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.