[The context of this communication of Fr. Chazal is a group email correspondence, in which he is responding to another priest who notified him of the SSPX article.  Several other Resistance clergy and laity were included in this communication.  It is translated and published with permission.]


"This article is repugnant, scandalous, completely in line with the new progressive moral theology and slavishly attached to the media soap opera. It is full of implications that are worth unfolding. It seems as though it could have been written by Fr. Paul Robinson, with this concern to follow "Modern Science".


Implications:

1. What right do they have to say that taking a vaccine or drug made from an aborted fetus is a material collaboration? What other abuses does this open the door to?  Can we imagine Pius XII making such recommendations?

Aborted fetal tissue is a material substantially united to an aborted human form...

We are in the most formal of situations, unlike the plumber who repairs leaks in an abortion room. The starting point of the action is a baby abortion.

In 2000, Fr. Peter Scot argued that there is a [direct] causal relationship between the baby abortion and the vaccine. In 2006, he recognized the insidious Roman docuмent of 2005.

What remains of the doctrinal rigor of the SSPX of yesteryear? It is completely outdated on this subject, even by conservative liberals.

Let us summarize: there is a FORMAL LINK, and an obvious CAUSALITY LINK between abortion and these vaccines. "Let us not do evil to obtain good," says St. Paul. "The end justifies the means," says Machiavelli.


2. The laboratories mentioned as honest, competent institutions are both criminal and ʝʊdɛօmasonic enterprises, this is abundantly proven. (See the excellent article by Abbe Rioult).
I learn that the remdesivir (Gilead) is made from aborted tissue, further confirmation of the degree of criminality of these organizations.

A show of hands is not enough.

Calling people who did the research and inform people, such as RFK jr., Professor Raoult, etc., "fundamentalists" bears witness to typically liberal contempt. Liberals do not want to find the truth where it really is, while they err on the side of the single thought as the foundation of all thought. They are the fundamentalists.


3. The author further assumes that covid is a serious health phenomenon, which is still a huge lie. The official motive of cutting off the population in a neocommunist surveillance regime is supported.

It assumes that there has not been an excessive vaccination policy for 40 years... despite all the studies that have been done on this subject.

We are told about "Promising Vaccines" even though their development is rushed (In theory, we must trust vaccines because they are tested over years): the author repeats what has just come out of La Figaro and the world... on TV, on CNN... or on "The Lancet".

He refuses to warn that the vaccine is only the gateway to a multitude of other totalitarian measures. Covid is a political phenomenon, a seizure of power of the political body by medicine and over medicine.

It assumes that there is no alternative to the vaccine, (i.e. Hydroxychloroquine+Azithromicine in the first two stages of the disease).

It only recommends Remdesivir, which is criminally manufactured using aborted cells, and proves ineffective. And it mixes the lie with a Trump argument.

Trump took it for political reasons, to please the lobbies that put Biden on the map.


4. "What does the Church say? The docuмent quoted, from the year 2005, comes from the Conciliar Church, our enemy, the one we must bring down. And this docuмent insinuates that if we are far enough away from the act of abortion, the moral link with abortion that made the vaccine possible becomes purely material, free of fault. This docuмent is very subtle, but remains an open door... and as proof, we must accept Remdesivir, also developed from aborted tissues.

Since when do we have to comply with the conciliar magisterium?


5. How did we come to a DUTY ("recommended as prudent") to take unnecessary vaccines or even vaccines derived from aborted babies? Where is the limit? When will people see fetal organs in their pills? (I exaggerate of course, being a fundamentalist).

Abortion is Niet! What is this Wojtylian theology bordering on Bergoglian? Francis says we mustn't exaggerate about abortion...

Now we should stop exaggerating about the atrocious manipulations resulting from abortion.

In all satanic civilizations, the counterpart of human sacrifice is cannibalism. The Mayan Empire was the perfect example. The criminal practices of abortion, duly affine of science (as if stem cells could not be taken from the placenta), have this same double counterpart.


WHAT TO DO?

Under threat and restrictions, (In fact we are already promised the gulag,... sorry, the perpetual confinement says Christophe Barbier, or I don't know which one the preventive health internment center), a Catholic could take a synthetic vaccine.

But even then, it is also necessary to know what such a vaccine contains and what are the dangers and finally the stupidity to be vaccinated against some usual flu, even if it is of artificial origin, as Montagnier says. Normally, with the Orwellian Ministry of Health, the cure will be much more dangerous than the disease, and we just have to observe its effects on those who will be in a hurry, and our corresponding well-being.

With this pseudo-scientific juice, let us count on the neoSociety to collaborate until the end, and more and more with those who seek to shed us.

Is Fr. Pagliarani going to have this damning cloth removed? In my opinion, yes if there are waves, but not without.

In any case, this article is for the English-speaking world, even German-speaking, controlled by more liberal priests... while another speech half fig and half grape is the law elsewhere.

Thank you for warning me and giving the subject of my sermon.
fc+

Is Fr. Chazal saying that Fr. Scott did a u-turn and accepted in 2006 the insidious Roman docuмent of 2005?

Yes, and it is a fact, as demonstrated by my posting of Fr. Scott’s approving introduction to a 2006 Angelus article endorsing the 2005 PAFL letter (which directly contradicts his own 2000 position, without addressing the arguments he made at that time).

I'm totally against vaccines, but I do agree with the high-level logic that there has to be some line where one is "far enough away from abortion" that a moral issue is not involved.

According to that logic, if I kill someone, and I elude capture for 40 years, and then take refuge with my mother (who knows I am a fugitive), then it should be permissible for her to harbor me, since she was not the murderer, and the crime was 40 years ago?

However, even if every, single vaccine was not related to abortion, one still has to wonder if there is a secondary moral issue - the problem of taking a vaccine that is dangerous to one's health...possibly fatal.  That's what these things are designed to do - make one sick/infertile/die.

Is maintaining a cell line harvested from a killed human for whatever reason a good thing?

What is/are the specific contradiction(s) of Fr. Scott? I’m not seeing anything. His article on MMR seems consistent.

Also, I don’t see Fr. Chazal addressing anything specific or substantive here. For example, I don’t see him rebutting the 2005 Pontifical Academy for Life’s study, which Archbishop Viganò also accepts since he wrote in The Remnant:

On the one hand [the bishops of England and Wales] recognizes that “The Church is opposed to the production of vaccines using tissue derived from aborted fetuses, and we acknowledge the distress many Catholics experience when faced with a choice of not vaccinating their child or seeming to be complicit in abortion,” but it then affirms, in very grave contradiction with the stated unchanging principles of Catholic morality,[3] that “the Church teaches that the paramount importance of the health of a child and other vulnerable persons could permit parents to use a vaccine which was in the past developed using these diploid cell lines.”

Note the reference [3] which directs the reader to the “unchanging principles of Catholic morality” is this:
Cf. Pontifical Academy for Life, Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Human Fetuses, 5 June 2005.

It seems to me that the issue is far from being as straightforward as many think.

Hi Shill-

1) 2000 Fr. Scott = Catholics can never take such vaccines; 2006 Fr. Scott = Catholics can take such vaccines in certain circuмstances (per the 2005 doc).

2) Vigano rejects the conclusion of the 2005 doc: "From a moral point of view, for every Catholic who intends to remain faithful to his or her Baptism, it is absolutely inadmissible to accept a vaccination that utilizes material coming from human fetuses in its process of production."
https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/vigano-on-rejecting-abortive-vaccines-(again)/ 

So, no specifics just a general accusation. But following your logic killing in self defence contradicts the Commandment “thou shalt not kill”.

Fr. Scott’s articles are not contradictory, it is just one explores in greater depth an extreme case. It’s the same with Abp. Viganò who stated that the ‘unchanging principles of Catholic morality’ are found in the Pontifical Academy for Life’s “Moral Reflections”.

To state that such vaccines can not be manufactured or used as a general principle isn’t contradicted if in an extreme case different advice is given, i.e. a mandatory requirement by the civil authority. But the first steps taken should be to seek out alternatives and if there aren’t any then raise a moral objection.

Taking such a vaccine should be a last resort, taken under duress, and not being a first choice. That’s what Viganò is attacking in the Pontifical Academy’s latest article; it reverses this ‘order of battle’ and allows vaccines derived from aborted fetuses as a first choice without any moral objection whatever.

It is these subtleties and nuances that you fail to grasp.

Got it, Shill:

In your hazy mind, "may never use" does not contradict "may use in certain circuмstances."

And your twisting of Vigano (i.e., You can only use abortive vaccines if there aren't alternatives) is clearly contradicted by his own words:

"From a moral point of view, for every Catholic who intends to remain faithful to his or her Baptism, it is absolutely inadmissible to accept a vaccination that utilizes material coming from human fetuses in its process of production."

Oh, wait, I got it: Its only "absolutely inadmissible" if there's no other options (i.e., circuмstances which make it perfectly admissible)!!!  LMAO!  What a joke!  Get lost.

PS: Have you noticed your masters removed the article, and announced they are reconsidering?  

Each time a virus replicated it sheds it's former genetic material and takes up the genetic material of it's new host. Their position is saying it's no longer the same type of tissue multi generations later. To use the shirt analogy, if every time the shirt changed hands, parts of it were replaced, buttons material etc and the shirt passed on now has no material left from the murder is it still the same shirt? That's the question being asked. Is that shirt the same shirt from the murder? It's not answering the question of guilt or what is or is not acceptable. It is based upon the fact that the original thing no longer exists

Sean, a vaccine is made partially from a virus, so Confederate’s question is important.  
.
Honestly, we need a good, orthodox, Catholic virologist to answer these scientific concerns.