Truth Under Assault


The Denial of Truth

We live in an era where the denial of not only the ability to discern what is true from what is false runs rampant but also the rejection of objective truth itself. Interestingly, everyone speaks about truth, whether it is politicians, doctors, journalists, celebrities, athletes, academics, or the common person, but rarely are they capable of providing a succinct definition of truth. All too often, the truth is intended to be or referred to as being possessive; for example, the truth is referred to as being my truth, your truth, their truth, or our truth. Subjective truth appears to be elevated over objective truth. And all too often we hear the mantra, “That is your opinion,” or statements such as “That may be true for you, but not for me,” which inherently is meant to shut down any further discussion. Whenever my daughter says something like this, I respond, “Some opinions are better than others, and some may correspond with the truth.” Sadly, some professors do not fair much better than teenagers in such conversations. I recall, as a master’s student at Saint Paul University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, one of my professors (who considered herself an ecofeminist) uttering in a lecture that there was no such thing as truth. When I questioned her as to whether that was true, she responded that she meant “truth with a capital T.” Then I pressed her further and asked whether that statement itself was true; regrettably, the point seemed to be lost on her since I did not press any further and the lecture continued. Unfortunately, this is what happens when theology is infected by postmodern “epistemology,” if one can call it that. Nevertheless, the claim that objective truth does not exist is a self-contradictory one, since to deny its existence is to affirm it. This is a matter of basic logic. Unless one is a metaphysical relativist or postmodernist, such a claim is uncontroversial; either way, it’s incontrovertible regardless of one’s beliefs. However, the implications of accepting relativism and defending untruths run deep within and outside of the church.

On Gender Ideology

One may start to wonder if the truth is under constant siege. And what kind of madness have we descended into over the past few years? Western civilization is undergoing a period of great confusion at best and, at worst, great depravity, malevolence, and pure idiocy. Christianity is not exempt from this and is a very active participant in this confusion or even psychosis. Untruths are clung to at all costs. Evidence is disregarded. People from all walks of life are embracing this period of unreality. Defenders of gender ideology deny the reality that humans are a sexually dimorphic species and, in the same breath, affirm that a man can become a woman and vice versa, all the while not providing a proper definition of what it means to be either. But it is much worse than that; we are forced to accept untruths, and if you do not, you will be punished with the force of the law. If you question gender ideology, you are liable to lose your position as an educator, or, as a student, you can also be arrested and be prohibited from entering your high school premises. Going a few steps further, if you’re a Christian minister and you object and protest against convicted pedophilic transvestites (some of who are also drag queens) reading sexualized and inappropriate stories to innocent children, you will be arrested. 

On Truth and Reconciliation

Another example includes the burning of churches, which is justified by the majority of our institutions in the name of social justice, but no evidence of human remains was found after two years of claiming “mass graves” in Canada. Ironically, despite this, we now have a federal holiday named “Truth and Reconciliation Day” on September 30th. A recent book titled Grave Error: How the Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools), argues that reconciliation will only take place once the truth is exposed and accepted. A collection of essays exposes the following questionable claims and exaggerations:

  • Thousands of “missing children” went away to residential schools and were never heard from again.
  • These missing children are buried in unmarked graves underneath or around mission churches and schools.
  • Many of these missing children were murdered by school personnel after being subjected to physical and sexual abuse, even outright torture.
  • The carnage is appropriately defined as genocide.
  • Many human remains have already been located by ground-penetrating radar, and many more will be found as government-funded research progresses.
  • Most Indian children attended residential schools.
  • Those who attended residential schools did not go voluntarily but were compelled to attend by federal policy and enforcement.
  • Attendance at residential schools has traumatized Indigenous people, creating social pathologies that descend across generations.
  • Residential schools destroyed Indigenous languages and culture.

On Political Deception and Hypocrisy

The ones burning churches are declared virtuous, but those protesting in defense of bodily autonomy and informed consent against experimental treatments are called ignorant, scientifically uninformed, immoral, and worse, Nazis and terrorists. Similar verbal attacks are hurled against parents who stand against indoctrinating their gender with the falsity of gender ideology, which is polluting the minds of countless children. All the while, medical doctors push bodily mutilation, such as mastectomies and hormonal treatments, that will cause children irreversible physical and psychological damage. Those who question and object to this form of barbarism are demonized. The same government and many members of parliament who declared that those supporting the trucker convoy were Nazis gave Ukrainian war veteran Yaroslav Hunka, who served in the Nazi Waffen SS, a standing ovation. Not to mention that our deputy PM, Chrystia Freeland, was seen holding a Ukrainian Nazi banner in public and her grandfather’s ties to Ukrainian Nazis—this, of course, is never scrutinized.

On COVID Madness

It is truly dystopian when the Nobel Prize in Medicine is awarded to Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman for their discoveries concerning nucleoside base modifications that enabled the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19, which has proved to be an utter failure since the therapeutic treatment has caused irreparable damage to thousands upon thousands of people, including conditions such as pericarditis, myocarditis, cerebral palsy, accelerated cancer, and sudden death. Not to forget about the fact that it also does not even prevent the contraction or transmission of COVID. Let’s also not forget the demonization of effective early treatments that would’ve rendered the so-called COVID vaccine unnecessary. Nonetheless, people continue merrily about their way, taking their next booster shot. (Interestingly, one of the main architects of the mRNA technology, Dr. Robert Malone, who has been warning about the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccine has been constantly censored and demonized, while almost being stripped of his medical degree from Harvard University.) Malone’s words fit well with the upside-down narrative pushed by the pharmaceutical industry and the complicit mainstream media concerning the ineffectiveness of the COVID vaccines: “First time in history that the ineffectiveness of a medicine is being blamed on those who haven’t taken it.

This begs the question as to why many Christians and people of other religious persuasions were deceived by their faith community leaders. Faithful Catholics were misled by church authorities, including Pope Francis. Pope Francis has referred to vaccination as an “act of love,” even if the Janssen vaccine and the mRNA vaccines are created and/or tested in laboratories using fetal cell lines that have been aborted. Additionally, the Vatican made an effort to calm worries about “material cooperation” with evil by asserting that vaccination was not associated with the abortion business. Bishop Athanasius Schneider, however, clarifies why this is untrue:

The theological principle of material cooperation is certainly valid and may be applied to a whole host of cases (e.g. in paying taxes, the use of products made from slave labor, and so on). However, this principle can hardly be applied to the case of vaccines made from fetal cell lines, because those who knowingly and voluntarily receive such vaccines enter into a kind of concatenation, albeit very remote, with the process of the abortion industry. The crime of abortion is so monstrous that any kind of concatenation with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances by a Catholic once he has become fully aware of it. One who uses these vaccines must realize that his body is benefitting from the “fruits” (although steps removed through a series of chemical processes) of one of mankind’s greatest crimes.

First off, it is impossible to characterize any association with the abortion industry—no matter how tenuous—as an “act of love.” Second, it is deeply unsettling and misleading to describe coercive dictates as an act of love. Third, it is not only useless but also unduly dangerous to vaccinate youngsters who, for the most part, already have a natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants. It should be mentioned that developing herd immunity depends on having healthy, unvaccinated children. Fourth, it is hardly “an act of love” to ignore and silence dissenting voices both inside and outside the Church, including some well-respected authorities in their domains. This includes the firing of the Swiss Guard, Pierre-André Udressy, who ended up blowing the whistle on vaccine coercion in the Vatican. Fifth, employing vaccinations generated using aborted fetal cell lines should not be excused due to the vaccines’ low efficiency and lack of value, as evidenced by the fact that their protection faded over a few months. Sixth, it is not “an act of love” to dehumanize people who refuse to comply. Seventh, it is undeniably not an “act of love” that the COVID vaccines have caused serious injury, including death. It inevitably compounds evil.

An act of love has to be voluntary and cannot be forced. Pope Francis stated that “I believe that morally everyone must take the vaccine” in an interview on January 10, 2021. He also underlined that “it is the moral choice because it is about your life but also the lives of others.” “Getting vaccinated is a simple yet profound way to care for one another, especially the most vulnerable,” stated Pope Francis in August 2021. Pope Francis’s views have been mirrored by several cardinals and archbishops. The Pope never distinguishes between people who should and shouldn’t receive the vaccination. Not a single word about the possible damage and severe side effects. There was no reference to innate immunity at all. Regarding the various abuses that governments around the world commit against free and independent people, the Church has also said absolutely nothing.

Morally repugnant to many conscientious Catholics, including Bishop Schneider, Udressy, and others, is the requirement that people comply in order to receive the COVID injection. It is unfortunate that many devout Catholics were misled—whether intentionally or not—into getting the COVID-19 vaccination by Pope Francis. It’s interesting to note that Pope Francis and Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, had private meetings. For those who don’t know, Pfizer settled the biggest health care fraud case in American history in 2009, paying $2.3 billion. For a comprehensive scientific, ethical, and theological analysis of all the COVID measures implemented, one can refer to COVID-19: A Dystopian Delusion.

On Peace and War

When it comes to peace and war, years ago, Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and then led America into war by launching airstrikes or military raids in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. But the media from the onset declared President Donald J. Trump a warmonger, who, in contrast, was able to facilitate peace deals between the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. Things are getting worse with America’s proxy war against Russia with the Ukraine, as western nations funnel billions of dollars to the Ukraine. And yet, Ukrainians continue to suffer while Zelensky’s pocketbook grows exponentially. Not to forget the ensuing war between Israel and Hamas under the presidency of the doddering Joe Biden. A spokesperson for Hamas said the following:  “We thank Iran who provided us with weapons, money and other equipment. They gave us missiles to destroy Zionist fortresses, and helped us with anti-tank missiles!” It looks as though the $6 billion that Biden gave to Iran is being well spent. And of course, and in good measure, the mainstream media will keep this hidden, leaving the common person in the dark. Then, the US backs up Israel after the attacks, despite playing a role in this chaos. This is nothing new since imperialist powers such as the US have played both sides for years.

The media incessantly deceives the people; that is part of their intended function. It’s just that many do not realize this. Actor Denzel Washington nailed this on its head when he stated, “If you don’t read the news, you’re uninformed. If you do read the news, you’re misinformed.” All of this insanity is only possible in an upside-down world where people are blinded to the truth, i.e., in a fantasy land where unicorns wander freely, pun intended. Finally, Orwellian mathematical illiteracy imposed through brute force is here. Indeed, 2 + 2 = 5, and if you say otherwise, you will suffer the consequences of poor ol’ Winston.

On Pope Francis’s Incongruencies

In addition to the odd statements and supporting COVID vaccines, the pope has engaged in other questionable actions. We have witnessed a number of foul and evil popes throughout the history of the church, but typically these popes, regardless of how evil they may have been, defended the orthodox teachings of the church, even if their actions contradicted living a holy life. However, something seems off with Pope Francis because of some of his ambiguities and the punishment of bishops in good standing who uphold the gospel’s truth and Catholic church traditions.


First, he has never rebuked communist dictators and promotes social justice in a way that is ultimately tantamount to thievery. Second, authoritarian actions against faithful clergy. Take, for instance, Pope Francis’s removal of Bishop Joseph Strickland, a critic of Francis. Strickland is a conservative bishop who is faithful to the Gospel and a staunch defender of Catholic doctrine. Despite this, he has said that we must continue to pray for Pope Francis. Most recently, Cardinal Raymond Burke’s Vatican apartment and salary were taken away by Pope Francis, sending an unmistakable warning to bishops worldwide: either accept Pope Francis’s progressive goal to transform the Catholic Church or face official cancellation. Pope Francis is again showing his heavy hand and making it clear that he will not be holding talks with traditional and devout Catholics, who are the ones who are actually being left out of this pontificate.

Third, in 2020, Auxiliary Bishop Vincent Guo Xijin of Mindong went into hiding from communist authorities in China and eventually resigned because of the Sino-Vatican agreement. This allows the Communist Party of China to select bishops and prevents the Vatican’s ability to veto them. Despite China’s countless human rights abuses, Francis praised this as an act of diplomacy and compared it to connecting with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. The only difference is that Saint Pope John Paul II was involved in confronting the Soviet Union’s reign of terror and was a participant in its collapse. Unlike Francis, JP II did not acquiesce to communist dictatorships. Frighteningly, the arrest of Cardinal Zen, a 90-year-old, and a number of Catholic bishops advocating for human rights and democracy have not deterred the Vatican and Pope Francis from upholding this agreement. Pope Francis has also not lived up to his words about holding bishops and priests accountable for sexual abuse crimes.

Pope Francis greets Jesuit Father James Martin, author and editor at large of America magazine, during a private meeting at the Vatican Oct. 1, 2019. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)

Most recently, in the Vatican Declaration titled “Fiducia Supplicans,” the Pope has approved leaving the blessing of people in same-sex union to the discretion of individual priests or bishops. Although the document is clear that this would not be a liturgical blessing, since the document emphasizes that the church does not recognize any extra-marital unions (anything other than marriage between a man and a woman), it opens the door for error in interpretation by priests who support the lifestyles of members of the LGBTQ+ community. In the face of all these oddities and not following through with what is good and true, he still entertains and meets with the likes of pro-LGBTQ+ Fr. Martin, who has abandoned sound Catholic teaching on homosexuality while offering no direct correction of such views. This is a slap in the face of faithful Catholics who have homosexual proclivities but have restrained themselves from entering into same-sex unions.

Those outside of the church have gone on to suggest that now that Pope Francis approves of same-sex unions, the question is, why even allow for such confusions since people, whether homosexual or not, transsexual or not, can already receive blessings? Inevitably, this can lead to confusion among those giving and receiving the blessing.

Nevertheless, whether the pope and the Vatican are trying to score points with progressives and LGBTQ+ activists, albeit misleadingly, the Church’s position on such matters is clear, and, although Christ extends his love and grace to all, he did not sit with the sinners to condone their sins but to lead them to repentance and salvation. There is no real reason to offer blessings to such couples, aside from repentant individuals.

We must always be reminded that Satan works in subtle ways and gradually. What a first blush may seem innocuous contains within it something much more sinister and terrifying. Take into consideration Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s pointed words criticizing the implications of this document, which are deceiving many:

If this document, together with other more or less official pronouncements, really had as its purpose the good of adulterers, concubinaries, and sodomites, it should have pointed out to them the heroism of Christian witness, reminded them of the self-sacrifice that Our Lord asks of each one of us, and taught them to put their trust in God’s grace in order to overcome trials and live in conformity with His Will. On the contrary, he encourages them, blesses them as irregular, as if they were not; but at the same time he deprives them of marriage, and in this way admits that they are irregular. Bergoglio does not ask them to change their lives, but authorizes a grotesque farce in which two men or two women will be able to appear before a minister of God to be blessed, together with their relatives and friends, and then celebrate this sinful union with a banquet, the cutting of the cake, and gifts. But it’s not a wedding, let’s be clear…


I wonder what’s going to prevent this blessing from being imparted not to a couple, but to several people, in the name of polyamory; or to minors, in the name of the sexual freedom that the globalist elite is introducing through the U.N. and other subversive international organizations. Will it suffice to point out that the Church does not approve of polygamous unions and pedophilia to allow polygamists and pedophiles to be blessed? And why not extend this gimmick to those who practice bestiality? It would always be in the name of welcoming, integration, inclusiveness.

Final Reflection: On Unchanging Truth and the Incarnation

One could go on and on. We haven’t even discussed the lies about economics that we have been made to swallow for years. Leaving that aside, how did this all happen? How did we get here? This did not happen overnight. Humanity’s denial and opposition to truth extend back through the annals of human existence. Theologians and Christian philosophers have argued that sin has caused this noetic deficiency. Rest assured that the denial of truth is predominantly a moral dilemma, not an intellectual one. What I mean by this is that although acknowledgements and discernment of truth fall under the domain of philosophy in logic, their denial is done for questions of the heart. Hence, if we obscure moral truths, then it is easier to shirk away from moral responsibility and accountability. It should be no mystery as to why Pontius Pilate asked what truth was to Christ while staring at truth in the flesh right before his eyes or why, centuries prior to that, Protagoras asserted that man is the measure of all things. Given the sorry state of the world with all its deceptions, it should be as clear as day that that is not the case.

We can place our hopes in the unchanging transcendent realm of God despite all the falsehoods and denials of truth that surround us. Now, if we venture beyond political and cultural decadence and toward a profound and ultramundane reality, we enter the realm of the eternally transcendent, where we encounter the most mysterious of all truths, its personification in the God-man Jesus of Nazareth, who boldly claimed, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), a truth that grounds all truths. Thus, truth is neither owned nor possessed, as our culture based on subjectivism and relativism would have us believe, but rather transcends the subjective realm of the human mind, the scientific endeavour, social justice, the odd actions and words of popes past and present, and the physical world, even though it is manifested and entrenched within it. For Christians, truth is ultimately grounded in the person of Jesus and the Trinitarian godhead, and that reality makes all the difference in not only understanding truth and the universe but also our place in it, as we become active participants created in the image-likeness of the Creator. Participants who can discern truth and defend it while recognize its mystery and how it is wound up in the Incarnation. So, as we quickly approach the celebration of the birth of the Saviour of the world, let us always be assured of the truth of God’s love for us. Darkness has not and cannot overcome the eternal light of God, who is the source of all goodness, beauty, and truth.

A blessed Christmas to all!


13 thoughts on “Truth Under Assault”

    1. Scott Ventureyra

      That’s amusing, but you’ve addressed nothing in the article. Most people are too cowardly to express what they think and would rather not stand for the truth. Defending the truth forcefully is not an indicator of anger, but thanks for coming out. In turn, I would ask you: have you considered confronting your cowardice, “Sebastian Bach”?

  1. There is no truth here. Only opinions supported by like-minded opinions. You have the right to believe what you want. Your belief in religion and God doesn’t make your opinions true, or even real for that matter. Moreover, your religious faith should make you want to accept others and be kind. This article is full of hateful judgement and proves nothing other than you are ignorant and insecure.
    It would be more plausible if you wrote that you are, in fact, a homosexual who has been taught throughout your life that being such is wrong. These lessons have made you incapable of accepting your true self so you instead project an existence of righteousness and intolerance.
    There is nothing good or right about being intolerant.

    1. Scott Ventureyra

      You haven’t provided any arguments that I can address. Your comment lacks substance. Some opinions are true and some aren’t, or some are truer than others. I can backup my worldview with philosophical arguments, which are backed by science, reason, and intuition. What are your beliefs? Judging from your comments here, I doubt you could support your own worldview in any substantive manner.

      What is hateful about my article? What did I say that was ignorant?

      Then, you say, it would be “plausible” if I admitted to being something, which I am not. I never said being homosexual was wrong. I’ve stated that according to traditional Christian doctrine, the behaviour is a sin. Those are two distinct things. It doesn’t matter if you like it or not; it’s just a simple fact. Accepting my true self? Not only do you imply I’m a homosexual, which I am not, but you also say I do not know my true self. I think, if anything, you’re the one projecting your insecurities. You sound just as confused and duplicitous as little ol’ Rick Mehta.

      What did I say that was intolerant? Tolerance does not mean agreement; it implies disagreement. Go read my other article, where I explain this and put a video at the bottom which explains the intolerance of tolerance:

      I’d be curious about your definition of tolerance and what the truth is. It probably has some postmodern, relativistic, and Orwellian understanding of the terms.

    2. I fail to see the hateful judgement, ignorance, and insecurity that you suggest this article portrays, but I think you do a fine job of expressing your own with the slanderous and accusatory (albeit ridiculous) implications you’ve drawn from it.

      You are both preaching and practicing the woes of intolerance, my friend – and I believe that where you think/feel you have observed it here is no more than a reflection of your perspective of one self.

  2. Wait a minute, buddy.

    You say here you don’t think homosexual behavior is wrong. Then you say according to christian doctrine it’s a sin.

    But a few weeks back you told me that your world view is completely inline with christian doctrine and you said, and I quote, “I’m not okay with any sin. I think I’ve made that abundantly clear. What makes you think I’m okay with sin?”

    So you you have been clear: you are NOT ok with homosexual behavior. It’s because christian doctrine is bigoted, as are you.

    1. Scott Ventureyra

      “Tina,” way to twist my words. It seems that you may have an issue with reading comprehension. Again, for Catholic doctrine, there is a clear distinction between having homosexual proclivities and the behaviour itself. The doctrine makes it very clear that extramarital sex is considered sinful. It’s tiring to repeat myself, so if you’re going to keep trolling and if you have nothing of substance to contribute to the discussion, your comments will be ignored.

  3. This sounds defensive. I wasnt making an argument, I was offering a suggested opinion after reading your ridiculous article. I find it concerning that you hold these hostilities in your heart towards everyone who isn’t catholic. The catholic church is a deranged, irrelevant, patriarchal, power hungry organization that will say and do anything to influence and control its followers. More like a cult. Religion is essentially a man made construct designed to control people, of course using the disguise of morality to cover up all the dirt.
    Your entire platform requires god to exist, but you have no proof. Faith is not fact, it is a feeling. Your declarations are all based on opinions and faith in god, not peer reviewed research. You speak of truth, of course truth can have multiple meanings, but facts are facts, and you have provided nothing factual in your ramblings.
    Your response was a long winded “I know you are but what am I”
    You are little more than a hateful, missled gas bag.

    1. Scott Ventureyra

      “Jim,” feel free to provide your real name. You’re providing nothing of substance. I will entertain one more comment that lacks substance for pedagogical purposes for my readers.

      It’s quite clear, judging from your emotionally driven responses, that you’re incapable of providing a coherent argument. Moreover, your response here reads worse than that of an angry grade school child.

      I have no idea where you get the idea that I have any hostility towards anyone who isn’t Catholic. Can you provide any evidence of this? We have already established that you have issues with reading comprehension. Perhaps you should be a tad more careful when commenting on blogs you haven’t taken the time to read and understand properly.

      You say that “The catholic church is a deranged, irrelevant, patriarchal, power hungry organization that will say and do anything to influence and control its followers.”

      First, the Catholic Church remains the largest Christian church in the world, so it would be hardly irrelevant. Second, the patriarchy is responsible for the rise of Western civilization, not to mention your cell phone and computer you use to upload your nonsensical drivel, polluting the comment section of my articles. Now, decrying the patriarchy may be lauded in a women’s studies course, but it doesn’t constitute a legitimate criticism but an actual compliment, so thank you. It also demonstrates your profound ignorance about history. Third, none of these points addresses whether the claims of the church are true or not.

      Jim, do you want to reveal what your worldview is? Feel free to peruse the rest of my website, as I provide rational reasons for accepting the truth of Christian theism. Atheism and any scientific materialist view have been rendered obsolete by the scientific and philosophical evidence. I’ll address a series of your confused ideas in sequence.

      “My entire platform requires [God] to exist, but you have no proof.”

      Indeed, the reason why something exists rather than nothing is because of God, including my “platform.” This would include you as well. Existence would be impossible without God. There are plenty of “proofs,” also known as syllogistic arguments, for the existence of God. It is clear you have not looked into the matter.

      “Faith is not fact, it is a feeling.”

      Faith can be reasonable and backed up by facts, so yes, it wouldn’t be a fact per se, just as a scientific theory is not a “fact” but based on a series of facts, among other criteria. Faith can be backed up by reason, evidence, logic, and hence a series of “facts.” But it is not reducible to these things, including “facts.”

      “Your declarations are all based on opinions and faith in god, not peer reviewed research.”

      First, some opinions may be true and based on careful research.
      Second, are you aware that there are peer-reviewed journals that publish papers arguing for the existence of God?

      “You speak of truth, of course truth can have multiple meanings, but facts are facts, and you have provided nothing factual in your ramblings.”

      Can you define “truth”? Can you define a “fact”?

      I’ll give you a response about truth, given that you’re out of your depths here.

      Probably the most credible theory of truth is the correspondence theory of truth, which was best articulated by Aristotle in his Metaphysics: “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.”

      There is nothing hateful in what I say. It’s unfortunate that you do not have a sincere thirst for truth. Instead, you prefer to troll with embarrassing claims that have no basis in reality.

      I have a question for you: if Catholicism, or more broadly, Christianity, were true, would you accept it and convert? I would invite you to do so, since it is very clear that you have no good reason not to. God bless.

  4. ———- Forwarded message ———
    From: James Clarke
    Date: Thu, Jan 4, 2024, 2:15 p.m.
    Subject: My response
    To: Abbott, Dustin

    Your truth is not the same as other people’s truth. Everyone has the right to think and feel and learn for themselves. You do not have the right to speak for others, nor do you have the right to control others.
    Telling your daughter that some opinions are better than others is troubling. It suggests that you believe there is a ranking amongst people, or that you are better than those who disagree with you. It is a perspective that suggests that one can be better than another based on how they think. Abstract in its nature, there is no way to prove this idea, as people are all completely unique and have the freedom to think and feel as they chose. For example, if I state that blue is the best colour and you state that red is the best colour, neither of us are right or wrong, or better than one another. We are simply different. Learning to accept that we are all different is crucial, moreover, teaching our children that we are all different and its okay, is paramount to creating a better future for all people. It is impossible to prove what ideas are better than others as people can passionately and intellectually defend their position. Ultimately, there is not a singular correct way to feel, and that idea makes life beautiful.

    Referring to drag queens as pedophiles is offensive. There have even thousands of cases of sexual and child abuse by catholic priests over hundreds of years and it continues currently. How can you refer to Trans gender people as pedophilic when your illustrious church and its priests have been proven guilty of this disgusting crime so many times. How many blind eyes can you turn? Your comment categorizes an entire group of people as pedophiles. This is impossible to prove and deeply ignorant. It is bigotry. Every human being is born with the right to live with a sense of decency. You don’t have to agree with other people’s choices, but know that their’s aren’t your choices to make. Using your beliefs to judge other people, mostly people you have never met and don’t know and understand, makes you intolerant and hateful as it would appear you haven’t made any attempt to understand how they feel. You can disagree with another’s life choice without being negative or judgemental.

    Making reference to a book that seemingly denies any wrong doing by the church, with regards to residential schools and indigenous children, does not prove that nothing awful or evil happened. You have the right to choose not to believe what others believe. A sense of empathy may silence you before you decide to voice your feelings. It is so important to remember that your truth is not necessarily another’s truth. Truth is abstract, there can be many truths and it can change form, but it is never singular. There is no mention of the potential truth of the allegations in your article, only your version of denial.
    Perhaps a visit to an indigenous community would help you. Ask their elders about their experiences. After all, you werent even alive when these “alleged” atrocities occurred, making your opinion as much of a guess as mine. I choose to challenge you on this as I am capable of empathy. If I were a member of an indigenous tribe and I witnessed or experienced these events, it would be brutally painful to have my truth denied, especially if the denial originated from a member of one of the alleged perpetrators.

    Regarding vaccines and covid, I chose to consult with my father who was an MD, as well as my family doctor when I wanted to make my decision of whether to get vaccinated or not. I trust these people and their opinions. I don’t have to explain any further. You have the right to do the same. Spending this much energy trying to convince me that vaccines, including mRna, are dangerous seems exhausting and wasteful. I don’t consult the Vatican, the church, or anyone else who isn’t an MD when considering my medical future. You are not a medical doctor. You are not qualified to make these judgements. I am not a medical doctor either. I sought the wisdom of those who are capable, experienced, educated, and most importantly, had my interests in heart when providing advice.
    The entire paragraph about covid was written to deter and debunk what others believe to be true. You have the right to believe what you want. What gives you the right to attempt to influence others? What makes you believe you are qualified or educated enough to make these massive judgements. Your truth is for you. It is not the only truth. You must accept this fact.

    Morally repugnant? The church doesn’t make laws. The government makes laws. Our government makes mistakes, everyone does. Religion should never be used when governing a population. Catholicism is one of many versions of Christianity. One is not better than the others, just different. Too many variables to even try to determine who has the most appropriate approach.

    Global politics are overwhelming at best. There are so many ideologies that it is impossible to determine what is right or wrong. Populations change their perspective seemingly every few years based on events and politicians. I do not advise anyone to attempt to persuade or dissuade others regarding politics. It is every individual’s right to decide how they feel and how they want to vote or act. Left, right, middle. All have success’ and failures over the years. There is no right or wrong when deciding your political aspirations. Those choices are for you. My choices are for me. My choices are not your concern. When I read your paragraph about war and politics, it seems obvious that you subscribe to the right wing of the political spectrum. That is your choice.

    The church can say what they want about lgtbq+. It holds little to no weight. So unfortunate for anyone who is part of that community who also believes in Christianity, as they must feel constantly and harshly judged and ridiculed. The church does not decide who is officially married or which relationships are acceptable. The government issues a marriage license to adults. My sister in law married her wife this year and the ceremony was beautiful. They are happy and healthy. That’s all you need to know. Your opinion about their union is inconsequential and unwanted. I feel the same about any same sex marriage.

    You have made you choices in life and believe what you chose to believe. This is your right. Focus on your life. Work on yourself. Be healthy and happy. The only life you can control is your own. Your entire article gives the impression that you do not approve of any “alternate lifestyle” and you go to lengths to support your opinions.
    My first response was an exercise to see if you were able to listen to a perspective that was opposite to your own. Your response was defensive. You discounted everything I wrote and suggested there was no substance. A literal “I know you are but what am I” response. My second note was a more intense attempt to trigger an emotional response. I was clearly successful as you wrote endlessly about how stupid I must be, based solely on two short messages. As if you can judge a person so well. As if you are “the one” who understands all and you alone hold the answers. You don’t see the world as I do. That is life. People don’t have to agree. Your perspectives on many subjects are harsh and would be considered hateful by many. Intolerance is defined as the unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own. You have proven emphatically that you are intolerant.
    You are not wrong to believe and think as you chose to do. You are wrong because you chose to disagree and negatively judge others who do not make the same choices as you have. It is clear that you have never tried to understand why people are different. It’s possible you have never been empathetic in your life. If you were truly passionate about people and life, you would try to learn and understand why people are different, not why they are wrong. Spend more time healing and less time shaming.
    There is some truth for you.

    1. Jim, you quite literally could have summarized that as “Your way of thinking is different than my own and I do not accept it. Why are you different than me? I do not have one positive thing to say about you, your opinions, or your world views. You should be ashamed, and as such, bear my judgement, inferior one.”

      To think you aren’t guilty of the exact things you are accusing the author of, is astounding. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.