SSPX statement on Covid 19 Vaccine

[Christe Eleison]

WARNING regarding the images in the video. Please take the children out of the room! Watch 1st & decide for yourself what to do.

Fr Ripperger on the morality of using aborted fetal vaccines
AUGUST 22, 2018

Fr Ripperger explains the three determinants of the moral quality of our actions.

Those three are: the object, the circumstances and the intention.
Fr Ripperger explains how this relates to the moral problems of using aborted fetal vaccines.

Begin at the 11:46 mark….about 4 mins. (Other good info on the video as well!)

The 4th sermon on this series where Fr speaks on matters from birth to old age.

[abc123]

Vaccine- 90% effective
Typical immune system- over 98% against the Coronacold

Nope. You can keep your Gates funded poison.

[Christe Eleison]

Supposedly SANOFI Pasteur is producing a vaccine without aborted fetal cells.
I still do not want any of these vaccines!

"Sanofi took a turn in the right direction in 2017 by purchasing Protein Sciences whose flu vaccines are produced using caterpillar cells. Vinnedge is encouraging the public to write Sanofi Pasteur to thank them for dropping their aborted fetal polio vaccines and for their Covid-19 in development."

Vaccine- 90% effective
Typical immune system- over 98% against the Coronacold

Nope. You can keep your Gates funded poison.

I am with you, ABC123! It is pure poison!

Gates is NOT interested in our health at all... 

https://cogforlife.org/2020/06/04/sanofi-pasteur-discontinues-aborted-fetal-polio-vaccine-using-moral-cell-lines-instead/#more-18892

[mikemac]

I appreciate that the discussion here is centered around aborted fetal cells, and I do not intend to derail the discussion but to broaden it.  There are other issues of decision-making involved.  I'm speaking of the option to take or not take any vaccine, regardless of how it was derived and what it contains.

I have become utterly disillusioned by American policy-making since this catastrophe of reactionary government has been put on full display in 2020.  U.S. policy has never been this knee-jerk, and it is not justified now, but I do not understand the lack of awareness and lack of resolve among public officials and the American people who are not questioning the basis of policy.

Not every virus is automatically "a public health crisis."  If Covid is a public health crisis, then so is the flu, and so is pneumonia, and so are the non-novel coronaviruses, such as colds.  Yet (except in Massachusetts, apparently), flu vaccines are not mandatory, nor is the pneumonia vaccine.  When my doctor speaks to me about vaccinations, she never once says that I "must" get vaccinated for flu or pneumonia.  She asks me if I have been vaccinated, and now and then she will recommend that I get one of them, but she herself knows that neither disease qualifies as a public health crisis, and therefore, insisting, even as just my doctor, that I get vaccinated is not something within her jurisdiction to demand.  Even less, then, does some superficially educated "public health official" qualify as having jurisdiction over my body.  This point was brought up on cable news this week, when someone mentioned that the Left, so supposedly protective about "a woman's body being her own, and all decisions thereof" now suddenly cannot wait to take over the bodies of 331M Americans.

There is insufficient outrage everywhere against this human rights violation.  Insufficient in the Church and insufficient in secular society and insufficient among elected and appointed government officials.

End of rant.

Good rant.  I agree.  I made up my mind early on that I would refuse to take the vaccine.

Yahoo Canada has run two surveys asking whether we would accept the vaccine.  One back in May or June and the other one just two weeks ago.  Both surveys showed that 33% will refuse the vaccine.

A couple of months ago Wendy Mesley of CBC reported that there was good progress being made on developing the vaccine.  The report was published on Youtube.  The comment section was full of replies saying they will refuse the vaccine.

With more people hearing about the Great Reset and Bill Gates connection to it I think the amount of people that refuse the vaccine will grow.

Bill Gates’ falsehood: ‘I've never been involved in any sort of microchip-type thing’

[queen.saints]

No surprise after Jerome Kunkel wouldn’t get the chickenpox vaccine and he was suspended from SSPX school and attacked all over the world for it.

At least the governor stood up for him.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6826603/Kentucky-teen-refuses-chickenpox-vaccine-SUES-school.html?ico=amp-comments-addcomment#article-6826603

Kentucky teen who refuses to get the chickenpox vaccine 'because it contains aborted fetal cells' sues his school for barring him from basketball practice and classes


Jerome Kunkel is an 18-year-old senior and basketball captain at a Catholic school in Walton
He objects to vaccines because he believes they 'contain aborted fetal cells'
Experts say this theory is a major driver fueling the measles outbreak in Washington state's Russian-speaking community
Some vaccines are derived from a small sample of cells taken from two fetuses of elective abortions in the early 1960s
Pope Benedict XVI ruled that all vaccines are morally acceptable regardless of where they came from because they protect children from suffering
But many Catholics are still hesitant to vaccinate
Kunkel's stance means he is banned from completing classes and extracurricular activities at Our Lady of the Sacred Heart/Assumption Academy
The county is experiencing an outbreak affecting 32 people



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/us/kentucky-governor-chickenpox.html

Remember Chickenpox Parties? Kentucky Governor Says He Let His 9 Children Get the Virus


In the radio interview in Kentucky, Mr. Bevin, the governor, who is 52 and a Republican, suggested that the government should not be involved in regulating vaccines.

“For some people, and for some parents, for some reason they choose otherwise,” he said of those who avoid vaccinations. “This is America. The federal government should not be forcing this upon people. They just shouldn’t.”

[diaduit]

No surprise after Jerome Kunkel wouldn’t get the chickenpox vaccine and he was suspended from SSPX school and attacked all over the world for it.

At least the governor stood up for him.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6826603/Kentucky-teen-refuses-chickenpox-vaccine-SUES-school.html?ico=amp-comments-addcomment#article-6826603

Kentucky teen who refuses to get the chickenpox vaccine 'because it contains aborted fetal cells' sues his school for barring him from basketball practice and classes

Did this actually happen, I cannot believe this ....I had same shock reading the statement last night tbh


Jerome Kunkel is an 18-year-old senior and basketball captain at a Catholic school in Walton
He objects to vaccines because he believes they 'contain aborted fetal cells'
Experts say this theory is a major driver fueling the measles outbreak in Washington state's Russian-speaking community
Some vaccines are derived from a small sample of cells taken from two fetuses of elective abortions in the early 1960s
Pope Benedict XVI ruled that all vaccines are morally acceptable regardless of where they came from because they protect children from suffering
But many Catholics are still hesitant to vaccinate
Kunkel's stance means he is banned from completing classes and extracurricular activities at Our Lady of the Sacred Heart/Assumption Academy
The county is experiencing an outbreak affecting 32 people



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/us/kentucky-governor-chickenpox.html

Remember Chickenpox Parties? Kentucky Governor Says He Let His 9 Children Get the Virus


In the radio interview in Kentucky, Mr. Bevin, the governor, who is 52 and a Republican, suggested that the government should not be involved in regulating vaccines.

“For some people, and for some parents, for some reason they choose otherwise,” he said of those who avoid vaccinations. “This is America. The federal government should not be forcing this upon people. They just shouldn’t.”

[Jacob]

I think I'll go with His Excellency.

https://ktla.com/news/coronavirus/fresno-bishop-tells-catholics-not-to-get-covid-19-vaccine-citing-use-of-stem-cells-in-its-development/

[diaduit]

I think I'll go with His Excellency.

https://ktla.com/news/coronavirus/fresno-bishop-tells-catholics-not-to-get-covid-19-vaccine-citing-use-of-stem-cells-in-its-development/

Thank God   

[christulsa]

The article is right.  It is based on traditional Catholic medical ethics principals.  As in proximal vs remote participation.  The latter is permitted.  At the very least, it helps Catholic medical workers decide if they’ll take the vaccine when required.  I work in rehab therapy, so expect to be required to take it, but I want to see if there is any vaccine not derived from fetal stem cells first.  Is there?

But, imo, the article is weak.  It doesn’t address the question—is it morally better to resist taking it?  Not only since it is derived from aborted fetuses, but because those forcing it upon the public obviously have nefarious motives besides public health.  Most SSPX priests know this, if not the one who wrote this article (they may).

The SSPX pulled the plug in Tulsa after 47 years in 2017, 10 of which I belonged to and actively supported, so in hindsight, while I very much support it’s mission, and the viewpoint of ABL, the district leadership seems to have weakened in recent years.  I don’t care for their new PR-tone they take when posting statements to their website.  In fact, I miss the old website with clearly traditionalist articles on a variety of subjects. 

In the end, this article is helpful for me personally, but seems to lack the zeal of the Society’s founder. 

[Graham]

I'm following this as closely as I can, because my life is spread between Canada and the USA and it seems possible this will become a wedge to compel me to take a vaccine.

[diaduit]

The article is right.  It is based on traditional Catholic medical ethics principals.  As in proximal vs remote participation.  The latter is permitted.  At the very least, it helps Catholic medical workers decide if they’ll take the vaccine when required.  I work in rehab therapy, so expect to be required to take it, but I want to see if there is any vaccine not derived from fetal stem cells first.  Is there?

But, imo, the article is weak.  It doesn’t address the question—is it morally better to resist taking it?  Not only since it is derived from aborted fetuses, but because those forcing it upon the public obviously have nefarious motives besides public health.  Most SSPX priests know this, if not the one who wrote this article (they may).

The SSPX pulled the plug in Tulsa after 47 years in 2017, 10 of which I belonged to and actively supported, so in hindsight, while I very much support it’s mission, and the viewpoint of ABL, the district leadership seems to have weakened in recent years.  I don’t care for their new PR-tone they take when posting statements to their website.  In fact, I miss the old website with clearly traditionalist articles on a variety of subjects. 

In the end, this article is helpful for me personally, but seems to lack the zeal of the Society’s founder.

 It is based on traditional Catholic medical ethics principals - Christulsa, would you have a source for this?  My husband is also in healthcare and first in line for the vaccine according to media opinion.  He will not take it even if you do provide a source but I'm interested anyway.

[diaduit]

I'm banned off twitter at the moment (actually don't think I'll bother going back in)so I cannot share or get link but a friend sent me a copy of a tweet from SSPXEN and it says:

 We will be clarifying further in the coming days.  We ask for patience and grace as we work to be more clear.  We apologize for any angst this has caused - we did not anticipate the anger.

[Daniel]

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.

[christulsa]

The article is right.  It is based on traditional Catholic medical ethics principals.  As in proximal vs remote participation.  The latter is permitted.  At the very least, it helps Catholic medical workers decide if they’ll take the vaccine when required.  I work in rehab therapy, so expect to be required to take it, but I want to see if there is any vaccine not derived from fetal stem cells first.  Is there?

But, imo, the article is weak.  It doesn’t address the question—is it morally better to resist taking it?  Not only since it is derived from aborted fetuses, but because those forcing it upon the public obviously have nefarious motives besides public health.  Most SSPX priests know this, if not the one who wrote this article (they may).

The SSPX pulled the plug in Tulsa after 47 years in 2017, 10 of which I belonged to and actively supported, so in hindsight, while I very much support it’s mission, and the viewpoint of ABL, the district leadership seems to have weakened in recent years.  I don’t care for their new PR-tone they take when posting statements to their website.  In fact, I miss the old website with clearly traditionalist articles on a variety of subjects. 

In the end, this article is helpful for me personally, but seems to lack the zeal of the Society’s founder.

 It is based on traditional Catholic medical ethics principals - Christulsa, would you have a source for this?  My husband is also in healthcare and first in line for the vaccine according to media opinion.  He will not take it even if you do provide a source but I'm interested anyway.

The main book I used in the two Thomistic medical ethics courses I took for my MA in Thomistic Philosophy (I had been given permission by my diocese to complete the first two years of seminary philosophy online while discerning the priesthood) is Health Care Ethics by Fr. Benedict, O.P., a Thomist.  It is used in the FSSP seminary for medical ethics.  There are many natural law principles that govern the morality of very complex medical questions.  I’d imagine most Trad priests are familiar enough to help, or know another Trad priest to consult.   What does your husband do in the hospital, if I may ask?  I recall you saying once before, but forget what it was.

[diaduit]

The article is right.  It is based on traditional Catholic medical ethics principals.  As in proximal vs remote participation.  The latter is permitted.  At the very least, it helps Catholic medical workers decide if they’ll take the vaccine when required.  I work in rehab therapy, so expect to be required to take it, but I want to see if there is any vaccine not derived from fetal stem cells first.  Is there?

But, imo, the article is weak.  It doesn’t address the question—is it morally better to resist taking it?  Not only since it is derived from aborted fetuses, but because those forcing it upon the public obviously have nefarious motives besides public health.  Most SSPX priests know this, if not the one who wrote this article (they may).

He is a healthcare assistant to the elderly in a nursing home.  Job is fantastic, he loves it and is very good at it plus he does a weeks work in 3 days so he's around the family more.  Such a pity that the 'frontline' staff will be the first to be offered it.

Tks for info.

The SSPX pulled the plug in Tulsa after 47 years in 2017, 10 of which I belonged to and actively supported, so in hindsight, while I very much support it’s mission, and the viewpoint of ABL, the district leadership seems to have weakened in recent years.  I don’t care for their new PR-tone they take when posting statements to their website.  In fact, I miss the old website with clearly traditionalist articles on a variety of subjects. 

In the end, this article is helpful for me personally, but seems to lack the zeal of the Society’s founder.

 It is based on traditional Catholic medical ethics principals - Christulsa, would you have a source for this?  My husband is also in healthcare and first in line for the vaccine according to media opinion.  He will not take it even if you do provide a source but I'm interested anyway.

The main book I used in the two Thomistic medical ethics courses I took for my MA in Thomistic Philosophy (I had been given permission by my diocese to complete the first two years of seminary philosophy online while discerning the priesthood) is Health Care Ethics by Fr. Benedict, O.P., a Thomist.  It is used in the FSSP seminary for medical ethics.  There are many natural law principles that govern the morality of very complex medical questions.  I’d imagine most Trad priests are familiar enough to help, or know another Trad priest to consult.   What does your husband do in the hospital, if I may ask?  I recall you saying once before, but forget what it was.