Morality of taking Covid-19 vaccines

[Prayerful]

Abortion is one angle, but is there not a moral angle to being foolhardy enough to resort to this quackery and be supposedly vaccinated with something whose effect is unclear, and possible harmful?

[Jayne]

It is a fact that this cell line originates from one aborted baby who was killed around 50 years ago.

It is a fact based on Wikipedia?

You hold Wikipedia to be more reliable than vaccine researcher Pamela Acker?

Many sources, including Pamela Acker, agree that the HeK293 cell line originates from one aborted baby who was killed around 50 years ago.  Pamela Acker speculates that many more abortions were involved in the experiments leading up to this.  The researcher himself, however, denies this.

The number of abortions involved in Plotkins experiment is irrelevant to determining the number involved in developing HEK293.

[Arvinger]

The HEK 293 fetal cells used to develop the vaccines come from few abortions (or even a single one, various sources differ here) done in the 1970s. That happened decades ago - how is it possible to cooperate with something that happened in the past?

Two falsities are being widely spread.

1. That only one or a few babies were killed. Not true. Whistle blower Pamela Acker who worked in a Bill Gates funded lab is on record that 100s of elective abortions are performed for EACH cell line.

2. That the babies were killed over 50s years ago. Not true for all vaccines. More babies are being killed to produce new cell lines. Here's one example from a 2015 medical journal article in Pub Med:

"We have developed a new HDCS, Walvax-2, which we derived from the lung tissue of a 3-month-old fetus."

The article is titled: Characteristics and viral propagation properties of a new human diploid cell line, Walvax-2, and its suitability as a candidate cell substrate for vaccine production

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25803132/

The truth is that  babies continue to be killed to create new cell lines.

I had a look at the article you posted, I see nothing here about the HEK 293 cell line. We are talking here about specific vaccines - the ones developed against Covid-19. In fact, it is a 2015 article which talks about a different cell lines than HEK 293. You would need to provide documentation that the cell lines used to develop the Covid-19 vaccines specifically originate from recent abortions.

When a person places his or her perceived welfare above that of other human beings who have been killed in the past and, IF accepted by the public, will be killed in the future -- that is material cooperation with evil.

We have to define what "cooperation" is. Cooperation means assisting or faciliating something. Therefore, by definition, it is impossible to cooperate in the present with something that happened in the past. In 2021 it is impossible to cooperate with the murder of President Kennedy, because it happened in 1963 and is finished - there is no way to assist it or faciliate it in any way, shape or form. Likewise, it is impossible in 2021 to cooperate with abortion than happened in the 1970s. 

If Catholics, Protestants and other pro-lifers refuse to use a product developed or produced by violating the child's right to remain alive, that is, if we refuse to cooperate with evil, the pharmaceutical corporations will be pressured to produce alternatives based on animal cell lines. (This is occurring now.)

You can't violate dead person's right to live, since that  person is already dead. If you have documentation demonstrating that the HEK 293 cell lines are derived from abortions done on ongoing basis, please provide it - it would change the situation very much.

If people refuse to pay their taxes, they are doing nothing to help babies.

The money you pay in the taxes is being used to finance abortions right now - that is certainly a material cooperation with abortion, unlike in the case of taking Covid vaccine developed with the use of cells from the abortions which happened 50 years ago.

[TradGranny]

You can't violate dead person's right to live, since that  person is already dead.

In case you missed it, vaccine researchers report that, in order to create cell-lines, live babies are removed from their mothers' bodies alive, in some cases via cesarean section, intact in the birth sac are dissected and murdered for their fresh kidney cells within 5 minutes of birth.

[Arvinger]

You can't violate dead person's right to live, since that  person is already dead.

In case you missed it, vaccine researchers report that, in order to create cell-lines, live babies are removed from their mothers' bodies alive, in some cases via cesarean section, intact in the birth sac are dissected and murdered for their fresh kidney cells within 5 minutes of birth.

First, in that case child's rights to live is violated by abortion itself, not by developing vaccine 50 years later and taking it - that is a fundamental difference. Scientists working on the vaccine are not responsible for those past sins (unless they participated in the events in the 1970s), and they certainly do not cooperate with them (since abortion was done in the past, and it is impossible to cooperation the present with something done in the past).

Second, you are making statements about vaccines in general, without providing any documentation regarding the specific HEK 293 cell line used for Covid vaccines.

I'm afraid the debate is driven too much by emotions and not enough by theological principles and proper understanding of terms.

[diaduit]

As Catholics we are not allowed to cremate the body after death but we can use live babys slow death as a means to extract cells for vaccines.....I thought the body was the temple of the Holy Ghost and belongs to God !!

[Heinrich]

You can't violate dead person's right to live, since that  person is already dead.

In case you missed it, vaccine researchers report that, in order to create cell-lines, live babies are removed from their mothers' bodies alive, in some cases via cesarean section, intact in the birth sac are dissected and murdered for their fresh kidney cells within 5 minutes of birth.

First, in that case child's rights to live is violated by abortion itself, not by developing vaccine 50 years later and taking it - that is a fundamental difference. Scientists working on the vaccine are not responsible for those past sins (unless they participated in the events in the 1970s), and they certainly do not cooperate with them (since abortion was done in the past, and it is impossible to cooperation the present with something done in the past).

Second, you are making statements about vaccines in general, without providing any documentation regarding the specific HEK 293 cell line used for Covid vaccines.

I'm afraid the debate is driven too much by emotions and not enough by theological principles and proper understanding of terms.

Do you admit these PRC Flu(Covid) "vaccines" are possible without the aforementioned horror? Furthermore, numerous traditional priests have come out against taking this. Yet somehow some people know better and reform their own consciences. That any traditional Catholic has taken or discerning to take this demonic cocktail sadly deserves what will happen to him.

[Arvinger]

As Catholics we are not allowed to cremate the body after death but we can use live babys slow death as a means to extract cells for vaccines.....I thought the body was the temple of the Holy Ghost and belongs to God !!

Nobody raises any doubt that what happened in the 1970s was evil. The question is whether developing vaccine and taking it constitutes material cooperation with the evil that happened in the 1970s (it does not, for the reasons I mentioned), and whether it is licit to take advantage of some results of past evil - and it certainly is in some situations (many technological and scientific advances involved sin, which does not mean we have to reject them today; many states exist because of illicit wars and conquests, which does not mean we have to dissolve them today).

Do you admit these PRC Flu(Covid) "vaccines" are possible without the aforementioned horror? Furthermore, numerous traditional priests have come out against taking this. Yet somehow some people know better and reform their own consciences.

Or some people are simply unconvinced by theological arguments that are being put forward. When Bishop Schneider says that taking Covid vaccine constitutes material cooperation with abortion, he is wrong because he misuses the term "material cooperation". As I wrote on another thread, we should agree with someone because what he says is true, not becaue of who he is (the exception is Catholic Magisterium, which we know apriorically to be true).

Also, the SSPX in its official statement plainly admitted that at least for some people it is licit to take the Covid vaccine, so there does not seem to be a unanimous consent on this issue among Traditional Catholic priests, and the matter is certainly not as black-and-white as some posters here claim.

Now, I'm far from advocating taking Covid vaccine, but I do not see a reason to condemn anyone for doing so in good conscience. I am very much concerned about possible unknown long-term effects and safety of the vaccine - however, in this thread I wanted to examine solely moral principles, since the debate on this issue usually includes enormous amount of confirmation bias (on both sides) and emotion rather than sound reasoning. This is why I appreciate Jayne linking to Professor Pakaluk's article - I think he offered one of the stronger (albeit not ultimately convincing for me) arguments against the Covid vaccines, as it is not based on the flawed "material cooperation" argument. Most people seem only to see the word "abortion" and do not bother to examine the issue in terms of theological principles.

[Jayne]

Also, the SSPX in its official statement plainly admitted that at least for some people it is licit to take the Covid vaccine, so there does not seem to be a unanimous consent on this issue among Traditional Catholic priests, and the matter is certainly not as black-and-white as some posters here claim.

The Ecclesia Dei traditional groups recognize the authority of the Vatican, so presumably, at least officially, accept the Vatican position that it is licit.  And, as you say, so does the SSPX.  Since these categories include the vast majority of traditional Catholics, one could even make an argument that this is the consensus traditional position and the priests who have made statements against it are minority dissent.  At any rate, I agree that there are no grounds for claiming that there is only one position promoted by traditional Catholic priests.

I think this thread may be drifting away from the sub-forum's intended purpose of "serious, semi-scholarly discussions on theology and philosophy" now but I have greatly appreciated your contributions to it.  Thank you for starting an intriguing thread, Arvinger.

[TradGranny]

The number of abortions involved in Plotkins experiment is irrelevant to determining the number involved in developing HEK293.

I agree that the number of babies killed for their kidneys and other body parts is irrelevant. It is immoral to kill "only" one baby. Remoteness also is morally irrelevant.

However, some Catholics on this forum claim that since "it was only one baby girl" and "it was decades ago" (remoteness) the numbers somehow change an immoral act (benefiting from a baby being killed) into a moral act.

Pamela Acker explains that the number 293 means that the cell-line finally used was the 293rd attempt. Without the logs of the abortionist/"scientist" we do not know how many of his attempts involved the hysterectomy type of elective abortion, nor do we know how many babies were killed within 5 minutes of being removed alive from their mothers' wombs.

The problem involves all products derived from baby-killing (which I and other pro-lifers have long avoided.)

[TradGranny]

Scientists working on the vaccine are not responsible for those past sins

The Catholic priest and moral theologian I previously cited says otherwise. He gives the example of a stolen lawnmower. If the person knows the lawnmower was stolen, to accept and use the stolen item is immoral.

The emotion expressed on these threads comes primarily from those who have put their own well-being above the well-being of the babies whose lives are destroyed to create cell-lines. They have either already taken the injection or they are working hard to rationalize their decision to do so in the future.

[Jayne]

The number of abortions involved in Plotkins experiment is irrelevant to determining the number involved in developing HEK293.

I agree that the number of babies killed for their kidneys and other body parts is irrelevant. It is immoral to kill "only" one baby. Remoteness also is morally irrelevant.

However, some Catholics on this forum claim that since "it was only one baby girl" and "it was decades ago" (remoteness) the numbers somehow change an immoral act (benefiting from a baby being killed) into a moral act.

Pamela Acker explains that the number 293 means that the cell-line finally used was the 293rd attempt. Without the logs of the abortionist/"scientist" we do not know how many of his attempts involved the hysterectomy type of elective abortion, nor do we know how many babies were killed within 5 minutes of being removed alive from their mothers' wombs.

Each of these paragraphs is incorrect.  Remoteness of cooperation with sin is a category in Catholic moral theology that affects whether actions are morally permissible.  Remoteness is very relevant. Nobody has said the fact that the HEK293 cell line derives from one baby girl fifty years ago makes a immoral act into moral act. (Also there is no Catholic principle that it is immoral to benefit from an immoral act.)  The number 293 in HEK293 means it was the researcher's 293rd experiment since coming to Leiden University. He numbered them.  He said that only experiments  #292 and #293 used human fetal material and that it was from the same baby.  Of course, it is possible that he was lying, but Pamela Acker did not offer any real evidence that he was.  Everything she said was speculation.

We have been over these same points over and over again.   As I've said, I found the traditional Catholic arguments in favour of the vaccine being permissible the more plausible ones.  You are not adding anything new and you are not even convincing me that you understand Catholic moral theology.

[Arvinger]

The Catholic priest and moral theologian I previously cited says otherwise. He gives the example of a stolen lawnmower. If the person knows the lawnmower was stolen, to accept and use the stolen item is immoral.

Yes, but immorality lies not in the action of mowing the lawn (mowing the lawn itself is not sinful), but in failing to restitute the lawnmower to its rightful owner. Therefore, your comparison fails.

The emotion expressed on these threads comes primarily from those who have put their own well-being above the well-being of the babies whose lives are destroyed to create cell-lines.

How can you care today about a well-being of children killed 50 years ago (unless you can provide evidence - contrary to available information - that Covid vaccines were developed with the use of cells from today's ongoing abortion industry? I asked and you did not provide anything)? The only way is to pray for their souls. As I wrote before, it is impossible to materialy cooperate in the present with past deeds - nobody even attempted to refute that point in this thread. Just like in 2021 it is impossible to materially cooperate with the Holocaust or murder of President Kennedy, it is likewise impossible to cooperate with an abortion done in 1970s. Also, it is hihgly unlikely that mothers who aborted their babies did it in order to create cell lines for vaccines, which you imply.

[TradGranny]

The Remnant weighs in:

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

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

Well it didn't take long before the same guidance was back up on the website in extended form citing the moral principles of St. Alphonsus, upon which a number of scenarios are proposed for demonstration purposes.

These scenarios are perfectly sound, the problem is that a false comparison is then made with abortion-tainted vaccines leading to the flawed conclusion that in cases of grave necessity a person may licitly benefit from these vaccines based on the principle of "remote co-operation".

To give just a few examples of the scenarios presented on the website: We remotely co-operate in evil by paying taxes, which are used in part to fund abortion, or when we buy medication from a pharmacy that sells contraceptives or when we visit a doctor who prescribes the contraceptive pill.

These are all valid examples of licit remote co-operation in evil because we have no control over taxation or what pharmacies sell or what doctors prescribe to their patients. In other words, our participation is extrinsic to the evil and therefore blameless.

Paying taxes is not objectively sinful, indeed it's a duty. Likewise, visiting a doctor when we are sick and collecting our prescription from a pharmacy are not objectively sinful. The sin is with the politicians who give our tax money to fund abortion and with the doctor and pharmacist who prescribe and distribute contraceptives. So paying taxes, etc., are morally licit so long as we neither approve of nor benefit from those other evils, which are beyond our control.

This is not the case with abortion-tainted vaccines, however, where, assuming full knowledge of the manufacturing and testing process, we have free choice to reject participation in an evil action or to participate in order to benefit from it.

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/5316-flawed-sspx-advice-on-abortion-tainted-vaccines

[TradGranny]

A few weeks ago the SSPX USA District published an article on its website headed: "Is it morally permissible to use the Covid-19 vaccine?"  It was a rather short piece advising on the moral implications for Catholics weighing new and existing vaccines produced from the stem cell lines of aborted babies.

Short as it was, however, the article was read by many Traditional Catholics, myself included, as a scandalous capitulation to Modernist moral theological thought. I wrote immediately to the District Superior of the U.S., as did others, raising objection to the piece which was subsequently removed and replaced with a message that said something to the effect that the Society's moral theologians and medical experts were now reviewing the content under the supervision of SSPX superiors and would re-publish in due course.

Well, the SSPX reposted their review on December 4 and it said exactly the same as the first time around, except this time with lots of added superfluous passages to make it appear more deeply researched and authoritative.

Here are the three principal erroneous teachings expounded in both the original and revised articles:

Here are the three principal erroneous teachings expounded in both the original and revised articles:

1: "The doctor who vaccinates a patient, or the patient who is vaccinated, has only distant cooperation, for these acts only encourage and promote the sin of abortion in a very remote and very slight way. For sufficient health reasons, such acts could therefore be morally permitted."

2: "A young woman who is to get married can thus receive the rubella vaccine, although such a vaccine is almost always prepared on fetal cells obtained by abortion. The reason is the danger for the child: if a woman contracts rubella during pregnancy, especially during the first trimester, the risk of birth defects – eye, hearing or heart – are significant. These malformations are permanent."

3: "As cooperation is only distant, and the reason given is serious enough, it is possible in these cases to use such a vaccine. Moreover, it remains for each individual to judge, with the help of appropriate advice, this real need. ..It must be clearly stated that we are here in the domain of a prudent judgment, which cannot be uniform for all and in all cases. Moral theology says what is lawful or unlawful. It gives the principles. But it is for personal prudence to judge their application on a case-by-case basis."

Concerning this third erroneous proposition, it seems to me that there's a bit of sophistry being employed here similar to that used by the Francis revolutionaries who also use the 'principle Vs. prudence' argument in order to justify the admittance of divorced and remarried Catholics, cohabiting couples, etc., to Holy Communion. At any rate, I ran these past a trustworthy Traditional Catholic priest of more than 35 years and he in turn responded with the following three reasons showing why this SSPX advice is both ethically and morally wrong:

Vaccines Derived from Aborted Fetal Cells (Fetal DNA) are Immoral and Must be Rejected

(1) Reason 1: It is sinful to do evil to accomplish good (Rom. 3:. Thus, it is sinful to make use of a good effect/benefit that has been derived or procured from an evil means. Using a covid-19 vaccine derived from, or tainted with, or tested with, aborted fetal tissue (fetal DNA) would constitute using an evil means, i.e., tissue (DNA) from an aborted fetus, in order to accomplish a good end, i.e., a medical cure. Therefore, the use of vaccines derived from, or tainted with, aborted fetal tissue is immoral and forbidden.

The "double effect" cannot be invoked: According to the moral principle of "double effect," it is morally permitted, in cases of necessity, to employ an action which simultaneously produces two effects, one good and one evil, provided that: (1) only the good effect is willed, and (2) the good effect is not derived from the evil effect (for it is sinful to obtain a good end by the use of evil means). The principle of the "double effect" cannot be invoked in the use of vaccines derived from, or tainted with, or tested with, aborted fetal tissue (fetal DNA). The reason is because the good effect, i.e., medical cure, is obtained by means of the evil effect, i.e., the sin of abortion, from which the fetal tissue (DNA) was procured and used in the development and/or testing of the vaccine. Thus, the use of such vaccines is morally illicit.

[An example of a permissible action with a "double effect" would be a doctor's prescription of a strong pain medication to relieve severe pain in a cancer patient, even though the use of such medication may also have the side effect to slowly shorten the patient's life. In this case, the good effect, i.e., the present relief from severe pain, is the direct result of the pain medication, and is not derived from the evil effect, i.e., the shortening of life. Rather both good effect and bad effect are a simultaneous result of the use of the strong pain medication.]

(2) Reason 2:  Just as it is forbidden to knowingly receive and use stolen money, especially if the victim was murdered in order to steal his money (for it is unlawful to benefit from a crime), so also it is forbidden to use a vaccine which is developed with the use of fetal tissue (fetal DNA) that has been stolen from an aborted (murdered) fetus—which is already a human person. Just as the stolen money always remains the property of the victim of theft or robbery, so also the vital organ (e.g., kidney, liver, etc.) and the tissue/DNA taken from it, always remain the property of the fetus—and connected to the physical integrity of his/her body. Therefore, it is immoral and illicit to use vaccines that have been developed or tested with the use of aborted fetal DNA.

(3) Reason 3: "Organ donation": The use of covid-19 vaccines derived from aborted fetal tissue cannot be likened to the use of a donated vital organ, e.g., kidney or liver, for in the case of organ donation, the organ donor gives consent to donating his organ, i.e., he freely donates his organ. However, if an organ "donor" is murdered in order to obtain his vital organ, the use of such an organ, or tissue (DNA) from this organ, is immoral and forbidden. Consequently, since this is the method used in obtaining fetal tissue from an aborted fetus, it follows that using a vaccine derived from aborted fetal DNA is immoral and not permitted."

Now some may argue that this response is merely the opinion of one priest setting himself against eminent moral theologians of the SSPX. My answer to that is to quote the following statements of far more eminent Church prelates whose words ring true in every properly formed Catholic conscience.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider

From a Lifesitenews article, for example, which includes an interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, we have this:   

"Maybe I'm wrong, but I have the suspicion that partly this COVID situation was created not only to implement a new dictatorship and control of the population, but in some way to legalize abortion globally – the killing of unborn babies – so that the entire planet will be collaborating in the process of killing babies through the vaccine which will use parts of aborted babies. The vaccine will be imposed and obligatory – so that you cannot work, travel, go to school without it, obliging the entire population to receive the vaccine, but the only vaccine will be that made with cells from aborted babies. Perhaps they will not accept other vaccines, and they will lie, saying that these are not effective, that the only effective vaccine will be from aborted babies. I am not affirming now that this will happen, but it is my suspicion: it appears to me realistic that this could come. This is for me the last step of Satanism: that Satan and the world government – ultimately the Masonic world government – will oblige all, even the Church, to accept abortion in this way. And therefore we must resist very strongly against this, if it comes. We must even accept to be martyrs...Unfortunately, some Bishops, even good Bishops and priests, are already presenting what for me is a sophism in justifying that you can accept this vaccine from aborted babies according to moral principles."

From the same article Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas concurs thus:

Bishop Joseph Strickland

  "...if a vaccine for this virus is only attainable if we use body parts of aborted children then I will refuse the vaccine...I will not kill children to live." The bishop publicly re-issued this rejection of such vaccines: "I renew my call that we reject any vaccine that is developed using aborted children. Even if it originated decades ago it still means a child's life was ended before it was born & then their body was used as spare parts."  Source

Also, in an?open letter?published in May, several Catholic Cardinals and bishops led by former papal nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Cardinals Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Joseph Zen, and Janis Pujats said that "for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses."

Additionally, at the May 2020 Rome Life Forum Cardinal Raymond Burke said: "It must be clear that it is never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of the cell lines of aborted fetuses." He added that forced vaccines violate the
"integrity of citizens."

Cardinal Raymond Burke

These authoritative declarations conclusively show the moral theologians of the SSPX to have deviated from Traditional Catholic teaching in so grave a matter, a fact confirmed by the references they cite from more recent Vatican advice that just happens to be shared by most of the destructive Modernist hierarchy right up to Francis himself.   

And this is not an isolated incident. Recall, for example, the invitation extended to Fr. Sean Kilcawley to share the lecture podium with Bishop Fellay during the October, 2019 Angelus Conference. this Novus Ordo priest, said to be an expert on John Paul II's "Theology of the Body", is touted as a pornography addiction counsellor. Here is one example of Fr. Kilcawley's counselling, a highly controversial video statement that went viral:

"... simply invite Our Lord into our temptation and into our thoughts in the present moment. To say, "Jesus, I want to look at pornography right now." Or, "Jesus, I'm having an impure thought right now. You're welcome into my imagination. You're welcome to watch these thoughts with me."   [Ed: click here to read our discussion in response to that scandal].

Nor is it just in the sphere of morals that we have reason to question the direction of the SSPX right now, for there is also a definite lean towards embracing modern pseudo-scientific thought.

Most informed Traditional Catholics, for example, are fully aware that the Covid-19 plague narrative is a geopolitical ruse concocted by a world Socialist elite as a means of supplanting global democracy with Communist totalitarianism. Proper official science has long proven this Coronavirus to be harmless for 99.97% of the global population, a fact easily discerned from a mere cursory glance at national and global death figures, yet the SSPX raises the controversial question of vaccines for the virus as though the plague narrative were credible and the vaccine question of some urgency.

Covid-19 patient, 120 years, mother of 12, wheeled out of hospital after two weeks "with clean bill of health" to applause from NHS staff .

A similar example of drift towards pseudo-science was Fr. Paul Robinson's book "The Realist Guide to Religion and Science", a work that has nothing whatever to do with the supernatural mission of the SSPX but which nevertheless negatively impacts on the Traditional Catholic understanding of Genesis by attempting to reconcile the Scriptural account of Creation with the utterly ridiculous "Big Bang" theory.

This is all very concerning, indicative of a serious problem within the higher clerical structure of the Society of St. Pius X. Whether the issue is one of infiltration or weakening of faith, I cannot say. What I can say to all those who, like me, are decades attached to the SSPX, to the saintly memory of Archbishop Lefebvre and to the many good priests who still make up the majority in the Society, is that we must watch like hawks going forward!

Not only must we reject deviations such as the advice on vaccines, the Fr. Kilcawley experiment and the Fr. Robinson science fiction, we must also henceforth check everything the SSPX superiors propose touching on faith and morals against the Traditional teaching of the Church and we must be vigilant in particular with regard to what is being taught to children in SSPX schools.

While it grieves me very greatly to have to say this publicly, I'm afraid there is no other option given the gravity of the situation and a demonstrable track record of SSPX superiors treating the concerns of subordinates with a contemptuous silence and a "business as usual" attitude which is utterly destructive of trust.

We all know the subtlety of Modernism, how it creeps in by degrees and ends in the destruction of everything we hold dear. If Vatican II and its aftermath have taught us anything it is that silence in the face of error is fatal to faith and must therefore be stopped immediately at source. That's our task now, to react instantly like an immune system whenever the least sign of Modernist poison is detected within the SSPX. So let us be vigilant and let us not fail to raise our voices dutifully in respectful correction whenever error is taught, regardless of the dignity of the one who teaches it. Let us also pray fervently for all our priests.   (Published with kind permission of the author, Martin Blackshaw aka Catholic Truth blogger Athanasius).

https://catholictruthblog.com/2020/12/10/warning-sspx-shock-approval-for-COVID-19-vaccine-catholics-beware/