Gloria.TV: Twelve Prominent Catholics Resist PiusX On Vaccines

JMJ

So another set of 'Prominent Catholics' has put forth their opinion on that position of the SSPX on the use of morally tainted vaccines.

There are some alarming things in the article, not because of the position of the SSPX, but because of how far from right reason and principles the authors have departed.

So ... let's get into it shall we???

Recall the information guiding all arguments and considerations that the novel COVID vaccine in many cases involves the harvesting of cell lines from aborted children(in development and/or testing). According to insider reports, even viable children are taken alive from the womb and dissected alive, without anesthesia(!). In this respect, the clarity of Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider ("cannibalism", "beginning of the apocalypse")must be considered exemplary.

The facts are simple, in the mRNA vaccines we cooperate remotely in the act of murder of two separate children. The other acts are related in that they are also murders and that the human remains may have been used somewhere in the research process. There is no (read zero) causal relation that you can track to the other murders.

Second, we are not eating human remains when immunized. The use of this language is simply an misguided attempt to elevate the murder of innocents in the womb above other murders.

Key points: The severity of the act (murder) remains that same - no matter how horrendous the method.

Fr. Sélégny's statement does not adequately portray the appalling sin of abortion, with which the production of vaccines is associated. To put it bluntly, the production and/or testing of the vaccines involves human sacrifice.

Again the authors revert to manipulative language. The sin of abortion is actually the sin of murder. There is no indication that the people aborting their babies are doing so to offer them to a diety of their choice.

Moreover, the use of the vaccines has led to so many deaths and other, often very serious, damages in the last eleven months that one must speak of human sacrifices here as well.

This "so many deaths" lacks two important bits of context. First the number of people in the states who have been listed as dying in relation to a vaccine is around 14,000 out of over 200 million vaccinated. Second, the 14,000 needs to be put in context of ~800,000 who have died from the disease.

Regarding the emotional appeal of "human sacrifices". The simplest answer is 'seriously, that's the best you got?'

The citation of Thomas v. Aquinas used by P. Sélégny, Demalo, q. XIII, a. 4, ad17, raises serious questions: Is the thought process of the Doctor universal is actually pertinent here? The sensus fidei resists that Thomas should actually be an accomplice in the present tyranny of falsehood.

If we were to follow their argument all Traditional Catholics should go back to their Novus Ordo Parishes because the vast majority of Catholic are NOT Traditional Catholic. Setting aside this obvious error in reasoning (ie gaff) on the part of the authors, they are suggesting that we should abandon centuries on application of the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas because some people don't understand or agree with it? Truly the desire to pick and chose our beliefs and principles has infected even Traditional Catholics.

The moral-theological analysis of an action traditionally includes three aspects: the object of the action, the intention, and the circumstances. According to our observation, in the vaccination issue,the consideration of the circumstances occurs much too little, even among church officials and, unfortunately, also with Fr. Sélégny.

So there is a problem with this statement (surprise). The act and intention are correct. The circumstances needs to be defined more closely otherwise we would fall into the error embedded in their next paragraph. The circumstances are, loosely, the severity of the evil act in which we are remotely cooperating (i.e. murder of an innocent), the corresponding risk to the person who performs the act of cooperation (in this case being immunized). I have been through this already elsewhere on this blog. So the risk in this case can be either by being immunized or not immunized. To this is added the recent vaccine mandates applied to various parts of the civil service. Suffice to say, there is a virus that is causing people to die. On this condition alone, you could morally be immunized. If your livelihood is threatened, say due to mandates, you can also be immunized. This is all supported by the FACT that the cooperation is remote.

The following should be taken into account ...

The authors that launch into a convoluted series on conspiracy theories. Yep, that's the only way to say it.

Quick summary:

Bill Gates and "others":

The virus outbreaks are controllable and are probably being controlled by Gates.
Gates favours population reduction ... and states that vaccination campaigns should be used for this purpose (Tradicat: Ok that is simple cow excrement. I read the speech and they are repeating another conspiracy theory ... yg)
mRNA shots only slightly reduce transmission (Tradicat: They mixed truth with fiction here. The vaccines do reduce disease severity, but yep they don't create a Viral Force Field around you)

The authors then appeal to the "discernment of spirits", meaning looking for the devil under every rock.They end with this ditty: "In view of these facts, it makes no sense to try to interpret away the evil in this matter with moral-theological sophistry." Really? Sorry my dear readers, these authors offer much in way of emotional manipulation, little in facts and lots of abandonment of Catholic principles.
They reference a "... unabridged morality, which in turn includes the absolute prohibition of ... the intrinsically bad act." It is in intrinsically evil to be immunized and the fact remains that our cooperation, IF WE DECIDE TO GET VACCINATED, remains remote.

They conclude with another emotional appeal to the memory of Archbishop Lefebvre. The classic, tsk,tsk, "What would Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre say?"

So while the authors of the critique can't imagine ++Lefebvre approving of this, I can! Why? Because the good Archbishop relied upon Catholic Principles - including St. Thomas to guide his actions in a world gone mad (ie. crazy).

So I have to conclude that the authors are yet another bit of collateral damage in this crisis of the Church. They have lost right reason by advocating the abandonment of St. Thomas and having recourse to people yelling loudly in the modern Hyde Park ... the Internet.

Maybe I should write an open letter supporting the SSPX.

P^3