The Vexatious Vaccine Versus Catholic Integrity – SSPX “Lifeboat” Leaking…

Martin Blackshaw, aka blogger Athanasius, has penned another very strong correction to the Pope Francis-inspired permission for Catholics to take the abortion-tainted Covid-19 vaccines.

During the current diabolical disorientation within the Church – otherwise fondly known as the Barque of Peter – many Catholics, seeking liturgical relief, took refuge in the  “lifeboat” provided by the Society of St Pius X (SSPX).

Returning to the traditional Latin Mass and Sacraments, plus the reassurance that the Society preaches only that which is found in Catholic Tradition, has kept a lot of us afloat, this past half-century. It is, therefore, hugely disappointing and, indeed, shocking, to discover that the  “lifeboat” is leaking – that the SSPX has decided,  for example,  to go along with the Vatican line  on the Covid-19 vaccines.

Having discussed our concerns about this already here, we feel the need to return to the topic, given the ongoing confusion and unrest felt by many lay people, including those long devoted to the SSPX.  Martin  Blackshaw writes…

Background

Most of us, I’m sure, could never have imagined just one year ago that in as short a period as 12 months the global economy would be smashed to pieces, millions would be put out of work, Christians would be denied their fundamental right to the public worship of God and the vast majority of the citizens on earth would be deprived of their natural freedom and liberties. Yet, in the name of a respiratory virus, which is relatively harmless for most people, this apocalyptic scenario has come upon the human race with lightening speed.

The culture shock resulting from such a transformation of our way of life is not new to Traditional Catholics who witnessed a similar evil sweep through the universal Church following Vatican II, trampling all that had been held sacred and secure for generations, thus paving the way for the present victory of Communist totalitarianism over the nations.

Archbishop Viganò  has more than once cited this work of iniquity as a coalition effort between operatives of the “deep Church” and operatives of the “deep State”, working together to bring about a New World secular Order over which Lucifer will usurp the Kingship of Christ.

That we are in fact living through the chastisement revealed by Our Lady in the Third Secret of Fatima is beyond question. Ours is a time largely of apostasy from God, even at the highest levels in the Church, resulting in victories for the anti-Christian forces beyond anything they, or we, could ever have imagined possible.

We know through faith of course that this time of trial will pass, as all such assaults of the devil on the Church and the world have passed. Our Lady will have the final victory and all will be restored in grace, though we know not how or when this will come about. What we do know is that matters are presently racing to a conclusion in this final battle between the serpent and she who will crush his head, so an end to it is not too far distant.

So much for the black and white of opposing forces in the present supernatural warfare, by which I mean the obvious evil and the obvious good as well as the happy outcome that those who are well disposed can see. But what about the grey areas, those danger zones which, like minefields, have to be traversed cautiously if we are to arrive safely at our destination when the war is won?

One such grey area has recently appeared before us and it threatens to wipe out a good many good souls who, in my opinion, have imprudently diverged from the safe path of the Church’s traditional and authentic moral teaching in favour of a more convenient, less arduous route only recently mapped out and offered non-authoritatively for alternative use.

I write of course about COVID-19 vaccines produced from or tested using the stem cell lines of aborted fetuses and the quite shocking position of the SSPX hierarchy in relation to their use.

If the faithful needed reminding that no particular institution in the Church is 100% safe at a time when the legitimate authorities themselves, the successors of St. Peter and the Apostles, are failing so manifestly in their duty to teach and to sanctify, it is in the SSPX position that such vaccines may be licitly taken in cases of necessity where moral alternatives are unavailable.

I first read (and re-read) this astounding and dangerously flawed guidance on the SSPX U.S. website some months back and I couldn’t believe my eyes. My Catholic conscience immediately alerted me to the falsehood before me.

I guess many other simple faithful were likewise seriously disturbed by this development, for the aforesaid website guidance was quickly taken down and replaced with a message announcing that an SSPX moral theologian was examining it, together with superiors, and would post an update soon.

Well it didn’t take long before the same guidance was back up on the website, only in a much longer text which read remarkably like sophistry.

The next I heard was that a certain Fr. Loop had been designated to present a conference on the subject to the faithful of Post Falls, Idaho – one of the largest Traditional Catholic enclaves in the U.S. I can only presume that many of the faithful remained troubled and Fr. Loop’s job was to reassure them. As far as I can tell from some comments I’ve read online, Fr. Loop failed in his task.

While this was ongoing I wrote to Fr. Fullerton, the U.S. District Superior, expressing my concern on the basis of the alternative (authentic) teaching of a number of tradition-leaning prelates whose counsel is that Catholics are not permitted to take vaccines tainted with the stem cell lines of aborted fetuses under any circumstances, given the very grave nature of the sin of abortion.

I wrote similarly to Fr. Loop, to Fr. Seligny, the SSPX moral theologian responsible for the U.S. website article and to Fr. Brucciani in the UK, who has sadly put out the same erroneous and dangerous advice. Not one of these priests granted me the courtesy of a response, which is extremely disturbing.

I did, however, receive a prompt and kind response from another SSPX superior who shall remain nameless for reasons of prudence.

Sadly, though, while evidently of upright intention, this superior is also on board with the “party line” (to use a crude term), convinced that the moral principle of “remote material co-operation” expressed in the works of St. Alphonsus may be applied in the case of grave necessity to abortion-tainted COVID vaccines.

Here is the proposition summarised in paraphrase: ‘The faithful are generally not permitted to receive abortion-tainted vaccines. However, in cases of grave necessity where moral alternatives are unavailable it is licit to receive such vaccines provided that objection is first made to the method of manufacture. This exception to the general rule, in cases of grave necessity only, amounts to “remote material co-operation”, a much lesser sin than formal co-operation.’

Juxtaposed to this proposition we have the joint letter of Cardinal Pujats, Archbishops Peta and Lenga and bishops Strickland and Schneider, reminding us of the authentic moral teaching of the Church. Here are a few excerpts of that letter which can be read in full here 

In the case of vaccines made from the cell lines of aborted human fetuses, we see a clear contradiction between the Catholic doctrine to categorically, and beyond the shadow of any doubt, reject abortion in all cases as a grave moral evil that cries out to heaven for vengeance (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2268, n. 2270), and the practice of regarding vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines as morally acceptable in exceptional cases of “urgent need” — on the grounds of remote, passive, material cooperation. To argue that such vaccines can be morally licit if there is no alternative is in itself contradictory and cannot be acceptable for Catholics…

…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…

…More than ever, we need the spirit of the confessors and martyrs who avoided the slightest suspicion of collaboration with the evil of their own age. The Word of God says: “Be simple as children of God without reproach in the midst of a depraved and perverse generation, in which you must shine like lights in the world” (Phil. 2, 15)…”

Bishop Athanasius Schneider reiterates the position thus In a separate LSN interview, the full transcript of which can be read, or video viewed, here 

“…I repeat, it is the most anti-pastoral and counterproductive, that in this time, exactly in this historical hour, [that] Catholics will justify their use of abortion-tainted vaccines with the theory of material remote cooperation. It is so illogical – we have to recognize this in this historical hour in which we are living…”

In yet another interview with LSN, Bishop Schneider warns:

“…some bishops, even good ones, are making a huge explanation to me in a sophistic manner, of the principle of moral cooperation only, without your will, without your consent. But this is for me as sophism which cannot be applied to this concrete case, because it is evident to simple common sense that when you know this – that this vaccine is from aborted babies – then you cannot apply this moral principle, or theory, to this concrete case. And therefore we have to be very careful not to be induced into error because of this sophistic argument, even when it comes from good, traditional priests. This is the danger, and we have to resist this…”   Read the full transcript here

Finally, in a May 8 “Appeal for the Church and the World“, signed by a number of prelates including Cardinals Gerhard Müller, Zen & Pujats, Archbishop Viganò , Bishop Schneider and other senior Churchmen as well as countless Catholic journalists, physicians, academics and associations, we find this declaration:

“…Let us also remember, as Pastors, that for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses…”  – click here to read the Appeal for the Church and the World.

Writing in reply to the aforementioned SSPX District Superior, whose identity is not important here, I upheld this authentic moral teaching of the traditional prelates and other Catholics in the following words:

“I share the view of Bishop Athanasius Schneider and the other traditional prelates in this instance, who insist that abortion is so uniquely and gravely sinful as to render the normal considerations of “necessity” and “remote material co-operation” moot. These are general moral principles that are weighed in matters pertaining to sins common to fallen human nature, not to sins that are against nature and which cry to heaven for vengeance. Hence, the “material co-operation” argument is misapplied in the case of abortion-tainted vaccines and is therefore fallacious…

…I would like to clarify that it was never my intention to contend that those who seek to benefit from these vaccines are guilty of formal co-operation in the sin of abortion itself, but rather that they are guilty of formal co-operation in the use of evil means, i.e., the immoral process of using aborted fetal cells in the production and/or testing of the vaccine. In other words, they are guilty of using an evil means in order to accomplish good–which is never allowed. I apologise if I did not make myself clear on this point in my previous communication.”

Summary…

For whatever reason, whether by simple error or for reasons of avoiding direct confrontation with this vaccine-pushing Pope and his various national hierarchies, the SSPX is seriously ill-advising the faithful for the first time in the 35-years I have been associated with it.

Therefore every Catholic with a sense of the faith, whose conscience automatically balks at the suggestion that we may, in circumstances of grave necessity, do evil that good may come from it, must disregard this SSPX advice along with that of other churchmen, be they Traditional or Modernist, Pope or priest, who propose the “remote material co-operation” fallacy in the case of abortion-tainted vaccines.

We are never at liberty to benefit from an evil means, not even when our lives depend on it. This is the authentic moral teaching of the Church and the faith of the martyrs, who could so easily have burned a mere grain of incense before the pagan deities to save their lives using similar argument in their minds, but who chose instead to die a cruel death rather than offend God.

Let us consider just one example of such ardent faith – the martyrdom of the early Christian St. Sophia and her three young daughters, aged 11, 10 & 9 years.

All four steadfastly refusing before the Roman emperor Hadrian to burn incense before the goddess Artemis, Hadrian proceeded to have the children horribly tortured one after the other in full view of their mother.

At length, when the children finally succumbed to the unspeakable sufferings inflicted upon them, St. Sophia was granted leave to take them for burial, the idea of the pagan emperor being that she should live with the torment in her heart.

But Our Lord had other plans. After three days of mourning her beloved children He took her from this world to enjoy eternal beatitude in heaven.

Compare this example of great faith with that of Catholics today who advise that it is licit under certain strict circumstances to use products made from or tested with the stem cells of brutally murdered little babies. Yes, it is wholly scandalous!  

 

Comment:

There will be people who attend SSPX churches who read this and become angry at the very idea that anyone should criticise the SSPX for just about anything. It’s an immature attitude, if not completely childish.

There will be comments flowing into me by email and newcomers to the blog who will languish in the moderation file, telling me to stop attending the SSPX church if I don’t like it etc. blah blah.  Martin will, needless to say, get it in the neck as well. 

So, please be assured; we fully appreciate the SSPX clergy providing us with Mass and the Sacraments.  Just as we appreciate that the Scottish Bishops are counted among the successors of the apostles.  Doesn’t mean we cannot comment on their statements or actions as we may comment on the statements and actions of other professionals. After all, priests are the most important of all professionals.

Other professionals are limited to catering for the well-being of people in this world alone, while priests are charged with the immensely more important work of preparing souls for eternity in Heaven.

So, folks, please don’t expect replies to any emails calling us names for expressing our concerns about this matter. A measured comment – absent any nasty personal remarks – submitted for publication on our blog, is a different matter. Feel free. 

126 responses

  1. Thank you. Have attended the SSPX mission chapel in my corner of the world for several years. I love the holiness of their priests and how ardently they care for souls. However, the Society is gravely in error here. St Sophia, pray for us!

  2. Red Feather,

    I agree. For those of us suffering in the mainstream parishes, this is a blow. We expected more from the Society, both in the business of closing churches and now this vaccine. They have turned out to be a big disappointment.

    I don’t doubt that there are individual good priests, I know that there are, but if the leadership is awry, then it has the same problem as the Vatican and it’s not an easy one to fix.

  3. Dear Editor,
    I have kept a (reluctant) low profile recently whilst following the wonderful content on your website.
    Coincidental with the great Athanasius I have been contemplating the same issues, and surprisingly have come up with some (more) bad verse.

    COVID DERANGEMENT SYNDROME

    I’ve served my 12 months house arrest
    For an unknown crime I can’t contest,
    I want my freedom – not parole
    With recompense for what they stole;
    Lost time can never be bought back
    From any megalomaniac,
    Who only sees in monochrome
    With Covid De – range – ment Syndrome.

    With shuttered houses on each street
    The muzzled sheep who will not bleat,
    As empty trains go belting past
    How can this man made panic last;
    It will last ’till we wake up from sleep
    From out our bunkers we all creep,
    To recognise that this maguette
    On which is based the Great Reset.

    Our Pope has had his inoculation
    Of baby parts – no reservation,
    Perhaps ’twill change his DNA
    To talk some sense to Joe Bidet;
    When everyone has a vaccine
    Any side effects ‘were unforseen’,
    Big Pharma all indemnified
    So tough luck if your Granny died.

    Do not think ‘they’ will set you free
    Dictators rule by their decree,
    You Will Own Nothing and be Glad
    But not resist against Jihad;
    The Green New Deal will set you free
    You can exist up in a tree,
    No going back to the life we knew
    God deplatformed in the latest Coup.

  4. I just want to point out a second fatal flaw in the SSPX rationale for taking these “vaccines” (they are not vaccines at all but genetic modification experiments): this is anything but a “case of grave necessity.” It is a relatively mild form of seasonal flu which, if symptoms actually exist, can be quickly cured by HCQ or Ivermectin, and further protection gained by a maintenance dose of HCQ, with zinc and Vitamin D.

    So the SSPX leadership is not only misleading their faithful on a crucial moral issue, they are demonstrating their embarrassing ignorance about this NWO-engineered “pandemic.” There have been some past complaints on this blog about the ivory tower habits of SSPX clergy. This would appear to confirm those habits.

    Finally, there is the other disturbing moral issue, which is that these injections are likely to cause serious injury or death. I wonder if the SSPX is aware that they are opening themselves up to numerous lawsuits (unlike Big Pharma, which has arranged for immunity against any consequences for their poisons) for having assured their faithful that there is no problem here. Grave necessity? Yes, those who take this poison may indeed end up in the grave.

    Thank you, Athanasius, for your superbly functioning and fearless Catholic conscience.

    • RCA Victor,

      I’m so glad you said that, as I keep thinking the same thing – this is definitely not a case of grave necessity. It’s a hyped up crisis all about a virus that is mild in most people who get infected with it.

      It’s just a pity that the SSPX didn’t stand out from the crowd about this, it’s a real pity.

    • RCA Victor & Lily,

      I agree totally – we are most certainly NOT in any emergency; this virus is not a “case of grave necessity” – since the majority of people who become infected do, in fact, recover fully, and that speaks for itself.

      Thus, if the belief is false that we are in a case of grave necessity, and that is the entire rationale for permitting the use of abortion-tainted vaccines, clearly there is no justification.

      And that’s a very interesting point about possible future litigation. This vaccine has not been properly tried and tested over time – it is, in my (probably worthless) opinion, sheer madness to allow ourselves to be used for experimental purposes by taking a vaccine which has been rushed through, largely for political reasons.

      • Thank you for posting your grave concern about the seemingly ill-founded reasoning of spokesmen of the SSPX concerning the vaccine issue.

        Frankly, this is terribly disappointing for it indicates that these persons only extract phrases from manuals and do not truly think things through as a moral theologian must.

        To advocate that one choosing to utilize or participate in something that inherently, intrinsically, implies or implied moral disorder, is thereby exonerated from culpability or fault is totally fallacious, erroneous.

        Yes, someone who does such out of ignorance (if it was not chosen ignorance) or who was with restricted liberty (due to certain constraints) might be said to have ‘less’ culpability or fault because such was “remote material co-operation.”

        However, that qualification will not exonerate an agent who knowingly utilizes or participates in what is intrinsically immoral as an object. And the very means by which these specific vaccine lines were developed from aborted children makes them such.

        Do all SSPX priests merely utter clichés and patch together phrases they cut and paste from this or that manual, or have at least some the ability to think as one must about these matters?

        The way these spokesmen have responded so far indicates that they cannot.

        • Ratiocinations

          Thank you for that very well defined explanation. You’re absolutely right about that and I hope to post a more in-depth comment a little later, showing exactly how the SSPX position in relation to these vaccines fails to meet the criteria set out in the moral principles. In fine, it will be proof positive that what you say is absolutely correct.

        • Manuals are moral theology. In fact, they are part of the patrimony of the Church. We need a source. Otherwise, everyone makes up their own theology, which is precisely what the Sspx is unwilling to do. Priests should base their teaching on sound sources- just like every other teacher.

          I’d say most laypeople would be really pushed to define the difference between proximate, mediate and remote cooperation, but everyone is bandying the term about as if we all got a doctorate from the Pontifical University of Somewhere.

          • Strictly speaking, moral theology is a habitual possession of valid principles, rationales, and conclusions concerning what is right or wrong, good or evil, in light of the natural and divine law as articulated in the Church’s consistent teachings in Her history.

            Manuals vary in their depth and breadth in stating principles, rationales, and conclusions. Many are tools for a moral theologian to begin thinking through questions and resolve them. Sometimes, specific manuals do contain fully developed considerations of virtually all aspects of certain moral problems.

            If manuals could merely give definitions and a list of axioms to settle every issue, one would wonder why we have such a plethora of them. And I certainly realize that many of these from our past are excellent, whether written in Latin or in various vernaculars.

            You might be right that most folks would ‘be really pushed’ to definite the difference between proximate, mediate, and remote cooperation. However, those distinctions in no way can justify the participation in or acceptance of ‘x’ which is intrinsically or inherently tainted morally due to evil means chosen to utilize its realization.

            • Ratiocinations

              Once again I agree entirely, especially wih the concluding paragraph. Thank you for more wise words.

    • RCAVictor,

      I’m in total agreement with you re vaccines and the COVID-19 injections and the SSPX’s remote cooperation stance as vaccines etc are not really needed in the modern age due to health and sanitary improvements since the early C20th. And in any case, they often are not efficacious at all.

      Having said that, are you aware that HCQ and Ivermectin etc have been tested on the HEK293 cell line? As have vitamins and most medications tested on ESC lines? And some foods (I’ve avoided those companies where possible)? Below is an excellent article by Steven Mosher’s POP Rome office, although I don’t necessarily agree with the writer’s stance on vaccines. Also I’ve been told elsewhere it’s fine to take vitamins tested on ESC lines but not tainted medications – what is the difference here?

      https://www.pop.org/covid-19-vaccines-pro-life-or-no/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=5b7d8dc2-3798-4c20-9c5b-af301e254bbd

      Very sadly, I feel we’ve reached the point of no return re remote cooperation in today’s world and while I think some SSPX priests are wrong re vaccines etc, they could be correct on the remote cooperation re necessary medications. But the awful realisation that there seems to be no way out of the immoral quagmire we are in makes me think that our mission now is for Catholics, including big Catholic (religious orders, Opus Dei et al? I’m not holding my breath!) and good non-Catholic pro-life organisations (quite possible) to join the good bishops in urging the Pope and the Vatican to take a stand, while it may not happen anytime soon given the present corrupt Vatican. The Church has been a force against evil in the past and can be now if the pope and bishops get together and teach in unity against the errors of the world.

      Knowing that God allows evil to bring about a good, is it possible He allowed the “pandemic” to help Catholics and others understand the injustice of the horrific murders of those little babies for the self-aggrandisement of the members of the NWO including scientists and doctors? I would like to think so. I’ve been informing people for 20 years of the immorality of tainted vaccines etc but it’s taken Covid to shake them out of their stupor.

      • Warydoom,

        You are right not to hold your breath regarding Opus Dei. They’ll never rock any boats – ships OR lifeboats! The Opus Dei people in Glasgow were first to write to be taken off the Catholic Truth mailing list when we first published back in 1999. Papolatrists every one. So, no, do NOT hold your breath waiting for them to speak out – on vaccines or anything else. If the Pope says it’s OK, it’s OK. OK?

        As for your final paragraph – I am not aware of many Catholics being wakened up to anything through this pandemic; neither the horrors of abortion nor the truth about Chinese Communist Party’s ambitions being fulfilled before our very eyes. Rather, we hear that lots of people are quite content being locked in their homes, with the Government telling them what to do. I would love to think you are right that Covid has shaken people out of their stupor about abortion, but I doubt it.

        • Editor,

          Yes, because of Covid, I’ve managed finally to convince an OD friend of mine of the immorality of the vaccines, thanks be to God.

          And on comboxes there are many Christians who now see the light as well. It seems now that there is more information (in gory detail) on how the ESC’s are procured, people are waking up to the horror of abortion and the evil of some medical science.

      • Warydoom,

        I did not know that about HCQ and Ivermectin, but it would have been helpful if the author you linked cited some sources when she claimed that.

        I agree with her that practically every corner of our society is corrupted by some remote connection with child sacrifice, and I also agree with this statement

        “Remote cooperation, not just with abortion, but with all evil is inevitable unless we completely isolate ourselves from modern society by taking up a hermit-like existence.”

        That said, however, I think this big picture situation in which we find ourselves is where “grave necessity” comes back into play. If we are doomed to death by sickness because we can’t take certain abortion-tainted medications, or if we will starve to death because we can’t shop at a grocery store that is connected to abortion, or if we will go to jail because we refuse to pay taxes to a government which funds abortion, then as far as I understand it, we can remotely cooperate in order to simply live as law-abiding, healthy citizens.

        But here’s where the plot thickens: as things now stand, it is completely laughable for anyone to claim that we are in a state of grave necessity because of COVID. However, when health passports are in universal force and we are unable to purchase anything without the mark of the beast, then I think we will definitely be in a state of grave necessity!

          • I think an important distinction here is that HCQ and Ivermectin existed long before these studies were done. The immoral missuse of them by one person can in no way taint a legitimate use of them by anyone else. On the other hand, these vaccines were created by immoral means. They were borne out of sin you might say.

            • TF

              I am not really sure who you refer to when you impute an immoral misuse of HCQ and Invermectin, I am not aware of any such misuse by anyone. I know that as soon as President Trump touted these as a cheap and safe method fro treating COVID, Big Pharma, the media and the entire world government came down on him like a ton of bricks and rubbished the idea. In fact they wouldn’t even allow it to be discussed on social media.

              Anyway, what you say about the vaccines is absolutely correct. These abortion-tainted products of iniquity can never be used by anyone under any circumstances who values his eternal salvation. There are alternatives, always have been.

        • RCAVictor

          The martyrs are the example of how we should behave when presented with the choice of either accepting evil in “grave necessity” to spare our temporal lives on earth or sacrificing our lives rather than offend God.

          A simple grain of incense was all they were asked to burn before the false deities in order to continue to live as “law-abiding, healthy citizens”. Yet they chose instead to suffer unspeakable torments and deaths rather than cooperate with evil.

          If it came to being forbidden food for sustenance because we refused an abortion-tainted vaccine, then it would be far more licit to steal what is necessary to survive than cooperate willingly in an evil action by receiving the abortion-tainted vaccine.

          Stealing to survive when illicitly deprived of food is not a sin. Acceptance of abortion-tainted vaccines in order to survive, however, would be a sin since it requires consent in full knowledge to participation, however remote, in a great evil for our own benefit.

          I think the martyrs give us the example of how we should proceed if worse comes to worse. After all, eternal life is of far greater benefit to us than this short temporal life.

      • Sir,
        “Tested on”, and “contains/derived from” are not the same thing.

        Editor: thank you for that – but it might help our readers if you explain the difference…

        PS Warydoom is not a “Sir” – she’s the opposite of “Sir”, whatever that might be these days 😀

        • Terrence

          In moral terms, concerning the taking of the vaccine, they are exactly the same, at least in terms of rendering the vaccine illicit for Catholics. The stem cell lines of aborted babies are used in both processes, so the link is intrinsic.

        • My apologies to Warydoom; I saw nothing indicative of gender in the name or sig… I hope that’s not sinful? But ‘ tested on’ would indicate that human cells or tissues were used to determine the reaction of the organism to the chemical or compound; we often have no idea of the testing regimen for drugs or compounds, and bear less culpability in using such after the event occurs. But ‘contains/derived from’ means that the subject matter (fetal tissue) derived from abortion is still present in the final product, in this case, the vaccine. How far removed does a person have to be, to have a clear conscience in accepting a vaccine that may contain parts of children (or POC, as Planned Parenthood refers to it)? For me, I will not partake of such a product.

          • No worries Terence!

            Thanks for your reply. That’s why I posed the question re the medications and vitamins which have been tested on ESC lines – how far away is remote cooperation given there are thousands of brands of vitamins? Bear in mind that I feel vaccines have a closer cooperation to the evils of abortion but that doesn’t really minimise the evils of the practice of testing either.

            I suspect there are many commenters here who don’t rely on many medications and they possibly wouldn’t understand the need for such. Given I’m disabled I rely on some medications that could well have been tested on ESC lines and that this could be a case of the remote cooperation but I can’t rely on the advice of priests these days. Are we to go through every ingredients/profile of every single vitamin product that’s produced in the world today? Medications are easier to investigate for culpability. I was advised by a very devout and knowledgeable Catholic that vitamins are ok but medicines aren’t. A bit odd methinks.

            So until the Church proclaims (whenever that may be, given the current corrupt pope and Vatican!) that tainted medications and vitamins are definitely immoral, I feel I have no choice but in good faith to continue using them if needed. As I’ve done with vaccine companies and bishops etc in the past, I will write to those medicine manufacturers urging them to stop the practice. This is the least I can do and, indeed, it’s what the Vatican has urged us to do anyway though I do wonder (excepting good bishops such as Vigano, Strickland, Schneider et al) how assiduous the bishops and clergy have been in putting Big Pharma on notice in general.

            For those not aware, Bishop (now Archbishop) Robert Vasa was the bishop (possibly the first?) who actively spoke out over 20 years ago against the tainted vaccines but as he didn’t have the support from the US Bishops Conference he was a lone voice in the wilderness. You’ll find his judgement on the CoGForLife blog.

  5. I’m not qualified to teach moral theology, so I don’t know the answer yet, and I’d like to begin by saying I would rather pass to the next world than take this vaccine for several reasons. I humbly suggest that the question is extremely complex.

    First off the mark, we have to admit that this is not the usual layman stuff in terms of moral theology and we’re a bit out of our depth. The matter of material cooperation and when it is justified is really something one needs theology manuals for. I’ve read with interest some responses of the Sspx and Bishop Schneider on the subject and I wouldn’t be too hasty in forming a conclusion that any statement yet treats the whole picture, although Fr Sherry’s statement does treat of the cooperation issue in some detail.

    The other thing which needs to be frankly said is that the fetal stem cells are not the only moral reason for refusing the vaccine. There are others, such as a legitimate and mandatory concern for one’s own physical health.

    There are several issues which still need looked at in order to form a complete judgement.

    The first thing to be said is that the abortion tainted vaccine is evil and must be fought in principle. Both the Sspx and the aforementioned bishops would agree on this aspect,

    The point of divergence, as I see it, is on two matters.

    The first matter is the aspect of publicly calling out the scamdemic for what it is, and I cannot deny that there is a an unwillingness, no doubt well-intentioned and for what they consider grave motives, to call it out on the part of the leadership of the Sspx. That is evident to our eyes. This means that the leadership is writing on a moral question decontextualised from the real situation we are in. This results in a rather bland tone out of keeping with the horror of the concrete situation. One is totally free to disagree with this approach, of course, while still refraining from judging bad motives for the same. I may add that the UK district superior actually did redress this situation by situating the “pandemic” squarely in its real context, i.e. Communism.

    The second matter on which the Bishops and the Sspx diverge is that of the possible exceptions to the general rule that the anortion tainted vaccines cannot be taken. The aforementioned Bishops (as far as I’ve read, which in fairness is only Bishop Schneider) allow for no exception, even unto martyrdom. Bishop Schneider bases his teaching, it appears, on the particular gravity of the sin of abortion. The Sspx release allowed for exceptions in serious cases, although these exceptions have been narrowed down by clear statements from at least two District Superiors to very narrow exceptions altogether. I haven’t time to go back and read the original Sspx statement but I do know I found both the UK’s and the Canada District’s far superior. Here is Fr Sherry’s statement, only recently published.

    https://sspx.ca/en/publications/newsletters/february-2021-district-superiors-letter-be-not-afraid-their-fear-64271

    The second divergence rests on the question of the authoritative basis for Bishop Schneider et al’s statement on remote material cooperation. This type of cooperation does actually exist in moral theology manuals (cf St Alphonsus and indeed any standard tome of morality.). Now, if the Bishops claim that abortion is too grave a sin to allow for even remote material cooperation in a matter of life and death, on what moral basis do they base this assertion? They may well be correct, for all I know, but on what pronciple do they proceed with the idea that remote material cooperation applies to other sins and not to abortion? Are there two categories of crime one non-bloodshed, to which remote etc cooperation applies, and the other category, a bloodshed one. to which such cooperation can never apply? Bishop Schneider compared taking the vaccine to putting incense before false gods, but is this latter an example of remote material cooperation? It doesn’t seem so to me. It seems more like formal cooperation by directly supplying the matter for the sin of idolatry. A comparable example would be giving knives to the abortionist, which would constitute, of course, not material but formal cooperation, and render one liable for excommunication. Again, Bishop Schneider says that it’s “simple common sense” to say that material remote cooperation doesn’t apply when abortion is considered. Now, while I consider he may well be correct in his statement that this is not the historic hour to give way on abortion tainted vaccines, it’s no argument at all to say your argument is “common sense.”. “Common sense” was recently suggested to me as a reason for wearing a mask. Common sense is just a term for what may well be an erroneous viewpoint.

    I have come across the opinion that the Bishops and the Pope would be absolutely free to order all Catholics to abstain from the vaccine, but that the principles underlying this command would not necessarily flow from any intrinsic evil of such cooperation in general, but from an application of the principles to the concrete situation we are in, and a judgement of the likely effects of any remote cooperation. Such an application would be a positive law and would be binding, by each Bishop in his diocese and by the Pope for the whole church.

    So far, an unaddressed issue for me is: what if taking the vaccine (under serious threat of loss of livelihood or life, for example) had the unintended effect of encouraging more abortions? This might change, not the nature of the cooperation, but the liceity of cooperating. How would one weigh this up in the current circumstances?

    Another (publicly) unaddressed issue which seems to me to be very pertinent: what if the cell lines from already aborted babies “have” to be periodically “refreshed” in order to keep the “vaccines” on the boil or in development. In this case, is the cooperation still so relatively harmless? It appears not. I think Archbishop Vigano mentioned this, but I’m not sure.

    So, I suggest we pray for our priests and ask them questions on the above, and that we are not too hasty to form a judgement in what is actually a seriously complex matter.

    Do form a negative judgement on taking the rotten stuff though. If you value your health and your life, that is!

    • SentirecumEcclesia,

      You make some interesting points in your comments, although I don’t have time right now to address much that I think does need to be discussed. I would like simply to focus on this, from your initial comment…

      First off the mark, we have to admit that this is not the usual layman stuff in terms of moral theology and we’re a bit out of our depth.

      Well, the sorry fact is that it is being left to the laity, for the most part, to defend the Faith (and Morals) under attack at this time; indeed, throughout history, when the Church has been in crisis, it has been the laity who have had to step up – sometimes literally, into pulpits to drag out heretical preachers, but we’ll leave that for another time!

      Fact is, we should NOT be “out of our depth” in matters of our faith and morals. Here’s the now Saint John Henry Cardinal Newman on the subject of the laity, speaking in the 19th century:

      “You must not hide your talent in a napkin, or your light under a bushel. I want a laity, not arrogant, not rash in speech, not disputatious, but men who know their religion, who enter into it, who know just where they stand, who know what they hold, and what they do not, who know their creed so well, that they can give an account of it, who know so much of history that they can defend it. I want an intelligent, well-instructed laity.

      And yes, he said “men” – in the 19th century they had sufficient intelligence and grasp of language to know that by “men”, speakers and writers meant “people” – men AND women”!

      Having said that, I do understand your concerns about discussing (or making decisions) on matters which may be more complex that we, at first, realise, but we are living in a religiously impoverished age with preaching at an all-time low in terms of truly educating the faithful. Again, a subject for another day. Hopefully, this thread will help us all to better understand the issues at the heart of this matter.

      People are taking this vaccine without realising there IS any debate. I had a text only yesterday from a friend whose message was jumping with funny, delighted little faces and exclamation marks because she’s just had her vaccine. She has been very active in her parish for years – all of her life. I replied that I was pleased she sounds so cheerful but I’d be taking that vaccine ten years after Hell freezes over and not before. My phone’s been silent ever since! I’m the author of that book which nobody buys: How to Lose Friends and Really Annoy People… 😀

      • I would love to buy your book “How to Lose Friends and Really Annoy People…“! 😀

        It could be the one I’ve been wanting to write but having annoyed many people in my lifetime, I thought it wouldn’t become a best seller so why waste my time…?

      • Yes Editor, I didn’t mean for a moment that we shouldn’t educate ourselves on the moral theology surrounding the question.

        I just mean that people are assuming they know the answer to this one and that it is intuitive knowledge that taking the vaccine even in very grave circumstances must be a mortal sin. With all due respect to people, this is using their imagination, not their reasoning faculty.

        In fact, we need to stop and examine what all the relevant parties are saying, and look into the matter in detail. We need to be aware we don’t, as lay people, have training in moral theology, and that therefore we might be skipping essential steps in the decision making,

        Instead of that, people are jumping to conclusions that Bishop Schneider must be correct because of the infallible feelings in their guts. 😀

        The difficulty of the situation is compounded, of course, by the fact that the most important authorities in the Church aren’t engaging. This puts untoward pressure on the likes of Bishop Schneider and the Sspx. It would be a very serious thing to dismiss either party without listening and weighing up the arguments in the situation.

        While both parties possess very high moral authority and must be respected and listened to, the people who have the authority to speak aren’t speaking or are clearly giving wrong advice. I refer of course to the Pope as teacher of all Catholics and to the Bishops, each one in his own diocese. The Bishops who have spoken and the Sspx are attempting to fill the authority vaccuum- a situation bound to cause confusion and difficulty for the laity.

        • Sentire cum Ecclesia,

          I can assure you that Martin Blackshaw is not relying on his imagination, although that “gut” feeling which you mention is, indeed, what God has put into our soul to alert us to error – it’s always been known as our Catholic sense.

          Martin, however, follows up that sense that something is not right by reading avidly and checking with trusted sources, including priests of the traditional persuasion. It is a shocking fact that when he writes to some (not all, but the majority, sadly) of SSPX priests, he is ignored. I interpret that as being treated with contempt, hardly an indication of virtue, to be blunt.

          This is a characteristic, sadly, of too many priests – whether diocesan or traditional. Here’s an ongoing example.

          I have something which I want to post to the Archbishop of St Andrew’s & Edinburgh but there are no postal details on the website. I, therefore, emailed the chancellor of the archdiocese to politely ask for a postal address. Looks like he is not going to reply. In my book, ignoring a written communication is absolutely NO different from ignoring someone who speaks to us in a room.

          It’s a cowardly way of avoiding perceived confrontation. I would go so far as to say (what I said about one of my former priests in England who admitted from the pulpit that he avoided conflict at all costs) they are in the wrong profession.

          And a final word on this, directly addressing those priests who behave in this unconscionable and unChristian manner. Paraphrasing Our Lord, quoted on this subject in Luke 6:32 ff..

          If you are kind / do good only to those who are kind to you, where’s the merit? Even the pagans do as much, do they not?

          • If you don’t mind my saying so, I suspect the issue of non-response might be because you are, neither of you, actually looking for clerical guidance. You’ve made your minds up on the question; you have decided in your conscience the correct approach, and if someone doesn’t validate it, they’re a “leaky lifeboat”. While I certainly understand this reaction, and while I do think the USA Sspx statement was hasty and incomplete, I also think it’s too hasty and unfair a judgement to call them a “leaky lifeboat” – certainly as a uniform judgement in root and branch. If there is a particular cleric whose judgement one distrusts, one is always allowed to seek another opinion, but absent clear heresy- and there is no question of heresy here- our language and judgements need to be moderate, I think. More time is needed to allow Bishop Schneider to expand on the principles behind his declaration and to study the principles behind the various Sspx declaration, which, incomplete as the original one was, isn’t, after all, not drawn from thin air.

            Besides, whoever is in error here, they’re in error in good faith. If, after a careful formation of conscience by asking one’s local non-modernist priest, or by otherwise consulting authentic sources of doctrine, one was to come to a wrong conclusion, and do the wrong thing, God would not impute the guilt to the poor member of the faithful. We have to form our consciences by some authoritative source. Once formed, we then think the other position is erroneous, but that doesn’t mean that all who accept the other position are bad teachers or leading us to hell. They’re just wrong in one conclusion on one issue. Happens in Church history.

            The bottom line is that we are all, as laypeople, accepting some kind of authority for the opinion, having neither time nor the requisite expertise to arrive at a certain opinion by ourselves. Athanasius has admitted that he just takes Bishop Schneider’s declaration as authentic Catholic truth based on the latter’s standing as a good Bishop. Without arguing against the undoubted moral authority of Bishop Schneider, he’s not the Pope, and the opinion of other qualified moral theologians is valid. If Bishop Schneider turned out to be wrong on this one issue- and I still need to hear him explain how remote material cooperation is not ok for abortion and ok for other sins- I certainly wouldn’t call him a leaky lifeboat. I’d just say he had arrived, in good faith, at an erroneous conclusion.

            Rather than reacting with outrage to the different opinions on the question, and remembering that in Church history there have been disputed questions – remember St Thomas Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception- it might be better to ask for answers to the unanswered questions in the argument, such as: does the new information that more abortions were committed change the stance? That is what I want to do with both the Sspx and Bishop Schneider.

        • Sentire

          Bishop Schneider made a remark that really struck a chord with me.

          He spoke of the Sensus Fidei and how it had been his experience and that of the other prelates, speaking to many ordinary Catholics, that the simple faithful automatically know in their conscience that the “material cooperation” argument of the moral theologians and intellectuals in this matter of abortion-tainted vaccines is wrong.

          This made me think about pride and how Vatican II was a destruction of doctrine by intellectuals in the clergy who fancied themselves too clever to believe simple tenets of the faith, entering instead into lengthy theological discourses looking for ways to reinterpret those tenets of the faith in a way that would please the “spirit of this world”.

          Apart from a mere handful of heroic prelates and priests at the time, such as Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Meyer and others, it was largely the faithful who took up the fight against these proud liberals and masters of sophistry.

          It is precisely this that Bishop Schneider sees happening now as the intellectuals unite once more in a common novel argument about abortion-tainted vaccines that boils down to their opinion against the authentic teaching as recently expressed by those more senior prelates in the faith that I have cited.

          Bottom line is we don’t need massive intellectual debates on the moral principles when Our Lord grants us the gift of a sense of the faith in our conscience, which, if properly formed, tells us immediately that what is being proposed is completely at odds with the Church’s authentic moral teaching, a consistent teaching bolstered even the post-conciliar Popes up to, but not including, Pope Francis.

          In fine, what really underpins this clever sophistry of the alternative argument, and I make no apology for declaring it, is naturalistic rationalism of the sort that has destroyed so much of the doctrine and theology of the Church since the Council. It grieves me that the SSPX superiors are apparently now tending in the same direction as these destroyers of faith, even if they do limit their sophistry to supporting only “cases of necessity”.

          It is my understanding that many ordinary SSPX priests and faithful oppose what their superiors are proposing in respect to these vaccines. They’re scratching their heads, wondering why in the past few years there has been an apparent drift towards a reconciliation between modern godless scientific methods and the Traditional Faith. I am thinking here of Fr. Paul Robinson’s Menzingen-endorsed book “The Realist Guide to Science and Religion” wherein common ground is sought between Catholics who believe in Genesis and atheists who propose the Marxist pseudo-scientific “Big Bang” theory.

          Then there was the Fr. Kilcawley incident. Fr. Kilcawley is a Novus Ordo priest, dubbed “the porn priest” for his modern religious/psychological approach to helping those addicted to sexual vice. He is a disciple of John Paul II’s ‘Theology of the Body’.

          Among Fr. Kilcawley’s dubious video statements is the following advice he offers to Catholic who are tempted with impure thoughts:

          “simply invite our Lord into our temptation and into our thoughts in the present moment; to say, “Jesus, I want to look at pornography right now”, or, “Jesus, I’m having an impure thought right now. You’re welcome into my imagination. You’re welcome to watch these thoughts with me.”

          Of course this advice, almost blasphemous in nature, is completely contrary to the teaching of the Church and the saints in the matter of how Catholics should react when tempted to impurity. The general rule is that in all other temptations we fight, but in the case of impurity we take flight, that is, we immediately distract ourselves and do not under any circumstances entertain such thoughts.

          Well, Fr, Kilcawley was invited to speak at the annual Angelus Conference, sharing a podium with no less than Bishop Fellay, to expound his Modernist psychology to Traditional Catholics. There was much outrage about this but it didn’t alter the determination of SSPX superiors to proceed.

          If we also consider how quiet the SSPX has been these past few years on Modernist Rome, particularly under this Pope, arguably the worst in the history of the Church, then we do begin to detect a worrying pattern of apparent appeasement, almost like they don’t want to incur the wrath of Francis and lose those little concessions he’s been granting them – concessions which, in my view, were cleverly extended in order to neutralise the Traditional bulwark against Modernism in general and this radical Pope’s agenda in particular.

          Archbishop Vigano and the like are the ones the sheep look to now for guidance, much as they did with Archbishop Lefebvre who will presently be spinning in his grave!

          Something has gone awry, that’s for sure. The SSPX is not as outspoken in defence of Tradition as it once was. Something is lost and it emanates from the top in Menzingen, which would explain why the superiors do not respond to concerns raised by the faithful. This is precisely how the Modernists behaved when subordinates wrote to them expressing concern about their liberal changes. They can’t respond because they cannot justify what they’re saying and doing in light of traditional teaching. It’s all very worrying!

          As I said before, only one SSPX District Superior had the charity, the humility and courtesy to respond to my concerns. I believe this priest to be a good pastoral priest who is honestly convinced that he’s right, even though he is dead wrong. Still, the fact that he responded kindly to my submitted concerns while the others behaved contemptuously, not only in my case but in the case of the aforementioned traditional prelates who have far greater experience and insight into this matter than they, suggests a dangerous clericalism which always leads to them imposing their own authority on personal opinion rather than the authority of established Church teaching, which the traditional prelates are presently reiterating to us with fidelity.

          • Thanks for replying Athanasius.

            As I said at the beginning, I am not at all implying that the Sspx is right on everything.

            I don’t know anything about the other controversies and am out of time to research them, but I think each situation deserves to be judged on its own merits. The question here was whether the moral teaching of the Sspx on the vaccine was erroneous or not.

            Now I agree that it is a good development that the sheep look to Archbishop Vigano for guidance, and I agree, and stated ab initio, that the Sspx statements from Menzingen are incomplete in their handling of the pandemic issue. However, I’m not going to draw conclusions from that beyond what the facts are.

            While you might be right about the sensus fidei, it does need to be backed up with sound and clear arguments from moral theology to make sure it’s actually correct.

            I follow Archbishop Schneider and Archbishop Vigano with delight AND I signed the Appeal to the Church and the World.

            But I know good Sspx priests, holy ones, who are just not convinced by the argument of Bishop Schneider, ok? As for the Sensus Fidei, as a close friend of mine said, Bishop Schneider’s argument satisfies the heart, but not the head. You are calling it “established church teaching” but where is your source? That’s the problem.

            • Sentire

              I appreciate your thoughts but you must understand that these previous examples of apparent deviation that I quote in relation to the SSPX leadership is quite pertinent to the present situation as it delineates the latest example in a very worrying trend.

              • I see. The thing then is that I was misled into the argument by a false understanding that we were debating theological propositions. I wouldn’t even go down the rabbit hole of attempting to discuss, in public, other decisions of the leadership of any religious order. There is no way out of the quagmire of personal experiences of bad leadership, hearsay, etc. It has no real bearing on the question of whether the propositions, released not just by faraway and unknown priests p, but by two very good priests I have no reason to distrust, are correct or not.

                To be blunt about distrust though: there were parish priests in the past who may not have been saintly, but people did not assume that their imperfections and even sins rendered them incapable of rendering a moral judgement.

                If it did, we’d have to stop priests from going to confession and we’d have to say that by virtue of their ordination, they were considered impeccable, or at least that by going to confession they showed that they had a cloven foot and were not to be trusted to preach! Which would be ridiculous.

                Not that I’ve met anything but at least pious and decent, mostly very good indeed, and sometimes very holy priests in the Sspx. Am I lucky, or …….is it partly to do with seeing what you expect to see?

                Anyway, I’ve neglected my duties a bit for two days now, so I have to stop it.

                May the Holy Ghost enlighten our prelates, our priests, and us all.

                • Sentire

                  Yes, I think we have reached that point where everything that needs saying has been said. I agree entriely with your concluding sentiment.

    • Dear SentireCumEcclesia,

      I believe that you may have misunderstood Bishop Schneider (and that of the other bishops who join with him) in their rejection of the “remote material” argument. I respectfully point out that like the SSPX, you seem to be thinking that the good Bishop’s numerous statements as indicative of his creation of a new category of grave sin that does not fit into the traditional moral theology categories.

      We heard this from the SSPX priests here in Post Falls in early January at a “vaccine presentation,” and it misses the point entirely. The SSPX is creating a strawman that revolves around the idea that even though there is some sort of cooperation in evil in these abortion-tainted vaccines, we may accept them when there is a sufficient grave threat to health (there is not), when there is no alternative, and if we make our opposition known to big pharma companies. They call this “proportionate (or proportional) cause”. They buy into the completely erroneous idea there is no formal and proximate cooperation in taking abortion-tainted vaccines under “certain circumstances” and with “qualifications.”

      If we were talking about anything other than the symbiotic relationship of the medical research community with the abortion industry, we could have an interesting debate regarding the relevant moral theology principles. But, as we are speaking of an ongoing harvesting of babies who are extracted ex utero, tortured by cutting into them for their organs (without anesthesia), and then murdering them, there is nothing “remote,” nor perhaps even material, about the fact that when we create the demand for the ever-expanding fetal stem cell trade, we are direct partakers in that evil. My Prummer’s Handbook of Moral Theology makes it very clear through elaboration of various principles that by creating a demand for ill-gotten goods we are encouraging the evildoers to continue to perpetrate their nefarious actions.

      I will soon be posting a book review of Catholic biologist and former vaccine researcher Pamela Acker’s new book, Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective. Page 63 contains eye-opening and downright shocking information that should make us all run to the confessional for having allowed (inter alia) MMR and varicella shots for our children. Miss Acker makes a damning accusation against those, like the Pontifical Academy for Life (and, sadly I would add the SSPX — since 2006), who have bought into the idea that we can take abortion-tainted vaccines for “proportionate cause” if we consider it a temporary solution and if we make known our objections to vaccine researchers. There is nothing temporary with respect to the burgeoning number of babies murdered for “medical research,” and the heartbreak is that it has only increased since we opened Pandora’s box fifteen years ago.

      In view of the above, we can see how correct Bishop Athanasius Schneider was when he, along with four other prelates, warned us nearly three months ago that accepting abortion-tainted vaccines was a “concatenation” in evil. The definition of “concatenation” is a linkage that involves an “interdependence.” How true his words are! There is only one conclusion: this issue is certainly not remote, and now that we know the whole truth, it may even be formal cooperation in evil rather than material. One thing is certain: the Pontifical Academy for Life, the USCCB, and the SSPX — and any prelates or clergy who have guided naïve and ignorant souls to accept these evil vaccines — are complicit in the deaths of innumerable babies. This is infinitely worse than murder, for these children are denied the possibility of Baptism, and will likely not enjoy the Beatific Vision. It is an outrageous crime against Almighty God!

      My wife and I have made these points in a letter to the Superior General of the SSPX, Fr. Pagliarani, from whom we are anxiously awaiting a response. We have also sent emails with these same points to the SSSPX District Superiors of the U.S. and Canada. When we receive responses, I will make them known to our hard-working Editor, Patricia.

      In the meantime, I humbly and respectfully offer these thoughts for your consideration. Sincerely in Christo, Tony Ambrosetti

      • Tony and Vickie Ambrosetti

        Many thanks to you for putting the case against these vaccines in so clear and concise a manner. Every word you have written is absolutely true and I sincerely hope by God’s grace that they manage to convince others where I have apparently failed.

        With reagrd to correspondence you have sent to the District Superiors of the U.S. and Canada, as well as to Fr. Pagliarani. I think you may expect a response from the DS of Canada but no reply from the others. That was my experience anyway.

        God bless you and your dear wife for speaking out on this subject which is so fundamentally important to all Catholics. I just hope the SSPX superiors realise their error and correct it with due humility.

  6. Fr Sherry raises the issue of the prudential aspect, and Fr Robert Brucciani of the necessity of resistance. These are both Sspx leaders, so while I agree that the response from the very top has not been what I would have looked for, these two are district leaders and therefore a part of the “leadership.”

    • SentireCumEcclesia,

      I notice you don’t say whether you agree with Fr Sherry and Fr Brucciani. I would be interested to know.

      I’ve just read Fr Sherry’s statement and it does seem very reasonable, that’s true.

      I am not sure about the examples he gives, to explain that it is not always a sin to co-operate in evil.

      He says “The harlot who gives $5 earned by sin to a beggar does not place him in a situation where he must starve rather than spend it, he can accept the help without approving of her sinful occupation.”

      But who is to say the beggar would know how she came by the money? Actually, I am not convinced that the examples he gives are apples and apples, not really equivalent to gaining from using aborted tissue. One of the bishops in America, I forget which, said he would not kill children so that he could live (words along those lines, it was quoted in the previous article by Martin) which is why he won’t approve the vaccine.

      I haven’t read Fr Brucciani’s statement, and I do think Fr Sherry’s statement is a thoughtful one, he may be right, but my gut feeling is that it cannot be pleasing to God if we accept abortion-tainted vaccines. For the Church to have been so clear about the evil of abortion for centuries and then to cave in like this so that Catholics can feel good about themselves taking the vaccine is just terrible IMHO.

      We do live in worrying times. If Our Lady hadn’t told us that her Immaculate Heart would triumph in the end, I think a lot of us would just give up.

    • Sentire

      I believe that Fr. Sherry, like other priests, is very well intentioned but his study is seriously flawed. As I have said further down the comments in another reply to you, the theoretical scenarios he provides as examples of “material cooperation” are in fact void since the fictitious people cited have no direct knowledge of the sin they are supposed to have cooperated in.

      The harlot’s $5 dollars to the starving man, for example, is void because the sin isn’t on the money, which was presumably given freely to the harlot by one of her “clients” which she then freely gave to a beggar without strings attached or any knowledge on his part where it came from.

      Same with the man who rented the apartment that was built on a Sunday. He didn’t build it on a Sunday and has no knowledge that it was built on a Sunday. Besides, the sin is on the one who built the apartment, not on the person who rents it. There is nothing sinful in building or renting an apartment, the sin is working on a Sunday and the man who rented the apartment had no part in that.

      In the case of receiving abortion-tainted vaccines, however, when there is full knowledge of how they are produced and tested, then the choice is one of participating in an illicit means for personal benefit. We are never permitted to seek to benefit from known evil, especially evil as grave as abortion. Whatever happened to the martyr’s spirit? Everyone is desperate to save their lives now that they will resort to any means if necessary. It’s not allowed, says Bishop Schneider.

    • Sentirecumecclesia,

      I’m not sure about this, but it appears to me that Fr. Sherry has hit a brick wall, twice, of his own making.

      First wall: “…if I cannot take the untainted vaccine, I must ensure that my motives for taking it are serious enough to justify material cooperation. In this – as in other cases of moral perplexity on a serious matter, I may do well to consult a wise priest.”

      Objection: What is a wise priest? One who agrees with what Fr. Sherry calls an extreme (absolutely forbidding tainted vaccines), or one who allows for remote material cooperation? And how is a Catholic to tell which position is “wise”? This is a cop-out.

      Second wall: “Better than either of these extremes – giving blanket permission to take the vaccine, or forbidding it absolutely as intrinsically evil – is the opinion (in my view) of those churchmen who urge Catholics to boycott any vaccines derived from tainted sources, because, as they argue, when everyone takes them without scruple, it encourages abortion and the grisly trade in human body parts.”

      Objection: absolutely forbidding tainted vaccines is an extreme, yet boycotting tainted vaccines is not an extreme? Sorry, that doesn’t pass the smell test.

      • Re wise priest: the tradition of the Church is, if in doubt, ask a priest whom one has no reason to distrust (i.e. a faithful and learned priest. ). If his judgement is wrong, God will not blame you! Obviously you have to be in good faith and not seeking out a heretic to validate your taking the pill.

        Forbidding them in principle, on the grounds of intrinsic evil, would seem @ Fr Sherry to lose sight of the principle of material cooperation, while ordering people to boycott them for the greater good would stem not from natural but positive law. I think that is what he is saying.

        • I mean forbidding them without exception for grave cases. Make no mistake, I know the vaccine is forbidden. The question is one of exceptions only

  7. I believe Frs Sherry and Fr Brucciani have researched the matter and are making a trustworthy judgement based on past moral teaching in connection with the issue of remote material cooperation. The reason I withhold judgement on the issue is that I consider 1. I am a member of the church taught, not the church teaching, and these are delicate matters, definitely not the province of the laity and 2. I consider there may yet come to light other factors, such as future abortions etc., which may render the cooperation less remote and therefore alter the initial judgement. In other words, moral judgements are sometimes modified by concete circumstances, and I think this is the angle Bishop Schneider is coming from and which Fr Sherry may be referring to in the latter’s reference to a boycott. There are times in history when a boycott is called for. Nonetheless, one is not necessarily in error for calling the faithful’s attention to the possibility of an exception to the rule. We have to be fair to all sides and their different roles and intentions.

    My actual thought on the issue is that the vaccine is dangerous anyway, and of course the abortion tainted ones are sinful to take for a certainty unless there is a grave reason. At the moment there is no grave reason, so outrage and resistance towards abortion tainted vaccines is the correct response. The exceptional issue pf whether under any circumstances one might take it in my opinion is best left to a confessor.

    • Sentirecumecclesia

      Like you, I consider myself to be a member of the Church taught rather than the Church teaching. It is for this reason that I choose to follow the superior authority of such prelates as cited in my article – Cardinals Gerhard Muller, Zen & Lenga, Archbishop Vigano, Bishops Schneider, Strickland, etc. These surely carry more ecclesiastical weight in their provision of the authentic teaching of the Church than a handful of SSPX, however well intentioned. Hence, I choose the superior authorities in this matter, whose declarations coincide perfectly with my Catholic conscience.

      Besides that, having read all the various theoretical scenarios produced by the SSPX to justify their “material cooperation” argument, not one of them is an example of participation in a sin by a person with full knowledge of the sin. In all cases the people who “remotely cooperated” did so without knowledge of, or consent to, sin.

      This is not the case with vaccines produced from or tested using the stem cell lines of aborted babies, a process which is still current, not remote. This is why Bishop Athanasius Schneider declares that once we have knowledge of the sinful means used to provide these vaccines we cannot under any circumstances make use of them, since it is forbidden to seek to benefit from an evil means. Can you see the difference in culpability once full knowledge is acquired?

      At any rate, for those who think that only a couple of abortions have been performed to aid research, and those many decades ago, think again!

      In an interview with LSN, Pamela Acker, a reasearcher and expert in vaccines, there were a lot more than just two or three. Here’s what she says:

      …”For, HEK-293, that was… one of things that I’ve seen come up a couple of times in articles I’ve looked at about the ethical considerations that are involved, is that people say, “Well, there wasn’t documentation that that was an elective abortion, so it could have been a spontaneous abortion.” And this is a bit disingenuous or ignorant on the part of these authors, because in order to produce a viable cell line, there’s a number of things that go into that, and it’s a very difficult thing to do.

      And so, I was doing some research specifically on HEK-293 to prepare for this interview, and the number system that’s involved there… the HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney, but293 stands for this is the 293rd experiment that this particular researcher did to develop a cell line. And that doesn’t mean that there were 293 abortions, but for 293 experiments you need far more than one abortion. And we’re talking probably 100s of abortions. And this was done with the collaboration of some hospitals. And there was a group in Sweden that was involved in developing the WI-38 cell line, so a different cell line, but they routinely were aborting babies for the use in trying to develop fetal cell lines…”

      Read the full interview here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/a-hill-worth-dying-on-expert-explains-how-aborted-baby-cells-taint-covid-vaccines

      So in relation to injury to a third party – one the reasons the SSPX priests cite as cause for rejecting the vaccines – we now know that many babies died in the process and are probably still dying in the ongoing need for newer stem cells and every greater research. Any Catholic who participates in such a horrible industry by any means whatsoever encourages this evil to continue to the great detriment of a third party, namely, the babies they murder to keep the vaccines rolling out.

      • Athanasius,

        You’re confusing knowledge of the sin after the fact with consent to the sin after the fact.

        They are not the same thing.

        We may never consent to a sin. Never.

        Benefitting from a sin is not necessarily consenting, though, and this is where the confusion lies, I think.

        Because we might benefit from a sin committed in the past doesn’t ALWAYS mean we consent to it. In the examples given in Sspx literature, knowledge of the sin was assumed, since otherwise the examples have nothing to do with the case. So, of course, the chap that moves into an apartment which was built on Sunday must know it was built on Sunday for the question of cooperation to even arise. But would any of us seriously maintain that his move into the apartment signified consent?

        The point here was that accepting vaccines derived from fetal cell research (those which actually contain fetal material, or could contain it, might raise other issues) doesn’t necessarily signify consent to how the vaccine was produced. Now I agree that that Catholics’ use of the vaccine might, in fact, encourage future abortions, which might be what Bishop Schneider is thinking of. Totally legitimate to ban the vaccine based on that idea.

        But there must be clear teaching. And so far, I have found a clear statement from Bishop Schneider, but not a clear explanation of his teaching. He says it’s common sense (which it isn’t or the question couldn’t even be discussed); he says it’s like the grains of incense before a false god (which seems to me to be formal cooperation, not material, hence apples and oranges); and he asserts the fact that the principle of remote cooperation can’t apply (but without giving any reason that U have seen from moral theology. He quotes the New Catechism and John Paul II, which are in neither case exactly renowned for a logical Thomistic approach and which certainly wouldn’t be a source like St. Alphonsus.)

        That is not to say he is wrong, it’s simply to say there isn’t enough clarity in his arguments which I have so far read. I might have missed something. And to be frank, if he is wrong in one conclusion, we don’t want anyone getting the vaccine anyway, so a wrong conclusion might lead to a good result.

        However, it’s really harmful to go down the rabbit hole of clerical division, though I certainly wish that all these good priests and Bishops could have issued a clear, authorative statement in concert.

        But the fact that they can’t illustrates the fact that….none of them is the Pope.

        At bottom, it’s a problem of not having a Pope who will settle the disputed point (points of faith and morals are frequently disputed in the ecclesiastical world). Therefore, we should go easy on our clergy, and ask them their reasoning without assuming they are somehow going soft and liberal on us. That could turn out to be a very rash judgement indeed.

    • Sentire

      Puting aside the moral argument, I think you make a very good point about these vaccines being potentially dangerous. Indeed, information is already surfacing in support of that precise fear. In addition, for the first time ever some of these new vaccines are altering the cell structure of human beings. In other words, they are playing with eugenics on the unsuspecting public and we have no idea how badly wrong this could turn out a few years or decades down the line. Once a person is genetically modified it cannot be undone if it goes catastrophically wrong!

      People who play God usually end up killing or maiming a lot of people. So even from the point of view of prudence, no Catholic should allow these experimental drugs to be pumped into their bodies.

      In every way, therefore, morally, prudentially or in justice (for the murdered unborn), there is a gigantic no-go sign flashing in the face of all properly informed Catholics.

  8. Hi folks!

    I am pleased to see some very interesting and thoughtful posts here already. That’s great.

    I’ve received the following comment in an email from a reader, which I am throwing into the mix…

    “…there is one important thing I think you should clarify: Martin says: “This exception to the general rule, in cases of grave necessity only, amounts to “remote material co-operation”, a much lesser sin than formal co-operation.’”

    This is not true: “remote material co-operation” is not a lesser sin, it may or may not be a sin; it is “not necessarily a sin. By making use of the fruits of an evil action I engage in what moral theologians call material cooperation in evil, which may or may not be allowed depending on the closeness of the cooperation, the seriousness of the evil that I cooperate in, and the damage caused to a third party.”

    • Editor

      I wrote those words in relation to abortion-tainted vaccines. According to Bishop Schneider, once there is full knowledge of how these are produced and/or tested, it would be sinful to make use of them since that would be to benefit from an evil action with full knowledge, which, while not formal, is materially sinful and consequently forbidden, even in cases of grave necessity given the very serious nature of the sin of abortion which “cries to heaven for vengeance”.

      The difficulty here is that otherwise good people are applying moral principles often cited in relation to the ordinary sins of fallen human nature to justify participation, albeit remote, in a sin that is against nature. I do not believe the moral principles annunciated by, say, St. Alphonsus, were intended to be extended to sins such as abortion in the production and testing of vaccines, which is evil eugenics that he could never have imagined, eugenics that trample the divine and natural law. Bishop Schneider agrees, which is why he says that in this particular sin of abortion and abortion-tainted vaccines it is nothing short of sophistry to attempt to apply the “material cooperation” argument. The sin is just so grave as to be beyond any and all justification for those with knowledge of its gravity.

      • Athanasius, you say: “ I do not believe the moral principles annunciated by, say, St. Alphonsus, were intended to be extended to sins such as abortion in the production and testing of vaccines”

        So while we may ask questions about the application of the principles, it would have to be on some moral basis, and not the simple assertion “I do not believe”…..

        “The Church teaches” is the only legitimate ground of argument.

        • Sentire

          Bishop Athanasius Schneider was the one who said that these principles cannot be applied once a person has full knowledge of the process for producing these vaccines. So when I say “I do not believe…”, the statement is based on Bishop Schneider’s delcaration. Hence, it is no mere personal opinion.

          • That’s a good clarification, Athanasius. However, as Bishop Schneider is not infallible, I need to know the moral teaching on which he bases this principle in order to be sure that the teaching is correct. Saying it’s common sense isn’t enough. Saying that the sin is too bad for remote material cooperation to apply may well be the case, but is this the teaching of moral theologians or Bishop Schneider’s opinion? The fact that several bishops agree is weighty, but not enough, especially given the lacunae in doctrine around the world, and given the fact that good priests who are not by any means liberals are saying “No, there’s a different way to look at this based on the Church’s tradition in moral theology.”.

  9. We’re now seeing the results of the vaccine propaganda. Serious consideration being given to forcing doctors to have the jab or lose their jobs…

    Chief Medical Adviser Chris Whitty has said doctors have a “professional duty” to get a COVID-19 vaccine and the General Medical Council has backed him saying medics could face disciplinary action if they refuse one without a valid reason.
    https://lockdownsceptics.org/

    If anyone truly believes that this mentality won’t be applied to the rest of us, well, enjoy the rest of your life in the Communist-controlled UK – after all, according to the propaganda, you’ll own nothing, but you’ll be happy about it!

    • Editor,

      Slightly OT but here is an interesting video of the Corbett Report which details the differences of the Oxford-AstraZeneca injection as opposed to the likes of Moderna, Pfizer etc.

      The Oxford-AstraZeneca group has long term ties to eugenicist groups etc.

  10. First of all I am genuinely seeking guidance here, not a row. I have been thinking about this vaccine thing a lot and I would like to ask this question, which perhaps someone could address specifically, because for me I think the whole issue turns on this. The preamble is quite long-winded, but the question itself is very succinct, so please be patient:

    In order to co-operate with an immoral act, there must actually be some some immoral act to co-operate with. As I understand it the foetal cell line used in vaccine development comes from an unborn child aborted in the Netherlands in the 1970s. The abortion was done for the usual contrived “social reasons” or similar, which is clearly an immoral act. However the abortion itself was not performed for the purposes of producing cell lines or vaccines. The abortion would have taken place regardless, whether these cell lines were developed or not. The abortion was therefore not encouraged or prompted in any way by the subsequent scientific research. It seems to me very obvious that there was no co-operation with the abortion itself because the abortion took place independently of any later experimentation.

    Imagine two fictitious scenarios: In the first case I murder my very wealthy wife (or encourage others to do so) in order to inherit her riches. This would very obviously be utterly wrong. There is the murder itself, and then there is a sort of theft of the inheritance. Now imagine a second scenario – my wife is murdered by persons unknown, for reasons unconnected to me, and entirely without my knowledge, encouragement, or interference and as a consequence I inherit her great wealth. It would clearly not be immoral to lawfully inherit her riches. The inheritance would be the RESULT of an immoral act, but not the CAUSE of it.

    It seems to me that the salient issue is whether the vaccines are the RESULT of an abortion, or the CAUSE of it. And I really can’t see how anyone can reasonably claim otherwise. It is obviously immoral to CAUSE an immoral act but not necessarily to benefit from one as a RESULT.

    Can someone answer this specific point please?

    • Chris McLaughlin,

      Although I think your example of the murdered wife and the widower still being able to inherit her money because he didn’t have anything to do with the murder, is quite a good one, I think there’s a couple of points to be made.

      My first point is that there has to be a distinction between the taking of innocent life and guilty life – although nobody deserves to be murdered, it is true that none of us, after the age of reason, is truly an innocent person. There is something uniquely evil about the murder of totally helpless unborn babies.

      Secondly, the wife’s wealth is a separate thing from her personal being, unlike the aborted babies who body parts are being used to benefit other people’s health.

      I’m not sure if these are important points or not, it’s just what came to my mind as I read your comment. I’ll be interested in what other people say because it’s a very good question that you raise.

      • Would Mr Blackshaw be able to quote from moral theology, instead of simply quoting one bishop, who isn’t infallible? Has he studied Moral Theology? It’s very dangerous for armchair theologians to pontificate from their front room. This is the domain of the clergy. When there is a variety of reliable theological opinions, the lay faithful may indeed follow their own conscience.
        Ed: at a wild guess I think we can take it that you’ll be having the jab… Obviously, you being a doctor, an’ all, you’ll know whether or not it’s safe and us lay people, not being medical professionals, better keep our noses out of it, take it if the medics say it’s “good to go” and shut up if we are a tad concerned… Yes? No? I only ask because I’ve never read a medical manual in my life… Never studied medicine. Ever. Oh and for the record, Martin does NOT only quote one bishop. Read his article again and then read the previous article by Martin which is linked therein. If that “Dr” title is a PhD, it’s obviously NOT in English language…

        • I think this is a fair comment, and isn’t pushing the vaccine at all. It’s just asking if Athanasius has moral theology training, which is fair. Why discuss if things can’t be kept on an objective, non emotional level?

          • SCE,

            Who is being “emotional”?

            The question was asked in a very impolite way, to put it mildly. I had the temerity to reply in kind. How dare I?

            It’s NOT a fair comment. It’s a blatantly silly comment.

            Do YOU have a degree in moral theology? Do YOU have a degree in medicine? Do YOU have a degree in politics – the list is endless. If we can’t discuss concerns and issues unless we have “read a book” on the subject or gained a degree in it, then we might as well shut up shop. Ridiculous.

            I quoted Cardinal Newman on the importance of an informed laity. Then someone comes on telling us all, essentially, that we’ve no right to talk about the vaccine unless we’re read a book on moral theology. Crackers.

            We’re living at a time of immense crisis. There are serious concerns about the Covid vaccines, quite apart from the issue of the abortion-tainted issue. Of course, we have the right – even the duty – to share our concerns.

            Further, we will talk about whatever we choose to talk about on this blog but note this: there is no obligation on anyone either to read it or to contribute. There is an expectation that anyone who does so, will do so in good faith and display a measure of respect for our right to comment and question at a time when we’ve been abandoned by the alleged shepherds.

            Anyone who disapproves of our topics, or questions our right to discuss anything, is politely asked to – how can I put this politely,… push off. 😀

            • Editor,

              I’m not being disingenuous here. I honestly saw his question as totally fine. He asked if Mr Blackshaw could quote a source. While “armchair theologian” might be a bit hurtful, the fact is that Mr Blackshaw is setting himself up as a commentator on moral theology. He clearly considers that he can source the answers to these questions and fairly authoritatively decide who is right. Now of course, there is no law to stop him doing this if he wants, although it carries a heavy moral responsibility if he makes the wrong call- don’t forget in the past there was a diocesan censor appointed by the bishops for books on theology, and one would need an imprimatur to publish such an article- but he opens himself up to questioning on sources and training. The Doctor’s question was, in the light of Mr Blackshaw’s claims, entirely reasonable.

              No one refuses discussion, but when someone claims authoritative knowledge to settle a hotly disputed question, they can expect to be calmly asked for their credentials.

              • Sentire

                No, I merely quote what traditional prelates are saying in terms of the authentic teaching of the Church in opposition to what the SSPX leadership contends.

                That a certain amount of exploration of moral principles is requried due to their sophistic theoretic arguments, is inevitable.

                I am obliged to explain why I oppose these sophisitc arguments and that requires that I juxtapose what the Church really means when it refers to “material cooperation” with what the SSPX leadership is extending it to mean.

                Besides that, you will doubtless be aware that those of us who, for decades, have quoted the liturgical and doctrinal teaching of the Church against Modernist innovators have likewise been accused of setting ourselves up as armchair theologians.

                It’s a very unfair and unjust accusation when all we’re doing is contending with the priests we should be able to trust to pass on the authentic teaching are instead perverting it with sophistry.

        • DR Furkov

          Perhaps if you would read my article again and then come back with honest criticism I may be inclined to exchange further with you. As it stands, your accusation that I quote just one bishop when it is clear to all that I quote a number of prelates with one voice, tends to make me think you’re disingenuous.

          A re-think and re-phrase on your part seems appropriate.

        • Editor,

          No, I am not having the vaccination. You can’t deduce that from my comment. I will refrain from making any personal remarks towards you: it’s a pity you couldn’t extend the same courtesy towards me. Being rude online is not acceptable. I fully support robust polemics, but it is objectively sinful to be uncharitable and is indicative of a nasty disposition or unstable mind.

          Granted, I made a mistake saying Mr Blackshaw quoted “one bishop”. I apologise for that. However, the rest of my comment stands. There are legitimate voices on both sides of the argument.

          Mr Blackshaw does not have recourse to any authoritative source from Tradition, other than the prelates he agrees with. The article by the SSPX priest from Econe, a medical doctor and a theologian, is very comprehensive. It is disingenuous of you to publish such an uncharitable attack on the SSPX.

          Ps. I registered with my employment email address so I hope this comment will be published.

          • Dr Josef Furkov

            You are right to upbraid me for being rude – I must apologise for that. I should not have made any remark about your qualifications and the crack about English language was unworthy of me because I am, in fact, quite a saintly soul, truth be told. Humility is my strong suit, but I tend to fall down on the “charity” front. 😀 So, please forgive me…

            To be fair (to me) I’ve come along in leaps and bounds in terms of my growing charity towards all and sundry – not that all and sundry appreciate the fact. No, they’re all too busy attacking me, calling me names etc. Still, they’ll get their comeuppance, always do, those types… 😀

            As for “a nasty disposition or unstable mind”. Well, depends on the day of the week. Mondays, I can be downright nasty. You wouldn’t want to see me on Mondays. The rest of the week I kinda hover between nasty and unstable, depending on what’s going on in my family and in the news. Today, for example, I saw a newspaper headline (garage news-stand) which indicated that the SNP is in meltdown and I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry – unstable mind today, one of those days.

            Seriously, though, I’m puzzled, genuinely, that you see this thread as “an attack on the SSPX”. It’s no such thing.

            It’s odd really, because we don’t get any complaints any more when we criticise the Pope and dissident diocesan bishops and priests. Things were different when we first launched our newsletter and blog etc, because everybody and their granny called us heretics and schismatics for criticising the state of the Church, popes who were calling inter-faith events such as Assisi and so on, but Francis has brought those critics to heel.

            Now, it seems, it’s OK to criticise the Pope but not the SSPX.

            Signed Puzzled, Glasgow…

            PS LOVED the “employment email address”. Hilarious!

          • Dr. Furkov

            I think if you read the condemnations of abortion in general by all the Popes up to, but not including, Francis, then it may be inferred from the gravity of their words relating to this demonic business that the traditional prelates are expressing a position on these vaccines which is far more consistent with the teaching of the Church than is the position SSPX priests.

            In addition to that, I think it fair and just that we lend more credence to these prelates given the seniority of their office and the consistency of their admonitions with authentic teaching that chimes more with the Catholic conscience than does the alternative personal opinions expressed by subordinate clerics.

            • Athanasius,

              I should have raised a red flag earlier, but – better late than never – be aware that his “doctor” is none other than our almost resident troll who just can’t seem to stay away. He really is the Prince of Pests.

              He’s now been blocked (again).

    • Chris McLaughlin

      I think you’re very genuine question proceeds from an error and is therefore incorrect:

      I guess you must have missed an earlier comment of mine stating that many more than just one abortion underlies the development and testing of vaccines. Almost all of these abortions were carried out specifically for the purpose of developing vaccines. Here’s the relevant quote from my previous comment together with a link to a very interesting interview. Please read that interview, it’s so informative.

      In an interview with LSN, Pamela Acker, a reasearcher and expert in vaccines, there were a lot more than just two or three. Here’s what she says:

      …”For, HEK-293, that was… one of things that I’ve seen come up a couple of times in articles I’ve looked at about the ethical considerations that are involved, is that people say, “Well, there wasn’t documentation that that was an elective abortion, so it could have been a spontaneous abortion.” And this is a bit disingenuous or ignorant on the part of these authors, because in order to produce a viable cell line, there’s a number of things that go into that, and it’s a very difficult thing to do.

      And so, I was doing some research specifically on HEK-293 to prepare for this interview, and the number system that’s involved there… the HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney, but293 stands for this is the 293rd experiment that this particular researcher did to develop a cell line. And that doesn’t mean that there were 293 abortions, but for 293 experiments you need far more than one abortion. And we’re talking probably 100s of abortions. And this was done with the collaboration of some hospitals. And there was a group in Sweden that was involved in developing the WI-38 cell line, so a different cell line, but they routinely were aborting babies for the use in trying to develop fetal cell lines…”

      Read the full interview here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/a-hill-worth-dying-on-expert-explains-how-aborted-baby-cells-taint-covid-vaccines

  11. I would need more training in moral theology to answer this question- which is precisely my point, The issue is really complex and one needs moral training to answer it,

    • SCE,

      May I suggest that it might be better for you to withdraw from this thread, since (a) you tell us that you do not feel qualified to comment while (b) expressing the view, whether implicitly or explicitly, that none of the rest of us is qualified to comment either. Wrong.

      I sense that you may be finding this discussion upsetting, so for your own peace of mind I suggest that you withdraw.

      You’re welcome to peruse the other threads – there’s plenty on lockdown, for example – feel free to comment on any of the other threads.

  12. No criticism from me. It is a grotesque tragedy that your article should be so necessary. Politics has overtaken prudence and caritas. Worldly considerations such as “protecting our schools” have become more important than living in union with truth. In the saccharine words of our separated brethren, we do know the answer to the question “what would Jesus do?”. Millstones!

    • Markmillward

      Sadly so true. If only the SSPX had spent its time instead in opposing church lockdowns and exposing the myth that COVID-19 is a plague upon th enations requiring that all be vaccinated, we’d all be much better off.

    • Now, we’re getting into motives, which is unjustified. I would say protecting a school is hardly a worldly motive, btw, not that I have any idea what the motives are- but if you stepped into what passes for a “Catholic” school in most places, you’d surely realise that protecting them is a worthwhile task.

      But I don’t see why the discussion can’t be kept on the objective level of who’s right and who’s wrong.

      • Sentire

        I beg to differ. I once wrote to our UK Distric Superior about the dilapidated state of our Glasgow church, which was also situated in a place that makes it very difficult for the elderly and disabled to get to Mass. His response to me was that if I provide him with £1 million for a new school down south then he may consider doing something about the church, since, said he, schools are more important that churches.

        I’m sure even you can see the error in this argument. The church buildings are the temples of God that house Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Schools are secondary in comparison with the preservation and beautification of these holy places. Needless to say, three years down the line, we’re still in the same dilapidated church. There’s something wrong with the thinking!

  13. Sentire

    Here is the more properly prepared response I promised to you and others. Please read this very carefully in order to understand the differenc between the Church’s authentic teaching on material coooperation and the new version offered by the SSPX superiors and Modernists in Rome.

    I direct this largely at Fr. Sherry’s newsletter explanation since Sentirecumecclesia cites that specifically, but it applies to all SSPX superiors who are presently spreading the same sophisitc argument.

    Arguments vs. Fr. Sherry’s newsletter on covid-19 vaccines

    The examples in the newsletter that are used to show permitted “material cooperation” are false comparisons to the use of covid-19 vaccines. It is true that the examples relate various cases of permitted material cooperation in performing an action, or using a benefit, that is connected to a sinful action. But it is precisely because, in these cases, all necessary conditions required for material cooperation are verified, i.e., (a) the action performed, or benefit received, must be good in itself or at least indifferent, (b) the action or benefit cannot be the immediate (or intrinsic) result of the evil act, (c) there must be no consent to the evil, and (d) there must be a proportionate necessity:

    (1) The action or benefit is either good in itself or least morally indifferent:

    (a) the $5.00 is good in itself and has only a mediate or indirect connection to the sin.

    (b) renting an apartment building is good in itself. The sin was working on Sunday whereas construction work in itself is good and not sinful.

    (c) knowledge is good in itself and is not intrinsically connected to a stolen book.

    (d) the British victory over national socialism was good in itself and was accomplished in spite of the lies of Winston Churchill. In reality, so-called “lies” of national or military leaders are often bluffs and not lies in the strict sense, in the same way that bluffs used by the players in a poker game are not considered lies — because all the players know that their fellow players might be, or probably are, bluffing in order to win the game.

    (2) The actions or benefits do not have an intrinsic or immediate connection to the sinful action; rather, they are only an indirect or extrinsic result of the evil action.

    (3) No consent or approval is given to the evil action.

    (3) There is a proportionate necessity.

    However, the use of covid-19 vaccines does not fulfill these conditions for material cooperation:
    (1) These covid-19 vaccines are not good or indifferent in themselves, because they are intrinsically and immediately connected to, and only exist because of, the use of aborted fetal cells.

    (2) The process of using aborted fetal cells to produce or test covid-19 vaccines is immoral and evil in itself, since this process is necessarily and intrinsically connected to the sin of abortion from which the fetal cells were derived. Furthermore, the use of these vaccines supports and cooperates in the continuation of the evil action, i.e., the use aborted fetal cells by the pharmaceutical industry in the production and/or testing of vaccines – which in turn supports and cooperates in the continuation of the sin of abortion which is required for the extraction of these fetal cells.

    (3) Because of the necessary connection between evil means and good effect/benefit, it is not possible to separate the consent to take the vaccine from the consent to the use of aborted fetal cells, without which the vaccine could not exist.

    (4) There is never a “necessity” that allows man to do evil in order to accomplish good (Rom. 3: 8).

    (PS: See BELOW in *Important Notes, #2, the Catholic moral principles of the “double effect”)

    Consequently, a person who takes a covid-19 vaccine would be guilty of sinful cooperation or participation in evil in order to benefit from it, i.e., he would be guilty of sinful cooperation or participation in the immoral process of using aborted fetal cells in the production or testing of the vaccine. There is an intrinsic and immediate connection between the covid-19 vaccines and use of aborted fetal cells, just as there is an intrinsic and immediate connection between the aborted fetal cells and the abortion. This connection persists throughout all the stages of producing and testing the vaccines. Because of this necessary connection between evil means and a good benefit, it is not possible to separate the consent to take the vaccine from the consent to the use of aborted fetal cells, without which the vaccine could not exist. According to Catholic theology, it is a sin by participation to consent to the sin of another. Therefore, taking a covid-19 vaccine would be accepting the benefit from sin / evil means, which is forbidden and illicit.

    Even if the vaccine did not actually contain aborted fetal cells but was only tested with them, it would still be sinful to take such as vaccine. The reason is because it is precisely by means of the tests with aborted fetal cells that information is acquired to make adjustments to the mRNA codes in the vaccine, which pertains to the intrinsic cause of the vaccine. These tests are an immediate and necessary step, which means that the vaccine only exists by means of these tests. Consequently, to take this covid-19 vaccine necessarily involves consent to, and sinful cooperation (or participation) in, the use of an evil means, i.e., the immoral process of using aborted fetal cells, in order to accomplish a good end, i.e., the vaccine.

    Taking aborted fetal cells from an aborted baby’s vital organ and then using them to make a vaccine is no different than murdering a person to harvest his/her vital organs for future transplant or experimentation. A vital organ pertains to the body’s integrity. It is not accidental to the body, as is skin or blood. (That’s why skin grafts and blood transfusions are morally permitted). Consequently, the use of fetal cells from a vital organ is also connected to the integrity of body of an aborted baby. According to Catholic moral teaching, it is forbidden and sinful to take a vital organ (e.g., heart) from a living person (even if “brain dead”) for use in transplants or experimentation, because the taking of a vital organ will cause death, and it’s not permitted to kill someone in order to benefit from his vital organs.

    *Important Notes:

    (1) Pamela Acker says in her LifeSiteNews interview that fetal cells were taken from aborted babies with the intention of using them for medical research and vaccines:

    “And then, another question people have is, “Well, why couldn’t HEK-293 have been just a spontaneous abortion? Why couldn’t it just have been a miscarriage? Because the hospital lost the documentation about this particular baby that was used to develop the cell line, and so we don’t really know whether it was an elective abortion or a spontaneous abortion.” Well, we have all the reason in the world to think it was actually an elective abortion that was done on purpose, because the researchers who have been involved in this sort of thing have gone on record saying basically that, “You need to get that tissue within about five minutes of the abortion in order for it to be optimally viable, and if you wait an hour, it’s useless.

    “So, if we’re talking about a spontaneous miscarriage, this baby dies long before the fetal tissue is removed from the body of the mother. That spontaneous abortion or that miscarriage would not be viable to start a cell line at all, there’d be no way that you could get a living cell line out of dead tissue. So, this had to have been a baby that was aborted, and they knew that that tissue was going to be used for research so they could get there within that five minutes to an hour window, preferably within the first five minutes, in order to get that tissue preserved.”

    (2) Principle of the “Double Effect”: According to the Catholic moral principle of “double effect,” it is morally permitted, in cases of proportionate necessity, to employ an action which simultaneously produces two effects, one good and one evil, provided that: (a) only the good effect is willed, and (b) the good effect does not come from the evil effect.

    However, the principle of the “double effect” cannot be invoked in the use of vaccines produced or tested with the use of aborted fetal cells (fetal DNA). The reason is because the good effect, i.e., medical cure, is precisely obtained by means of the evil effect / action, i.e., the use of aborted fetal cells/DNA, which were taken from the aborted fetus. Thus, the use of such vaccines is morally illicit.

    *Example of permitted double effect: It is permitted to use a doctor’s prescription of strong pain medication to relieve severe pain in a cancer patient, even if the use of such medication may also have the side effect (evil effect) to slowly shorten the patient’s life. In this case, the good effect, i.e., the present relief from severe pain, is the direct result of the pain medication, and not the result of the evil effect, i.e., the shortening of life. Rather, both good effect and evil effect are produced at the same time from the strong pain medication.

      • St J

        I suspect, somehow, that such manuals with reliable imprimaturs will be in short supply since abortion was only legalised in the UK in 1967 and with the theology of Vatican II hot on the heels of 1967, it’s unlikely that any traditional moral theologian foresaw the problem of abortion-tainted vaccines…

      • St. Josemaria

        You could ask an SSPX priest to provide this to you but it is unnecessary since the SSPX position is merely one of personal opinion, not Church teaching as expressed more authentically by the aforementioned traditional prelates who echo recent Popes in their declarations that participation in the gravely sinful abortion industry, however remote, is forbidden.

        • Athanasius,

          A question if I may.

          Here in Australia SSPX priests travel overseas to Vanuatu in the New Hebrides (and elsewhere) to administer the sacraments to the faithful there.

          Hypothetically, even though the priests may be sceptical of the necessity of the “vaccine” and Covid passport but are forced to by law to be vaccinated in order to get the sacraments to the people overseas, would you think that would be a case of grave necessity to accept the “vaccine”?

          • Warydoom

            First of all, let us hope sincerely that it never comes to such a choice. But if it does then no, they would not be able to receive the vaccine under the pretext of “grave necessity” because it always comes back to the illicitness of benefiting from an evil action.

            It would not be the first time in history that the faithful have been deprived of priests by atheist governments. Indeed the worst case I read of such deprivation was in Japan where a certain group of Catholics were deprived for 200 years and yet kept their faith alive and passed it down, principally through the rosary.

            Although the Mass and the Sacraments are first importance to all Catholics, God provides when these are taken away by persecutors.

        • Athanasius,

          I should have raised a red flag earlier, but – better late than never – be aware that this person (and I use the term loosely) is none other than our almost resident troll who just can’t seem to stay away.

          For those of you who may have read this same message above regarding the good “doctor”, he comes on under various guises, to disrupt discussions. He really is the Prince of Pests.

          He’s now been blocked (again).

      • A little time later, and thinking better of it, I thought I might supply you with the following sources:

        Fr. Dominic Prummer, O.P., Handbook of Moral Theology, 1 vol
        McHugh and Callan, O.P., Manual of Moral Theology, 2 vols
        Fr. Heribert Jone, O.F.M., Manual of Moral Theology, 1 vol

        I should point out, however, that I also receive guidance from Traditional Catholic priests in this matter, priests who know their moral theology. Hope this helps.

        • Athanasius,

          For your information, your list of books wasn’t good enough for the Prince of Pests, he came back to ask for direct quotes (i.e. you had to do the work, not he – I could add something here about reputations for laziness, but I’m still working on my charity, and he may take it personally, so I’ll say nothing…) 😀

          He”s now blocked. Again.

    • This is an argument, which is what I’ve been looking for the whole time, instead of gut feelings and the sensus fidei, which isn’t operating in me at all. The amusing thing (if one can speak of amusement in a context of horror) is that I have no imtention of taking the vaccine even in grave circumstances. I think it’s dodgy in the extreme.

      The trouble for me is- no offence, Athanasius- this argument would neee to be delivered by someone with authority to deliver it. It is not intuitive, and I don’t know if you’re right.For instance, someone might reply that the connection between the cell testing and the vaccine was not actually intrinsic since the vaccine could in fact have been produced another way. I’m not saying your argument is wrong, I’m simply saying that I see a counter argument.

      We all agree that the end never justifies the means and I don’t think anyone has tried to argue from the principle of double effect.

      • Sentirecumecclesia

        No offence taken. If it’s any help to you, my comment of Feb. 25 @8:45 was not written by me, it is a paraphrasing of the work of Traditional Catholic priests who have extended to me their permission to publish.

        As I said before, the SSPX susperiors are teaching something which is at odds with the authentic moral teaching of the Church, aligning themselves with the subjective moral teaching of the Modernists, at least to some degree.

        Opposing them are the traditional prelates we all know about, but there are also many, many priests and faithful, not all of them SSPX, who recognise and reject this erroneous teaching of the SSPX superiors and are turning instead to the sound teaching of Archbishop Vigano, Bishop Schneider, etc., as once they would have looked to Archbishop Lefebvre for true guidance, who will currently be spinning in his grave at what the SSPX hierarchy is teaching!

        Certainly in this case we must pray for these superiors while completely disregarding what they say in respect to abortion-tainted vaccines if we value our soul’ salvation. It’s a tragic turn of events, but Catholics now a re well used to tragic turns of events as part of the present chastisement.

        In the meantime, all good priests of the SSPX, and that, thankfully, is the vast majority, including some District Superiors who are ill at ease with this latest teaching, need to discover who it is within the higher ranks whose raising controversies one after the other, from the Fr. Robinson book in which a reconcilaition is attempted between Genesis and the Marxist-pormoted “Big Bang” theory, to the Novs Ordo Fr. Kilcawley (dubbed the “Porn Priest”) being invited to address the Angelus Conference, sharing the podium with no less than Bishop Fellay, through to this subjective moral teaching on vaccines. There is a major problem and the good priests of the SSPX need to put a name to him!

        • Thanks Athanasius. Why won’t the priests in question publish this teaching, as it’s really not acceptable to have a lay person paraphrase the teaching if it IS the authentic teaching of the Church, as you claim?

          To summarise:

          1. The Sspx has produced a position which at present I take in good faith to be correct. This position states that the vaccines linked to abortion are not to be taken except for grave reasons, and some have suggested that such grave reasons might be, e.g., loss of livelihood. The arguments, whether they are correct or incorrect, draw on moral theology. St Alphonsus was cited twice. Whether or not the principles are correctly or incorrectly applied is a judgement beyond my time and skills. In other words: the Sspx has presented a reasoned argument, and I don’t know if there is an erroneous step here. I can and shouod read and try to make sense of the teaching but I ave to accept that it’s difficult for me to be 100% certain because the matter is new and tricky. So I would automatically go with this, except that I am naturally interested by, and feel obliged to investigate, the position of the Catholic prelates.

          2. Bishop Schneider has produced a position which may be correct, but I’m unsure since he quotes John Paul, the New Catechism and the sensus fidei, and doesn’t really (at least from the sections I have read) get into the nitty gritty of cooperation but just says the idea is a sophism, and doesn’t apply to abortion . His position may be summed up as: abortion is so evil that it should be obvious to everyone that you can’t take the vaccine under the most dangerous circumstances and no further analysis is needed. This is again something I would incline towards except my mind then has to ask the question: when do we apply material cooperation, then? He says, if I remember correctly, material cooperation could be applied to the slave trade, for instance, But you’ve only got to read the life of St Peter Claver to realise how horrific the slave trade was for the poor Africans. So, I repeat, is the issue bloodshed, yukkiness, or what?

          3. The priests you quote (sorry, you haven’t quoted them, you’ve paraphrased them) are not publishing their position, but leaving you to render it for the public. Now, while it’s entirely laudable for you to seek good advice and paraphrase it for the public, if the priests, who have a good understanding of moral theology, have a teaching they need to teach it. Publish it. Put it out there, under their own authority. (That is, after all, what the Sspx has done, in the face of much flak, and the Bishops have done, in the face of different flak.) Otherwise, it’s your lay opinion, published under your name.

          4. Comments on other issues, such as controversies about this or that apparent wrong decision, or even sin, are as irrelevant to the issue as the question of a convert: “If the Church of Rome is the true Church why are her members sinful”? While repeating that I have no knowledge of the issues you talk about, I would say simply that we can still judge a religious order’s good fruits in general and see the faith and piety of our priests’’ lives, and getting disturbed about a possible bad egg in the works, while unavoidable, is maybe not a great idea in the public forum, for the following reasons: 1. imagine what would have happened if someone had cottoned on to Judas’ betrayal in advance and then publicised that over the whole of Judea, causing good people to leave Our Lord because He had a bad-egg friend. 2. At any rate, the briefest perusal of any religious order will show sins, defections and errors. I’m not saying these never require public treatment, but it would be a mistake to conflate the present discussion with these issues. 3. After all, if one had to have only saints for confreres in order to issue a good moral teaching, we could give up on getting a moral teaching anywhere. And let’s suppose you’re right, and there IS a bad egg somewhere at the top of the Sspx. That proposition- bad eggs in the works influencing things- probably applies to every single religious order in the Church right now. Besides, we shouldn’t equate doctrinal accuracy with holiness. No one has ever accused Pope John Paul, for instance, of a sin in his private life, and yet his teaching was rather lacking the clarity of a St Thomas at times, not to speak of rather strange philosophical foundations to his work. By contrast, some medieval churchmen (even up to the Papacy) were very unworthy in their lives, but spot on on dogma. 4. We don’t possess all the facts in cases like the ones you have quoted, e.g. the priest talking on pornography, and sometimes what is presented is misunderstood or taken out of context. The tradition of the church was to give even a heretic the possibility of explaining what he meant by his words. On the other hand, of course, if one were convinced that some evil thing occurred in a religious order, one should raise the issue, but not necessarily publicly. It’s a question of proportion….

          We need to stop simplifying things and weigh up arguments.

          I for one would be glad of a debate between Bishop Schneider et al and the Sspx. It would need to be done in a mature way, without people name calling, though: “leaky lifeboats” and the “Party Line” are insulting epithets, scarcely fair in a time when the Pope has abandoned ship. And in a reasoned way, which means one calls an error an error, and truth truth, but without dragging in issues that prejudice the discussion such as the contention, which cannot be proven or disproven in this kind of forum, that the Sspx are infiltrated anyway and therefore just bowing to a patry line.

          And I would still have confidence in either party, and assume good faith, whichever party was clearly seen to be wrong.

          • PS when I talk about holiness and dogma above, I am not implying that any priest of the Sspx has unworthiness in their private life, When thinking of sins and mistakes I was speculating perhaps that in any religious order sins of cowardice, lack of prudence, unwillingness to exert authority etc can occur, and they are sinful. But they don’t preclude someone from making a correct moral or doctrinal statement.

          • Sentire

            You have a lot to learn about how SSPX superiors generally deal with priests who raise concerns with them, especially when it comes to challenging their infallible opinions!

            The faithul who dare to do this are met more mercifully with mere contemptuous silence, but not so the priests. I will say no more than that.

            The only exception I can cite from many years of experience in the matter is that singular District Superior I referred to in my article. He has the spirit of Our Lord towards subordinates, even if he is in the wrong in this matter of abortion-tainted vaccines.

          • Sentire

            While there has been no greater defender of the SSPX in these times of Modernism than myself, and I speak of 35-years of such defence, I have always been very careful to avoid anything that would insinuate a belief that the SSPX is the infallible Church when, in fact, it is a mere life raft in stormy seas.

            In saying this, I have found myself being forced to question the troubling direction the SSPX has been taking these past few years, by which I mean that three events, already recounted, namely, Fr. Kilcawley’s sex addiction guidance, Fr. Robinson’s book “The Realist Guide to Science and Religion” and now this “material co-operation argument in favour of abortion-tainted vaccines in cases of grave necessity, have suggested to me a drift towards liberalism.

            All three events tend to suggest an attempt at reconciling Traditional Catholicism with modern scientific method, which is godless in general and demonic in particular with regard to R&D using fetuses.

            Now the traditional prelates I have cited are of one voice in saying that when it comes to vaccines produced from the sin of abortion, so great a sin that it cries to heaven for vengeance, the normal consideration of the moral principles surrounding “material co-operation” become moot once full knowledge of how these vaccines are produced and tested is known.

            If you examine every theoretical example put forward by the SSPX in this matter you will see that not one of them involves a person with full knowledge of a sinful action seeking to benefit from that sinful action. In other words, they are misapplying the moral principle of material co-operation.

            It is simply never licit for Catholics with full knowledge of an evil action (constantly ongoing, incidentally) to seek to benefit from that action, even in grave circumstances, for then we would approve of doing evil that good may come of it, despite empty protests to the contrary. It is a very basic teaching yet one that most people appear to have difficulty in grasping, possibly because it’s a hard saying for the fearful.

            Even in terms of harm to a “Third Party”, which also makes it illicit for us to seek to good from an evil action, the very fact that exceptions are made by Catholics in the matter of this vaccine will only help to embolden the murderous pharmaceutical industry to kill more babies for ongoing research and development. And, as I have already demonstrated with a link to Pamel Acker’s extremely disturbing revelation of just how many abortions have already taken place, there is no question that Catholic participation in this vaccination programme, regardless of the reason, will certainly impact on the “Third Party”, namely, the babies yet to be aborted in part because of careless teaching by Catholic priests.

            That’s why the traditional prelates are absolutely right in their admonitions to us. They speak with superior voice and the fact that they present a perfectly sound quote from the New Catechism does not diminish their authority in the matter.

            In fine, the SSPX superiors are not superior to these traditional prelates and the SSPX is not the infallible Church. In this matter they are wrong, and catastrophically so. It grieves me to have to admit it but I willl never be one of those who automatically think that everything SSPX superiors say is unquestionable. They are wrong in this, pure and simple.

            • Athanasius,

              You are quite right that the Sspx is not the infallible Church. Nowhere in my writing have I said or even implied that.

              But these few Bishops aren’t the infallible Church either, although we would do very wrongly not to listen with grave respect to their words. Their power to bind extends, to my knowledge, to their own diocese. Their episcopal ordination means we must have the greatest respect, but a mere priest may be, and often is, appointed to assist his bishop in the weighty work of moral theology. So from the point of view of moral theology, there is no inconsistency in listening to priests as well as bishops.

              A more pertinent point, as made over and over again ad nauseam, is that the prelates have not yet argued the case in enough detail, to my knowledge. I don’t know how you can interpret my imputing infallibility to the Sspx when I’ve made this point over and over. Specifically, it has been said by Bishop Schneider the principles of St Alphonsus don’t apply to abortion, but I haven’t any explanation, unless I missed it. of how they don’t apply, as I’ve said over and over, beyond the sensus fidei and the horror of abortion. Yet, every sin is horrible since it put Our Lord on the Cross, and yet we don’t just dump cooperation for other sins. My logical mind wants to know why. And to put this down to an infallibility complex re the Sspx is just plain wrong.

              Illogical or unfounded applications are a problem for me. I want to see them show how St Alphonsus’s principles don’t apply, without talking about common sense and John Paul II only, with a smattering of new Catechism quotes however correct they may be. I want to hear moral theology. Your argument was the first I heard, but I’m not satisfied for the reasons of both content given and authority withheld.

              And that is my VERY last word on the topic, even if the Sspx and the prelates were to arrive on the scene live. I simply have to cook my dinner and do my jobs.

              • Sentire

                The prelates, as far as I can see, do not have to argue the case in more depth. The application of the principles of St. Alphonsus, as Bishop Schneider has pointed out, become moot when one gains full knowledge of the original and ongoing evil that remains intrinsic to these abrtion-tainted vaccinces. Hence all further discussion in the matter of remote material co-operation becomes fallacious. Bottom line – it is always illicit to use and evil action for good.

                That seems perfectly logical to me, which is why Bishop Schneider calls continued discussion on the moral principles “illogical and contradictory”, as well as “unpastoral”.

  14. I’ve had a couple of interesting emails commenting on this thread – people who have not signed up to comment but would like to throw in their tuppence worth. One is a lady from England who believes that the SSPX has become a tad too friendly with Papa Francis and that may be influencing this (and other) events – she mentioned the unfortunate invitation to the diocesan priest-expert in Pope JP II’s Theology of the Body…

    Then this came in from a man in Canada… He wishes to remain anonymous.

    Martin – first time I have read your blog.

    Will continue to do so .

    Superb journalism.

    A very articulated narrative made in preparation of that post – that is for certain.

    I am not qualified to participate in such a complex topic but offer a comment.

    Both sides are correct.

    Vaccine: – the simplest reply is take it or die or risk death. But it would be without question a priority to find a vaccine that is not prepared from aborted fetus. There are pills as vaccine effective of a non-fetus compound derivative available as recently reported. .

    That option was not discussed I believe.

    Save your life I think is the message.

    I thinks that’s what it boils down to.

    I am a SSPX parishioner in Canada and I will not take the vaccine. One does not have to and that is a discussion all by itself.

    Keep up the good work.

    Thank You

  15. IMHO, quite apart from the issue of the abortion-tainted vaccines, there is the issue of the vaccines being so rushed. There are quite a few reports now of people suffering side effects and also deaths. This report today is about nuns dying after being vaccinated so I think it is irresponsible of anyone, especially churchmen, to recommend this vaccine to anyone. We still have people who trust priests absolutely and if they say it’s OK to take it, they will believe them.
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/several-nuns-die-after-taking-first-shot-of-covid-vaccine

  16. A great piece from Athanasius and some good points made on this thread. I find the whole area of remote cooperation with evil a minefield. Just to add to the problem HM The Queen has publicly urged people to be vaccinated and even implied that those who don’t are being selfish https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9301373/Queen-intervenes-vaccine-rollout-encourage-Britons-jabbed.html I don’t know how much weight this will carry in Scotland, but in England it will certainly send a lot of vaccine abstainers flying to the nearest vaccination centre.

    • Westminster Fly,

      Well, the Queen also signed all the terrible bills that have changed the whole country, the abortion act, the same sex marriage etc. I’m not surprised that she’s now pushing the vaccine message. It’s sad but nobody in power is fighting against the propaganda – that’s the simple fact of the matter.

      • Lily

        As much as I admire the Queen for her unfailing application to duty, it has to be said honestly that from the queen down there is not a single royal who is truly Christian. Hence when it comes to decision of great moral import to the nation, Her Majesty always goes with godless government on a save-the-throne-at-all-costs basis.

        They are of the Henry VIII mindset, pretend Christians. However, they are not true descendent of Henry, the Stuarts are! In other words, it’s a puppet monarchy that would be better scrapped.

    • Westminsterfly

      Yes indeed, it will. If only people could see that the Queen is now just a functionary of the State who does whatever she’s told, whether for good or evil. That monarchy is way past its sell-by date, even if it is a good tourist attraction. The tax payer and every moral citizen in the UK needs to see the back of it, unless, of course, it gets a revamp that restores the Stuarts to their righful place.

      I have no issue with the present Queen in terms of her fidelity to public duty. It’s her fidelity to God and morality which is sadly absent from her reign and that means she’s in for a very great and tragic shock when she stands in judgment before the King of kings (and Queens)!

  17. Here’s a very interesting letter published in the British Medical Journal, dated 11 February (Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, no less!)l:

    Rapid Response:
    Re: Covid 19: Two million deaths, so what went wrong?

    Dear Editor,

    The statement “The phenomenal success of the vaccination programme is the most concrete, not only for people receiving it but for those delivering it” needs to be explained in the context of efficacy and safety. Surely a vaccine is only successful if it both prevents transmission (not proven as yet with COVID vaccines) and is safe (all vaccines are currently under EUA status and and have a black triangle warning).

    Clinical trials have only just ended and therefore it is too soon to know how long any of the vaccines will last. As regards the claimed efficacy by the manufacturers, I think Peter Doshi explained the flaws in the trial designs perfectly in his recent article for BMJ – his concerns re relative V absolute risk reporting, ill-defined endpoints, lack of transmissibility data and duration of the trial, all merit the highest scrutiny.
    https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-

    As regards safety, for the same reasons efficacy cannot be measured, nor too can safety. Instead, authorities like FDA, CDC and MHRA will have to rely on public reporting such a VAERS and Vigibase to monitor for trends in adverse events.

    Currently on VAERS, as of Feb 4th, there are 12,697 reported reactions, many of which are very serious, including 653 ending in death.
    https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=CAT&EVEN
    21% of those deaths were related to cardiac disorders and another 27% died in their sleep or without warning. Temporality to the vaccine is also a startling figure. Half of all deaths were reported within hours of receiving the vaccine.
    This is highly significant given the importance of using temporality in assessing the cause of death according to the Bradford Hill criteria. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589117/

    Some might say we can’t rely on VAERS as it’s a passive system and reports are not verified. That may be true but it is still the only reporting system we have accessible to the public. Moreover medical staff have been told to report all COVID 19 vaccine adverse events to VAERS, from injection site reactions to death. In fact it is a mandatory requirement mentioned on the first page of the FDA fact sheet for vaccination providers.
    https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download

    It would appear to those familiar with VAERS that this is in fact working and that many more vaccinators are actually reporting adverse events since there have been so many. It is often the case that new vaccines elicit more reports than older ones, that it acknowledged. However, the difference between the reports from the COVID 19 vaccines and all other vaccines is beyond anything seen before. A comparison to the flu vaccine is warranted since, unlike other vaccines, uptake of the flu vaccine has increased in 2020, peaking at 193 million doses.

    If you compare flu vaccine reported deaths in 2020/21 (193m doses) to the two months of data from COVID 19 vaccines (35m doses as of Feb 4th), then the tally is as follows:

    Dec 2020 – Feb 4th 2021 COVID 19 vaccine deaths: 653
    Sept 2020 – Jan 31st 2021 Flu vaccine deaths: 20 (Twenty)

    Using basic math, that means that the rate of deaths reported following the COVID 19 vaccine is 180 times that of flu vaccine deaths.

    The CDC has actually admitted that the number of deaths reported is 1.170 as of February 7th. However It has also claimed (incredibly) that they have investigated all deaths using death certificates, autopsy reports, medical records etc and found that there was “no link” with the vaccine.
    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events
    This is preposterous since even someone like myself without a medical background can tell that many of the medical personnel writing the reports into VAERS considered the vaccine to be the likely cause of death. One poor soul was vaccinated while unconscious and passed away 90 minutes later.

    The CDC is monitoring all reactions and as a concerned citizen I would ask BMJ to do the same and seek accountability from the CDC and the FDA and to explain these data. The public must have full disclosure and full transparency or we will see a repeat of the 1976 swine flu debacle. Although it’s likely that pharma’s influence on the world stage would forbid any such similar exposure. However since we can see reactions with our own eyes (the second dose reactions are exponentially worse), then it won’t take long for the public to lose confidence due to negative personal experience alone. The CDC and the FDA have a problem they need to address. Each week it is glaringly more obvious.

    Eileen Iorio https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n393/rr-3

    • Editor

      This is very interesting and it ties in with many other trustworthy reports I have read linking these COVID vaccines to deaths.

      I was reading only last night, in fact, of the deaths of several nuns shortly after they received the vaccine and prior to that I read of elderly people in care homes all around the world dying in significant numbers after receiving it.

      Bearing in min that we’re talking here about mRNA vaccines which alter the cell structure of the human body, if it goes wrong it will be catastrophic, for once the cell structure is altered it can’t be changed back.

      That’s why Pope Francis, not to mention to a lesser degree the SSPX and others, who make a case for these vaccines, at the very least in terms of grave necessity, not only breach the moral law of the Church but also encourage people to put themselves in harm’s way. Additionally, they lend credence to the myth that COVID is a plague upon the nations. It is this latter myth that they should be busy addressing for the faithful rather than encouraging them to buy into demonically-produced, ill-tested vaccines – under any circumstances.

      These deaths are what happens when people seek to draw good benefits from evil actions. What worries me more, though, is how many souls will die as a result!

      • Athanasius,

        If only these priests would give the link to this thread to their parishioners and let them read for themselves the danger they are putting themselves in by taking this vaccine, they (the priests) would be off the hook.

        Priests are so afraid of being out of step with the accepted science, not to mention the prevailing winds of change, it’s really worrying.

        I’ve been reading also of people dying a day or two after getting the jab and then it’s blamed on a heart attack, not the jab. It’s the very opposite of what they were saying when they were scare-mongering about the Covid deaths. They wouldn’t admit that a lot of the deaths were due to underlying conditions, they were so keen to make people think it was Covid, spreading like wildfire. Now the shoe is on the other foot and they are trying to say that anyone who dies after getting the jab, must have died form something else. The whole situation is just going from bad to worse.

        • Nicky

          You’re absolutely right about the way the medical establishment, not to mention government and the media, are presenting deaths associated with the COVID vaccines. They are very quick to deny any association, yet they were super quick in assuring us all that any kind of death anywhere in the world from any illness was COVID related. The hypocrisy and the deceit are blatant.

          As for the SSPX linking to this, or any other, website in oder that the faithful can make up their own minds, it’s sadly not how the SSPX superiors generally function. The normal method is that they tell you how it is and you don’t dare question it, which would be fine if we were talking infallible doctrine rather than their personal opinions. Tragic but in conformity with the times, I’m afraid.

  18. I have received an email from a priest who would like to contribute the following information to this debate (he praises Martin’s article to the skies…)

    FATHER WRITES…

    I would propose another argument for the absolute immorality of using vaccines tainted in any way with cells from aborted babies.

    First of all, the justification of the use of any remains of an aborted baby, no matter how little or how distant they may be, is pre-empted by the fact that the ultimate motive for using such is nothing less than a means of promoting abortion. The more one accepts the need for tainted vaccinations, even only when uncontaminated vaccines are not available, the more he is helping to promote abortion and eventually will be induced to accepting the “legitimacy” of using the cells of aborted babies for vaccines. Certainly, such a motive does not distance itself from the abortion nor from any juncture in the preparation of a vaccine. One cannot participate in the promotion of abortion any more than he can participate in the promotion of homicide.

    Secondly, as B. Calamy, D. D. says:
    (https://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/calamy/we_must_not_do_evil_that_good_may_come.htm)

    “I This will appear from THE NATURE OF MORAL GOOD AND EVIL.

    “1. To denominate an action morally good there must be a concurrence of all conditions requisite thereunto. If the object be lawful, the manner of the performance regular, and it be fitly circumstantiated, yet if it be done for a wicked end, this mars the action and renders it sinful; and for the same reason let the intention be never so good, the end never so excellent, yet, if the thing we do is forbidden by God’s laws, it is a vicious action.

    “2. Nay, further, such is the contrariety between the good and evil, that what is really evil cannot be chosen as a fit means to produce good, any more than darkness can beget light, or false premises infer a true conclusion, or an evil tree bring forth good fruit. To do evil to obtain good is as if a man should put his hand into the flame to cool it.”

    “IV. THE ILL CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A CONCESSION AS THIS, that evil may be done for a good end. This one principle sets us free from all authority either Divine or human, and everyone may do whatever he thinks fit, so his intention and end be but good.

    “1. What we are to do, or to avoid, if this doctrine be admitted for true, we are not to learn from God’s law. Things are either good or evil according as they seem to us, and our own judgment is the measure of lawful and unlawful, and thus we are wholly our own masters and lawgivers.

    “2. Nay, this principle plainly overthrows all justice and faith amongst men, all peace and security in societies, and makes all government precarious, since everyone is an arbitrary subject, and may obey or resist the laws as they appear to himself to be for or against the common good; and every man’s life and fortune is at my disposal, if once I think it most for the glory of God and the safety of religion that they should be taken away. You know our Saviour tells His disciples of some that should arise, who would think they did God good service in killing them. According to this doctrine St. Paul was innocent when he was so mad against the Church.”

    It is true that God does bring good out of evil, BUT HE NEVER DOES EVIL IN ORDER TO BRING GOOD FROM IT.

    Hope this helps in convincing those who give no credence to those God fearing Prelates.

    Ends.

    • Editor

      Many thanks to Father for this excellent contribution.

      Just to summerise it: The moral principle of double effect allows Catholics to perform a good action which may produce an unwanted and unwilled evill side effect, such as chemotherapy to cure cancer rendering some young women infertile, or strong pain killers for a terminally ill person in agony that may have the unwanted and unwilled side effect of shortening life.

      Contrarily, it is never licit for us to perform an evil action that good may come of it, which is precisely what Catholics would be doing if, with full knowledge, they made use of abortion-tainted vaccines.

      Since the cell lines used in the production and testing of these vaccines, current and ongoing, they are intrinsically linked to the abortion that was carried out to harvest them. Hence anyone who takes the vaccine knowing this intrinsically links himself to the stem cells and the abortion.

  19. I’m still waiting for the new Pontifical Academy for Laughs to declare that Original Sin is no longer a factor in the human condition, and since that event happened so many thousands of years ago (or perhaps the evolutionists would claim, millions of years ago…) it qualifies as an infinitely remote rebellion against God. So we are now free to cast off our guilty chains and become trans-human!

    Yes, humanity has come of age! Bring on the vaccines and the microchips!

    • RCAVictor

      Well said! That’s what they’ll be telling us next – that Original Sin is so far back in time and we are so detached from this sin of our first parents that we no longer need baptism.

  20. Madeleine Stone, is a legal and policy officer specialising in emergency powers. In a few short minutes she talks of ‘5 things you need to know about the UK’s Current Lockdown.

    1. Excessive policing. 2. Online Censorship. 3. Protest bans. 4. A Digital Coup.
    5. Vaccine Passports.

    Scary stuff about the collection of information on any giving individual – especially digital information, and that is as yet without the digital chip placed into your body at sometime in the future.

    • Theresa Rose,

      That looks really interesting – I’ll copy the video onto the Neil Oliver thread which is really about lockdown. It’s good to have it in both places so thank you for alerting us to it.

      A short time later… I’ve actually copied your comment and video onto every recent Covid/lockdown/vaccine thread. I think it’s very important indeed. Clearly our freedoms are NOT going to be restored any time soon. No surprise, of course, but it’s interesting to have this clear confirmation from an informed source. Thanks again, Theresa Rose, for posting that very informative video clip.

  21. E-mail: akatme@hotmail.com

    My Islamic Medical Study on vaccines/ which was published in the US in 2011

    Islam, Vaccines and Health -Dr A. Majid Katme – لا للتطعيم
    novax.org › …

    The time has come to take a stand for truth. Vaccine Ingredients. Vaccine ingredients include heavy metals, pus from sores of diseased animals, horse serum, calf …

    please go to
    novax.org
    very interesting indeed

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: