Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Matto on November 24, 2021, 06:18:09 PM

Title: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Matto on November 24, 2021, 06:18:09 PM
https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/The_Vaccine_Nov_2021.pdf (https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/The_Vaccine_Nov_2021.pdf)
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Emile on November 24, 2021, 06:26:52 PM
I think we now can see what the real dispute is between +Dolan and +Sanborn.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: SeanJohnson on November 24, 2021, 06:36:40 PM
Summary: He agrees with the SSPX.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: DigitalLogos on November 24, 2021, 06:37:14 PM
Video on the same, for those interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-2xnDLrxMA&t=147s
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on November 24, 2021, 06:43:54 PM

It’s as if he’s completely ignored or is completely ignorant of the evil conspirators that have orchestrated the whole thing.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on November 24, 2021, 06:53:43 PM
As years go by and the more I read and hear his opinions, the more I’ve really become disenchanted with him.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: DigitalLogos on November 24, 2021, 06:56:03 PM
It’s as if he’s completely ignored or is completely ignorant of the evil conspirators that have orchestrated the whole thing.

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.

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

Yes, I feel the same way, unfortunately. It seems as though age has dulled those once sharp anti-Modernist teeth.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on November 24, 2021, 06:58:52 PM
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!
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Dingbat on November 24, 2021, 07:12:48 PM
CMRI has been great on this, their priests are openly calling this as Communism and a complete takeover.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: SeanJohnson on November 24, 2021, 07:22:57 PM
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.

Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Yeti on November 24, 2021, 07:35:50 PM
The entire section on whether you should take the vax displays a bizarre cluelessness to the entire context of the last two years. It's as if someone were in Guyana in the sixties living in Jim Jones's cult, and were told to drink a glass a Kool-Aid. (At Mini-14 point). And the person hesitated. Imagine if Bp. Sanborn came along and told him that Kool-Aid was a perfectly safe drink to consume, because millions of people have been consuming it for years without harm. While completely ignoring the repeated calls of Jim Jones to mass immolation for everyone in the camp, and the Mini-14 aimed at your head to force you to drink it, and the other dead bodies around you of people who have already drunk it. Bp. Sanborn incredibly stated that it is not known if the people in the VAERS database were actually harmed by the drug, so we can't actually know if it harms people or not. (So, how exactly are scientific experiments performed, except by administering experimental drugs to people and watching if anything bad happens to them??! That doesn't give us any real data?!)
.
Bp. Sanborn is great on a lot of theological questions, but this video is likely an embarrassment that he will likely never live down.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Ladislaus on November 24, 2021, 07:37:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Ladislaus on November 24, 2021, 07:40:48 PM
Bp. Sanborn incredibly stated that it is not known if the people in the VAERS database were actually harmed by the drug, so we can't actually know if it harms people or not. 

:facepalm:
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: SeanJohnson on November 24, 2021, 07:44:12 PM
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:



A priest reflects on the morality of abortion-tainted COVID-19 vaccines


I propose to demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccines still do not conform to the moral liceity principles and required conditions invoked in these Vatican docuмents – that is, when the moral argument is properly framed, understood, and applied.
(https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/abortion-tainted_vax-810x500.jpg)



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 (https://www.lifesitenews.com/)) – 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:


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 (https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/08/24/quercetin-and-vitamin-c-synergistic-effect.aspx).)

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 (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html). 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 (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html), 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 (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html) #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 (https://off-guardian.org/2021/02/22/synthetic-mrna-covid-vaccines-a-risk-benefit-analysis/) and here (https://thecovidblog.com/2021/02/12/peer-reviewed-manuscript-concludes-that-cdc-massively-inflates-covid-19-case-and-death-numbers-with-creative-statistics/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=d6a4f922803ae970e975a3ddf0d32a72f214591c-1614787582-0-AQcFC68b3K0xwjFM7dsBMwigMdhZJ0UOCtudonkf56g-uEf2cHRZm_U61lk5-R6b8UcuмJ1MlerynFbgz_TlpBgss1vzlInYGrLyRqcfz8uBiCndpAtQJz9xCMUmOo0fAJ-oYdocjGn7M_2fLoC1dMQo1chS400iQkjy7mnkmMrH2lS2kG_6JD_jjS3G_9st_eqwHO7slDDRVmHFYrV1RE9HnXKVo4pLwJP47TmQjOvntwbgCRRcxWIHHRkDmw4MzYv1_RkpV01nJXE06PbwDNDfd_GwO7RvJ0nq8nUjL3wiDsSoc2HAxTdeGV8gedKQI9RE7s7KyfhgOX8eohs1UAD3Kb6cwVRYoi4aGq-RJZy1MU_ikscocH-857HvK8A0H_GSclMqOUahTV7IkdyuFa_PJ1mt-I2DzMkn4v1Tar9JMQLX9bbyLa-Oi_cjhUaIHegiN4uoIP8dP1S9m9Q1XHle2B_N6JLY3vw2PxMMJZw_).

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.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: DigitalLogos on November 24, 2021, 07:49:25 PM
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.
To me, this whole situation is almost like a litmus test (or, as his Excellency Bp. Williamson calls it: a dress rehearsal of Antichrist's reign) of just who has eyes to see and who does not.

It's a shame when orthodox prelates like +Sanborn are being outshined by, supposedly, heterodox or "doubtful" prelates like +Schneider, +Ripperger, +Vigano, and others in the NO fold on this very grave situation.

I couldn't help but replace "vaccine" with "Mark" in some of +Sanborn's points to show just how ignorant he appears to be of the wider context, especially if this were the actual MotB (it is not).

"My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me."
[John 10:27]
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Matto on November 24, 2021, 08:00:08 PM

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



A priest reflects on the morality of abortion-tainted COVID-19 vaccines


I propose to demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccines still do not conform to the moral liceity principles and required conditions invoked in these Vatican docuмents – that is, when the moral argument is properly framed, understood, and applied.
(https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/abortion-tainted_vax-810x500.jpg)
That was a really good article.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: 2Vermont on November 24, 2021, 08:18:59 PM
CMRI has been great on this, their priests are openly calling this as Communism and a complete takeover.
Yes..it seems that the CMRI and SGG are more in line with each other here.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Pax Vobis on November 24, 2021, 08:21:58 PM
Right.  Discussing the morality of this is missing the larger point.  It’s about communism and depopulation.  They want to kill us.  
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: 2Vermont on November 24, 2021, 08:25:07 PM
The entire section on whether you should take the vax displays a bizarre cluelessness to the entire context of the last two years. It's as if someone were in Guyana in the sixties living in Jim Jones's cult, and were told to drink a glass a Kool-Aid. (At Mini-14 point). And the person hesitated. Imagine if Bp. Sanborn came along and told him that Kool-Aid was a perfectly safe drink to consume, because millions of people have been consuming it for years without harm. While completely ignoring the repeated calls of Jim Jones to mass immolation for everyone in the camp, and the Mini-14 aimed at your head to force you to drink it, and the other dead bodies around you of people who have already drunk it. Bp. Sanborn incredibly stated that it is not known if the people in the VAERS database were actually harmed by the drug, so we can't actually know if it harms people or not. (So, how exactly are scientific experiments performed, except by administering experimental drugs to people and watching if anything bad happens to them??! That doesn't give us any real data?!)
.
Bp. Sanborn is great on a lot of theological questions, but this video is likely an embarrassment that he will likely never live down.
Maybe I'm not remembering correctly but I could have sworn he used to speak differently on COVID.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: bodeens on November 24, 2021, 08:30:03 PM
When his priests aren't allowed to offer Mass is it finally going to be called Communism in his eyes? Not taking a stand now is too late, the lines are already drawn and the faithful are already dying or losing their jobs. We need priests and Bishops who will stand with us till death. For the first time in generations true courage is required and this isn't it.

CMRI has been great on this, their priests are openly calling this as Communism and a complete takeover.
Yes... Their clergy is warning us we need to be prepared to die for the faith in no uncertain terms. From the pulpit I am hearing about how we "will own nothing and love it" and the Great Reset. They are courageous to speak so openly on this and they should be commended. Pray for these priests every night (final perseverance especially), and Sanborn that he may discern the grave situation we are in.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: DigitalLogos on November 24, 2021, 08:52:20 PM
Maybe I'm not remembering correctly but I could have sworn he used to speak differently on COVID.
He's honestly been moot on the point until today, at least from what I've discerned from his sermons and other videos online. I know he's mentioned the creeping socialism before, but he's really not said anything about the very open conspiracy of the Great Reset or the jabs.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Matto on November 24, 2021, 09:05:13 PM
Yes..it seems that the CMRI and SGG are more in line with each other here.
I admit I was wrong. While not a sede, I had always thought more highly of Sanborn than Dolan. I was wrong. And I always thought more highly of the CMRI than SGG or Sanborn. 
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: TradMan80 on November 24, 2021, 09:09:57 PM
Personally, I'm very surprised at Bp. Sanborn's attitude towards the vaccine. 

Bishop Sanborn (in his latest video): "To a great extent it depends on how you apply the moral rules...we give you the moral rules and you apply it to your own case." Doesn't this sound a lot like moral subjectivism??? 
:( 

For him to state that you have to decide for yourself whether or not it's a sin is kind of like what some clergy have said about attending the Novus Ordo Mass. What is sinful and what is not sinful should always be made clear by the clergy...that's why we support them in the first place.    
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: John Felton on November 25, 2021, 01:09:35 AM
Bishop Sanborn is evidently out of touch with reality. 
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: SeanJohnson on November 25, 2021, 05:24:00 AM

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



A priest reflects on the morality of abortion-tainted COVID-19 vaccines


I propose to demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccines still do not conform to the moral liceity principles and required conditions invoked in these Vatican docuмents – that is, when the moral argument is properly framed, understood, and applied.
(https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/abortion-tainted_vax-810x500.jpg)



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 (https://www.lifesitenews.com/)) – 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 (https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/08/24/quercetin-and-vitamin-c-synergistic-effect.aspx).)

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 (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html). 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 (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html), 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 (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html) #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 (https://off-guardian.org/2021/02/22/synthetic-mrna-covid-vaccines-a-risk-benefit-analysis/) and here (https://thecovidblog.com/2021/02/12/peer-reviewed-manuscript-concludes-that-cdc-massively-inflates-covid-19-case-and-death-numbers-with-creative-statistics/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=d6a4f922803ae970e975a3ddf0d32a72f214591c-1614787582-0-AQcFC68b3K0xwjFM7dsBMwigMdhZJ0UOCtudonkf56g-uEf2cHRZm_U61lk5-R6b8UcuмJ1MlerynFbgz_TlpBgss1vzlInYGrLyRqcfz8uBiCndpAtQJz9xCMUmOo0fAJ-oYdocjGn7M_2fLoC1dMQo1chS400iQkjy7mnkmMrH2lS2kG_6JD_jjS3G_9st_eqwHO7slDDRVmHFYrV1RE9HnXKVo4pLwJP47TmQjOvntwbgCRRcxWIHHRkDmw4MzYv1_RkpV01nJXE06PbwDNDfd_GwO7RvJ0nq8nUjL3wiDsSoc2HAxTdeGV8gedKQI9RE7s7KyfhgOX8eohs1UAD3Kb6cwVRYoi4aGq-RJZy1MU_ikscocH-857HvK8A0H_GSclMqOUahTV7IkdyuFa_PJ1mt-I2DzMkn4v1Tar9JMQLX9bbyLa-Oi_cjhUaIHegiN4uoIP8dP1S9m9Q1XHle2B_N6JLY3vw2PxMMJZw_).

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.

Tomorrow, I’m writing a letter to the US District office, asking them how their position can be maintained in light of the 4 unmet Vatican requirements in Dignitas Personae.

A priest tells me they have already seen the article quoted above, but I have yet to see any response to it.

Meanwhile, Bishop Sanborn doesn’t know me from a hole in the wall, as far as I know, but someone here should forward him this article and ask for his response (they could simply state “presuming, for the sake of argument, that Dignitas Personae really did come from legitimate Vatican authority in the Holy Office, then what?”).

I’m completely mystified as to why neither Sanborn nor the SSPX address the requirements of DP (even in Bishop Sanborn’s case, he could still address the arguments, while rejecting the authority of DP).

It’s as though they are not aware of its existence (which, at least in the case of the SSPX, isn’t the case).
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: 2Vermont on November 25, 2021, 07:05:30 AM
He's honestly been moot on the point until today, at least from what I've discerned from his sermons and other videos online. I know he's mentioned the creeping socialism before, but he's really not said anything about the very open conspiracy of the Great Reset or the jabs.
You may be right.  I know he was very vocal pre-election, but I can't remember if there was any talk about the vaxx. 
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: 2Vermont on November 25, 2021, 07:12:19 AM
Bishop Sanborn is evidently out of touch with reality.
This isn't adding up for me.  It's not his style.  Something is odd about all of this.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: DigitalLogos on November 25, 2021, 07:40:31 AM
This isn't adding up for me.  It's not his style.  Something is odd about all of this.
You're right. Could it be as simple as age? Maybe he doesn't see it worth worrying himself about?

I don't know, we could drive ourselves mad trying to guess on his motivations
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: 2Vermont on November 25, 2021, 07:49:01 AM
You're right. Could it be as simple as age? Maybe he doesn't see it worth worrying himself about?

I don't know, we could drive ourselves mad trying to guess on his motivations
No, I certainly don't want to speculate....especially on a public message forum.

Having said that, what is not surprising is the divisive nature of the vaxx.  Division happens in families, with friends, with hairdressers, with co-workers.  So shall it be even with the clergy I suppose.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Todd The Trad on November 25, 2021, 08:14:38 AM
Someone posted this sermon from the late Father Perez from the feast of Christ the King a few weeks ago. He talks about how the vaccine is a sacrifice to Satin, if you get it, you're a part of the reign of the antichrist, etc. The whole sermon is superb but Father begins talking about the vaccine at 44:10 starting with, "They come up with a satanic shot that they all want you to take. Now, this satanic shot is made, developed on aborted babies." I'd recommend listening to his entire sermon (34:57-After his announcements/beginning of sermon). He talks about the novus ordo "Mass", mask mandates, the "satanic shot", Francis (he actually says he doesn't know whether Francis is pope or not, that it's "above his pay grade" and that Francis is the "Chaplin of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr), and more. I think it's like the perfect trad sermon. Exactly what I would want to hear discussed from a priest. RIP Father Perez, he will be missed! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlmFyIlxf9w&t=1563s
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: DecemRationis on November 25, 2021, 08:28:52 AM
Bishop Sanborn is a guardian of souls and defender of the faith. If there is an assault on the faith connected with the jab, it is only implicit; there is nothing explicitly against Christ or our Catholic faith about the jab in se. I understand the connections most Trad's make between the Great Reset, the vax, the lockdowns, etc. I would tend to agree there. But I see that a faithful shepherd - even without compromise to the faith - could take Bishop Sanborn's position. 

The crux is Question 6 in Bishop Sanborn's memo. I think his reasoning there certainly defensible, but if there's any basis to question his judgment as in some way disqualifying, it's there. I haven't seen any reasoned objection that his position is in some ways disqualifying as to his position as a leader of the traditional cause of the faith on that ground. 

Of course, this may simply be an issue of disagreement and objection to his view, which of course is fine and it is always a value in the search of being as close to the truth as we can to discuss these things. But to the extent that there is some suggestion that the Bishop's stance on this should detract from his standing in the trad community or such, that would be wrong in my view. 
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: DigitalLogos on November 25, 2021, 08:31:50 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlmFyIlxf9w&t=1563s
"The masks are them wanting to see how the Reign of the Antichrist will go"

RIP Fr. Perez. Excellent point, right in line with even Bp. Williamson's thoughts on this all being the "dress rehearsal" for Antichrist.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: DigitalLogos on November 25, 2021, 08:35:35 AM
 But to the extent that there is some suggestion that the Bishop's stance on this should detract from his standing in the trad community or such, that would be wrong in my view.
Here's the thing: Now is the time to either stand up and fight or lay down and submit to these wicked powers and principalities.

Bp. Sanborn, through his ignorance of the wider issue here (i.e. medical genocide and the kingdom of Antichrist), is showing that he is not equipped to stand up to just what is going on right now. And there are a lot of prelates in his position, like the neo-SSPX leadership, who are simply laying down when they should be fighting for their flock.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: SeanJohnson on November 25, 2021, 08:40:12 AM
Bishop Sanborn is a guardian of souls and defender of the faith. If there is an assault on the faith connected with the jab, it is only implicit; there is nothing explicitly against Christ or our Catholic faith about the jab in se. I understand the connections most Trad's make between the Great Reset, the vax, the lockdowns, etc. I would tend to agree there. But I see that a faithful shepherd - even without compromise to the faith - could take Bishop Sanborn's position.

Only if they're sedevacantists, and therefore have the luxory of ignoring the Vatican per se.

For the rest of us (e.g., SSPX, Resistance, Indult), we need to understand why the Vatican's own criteria in the 2008 CDF docuмent Dignitas Personae are being ignored and disregarded by the SSPX (particularly when it is shown that 3 of the 4 essential criteria are not met in the case of the COVID jab).
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on November 25, 2021, 08:42:10 AM
Here's the thing: Now is the time to either stand up and fight or lay down and submit to these wicked powers and principalities.

Bp. Sanborn, through his ignorance of the wider issue here (i.e. medical genocide and the kingdom of Antichrist), is showing that he is not equipped to stand up to just what is going on right now. And there are a lot of prelates in his position, like the neo-SSPX leadership, who are simply laying down when they should be fighting for their flock.

👍
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: SeanJohnson on November 25, 2021, 08:44:42 AM
Here's the thing: Now is the time to either stand up and fight or lay down and submit to these wicked powers and principalities.

Bp. Sanborn, through his ignorance of the wider issue here (i.e. medical genocide and the kingdom of Antichrist), is showing that he is not equipped to stand up to just what is going on right now. And there are a lot of prelates in his position, like the neo-SSPX leadership, who are simply laying down when they should be fighting for their flock.

Essentially, your argument is that it is not permitted to separate the morality of the jab in se, from the greater context of the Great Reset.

With DR, I would disagree with that.

However, against DR, I would say that even after making that legitimate separation, nevertheless, the circuмstances which would make the jab morally licit have clearly not been met (per Dignitas Personae).

PS: Even if sedes dismiss anything coming from the Vatican out of hand, nevertheless, they could still accept the principles of DP, without accepting theauthority of it, and come to the same conclusion on those grounds.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: DecemRationis on November 25, 2021, 09:21:21 AM
Essentially, your argument is that it is not permitted to separate the morality of the jab in se, from the greater context of the Great Reset.

With DR, I would disagree with that.

However, against DR, I would say that even after making that legitimate separation, nevertheless, the circuмstances which would make the jab morally licit have clearly not been met (per Dignitas Personae).

PS: Even if sedes dismiss anything coming from the Vatican out of hand, nevertheless, they could still accept the principles of DP, without accepting theauthority of it, and come to the same conclusion on those grounds.

As I said, the moral issue of question 6 could (should) be joined: does the Bishop's reasoning hold up to that? Putting aside the issue as to the source, I assume the principles expressed in DP are valid. You're right, that should be consider and weighed. I haven't done that, but just on reading Bishop Sanborn's view it seems reasonable. 


Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Matto on November 25, 2021, 10:35:43 AM
For the rest of us (e.g., SSPX, Resistance, Indult), we need to understand why the Vatican's own criteria in the 2008 CDF docuмent Dignitas Personae are being ignored and disregarded by the SSPX (particularly when it is shown that 3 of the 4 essential criteria are not met in the case of the COVID jab).
I am speculating, but I don't think they believe in what they are saying. I believe people in Rome or the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr or both ordered them or threatened the higher-ups to cave. If Father Kevin Robinson is right, the vast majority of the priests disagree with the official position (but many are afraid to speak out against it) and only three out of however many priests there are in all of the United States have taken the jab.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: 2Vermont on November 25, 2021, 05:09:25 PM
Only if they're sedevacantists, and therefore have the luxory of ignoring the Vatican per se.

For the rest of us (e.g., SSPX, Resistance, Indult), we need to understand why the Vatican's own criteria in the 2008 CDF docuмent Dignitas Personae are being ignored and disregarded by the SSPX (particularly when it is shown that 3 of the 4 essential criteria are not met in the case of the COVID jab).
But isn't the larger question: why is the purported pope ignoring it even to the point of encouraging Catholics to take the jab? In the end, who cares what the SSPX decides to do?

The fact that good and faithful Catholic bishops disagree on an unsettled matter related to theology is not something new. What's new is there isn't a Catholic pope leading them to unity.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Matthew on November 25, 2021, 05:18:43 PM
Essentially, your argument is that it is not permitted to separate the morality of the jab in se, from the greater context of the Great Reset.

With DR, I would disagree with that.

Count me among those who insist on taking this whole "jab" issue within the big-picture context in which it EXISTS out here in the real world. This jab, the forceful measures implemented to get everyone injected with it, is not happening in a vacuum, but in the context of the Great Reset and implementation of global totalitarian control (Communism). 

It's not like some places are just suffering a legitimate virus, but are not targeted at all for takeover by the Elites via the Great Reset. No. You show me a place with "the COVID pandemic", I'll show you a place being softened up for Communist takeover and total control of the population -- and culling. The two are intrinsically linked, out here in reality.

I don't see how one can separate the two, except in the most sterile, academic (and therefore near-useless) arguments.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Miser Peccator on November 25, 2021, 07:07:07 PM
There is a legal precedent that should also be considered.

When you allow the government to put something into your body, where does that end?

Bishop Athanasius Schneider made that point.

Your body is the line in the sand.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: DigitalLogos on November 25, 2021, 07:09:56 PM
Bishop Athanasius Schneider made that point.

Your body is the line in the sand.
Ironically, the slogan "my body, my choice" is actually logical here; unlike with abortionists who think their infant's body is also their body.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: bodeens on November 25, 2021, 07:51:15 PM

It's not like some places are just suffering a legitimate virus, but are not targeted at all for takeover by the Elites via the Great Reset. No. You show me a place with "the COVID pandemic", I'll show you a place being softened up for Communist takeover and total control of the population -- and culling. The two are intrinsically linked, out here in reality.
I think he owes his chapel-goers a charitable explanation... 60+ year sedevacante that was caused by Freemasons, Communists, homos etc and now you can take the vaccine "because theology" and it is from those objectively same forces that caused the 60+ year sedevacante. But this isn't a problem at all.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: DigitalLogos on November 25, 2021, 09:35:49 PM
I think he owes his chapel-goers a charitable explanation... 60+ year sedevacante that was caused by Freemasons, Communists, homos etc and now you can take the vaccine "because theology" and it is from those objectively same forces that caused the 60+ year sedevacante. But this isn't a problem at all.
Not to mention the other moral elephant in the room suggested by +Ripperger: support of abortion-tainted products, no matter how remote, promotes fetal organ harvesting which is an offense against the 7th commandment.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: 2Vermont on December 05, 2021, 05:52:14 PM
I haven't read through this yet, but this is Father Stephen McKenna's ...of St Gertrude....response regarding the vaccine:


http://www.sgg.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/JabMcKenna211205.pdf



Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: PAT317 on December 05, 2021, 08:56:05 PM
This is yet another article related to the ethics of the "vассinе".  I am not at all familiar with the author, though it looks like he's novus ordo.

https://www.lumenfidei.ie/docuмents/fr-ambrose-astor-on-conscience.pdf



Quote
     

Mοrе thаn еvеr, wе nееd thе spirit οf thе cοnfеssοrs аnd mаrtyrs whο аvοidеd thе slightеst suspiciοn οf cοllаbοrаtiοn with thе еvil οf thеir οwn аgе. Sοmе churchmеn in οur dаy rеаssurе thе fаithful by аffirming thаt rеcеiving а COVID-19 vаccinе dеrivеd frοm thе cеll linеs οf аn аbοrtеd child is mοrаlly licit if аn аltеrnаtivе is nοt аvаilаblе. Thеy justify thеir аssеrtiοn οn thе bаsis οf “mаtеriаl аnd rеmοtе cοοpеrаtiοn” with еvil. Such аffirmаtiοns аrе еxtrеmеly аntipаstοrаl аnd cοuntеrprοductivе, еspеciаlly whеn οnе cοnsidеrs thе incrеаsingly аpοcаlyptic chаrаctеr οf thе аbοrtiοn industry, аnd thе inhumаn nаturе οf sοmе biοmеdicаl rеsеаrch аnd еmbryοnic tеchnοlοgy. Nοw mοrе thаn еvеr, Cаthοlics cаtеgοricаlly cаnnοt еncοurаgе аnd prοmοtе thе sin οf аbοrtiοn, еvеn in thе slightеst, by аccеpting thеsе vаccinеs.



Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Matthew on December 06, 2021, 01:34:07 AM
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.

Exactly.

Anyone who can't read the signs of the times isn't very wise in my book. Maybe I'm just spoiled by wise bishops like +Williamson and +Zendejas (all 4 of the Resistance bishops really, but I know these two the best) -- I assume someone with the age, education, experience that a bishop should have, as well as time to pray, philosophize and think, should be able to figure out the basics of how the world works.

There are teen boys who know about (((those who run the world))). Any bishop -- usually well over 40 years old -- who can't manage that level of "awake" is pretty sad in my book.

Anyone who doesn't see problems with this Covid scamdemic hasn't been paying attention. That's all I can say. And these bishops who aren't awake -- what are they doing, taking the Media at face value? THEY SHOULD KNOW BETTER. Who do they think owns the Media? They ought to be ashamed.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Ladislaus on December 06, 2021, 05:47:04 AM
Bishop Sanborn is a guardian of souls and defender of the faith. If there is an assault on the faith connected with the jab, it is only implicit; there is nothing explicitly against Christ or our Catholic faith about the jab in se. I understand the connections most Trad's make between the Great Reset, the vax, the lockdowns, etc. I would tend to agree there. But I see that a faithful shepherd - even without compromise to the faith - could take Bishop Sanborn's position.

Only one who's living in some bubble without any application of historical context to the situation.  Father Ripperger argues that the morality is informed by the context.

This distinction of material vs. formal has largely been misapplied in the realm of moral theology, to the point that you could shoot someone in the head and if you don't "internally (in your mind) consent to his death," then you don't commit a grave sin.  This notion of formal vs. material has also been used to gut EENS dogma (and Bishop Sanborn is not great on that issue either).  Material-Formal is in fact the go-to distinction of a Thomist, but it's been warped into "external" vs. "internal" in the realm of moral theology and soteriology.  Moral Theology needs to be framed in terms of cause and effect, to determine what's OBJECTIVELY grave.  Now if the consent isn't there, then that mitigates culpability in the intenral forum, but that does not make the act itself permissible.  That has to be determined by cause and effect.  Am I a CAUSE of the immoral action?

Nevertheless, applying remote material cooperation to this case is like saying it's OK for me to buy a stolen vehicle because I didn't really agree with the original theft of it.  You're participating in an ONGOING evil.  There's nothing particularly remote about this evil.  Folks like Bishop Sanborn get myopically trapped in a syllogism and fail to see the wider context.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: DecemRationis on December 06, 2021, 06:33:56 AM

Only one who's living in some bubble without any application of historical context to the situation.  Father Ripperger argues that the morality is informed by the context.

This distinction of material vs. formal has largely been misapplied in the realm of moral theology, to the point that you could shoot someone in the head and if you don't "internally (in your mind) consent to his death," then you don't commit a grave sin.  This notion of formal vs. material has also been used to gut EENS dogma (and Bishop Sanborn is not great on that issue either).  Material-Formal is in fact the go-to distinction of a Thomist, but it's been warped into "external" vs. "internal" in the realm of moral theology and soteriology.  Moral Theology needs to be framed in terms of cause and effect, to determine what's OBJECTIVELY grave.  Now if the consent isn't there, then that mitigates culpability in the intenral forum, but that does not make the act itself permissible.  That has to be determined by cause and effect.  Am I a CAUSE of the immoral action?

Nevertheless, applying remote material cooperation to this case is like saying it's OK for me to buy a stolen vehicle because I didn't really agree with the original theft of it.  You're participating in an ONGOING evil.  There's nothing particularly remote about this evil.  Folks like Bishop Sanborn get myopically trapped in a syllogism and fail to see the wider context.

That's what I was talking about. In the thread you quoted me from, I was responding to the "vax is part of the Great reset argument, etc." not an engagement on the moral question, which I said was needed. To provide greater context to the quote from me:


Quote
Bishop Sanborn is a guardian of souls and defender of the faith. If there is an assault on the faith connected with the jab, it is only implicit; there is nothing explicitly against Christ or our Catholic faith about the jab in se. I understand the connections most Trad's make between the Great Reset, the vax, the lockdowns, etc. I would tend to agree there. But I see that a faithful shepherd - even without compromise to the faith - could take Bishop Sanborn's position.


The crux is Question 6 in Bishop Sanborn's memo. I think his reasoning there certainly defensible, but if there's any basis to question his judgment as in some way disqualifying, it's there. I haven't seen any reasoned objection that his position is in some ways disqualifying as to his position as a leader of the traditional cause of the faith on that ground.

Question 6 in Bishop's Sanborn's article or memo said this:



Quote
Question 6. Would it not be immoral to take the vaccine because tissue from aborted babies was used in its development? No. The reason is that it would be a cooperation in abortion which is both material and remote. Catholic moral theology teaches that, where there is a proportionate reason, one may cooperate in an evil act, provided that the cooperation is material and remote. Material cooperation means that you do not consent to the evil act. It is opposed to formal cooperation, in which consent is given. Therefore a pro-abortion nurse in an abortion clinic who helps the doctor murder the babies is giving formal cooperation, since she consents. Remote cooperation means that the act you are positing flows into the evil effect only to a lesser degree. 3 So the janitor who cleans up the abortion clinic at night contributes only very remotely to the murdering of babies. But he could not take such a job except for a proportionate reason, e.g., it is the only job he can get., and provided that there be no scandal (a condition required for any remote cooperation). Furthermore, the vaccines, according to the emphatic statements of their manufacturers, do not contain fetal tissue. It is true, however, that the vaccines were developed by using fetal tissue for research from babies aborted many decades ago. Hence the acceptance of the vaccine is only a very remote cooperation in abortion, if indeed it can be considered to be a cooperation at all. Consequently the vaccine could be taken for a proportionate reason. I say could, since someone may opt to refrain altogether from any cooperation, even remote, with abortion. No one should be obliged to act against his conscience in this matter. It should be pointed out, however, that every time you pay your federal taxes you are remotely cooperating in abortion, since the federal government monetarily supports Planned Parenthood. But you have a proportionate reason, namely to avoid a jail sentence for tax evasion. The same may be said for your school taxes, supporting in many cases school districts which promote CRT or transgenderism. Many products and services, furthermore, which you purchase involve a remote cooperation in evil projects, but this is cooperation which is both material and remote. Most of the big corporations are “woke,” and contribute money to evil entities. (Holding stock in these companies, for example, would be proximate cooperation. So look at your portfolio.)

******Footnote 3 - The famous moral theologian Merkelbach expresses it this way: “cooperation can be proximate or remote, to the extent that the 3 means provided by its very nature or by circuмstances flows more or less and has a greater or lesser connection with the sin of the principal agent, v.g., to hold the ladder for someone who is climbing it, or to give an idol to an infidel is considered proximate, whereas to hand a ladder to a thief, or to sell the material from which an idol will be made, is remote cooperation.”

Thanks for engaging the issue.

DR



Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: gladius_veritatis on December 10, 2021, 03:49:07 PM
The two are intrinsically linked, out here in reality.

Having lived within those walls -- albeit in MI many years ago -- I would say he is not notably acquainted with reality.  To quote a poem I read somewhere...

"Deal with Reality, or it will deal with thee..."
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: gladius_veritatis on December 10, 2021, 04:11:03 PM
Did anyone else notice and find it odd that he made his underlings sign that they agree with the doc?  To what end?

Is this common practice at MHT these days?

+Selway is a grown man and a bishop, yet he is being humiliated here, imo...
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: 2Vermont on December 10, 2021, 04:16:15 PM
Did anyone else notice and find it odd that he made his underlings sign that they agree with the doc?  To what end?

Is this common practice at MHT these days?

+Selway is a grown man and a bishop, yet he is being humiliated here, imo...
I disagree with them entirely, but I don't think he made them do anything.  I think Bishop Selway's signature could have a lot to do with the fact that, in addition to being very sick with the COVID himself, his young sister with Down Syndrome was deathly sick with COVID a few months back..and is still recovering to this day. 
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: DigitalLogos on December 10, 2021, 04:22:19 PM
I haven't read through this yet, but this is Father Stephen McKenna's ...of St Gertrude....response regarding the vaccine:


http://www.sgg.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/JabMcKenna211205.pdf
This was a great response and precisely the stance that needs to be taken with these magic potions being passed off as vaccines. Thanks for sharing this.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: gladius_veritatis on December 10, 2021, 04:30:53 PM
I disagree with them entirely, but I don't think he made them do anything.

It just struck/strikes me as odd.  It isn't like it is some sort of theological statement from "The Institute."  [As an aside, their take on the "una cuм" issue is only their opinion, but they sure as hell don't treat it as such.  Read the citation from Merkelbach, I think, at the end of the article and see if it seems a bit ironic and/or hypocritical.]

So, +Sanborn was going to just say nothing, but then decides to capitulate, if you will, in order to offer such an utterly useless contribution during one of the most serious moments in history?  Ah, the many hirelings of Traddieland; unfortunately for the sheep, they never disappoint. 
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: DigitalLogos on December 10, 2021, 04:35:11 PM
So, +Sanborn was going to just say nothing, but then decides to capitulate, if you will, in order to offer such an utterly useless contribution during one of the most serious moments in history?  Ah, the many hirelings of Traddieland; unfortunately for the sheep, they never disappoint.
I had a suspicion he would do such given the lack of any real position on the situation.


"But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?"
[Luke 18:8]
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: 2Vermont on December 10, 2021, 04:37:55 PM
This was a great response and precisely the stance that needs to be taken with these magic potions being passed off as vaccines. Thanks for sharing this.
Yes, I agree.  I also thought Father was also respectful in his response.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: gladius_veritatis on December 10, 2021, 06:36:59 PM
Footnote 10:

The moral theologian Merkelbach says: “In the direction of others, we [clergy] cannot impose but only counsel our own system, or one or the other probable opinion, because priests are not legislators nor can they give orders, except in a special case [Latin : per accidens], if the other person should consent to it, or if, for some other reason, there would follow some particular danger for him.” Summa Theologiæ Moralis, Vol. II, no. 100. [emphasis added] This rule must also be applied to bishops without jurisdiction, i.e., who are not the bishop of the diocese, since they, as well, are not legislators and cannot give orders. Traditional priests and bishops are not parish priests or pastors, but merely clergy who have assumed, without any appointment and completely on their own, the care of a certain Mass center. While their opinions should be carefully weighed and respected, the faithful should understand that the clergy in charge of their Mass center do not speak with the authority of the Catholic Church, and that the laity are not bound to adhere to any pronouncements they may make. The faithful would be bound to the teachings of the aforesaid clergy, if the clergy are presenting to the faithful doctrines or moral teaching already declared by the Church. In this case they are obeying the Church, and not the clergy of the local Mass center.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: Yeti on December 10, 2021, 07:03:13 PM
Did anyone else notice and find it odd that he made his underlings sign that they agree with the doc?  To what end?

Is this common practice at MHT these days?
.
This is not at all a common practice. On the contrary, I read everything Bp. Sanborn writes and this is the first time I have ever seen him append the signatures of other priests to one of his articles.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: bodeens on December 10, 2021, 09:56:19 PM
.
This is not at all a common practice. On the contrary, I read everything Bp. Sanborn writes and this is the first time I have ever seen him append the signatures of other priests to one of his articles.
One might say they are moving in "Lockstep", as the Rockefellers would say.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: josefamenendez on December 10, 2021, 10:12:44 PM
Did I miss something or did Fr McKenna's very well researched paper not say anything about the use of fetal tissue? That would be a big oversight.
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: 2Vermont on December 11, 2021, 07:29:00 AM
Did I miss something or did Fr McKenna's very well researched paper not say anything about the use of fetal tissue? That would be a big oversight.
You did not.  Fr McKenna's writings and discussions regarding vaccines in general/pre-COVID speak of remote material cooperation with respect to fetal tissue.  I don't know that he has changed his opinion on how to apply moral theology with respect to fetal tissue when dealing with the COVID vaccines.  It may be that it was not mentioned in his latest because this is an area that the two agree upon..?  
Title: Re: Sanborn on the vaxx . . .
Post by: gladius_veritatis on December 11, 2021, 10:04:06 AM
This is not at all a common practice. On the contrary, I read everything Bp. Sanborn writes and this is the first time I have ever seen him append the signatures of other priests to one of his articles.

So, we are agreed it is weird.  What gives?  Perhaps someone will not only confront them about their weak-dog statement, but also inquire as to the weird, arguably-cult-like presentation of a united front (opposing absolutely nothing in any meaningful way, mind you). 

Not only is this statement unspeakably lame, it comes so late in this battle that it would've been better to just remain silent.  So, maybe +Sanborn is getting too old to properly keep up with and address such issues?  That doesn't excuse +Selway et alii, all of whom are just carrying The Don's bags in this instance.  I wish the people at Pistrina Liturgica were still posting regularly; they'd demolish this lukewarm spinelessness for what it is.