Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs  (Read 2590 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15064
  • Reputation: +9980/-3161
  • Gender: Male
To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs
« on: May 15, 2021, 07:06:03 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Dear Shill-

    I apologize for not responding to you sooner, but I wanted to give people a chance to see what kind of an obsessive lunatic you are before responding.  I think you have painted that picture rather nicely (4 banned accounts in 12 hours; dozens of banned accounts over the years; gratuitously speculating on why I withheld my position paper on ναccιnєs...wrongly, as though you knew something you didn't; etc.).

    Before explaining why I withheld my position paper on a difficult subject, I would simply note that the SSPX theological position you consider so airtight seems not to be shared by many even within the SSPX: Fr. Peter Lang, Fr. Byrne, Fr. Burfitt, Fr. Webber, Fr. Robinson and others (these just the English speakers I am aware of) have all dissented from the official SSPX position to one degree or another.

    But as to your question: Why did I withhold my paper?

    Shortly after I announced my intention, I was contacted by a Resistance priest who had been following the CI discussion at that time, and asked me not to publish it.  He told me that a group of priests was studying the issue, and this led me to believe they would come out with a position paper.  Therefore, I deferred.

    This same priest also made several objections to a draft of my paper (some of which were convincing, and some which were not).

    Therefore, I decided to send my draft to this group of priests, and received a promise of a future response, which did not come for two months.

    When the response came, it gave several reasons why the CÖVÌD19 ναccιnє should not be taken (including and beyond the issue of abortion), stated that the bishops should condemn the ναccιnє whether abortive cells were used in the testing OR in the manufacturing stage, but also noted there were difficult questions  and implications for the apostolate if the shot could not be taken, and therefore concluded the matter required further study.

    Meanwhile, the opposition to the jab amongst trads began to strike me as so prevalent, that there wasn't much point in preaching to the choir.

    So, given the difficulty of the subject matter and not wanting to err; given the fact that priests are divided on the matter; and given the fact that most trads already oppose the jab, it seemed prudent not to attempt the project I initially intended after all.

    This brings us to your last question: What is my position?

    1) Regarding the value of the "remote material cooperation" argument, which purports to find the CÖVÌD19 jab morally permissible if proportionality and necessity are present (i.e., the Fr. Selegny criteria which Menzingen has endorsed), I am undecided, and reserve the right to further study and reflection.

    2) Supposing the principle expounded in #1 were conceded, for the sake of argument, nevertheless, I do not think such proportionality and necessity exist.

    Consequently, my position in #2 makes the question in #1 moot.

    In a follow-up post, I will give my reasons why I do not think necessity or proportionality exist with regard to the CÖVÌD19 jab.

    Note that my response will center only upon the abortion issue, and leave aside other reasons why the CÖVÌD19 jab might not be morally permissible (e.g., the morality of human experimentation; scandal; political; etc.).
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31179
    • Reputation: +27095/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Re: To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs
    « Reply #1 on: May 15, 2021, 07:26:44 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • It sure has me wondering -- why now, all the sudden? Why is the neo-SSPX on the offensive here in mid-May 2021?  

    Are they practicing "the best defense is a good offense", are they still recovering (in terms of PR) from their support of the COVID scamdemic, or what?

    Sure makes you wonder.
    Logged
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16439
    • Reputation: +4863/-1803
    • Gender: Female
    Re: To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs
    « Reply #2 on: May 15, 2021, 07:36:09 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Maybe certain people including clergy has stock in shots? How much money are being given to churches who promote the vaccine?

    Logged
    May God bless you and keep you

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs
    « Reply #3 on: May 15, 2021, 07:46:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 15, 2021, 07:06:03 AM
    Dear Shill-

    I apologize for not responding to you sooner, but I wanted to give people a chance to see what kind of an obsessive lunatic you are before responding.  I think you have painted that picture rather nicely (4 banned accounts in 12 hours; dozens of banned accounts over the years; gratuitously speculating on why I withheld my position paper on ναccιnєs...wrongly, as though you knew something you didn't; etc.).

    Before explaining why I withheld my position paper on a difficult subject, I would simply note that the SSPX theological position you consider so airtight seems not to be shared by many even within the SSPX: Fr. Peter Lang, Fr. Byrne, Fr. Burfitt, Fr. Webber, Fr. Robinson and others (these just the English speakers I am aware of) have all dissented from the official SSPX position to one degree or another.

    But as to your question: Why did I withhold my paper?

    Shortly after I announced my intention, I was contacted by a Resistance priest who had been following the CI discussion at that time, and asked me not to publish it.  He told me that a group of priests was studying the issue, and this led me to believe they would come out with a position paper.  Therefore, I deferred.

    This same priest also made several objections to a draft of my paper (some of which were convincing, and some which were not).

    Therefore, I decided to send my draft to this group of priests, and received a promise of a future response, which did not come for two months.

    When the response came, it gave several reasons why the CÖVÌD19 ναccιnє should not be taken (including and beyond the issue of abortion), stated that the bishops should condemn the ναccιnє whether abortive cells were used in the testing OR in the manufacturing stage, but also noted there were difficult questions  and implications for the apostolate if the shot could not be taken, and therefore concluded the matter required further study.

    Meanwhile, the opposition to the jab amongst trads began to strike me as so prevalent, that there wasn't much point in preaching to the choir.

    So, given the difficulty of the subject matter and not wanting to err; given the fact that priests are divided on the matter; and given the fact that most trads already oppose the jab, it seemed prudent not to attempt the project I initially intended after all.

    This brings us to your last question: What is my position?

    1) Regarding the value of the "remote material cooperation" argument, which purports to find the CÖVÌD19 jab morally permissible if proportionality and necessity are present (i.e., the Fr. Selegny criteria which Menzingen has endorsed), I am undecided, and reserve the right to further study and reflection.

    2) Supposing the principle expounded in #1 were conceded, for the sake of argument, nevertheless, I do not think such proportionality and necessity exist.

    Consequently, my position in #2 makes the question in #1 moot.

    In a follow-up post, I will give my reasons why I do not think necessity or proportionality exist with regard to the CÖVÌD19 jab.

    Note that my response will center only upon the abortion issue, and leave aside other reasons why the CÖVÌD19 jab might not be morally permissible (e.g., the morality of human experimentation; scandal; political; etc.).

    Fr. Selegny and the Argument from “Necessity”

    Fr. Selegny’s article asks the following question regarding “necessity:”

    “But what if, in a particular case, a person finds it necessary to be ναccιnαted and is unable to obtain a "licit" ναccιnє, having only an "illicit" ναccιnє available? This may occur for health reasons (vulnerable elderly person), or because of the professional situation (exposed medical personnel) or for professional reasons, such as traveling by plane.”
    https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/it-morally-permissible-use-CÖVÌD-19-ναccιnє-62290

    My response:

    Obviously, to answer this question, one must distinguish between:

    A)    Objective necessity: Is there currently a mandate in place?

    B)     Subjective necessity: Individuals may have local mandates.

    C)    Conflating “necessity” with “convenience.”

    As regards the matter of objective necessity (i.e., government mandates requiring the vaccination of entire populations), it does not yet exist, and may never exist (except ironically, in the Vatican, in light of Francis’s recent declaration).  So addressing the question from this perspective is completely academic at the present time in the overwhelming number of places.

    As regards the matter of subjective necessity (e.g., local mandates; employer mandates), these concerns too, at the current time, are largely illusory (at least in the United States: Healthcare workers, school teachers, military personnel, etc. are currently refusing the vaccination in large numbers (in the case of the US military, by as much as 33%).

    But supposing the cases Fr. Selegny envisions materialized, and it really was necessary to receive the abortive ναccιnє in order to maintain employment or board an airplane, I am forced to ask myself: Do these situations really present me with a case of subjective necessity?  Is maintaining my present job a necessity?  Cannot I find other work?  Have I not found other work before?  Would I not likely find other work again?  Would my children really starve if I had to get another job?  Not likely.

    Or, is boarding an airplane truly a necessity?  So I can go on vacation?  So a priest can fly from Paris to London?  Are we not instead really speaking about “convenience” rather than “necessity?”  And if by my ingenuity, I can envision situations where boarding a plane or keeping a job truly could be considered “necessary,” will not such “necessity” actually be simple inconvenience in 99% of the cases?  Will not most people simply board planes for convenience, or keep their present jobs for security rather than necessity?

    Suffice it to say that in most cases, that which Fr. Selegny calls “necessity” is, most of the time,  in actuality only “convenience.”

    It also seems relevant that Fr. Selegny, in drawing his analogy between the supposed morality of receiving the abortive MMR shot, and the morality of receiving the abortive CÖVÌD19 “ναccιnє,” there is almost no chance of death in either case:

    According the US Center for Disease Control (CDC), in 2019, there were only 10 cases of infant mortality from MMR (out of 3,475.540 live births),[1] and according to the same CDC report, those 10 MMR infections came from US citizens who contracted it while out of the country.  Meaning, there is practically no chance of death for the unναccιnαted from MMR.  And if there is no chance of death, how does one make an argument from “necessity?”

    The likelihood of death from CÖVÌD19 was almost equally remote: At a time when the official death count from CÖVÌD19 stood at around 185,000 in the US, the CDC announced that only approximately 13,000 had died who did not have other serious comorbidities, and even with the falsely inflated death toll (including rigged positive tests, and false cause of death determinations), the survival rate rate for CÖVÌD19 stood at 99.997%.

    These MMR and CÖVÌD19 numbers make it quite a stretch to argue for the permissibility of remote cooperation in evil on the basis of alleged necessity.

    Also relevant, seems to be the availability of other therapeutics and treatments for CÖVÌD19 more effective than the “ναccιnєs,” such as hydroxychloraquine, vitamin C/D3/Zinc, ivermectin, and other non-abortive options.

    These are all difficulties I have in accepting the existence of a “necessity” (which Fr. Selegny seems to confuse with “convenience”)  to receive the “ναccιnє.”
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs
    « Reply #4 on: May 15, 2021, 07:55:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Fr. Selegny and “Proportionality”

    Fr. Selegny stipulates that there must be “proportionality” between the remote/material cooperation in evil (i.e., cooperation in abortion), and the good to be attained (i.e., which is not actually the saving of life, but only a potential lessening of the severity of symptoms, should one become infected).  

    It should be obvious that there is no proportionality between the evil of murder, and the good of less severe COVID19 symptoms.

    Proportionality means blood for blood: Under this criteria, the vaccine would have to be saving you from death, but the authorities say this is not the normal/actual benefit of the "vaccine" (and even people who have been getting vaccinated are still coming down with COVID19!), even if it is the mistakenly perceived benefit.

    It is important to note here, I think, that the good to be attained is contingent, and not certain: 

    The recipient of the vaccine may cooperate in the evil of abortion, but never become infected (or becoming infected, never have suffered any symptoms).  In such case (which would be the case for unknown millions), they manifestly fail the proportionality test:

    They will have cooperated in the evil, but received no proportionate good (or any good at all)!  

    And in those cases, therefore, the receipt of the vaccine would have been impermissible, for failing the proportionality test.

    But supposing a “vaccinated” person did receive a lessening of symptoms (something he cannot know will benefit him at the time of deciding to cooperate in the evil!  Are we allowed to cooperate in evil, knowing we may never receive any benefit at all, much less a proportionately good one?).  Even then, would any soundly formed Catholic conscience perceive an equivalence in the good and evil between cooperating in abortion on the one hand, and lessening my flu symptoms on the other?  

    Most, I think, would say the good to be gained does not offset the evil to be committed.

    When one combines the seeming lack of proportion (or even any good altogether), in conjunction with the lack of necessity in 99.99% of cases, it seems to me that the permissibility of taking this “vaccine” is almost morally impossible, but there are still more serious concerns.

    [I will not include those other moral issues here, such as the morality of human experimentation; scandal; political reasons; etc.]
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs
    « Reply #5 on: May 15, 2021, 08:37:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Disputed and/or Uncertain Points:

    1) When I argued that only blood is proportionate to blood, and likewise, that potential job loss does not equal necessity, the priest who initially contacted me objected.  In his opinion, there can be "necessity less than death."  He gave the example of a poor mother of 10 in Honduras who is taking care of her mother with cancer.  He posited that in such a case, necessity would exist.  My response was that, leaving aside the issue of necessity, such a scenario would still fail the proportionality test (i.e., blood for blood).

    2) One priest from the group noted that, if it were never morally permissible to take the jab, then the apostolate would be closed in many areas of the world (as many countries are or will require a CÖVÌD Passport for entry).  This would leave souls stranded.  My response was that, in such a case, priests would have to infiltrate such countries covertly, just as they have had to do in prior Church persecutions (e.g., Henry's England).

    3) What in the case where there is a real danger of death subjectively (i.e., for a particular individual)?  It would seem then that the question of whether remote material cooperation in evil WOULD need to be resolved one way or the other.  The official SSPX position has made an argument applying this principle to reach an affirmative conclusion, but the opponents seem to have reached their contrary conclusion citing only arguments from authority.  Attempts to disprove the applicability of remote material cooperation have been absent or weak.

    4) Archbishop Vigano wrote that the 2005 Vatican docuмent based itself upon poor research (i.e., mistaken science) regarding the remoteness of the abortions (i.e., I think he was alleging or implying that more recent abortions are periodically needed to keep the testing and development of these ναccιnєs going.  If so, his argument of fact would seem to call into question the remoteness of the evil, and therefore be relevant to assessing the remote material cooperation justification.  I would be interested in a deeper explanation of this argument).

    5) The difficulty of the issue is manifested not only by the division between authorities, but even changed positions by these authorities themselves.  It seems time for reflection may produce for some conclusions different than those from which they started (e.g., Bishop Williamson).  Even the priest who sent me the initial email asking me not to publish my paper noted several others who were inclined to agree with Fr. Selegny at that time, but then goes on to say the matter requires further study.  At least one cleric implicitly referred to as supporting Fr. Selegny at that time wrote to me two months later saying the bishops must condemn the ναccιnєs whether they used abortive cells for testing or for manufacturing (which would seem to object to the remote material cooperation justification)...but then expressed his thought regarding difficulties for the apostolate, only to conclude further study was necessary.  

    Seeing how even the very learned struggled with the question caused me to refrain from taking a hard position either way on the first question (i.e., whether the jab would be permissible if necessity and proportionality were present), and this uncertainty (along with the circuмstances described above) is ultimately what led me to scrap my project.

    I agree that more study is needed (and not just regarding the abortion issue, but also those left unaddressed by the SSPX study, such as the morality of human experimentation, scandal, the reputation of the Church, the promotion -albeit unwittingly- of the abortion and body parts trafficking industry, political issues, etc.).
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 900
    • Reputation: +776/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs
    « Reply #6 on: May 15, 2021, 08:48:22 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Logged

    Offline Mr G

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2128
    • Reputation: +1326/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs
    « Reply #7 on: May 15, 2021, 11:17:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matthew on May 15, 2021, 07:26:44 AM
    It sure has me wondering -- why now, all the sudden? Why is the neo-SSPX on the offensive here in mid-May 2021?  

    Are they practicing "the best defense is a good offense", are they still recovering (in terms of PR) from their support of the CÖVÌD scamdemic, or what?

    Sure makes you wonder.
    I heard that half the SSPX priests stationed in St. Marys, KS have  gotten or otherwise approve the vaccine, the other half are against it. 
     I also heard something more disturbing, but I was not sure how public that is, so I will not repeat until I find out if it was said in a public setting. But if true, then I can see why the SSPX will need to go on the offensive.
    Logged

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8901
    • Reputation: +8675/-849
    • Gender: Male
    Re: To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs
    « Reply #8 on: May 15, 2021, 06:19:12 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    •                            Diocletian's necessity of burning incense

       

                    "Well, we were invited there with my dad's friends, and the emperor asked us to burn it,
                    and we didn't want to make anyone feel uncomfortable, and... it didn't hurt anything...
                       I mean it smelled pretty good  and... everybody was burning it... and"
    Logged
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2034/-454
    • Gender: Female
    Re: To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs
    « Reply #9 on: May 15, 2021, 06:29:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Incredulous on May 15, 2021, 06:19:12 PM
                              Diocletian's necessity of burning incense

       

                   "Well, we were invited there with my dad's friends, and the emperor asked us to burn it,
                   and we didn't want to make anyone feel uncomfortable, and... it didn't hurt anything...
                      I mean it smelled pretty good  and... everybody was burning it... and"
    Bow down to the altar of JABBO!
    Logged
    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41862
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs
    « Reply #10 on: May 15, 2021, 06:34:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • So, as I have stated, taking the vax which contains the remnants of an aborted baby has nothing remote material about it.  It’s a formal and direct participation in an ongoing evil.  This is the argument of Fr. Ripperger and others.  I too concluded this independently without having read about their position first.

    As for vaxxes tested with aborted babies, the crime of abortion and the abortion industry is so heinous, that one cannot find a proportional reason that would make it licit.  This is in fact the argument of +Vigano and +Schneider, and accepted by -+Williamson.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41862
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs
    « Reply #11 on: May 15, 2021, 06:37:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mr G on May 15, 2021, 11:17:50 AM
    I heard that half the SSPX priests stationed in St. Marys, KS have  gotten or otherwise approve the ναccιnє, the other half are against it.
     I also heard something more disturbing, but I was not sure how public that is, so I will not repeat until I find out if it was said in a public setting. But if true, then I can see why the SSPX will need to go on the offensive.

    My guess is that it’s related to keeping their schools open.  So they’ll do whatever it takes to keep the lights on and the money flowing ... just like when they approved various anti-discrimination statutes against sodomy.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs
    « Reply #12 on: May 15, 2021, 06:48:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 15, 2021, 06:37:37 PM
    My guess is that it’s related to keeping their schools open.  So they’ll do whatever it takes to keep the lights on and the money flowing ... just like when they approved various anti-discrimination statutes against sơdơmy.
    I’m biting through my lip...
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41862
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs
    « Reply #13 on: May 15, 2021, 07:33:09 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 15, 2021, 06:48:18 PM
    I’m biting through my lip...

    That was my first guess right out of the gate before it was hinted at by the St Mary’s poster.  There is precedent for SSPX making compromises to keep schools open.  If St. Mary’s closed, then who would attend that expensive new church they’re building?  SSPX continuing to prosper seems their moral justification for everything, including shuffling pedophiles around and obstructing justice.  Glory and financial success of SSPX constitutes their prime “necessity”.  

    Somebody at some point made this about the SSPX rather than about God and the truth.  So the SSPX has lost its savor and is good for nothing but to be hurled to the ground and trampled underfoot.

    They’ve become worthless except for bringing the Sacraments.

    I believe they are inching closer to red-light territory in terms of the Modernism they spew on a regular basis.
    Logged

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1650
    • Reputation: +453/-366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs
    « Reply #14 on: May 15, 2021, 08:05:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 15, 2021, 07:33:09 PM
    They’ve become worthless except for bringing the Sacraments.

    If you believe that they're "bringing the Sacraments" to you or to whomever else, then you believe that Our Lord sent them to feed his lambs. And at the same time you believe that Our Lord sent otherwise "worthless" folks to feed his sheep.

    You must be living in some kind of absurd nightmare.

    Do you believe they enter by the gate? 
    Logged
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)
    Pages: [1] 2 3
    « previous next »