

School administrators said they’ve been flying the Black Lives Matter and gay pride flags since January 2021. School President Thomas McKenney declined to elaborate what the bishop's threat could mean for the school.

'The Black Lives Matter and Pride flags fly below the American flag at our school to remind our young men, their families and Nativity Worcester staff that all are welcome here and that they are valued and safe in this place,' the school said in a statement."

In Ontario, a group calling itself "Parents as First Educators" (a name which reflects solid Catholic teaching), circulated a petition titled “Lift high the Cross and not the Pride flag.”

In this petition. The group said that: "Parents exercise their choice when they send their children to Catholic schools, and they expect them to receive an education with Catholic moral teaching. Catholic schools need to be clear about the messages they give to children, and consistently teach students the truth about the faith,” the group said...Raising the Pride flag suggests approval of sexual activity of which the Catholic Church disapproves and violates Catholic teaching on chastity for all young people. Activists are using the Pride Flag motion to enforce their ideological agenda."

That's the problem in a nutshell. The Nativity School in Worcester doesn't have a leg to stand on.  Legally or morally.

Worcester City Councilor Sarai Rivera engages in historical revisionism

As noted here, Worcester Councilor Sarai Rivera has failed (at least for now) in her bid to have a statue of Christopher Columbus removed from the city's Union Station.

Rivera, a Pentecostal Minister, is quoted as having said that,  "the statue should be removed because of atrocities and devastation caused for indigenous people in the Caribbean, Central America, and North America."

Rivera identifies as Afro Taina and claims descent from the Taino indigenous people of Puerto Rico. She said she never participated in Worcester's annual Columbus Day Parade.

“I could never go to celebrate someone who committed genocide on my ancestors,” she said, according to the Worcester Gazette & Telegram.

“Columbus is not about heritage. Columbus is about hate,” Rivera said to the council meeting, according to the Boston Globe."

Rivera is obviously no historian.  Columbus never committed genocide on any people.  This is explained by noted historian Warren Carroll, Ph.D here.

In fact, as Dr. Carroll explains:


"Upon the islands that he first discovered on the other side of the Atlantic, Columbus found native inhabitants, whom he called Indians, believing himself to be in 'the Indies' of Asia. And here began the long and troubled story of Columbus' interaction with the native Americans.

Before going into the historical details of that interaction, it is essential to clear away the fog of idealization and special pleading that now surrounds so much talk about the American Indians. First of all we have to understand the situation that existed in the world of the Indian of the Caribbean and mid-America when Columbus arrived.

It seems to be true, as is so often repeated today, that when Columbus found them, the Indians inhabiting the Bahama Islands, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the great island the Spanish called Hispaniola (now divided between Haiti and the Dominican Republic) were a gentle, happy, attractive people living peacefully in good ecological balance with their surroundings. They were known as Taino, or Arawaks.

But they were not destined to remain in their Eden-like situation for long, even if Columbus and the Spanish had not come. Advancing steadily northward from the long chain of Caribbean islands called the Antilles was one of the most ferocious people in recorded history, the Caribs. They were savage conquerors who practiced cannibalism, not as an occasional cultic ritual, but as a regular diet. Captured prisoners were immediately eaten. Conquered peoples were systematically devoured. On every island they seized, the Caribs soon exterminated every Taino. On no island did the two tribes coexist.

Across the island-studded Caribbean Sea lay Mexico. Though politically and culturally advanced beyond most other Indian cultures, the Mexica had a large army, a well-developed governmental administration, a system of writing, and stone temples, their empire, which we call Aztec, carried out ritual human sacrifice on a scale far exceeding any recorded of any other people in the history of the world. The law of the Mexica empire required a thousand human sacrifices to the god Huitzilopochtli in every town with a temple, every year; there were 371 subject towns in the empire, and the majority had full-scale temples. There were many other sacrifices as well. The total number was at least 50,000 a year, probably much more. The early Mexican historian Ixtlilxochitl estimated that one out of every five children in Mexico was sacrificed. When in the year 1487 the immense new temple of Huitzilopochtli was dedicated in Tenochtitlan (now Mexico City), more than 80,000 men were sacrificed, at fifteen seconds per man, for four days and four nights of almost unimaginable horror."

Speaking of hate, Ms. Rivera supports the hate group Black Lives Matter.  For more on this sinister group, see here.

Those who control the liberal msm exhibit a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race

Michelle Malkin writes:

"Liberal business executives are leaping like lemmings from President Donald Trump’s manufacturing advisory council. Good riddance.

These silly string-spined CEOs have sided with social justice agitators, Beltway media enablers, and Democratic resistance knuckleheads who believe Trump was wrong to condemn violence and hatred on all sides of the political spectrum.

Never mind that of the four people arrested after the violent outbreak in Charlottesville, Virginia, this weekend, two were identified with the white nationalist movement and the other two were left-wing “Antifa” counterprotesters.

One of those radical leftists is the man identified as having reportedly punched a female reporter for the D.C.-based newspaper The Hill.


But since that doesn’t fit the national media narrative of journalists allegedly being victimized by right-wing incitements to violence, mum’s the word from corporate media executives and the rest of the preening CEOs.

Merck CEO Kenneth C. Frazier claimed he stepped down from the Trump business panel because he felt “a responsibility to take a stand against intolerance and extremism.”

But Frazier, who served on President Barack Obama’s Export Council, felt no equivalent responsibility to take a stand against intolerance and extremism when the White House invited leaders from the violence-inciting Black Lives Matter movement for a forum on policing in July 2016.

The invitation was a grievous affront to law enforcement officers and their families across the country outraged at the deadly ambushes committed against cops in Dallas and Baton Rouge that summer, along with several other forgotten cop killings fueled by Black Lives Matter-linked hate and vengeance.

Who remembers the slaying of Kentucky State Trooper Joseph Ponder by Black Lives Matter marcher and “Hands up, don’t shoot” slogan-spreader Joseph Thomas Johnson-Shanks in September 2015?

At least 11 police have been shot dead and at least nine more wounded by Black Lives Matter protesters, activists, and/or supporters to date.

One of the surviving policemen in the Baton Rouge massacre filed suit last month against Black Lives Matter and laid out the case against its leaders, who “not only, incited the violence against police in retaliation for the death of black men shot by police, but also did nothing to dissuade the ongoing violence and injury to police. In fact, they justified the violence as necessary to the movement and war.”

The permanently disabled cop’s lawsuit recounts escalating riots, arson, and plundering after the police-involved deaths of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray in Ferguson, Missouri, through the ambushes in Dallas and Baton Rouge, and leading up to the Obama administration’s embrace of Black Lives Matter’s leaders.

After the meeting, Black Lives Matter leader DeRay McKesson responded to questions about his movement’s culpability for inciting violence by asserting that his “people take to the streets as a last resort. … So when I think about anything that happens when people are in the street, I always start by saying, ‘People should not have had to have been there in the first place.'”

As the lawyers for the Baton Rouge cop, who must remain anonymous to protect his family, properly concluded: “These statements were a ratification and justification of the violence.”

But instead of recriminations, the militants of Black Lives Matter enjoy continued praise and coddling from corporate America. Tech execs from Netflix, YouTube, and Google all donated to McKesson’s failed mayoral bid in Baltimore.

Business execs have been coughing up untold hundreds of millions of dollars to Black Lives Matter and related causes, funneled through left-wing nonprofits such as the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy.

On Tuesday, Walmart executive Doug McMillon wagged his finger at Trump, urging “elected officials to do their part to promote a more just, tolerant, and diverse society.”

This from the head of a retail giant that only recently stopped selling racially divisive, anti-cop taunting, violence-glamorizing T-shirts that bragged: “Bulletproof: Black Lives Matter.”

And the disavowal double standards beat goes on."

Of course it does.  The liberal msm isn't interested in objective truth.  Its sole agenda is to manipulate the reader or viewer and to advance its ideology.

In his critically important work Man Against Mass Society, Gabriel Marcel writes, "In spite of everything that can be said to the contrary, is not the real and deep purpose of propaganda after all that of reducing men to a condition in which they lose all capacity for individual reaction? In other words, whether the men in control of propaganda intend this or not, is it not of the very nature of propaganda to degrade those whose attitudes it seeks to shape? And is it possible to be unaware of the fact that propaganda presupposes, in these men in control, a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race? If we really attach any value at all to what a man is in himself, to his authentic nature, how can we assume the responsibility of passing him through the flattening-out machinery of propaganda?

What we ought to enquire into, however, is the nature of this contempt. There are, of course, fine shades of distinction that analysis ought to bring out: but is there any essential difference between the attitude of someone like Goebbels, for instance, and that of a chief of Communist propaganda? In both cases we are faced with a radical and cynical refusal to recognize the competence of individual judgment, an impatience with what appears, from this point of view, the intolerable presumptuousness of the individual. It is also broadly noteworthy that even the sense of truth cannot fail gradually and unconsciously to be destroyed in those who assume the task of manipulating opinion. It would require a very uncommon degree of simple-mindedness in a professional propagandist for him to remain very long convinced that his truth was the whole truth. Such simple-mindedness is only conceivable in a fanatic." (pp. 50-51).

The Second Vatican Council, in its Decree Inter Mirifica, had this to say:

"For the proper use of these media it is most necessary that all who employ them be acquainted with the norms of morality and conscientiously put them into practice in this area. They must look, then, to the nature of what is communicated, given the special character of each of these media. At the same time they must take into consideration the entire situation or circumstances, namely, the persons, place, time and other conditions under which communication takes place and which can affect or totally change its propriety. Among these circumstances to be considered is the precise manner in which a given medium achieves its effect. For its influence can be so great that men, especially if they are unprepared, can scarcely become aware of it, govern its impact, or, if necessary, reject it."

The liberal msm knows this.   It counts on it!

Speaking of manipulating public opinion, see here

Pope John Paul II"s warning coming to pass in America: "People inevitably reach the point of rejecting one another.."

As I've said so many times before, America will witness an explosion of violence and blood in the streets.  See here for example.  And that violence has arrived.

Abraham Lincoln, in a speech given on January 27, 1837, forewarned: "At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

And indeed we are sowing the seeds of our own destruction. It was Pope John Paul II who taught us, in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae [the Gospel of Life] that: "...If the promotion of the self is understood in terms of absolute autonomy, people inevitably reach the point of rejecting one another. Everyone else is considered an enemy from whom one has to defend oneself. Thus society becomes a mass of individuals placed side by side, but without any mutual bonds. Each one wishes to assert himself independently of the other and in fact intends to make his own interests prevail. Still, in the face of other people's analogous interests, some kind of compromise must be found, if one wants a society in which the maximum possible freedom is guaranteed to each individual. In this way, any reference to common values and to a truth absolutely binding on everyone is lost, and social life ventures on to the shifting sands of complete relativism. At that point, everything is negotiable, everything is open to bargaining: even the first of the fundamental rights, the right to life. This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the 'right' ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the 'common home' where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?" When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34)." (Evangelium Vitae, No. 20).

President Lincoln possessed a wisdom and humility in his approach to government. Let's listen then to what he had to say on March 30, 1863, when he issued a historic Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day: "...it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history: that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord: And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisement in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.."All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the nation will be heard on high and answered with blessing no less than the pardon of our national sins and the restoration of our now divided and suffering country to its former happy condition of unity and peace..."

The key to peace is reconciliation with God and neighbor.  But thus far, Americans have shown no interest in following the example of Nineveh.  They have chosen to follow the road to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Soros-funded Socialist groups disrupting Trump rallies...

A George Soros funded group is taking responsibility for the violence in Chicago which was part of an ongoing effort to shut down Trump rallies.

Brother Nathanael Kapner, writing for Novakeo.com, explains that George Soros, "..a proponent of the 'hard left,' has also been funneling money into the Democratic Party and to its candidates with the intent on building a slate of Senators and Representatives with socialist leanings. 'George Soros has purchased the Democratic Party,' said Republican National Committee spokeswoman, Christine Iverson, 'and he who pays the piper calls the tune.'


Through his Open Society Institute, Soros has contributed to left wing socialist groups such as, Human Rights Watch, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, The New American Foundation, ACORN, MoveOn, and his own, Center For American Progress...

George Soros now has a superhighway to Change – ‘Socialist Change.’ We are already beginning to see the largest growth in government in the history of America. Hell-bent on destroying the American dollar and installing a global currency, Soros has got his bought-and-paid-for White House stooge now installing his socialist agenda."


The Socialist plan to destroy America was actually described in a 1934 Chicago Tribune cartoon.  Take note of the sign in the lower left-hand corner of this cartoon.  It reads (in part): "spend, spend, spend..under the guise of recovery."

George Soros funds the Democratic Party and Socialist candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton (and make no mistake about it, she's every bit the Socialist as much as Sanders) because he wants to destroy America and deliver her up to UN rule.  It was Soros who said some years back that, "America should be replaced by a world government with a global economy under UN rule."

This is why Trump must be stopped in the sick mind of George Soros and His Socialist comrades.  At the same time that Soros-funded activists are attempting to silence the free speech of freedom-loving Americans with hate groups such as Black Lives Matter (see here), the Soros-funded group Sojourners pushes the Satanic Earth Charter agenda to advance a Socialist World State and to neutralize the Catholic Church while delivering up the United States to Satanic rule by an occult elite.  See here.