I think we now can see what the real dispute is between +Dolan and +Sanborn.

Video on the same, for those interested.

As years go by and the more I read and hear his opinions, the more I’ve really become disenchanted with him.

That is what I've been noticing about his Excellency over the past couple years. Sure, he calls out the evils of Bergoglio and the Novus Ordo, but he has said very little about the blatant worldwide conspiracy overtaking all centers of government.

After reading the statement, I can see that his logic on the moral stance of whether or not to take the vaccine is solid. But, that's only taking into account the shot as a traditional vaccine, which we all know that it is not. Most of us, while very concerned about the usage of any fetal cells derived from abortion, are only secondarily concerned about the shot in this regard; and rather have more grave concerns over the long-term effects, which his Excellency briefly skims over, and how that plays into a violation of the 5th Commandment.

Compare what Bp. Sanborn has said here to someone like Fr. Jenkins or Fr. Chazal, who have been talking about the potential implications of these mandates and the shot for months now, and we can see that the good Bishop appears to be fairly ignorant of just how grave this entire situation is.

Yes, I feel the same way, unfortunately. It seems as though age has dulled those once sharp anti-Modernist teeth.

Great post!

Having read the entire docuмent (sans Appendix), these are my initial general impressions:

1) In the main, the docuмent mirrors the SSPX position on all points, and most importantly, as regards remote material cooperation in evil: They both concur that, in certain circuмstances, such cooperation can be morally licit;

2) Obviously, to have one of the better known and respected sedevacantist bishops offer an analysis which concurs with the SSPX's adds weight (and I'm tempted to say probability) to that conclusion;

3) But for each, a major obstacle yet remains:

Supposing the point were conceded that, under certain circuмstances, the jab could be morally licit. 

The next step is to ask oneself, "OK, what are those conditions?" 

Curiously, it is Rome herself which has delineated these conditions (in the 2008 docuмent of the CDF titled Dignitas Personae), yet neither the SSPX nor Bishop Sanborn alludes to them!

In the case of Bishop Sanborn, this makes logical sense, since he does not consider the Roman hierarchy to be legitimate, thereby forcing him to defer to general principles of moral theology.

But the SSPX avoids the same docuмent and conditions, also preferring instead to rely upon general principles of moral theology, rather than the specific principles implemented by Dignitas Personae (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html). 

Those conditions as applied to the COVID19 "vaccine" (which can be read here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/dominican-destroys-'remote-material-cooperation'-justification-for-abortoin-jab/ ) were found wanting in 3 of 4 criteria.

4) In the case of Bishop Sanborn, we are at an impasse, since not recognizing the authority of the 2008 CDF, he will not feel obliged to satisfy these criteria.  But as regards the SSPX, I am wondering why they do not address this docuмent.  They adduce no reasons why it should not apply.  Neither do they make any accusations that it contains error, as a justification for ignoring it.  They simply leave it out of consideration altogether, and that is a tremendous obstacle for consenting to their general conclusion, insofar as it leave the reader apprehensive.

Yet another misapplication of Remote Material Cooperation.  Buying a stolen car is not licit simply because you do not approve of the original theft.

Alas, I knew before clicking on the link what he was going to say.  Bishop Sanborn follows neatly the logical form of the theology manuals, but is sometimes very mypoic in his perspective ... not seeing the context of the situation that Father Ripperger so clearly explains.

Having read the entire docuмent (sans Appendix), these are my initial general impressions:

1) In the main, the docuмent mirrors the SSPX position on all points, and most importantly, as regards remote material cooperation in evil: They both concur that, in certain circuмstances, such cooperation can be morally licit;

2) Obviously, to have one of the better known and respected sedevacantist bishops offer an analysis which concurs with the SSPX's adds weight (and I'm tempted to say probability) to that conclusion;

3) But for each, a major obstacle yet remains:

Supposing the point were conceded that, under certain circuмstances, the jab could be morally licit. 

The next step is to ask oneself, "OK, what are those conditions?" 

Curiously, it is Rome herself which has delineated these conditions (in the 2008 docuмent of the CDF titled Dignitas Personae), yet neither the SSPX nor Bishop Sanborn alludes to them!

In the case of Bishop Sanborn, this makes logical sense, since he does not consider the Roman hierarchy to be legitimate, thereby forcing him to defer to general principles of moral theology.

But the SSPX avoids the same docuмent and conditions, also preferring instead to rely upon general principles of moral theology, rather than the specific principles implemented by Dignitas Personae (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html). 

Those conditions as applied to the COVID19 "vaccine" (which can be read here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/dominican-destroys-'remote-material-cooperation'-justification-for-abortoin-jab/ ) were found wanting in 3 of 4 criteria.

4) In the case of Bishop Sanborn, we are at an impasse, since not recognizing the authority of the 2008 CDF, he will not feel obliged to satisfy these criteria.  But as regards the SSPX, I am wondering why they do not address this docuмent.  They adduce no reasons why it should not apply.  Neither do they make any accusations that it contains error, as a justification for ignoring it.  They simply leave it out of consideration altogether, and that is a tremendous obstacle for consenting to their general conclusion, insofar as it leave the reader apprehensive.

The SSPX and Bishop Sanborn need to be able to refute this, or explain why it does not apply:

---

---

Fri Mar 5, 2021 - 3:58 pm EST

Editor’s note: The author of this article is a priest who uses a pen name to keep his identity αnσnymσus for the sake of prudence given various circuмstances at this time, and to keep the focus upon the content of the article, rather than having distracting attention be given to the author.

March 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – There is great confusion concerning the morality of using the abortion-tainted COVID-19 vaccines, such as those produced by pfιzєr, mσdernα, and Johnson & Johnson. Much of this confusion stems from the various Vatican docuмents that have addressed the issue of abortion-tainted health interventions. Corrections of the misapplication of the moral principles invoked in these docuмents are needed so that they may be properly understood and applied to the abortion-tainted COVID-19 vaccine issue at hand.

All Catholics and men of good will must abhor abortion and the fact that many vaccines, including the tainted COVID-19 experimental vaccines, are abortion-tainted, whether actually containing aborted fetal cells or having been tested or developed through the abuse of stolen aborted fetal cells. Let us then examine the remote material cooperation analysis of Vatican docuмents which concern the moral liceity of using abortion tainted therapeutic interventions, and especially the abortion tainted COVID-19 vaccines in question, such as the pfιzєr, mσdernα, and Johnson & Johnson products. Despite the mistaken conclusions to the contrary in the Vatican docuмents, I propose to demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccines still do not conform to the moral liceity principles and required conditions invoked in those docuмents. That is, when the moral argument is properly framed, understood, and applied.

Let us start by summarizing the Vatican position concerning the moral liceity of so-called abortion-tainted vaccines. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has issued docuмents affirming the position that based on the principle of remote material cooperation with evil, one can morally accept the use of abortion-tainted therapeutic interventions, such as vaccines, to neutralize a health threat, if all of the following necessary conditions are met:

-There is no available morally untainted therapeutic intervention that neutralizes the proposed health threat.

-There must exist a proportionate cause for using an abortion tainted therapeutic intervention based on the risks involved.

-There must exist an actual grave threat to your health or that of others if you were to refrain from taking the proposed abortion tainted therapeutic intervention.

-One must oppose the abortion taintedness of the therapeutic intervention.

All four of these conditions must be met in order for the use of an abortion-tainted product such as a vaccine to be considered morally licit. And thus, all that is necessary for one to prove the grave moral sinfulness of the use of vaccines that are tainted by the grave evil of abortion, is to show that just one of the necessary conditions listed by the Vatican is absent. And yet, the first three conditions for moral liceity have not been met. Let us begin.

First, the most recent docuмent from the CDF, “Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines” states in point #2, “when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available… it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.” And thus, the docuмent states as a necessary condition in order for an abortion-tainted COVID-19 vaccine to be morally acceptable to use, no other “ethically irreproachable” vaccines are available. However, what needs to be clarified is that the moral principle invoked here applies not only to vaccines, but to any therapeutic intervention that would neutralize the COVID-19 health threat in question. To put it more simply, when a safe and effective health intervention that is not tainted by abortion is available to neutralize the health threat, it is sinful to use an abortion-tainted health intervention for the health threat.

Thanks be to God, and as attested by hundreds of doctors and scientists from around the world, there are indeed several morally clean, safe, and effective health intervention protocols available which have been proven to be highly effective against COVID-19 in thousands of cases worldwide. And yet, only one available, safe, effective, and morally clean health intervention is necessary to make morally tainted vaccines morally illicit to use. For example, safe and effective health intervention protocols include those which make use of ethically produced Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Budesonide, Quercetin, Melatonin, and high doses of Vitamins A, C and D3 with Zinc, and other protocols such as MATH+, which have been successfully used by countless doctors, including Dr. Pierre Kory (who testified to the U.S. Senate concerning these life-saving treatments) and Dr. Simone Gold of America’s Frontline Doctors. Although these doctors are not completely opposed to the abortion tainted COVID-19 vaccines on moral grounds as they should, they do make it clear that excellent safe and effective alternative treatments for COVID-19 do exist. Other excellent doctors have reported that using natural substances such as Quercetin, Melatonin and vitamins (which are not abortion-tainted) are safe and effective in successfully preventing COVID-19 and greatly reducing it's harmful effects, which accomplishes whatever good that the unnecessary abortion tainted COVID-19 experimental vaccines are claimed to do. (See here.)

God has designed our immune systems in an excellent manner. Making sure that our bodies are properly nourished with vitamins and minerals strengthens the immune system to fight off contagions. If despite doing what is reasonable to maintain a healthy immune system and to use therapeutic interventions that are not abortion- tainted, and we get sick and die anyway, then that is part of life. Many people died at a young or old age while Jesus walked the earth, and He allowed it nonetheless. Physical life is not the ultimate good to preserve at all costs. The Grace and Love of God and the salvation of souls is the supreme good to preserve at all costs, and for which we must sacrifice even our lives in order to maintain intact through faithful observance of all of God's Laws, which includes refusing to accept abortion-tainted products.

As a caveat, although you are not obliged to assume a product is abortion-tainted, if you become aware that any particular company produces any of the products mentioned above in a manner tainted by aborted fetal cells, then you must only choose such types of products from companies that research, develop, test, and produce them in a morally good manner that is not abortion-tainted. Another point to consider is that even if a type of a product has been researched or originally developed using aborted fetal cells at some time in the past, that does not of itself make the use of a similar such product produced today by another company immoral. An example to help make this clear is the following.

If a morally compromised research scientist were to discover a previously unknown benefit to human cells by performing tests with certain plants or vitamins using aborted fetal cells, that would not of itself morally prevent anyone from consuming such plants and vitamins for the sake of the newly discovered health benefit. For instance, another company (not the original aborted fetal cell research company) could produce and sell products using such type plants and vitamins for the health benefit, as long as the particular company's own research, development, production, or testing of their product was not abortion-tainted. And thus, as long as there is no evidence that a particular therapeutic intervention product offered by a particular company is abortion-tainted, then such a product is morally acceptable to use, even if it a type of substance or product that some other person subjected to immoral practices.

Thankfully, unlike the abortion-tainted, grossly under tested, and extremely dangerous pfιzєr, mσdernα, and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines, which have used aborted fetal cells in the research, development and/ or testing phases of production, the various morally clean products and protocols mentioned above involve substances that have been proven extremely safe for decades. In fact, all of these health and immunity-boosting, life-saving products have been available over the counter in multiple countries for decades. For instance, in India and Africa, where these health products have been used most extensively, there was a tiny fraction of the COVID-19 illness and death rate of the countries which did not use these products. And thus, according to the recent docuмent from the CDF, since there are morally untainted, safe, and effective protocols available that neutralize the COVID-19 health threat, it is mortally sinful to use the dangerous COVID-19 vaccines that are morally tainted by the heinously grave evil of abortion.  And this moral analysis is true, even if one who accepted the use of the abortion-tainted vaccine refrained from formally accepting abortion per se, by personally being opposed to the grave evil of abortion, as well as the taintedness of the vaccine. An example to help make this clear is the following. If your friend steals someone else's car and then offers to sell it to you cheaply, it would be a mortal sin to buy the car, even if you were personally opposed to the fact that it was stolen. The morally tainted condition of the car being stolen makes it objectively mortally sinful for you to buy it. And likewise, being personally opposed to the evil of abortion does not of itself exempt a person from mortal sin through accepting the use of a baby murder-tainted vaccine.

Furthermore, the recent CDF docuмent on COVID19 vaccines bases its argument upon the 2008 CDF docuмent, Dignitas Personae. This docuмent states in #26, “Given that gene therapy can involve significant risks for the patient, the ethical principle must be observed according to which, in order to proceed to a therapeutic intervention, it is necessary to establish beforehand that the person being treated will not be exposed to risks to his health or physical integrity which are excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the pathology for which a cure is sought. The informed consent of the patient or his legitimate representative is also required.”

The ethical or moral principles concerning proportionate health benefits versus risks invoked here apply to any “therapeutic intervention,” which includes gene therapies and vaccines, whether or not they are even morally tainted by abortion. By the way, the so-called mRNA vaccines (such as those of pfιzєr and mσdernα) and adenovirus vaccines (such as that of Johnson & Johnson) for COVID-19 are, in fact, experimental gene therapies since they are designed to use gene technology to manipulate our cells to create spike proteins that try to trick the body into mounting an immune response. And thus, according to Dignitas Personae, there is a moral imperative of thorough testing and certification of safety and effectiveness (through extensive animal testing) in order to establish if there is a proportionate cause to use on humans any therapeutic intervention, especially including severely under tested experimental gene therapy vaccines, and most especially when they are tainted by abortion. And furthermore, consent must be “informed,” which also requires that the serious risks are reasonably ascertained “beforehand,” and then conveyed to the person before he may morally decide whether to receive the proposed vaccine.

But these moral conditions that are necessary in order to claim that the use of these abortion-tainted products may be morally acceptable have certainly not been met in the case of the experimental COVID-19 gene therapy vaccines. For instance, there have not been long-term testing upon animals to determine what the long-term harmful side effects of these COVID-19 vaccines are. Furthermore, the makers of these COVID-19 experimental gene therapy products admit that they have not ruled out any severe long term side effects, including sterilization, cancer, and death.

Without the safety and effectiveness data from long term studies performed upon animals, it is simply impossible to establish that there is a proportionate cause to use such dangerously under tested products upon human beings, especially when it comes to dispensing these experimental products to the population at large. And even more gravely alarming is the fact that, because necessary caution has been cast to the wind and these dangerous products have been injected into people anyway, there have been numerous reports of severe adverse reactions from the COVID-19 experimental gene therapy vaccines – including anaphylaxis, paralysis, neurological problems, and sadly many deaths, which have caused local health officials in various locations to wisely stop the barbaric vaccination programs. And sadder still, these unconscionable dangers are hitting the elderly and nursing homes the hardest.

Indeed, not only is the pre-requisite safety data lacking that is necessary “beforehand” to determine if there is proportionate cause that could theoretically make the use of these experimental COVID vaccines morally acceptable, the data are becoming overwhelming that the dangers of these products far outweigh the risks. And thus, according to Dignitas Personae #26, the abortion-tainted COVID-19 vaccines in question are mortally sinful to use on two more grounds. Namely, there is no proportionate cause for using them, and there is no informed consent for dangers that have not been sufficiently researched to be ascertained much less conveyed to those who must make an informed decision whether or not to use the products.

Humans are not lab mice, despite what the Big Pharma and Government health official eugenicists may want everyone to believe. Lab mice should still be tested upon for long-term research purposes, not humans. And this is absolutely the case for a health threat such as COVID-19 for which the average age of death is higher than the average age of death for the general population, and in fact only has a tiny .2% overall risk of death, even with the inflated statistics caused by heavily flawed counting methods used and promoted by the conflicted-interest federal government health agencies as docuмented here and here.

And this brings us to the final consideration of the necessary moral condition listed in the Vatican docuмents, that there must exist a legitimate extreme health threat that justifies the use of dangerous, and or abortion-tainted products at all. But how can there even be conceived of such a justifying cause for using such dangerous or abortion-tainted products, when the average age of what is being reported as COVID-19 death is higher than the average age of death in the general population, and not significantly higher for the elderly as during normal flu seasons? There is no such justifying cause at all, especially when we are seeing so many severe adverse reactions and deaths from the abortion-tainted COVID-19 experimental vaccines. God will never bless such immorally reckless disregard for life.

And we have not even brought up the issue of the massive blatant conflicts of interest that are present with all of the Big Pharma and government officials. They insist that these products are safe and effective for use, even as they personally profit from the products that they are vetting. They tell us that there is good proportionate reason to take these products, even though they tell us that by taking these vaccines you will still be susceptible to getting COVID-19, you will still be able to transmit COVID-19, and you will not be able to sue for damages if these products harm you and harm or kill your loved ones. And all of this is told to us by Big Pharma and government officials that have only promoted dangerous “solutions” from which they profit – namely, the grossly under-tested experimental COVID-19 vaccines, while not recommending protocols that will strengthen the immune system. These are not actions of individuals who are truly concerned about advancing the good of public health.

Ask yourself the following questions. Why did the CDC, throughout the year in 2020, recommend that PCR testing for COVID-19 be done at 40 cycles, instead of under 25 cycles as is proper, even though they knew that 40 cycles gives nearly all false positives, and thereby produce vastly inflated the COVID-19 case and death statistics? Why did the CDC change the standards for identifying COVID-19 cases to allow health officials to label virtually any respiratory symptom illness and death COVID-19, even on mere suspicion, without any hard evidence that COVID-19 was a contributing factor to an illness or death, which inflated the statistics even further?

Why do these same officials now discourage people from labeling as vaccine injury and death, the severe adverse effects and deaths that happen soon after getting jabbed with the COVID vaccines?

Why did they skip the complete animal testing on the COVID vaccines to determine the dangers and long-term effects, even though the mortality rate of COVID-19 is less lethal than the normal flu? Why are the dangers of using under-tested vaccines downplayed and the fact that these products are experimental not clearly explained to those who are lining up to get jabbed, and thereby keeping the people from having fully informed consent?

Why, if these experimental vaccines are “safe” to use as is being claimed, are the conflicted-interest Big Pharma and government officials indemnified from lawsuits for any injuries and deaths that these hugely profitable rushed to market products cause?

Why have our federal government health officials including Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, Dr. Redfield, Dr. Collins, and Dr. Slaoui promoted anti-science and anti-health protocols such as mask-wearing and lockdowns? These protocols have been proven to cause much more health harm than good. Why have they suppressed safe and effective protocols against COVID-19 that hundreds of doctors have used with great success? Why have our government health officials neglected to aggressively promote protocols such as the robust daily intake of vitamins which have long been proven to strengthen our immune systems, and to better fight against COVID? Where are the weekly or daily public service announcements promoting the use of Zinc with Vitamins A, B, C, and D? Why have they refrained from “warp speeding” such life-saving immune system strengthening protocols to the public during this last year, or as we speak?

I can think of only two possible reasons that could account for all of this. Either these government health officials are utterly incompetent as health officials and don't realize the necessity of things such as promoting immune system health, especially when there is supposed to be an elevated health threat present, or they actually want increased sickness and death (or at least its public perception) in order to create panic that will encourage people to take the COVID-19 experimental vaccines from which they are profitting. Take your pick.

Sadly, I tend to believe that it is a combination of both, with the latter explanation being the stronger determining factor, especially since these conflicted-interest government health officials happen to be eugenicists who want a drastic reduction in world population, and are all on board with the World Economic Forum’s nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr Great Reset that they are quite publicly and presently launching worldwide. Either way, it is irrational to be following the conflicted-interest advice of such corrupt government health officials or base arguments for having proportionate cause for using their products upon what such anti-science and anti-health officials say.

As for practical considerations as a result of all of this information, I first want say that I am very sorry that the Globalist, Big Pharma, and government-sponsored misinformation campaign surrounding COVID-19 has deceived countless people throughout the world, including most of the members of the Hierarchy and clergy of the Church, concerning the factual dangers of the coronavirus and the completely dangerous and un-proportional risks posed by the under-tested experimental vaccines. These vaccines are being promoted and administered as we speak.

But once we have the truth of the matters at hand, we must stop being a part of the lies with their devastating consequences for lives and souls, and instead do everything we can to spread the truth. Let us be humble enough to admit that we have been fooled, and then do everything possible to seek to undo the damage that has been done and prevent future harm as much as we are able, no matter how much we may be persecuted for stepping out of the politically “correct” propaganda of the party lines. The urgency of what we all must do to fight these evils cannot be over-estimated.

In conclusion, to re-cap, the dangerous, under-tested, abortion-tainted COVID-19 experimental vaccines, including those from pfιzєr, mσdernα, and Johnson & Johnson – which are being aggressively promoted by anti-life globalist eugenicists such as вιℓℓ gαтeѕ and the World Economic Forum (and government officials that they influence), who are openly and publicly on a mission to Great Reset their long desired nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr complete with a radical reduction in world population – are not morally licit to accept or facilitate, given the many extremely evil conditions involved.

And even according to the properly framed and understood moral principles invoked by the Vatican docuмents concerning abortion-tainted vaccines, the abortion-tainted, extremely dangerous, experimental COVID-19 vaccine products are mortally sinful to take or facilitate. This is especially since a proportionate cause to use such dangerous products has not only not been established, but the data continues to mount showing that these evil products are causing much more health harm than good. Whereas, non-abortion-tainted, morally good, safe, and effective alternatives to neutralize the health threat posed by COVID-19 are available, and thus are to be used instead of abortion tainted vaccines.

Humans have survived countless health threats for thousands of years. It is a blasphemous lack of faith to think that our All-Knowing, Almighty God Who created the Universe and all that it contains and holds all things in His Divine Providence would require or bless the use of abortion-tainted products in order for His own dear children, created in His Image and Likeness, in order to survive. Baby murder is one of the sins that cries to God in Heaven for vengeance! God does not respond to baby murder with the blessing of abortion by-products! For the love of God and the salvation of souls, all use of abortion-tainted products must stop.

And finally, may all men of good will refuse to offend God and resolutely reject these evil abortion-tainted experimental vaccines, as well as the nefarious agendas behind them, even if we must suffer great tribulations or even death for refusing to sin, just as the Holy Confessors and Martyrs have done before us. Let us storm Heaven with prayer for the Grace to remain steadfast in the love of God and His Laws, standing firm against all of the increasing corrupting evils of our day, come what may.

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Immaculate Heart of Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
St. Joseph, pray for us.
All Holy Saints and Angels of God, pray for us.