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.

Resistance Podcast 143: Answers on Vaccination Morality w/ Fr. Ripperger

Fr. Ripperger graciously did an interview on the topic of vaccinations and the morality of them/  We touched on topics of fetal cells to the COVID vaccines.  This is probably too spicy for YouTube to post it there so I put it on other platforms

WATCH ON: Odessy / Bitchute / LBRY / UGEtube / Rumble / BrandNewTube

Click any of the above platforms to watch the interview

Vaccination: a Catholic Perspective is a great book on this topic that just came out that we bring up in the interview

For Fr Ripperger’s Books Please Click the Photo

Ireland’s Road to Abortion on Demand


by Celeste Youngblood, news correspondent for the Veritas Radio Network

Winchester, VA– Today, Friday May 25, there is a historic referendum taking place in Ireland in which the nation’s citizens are deciding whether or not the 8th Amendment to the Irish Constitution should be retained, or repealed. The 8th Amendment declares the truth that the unborn have the same right to life as their mothers. Ireland is one of very few nations in Europe, along with Northern Ireland, Poland, and Malta, which bans abortion in nearly all cases. Here is a little background on how a Catholic, pro-life nation has arrived at such a precipitous moral crossroad.

As in every case, it began with contraception. It always begins with contraception, the rending of the procreative purpose of the sexual act from its unitive purpose. Ireland legalized contraception in 1980, and it was not three years before the Irish had to actively defend the unborn from the voices clamoring for the so-called “right” to murder their unwanted unborn. After a contentious campaign, one in which the Catholic Church was an unabashed, outspoken, vocal proponent of the right to life, the 8th Amendment was added to the Irish constitution, with 67% of Irish in support. It is important to note that at this time, 93% of the populace identified as Catholic (WSJ link “Ireland paves Way for Vote) and weekly Mass attendance hovered near 90%.

Fast forward to 2016. Ireland has so far legalized contraception (1980), homosexual acts (1993), divorce (1995), same sex marriage (2015), and abortion in cases of a threat to the life of the mother (2013). The 2012 case of Savita Halappanavar, who many had said had been “denied an abortion” while suffering a septic miscarriage, had the populace inflamed. As a side note, this article by LifeSiteNews shows there were holes in the official story being pushed by the media. In any case the tide clearly turned against the rights of the unborn after Mrs. Halappanavar’s case received vast media exposure. The pro-choice cause had a supposed martyr to latch on to. The Wall Street Journal reports that in 2016, a citizen’s assembly of 100 people who were chosen to represent the broader populace issued a recommendation to lift the ban on abortion. A cross party commission of lawmakers arrived at a similar conclusion. On March 8, the Irish government agreed to hold a referendum on whether or not the 8th Amendment should be repealed.

The polls opened this morning and will remain open until 5:00 p.m. local time. The results of an exit poll conducted with 3,000 participants will be released at the close of the polls, and ballot counting will begin Saturday, with results expected in the early hours of Saturday morning. If the 8th Amendment is revoked, the government says it will back the denial of the right to life for babies up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, and later in so-called exceptional circumstances. This is a familiar slippery slope.

The role of the Catholic Church has been muted during the heated 8th Amendment campaigning, largely because of the antagonism felt by the Irish towards the Church itself, stemming from not only the sex abuse crisis, but scandals having to do with Church-run mothers’ homes, women being forced to place their babies for adoption, and the case of babies found buried in mass graves at the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home in Tuam County, Galway. Many felt the Church had no moral authority left to make pronouncements on the sanctity of children’s lives. To prevent voters from voting “yes” simply to defy the Church, the Church stayed largely silent, restricting its messages to homilies from the pulpit and fliers distributed at Mass. This could have been effective, had Catholicism not experienced such a massive decline since the 1980’s. Indeed, even though 78% of Irish identify as Catholic weekly Mass attendance has dropped from nearly 90% to a mere 36%. In Dublin, which is heavily supportive of the revocation of the 8th Amendment, Mass attendance is 20-22% and some areas have Mass attendance in the single digits. In short, few are receiving the Church’s pro-life message.

As of today, overall, 44% of Irish have declared they will vote for the revocation of the 8th Amendment. 32% have stated they will vote “no,” and 17% are undecided. 7% are registered as “other,” meaning they will not vote or refused to answer. I am no statistician, but from what I figured, if the “others” are all abstaining, a full 94% of the undecideds will need to swing towards a “no” vote in order to preserve protections for women and their unborn in Ireland. Although the “yes” movement has seen some of its support wane in the last few weeks, with the “no’s” gaining slightly, will there be enough of them to overcome a 12% gap in the polls?

There is a strong media campaign pushing the “yes” vote for repealing the 8th Amendment. Google news stories on the 8th Amendment on You Tube and the prevalence of news videos are in favor of repeal. Two examples: RT’s news story entitled: “Ireland’s historic abortion referendum: What it means for people.” (Do we have to ask? It’s life…or death.) The two minute video

 showcases eight people explaining the reasoning for their votes. Six are voting “yes” and two are voting “no.” Of the yes votes, the reasons given are:

  1. to give women an option for “safe” abortions

  2. women having the “right” to do what they want with their bodies

  3. women “have rights too”

  4. women should have access to “good health care” and Ireland shouldn’t be “shipping their problems off” to England, Amersterdam, etc.

  5. a woman who has heard other women’s stories of crisis pregnancy and sympathizes with their plight

  6. every woman is an individual and should be able to do whatever she needs to do

Of the two “no” voters, both were men, and one actually thought that the 8th Amendment should be repealed, and that there should be access to some abortion, but not in this way, which will open up a bigger can of worms than the public is being led to believe. So really, 7 of the 8 were for the repeal of the 8th Amendment. Only one of the eight, the one voting no, acknowledged that despite the massive attention being given to hard cases such as fetal abnormality, a full 93% of aborted babies in England are in fact healthy babies.

My second example is a video from The Guardian entitled “Meet the people fighting to keep Ireland’s abortion ban,”  

which from its opening frame hardly makes more than a token effort to separate the notion of a right to life for all from religious zealotry. Sadly, however, we know that with Mass attendance at 36% and firm support for the 8th Amendment at 32%, that a small percentage of weekly Mass-attending Catholics are in support of denying the unborn the right to life. One man in this video, local historian Tony Brown, opines whether men should be permitted to vote on the question at all, and speaks of the ways in which he, as a child, was misled about Protestants, leading one to wonder whether perhaps the Irish have been misled on abortion all this time as well.

Supporters of abortion are portrayed as empathetic towards women, portrayed as a good mix of men and women, who are nothing but concerned about women’s health and helping those in crisis. Supporters of life are portrayed as almost all men, out of touch, curt, condemnatory nuts who won’t even identify with Ireland should the 8th be repealed. I saw one couple who could come across as a normal, realistic couple, and the one spark of hope from them was their belief that there are a lot of silent “no” voters.

Regardless of how today’s vote plays out, there is no question that Ireland, which is a changed country, and needs our prayers. The right to life from conception to natural death while part of our Catholic Faith, is part of the wider natural law which is written on the hearts of all men and can be arrived at simply through the use of reason. We are witnessing en masse the closing of humanity’s hearts to this natural law, on the premise of “compassion” and “free will,” concepts which have been taken from Christianity and have been twisted to support evil. We pray today that Ireland does not fall to the lie of abortion, and that Our Lady under her titles of Our Lady of Guadalupe and Our Lady of Knock may intercede for the people of Ireland. Finally, may Our Blessed Lord Jesus, who IS Way, Truth, and Life itself, have mercy on us!

In Jesus the Master,
Celeste Youngblood, HFI
Hear Celeste’s news program daily at the Veritas Radio Network