Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on August 27, 2021, 05:13:49 PM
-
Dear Faithful,
With growing pressure from employers requiring employees to get the vaccine, please see the email below and attached exemption letter which Fr. Paul Robinson sent to his faithful in Colorado, forwarded to you with his permission.
I will speak on the moral question surrounding the vaccine further on Sunday.
It is important to understand that a religious exemption letter is not something granted by your pastor, but rather something that an individual claims for himself.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, concerns, or are in need of assistance in this matter.
In Christ,
Fr Michael Brown
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AM+DG
Dear faithful,
Recently, both the state of Colorado and the city of Denver have made it mandatory for their employees to give proof of vaccination or provide a religious exemption letter by some time in September. Some of you have contacted me, asking if I could issue such a letter.
Firstly, I would like to mention that the SSPX does not consider it morally wrong to take a vaccine derived from fetal cell lines, if there are no other options available. Doing so, it follows the June, 2005, docuмent of the Pontifical Academy of Life, which enunciated the following principles:
For an explanation of the moral permissibility of taking a covid vaccine, see [color=var(--interaction-norm)]sspx.org/en/news-event... (https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Femail-mg.flocknote.com%2Fc%2FeJwtjkFuwyAURE9j70DwgWAWLKI2vQeB7wYVgwXETW5fGkUazbxZzQSruQAt52iBAWcLkwwGScopiNOHvnyCYpoZo5ZJsjUV_5NLR-rLNt8syoDGM6OC4xhW7Y0EziEI5cSqlnVO9tb73iZxnuBrqLX9QUv9Hoh5WMbfRvDA3Nu7jYidbKW6lJ5kx7rF1uI1Ibk3JL4cMRBuyOG8jxnJCcCwudqd1nKNuZX8f_M1g5uL6Q9k90Xh&data=04%7C01%7Cm.brown%40fsspx.email%7C8075cb7f30f847ebb0cd08d967fc9995%7C5f4af3ad8646414b83d8ef95a0f39e42%7C0%7C0%7C637655156861217570%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=wJwb4xm%2BRJ46g29QQu6d4FFV1ReyKhKdfyz9tAQ1pWc%3D&reserved=0)[/url] [/font][/size]
Secondly, I have contacted the District House on the question of issuing religious exemption letters. They said that there is no need for a priest to issue such a letter, but that a letter that you yourself draw up is legally sufficient, if you mention that it is your sincerely held religious belief that taking the vaccine would be immoral and against your conscience.
I have attached to this Flocknote a religious exemption letter that a Catholic may use, which I obtained from here: [color=var(--interaction-norm)]ncbcenter.org/ncbc-new... (https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Femail-mg.flocknote.com%2Fc%2FeJwVjUsOwyAQQ08TdkUwGQIsWFT93CMQ0qImEAEqPX6J5MWzLcuLkXwEiSQYYMCZYsigE1JOYZxu8nEHwSTTWqgB2bol94mpeurSTt7GStfHCtE6gVwLgQvoaZ0tMiG5smQz71qPMozXAZ5drTUanXU-Vp9pyq-enf4SfSudv7NzIfrN196TbA6akw2xpHi-l3L8qN_nsP0BEL83rA&data=04%7C01%7Cm.brown%40fsspx.email%7C8075cb7f30f847ebb0cd08d967fc9995%7C5f4af3ad8646414b83d8ef95a0f39e42%7C0%7C0%7C637655156861227526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=owN24ytUAoQPtoSaeFuep%2FBw0UllU0r%2FQ43VLujUIGw%3D&reserved=0)[/url][/color]
Please note that those who are mandating the vaccine may not be legally authorized to do so. See [color=var(--interaction-norm)]yournews.com/2021/05/2... (https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Femail-mg.flocknote.com%2Fc%2FeJwdTktuxSAMPE2yA_FLIAsWVft6D0PcJmoCEaZ67e3rVLJmxrJn7DV6bY134x6NMloF5ZRh5aSWxs6v_vFmJuXVskxhcOrjqPmr1I4y13PcYjLe2mQTBgjJ52BmgEXbeQYdnPE4HnHr_aLBvgzmneu3freCT7r93N43mdR0a_0PVk3Bs2o1YesiAe-ToA0aE4gTieATRd-gi1xLRp6vAk5se4ZCgkEQlpUjxhYvyTl7oVru74muH4kn7McfaqBLHg&data=04%7C01%7Cm.brown%40fsspx.email%7C8075cb7f30f847ebb0cd08d967fc9995%7C5f4af3ad8646414b83d8ef95a0f39e42%7C0%7C0%7C637655156861227526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DJBS8EOSSqIE7M9vSwb1ZMqUc5OF8h0n%2BG7lI%2FQbKVU%3D&reserved=0)[/url][/color]
Lastly, I am not a doctor, and so I am not in a position to speak on the possible health side effects of taking the vaccine. However, I did speak tonight with a traditional Catholic doctor here in Colorado. I wanted to ask him whether he believes that the covid-19 vaccines might have possible side effects. He says that he has serious concerns about the vaccines, because of their experimental nature and various reports of people being injured by them. He mentioned that he can understand the elderly wanting to get the vaccine to protect themselves from a disease that can be quite damaging for them, but that he advises those who are younger not to get the vaccine.
I find it unfortunate that such pressure is being put on Americans to take a drug, a vaccine, even if they have concerns about its possible side effects. Several have mentioned to me how difficult it is for them to choose between keeping their job and getting the injection.
My hope is that this Flocknote will provide you with some options in the face of this pressure.
God bless you,
Fr. Robinson
[/font][/size][/color][/font][/size][/color]
-
This more or less says you don’t need an exemption, but if you erroneously THINK you do, you can use this exemption letter (which acknowledges the SSPX /Vatican position that abortion tainted “vaccines” can be used if it is advantageous to you: The ends justify the means).
-
The Letter:
________________________
[Date]
To Whom It May Concern,
___________________________________________________ is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including __________________________________________________, to decline certain vaccines.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her informed conscience comes to this sure judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of any vaccine, and generally encourages the use of safe and effective vaccines as a way of safeguarding personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious basis on which a Catholic may determine that he or she ought to refuse certain vaccines:
1
• Vaccination is not morally obligatory in principle and so must be voluntary.
• There is a general moral duty to refuse the use of medical products, including certain vaccines, that are produced using human cells lines derived from direct abortions. It is permissible to use such vaccines only
2
• A person’s informed judgments about the proportionality of medical interventions are to be respected
under certain case-specific conditions, based on a judgment of conscience.
3
• A person is morally required to obey his or her sure conscience, even if it errs.
unless they contradict authoritative Catholic moral teachings.
A Catholic may judge it wrong to receive certain vaccines for a variety of reasons consistent with these teachings, and there is no authoritative Church teaching universally obliging Catholics to receive any vaccine. An individual Catholic may invoke Church teaching to refuse a vaccine developed or produced using abortion-derived cell lines. More generally, a Catholic might refuse a vaccine based on the Church’s teachings concerning therapeutic proportionality. Therapeutic proportionality is an assessment of whether the benefits of a medical intervention outweigh the undesirable side-effects and burdens considering the integral good of the person, including spiritual,
5
At the core of the Church’s teaching are the first and last points listed above: vaccination is not a universal obligation, and a person must obey the judgment of his or her own informed and certain conscience. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church instructs that following one’s conscience is following Christ Himself:
In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law: “Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who,
psychological, and bodily goods.
entail spiritual and moral dimensions and are not reducible to public health. The judgment of therapeutic proportionality must be made by the person who is the potential recipient of the intervention in the concrete circuмstances,6 not by public health authorities or by other individuals who might judge differently in their own situations.
It can also extend to the good of others and the common good, which likewise
4
both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.”7
Therefore, if a Catholic comes to an informed and sure judgment in conscience that he or she should not receive a vaccine, then the Catholic Church requires that the person follow this certain judgment of conscience and refuse the vaccine. The Catechism is clear: “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. ‘He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.’”8
Sincerely,
1 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), “Note on the Morality of Using Some Anti-COVID-19 Vaccines,” December 17, 2020, n. 5: “At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.”
2 See Pontifical Academy for Life, “Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses,” June 9, 2005; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas personae, 2008, nn. 34-35; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Note on the Morality of Using Some Anti-COVID-19 Vaccines,” nn. 1-3. When there is a sufficiently serious reason to use the product and there is no reasonable alternative available, the Catholic Church teaches that it may be permissible to use the immorally sourced product under protest. In any case, whether the product is used or not, the Catholic Church teaches that all must make their disagreement known and request the development of equal or better products using biological material that does not come from abortions.
3 See United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 6th ed. (Washington, DC: USCCB Publishing, 2018), n. 28. Hereafter “ERDs.”
4 “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993), www.vatican.va, n. 1790. Hereafter “CCC.”
5 See ERDs, nn. 32-33; nn. 56-57; Part Three, Introduction, para. 2; Part Five, Introduction, para. 3.
6 See ERDs, nn. 56-57. Both of these directives state that the proportionality of medical interventions is established “in the patient’s judgment.”
7 CCC, n. 1777, citing John Henry Cardinal Newman, "Letter to the Duke of Norfolk," V, in Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching II (London: Longmans Green, 1885), 248.
8 CCC, n. 1782, citing Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis humanae, December 7, 1965, n. 3.
NOTES
-
Wow. Where does one START with this note?
-
One is better off getting a letter from a conservative protestant pastor.
-
Compare the above letter (used by, but not FROM, mind you!) to this one from the local indult diocesan priest:
1) It says it comes from him as my pastor (ie., it’s not from me and my “mistaken conscience,” but from an authority of the Catholic Church), even though he isn’t my pastor; he has cojones;
2) It deliberately avoids that which the SSPX-recommended letter carefully stipulates: No mention of abortion tainted vaccines being acceptable in certain circuмstances.
Let me ask you all something:
Which is more helpful? A letter coming not from the Church, and which makes your resistance mistaken and meaningless (on the moral objection), or the second one?
I don’t even think I could use the one circulating in the SSPX anyway, since it deliberately assents to a point which I consider debatable at best, and which is contradicted not only by Vigano and the best of the conciliarists, but by many SSPX priests themselves.
-
Compare the above letter (used by, but not FROM, mind you!) to this one from the local indult diocesan priest:
1) It says it comes from him as my pastor (ie., it’s not from me and my “mistaken conscience,” but from an authority of the Catholic Church), even though he isn’t my pastor; he has cojones;
2) It deliberately avoids that which the SSPX-recommended letter carefully stipulates: No mention of abortion tainted vaccines being acceptable in certain circuмstances.
Let me ask you all something:
Which is more helpful? A letter coming not from the Church, and which makes your resistance mistaken and meaningless (on the moral objection), or the second one?
I don’t even think I could use the one circulating in the SSPX anyway, since it deliberately assents to a point which I consider debatable at best, and which is contradicted not only by Vigano and the best of the conciliarists, but by many SSPX priests themselves.
August 11, 2021
To Whom It May Concern:
Holy Trinity Parish 749 6th Avenue South South St. Paul, MN 55075
As Pastor I can attest that Sean Johnson has a deeply held religious conviction against receiving any of the currently available Covid vaccinations. I can further attest that this religious conviction is in full accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church, most especially in light of the connections of these Covid vaccines, directly or indirectly, to abortion and for other religious reasons as well.
Furthermore, in the realm of medical procedures and vaccinations, the Catholic Church affirms that each individual has a right to make personal decisions in these matters, weighing out whatever risks are involved related to any good achieved.
Finally, the Catholic Church teaches that individual conscience is supreme in these matters and must be followed. In light of this, I pray that you will grant Sean Johnson a religious exemption from any Covid vaccine that may be mandated.
If I may be of further assistance, please contact me at jechert@holytrinityssp.org Thank you.
Rev. John Paul Echert Pastor, Holy Trinity Parish 651 455 1302
-
All the αnσnymσus posts above are mine (except the Prot pastor one); forgot to check the box.
-
Wow. Where does one START with this note?
Yup
-
Wow. What spinelessness....
-
Wow. What spinelessness....
Compared to the diocesan priest, who announced to his 700 person TLM parish from the pulpit last Sunday that he’ll give this exemption letter to any Catholic requesting it (and his secretary simply asks for your name and email, and five minutes later you have the letter).
Not sure it would convince any employers outside the Minneapolis/St. Paul area though.
-
Compared to the diocesan priest, who announced to his 700 person TLM parish from the pulpit last Sunday that he’ll give this exemption letter to any Catholic requesting it (and his secretary simply asks for your name and email, and five minutes later you have the letter).
Not sure it would convince any employers outside the Minneapolis/St. Paul area though.
That is a real priest. Thanks be to God.
-
• Vaccination is not morally obligatory in principle and so must be voluntary.
• A person’s informed judgments about the proportionality of medical interventions are to be respected under certain case-specific conditions, based on a judgment of conscience.
At the core of the Church’s teaching are the first and last points listed above: vaccination is not a universal obligation, and a person must obey the judgment of his or her own informed and certain conscience.
I believe all arguments of this nature are an enormous and catastrophic error. The reason you need to give is: I will be sinning by receiving this drug because ... not You people are sinning in trying to force me to take this drug. The people you are addressing the exemption letter to don't give one tiny flash in hell whether you think they are doing anything wrong.
.
Moreover, the argument that I get to choose what goes into my body, not you, is just as bad, if not worse. Or the slightly less disastrous version: I would be violating my conscience if I put something into my body that I sincerely think, for reasons you would disagree with, that I should not put into my body. The obvious response to that is, "Well, you can choose whether you inject yourself or not, but that's not a conscientious objection. You can easily choose to inject yourself without violating your code of belief." So if you make that argument, I think you have painted yourself into a corner.
.
I am concerned and frustrated at seeing these types of arguments made in many of the exemption letters I am seeing. I have no idea whether they will work or not, but I would never make such a statement in an exemption letter. The only statement that I think will work is to claim you will go to some place of supernatural punishment after death, or offend some supernatural entity, by receiving the drug.
-
I wish the religious exemption applied to households. My mother wants me to get vaccinated. She is a Catholic and believes the MSM.
-
Well, the CMRI is far more consistent on this issue.
[color=var(--ytd-video-primary-info-renderer-title-color, var(--yt-spec-text-primary))]Father Gabriel Lavery's testimony for HB 248 "Vaccine Choice and Anti-Discrimination Act"[/color]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwD-VtZnxKs
-
Well, the CMRI is far more consistent on this issue.
[color=var(--ytd-video-primary-info-renderer-title-color, var(--yt-spec-text-primary))]Father Gabriel Lavery's testimony for HB 248 "Vaccine Choice and Anti-Discrimination Act"[/color]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwD-VtZnxKs
No doubt. The CMRI and other Sedes have been much more consistent and logical on these issues. The neo-SSPX have twisted themselves into pretzels trying to please their new Novus ordo parishioners.
-
“Firstly, I would like to mention that the SSPX does not consider it morally wrong to take a vaccine derived from fetal cell lines, if there are no other options available. Doing so, it follows the June, 2005, docuмent of the Pontifical Academy of Life, which enunciated the following principles“. That is a huge red flag
-
“Firstly, I would like to mention that the SSPX does not consider it morally wrong to take a vaccine derived from fetal cell lines, if there are no other options available. Doing so, it follows the June, 2005, docuмent of the Pontifical Academy of Life, which enunciated the following principles“. That is a huge red flag
It is morally wrong.
-
“Firstly, I would like to mention that the SSPX does not consider it morally wrong to take a vaccine derived from fetal cell lines, if there are no other options available. Doing so, it follows the June, 2005, docuмent of the Pontifical Academy of Life, which enunciated the following principles“. That is a huge red flag
Indeed!
We're supposed to be TRADITIONAL Catholics. Trads, from the very beginning, don't pay attention to ANYTHING the Modernists in Rome do. We don't bend over backwards to prove our "Catholicity" by accepting "the good stuff" from this or that bishop, cardinal, or pontifical commission. We ignore the Newchurch completely, waiting for the Restoration. At the very least, we don't quote post-Vatican II docuмents! At least that's what I've seen in all quarters of Tradition from the very beginning.
Only NON-TRADS concern themselves with post-Vatican II docuмents.
Apparently the SSPX is becoming non-Trad.
-
These are the hirelings mentioned by Our Lord who abandon their flock at the least sign of impending trouble. As the wolves converge around the sheep, they hightail it out of their to save themselves.
-
Well, the CMRI is far more consistent on this issue.
[color=var(--ytd-video-primary-info-renderer-title-color, var(--yt-spec-text-primary))]Father Gabriel Lavery's testimony for HB 248 "Vaccine Choice and Anti-Discrimination Act"[/color]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwD-VtZnxKs
While I appreciate Father’s efforts, I think he did a poor job of answering that first interlocutor’s question. Lost opportunity.
Answer. “Let me answer your question with a question. Does a business have a right to fire Black employees if they decide that their race is not in keeping with their ‘mission’? Businesses have rights but the dividing line that you seek is that they cannot trump the INALIENABLE rights of an individual that come directly from God. These are called inalienable because they cannot be taken away by the state or by businesses. Does a person have an inalienable right over what goes into their bodies. [Then make the distinction that a fetus is not the woman’s body ... lest people go there with that reasoning].”
I live in Ohio, so, shucks, Father, you let an opportunity slip away to persuade the Ohio Senate.
Also, he was called to speak about the moral issues and did not so much as MENTION the moral tainting of the jabs by abortion. That to me is a huge scandal that he doesn’t see fit to even mention it.
Very disappointed in the CMRI here ... as I have been with them regarding a number of issues. Has CMRI bought into the whole remote material participation ruse?
-
+Schneider with an interesting contrary opinion, based on the distinction between the abortion (which he acknowledges is remote material cooperation), and the fetal cell industry (of which he says those who take the jab are in direct cooperation).
This is the first time I have seen this distinction:
“LSN: You have spoken out strongly against the use of fetal cells obtained through abortion for the development, production, and testing of COVID vaccines. As we all know, many experts in moral theology have explained that for the individual who would use these vaccines, this would be a mere remote cooperation with evil, and that, in view of the issues at stake, we can accept this injection. You have already addressed these questions in substance many times; you have explained your thoughts and opinions. I would like to ask you today if you do not think that these leaders are depriving Catholics of the support of the Church with regard to their right – not to say their duty – of conscientious objection, which can even extend to refusal?
Bp. Schn.: This is evident because … the church authority says okay, you can take this vaccination because there is a moral theory which says this is a remote material cooperation. They tranquillize and calm consciences with this; by this they are substantially weakening any resistance which we must oppose.
We have to resist and protest against the horrible phenomenon in our society which is the so-called “fetal industry.” We must distinguish between two different industries that are of course intimately connected: the abortion industry itself which is horrible, and the other: the so-called fetal industry, the use of tissues of aborted babies and the marketing of the body parts of the aborted babies. Here they are being used for research or for the production of several medicines including vaccines. So the vaccines which were produced by using these cell lines, or tested on them, are a de facto part of the so-called fetal industry. This fetal industry needs to be distinguished from the abortion industry even if they are connected; but the fetal industry is closer to us, so when you are using the product, the vaccine is a direct product of the fetal industry. So we are no longer remote to this fetal industry, and it is a very grave immorality to participate with full knowledge and full freedom in this horrible phenomenon of our society. For a Catholic, the fetal industry is immoral and very grave because we are de facto collaborating with it, and especially committing a great sin of omission, in failing to protest clearly and strongly, at least against the use of cell lines in the fetal industry and in vaccination.
Therefore, it is a great irresponsibility of the Church, even of the Vatican and of theologians who tranquilize and calm the conscience of the people, and who in this way are paralyzing the resistance. This is serious.
I have to add another phenomenon. I recently spoke with a woman who has converted deeply to God. In her past life, she committed abortions, and after converting to God she recognized all the horrors of abortion. I spoke with her about abortion-tainted vaccinations, and she said to me that she could better understand this horrible situation of abortion-tainted products and medicines than I, or than any woman who has never experienced an abortion. She told me: “I can say that all that is connected to abortion in medicines and in their production is so horrible for me because I was so deeply wounded by the fact of abortion.” She told me she can never accept any medicine or product or vaccination which is linked in some way to the … assassination of a child.
LSN: I meet many people now who, for various reasons, are absolutely opposed to the vaccine, but who risk losing their jobs, their families’ livelihoods, if they do not take it. They say: my duties of state are to ensure the survival of my family, and I cannot do otherwise than to receive this vaccine, even if I am totally opposed to it. Added to this is the fact that many medicines and other vaccines that everyone in France has received are already affected by this. What would you tell them?
Bp. Schn.: For other vaccines and medicines that are contaminated with abortion, we have to have the proof: the pharmaceutical companies have to give the proof that this medicine was tainted or tested. As to the currently famous anti-COVID vaccines such as pfιzєr, mσdernα, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, [and] Sputnik, the pharmaceutical industry has acknowledged this. For other medicines we have as yet no public acknowledgment, so we can use them because we have no proofs. But we should ask this about every medicine. From the moment I receive from the pharmaceutical company the proof that a medicine is tainted with abortion, I have the obligation not to use it and to use another medicine. We must choose good companies and doctors who can provide us with an alternative medicine that is not tainted with abortion, or at least a natural medicine that God gave us – and maybe this will be more helpful for us.
The second point is more difficult, involving people who know they will lose their job – especially parents who have to provide for their families. This is, of course, a very difficult question. But at least they should do all that is possible to avoid receiving such a vaccine. They can make a conscientious objection; perhaps they can even obtain a docuмent from their doctor who will say that for a medical reason this person cannot receive a vaccination – because there is some allergy, for example. In such a case, they have to try to find all the possible means to avoid this, or even change jobs, even if this will leave them poorer. They have to choose this and not a vaccine because of this close support of the fetal industry – not of the abortionists but of the fetal industry.
I think that God will reward these people with many spiritual gifts if they choose to live a poorer life rather than to co-operate with the fetal industry. Surely they will not die from starvation, God will never permit it! This was our experience in communist times. My parents did not collaborate with the Communist Party, for example; therefore, my parents could not have a profession, this was not allowed. And so they were simple workers, they had a low salary, and we lived in a really simple way. But God did not abandon us; we were happy in our faith and this gave us riches for all our life – even when the others who had accepted the conditions of the Communist Party had better living conditions than we did, and than other people, Christians, for example. And so I think we have to give again the primacy to the eternal life which we have so largely forgotten in recent decades. Even in the Church, even the good Catholics, we were invaded by a kind of materialism because we were so very attached to the material life and giving it primacy over the eternal and the spiritual.
So this is a principle: I would say change work, and even if I have to do a simple job like cleaning the streets, I will still have some means to sustain my family, but in a poorer way. This is a decision of conscience, I think, but God will reward these people, of course, and it will be a sign of protest, and a witness that we are not collaborating with the horrible fetal industry.”
-
+Schneider with an interesting contrary opinion, based on the distinction between the abortion (which he acknowledges is remote material cooperation), and the fetal cell industry (of which he says those who take the jab are in direct cooperation).
This is the first time I have seen this distinction:
“LSN: You have spoken out strongly against the use of fetal cells obtained through abortion for the development, production, and testing of COVID vaccines. As we all know, many experts in moral theology have explained that for the individual who would use these vaccines, this would be a mere remote cooperation with evil, and that, in view of the issues at stake, we can accept this injection. You have already addressed these questions in substance many times; you have explained your thoughts and opinions. I would like to ask you today if you do not think that these leaders are depriving Catholics of the support of the Church with regard to their right – not to say their duty – of conscientious objection, which can even extend to refusal?
Bp. Schn.: This is evident because … the church authority says okay, you can take this vaccination because there is a moral theory which says this is a remote material cooperation. They tranquillize and calm consciences with this; by this they are substantially weakening any resistance which we must oppose.
We have to resist and protest against the horrible phenomenon in our society which is the so-called “fetal industry.” We must distinguish between two different industries that are of course intimately connected: the abortion industry itself which is horrible, and the other: the so-called fetal industry, the use of tissues of aborted babies and the marketing of the body parts of the aborted babies. Here they are being used for research or for the production of several medicines including vaccines. So the vaccines which were produced by using these cell lines, or tested on them, are a de facto part of the so-called fetal industry. This fetal industry needs to be distinguished from the abortion industry even if they are connected; but the fetal industry is closer to us, so when you are using the product, the vaccine is a direct product of the fetal industry. So we are no longer remote to this fetal industry, and it is a very grave immorality to participate with full knowledge and full freedom in this horrible phenomenon of our society. For a Catholic, the fetal industry is immoral and very grave because we are de facto collaborating with it, and especially committing a great sin of omission, in failing to protest clearly and strongly, at least against the use of cell lines in the fetal industry and in vaccination.
Therefore, it is a great irresponsibility of the Church, even of the Vatican and of theologians who tranquilize and calm the conscience of the people, and who in this way are paralyzing the resistance. This is serious.
I have to add another phenomenon. I recently spoke with a woman who has converted deeply to God. In her past life, she committed abortions, and after converting to God she recognized all the horrors of abortion. I spoke with her about abortion-tainted vaccinations, and she said to me that she could better understand this horrible situation of abortion-tainted products and medicines than I, or than any woman who has never experienced an abortion. She told me: “I can say that all that is connected to abortion in medicines and in their production is so horrible for me because I was so deeply wounded by the fact of abortion.” She told me she can never accept any medicine or product or vaccination which is linked in some way to the … assassination of a child.
LSN: I meet many people now who, for various reasons, are absolutely opposed to the vaccine, but who risk losing their jobs, their families’ livelihoods, if they do not take it. They say: my duties of state are to ensure the survival of my family, and I cannot do otherwise than to receive this vaccine, even if I am totally opposed to it. Added to this is the fact that many medicines and other vaccines that everyone in France has received are already affected by this. What would you tell them?
Bp. Schn.: For other vaccines and medicines that are contaminated with abortion, we have to have the proof: the pharmaceutical companies have to give the proof that this medicine was tainted or tested. As to the currently famous anti-COVID vaccines such as pfιzєr, mσdernα, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, [and] Sputnik, the pharmaceutical industry has acknowledged this. For other medicines we have as yet no public acknowledgment, so we can use them because we have no proofs. But we should ask this about every medicine. From the moment I receive from the pharmaceutical company the proof that a medicine is tainted with abortion, I have the obligation not to use it and to use another medicine. We must choose good companies and doctors who can provide us with an alternative medicine that is not tainted with abortion, or at least a natural medicine that God gave us – and maybe this will be more helpful for us.
The second point is more difficult, involving people who know they will lose their job – especially parents who have to provide for their families. This is, of course, a very difficult question. But at least they should do all that is possible to avoid receiving such a vaccine. They can make a conscientious objection; perhaps they can even obtain a docuмent from their doctor who will say that for a medical reason this person cannot receive a vaccination – because there is some allergy, for example. In such a case, they have to try to find all the possible means to avoid this, or even change jobs, even if this will leave them poorer. They have to choose this and not a vaccine because of this close support of the fetal industry – not of the abortionists but of the fetal industry.
I think that God will reward these people with many spiritual gifts if they choose to live a poorer life rather than to co-operate with the fetal industry. Surely they will not die from starvation, God will never permit it! This was our experience in communist times. My parents did not collaborate with the Communist Party, for example; therefore, my parents could not have a profession, this was not allowed. And so they were simple workers, they had a low salary, and we lived in a really simple way. But God did not abandon us; we were happy in our faith and this gave us riches for all our life – even when the others who had accepted the conditions of the Communist Party had better living conditions than we did, and than other people, Christians, for example. And so I think we have to give again the primacy to the eternal life which we have so largely forgotten in recent decades. Even in the Church, even the good Catholics, we were invaded by a kind of materialism because we were so very attached to the material life and giving it primacy over the eternal and the spiritual.
So this is a principle: I would say change work, and even if I have to do a simple job like cleaning the streets, I will still have some means to sustain my family, but in a poorer way. This is a decision of conscience, I think, but God will reward these people, of course, and it will be a sign of protest, and a witness that we are not collaborating with the horrible fetal industry.”
That was me (^^^^), and here’s the link:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/interview-with-bishop-schneider/?utm_source=featured&utm_campaign=usa (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/interview-with-bishop-schneider/?utm_source=featured&utm_campaign=usa)
-
That was me (^^^^), and here’s the link:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/interview-with-bishop-schneider/?utm_source=featured&utm_campaign=usa (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/interview-with-bishop-schneider/?utm_source=featured&utm_campaign=usa)
Excellent post. Thank you.
-
Here is a thought on the vaccine question: When I visit the doctor for a checkup, there are forms which I must fill out in the waiting room; all who have visited a doctor must know this. Typically at the end of the form it is asked, "Do you have any allergies?" "Yes, when I was little I had some allergy to a vaccine that I was given." Upon leaving the doctor's office, I request the patient discharge form. It should state, "patient stated that he is allergic to vaccines (some vaccine)." Is this not sufficient information for my employer? How is my employer going to fire me if I have a doctor's statement which states I am allergic to vaccines?
If this step does not work with my employer, then opt for the religious exemption. It could be that I am allergic to vaccines and am opposed to the vaccines on religious, moral grounds. Just a thought.
-
First you should get religious exemption first along with the medical exemption.
-
All the αnσnymσus posts above are mine (except the Prot pastor one); forgot to check the box.
Bragging or complaining?
-
While I appreciate Father’s efforts, I think he did a poor job of answering that first interlocutor’s question. Lost opportunity.
Answer. “Let me answer your question with a question. Does a business have a right to fire Black employees if they decide that their race is not in keeping with their ‘mission’? Businesses have rights but the dividing line that you seek is that they cannot trump the INALIENABLE rights of an individual that come directly from God. These are called inalienable because they cannot be taken away by the state or by businesses. Does a person have an inalienable right over what goes into their bodies. [Then make the distinction that a fetus is not the woman’s body ... lest people go there with that reasoning].”
I live in Ohio, so, shucks, Father, you let an opportunity slip away to persuade the Ohio Senate.
Also, he was called to speak about the moral issues and did not so much as MENTION the moral tainting of the jabs by abortion. That to me is a huge scandal that he doesn’t see fit to even mention it.
Very disappointed in the CMRI here ... as I have been with them regarding a number of issues. Has CMRI bought into the whole remote material participation ruse
First, Fr. Lavery did an excellent job at staying on topic, which was very specifically the morality of mandating, not of any other topic. Several times he was asked different questions that could have pulled him off topic and wasted the few minutes he was given. Fr. Lavery wisely chose an avenue that had the most potential to garner broad-spectrum support, and to set his focus on the arguments laid out by Pius XII. I'm proud of Fr. Lavery, it was a masterful presentation and response. I suppose we could complain of 10,000 other thing Fr. Lavery didn't mention, that is, if we were looking to discredit him rather than actually look plainly at we he did do, which is more than perhaps 98% of the armchair theologians and apologists here on CathInfo have done to stand up for the faithful in the face of the Plandemic.
-
I shared the letter of Fr. Paul Robinson with the SSPX priest who serves our chapel. My priest replied as follows:
Dear [my name],
Well, first I want to say let us be careful not to judge the soul of this priest; we don't know the whole picture. But I will say it makes me very upset. Ignorance though [my name], ignorance. I think the biggest problem is ignorance. You have this whole hysteria created by the powers that be, their vehicle being the media and then, suddenly, at "warp speed" there emerges a light at the end of the tunnel. This light is not God, it is not Our Blesed Lord, it is not grace, it is science. So people are going by the millions to the temple of science. In this milieu of fear and pressure people aren't looking to study, they are going on Faith to the science. I think it is such pressure that at least in part inspired this letter you have sent me.
Again, there is "a whole industry" based on the use of aborted fetal cells. Sick! We cannot have any part of it.
"All that will live Godly in Christ Jesu shall suffer persecution". (2 Tim. 3.12)
In Jesu et Maria,
Fr.
-
I had an experience to testify here at the capital of Phoenix years ago. The head of the Dept. of Health services knew that inside the dept. was a program made to obtain a million dollars and the Program was "more visits for a pregnant woman would make for a better outcome baby". this program was not just in AZ, but nationwide. The first year they got their million. The second year, the head of the the Dept. is ready with figures and docuмents to stop the program.
So, the info was given to my lady friend, a math teacher for a university. She could not figure out the docuмents to testify. oh, well. I looked at it and said I know what to present. Common sense. Why all the visits in the world would not make a difference and proof from other states that tried this idea. We won!
Point here is, there is no way that I could have testified or anyone for that matter, if they were to say, "this program's money is going for abortion, for that is exactly what is was for! If I was to go in that direction, I would have had to sit down, and hear them say to me, this is not the issue, we do not speak of conspiracy.
So, when you say that Fr. Gabriel did not speak of abortion/fetal cells and such, I can understand. One has to play the game in order to be heard and strategy, coming from another direction, is important. You must stay on their subject.
Note also, how questions were asked. Off the subject, about pope and such. It is what I call the "spinning of wheels". Those who have been taught "toast masters" learn how to take talks like this and take them off subject and take away from the issue and such. I experienced a Planned Parenthood person do this. Spoke for 20 minutes and there was "no beef". Just wasting the time, because they know the "right" is there. So, when that person was finished, I rose my hand and said," Gee, I didn't understand anything you said, would you like to try that again.
War is war with "left" and"right". When I testified another time, I was told, to sit down. These people will listen to "numbers" "figures" and such. It is very troubling. I makes you feel like you gave 90% and maybe only 10% got done. Maybe. I salute Fr. Gabirel for taking Our Lady with him!