Responding to the article “The Uncomfortable Truths Face Masks Reveal” by Church Life Journal

A Response to

“The Uncomfortable Truths Face Masks Reveal”

Just like the last one my comments are in BOLD/Italic

Original article is found here

The pandemic has made it necessary to adopt numerous precautions to preserve personal and public health. (Again, please stop using the word ‘pandemic’ as the WHO changed what that is, in 2009, to mean ZERO deaths. If this was what you were being told it was then where are the bodies in the streets?) In particular, both medical experts (“experts”) and local, state, and federal agencies ask individuals to wear masks and practice physical distancing. (why? There is  no scientific reason whatsoever for this) What is the ethical standing of such requests? Do people have a moral obligation to follow these measures even when the law does not fully enforce them? How should we weigh the health benefits of such policies with the burdens they impose on individuals and communities? Drawing on the resources of the Christian tradition, we explore and answer these questions by developing three interrelated claims:

Christian Scripture often describes suffering and challenging circumstances as locations of divine intervention and manifestation that call forth a renewal of the way we live. (It also is against lying to the public: Gaslighting, promoting fear, etc)

Traditional reflections on the virtue of charity, solidarity, and the Christian mandate to love one’s neighbor provide resources to think about people’s ethical obligations during the pandemic. (Charity is also not telling your neighbor a virus that has a 99.99% recovery rate is the next plague)

The current health crisis reveals modes of thought and action that marginalize vulnerable populations and suggests ways to change them. (speaking of charity where is the charity for isolating & letting old stay people alone to die?)

Let us start our reflection with Scripture: (I fear this will be twisted to be used to promote muzzling up somehow)

On that day, when evening had come, [Jesus] said to [the disciples], “Let us go across to the other side.” And leaving the crowd, they took him with them, just as he was, in the boat . . . And a great storm of wind arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care if we perish?” (Mark, 4:35-38)

Like the disciples, we, too, are in the midst of a storm. The peaceful sailing that our daily routines made possible was shattered last spring. (by the government) Now the winds of the spreading illness, the ever-rising death count, (where? Lethality is not there) and the economic disruption caused by the pandemic rage on. (they spelled “caused by the governments” wrong) Our cities are rocked by racial grievances, ongoing protests, and violence to the point that we wonder whether our social fabric will resist the storm or sink. (the communist BLM group, that hates everything, is not equal to this scamdemic) Many feel powerless, lost, unsure about how to go on, and remain puzzled by God’s seeming silence. (He’s clerics are definitely silenced. Those who should be speaking out are silenced as Our Lady of Good Success predicted) The crisis makes us identify with the disciples’ cry: “Teacher, do you not care if we perish?” (I’m more of a ‘Beam me up Scottie, there is no intelligent life here’ type since the same number died in previous years than 2020)

In many ways, these times of trial have been a rude reawakening. Our respective bubbles have been burst so that the questions we usually avoid or drown out have seized us again. What makes life worth living? Where does my certainty lie? How should I think about the mystery of suffering and death? What does it mean to educate my children? What contribution do I have to offer to those around me? We have once again discovered our vulnerability and fragility, for our illusion of control has been broken. Reality forces us to rethink how we live and interact with one another, thus inviting us to rediscover what is essential. (apparently this is the first time ever that people died & oh the flu is magically extinct this year)

“The storm exposes our vulnerability and uncovers those false and superfluous certainties around which we have constructed our daily schedules, our projects, our habits and priorities,” said Pope Francis last March while describing the pandemic. “[The pandemic] shows us how we have allowed to become dull and feeble the very things that nourish, sustain and strengthen our lives and our communities,” he continued. “The tempest lays bare all our prepackaged ideas and forgetfulness of what nourishes our people’s souls; all those attempts that anesthetize us with ways of thinking and acting that supposedly ‘save’ us” (Francis, “Extraordinary Moment of Prayer,” March 27, 2020). (Let us look at Italy.  I am using Italy because they were the first to shut it all down over this. March 2018 there were, according to ISTAT 16,220 died from respiratory illness. In March 2019 there were 15,189 deaths due to respiratory illness in Italy.  In March 2020, IN THE HEIGHT OF COVID, 12,352 died from respiratory illness. In the UK it has basically the same pattern. Remember that the Holy Father is a big fan of the World Economic Forum, who has taken full advantage of this scamdemic as one can easily see in any Schwab book or their YouTube channel)


We cannot hide from the urgent call of reality. (yes, reality that this is not the plague. That it is a bad flu season.  Oh, wait we are being gaslighted) Instead, we come to realize our contingency and how much we depend on one another. We are summoned away from our usual distraction and invited into a time of choosing. This is a moment in which we must “choose what matters and what passes away,” says Francis. It is a time to “separate what is necessary from what is not. It is a time to get our lives back on track” (Ibid.).

“Wake up, Lord!” We find ourselves in the disciples’ plea. (I yell “wake, up people!”) What surprises us is the reaction of Jesus. Jesus “awoke and rebuked the wind,” the evangelist Mark tells us, “and said to the sea, ‘Peace! Be still!’ And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?’” (Mark 4:39-40) (indeed why are you afraid of a 99.99% recovery rate, ye of little faith) The Lord challenges the disciples’ fear. Why? Isn’t fear justified when the boat is about to sink? How can Jesus be peacefully asleep in the stern? Does he not realize that ruin is at hand? What is the origin of his starkly different attitude? Jesus “is trusting in the Father,” explains Francis. We tend to react with fear when reality reveals how powerless we are. (or when the media, aka Team Apocalypse, does nothing but promote fear to the masses) For Jesus, instead, everything is determined by the relationship with the Father. All his life is an ongoing dialogue with the mystery of God. Jesus does not succumb to fear because no challenge can shake the bond he has with the Father and the certainty that comes from it. What does Jesus’s attitude tell us about how we should face the current situation? (I don’t think muzzling up, taking an experimental injection & treating fellow humans as biohazards would be on his mind as a remedy)

The Gospel teaches us that God is present amidst the challenge. Fear grips the disciples’ hearts because the storm introduces the suspicion that God might have abandoned them. Instead, the Lord is present. Their reaction to the storm shows us that, despite all the miracles they have witnessed beforehand, the disciples still do not realize who Jesus is. The pandemic (“plandemic” I link to the great documentary on it) brings to the surface whether the journey of faith we have walked so far allows us to face difficulties certain of the Lord’s presence. We are sons and daughters of a loving Father who never abandons us but, like for the disciples, becoming aware of this relationship is not automatic. It takes a journey of knowledge in which, little by little, we become ever more familiar with who Jesus is and how he acts in our lives.

Rather than an objection against our journey of faith, the crisis is an opportunity to grow in the certainty of the Lord. Recognizing our impotence opens up the possibility of a more authentic relationship with God. Let us quote again from Pope Francis:

Faith begins when we realize we are in need of salvation . . . By ourselves we founder: we need the Lord, like ancient navigators needed the stars. Let us invite Jesus into the boats of our lives. Let us hand over our fears to him so that he can conquer them. Like the disciples, we will experience that with him on board there will be no shipwreck (Ibid.).

The danger they face amid the agitated waters forces the disciples to discover how dependent they are on Jesus. In turn, Jesus uses this occasion to manifest his power and further reveal his true identity so that the disciples may realize who he is. The result is that what begins as a fearsome event becomes a powerful occasion of conversion: “they were filled with awe, and said to one another, ‘Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?’” (Mark 4:41) A new awareness is born in the disciples. “The Lord awakens us,” says Francis, “to reawaken and revive our Easter faith . . . In the midst of isolation . . . let us once again listen to the proclamation that saves us: he is risen and is living by our side” (Ibid.).

God uses all circumstances, even challenging ones, to manifest himself. We should not think of the pandemic (“plandemic”) as a big parenthesis, after which we will resume our “real” lives. We need to respond to the call of reality, for reality is the place where the dialogue with the mystery of God happens. The circumstances through which the Lord has us pass are essential to our vocation. The Lord calls us through the events of our lives, whether big or small, joyful or challenging, and there is no way to realize our vocation without living intensely the circumstances we are given. We are often tempted to think that the reality we find ourselves in is an obstacle that hinders our fulfillment. Instead, circumstances are the place where our destiny can be realized in our relationship with the Lord. (nice job trying to use the faith to gaslight the people.. now they can really double down)

So let us look at our circumstances now. We are still in the midst of a storm, with Jesus still seemingly, asleep; God still seemingly silent. As Pope Francis says, we recognize that “on this boat . . . are all of us. Just like those disciples, who spoke anxiously with one voice, saying ‘We are perishing’ (Mark 4:38), so we too have realized that we cannot go on thinking of ourselves, but only together can we do this” (Ibid.). Yet, at the very time that we are more aware than ever that we need one other, our union and communication with others are hampered; for the disciples, by raging rain and howling wind; for us, by measures such as wearing masks and physical distancing. The obvious difference between our position and that of the disciples is that we control whether we mask and distance; the disciples, instead, had no control over the rain or the wind. Here the analogy breaks down. Unlike the disciples, we are in control of particular things that seem detrimental to community. In fact, insofar as we choose measures that seem harmful to community, we, like Jesus, may seem open to the charge that we “do not care.”

And let us speak truthfully: unlike in Jesus’s case, there may be some truth to this charge. We may mask and distance only because we are afraid for our own lives; we may use our masks and distancing as excuses to go on not caring for others; we may hide our selfishness behind our masks and distancing. (they left out “or we can mask because we are brain dead sheeple and the government told us to & we should never question whatever the government says even though they said do not at first then changed their minds later)

But, with purified intentions, we may mask and distance also to protect others from death, serious illness, or long-term health effects. (fact is masks do not do any of that. Plenty of studies show this plus, that is not what they were made for.  The box they come in even says this doesn’t protect you from a virus.  Why? Masks are worn to keep a doctor from sneezing or preventing any spittle from going into an open wound.  To think it keeps a virus out is pure superstition) We know that “asymptomatic” (formerly called ‘healthy’ as this word did not exist prior to 2020) persons are responsible for part of the spread of COVID-19, (wrong.  How can they make such a claim!?) and we know that masking is more effective in preventing spread when both contagious persons and healthy persons wear masks. (if that is true then why do people get sick for doing exactly that?! Again, “we know”. No, you do not or that is a straight up lie) There are also many persons, many of whom have increased risk with respect to COVID-19, who are unable safely to wear masks, such as the very young and those with certain medical conditions. Wearing masks, then, protects us from others who are contagious, but also protects others from us if we are contagious unknowingly. (Let’s use that word the Holy Father used, reality. In reality masks do not protect anyone from contagious people.  The Chinese wear masks EVERY Flu season & guess what? They still got hit hard.  I saw the head basketball coach of Michigan St tweet “I wear masks religiously & follow all the rules & still got sick.  Yep) Wearing masks especially protects those who are vulnerable and those who cannot wear masks. (I’ll include the links on masks below along with Dr. Merritt just tearing this idea apart).


There are real sacrifices involved in masking and distancing. (besides that it is incredibly insane to do) Masks are physically uncomfortable, making it feel more difficult to breathe, (duh! It prevents you from getting Oxygen in & you breath in MORE CO2.  Even the WEF recognizes this in their new ‘smart masks’ that claim it will let you know when your CO2 level is high) causing our ears to hurt, (kinda like God didn’t make us to wear a muzzle over our faces?) sometimes causing headaches, (due to lack of O2 & increase of CO2) and fogging up our glasses. (Health professionals are taught how to wear them.  The public put it in their pockets, or on their rear-view mirror, or their purses. In a hospital setting you are told if you touch it, then you have contaminated the mask and it must be replaced.  In the public they are always touching it.  If this was a biohazard why aren’t they being thrown away in a biohazard bucket?) It is also certainly true that masking and distancing do take away from personal interaction. Masks obscure the face, which “expresses the person” (John Paul II, A Theology of the Body, §12:4); (along with screwing up the psychological development of children who will grow up seeing muzzled people) physical distancing makes us feel more distant in conversation, too; both masks and distancing seem to disrupt the naturalness and closeness of communication.

And so we must wear masks in truth and in charity. (truth and charity?! Lies is not truth.  You are not being charitable by living a lie.  Might as well tell trannies they are whatever they say they are because it’s ‘charitable’ too) Truth recognizes the physical discomfort and real social impediments of masking and distancing, but truth also recognizes the effectiveness of these measures in protecting persons, including the most vulnerable. (truth also admits there are no effectiveness in masks, but you are welcome to attempt to correct me, but the stats are on our side) Charity endures physical discomforts and social impediments to ourselves, and allows some foreseen but unintended physical discomfort and social impediment to others, for the sake of the good of the other. Masking and distancing are acts of love through which we affirm the good of the other above the inconveniences that these measures cause us. (if you repeat a lie over and over you eventually believe it)

We do not mask and distance because the government or the experts ask us to. (shocker to me because that is why businesses do that.  Also, the arrests of people who do not wear them shows this is about control) Instead, we take these measures because the love of neighbor that is capable of enduring sacrifice for the sake of the other’s good is at the heart of discipleship. We take these measures because by heeding the needs of the vulnerable, we learn to embody the gaze of Jesus, a gaze of charity. (I haven’t masked ever and, never lived thinking I would get anyone sick because nobody thinks that way!)

Since we understand masking and distancing to be acts of charity, (notice the repetition to get you thinking this) we now want to reflect on an aspect of charity that is more often overlooked, namely, that charity desires “a certain union with the beloved” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 27, Art. 2). This desiring of a certain union with the beloved, what we might call the social aspect of charity, calls to mind the concept of solidarity. Indeed, in his encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope St. John Paul II says that Pope Pius XI had solidarity in mind when he spoke of “social charity,” and likewise Pope Paul VI had solidarity in mind when he spoke of a “civilization of love” (§10). (St Paul mentioned about twisting scripture & here you see them trying to use the Summa & two popes to try to back up their agenda)

Perhaps we are convinced that in the present pandemic, (“plandemic” see I fixed that for you) in most circumstances, all things considered, masking and distancing are done for the good of the other. (again, another repetition) But how can we say that masking and distancing are acts of charity expressing a certain union with the beloved? How can we say that masking and distancing are acts of solidarity, when wearing masks and physical distancing precisely hamper communion, as we have acknowledged?

Consider the ways in which masking and distancing can unite us in mind and heart with many of those most at risk during this pandemic; (huh?!) with those whose lives always involve uncomfortable medical equipment, and those who cannot do all of the things and interact with others in all of the ways they want to. With respect to the physical discomforts of wearing masks, consider those who must carry around an oxygen tank, those who must have a catheter, and those who must walk with crutches. (ok a small % use these items. I helped sell medical devices as an assistant. The entire population isn’t on crutches, O2 tanks etc. They want 100% compliance wearing a face mask that PROHIBITS natural breathing just because they say so.  Not because they need it, like a crutch, but do it or else.)

With respect to the social impact of masking and distancing, consider those who face challenges to everyday communication because they cannot see or hear, or must use a machine to speak; consider those who must receive nutrients from a feeding tube, who cannot share the same pleasures of eating a meal with others; consider those who are sick who cannot have any visitors, consider those who before the pandemic could have visitors, but whom no one ever visited. While some of the prudent (ha! People used that word “prudent” way too much for this scamdemic) measures we take during this pandemic (‘plandemic’) do challenge the communion between family, friends, and others, the pandemic (‘plandemic’) has also brought into stark relief the places where we lacked community that we should have had.

Through masking and distancing, many can come to understand something of the physical discomforts and social challenges that are lifelong for others. We all can also offer our discomforts and loneliness to God for the sake of comfort and community for the vulnerable. (false charity.  If you really care about the vulnerable start a movement to have them stop being killed by their governors and stop treating them like lepers.  This idea of isolating them is criminal and demonic.  It is sad they are being treated this way & used to promote FEAR in others). And through our empathy and spiritual union with the vulnerable, we can also be moved, as Pope Francis says, to “make room for the creativity that only the Spirit is capable of inspiring” and to find “new forms of hospitality, fraternity and solidarity” (Ibid.). That is why, while the pandemic (just fyi, they have said that 2020 was an experimental year and this is to go on for years… hence the continuous lockdown here, lockdown there, fear porn on the media, etc) has exacerbated the loneliness of many, it has also provided the opportunity for gestures of unity and care. For example, connecting via video call with those whose daily struggles many are just now beginning to see, such as the homebound, sick, disabled, imprisoned, or even family—all of whom we frequently neglected in normal times. (a criminal act by the way.)

We should also examine our own close family relationships and friendships. In addition to highlighting broken communion with the most vulnerable, the pandemic (‘plandemic’) perhaps also shows us how much of our time spent and communication with others has not built maturity and depth of relationship—for instance, we often waste time on conversation and entertainment that are ultimately destructive of community. Even in our closest relationships, we still often pretend that we are entirely self-sufficient, and we are unwilling to ask for or receive help. Instead, those who have embraced the circumstances as an opportunity to change, have found creative ways of strengthening community bonds, including with the most vulnerable who are too often passed over; not temporary bonds, but bonds that will endure. (yes, but not an argument to muzzle up & take an experimental injection both which are dangerous)


We are still in the midst of the storm, and the storm has lasted much longer than we may have anticipated. (Anyone who has been keeping up can see this is just the beginning.  Only those who keep watching mainstream news & not the ones who have been censored are shocked at any of this) We long for the quieting of the storm, for calm waters, to gather with friends and family, to share meals and conversation freely and closely once more. (I do that now. It’s called ‘not living the lie’. We have people over, invite family over, go to restaurants etc and, where I live, it is normal.  How? You take off the stupid mask, invite people over, & give others a hug.  Kills the fear) Let us not, during this time, live in fear or imprudence, (then stop asking people to wear the reminder of the fear) but let us choose to allow God to help us to grow in faith and charity. (Faith & Charity indeed. Stop wearing a face covering that does nothing & smile at people) God’s apparent silence, Jesus’s sleep, is not a sign that he does not care, but a means through which he can enter into a deeper relationship with his disciples. (Ok, enough of claiming Christ is asleep.  You have no idea on that one plus if He is asleep it is the Church, not a scamdemic, He is sleeping on) May our masking and distancing not indicate a lack of care, but may they be a means to enter into deeper relationships with God and others. (Pray tell me how that makes any sense? Mask up to enter into a deeper relationship with God & others. How? By inhibiting your own breathing, causing mask mouth, bacteria pneumonia, higher CO2 levels and disease because of it? Let’s us faith AND reason. That makes no rational sense unless you are to turn off your mind, comply without questioning a thing & being part of the problem, the Rona Cult.  Distancing? So treating your fellow neighbor NOT as made in the image & likeness of Christ but as biohazards who may kill you with a sneeze at any time? Yes that is the opposite of Christian) May we, hampered in our union with others by the howling winds and raging rain, find new ways of solidarity such that when the storm does pass, we do not simply go back to how things were before. Rather, may we return to gatherings with friends and family that are now more inclusive of the vulnerable and more centered on Christ and the good of the other. May we grow in closer union with God and one another. (We have those among us that worship in the Rona Church. They are evangelists for the propaganda as the book “Propaganda” by Jacques Ellul mentions. We have a pandemic of bad leadership today and most of the people who say “wear a mask” or “the experimental injections, they will say ‘vaccine’, are safe, effective, etc will NEVER find the humility to say they were wrong and seek to be part of the solution.) 

Important Mask Coverage

https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/great-mask-deception/

https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/do-masks-cause-bacterial-pneumonia/

https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/mask-science-clear-doubting-science-behind-wearing-mask-watch-this-video/

https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/masks-are-making-you-sick-it-seems-that-is-simply-part-of-the-plan/

Most Recent Mask Studies

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987720333028

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

5 NIH/National Library of Medicine studies from 2004-2020 all finding verifiable health effects from wearing a face mask, including scientifically verified reduction is blood oxygen level:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29395560/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579222/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31159777/

Cloth Mask Study

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

SOME of the mask studies on efficacy:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bio/23/2/23_61/_pdf/-char/en

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01658736

https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/0195-6701(91)90148-2/pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20200717141836/https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25776/rapid-expert-consultation-on-the-effectiveness-of-fabric-masks-for-the-covid-19-pandemic-april-8-2020

https://www.nap.edu/read/25776/chapter/1#6

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6599448/

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00392-020-01704-y

https://clinmedjournals.org/articles/jide/journal-of-infectious-diseases-and-epidemiology-jide-6-130.php?jid=jide

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1130147308702355

Reparation for Priests and Bishops

 +

J.M.J

“Between the porch and the altar the priests the Lord’s ministers, shall weep, and shall say: Spare, O Lord, spare thy people: and give not thy inheritance to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them.” – Joel 2:17

Every priest who recites the traditional breviary reads these words each night at Vespers on the ferias of Lent. It is a sobering reminder to each priest of one of his most essential duties, namely, to be an intermediary, and intercessor between God and the people. The priest is deputed by God, to offer prayer and sacrifice for the benefit of the living and the dead and thereby plead for the remission of their sins. “Between God and man the priest stands, by communicating to us God’s benefits, and by offering Him our petitions; he reconciles the angry Lord, and wards from us the blows of his justice” (St. John Chrysostom). By his prayers, his labors, his sacrifices, and most especially by offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the priest cooperates with Almighty God in His greatest work, the work of the salvation of souls. St. Thomas says, “The good of grace in one is greater than the good of nature in the whole universe” (S.T. Ia-IIae 113 Art. 9). Through each Mass he offers, each sacrament he administers, along with all of his other prayers, sufferings and apostolic labors he offers in union with his daily Mass, the priest acts as a conduit pouring into the souls of men the greatest gift God has to offer: the graces Our Lord Jesus Christ won for us all on the cross. Therefore, St. Paul says of priests, “We are God’s coadjutors.” 1 Corinthians 3:9.

In order to effectively fulfill their role as intermediaries on behalf of the people in the sight of God, priests must be holy. “Those that are mediators between God and the people must shine before God with a good conscience, and with a good reputation before men” (St. Thomas Aquinas). St.  Gregory Nazianzen says, “The priest must first be cleansed before he can cleanse others; he must first himself approach God before he can lead others to him; he must first sanctify himself before he can sanctify others; he must first be himself a light before he can illumine others.” Holiness, sanctity, that perfect union of the soul with God, is not a luxury of priestly life, it is one of its most basic necessities.  As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, “In order to exercise this office (of the priesthood) in a worthy manner, interior perfection is required.”

Yet, how far from this most basic requirement has the state of the priesthood fallen, especially in recent years! And not just among the rank-and-file priests but even within the highest levels of the clergy: bishops, cardinals and even the Pope himself. When the topic of clerical corruption is discussed, the clerical sex abuse scandal of the last 20 years most often takes center stage. The recent revelation of the scandals of former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick has added new fuel to the fire. Yet, these horrifying sins against God and neighbor are just the tip of the iceberg of moral rot which is plaguing the Catholic priesthood.

Along with the sex abuse scandals there is a more foundational problem which has also become more apparent in recent years. That is the breakdown of supernatural faith and charity. Priests and bishops are called to be teachers of the Gospel of Christ, teaching by word and example the way to eternal life. Almighty God, through the words of St. Paul to Timothy, says to each priest and bishop, “I charge thee before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead…preach the word, be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat rebuke in all patience and doctrine.” Sadly, many priests and bishops fall into the category of those mentioned by St. Paul in the same letter who “will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires…heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears” and “turn away their hearing from the truth” and are “turned unto fables.” (1Timothy 4:1-4). Instead of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of His Church, too many priests and bishops of our day preach a different gospel: they preach the gospel of divorce and remarriage, the devotion of frequent Holy Communion for public and manifest enemies of God and His Church, the promotion of the vocations of women priests, the blessing and support of homosexual marriage and family life, they even perform solemn idolatrous liturgy in the Vatican itself. All this in addition to a general spirit of religious indifferentism which suffocates the apostolic spirit which burned so brightly in the hearts of the great missionary saints of old. It is little wonder then why so many of our churches and Catholic schools, once full of parishioners and students, are now closed and abandoned.

These sins are not only grievous in themselves, but they also cause scandal and confusion among the faithful. St. Alphonsus Liguori, in his book, Dignities and Duties of the Priest, describes the seriousness of the sin of scandal among the clergy. He says, “The priest is called the salt of the earth and the light of the world. The office of salt is to preserve soundness and prevent putrefaction, and the office of the priest is to preserve souls in the grace of God. What, says St. Augustine, shall become of the people if the priest does not perform the office of salt. Then the saint proceeds to say, this salt shall be fit only to be cast away by the Church, and to be trodden by all. But what, if, instead of being a preservative, this salt be employed in producing and promoting corruption? If instead of bringing souls to God, a priest is occupied in leading them to perdition, what punishment shall he deserve?

“The priest is the light of the world. Hence, says St. John Chrysostom, he should shine with the splendor of his sanctity so as to enlighten all others to imitate his virtues. But should this light be changed into darkness, what must become of the world? Shall it not be brought to ruin? says St. Gregory…This is conformable to the words of the Prophet Osee: And there shall be like people like priest.”

It doesn’t take much reflection upon the current moral state of clergy, the Church and the culture to realize the sobering truth of these words written over 250 years ago. “What shall become of the people if the priest does not perform the office of salt…if instead of being a preservative, this salt be employed in producing and promoting corruption…if instead of bringing souls to God, a priest is occupied in leading them to perdition, what punishment shall he deserve?” “The priest is the light of the world…But should this light be changed into darkness, what must become of the world? Shall it not be brought to ruin?” “And there shall be like people, like priest.”

To make matters worse, these very priests and bishops who have perpetrated some of the most heinous crimes against God, are the very ones who, according to the Prophet Joel, are appointed by God to intercede on our behalf and offer sacrifice and reparation for the sins of mankind. “Between the porch and the altar the priests, the Lord’s ministers, shall weep, and shall say: Spare, O Lord, spare the people.” But if the very priests appointed by God to intercede for us and offer prayers, sacrifice, and reparation for sin are the same ones who are committing some of the most grievous sins against Him, how can proper reparation be made? St. Augustine said that the barking of dogs is more pleasing to God than the prayers of bad priests. How can a priest intercede on behalf of sinners when he himself is an enemy of God? Our Lady of Fatima said that many souls go to hell because no one is willing to offer prayers and sacrifices for sinners. How can sufficient reparation be offered to God to save the  souls of priests and bishops who have fallen from such a height and who are buried beneath the sins of  those who are lost because of them?

The first thing which must be done is that each and every priest and bishop reflect seriously upon his great responsibility for the salvation of souls. The priest is ordained for no other reason than the salvation of others and thereby will save his own soul. “For every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God.” (Hebrews 5:1). “He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death and shall cover a multitude of sins.” (James 5:20). A priest’s salvation depends on the salvation of others. To do this well, the priest must not only be holy and devout, he must be a saint.

But the sad reality is that so many priests and bishops are anything but holy and devout. How can sufficient reparation possibly be made for their grievous sins?

The most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass wherein Our Lord’s Body and Blood is offered to God the Father through the ministry of the priest under the appearance of bread and wine, is the only means which can possibly expiate the outrages so many priests and bishops have committed against Our Lord’s Sacred Heart and Our Lady’s Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart. By the special application of Our Lord’s Precious Blood and the merits He won for us on the cross through the devout offering of Masses of reparation, the graces necessary will be applied, not only to expiate such crimes but also convert their perpetrators.

Therefore, I ask all priests and bishops of good will, to offer two Masses each month for the intention of reparation for the sins of their brother priests and bishops. One of these Masses will be in reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and the other will be in reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Lay faithful, I ask you to request your parish priests, and/or priests of religious orders to offer two Masses each month for this intention. Attend Mass twice each month and offer your attendance at Mass along with your Holy communion for these same intentions of reparation for the sins of priests and bishops to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. If all devout priests, bishops, and lay faithful alike were to take up this simple yet profound act of charity towards Our Lord, His Church, and His friends who have betrayed Him, Our Lord will be consoled, the Church will be restored, and many souls will be saved from eternal ruin.

A Priest’s Moral Analysis of the COVID “Vaccines”

The following was shared with me by a priest who I trust.

Moral Analysis of Vaccines

JMJ

On the blatant immorality of the currently employed COVID vaccines 

What follows are a series of briefly outlined moral arguments. Each argument stands alone, and in itself is sufficient to demonstrate the immorality of receiving the currently employed “vaccines”.

(For the sake of brevity, dozens of supporting links have been omitted; I do not advocate for all the content on the websites linked to below.) 

1)  Using human subjects as lab rats.

“doctors may not use the bodies of the sick as a corpus vile*  for experimenting with uncertain remedies when surer remedies can be usedWhen there are no sure remedies, a doctor may test the remedial nature of newly discovered drugs, if there is no risk to the patient.” Moral and Pastoral Theology Vol II, Henry Davis, 1949, 6th Ed.,  page 155, emphasis mine.

*“Something felt to be of so little value that it may be experimented with or upon without concern for loss or damage.” Merriam Webster. (In popular terms: guinea pig; lab rat.)

As to first highlighted statement: surer remedies.  There are surer remedies, for example ivermectin, or the antimalarials with zinc.

Furthermore, nothing could be more uncertain than using mRNA type “vaccines”, “treatments” which are completely novel, never before seen and not even tested in animals.  

[Parenthetical remarks.  With regard to the value of these vaccines as “remedies”, these articles are well worth meditating on.

WHO’s chief scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, noted…”At the moment I don’t believe we have the evidence of any of the vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on,”

Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory wrote:  There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic. I’ve never heard such nonsense talked about vaccines. You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.

Given the above, what is the purpose of these “vaccines” then? 

A suggestive statement: in February 2010, Bill Gates stated: “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” 

One possibility to consider: (from an interview with Robert F Kennedy Jr.)

According to the World Health Organization, there are 70 vaccines in development — three of which are in clinical trials. What do you think about the push for the rapid development of a COVID-19 vaccine? Is it okay to skip animal trials and go straight to human trials? Can those human volunteers truly have informed consent?

KENNEDY: No. What we know about coronavirus from 30 years of experience is that a coronavirus vaccine has a unique peculiarity, which is any attempted making of the vaccine has resulted in the creation of a class of antibodies that actually make vaccinated people sicker when they ultimately suffer exposure to the wild virus. Following the SARS epidemic that began in 2002, China launched a concerted effort to develop a coronavirus vaccine. They succeeded in developing 30 promising models, and they chose the four “best in class” to fabricate and then test on ferrets, the animal most analogous to human beings when it comes to upper respiratory infections.

The ferrets all developed admirable, robust, and durable antibody responses, and the scientists believed they had hit the jackpot. But then, when the animals suffered exposure to the wild virus, something frightening happened. The vaccinated animals sickened and died with body-wide inflammation. The vaccine had created a condition known as paradoxical inherent immune response, which amplified the injury caused by the illness rather than preventing it.

The scientists at that time recalled a similar occurrence from the 1960s where the NIH had conducted studies on a vaccine for RSV, an upper respiratory illness very similar to coronavirus. The 35 children in that study had developed a strong antibody response but had become terribly ill upon exposure to wild RSV. Two of the children died. Remembering this incident, the scientists in 2012 abandoned their efforts to create that vaccine. And that is why today you are hearing dire warnings from unexpected quarters — Paul Offit, Peter Hotez, Ian Lipkin, and even Anthony Fauci himself — who have all warned that a coronavirus vaccine may end up making people sicker from coronavirus rather than avoiding the disease.

Another possibility to consider:

“in 2015, Vatican Radio charged that the UN organizations WHO and UNICEF were again executing vast international programs of depopulating the earth by using vaccines to surreptitiously sterilize women in Third World countries, this time in Kenya. It stated that “Catholic Bishops in Kenya have been opposed to the nationwide Tetanus Vaccination Campaign targeting 2.3 million Kenyan women and girls of reproductive age between 15-49 years, terming the campaign a secret government plan to sterilize women and control population growth”” “the WHO was for decades receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for research and testing, to produce an antifertility vaccine that would make a woman’s immune system attack and destroy her own babies in the womb, a vaccine they would surreptitiously combine with a tetanus vaccination without informing the victims… The WHO inoculated more than 130 million women in 52 countries with this vaccine, permanently sterilizing some very large percentage of them without their knowledge or consent.” 

Close of parenthetical remarks.]

(Show Notes for the Interview with the Former Pfizer VP)

As to second highlighted statement: no risk to patient.  That is manifestly not the case here.  As of “Feb. 12, 15,923 adverse reactions to COVID “vaccines”, including 929 deaths, have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since Dec. 14, 2020.”   The actual numbers of deaths and injuries are likely much much higher, since  “Historically, however, fewer than 1% of adverse events have ever been reported to VAERS”. (In other words, to get a more probable assessment of the actual numbers, multiply the data above by 100.)

As to the complete statement itself: doctors may not use human beings as experimental lab rats.  No sane human being, and certainly no Catholic, can argue this point, as is clear from the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2295:  

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

See also the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declarations, eg Helsinki IV Sept 1989 esp Basic Principles #1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 

2) Mutilation.

“The body may not be mutilated unless mutilation is the only available means of saving the rest of the body, i.e., its life or health. Since man may not take away his life, so neither may he mutilate his body, for the members of his body are not his to dispose of, but are to be used in their integrity to help him to fulfill the divine purpose and achieve his own perfection and last end. But since life is better than a member of the body, the latter may be sacrificed, if necessary, to save the whole body.”  Ibid., page 156, emphasis mine.

Before addressing the highlighted passages, let’s start with the obvious question: how does the question of mutilation enter into a moral analysis of these “vaccines”?

It is not even possible to think of a more serious mutilation than to permanently and irreversibly change one’s genome.  It makes what Bruce Jenner has done look trivial (and that certainly is not.)  And yet it seems very likely that that is exactly what these “vaccines” do.  

To cite only one authority: Dr. Luc Montagnier (2008 Nobel Prize for discovery of HIV) who disputes “the label of “vaccine,” arguing that these products represent a new form of gene therapy” and who “opposes the use of mRNA vaccines in humans, stated in an interview…  “The human genome contains 7% to 9% of endogenous retrovirus sequences. Some of these sequences code for reverse transcription of RNA into DNA. Therefore, it is possible that the spike protein mRNA of the vaccine could be absorbed by human cells, reverse transcribed, and integrated as a human gene in these cells… (in other words, the recipient of this “vaccine” would become a genetically modified organismEven if animal testing showed protection, nobody could predict long-term pathologic effects in a human population and the precautionary principle should apply.” (emphasis mine.)

As to the first highlighted statement: the body may not be mutilated unless mutilation is the only available means of saving the rest of the body, i.e., its life or health

As already pointed out above, this is simply not the case.

As to the second highlighted statement: mutilation is forbidden, excepting in the cases of sacrificing a part to save the whole, such as removing a gangrenous limb, which is manifestly not the case here.

3) Aborted Fetal Cells

Aborted fetal cell lines are being used for the making and/or testing of the “vaccines”.   In order to really appreciate the gravity of the aborted fetal cells, this video, and contents of this article, are absolutely essential to digest:

To produce the cell line used in the development Merck and Pfizer “vaccines”, scores of babies (probably hundreds) were delivered alive by the abortionist(s), via c-section, and then handed over to the “scientist” who immediately stretched out the baby and gutted him out – alive, kicking and struggling – in order to get the desired tissues.  

Clearly satanic. 

This same cell line was not only used in the development of these “vaccines” but – as pointed out in the above video and article – is apparently being used in the production phase of each new batch, for “quality-control” purposes.

Apparently this is not a very serious concern for many of our religious leaders.  Abbey Johnson has called them out on that, and (in a sad commentary on our times) she makes far more sense than almost any of our moral theologians or religious leaders:

The bottom line is that either we are for abortion or against it. Either we are for using fetal cells derived from abortions or we are against it. Either we are for using “vaccines” manufactured using fetal cells or we are against it.  Is it really morally acceptable to possibly extend our lives (a dubious claim at best) by means which employ the sacrifice of babies?  

And in this regard, we have been blessed by some very clear teaching from Cardinal Janis Pujats, Archbishop Tomash Peta, Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga, Bishop Joseph E. Strickland, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider in their brilliant letter On the moral illicitness of the use of vaccines made from cells derived from aborted human fetuses.

The whole letter deserves prayerful consideration; here are a few important excerpts:

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 Lord said that in the end times even the elect will be seduced (cf. Mk. 13:22). Today, the entire Church and all Catholic faithful must urgently seek to be strengthened in the doctrine and practice of the faith. In confronting the evil of abortion, more than ever Catholics must “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22). Bodily health is not an absolute value. Obedience to the law of God and the eternal salvation of the souls must be given primacy. Vaccines derived from the cells of cruelly murdered unborn children are clearly apocalyptic in character and may possibly foreshadow the mark of the beast (see Rev. 13:16). 

4) A very important but somehow overlooked spiritual consideration

What we are seeing here, for those who have eyes to see, is actually nothing new.  Modern technology is being employed in the service of an ancient technique.  A brief review of a number of historical precedents will make the application obvious.

Eusebius: (the emperor Galerius Maximinus ordered)… that all men, women, and children, even infants at the breast, should sacrifice and offer oblations (to the idols); and that… they should be made to taste the execrable offerings; and that the things for sale in the market should be polluted with libations from the sacrifices; and that guards should be stationed before the baths in order to defile with the abominable sacrifices those who went to wash in them. (Ecclesiastical History, Book 8, Chapter 9), cited in Malvenda

From a sermon by Nectarius, the Bishop of Constantinople:  Julian the Apostate had all the food put up for sale in the markets in Constantinople secretly corrupted by sprinkling with blood,  so that in this way it might be polluted.  St Theodore, who had been warned by a Divine revelation, cautioned the Christians to carefully abstain from all this, and to use wheat cooked in oil as their food.  (Malvenda, De Antichristo, Book 9, chapter 31)

Theodoret: (Julian the Apostate) cast things offered to idols into the fountains of the city of Antioch, and into those of Daphne, so that no one could drink of the streams without partaking of the hateful sacrifices. He defiled in the same way everything that was sold in the marketplace, for he had water which had been offered to idols sprinkled on the bread, meat, fruit, herbs, and all the other articles of food. (Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 15), cited in Malvenda*

The pagan rulers, lusting to bring the masses into fellowship with them and with their diabolical sacrifices, and yet recognizing that many Christians would not willingly partake of items that had been offered to pagan deities, attempted to force everyone to enter into communion with their evil sacrifices and the spirits behind them by contaminating everything possible: foods, drinks, herbs (medicines), etc.   

Today, we are seeing similar attempts, cloaked under modern technology.  Because these “vaccines” have been tainted in a fashion analogous to that seen above, it would be far more accurate, spiritually speaking, to refer to them as potions or malefices.  

Many of those who are taking these “vaccines”/potions/malefices are quite aware that these have been prepared using tissue derived from abortion.  Insofar as they have not been actually held down and forcibly injected, it is very difficult to see how such individuals are not positively willing, in some way, to employ the satanic sacrifice of babies to make their own life “safer” or “easier”, (any and all claims to being “pro-life” notwithstanding.)  

Why is this significant?  Because the more willing the recipient, the more open he is to receive the spiritual effects. 

The spiritual reality is that by being injected with one of these “vaccines”/potions/malefices, the recipient receives an Unholy communion – via a syringe – with the human sacrifices used in their preparation.  Spiritually speaking, this is simply a slightly camouflaged diabolic inversion of the way that a Catholic enters into Communion with Our Lord’s Sacrifice on the Cross when he receives the Eucharist worthily: every time that a properly disposed Catholic receives Holy Communion,  he comes into union with the crucified and resurrected Savior – and receives the graces and gifts of that union – the spiritual fruits of Our Lord’s death upon the Cross: Peace and Life, virtues and strength.

But every time someone receives one of these Merck or Pfizer “vaccines”, he comes into union with the violent and horrific sacrifices of hundreds of babies who – at the request of at least one of his parents – were delivered alive, then carefully stretched out, gutted out and sliced apart, by the satanic priest/scientist – his tender little life savagely snuffed out while suffering the most excruciating pain.

And by receiving that injection, he also receives the spiritual fruits of those sacrifices to the demon: as time goes on, these will become more apparent, but very likely include the spirits of inchoate rage, pain and death. 

And, as we’ve seen, the more willing the recipient of these potions, the more open he is to receive their spiritual effects. 

Fundamentally, this is just a question of communion: who, exactly, do you want to be in Communion with?

Christ?

Or satan?

It’s literally that simple. 

* These historical examples (and more) which prefigure our current dilemma can all be found in Fr Tomas Malvenda OP’s monumental 1604 work De Antichristo (On the Antichrist), Book 9, chapter 31.  It is worth pondering that these examples are found in his commentary on Apocalypse 13:17.

Responding to Professor de Mattei Article on the Morality of the Vaccines

A Response to the Professor de Mattei article from OnePeterFive & the Response from the translating priest on Rorate

After reading these blogs I just had to put some corrections in them. Team Apocalypse will not stop banging the drum so I’m your Huckleberry

My comments are in BOLD/Italic

We live in a time of confusion, and what is even more dramatic, this confusion prevails even among the most faithful Catholics, who adhere to the Tradition of the Church.

Among these Catholics, during this time of the Pandemic (Please can we stop using this word? The WHO in 2009 changed the definition of what a pandemic is to account for 0 deaths.  Zero. Not 1.  Not 1000.  Not 1,000,000.  Zero.  Translation? The common cold is a pandemic. Words matter & as I’ll show later this is just a bad flu event … & possibly masks are helping to keep it going as bacteria pneumonia and other diseases that have the same symptoms as the Rona), two questions recur:  1) Is it morally licit to use vaccines against COVID-19 that use cellular lines coming from aborted fetuses? (We go over this in the Fr Ripperger interview) 2) Quite apart from the liceity of these vaccines, is it advisable to receive them, at this time when all the risks to one’s health that they pose are not yet known? (Translation: should you be a lab rat & participate in human experimentation on an experimental injection, bc these are not vaccines as they even admit, playing Russian Roulette with your body?)

In a study just published by Edizione Fiducia, I have tried to respond in an articulate manner to the first question.  This text is meant above all for those who want to learn more about the problem of the anti-COVID vaccines in the light of theology and moral philosophy. There is, however, a reply that is more easily accessible for the Catholic with good sense, and this is it:  it is licit to be vaccinated because the Church assures of this, through its most authoritative doctrinal body, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. On December 21 2020 the Congregation expressed itself with a concise document that refers back to another document that is more comprehensive: On the Dignity of the Person, dated from September 8, 2008.

The pronouncements of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are the voice of the teaching Church, in the face of which laity and priests can legitimately express doubts, but always with filial respect, (unless the Rona fans do not like it because I haven’t seen any respect to those who have expressed doubts) lest they run the risk of justifying every type of dissent, such as that which we see happening at this time against the prohibition, on the part of the same Congregation, to bless homosexual unions.

It is necessary to remember that the moral intransigence of the Church has nothing to do with that “rigorism” that periodically crops up in the history of the Church. In the third century, the bishop Novation (220-258), in a dispute with Rome, maintained that idolatry was an unpardonable sin, and those guilty of that sin, called the lapsi, could not be readmitted to Holy Communion even if, after sacrificing to idols, they repented.  Novation became an anti-Pope, in opposition to Pope Saint Cornelius (180-253). Novation was supported by St Cyprian (210-225), the bishop of Carthage.  St. Cyprian, in his turn, opposed the next Pope, St Stephen I (254-257), introducing in his diocese of Carthage the use of re-baptizing heretics. During the next century St. Cyprian’s view was radicalized by the Donatists, who denied the validity also of sacraments conferred by public sinners.  Against these, Saint Augustine brilliantly wielded his pen. (Great historical lesson but has nothing to do with this topic unless the author is trying to build it up to show anyone who questions the narrative as ‘rigorists’?)

These rigorist ideas were in part taken up again in the eleventh century by some prelates such as Umberto da Silva Candida, who denied the validity of orders of immoral priests who either bought and sold ecclesiastical privileges or lived lives of gross immorality. Saint Peter Damian (1007-1072), while branding as heresy simony and the rejection of clerical celibacy, insisted that the orders of those heretical priests were valid.  The Council of Trent in the 16th century confirmed that these orders were indeed valid. (Again great lesson.  Pointless in this argument)

These examples should be food for reflection on the part of those who today are denying the moral liceity of the vaccines (he spelled experimental injections wrong), which liceity has repeatedly confirmed by the Church, in which confirmation all the specific problems involved in this particular question are addressed. (I am not aware where the Church said it is ok to use humans for experimental trials.  I think the Nuremberg trials aftermath is against that.  Here is a solid write up on an Israeli resigning because of the human experimentation on pregnant women…hello pro lifers?)

The second question is in the order of practicality:  are the anti-COVID vaccines (he meant experimental injections) truly efficacious against the pandemic, and are they risk-free of collateral damage in the long run?  The response to this question is that we do not know, nor do the political and health authorities know for certain.  (Stop the press! We have seen more deaths by vaccine in the past couple months than the entire decade prior. They have admitted that this will be an annual thing because the ‘injection’ won’t stop any virus just ‘lessen the symptoms’ their words.  Now LONG TERM we do not know because it is still in human experimentation phase, however you will find doctors will mention pathogenic priming from the history of failed coronavirus vaccines.  Also see the Great Barrington Declaration that 42,000+ medical professionals have signed).  What is certain is that the victims of COVID are not a “fiction” but a tragic reality.  From the data compiled from Johns Hopkins University, as of March 4, over 2,700,000 people have died and over 124 million cases have been confirmed in the world from the beginning of the pandemic. (Forgive me for not trusting Johns Hopkins who sponsored EVENT 201, a simulation event of a deadly coronavirus hitting the planet {their souvenir: stuffed coronavirus plush dolls} the month before all this hit.  124,000,000 cases? From the creator of the PCR test, Kary Mullis: “This test is not to be used for diagnostic purposes…with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.” The PCR test has upwards of 95% false positive results. How many said they have the virus with no symptoms? That used to be called “you aren’t sick”. As Christopher Ferrara has written this is a “CASEdemic”.

Now 2,700,000 deaths? Professor de Mattei mentions the code words in the next paragraph, but let us address the deaths. It is a fact that hospitals were getting paid to code COVID 19 deaths (mo money mo money mo money) for people who died by other means (i.e. hit by a bus, car, poison, natural death, heart attack, etc) even a month AFTER one was tested. Today if one dies of the injection hours or days after receiving it, then cause of death for them is never because of the injection.  For example, there was a kid who died and his cause of death was listed as the Rona; the parents got upset saying that in fact he did not have the elusive virus and died because of cardiac failure.  Team Fear does not care for truth.  Alex Berenson, back in August 2020, tweeted out a great point on the CDC revision of the death count, to which most did not bother to look at: “A lot of people are jumping on the statement just 6% of US #Covid deaths list #Covid alone as the cause. But to use that figure to claim “COVID ONLY KILLED 9,000 AMERICANS” is wrong. Other causes include conditions like pneumonia, which can clearly be Covid-related. A better way to use the data may be to TAKE OUT causes clearly unrelated to #sarscov2. I would include Alzheimer’s, sepsis, dementia, cancer, and unintentional injury. (Let’s be conservative and leave off kidney failure, diabetes, obesity, and strokes.)The other advantage of leaving off those conditions is that there is significant overlap in, say, diabetes and obesity (and the CDC reports the average COVID death certificate included 2.6 other conditions). That’s less likely for the conditions I included. So, okay, the five conditions on my list were on about 50,000 certificates (assuming no double counting). The accidental deaths and poisonings alone were 5,000. Those deaths – at a minimum – are much more likely to fall in the WITH rather than FROM Covid category. It would also be nice if @cdcgov offered more specific information about the 77,000 deaths that had other “unspecified” conditions listed. But this is a start, at least – and it’s in keeping with the other steps the CDC has taken recently.”  Yes, this is just for USA deaths, but are you going to think the USA is the only one fudging numbers?  Highly unlikely.

Let us double that number just for trying to bring it up to date. That is 154,000. Highly probable that is too high as the death tolls went down after the ‘dry wood’ was taken away (this is a what other doctors have said about the more vulnerable, that like a fire it will take the dry wood quick and fast but then dies down).

I know the Professor mentioned the world and not just the USA, but as of today the Johns Hopkins site says 559,219 deaths.  Nearly 4x higher than the revised number of Berenson after I doubled it to bring it closer to today. If we divide the planet numbers it is 675,000.  According to the WHO, the average flu numbers are 3-5 million cases and 290,000-650,000 respiratory deaths.

One can argue at great length about those who died “because” of COVID or “with” COVID, addressing the claim that the number of deaths that have been attributed to the Coronavirus are greater than what is really the case.  (Um you should, to be precise, right?!) The case remains that, with or without COVID, 2020 was a record year for the number of deaths in the whole world. (Are deaths by car accident, drowning in pools, airplane crashes, war, suicide, abortion, Chicago murder, etc etc being counted to support an experimental injection?! So there were a lot of deaths therefore take the jab? Come on, this is irrational).  According to Eurostat, which collects data produced by national statistical institutes in the various countries of the European Union, it has been verified that in the EU between March and December of 2020 there were 580,000 more deaths compared with the same period from 2016-2019.  In Italy there were 90,000 more deaths, with respect to the mean of the preceding five years. (Ok, that may be so, however how is that even relevant to this topic?  It is not.  If you lump in car accidents, drownings, etc etc I guess the number does go way up.  Should we stop driving too? Lots of dying from driving. The flu season in 2018 topped 80,000 deaths, do you remember that massive shutdown?  Where were the prophets of doom then? Was Team Apocalypse in training camp? 

Let us look at Italy.  I am using Italy because they were the first to shut it all down over this. March 2018 there were, according to ISTAT 16,220 died from respiratory illness. In March 2019 there were 15,189 deaths due to respiratory illness in Italy.  In March 2020, IN THE HEIGHT OF COVID, 12,352 died from respiratory illness. In the UK it has basically the same pattern.  So, what a minute, we want to use PEOPLE for guinea pigs?!

Here is a 3 strike approach to this.  Get the entire write up here by a priest that has right thinking.

1) Using humans as lab rats

On the blatant immorality of the currently employed COVID vaccines – doctors may not use the bodies of the sick as a corpus vile*  for experimenting with uncertain remedies when surer remedies can be used. When there are no sure remedies, a doctor may test the remedial nature of newly discovered drugs, if there is no risk to the patient.” Moral and Pastoral Theology Vol II, Henry Davis, 1949, 6th Ed.,  page 155

*“Something felt to be of so little value that it may be experimented with or upon without concern for loss or damage.” Merriam Webster. (In popular terms: guinea pig; lab rat.)

It is clear as day that if you see the tests results SO FAR there are plenty of risks to the patient. What does this mean for the personnel that are to give the shots? How can they be free from sin for this? Even grave sin? 

What about taking the shot? 

As to the complete statement itself: doctors may not use human beings as experimental lab rats.No sane human being, and certainly no Catholic, can argue this point, as is clear from the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2295: 

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

See also the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declarations, eg Helsinki IV Sept 1989 esp Basic Principles #1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

2) Mutilation 

“The body may not be mutilated unless mutilation is the only available means of saving the rest of the body, i.e., its life or health. Since man may not take away his life, so neither may he mutilate his body, for the members of his body are not his to dispose of, but are to be used in their integrity to help him to fulfill the divine purpose and achieve his own perfection and last end. But since life is better than a member of the body, the latter may be sacrificed, if necessary, to save the whole body.” Ibid., page 156

To cite only one authority: Dr. Luc Montagnier (2008 Nobel Prize for discovery of HIV) who disputes “the label of “vaccine,” arguing that these products represent a new form of gene therapy” and who “opposes the use of mRNA vaccines in humans, stated in an interview…“The human genome contains 7% to 9% of endogenous retrovirus sequences. Some of these sequences code for reverse transcription of RNA into DNA. Therefore, it is possible that the spike protein mRNA of the vaccine could be absorbed by human cells, reverse transcribed, and integrated as a human gene in these cells… (in other words, the recipient of this “vaccine” would become a genetically modified organism) Even if animal testing showed protection, nobody could predict long-term pathologic effects in a human population and the precautionary principle should apply.”

As to the first highlighted statement: the body may not be mutilated unless mutilation is the only available means of saving the rest of the body, i.e., its life or health

As already pointed out above, this is simply not the case.

As to the second highlighted statement: mutilation is forbidden, excepting in the cases of sacrificing a part to save the whole, such as removing a gangrenous limb, which is manifestly not the case here.

3) Aborted Fetal Cells

Aborted fetal cell lines are being used for the making and/or testing of the “vaccines”. In order to really appreciate the gravity of the aborted fetal cells, this video, and contents of this article, are absolutely essential to digest:

To produce the cell line used in the development Merck and Pfizer “vaccines”, scores of babies (probably hundreds) were delivered alive by the abortionist(s), via c-section, and then handed over to the “scientist” who immediately stretched out the baby and gutted him out – alive, kicking and struggling – in order to get the desired tissues. 

Clearly satanic.

Read the entire blogpost here as there is a 4th point that is brought up.

Medical science is seeking to defeat this virus with the use of vaccines (he must been using autocorrect.  Blasted experimental injections must just get over-written), but it remains to be seen whether this will be successful. (Can you feel the confidence?) The possibility of failure would point out only the powerlessness of the medical establishment to stop the Coronavirus (there are 6 coronaviruses humans have lived with throughout time. Zero vaccines have done anything but kill the animals they were injected in), and therefore the nature of the pandemic as a chastisement.  But progress in science and medicine takes place through errors in diagnoses and remedies, above all when dealing with new sicknesses of unknown origin. (I guess you have to break a lot of eggs to make an omelet?) The political and health authorities that a year ago were being accused of having created a state of emergency artificially, are today accused of wanting to resolve the state of emergency through a “genocidal” vaccine program. (I mean Gates did say here if you had a good vaccine you could take out a good population of people for those who want population control. They are focusing on lower classes and nations, but maybe they are angelic beings pushing this & nothing nefarious from any of them at all).  But if one wants to destroy humanity, why not just let the disease run rampant without a need to resort to vaccines that, in the case of Great Britain shows, reduce and do not worsen the number of deaths in a given country? (What fun is that? The recovery rate is 99.99% for those under 70 yrs of age. Ohhh wait, they can’t die from this virus. Hmmm…) What sense would it make to try to save a population that wants to destroy itself?

In this situation of cognitive confusion, with respect to the options for and against the vaccine (cough ‘Experimental injection’ cough), it is necessary to avoid confusing the individual case with that of the public or the collective.  At the level of the individual, each person is free to make a cost-benefit analysis, weighing diverse elements: age, physical health, the advice of one’s personal physician, one’s personal attitude towards sickness and death.  But governments, whether they be good or bad, have as their purpose the well- being of the collective. (they SHOULD have well-being in mind. Arresting people for walking alone on the beach isn’t exactly having their well-being in mind, nor arresting someone for not wearing a mask that is ineffective. Is ‘well-being’ part of destroying their business as well? Meanwhile, propping up amazon, facebook, Walmart, etc IS looking out for their well-being?  Did I mention going to church was against the law too? In some governments it is. Ireland is right now: #wellbeing).  When they do their cost-benefit analysis, they do it not in terms of the individual but rather with respect to the collective.   The law that is just is not a law that has an effect on every individual, but rather is the law that is made for all the people.  The application of such a law with respect to the individual is only incidental.  From this aspect, if in the month of March in Italy, there have been more that 500 deaths a day (according to approved sources), these victims were killed by COVID, not by vaccines. (Yes 0.0% chance it had anything else to do with it.  Remember the Berenson numbers? 2.6 comorbidities were part of the deaths. A stat the other day said 80% of those who died were obese. I’m sure it was just the rona…)  It seems logical that the government is advising getting the vaccine (he needs to get that autocorrect fixed), even if the implementation of this plan shows itself to be difficult and confusing. Everyone, in the end, is free to decide to accept or refuse the vaccine (experimental injection) offered by the government. (given out by a billion dollar industry that has zero chance of being sued for any problems)

There is a final aspect that must be addressed.  A year ago, someone who asserted that the pandemic was not a fiction but a reality, was accused by the so-called “deniers” of belonging to the “party of health”, consisting of those who allowed themselves to be conditioned by the mass-media alarmism.  But those who yesterday were criticizing being health conscious, are today creating a new party or movement that opposes vaccines (E.I. E.I. uh ohhh) in the name of protecting one’s own health. For the “deniers” of yesterday, who are today the “anti-vaccine-ers,” (honestly, after watching the documentary “VAXXED” by Del Bigtree, (which you can watch on youtube or vudu) I’m against putting any poison in mine or my children’s bodies anymore. One can’t just live a healthy lifestyle, you must take the pills, the drugs, the shots. etc to increase overall well-being. Don’t say eat non-GMO foods, exercise, etc. Play on twitter all day & drink carbonated drinks while eating processed foods) the preoccupation for one’s own health is now the most important thing, to the point of constructing new moral theories to demonstrate that the vaccines (experimental injections) are morally illicit.

In reality, the only real party that is worth fighting for is the party of God.  Our life is in His hands, and it will be He who, after having permitted the pandemic, (which will be shoved in your face every year now) will show us whether it is His will or not that the pandemic (or plandemic) be defeated by the vaccine.(experimental injection)

At all events, we will adore His will. (Or Gates’ will.. someone’s will.  Team Fear might say God’s will but it’s window dressing)

Translated by Father Richard Gennaro Cipolla (corrected by Steve)

Then on Rorate, there was a post of Fr’s criticism of the comments

It was with great dismay that I read the many comments on deMattei’s article from readers of OnePeterFive.  In his response to the comments, Mr. Steve Skojec, the blogmaster, presented an accurate and Catholic understanding of the history of the moral decision making process in the Church, which has never been absolutist.  That process and teaching  has to be separated from the basic moral teaching of the Church based on revelation from Scripture.  But even in the latter, there are exceptions even to the Commandments, notably with respect to the sixth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill.  This means that murder is a moral crime.  It means that abortion is a moral crime. But not all killing is murder.  The Church has always recognized that killing someone in self-defense—which includes the situation of war—is morally licit.

What is so depressing about the comments, almost all of which are anti-vaccine (gasp! The horror), is that they sound like a throwback to the Know-Nothing Party of the 19th century in the United States that was virulently anti-Catholic (talk about a stretch).  The comments are un-reasonable and therefore un-Catholic (bc Fr said so. Seriously that is the only reason.  I read the comments and they are anything but un-reasonable and when did asking questions become ‘un-Catholic?).  The irony of Catholics espousing that radical individualism that was once the mark of many Protestants is quite sad.  For the Catholic, the family and the community are primary. The individual comes second.  That is Catholic moral teaching based on the words and example of Jesus Christ. (I guess we should just shut up, roll our sleeves up & take the mRNA experimental injection huh?)

There are the strident “never vaccines” crowd (sure I am becoming one), who most probably have no memory of the small pox epidemic (Small pox is an actual problem that killed a high percentage… unlike the Rona) in the 1940’s in this country and the polio epidemic of the 1950s.  I am old enough to remember them both.  I still have the scar on my right shoulder of the small pox injection of the vaccine that saved many lives and therefore was a blessing to society as a whole.  I remember vividly the polio epidemic, in which friends of my age died or were confined to an “iron lung” or were crippled for the rest of their lives. (Today many do not know anyone that has died because of the Rona)  I remember schools being closed.  I also remember church bells ringing when the polio vaccine, the Salk vaccine, became available.  All public school students had to be vaccinated before they came back to school.  That pandemic ended, thankfully, because of the Salk vaccine, and the government mandate. (We may as well compare Babe Ruth to my 3 year old as the same caliber of ballplayer if Fr is trying to equate this to the Rona)

As someone with a Ph.D. in the physical sciences, I have never understood the anti-vaccine rationale. (I do not have a Ph.D. because I didn’t want to pay for them to give me one.  Just an BS in Exercise Science).  It would seem to be irrational and therefore un-Catholic to be against vaccines that help save lives and suffering. (Can Fr point out any teaching to where that thought is un-Catholic?   No, because that is his personal opinion) To those who are not anti-vaccine per se but refuse to take the anti-Covid-19 vaccines on the basis of questions about the time span of the clinical trials (Rushed.  Operation Warp Speed ring a bell?), their efficacy and long-term effects, (You should question all of this) I ask them: Upon what evidence or data do you base your reservations? (Besides common sense I can list a ton of evidence and data to question this) Have you read about the time line, development and use of the polio vaccine in the 1950’s that saved so many lives and prevented terrible and lasting effects? (Pam’s book brings this up) Have you done research in like manner for the current anti-Covid-19 vaccines?  And have you measured these reservations and refusal to take the vaccine against the moral obligation that one has as a Catholic to the well-being of the community in general? (Fr, are you wanting to force people to take the jab? That would be unethical if so)  Have you read and thought about the official response of the Church affirming the moral liceity of the vaccines, which response is definitive and readily available online for anyone to read? (Along with scores of issues with this experimental injection) If you have done your homework, so to speak, and have decided against receiving the vaccine (Fr has the same problem with his computer not letting him type ‘experimental injection’), so be it, and there is nothing more to say.  All I ask is that you stop talking about it in terms of your Catholic faith, for your decision not to take the vaccine has nothing to do with your Catholic faith. (Woah! Talk about a reach. Dangerous thought right there)

The comments also reveal a strident anti-intellectualism that is inconsonant with the Catholic faith and with being a Catholic. (People who say that will never debate anyone that does not stick to the 3×5 card of approved narratives) It is not an exaggeration to say that the intellectual history of the West cannot be separated from the central presence of the Catholic Church within that history.  What concerns me deeply is that this sometimes rabid anti-intellectualism among those who would classify themselves as “traditional Catholics” is threatening the recovery of the Catholic Tradition within the Catholic Church, (as that article months ago said “STOP THINKING!”) the heart of which recovery is the Traditional Roman Mass. There is no doubt that to be a faithful Catholic is indeed difficult during this time when not only society in general has been so thoroughly secularized but also because of the continuing climate of weakness and ambiguity on the part of those who comprise the Magisterium of the Church that followed the Second Vatican Council. But given this difficult situation, for Catholics to hide behind an understanding of freedom that is essentially at best Lockean and at worst radically individualistic is to deny the only true freedom: the freedom bought by Jesus Christ on the Cross: the freedom from the effects of sin that is death, eternal death. It is this true freedom that bears the fruit of  the sure hope of eternal life in God.

Father Richard Gennaro Cipolla

I read the comments Fr is referring to and I have no idea what Fr Cipolla is talking about.  He writes using emotion only.  Nobody was anti-intellectual or individualistic like a Prottie at all. Those who want the experimental injections in people better hope to God the pathogenic priming doesn’t take out people & literally have bodies in the streets. 

 

This is JUST a week in the UK for the Pfizer experimental injection. Please tell me how this is ‘safe’? I await the so called pro-lifers who are pro human trials to weigh in on that

When the former Pfizer CEO (the current one hasn’t taken the injection mind you) says this & you STILL defend the injections I question your sanity:

Exclusive: Former Pfizer VP to AFLDS: ‘Entirely possible this will be used for massive-scale depopulation’

 

Get Pam Acker’s book on the vaccines below.