SSPX statement on Covid 19 Vaccine

[Arvinger]

QMR, who does not seem to be posting here anymore, had an interesting take on this issue, which seems convincing to me.
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=14253.0

[Non Nobis]

The article is right.  It is based on traditional Catholic medical ethics principals.  As in proximal vs remote participation.  The latter is permitted.

Scholastic principles, maybe. But I fail to see how these principles are charitable.

There's a good end and an evil means. The good end is unattainable without the evil means. Common sense says, you're out of luck. Scholastics try and provide hope (false hope?). They say that if somebody else is doing the evil works such that the good fruits are already floating around out there, then there's nothing wrong with us grabbing the fruits and enjoying them. But this is, or at least leads to, a slippery slope, and the whole thing stinks of moral laxity. From here it's not long before we admit that it's ok to enjoy the fruits even when such enjoyment incentivizes or encourages the evil works. And from there, it's not long before we must admit that a Catholic, not wanting to get his own hands dirty, is permitted to find some sucker to do the dirty work for him. Such legalism is uncharitable and positively evil.

I suppose that maybe if you stop before you hit the slippery point, it might be ok. I'm not really sure. Still, where in the Gospel are these principles to be found? Seems more like the scholastics just made it all up or, more probably, borrowed it from the ancient Greek philosophers or something. There have been cases throughout history where saints have joyously benefited from other people's evil actions, but such saints most probably did so under the inspiration of God rather than by following abstract moral principles.

The charity comes with the reason you are accepting the use of a vaccine at all - not for following abstract moral principles but for health and current life of people living now.   The difficult abstract moral principles have to do with the fact that evil deeds were done previously and that you are now making use of some effect of them, even though you didn't cause any of the past evil, and you look strenuously for alternative means and object to them being taken by others.

The SSPX article referred to reflections on the Rubella (German Measles, very dangerous to pregnant women and their unborn children) vaccine, from the Pontifical Academy for Life, in a document approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and dated June 9, 2005.https://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/vaticandocument.htm

Cardinal Ratzinger (who of course became Pope Benedict XVI) summarized:

" the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one's children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);
    such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible."

The notion of justified passive material remote cooperation with evil (combined with extreme opposition) isn't exactly easy to understand but I think reasoning over such things is important especially for a Catholic priest who helps with the reality of difficult moral decisions in a thoroughly immoral world.

I've written to my own SSPX priest about the issue. 

Coronavirus - and your own personal understanding of it - is of course a special case since its danger is exaggerated for most people.

If you are anti-vaccines (or extremely hesitant) or think the Covid vaccine is intrinsically associated with the NWO or even associated with the mark of the beast than of course you have a further issue beyond the use of cells derived decades ago from an aborted fetus.

[diaduit]

The article is right.  It is based on traditional Catholic medical ethics principals.  As in proximal vs remote participation.  The latter is permitted.

Scholastic principles, maybe. But I fail to see how these principles are charitable.

There's a good end and an evil means. The good end is unattainable without the evil means. Common sense says, you're out of luck. Scholastics try and provide hope (false hope?). They say that if somebody else is doing the evil works such that the good fruits are already floating around out there, then there's nothing wrong with us grabbing the fruits and enjoying them. But this is, or at least leads to, a slippery slope, and the whole thing stinks of moral laxity. From here it's not long before we admit that it's ok to enjoy the fruits even when such enjoyment incentivizes or encourages the evil works. And from there, it's not long before we must admit that a Catholic, not wanting to get his own hands dirty, is permitted to find some sucker to do the dirty work for him. Such legalism is uncharitable and positively evil.

I suppose that maybe if you stop before you hit the slippery point, it might be ok. I'm not really sure. Still, where in the Gospel are these principles to be found? Seems more like the scholastics just made it all up or, more probably, borrowed it from the ancient Greek philosophers or something. There have been cases throughout history where saints have joyously benefited from other people's evil actions, but such saints most probably did so under the inspiration of God rather than by following abstract moral principles.

The charity comes with the reason you are accepting the use of a vaccine at all - not for following abstract moral principles but for health and current life of people living now.   The difficult abstract moral principles have to do with the fact that evil deeds were done previously and that you are now making use of some effect of them, even though you didn't cause any of the past evil, and you look strenuously for alternative means and object to them being taken by others.

The SSPX article referred to reflections on the Rubella (German Measles, very dangerous to pregnant women and their unborn children) vaccine, from the Pontifical Academy for Life, in a document approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and dated June 9, 2005.https://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/vaticandocument.htm

Cardinal Ratzinger (who of course became Pope Benedict XVI) summarized:

" the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one's children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);
    such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible."

The notion of justified passive material remote cooperation with evil (combined with extreme opposition) isn't exactly easy to understand but I think reasoning over such things is important especially for a Catholic priest who helps with the reality of difficult moral decisions in a thoroughly immoral world.

I've written to my own SSPX priest about the issue. 

Coronavirus - and your own personal understanding of it - is of course a special case since its danger is exaggerated for most people.

If you are anti-vaccines (or extremely hesitant) or think the Covid vaccine is intrinsically associated with the NWO or even associated with the mark of the beast than of course you have a further issue beyond the use of cells derived decades ago from an aborted fetus.

I am anti vaccine and do believe it is wrapped up in the mark of the beast but all that aside the first line in the sand is that it uses aborted baby cells.  So after 50 years of Traditional Catholic defence and pointing out the errors of Vatican II and the people who brought us the modern church, we are now going to use them as a moral guidance to go by, over the vaccine?

[Arvinger]

I'm sorry, but the idea that coronavirus vaccine is mark of the beast is one of the looniest presented on this forum (and the competition in this aspect is fierce). Mark of the beast will be a complete and utter renouncing of Christ - to do so one it must make a conscious and free decision to do it. If and when the coronavirus vaccine will be distributed, people will take it to protect themselves from the virus (I leave aside the question how deadly it really is), not to renounce Christ. Unless people will be required to explicitly renounce their faith in order to get the vaccine the whole idea that it is mark of the beast is absurd. I'm not even going into the fact that various different things have been interpreted as marks of the beast (credit cards, some future microchips, etc.), all without a shred of exegesis of the Book of Revelation.

[diaduit]

I'm sorry, but the idea that coronavirus vaccine is mark of the beast is one of the looniest presented on this forum (and the competition in this aspect is fierce). Mark of the beast will be a complete and utter renouncing of Christ - to do so one it must make a conscious and free decision to do it. If and when the coronavirus vaccine will be distributed, people will take it to protect themselves from the virus (I leave aside the question how deadly it really is), not to renounce Christ. Unless people will be required to explicitly renounce their faith in order to get the vaccine the whole idea that it is mark of the beast is absurd. I'm not even going into the fact that various different things have been interpreted as marks of the beast (credit cards, some future microchips, etc.), all without a shred of exegesis of the Book of Revelation.

Without the mark of the beast you will not be able to buy or sell......oh so its absurd that Microsoft have already got patent on a cryptocurrency chip for the human body! You know Bill Gates of Microsoft has his spindly fingers all over Covid and is pushing the vaccine. Yes mark of the beast will entail a complete renouncing of Christ and how that comes about I don't know but I do believe its linked with this Covid and the vaccine.  As for your 'looney' label I'll file it under conspiracy theorist or tin foil hat wearers ...... oh and I suppose Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFk too? or is it looney to think he didn't?  Did the USA just have a massive case of election fraud or is that a mad idea too?
We'll see if your comment ages well.

[Arvinger]

I'm sorry, but the idea that coronavirus vaccine is mark of the beast is one of the looniest presented on this forum (and the competition in this aspect is fierce). Mark of the beast will be a complete and utter renouncing of Christ - to do so one it must make a conscious and free decision to do it. If and when the coronavirus vaccine will be distributed, people will take it to protect themselves from the virus (I leave aside the question how deadly it really is), not to renounce Christ. Unless people will be required to explicitly renounce their faith in order to get the vaccine the whole idea that it is mark of the beast is absurd. I'm not even going into the fact that various different things have been interpreted as marks of the beast (credit cards, some future microchips, etc.), all without a shred of exegesis of the Book of Revelation.

Without the mark of the beast you will not be able to buy or sell......oh so its absurd that Microsoft have already got patent on a cryptocurrency chip for the human body! You know Bill Gates of Microsoft has his spindly fingers all over Covid and is pushing the vaccine. Yes mark of the beast will entail a complete renouncing of Christ and how that comes about I don't know but I do believe its linked with this Covid and the vaccine.  As for your 'looney' label I'll file it under conspiracy theorist or tin foil hat wearers ...... oh and I suppose Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFk too? or is it looney to think he didn't?  Did the USA just have a massive case of election fraud or is that a mad idea too?
We'll see if your comment ages well.

First it was supposed to be credit card, then microchip, now coronavirus vaccine - and there will be probably be many more things interpreted as "mark of the beast". None of this has any exegetical basis in the Book of Revelation whatsoever. Can you demonstrate through exegesis what St. John meant to describe? Whatever it will be, it will necessary be a free and conscious rejection of Christian faith, not people scared into accepting a vaccine to protect themselves from the virus. I am worried about the vaccine, but not because it is some sort of "mark of the beast", but because it will be rushed, there will be a political pressure to get it out as soon as possible, and possible side effects might not be sufficiently investigated.

Here is the problem with conspiracy theories - yes, we live in a world where a lot of nefarious things happen behind the curtains. However, Traditional Catholics, particularly prone to this sort of thinking and lacking guidance from Church authorities (since those have apostatized), are left to their own devices and believe in some conspiracy theories which are very plausible, and others which are downright ludicurous. There is hardly any compass to guide people into what is plausible and what is not. As a result people like Alex Jones are considered a reliable source of information by some. 

An example of plausible conspiracy theory - chemical weapons attacks in Syria were false flags orchestrated in order to frame the Assad government and provoke the US military response. There is a lof of evidence indicating that the attacks were done by the rebels themselves rather than by Syrian Arab Army, and the theory makes perfect sense from the geopolitical point of view (Israelis were certainly interested in taking out Iran's close ally using the American hands, and Obama's red line for Assad gave them perfect opportunity).
https://www.rootclaim.com/claims/who-carried-out-the-chemical-attack-in-ghouta-on-august-21-2013-8394
https://www.rootclaim.com/claims/what-caused-the-chemical-calamity-in-khan-sheikhoun-on-april-4-2017-18448

An example of ludicurous conspiracy theory presented here on Suscipe Domine - in answer to the starlight problem during the discusson on Young Earth Creationism a well-known poster on this forum replied that he thinks that there is no starlight problem, because stars are "relatively close to the earth. More like hundreds or thousands of miles away, than trillions and trillions (i.e. "light years") away."

It is real problem, since someone who comes into this forum and enters the "Church/Covid vent thread" will be justified in not treating the whole thing seriously, to put it mildly (which is not do deny that world authorities do use Covid as an opportunity to take away our freedom in further).

[Jacob]

The vaccine will be the mark of the beast.

I admit, I think I'm the one who got this particular ball rolling at SD.  That post was more spur of the moment in the context of the posts before it as folks were speculating than a serious theological theory. Miriam's response of "LOL" was appropriate.  Any vaccine using aborted fetal cells is bad enough without overblowing it as the mark of the beast.

[Non Nobis]

According to this pro-life page https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/ Moderna and Pfizer do not develop or produce vaccines using aborted fetus cells, but do test with them (abortion done in the 1970s).  Some pro-life groups seem to think this is marginally acceptable (you are not being injected with them).

https://aleteia.org/2020/11/18/both-moderna-and-pfizers-coronavirus-vaccines-made-without-fetal-cells/

AstraZeneca/University of Oxford does both develop and produce using aborted fetus cells.

There are other vaccines in the works around the world.

I'm not rushing into anything.   If we had Pre-Vatican II theologians or a Pope I would look to them, but we don't. So I read things here, look into my own conscience, and consider what the SSPX and other "more acceptable"  post-Vatican II theologians have said.

I know ABC is "MSM" but it says that the Bishop of Fresno was simply mistaken in saying that Pfizer vaccine is "derived" from an aborted fetus cell:   https://abc30.com/vaccine-bishop-covid-fresno-diocese-coronavirus-fetus/8132277/   But I understand that it is objectionable that it is even used in testing.

Maybe I'll just get Covid and get "vaccinated" the natural way!

[diaduit]

I am not saying the vaccine IS the MOB but that it will contain the RFID chip that will hold all your data and monies on it and without this RFID chip you cannot buy or sell or take part in society which is mentioned in the Bible.  Covid/vaccine maybe ,the roadmap to the MOB where the rejection of Christ comes I don't know and yes this is all speculation or theory.

Anyway I'll not continue this line of discussion because this is about whether its morally acceptable to take the vaccine if it uses aborted baby cells either in research or production.  I think absolutely not and if one takes this vaccine then you are directly responsible for monies exchanged for this service and only rising the profits of these psychopaths. 

[Non Nobis]

https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/can-catholic-good-conscience-receive-coronavirus-vaccine-62007?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tweepsmap-SSPX.org

The SSPX replaced ("updated") the article at that same link to this:

Updated November 24, 2020:

The United States District of the Society of Saint Pius X has recently convened a panel of priests, moral theologians, and medical experts to further study this issue, under the guidance of the General House in Menzingen.

I'm sure they saw many comments on Facebook and Twitter SSPXEN, and maybe on SD, and from SSPX faithful, that objected to the original article.

The Catholic Church used to have Popes, theologians, and scholars who studied these sort of practical issues in a immoral world things and Benedict XVI/formerly Cardinal Ratzinger was the one the SSPX was looking to when they (or one priest) wrote the original article.  So if you are going to totally condemn the SSPX's original article you must totally condemn Ratzinger/Benedict in what he wrote too, as he had the same opinion about a different vaccine.   Maybe that would be the right thing to do.  Maybe further study will guide the SSPX to the right choice.

Pray for the SSPX.

[Philip G.]

Bishop Williamson talks about the vaccine and if it is a sin to take it.  Start listening at minute 21 until minute 27.



What do you think of his comments?  I think it is worth listening to, despite its shortcomings.  His comment about infertility is definitely important.

I think it is interesting and ironic that his reasoning for why one might take it boils down to "work"/Travel"/"to feed your family".  Which, I see as one of the two poles of this particular type of "medicine".  On the one end of this type of medicine you have the digestion of food.  On the other end of what is commonly referred to as this type medicine, you have vaccination.  In sum, he is saying we may have to take man's "medicine"(vaccination) in order to take God's "Medicine"(food).  This is flawed reasoning.

Looking at the big picture, on the side of good, you have the digestion of food and the monitoring of ones pulse/heartbeat.  On the side of evil, you the rectal temperature check and vaccination.  Am I right?  Or, am I right?  Its no wonder the temperature gun is shaped like a finger and a thumb.  "There is nothing new under the sun".

What order/manifestation they come in I am not sure, but forced vaccination, the alien probe, and sodomy all have something to do with each other.  And, none are acceptable to God.  What does that say about voluntary vaccination? 

It has been called by a prominent doctor/nutritionist "Faith based medicine".  I simply expand on it.  And, I could go on.  But, this is sufficient. 

[Miriam_M]

Similarly, I posted this elsewhere but since it's being talked about on this thread, here it is:
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=24837.0

It's Fr. Ripperger's analysis of the same subject: the morality/immorality. 

I have maintained all along that unless a disease were to be so deadly as to be equivalent to the bubonic plague, there is no justification for mass mandatory vaccination "to protect public health."  He says the same, but also brings up what posters on this page have about fetal cells, etc.  It's systematic but completely understandable and I'm sure not over anyone's head.

[Miriam_M]

It has been called by a prominent doctor/nutritionist "Faith based medicine." 

That's exactly what it is.  (I think I heard that also from someone in medicine.)

Hysteria has corrupted medicine in this country, overall in 2020, and i find it really troubling, because when the practice of medicine ceases to be a scientific and rational endeavor, the country will have no reliable reference points.  One thing I remember so vividly about trips to the doctor when growing up was how calm and emotionally solid physicians were. This was true also in my early adulthood.  Doctors took the mean, never the extreme. They always reserved judgment before they had reliable facts, and when they made guesses, those were always conservative guesses, leaning toward optimism.

Instead, we now have cult behavior: masks --which has sprung an entire industry, by the way, rituals, and categories of virtue over "pandemic" behavior.  And all of that based on contradictory assertions within the healthcare industry over the efficacy of any of the cult behavior. 

[Reader]

It has been called by a prominent doctor/nutritionist "Faith based medicine." 

Hysteria has corrupted medicine in this country, overall in 2020, and i find it really troubling, because when the practice of medicine ceases to be a scientific and rational endeavor, the country will have no reliable reference points.

I'm not sure exactly when the practice of medicine started coming off the rails, but when the APA removed homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, it had to be a key moment when true medicine/science was pushed aside by the politically connected.

[diaduit]

It has been called by a prominent doctor/nutritionist "Faith based medicine." 

Hysteria has corrupted medicine in this country, overall in 2020, and i find it really troubling, because when the practice of medicine ceases to be a scientific and rational endeavor, the country will have no reliable reference points.

I'm not sure exactly when the practice of medicine started coming off the rails, but when the APA removed homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, it had to be a key moment when true medicine/science was pushed aside by the politically connected.

I work one day a week in a Health food shop (sells supplements too).  One day during the summer my own GP receptionist came in wearing her mask and was asking for something yadda yadda yadda.  While chatting to her (I'm maskless of course) another locum Dr arrived in and they both knew each other.  Conversation struck up between them and not including me (small premises btw).  This conversation went like : R - Oh Richard how are you after such a terrible summer, Dr - We're ok thankfully R, it was very troubling wasn't it? R- yes, what is the second wave going to be like , Dr- well I don't know but lets hope for the best .........this went on for a while and I was dumbstruck that they actually believed they were heroes on the frontline through a pandemic.....these people who saw first hand that there was no masses of their patients dying, the surgeries were dead quiet, knew ICU beds were not full....they know but they actually believed the propaganda.