The Public Forum of The M+G+R Foundation
The purpose of this Public Forum is to publicly respond to and/or comment upon correspondence that we may receive from time to time and which is of Universal interest in these very unsettling times.
We reserve the right to choose what questions to address and how to transcribe the question and/or
statement from the correspondence received. The identity of the correspondent will be kept
confidential except in the case of abusive correspondence which will then be referred to the
appropriate responsible entities.
Letters/Questions - Addressed on April 2006
Respectfully, it was my full understanding the church engaged in and practiced pedastry (pederasty) in its early years, at the very least.
With regards to your aforementioned article, it would seem that Catholic doctrine, at least pertaining to your quoted, No's 2389 on Pedophelia, and, 2356 on Rape is in direct conflict with itself in these early practices. However, given that the Church was knowledgeable, some argue fully culpable, in sexual abuse cases of late involving clergy, this would also seem to "fly in the face" of faith as dictated by doctrine.
There is no doubt that some in Church hierarchy were aiding and abetting this behavior in protecting and shuffling around guilty priests.
How can this be?
You are right - the Church Administration has contradicted itself so many times that we almost feel embarrassed in pointing them out as the easy-to-spot contradictions come into our scope. We have partially addressed this issue in our document titled "...Do and Observe... Whatsoever They Tell You, But Do Not Follow Their Example, For they preach but they do not practice.
As we have said many times - they (the Church Administration) are not even good at being bad! [As the American saying goes, spotting their incoherence: "It's like shooting fish in a barrel."]
Regarding the early record of their sexual misconduct, we invite you to review two new documents we have recently published regarding the Administration's past, and not so remote, moral record - The Truth About Some Popes and The Claim of Papal Infallibility.
That is, we do not disagree with your understanding. As a matter of fact, years ago we called to the attention of the key members of the press - worldwide - Matthew Parris's book "The Great Unfrocked - Two Thousand Years of Church Scandal" so that they would have a solid foundation upon which to report the current sexual abuses within the Roman Catholic Church.
announced in Garabandal will take place on Thursday, April 13, 2006."
The individual who made this prediction was considered by some to be "one of the world's foremost experts on Garabandal." This goes to show that looking for specific dates leading up to God's return is futile.
We certainly recall the item you quote and we already addressed your point/concern/observation back on August 20, 2004. We trust that it is clearer now than it was then.
A similar situation occurred (and similar logic used) with the recently announced "impending" nuclear bombing of the Houston-Texas City area which was allegedly "scheduled" for the Easter weekend.
If this is true, we would have been duped by some impostor who was presented as the authentic witness of the visions of Our Lady.
In this case, some hypothetical questions arise. What happened to the true Sister Lucy? When was the replacement made? And more importantly, why was such an exchange necessary?
Perhaps if we ask the classical question "Qui bono? [Who benefits?]" the answer emerges. The retirement of Sister Lucy I and introduction of Sister Lucy II before 1960, the year the secret was to have been revealed, would prevent the true witness from telling the world the full content of the Third Secret. This could only have been to the benefit of the progressivist wing that is dominating the Church in our days."
The same web page advertises a book that is a blanket condemnation of Vatican II..
What is you reaction to this?
However, as we also pointed out, when the Vatican officially revealed what they claim to be the official Third Part of the Secret in May 13, 2000, what they revealed was diametrically opposed to what the real Third Part was as we showed in the previously referenced document.
The author must have also read where we reported that the "new and improved" Vatican version of the Third Part was not even penned by the same individual who penned all else before 1960.
All that was mixed in a bag, shaken well and the wrong conclusion was drawn. If there was a switch, it was done to justify the take over of the Vatican by extreme right elements of the Faith as we have also amply explained.
If so can you help me get a copy of it? We need it for our coronation ceremony in May.
The Link is http://www.101foundation.com/item221.html
Many Blessings for your worthy intentions.
You are playing God.
It is hard to tell whether you are pro homosexual or a homophobe. We are neither, nor we play God.
miguel de Portugal only speaks what God Wills he does.
When you see the "doomsday scenarios" manifest themselves as we have announced, you will also know that the rest is true too. Then, we will welcome you back with open arms.
A Reminder From miguel de Portugal @ EU - USA
Published on April 13th - Last Supper and the Begin of Pesach - Night of the Passover [Exodus 12: 1-14]
Please Note: It is the Will of God that we devote this very special Holy Week to various Spiritual Exercises and Devotions, therefore, there will be no further postings on this Public Forum nor mailings to our Lists until after Easter Sunday, unless... world conditions require it and Divine Mercy demands it it. Nonetheless, we will strive to continue posting the Divine Instructions and Encouragement on a daily basis throughout. May you and yours have a Blessed and Spiritually Fruitful Holy Week. [Published on April 9th - Palm Sunday]
[A Commentary] From miguel de Portugal @ EU - USA [Published on April 7th]
I thank God that He already prepared me for this kind of behavior/response fourteen years ago.
m de P
I thought about the potential target of Houston or thereabouts. If the case for nuking Iran is to be solid, then the attack on the US must be plausibly directed against a worthy target. Were they to hit Daytona Beach, for example, then aside from some lost tourism, the US economy would not be hit, and we would be left questioning why they would bother wasting their one nuke to hit something so relatively unimportant.
Mr. Welch's article was pointing the finger to the White House as the conspirators which translates to "the US Faction"; thus our statement. To avoid confusion we clarified it in the published document. Again, Thank You!
A. We have considered said article so serious that we have immediately issued a document about it. Said document may be accessed by Clicking Here.
Your spiritual alertness Glorifies God.
A. We have not seen it although we have briefly visited the Site.
Even if every allegation is true, that is not the way to solve the problem. That movie will further harm the Faith beyond recognition. As we have said over and over again, it is not the Faith; it is not even the mentally imbalanced perpetrators of such heinous crimes; IT IS the Administration of the Roman Catholic Church who is at fault and the one that should be dragged into the Tribunals until the last "moral cent" is paid.
We must pray for the few good members of the clergy and Hierarchy who are facing the titanic task of safeguarding what is left of the Faith and the Faithful.
This question was posed to miguel de Portugal twice in a space of 24 hours by: (1) An important banker in Europe; and by (2) A top government health official.
Therefore, he has looked into the information and this is what he found:
A commentary by Dr. Joseph
While the drug is produced by Roche, it was developed by Gilead Sciences Inc. which owns the intellectual property rights. Gilead, which has maintained a low profile, has outsourced the production to Roche.
Donald Rumsfeld was appointed Chairman of Gilead Sciences, Inc. in 1997, a position which he held in the years prior to becoming Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration. Rumsfeld had been on the Board of Directors from the establishment of Gilead in 1987.
As confirmed in a company press statement in 1997, Donald H. Rumsfeld assumed the position of Chairman, of GILEAD: :
"Gilead is fortunate to have had Don Rumsfeld as a stalwart board member since the company's earliest days, and we are very pleased that he has accepted the Chairmanship," Dr. Riordan said. "He has played an important role in helping to build and steer the company. His broad experience in leadership positions in both industry and government will serve us well as Gilead continues to build its commercial presence."
According to company statement: Gilead Science Inc. "has been active in the development of inhibitors for the potential treatment and prevention of viral influenza and protease inhibitors for the potential treatment of HIV"
For the whole article Click Here
As an update, we quote from the Gilead Sciences Announces First Quarter 2001 Financial Results:
A similar situation as that of Vice President Cheney and the main Iraq Contractor, Halliburton. The question is, of course, how much stock they own and how it is hidden from the prying eyes of the press and the public.
As the saying goes: "We rest our case" since it is coherent with everything else.
Public Forum - March 2006 - Edition Files
Copyright 2006 by The M+G+R Foundation. All rights reserved.
The M+G+R Foundation
About UsUPDATE BOARD Listing the Latest Updates to this Domain
Our Research Department
Back Up HOME PAGE
If the above dated image does not appear on this document, it means that you are not viewing the original document from our servers. Should you have reason to doubt the authenticity of the document, we recommend that you access our server again and click on the "Refresh" or "Reload" button of your Browser to view the original document.
If you wish to contact The M+G+R Foundation, please Click Here and follow the instructions.
You may freely reproduce and distribute this document as long as: (1) Appropriate credit is given as to its source; (2) No changes are made in the text without prior written consent; and (3) No charge is made for it.