New Tactic from the SSPX: Do it because it's charitable - take the vaccine

[Stone]

Just when you thought the Conciliar SSPX couldn't pay any more obeisance to the diktats of Conciliar Rome (and now apparently they've broadened their obeisance to include the NWO), here is their latest (rot), published yesterday. 

Extremely briefly, in this article the SSPX tells souls to feel comfortable taking the vaccine 'out of a sense of charity and in justice to your neighbor' and that 'vaccine passes are ok'. Such talking points are straight out of Pope Francis' and his globalist friends' communist plan. Tony Fauci has essentially said the same things. The mainstream media have said the same exact thing. 

The SSPX also blithely tells us to ignore the link to aborted fetal cells, 'it's too remote.' Dear friends, many of us know Protestant friends and family who adamantly refuse to take the vaccine because of it's link to abortion. They are fearful of offending almighty God by participating in anything linked to the sacrifice of children. Yet here is the Conciliar SSPX telling us to 'move along, nothing to see here.' How is this possible? 

When hundreds of thousands of souls around the world are protesting against vaccinations and communist-style 'health passes,' the Conciliar SSPX is telling you to not protest, to humbly submit to this foundational tenet of the new world order. 

May God have mercy on the souls of the SSPX leadership and any priests or religious participating and encouraging this travesty.

Archbishop Viganò has adroitly summed up the role of these false pastors, which sadly is so necessary to establish the promised 'hell on earth' i.e. reign of the Antichrist:

Great confusion reigns in this painful phase of the history of the Church: the inaction or abuse of the authority of the Hierarchy, along with the betrayal of so many false pastors and mercenaries, does not help to dispel the confusion of the faithful, and indeed the Shepherds even feed the confusion with partial, discordant and contradictory directions. In this too we can realize the gravity of the situation, and how much the defection of the Pastors is a necessary premise for the establishment of the kingdom of the Antichrist. If the Pope and the Bishops had a minimum of fear of God, they would not try to justify with unworthy sophistry a vaccine that in order to be produced requires stem cells obtained from voluntarily aborted fetuses. The pretium sanguinis would be enough to make them not even take it into consideration, but perhaps among the beneficiaries of that pretium there are also Prelates who care more about the hypocritical praise of the enemies of Christ than the heroic witness of the Faith.

Practical Considerations on Vaccination Against Covid-19
SEPTEMBER 24, 2021
SOURCE: FSSPX.NEWS [all images and emphasis in the original]

Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary

If there is a subject that agitates consciences today, it is the question of vaccination against Sars-Cov-2, still called Covid-19. It is everywhere in the news, in conversations, in the details of daily life, and it intrudes into everyone’s lives with commotion and often anguish. There are, of course, reasons for this. However, the absolute and categorical positions that are often widespread, such as that which tends to consider the vaccinated as Judas and those who refuse to do so as martyrs, or vice versa, seem at the very least excessive and sometimes mark an obvious lack of charity.

So, in the face of this general concern, how do we determine the practical conduct that it is up to everyone to adopt?


Objections to the Vaccine

A number of objections are made to anti-Covid-19 vaccines on various counts: scientific, medical, political and social.

Some vaccines, particularly those prepared using the so-called mRNA technique, are criticized for not fulfilling certain usual scientific criteria, namely: too short a development time, the precipitous speed of their marketing, insufficient clinical phases of their testing, neglect in taking into account various side effects, etc. This obviously causes some perplexity as to the soundness of the science behind these vaccines.

We also note that harmful side effects, more or less serious, are not sufficiently taken into account or are poorly evaluated, or even disguised. It is feared that the unknown consequences of vaccination constitute a significant danger, or at least more than what is acknowledged; some laboratories manufacturing a vaccine have also been able to identify shortcomings in other producers ... As health has become a priority in our world, these elements naturally worry even proponents of vaccination.

The political will behind the vaccination campaigns is also criticized. The vaccine is seen as a step towards world domination by more or less hidden powers. The compulsory vaccination for certain categories of people in certain countries is also denounced as violating individual freedom. This raises a sense of unease that is not unfounded either.

Finally, the social consequences of this situation, with the establishment, all over the planet, of a “health pass”, are also pointed out for various reasons involving individual, social or religious freedom. Some rightly point out that the act of vaccination must be voluntary and that it cannot be imposed covertly by segregating those who refuse it. The various means of pressure thus used to push people towards this solution are leading to the growing and understandable exasperation of many.


Vaccination: A Prudential Decision

Are these objections enough to condemn a priori whoever would agree to be vaccinated?

It should be remembered here that, like any concrete human act, being vaccinated is a matter of personal prudence, even family caution if it involves children. That is to say, it is up to each individual to make this decision, according to the light given to him and the precise circumstances in which he finds himself.

Indeed, any human act requires taking into account the moral object, the end and the circumstances - in particular those of time, place and means. However, inevitably, these circumstances vary infinitely according to everyone’s particular situation: each one is thus brought to decide for himself, according to his circumstances and point of view the possible risks to which his action exposes him and those around him.

Admittedly, it is commendable to take advice, to seek help to determine the best procedure to follow. In the end, however, it is the person concerned who can best choose and must make his decision, because it is he who knows his requirements and needs. We may be more or less skillful in the conduct of our lives, but the prudential decision belongs to us.

Let’s take an example: the various kinds of insurance to which we must or may be subject. Some are compulsory, others are voluntary, such as life or health insurance, and it is up to everyone to decide whether or not to take such or such insurance. Another example: that of the smoker. Smoking is a matter of personal prudence, and it is up to each person to acquire or not such a habit, taking into account the risks he runs.

It may happen that some decisions are not the best. Although less good, they are not necessarily bad, and they should then be respected. We also sometimes see people behaving in ways that we think are truly reckless, and we might very well be right about that. After having tried everything to enlighten these people, it is advisable to take a step back from the choice they ultimately make. It will sometimes even happen that errors prove to be useful, providing an opportunity for someone to correct themselves and to progress.

This is just a reminder of elements that are applicable to all moral acts.

From these considerations, it follows that it is up to everyone to decide, according to their prudential discernment, whether or not to be vaccinated. After investigation, reflection, or even consultation with competent persons to assess the objections mentioned above, everyone can freely make their decision, according to their knowledge and appreciation of the circumstances. It is just as abnormal to want to dictate to someone how to behave in this case as it is to want to compel them in matters of insurance, tobacco or even diet.


Additional Considerations

Finally, it may happen that there is a greater or lesser necessity for us to be vaccinated.

Thus, if it is impossible to approach the dying to confer on them the sacraments without being oneself vaccinated, we should prefer the salvation of our neighbor to our own health or tranquility. The same goes for all those who are obliged in justice, according to their duty of state, to provide for the salvation of their neighbor.

The same reasoning applies for obtaining the temporal or social common good: the soldier who gives his life for the country is bound by duty, the doctor is bound by natural law to treat his patients: such duties may require taking the means necessary for their fulfillment.

Another necessity, that which arises from charity, sometimes requires making sacrifices to ensure the salvation or the good of the neighbor. It does not have the same force as the necessity imposed by justice, but it does exist and concerns every man in regard to his neighbor. However, if a health pass is needed to circulate, it may happen that the obligation to fulfill a duty of charity prompts us to agree to be vaccinated.

It is true that the current conditions may be found to be coercive – an abuse of power – as seen in the pressure applied to be vaccinated. The fear of being under increased surveillance is also not a figment of the imagination. But let us acknowledge that we accept to submit to many pressures and constraints for reasons of justice, charity, common good or spiritual good.

We know that the simple act of using a smartphone, a credit card, surfing the internet or even driving a car puts us under state surveillance at almost all times. Some avoid this monitoring it by giving up using these electronic means. But others either have no choice because of their profession or accept this limitation in the hope of good to be had or accomplished.

It must therefore be concluded that the fact of consenting to be vaccinated against Covid-19 may sometimes be an eminently prudent act, in the moral sense of the term. It is up to everyone to choose whether to do this or not, depending on their circumstances, after having taken the information or advice of people competent in their field.

Mary Help of Christians - Turin

The Moral Licitude of the Vaccine

However, there remains one objection which may be proposed at this stage: vaccines are prepared or made on cells which allow the cultivation of viruses in the production process. However, as already mentioned, some vaccines are prepared on tissue cultured from cells obtained from abortion. Is it not then absolutely immoral to use such vaccines? And aren’t the best intentions powerless to justify this choice? As St. Paul says, “Let us not do evil so that there may come good.”

Note first that some vaccines that have been marketed do not present this problem, such as Curevac made in Germany. The question therefore does not arise for them, although it is not always possible to get these “clean” vaccines in a particular country.

In the case of vaccines linked to abortion, the moral principles have already been presented, but to make it perhaps clearer and more obvious here, let us reflect. The question is: is it permissible to take advantage of a past abortion by being vaccinated with a product made from such cells?

In other words, is the one who benefits from a past sin committing a sin himself? The answer is given by St. Thomas Aquinas: “It is one thing to consent or concur with someone in wickedness, another thing to use the wickedness of someone for good; for he consents or concurs with another in wickedness to whom it is pleasing that that other person engage in wickedness, and perhaps induces him to it, and this is always a sin; but he uses another’s wickedness who turns this evil that someone does to some good, and in this way God uses the sins of men by eliciting from them some good; hence it is lawful too for a man to use the sin of another for good.” (De Malo, q. XIII, a. 4, ad 17. See also Summa Theologica, II-II, 78, 4).

Here it is question not of an evil which one commits oneself, but of a sin committed by another: and this is why it is first necessary to reprove the past sin and not to consent to its malice.

This reprobation is internal, but it may also be necessary to manifest it externally, especially when it comes to avoiding the scandal that could arise from this use: either scandal towards neighbor, or risk of more or less relativizing the initial sin, out of habit or out of self-interest.

We must then make it clear that we do not consent to the sin from which we profit: this is why we will be careful to act only for a “proportionate” reason.

This means that the more serious and scandalous the past sin, the more important must be the reason to benefit from it; likewise, the closer this sin is to its good effect, that is, the more influence it has on this effect, the more one must demand a serious cause.

In the present case, it should be remembered that, while abortion is a particularly heinous crime – which certainly involves the risk of scandal – it does, however, allow the manufacture of vaccines only indirectly and very remotely. The existence of a reasonable motive for consenting to be vaccinated is therefore possible: for example, the inevitable loss of one’s professional activity or social responsibilities, the need to visit an elderly person to support him and not to leave him alone…

Thus, when there is a valid reason proportionate to the possible dangers, it is not immoral to be vaccinated with a product which has been prepared or tested with the above-mentioned fetal cells.


Conclusion

Vaccination against Covid-19 remains a thorny and debated issue. Many complex theories collide, and seeing things clearly is not easy. The unknowns around it, the pressures and the political issues only add to the difficulty. Especially since we cannot overlook the very real fact that Covid does exist and it claims victims.

However, since receiving the vaccination is an individual choice and a matter of personal prudence, it is important not to make it a dogmatic or theological question. Everyone should be left to his own prudence, and charity should be the law which regulates exchanges on this question, as on any other.

Let each apply himself to enlightening his judgment with whatever help he may obtain, and in the first place in the supernatural order, by prayer and recourse to the Holy Ghost.

This will allow him to take his responsibilities before God and thus make up his own mind in complete freedom.

Further, his neighbor should have at heart to respect this choice and to tolerate a decision other than his own, whether it is to be vaccinated or not.

Father A. Sélégny +


(Sources : Courrier de Rome/MG - FSSPX.Actualités)
Illustration 1 : Flickr / Fr Lawrence Lew O.P. (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Illustration 2 : Tommaso Andrea Lorenzone (1824-1902), at the request of Don Bosco., Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

[Stone]

This latest article  from the SSPX is filled with so much error, so many false premises. 

Simply put, it appears that the SSPX has chosen to use the approach of the carrot, rather than the stick in doing their part to lay the foundation for the Great Reset.  'Be charitable, in justice,' to your neighbor. Take the vaccine.  Ignore the communist methods being used to drive this agenda forward, ignore the tyranny and draconian lockdowns and mandates. Just be charitable, and do what you're told. 


Let us do what the SSPX will not, let us remind ourselves of the Catholic reasons why we cannot take these vaccines, no matter who is advocating for them... for as the Holy Ghost reminds us in Holy Scripture: "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." [Acts of Apostles 5:29]


Here is Fr. Peter Scott, during the traditional times of the SSPX, before their 'conversion' to the ways of Conciliar Rome, taken from The Angelus, June 2000:

Question: Is it licit to allow one's children to be vaccinated for rubella with vaccine manufactured with the help of fetal cells from aborted babies?

Answer:
There is no doubt that it is illicit to prepare vaccinations by the use of cell cultures from aborted babies.  It certainly is a very troublesome situation if the only way of obtaining such necessary vaccines is from cultures prepared from the by-products of abortions.

The question here is whether or not it is permissible to use such vaccines if they are the only ones that are readily available.  Can the principles of double effect be applied, that is when only a good effect is directly willed, and a bad effect is simply permitted, but not directly willed in itself?  The good effect in this case is the immunization against the infectious disease.  The bad effect is the abortion, the killing of the innocent.  It is never permitted to do something evil in order that a good can come of it, that it, it is never permitted for the good effect to come from the bad effect.  However it is possible to permit an evil, that is not directly willed in itself, and this is called the indirect voluntary.

Here one could argue that the person who seeks the vaccination does not will the abortion, but simply uses the cells that are obtained as a consequence .  However, the vaccine is not just an indirect effect of the abortion.  There is in fact a direct line of causality, from the abortion, to the available fetal cells to the development of the vaccine, to the immunization.  Therefore, the immunization is a direct consequence of the abortion, and not just an indirect effect.  Consequently, it would be immoral to use a vaccine that one knew was developed in fetal cells, not matter how great the advantage to be procured.

Moreover, even if it were to be admitted that the vaccination is not a direct consequence of the abortion, for the abortion is not performed directly in order to obtain fetal cells, and those who use them might claim, as for themselves, that they do not directly will the abortion in itself, the Catholic sense tells the faithful that they can never use the by-products of abortions for any reason at all, for by so doing they promote the mass murder of the innocent which is destroying modern society and all sense of morality.  There must always be a proportionate reason to use the indirect voluntary, that is to permit something evil which is not directly willed.  Here the reasonable gain obtained by the use of the double effect (if it truly were indirectly willed only, which it is not) would not in any way be proportionate to the horrible evil of abortion and the scandal would be immense.

If  a parent is not aware of the fact that fetal cells are being used in the culture of the vaccines that he or she is giving to his/her children, then clearly there is no moral fault involved. However, if he/she is aware of this, then he/she is morally obliged to refuse such vaccinations on principle, until such time as they can be obtained from cultures which are morally licit. Furthermore, if civil law should make such vaccinations obligatory (e.g., for attendance at school), then the parent would be obliged to object in conscience to such immoral means of vaccinating their children.

Moreover, it is not permissible to remain in willful ignorance on such a question. If there is a positive reason to suspect that fetal cells are indeed involved in the production of the vaccine, then a person is morally obliged to clarify the matter, and find out if this is indeed true or not.

[Stone]

A reminder also of this December 2020 Letter of Bishops Schneider and Strickland, and signed by several other Novus Ordo bishops, denouncing the use of vaccines linked with aborted fetal cells. These Novus Ordo (!) bishops remind their faithful what the SSPX intentionally does not, they explain Catholic teaching on this topic:

The theological principle of material cooperation is certainly valid and may be applied to a whole host of cases (e.g. in paying taxes, the use of products made from slave labor, and so on). However, this principle can hardly be applied to the case of vaccines made from fetal cell lines, because those who knowingly and voluntarily receive such vaccines enter into a kind of concatenation, albeit very remote, with the process of the abortion industry. The crime of abortion is so monstrous that any kind of concatenation with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances by a Catholic once he has become fully aware of it. One who uses these vaccines must realize that his body is benefitting from the “fruits” (although steps removed through a series of chemical processes) of one of mankind’s greatest crimes.

Any link to the abortion process, even the most remote and implicit, will cast a shadow over the Church’s duty to bear unwavering witness to the truth that abortion must be utterly rejected. The ends cannot justify the means. We are living through one of the worst genocides known to man. Millions upon millions of babies across the world have been slaughtered in their mother’s womb, and day after day this hidden genocide continues through the abortion industry, biomedical research and fetal technology, and a push by governments and international bodies to promote such vaccines as one of their goals. Now is not the time for Catholics to yield; to do so would be grossly irresponsible. The acceptance of these vaccines by Catholics, on the grounds that they involve only a “remote, passive and material cooperation” with evil, would play into the hands of the Church’s enemies and weaken her as the last stronghold against the evil of abortion.

What else can a vaccine derived from fetal cell lines be other than a violation of the God-given Order of Creation? For it is based on a serious violation of this Order through the murder of an unborn child. Had this child not been denied the right to life, had his cells (which have been further cultivated several times in the lab) not been made available for the production of a vaccine, they could not be marketed. We therefore have here a double violation of God’s holy Order: on the one hand, through the abortion itself, and on the other hand, through the heinous business of trafficking and marketing the remains of aborted children. Yet, this double disregard for the divine Order of Creation can never be justified, not even on the grounds of preserving the health of a person or society through such vaccines. Our society has created a substitute religion: health has been made the highest good, a substitute god to whom sacrifices must be offered — in this case, through a vaccine based on the death of another human life.

In examining the ethical questions surrounding vaccines, we have to ask ourselves: How and why did all of this become possible? Was there truly no alternative? Why did murder-based technology emerge in medicine, whose purpose is instead to bring life and health? Bio-medical research that exploits the innocent unborn and uses their bodies as “raw material” for the purpose of vaccines seems more akin to cannibalism than medicine. We also ought to consider that, for some in the bio-medical industry, the cell lines of unborn children are a “product,” the abortionist and vaccine manufacturer are the “supplier,” and the recipients of the vaccine are “consumers.” Technology based on murder is rooted in hopelessness and ends in despair. We must resist the myth that “there is no alternative.” On the contrary, we must proceed with the hope and conviction that alternatives exist, and that human ingenuity, with the help of God, can discover them. This is the only way to pass from darkness to light, and from death to life.

The Lord said that in the end times even the elect will be seduced (cf. Mk. 13:22). Today, the entire Church and all Catholic faithful must urgently seek to be strengthened in the doctrine and practice of the faith. In confronting the evil of abortion, more than ever Catholics must “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22). Bodily health is not an absolute value. Obedience to the law of God and the eternal salvation of the souls must be given primacy. Vaccines derived from the cells of cruelly murdered unborn children are clearly apocalyptic in character and may possibly foreshadow the mark of the beast (see Rev. 13:16).

Some churchmen in our day reassure the faithful by affirming that receiving a Covid-19 vaccine derived from the cell lines of an aborted child is morally licit if an alternative is not available. They justify their assertion on the basis of “material and remote cooperation” with evil. Such affirmations are extremely anti-pastoral and counterproductive, especially when one considers the increasingly apocalyptic character of the abortion industry, and the inhuman nature of some biomedical research and embryonic technology. Now more than ever, Catholics categorically cannot encourage and promote the sin of abortion, even in the slightest, by accepting these vaccines. Therefore, as Successors of the Apostles and Shepherds responsible for the eternal salvation of souls, we consider it impossible to be silent and maintain an ambiguous attitude regarding our duty to resist with “maximum of determination” (Pope John Paul II) against the “unspeakable crime” of abortion (II Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, 51).

This statement was written at the advice and counsel of doctors and scientists from various countries. A substantial contribution also came from the laity: from grandmothers, grandfathers, fathers and mothers of families, and from young people. All of those consulted — independent of age, nationality and profession — unanimously and almost instinctively rejected the idea of a vaccine derived from the cell lines of aborted children. Furthermore, they considered the justification offered for using such vaccines (i.e. “material remote cooperation”) as weak and unsuitable. This is comforting and, at the same time, very revealing: their unanimous response is a further demonstration of the strength of reason and the sensus fidei.

More than ever, we need the spirit of the confessors and martyrs who avoided the slightest suspicion of collaboration with the evil of their own age. The Word of God says: “Be simple as children of God without reproach in the midst of a depraved and perverse generation, in which you must shine like lights in the world” (Phil. 2, 15).

✠ ✠ ✠

Fr. Hewko commenting on the above letter and expanding upon it - from the Sermon for the Third Sunday of Advent [Second Mass] December 13, 2020:

✠ ✠ ✠

See also: Bishop Schneider explains why Christians must never take abortion-tainted COVID vaccine

[Stone]

Under the guise of "charity," the SSPX is asking us to ignore the true underlying issues at stake and encourage us to become members of a new 'healthy' society, but one that is being built upon the blood of innocent children, over a virus with a 99.97% recovery rate.

Archbishop Viganò: Vaccines made with fetal tissue are a ‘human sacrifice of innocent victims offered to Satan’

'The most innocent and defenseless creature, the baby in the womb in the third month of gestation, is sacrificed and dismembered in order to extract tissue from his still palpitating body with which to produce a non-cure, a non-vaccine, which not only does not heal from the virus, but in all likelihood causes a greater percentage of death than Covid itself, especially in the elderly or those who are sick.'

July 21, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, in a foreword to a book on the problem of the coronavirus vaccine, decries the satanic nature of this vaccine using tissue of aborted babies in its production and testing. For this Italian prelate, the vaccine is a tool of the globalist ideology which is “anti-human, anti-religious, and antichristic.”

Viganò sees that “abortion is proposed by the Satanists as a true and proper religious rite,” arguing that in this Satanic world view, through an abortion-tainted vaccine, one becomes a member of the Satanic anti-church. He writes that Satan claims, “through the pharmaceutical companies that use fetal tissue from abortions to manufacture a so-called vaccine that is presented in the delirium of Covid-19 as a sacrament of salvation by which one is incorporated into the ‘mystical body’ of Satan, the globalist anti-church.”

Mors Tua Vita Mea (Your death is my life) is the title of the Italian book on the abortion-tainted coronavirus vaccines to which Archbishop Viganò has contributed a foreword (see excerpts of it in English translation below). Edited by Professor Massimo Viglione, the book contains essays also by Bishop Athanasius Schneider and LifeSite’s editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen. Its subtitle is: “The End Does Not Justify the Means.”

For Archbishop Viganò, there is no doubt that coronavirus vaccines can never justify the killing of unborn babies. On the contrary, this vaccine seems to be used as a means to getting us more and more used to the killing of babies for the sake of humanity. He states:

...we cannot fail to see how instrumental it [the vaccine] is, precisely in its “mystical” value, to the collective acceptance of human sacrifice as normal and indeed necessary: the most innocent and defenseless creature, the baby in the womb in the third month of gestation, is sacrificed and dismembered in order to extract tissue from his still palpitating body with which to produce a non-cure, a non-vaccine, which not only does not heal from the virus, but in all likelihood causes a greater percentage of death than Covid itself, especially in the elderly or those who are sick.

Below is the excerpt of Archbishop Viganò's foreword to the book Mors Tua Vita Mea, published with kind permission by Professor Massimo Viglione:

Aures habent, et non audient. Ps 113

The barbarism in which our society finds itself is now evident: its values have been gradually erased as hateful vestiges of an extinct world, to the advantage of the delusions of globalist ideology, which shows itself to be ever more anti-human, anti-religious, and antichristic. The most antithetical principle of this infernal barbarism with respect to Christian civilization is infanticide, the human sacrifice of innocent victims offered to Satan; and despite the horror of seeing it brazenly admitted, we cannot be surprised if abortion is proposed by the Satanists as a true and proper religious rite, to which protection must be given in the name of freedom of worship. The ancient pagan rituals – omnes dii gentium demonia, says the Psalm – live again today in the sacrificial offering that unfortunate mothers believe can be claimed as a right.

If the firstborn of Israel belong to the Lord, the simia Dei demands much more of the firstborn and even claims them through the pharmaceutical companies that use fetal tissue from abortions to manufacture a so-called vaccine that is presented in the delirium of Covid-19 as a sacrament of salvation by which one is incorporated into the “mystical body” of Satan, the globalist anti-church. On the other hand, the “liturgical” connotation of the pandemic intentionally echoes signs and symbols proper to the True Religion in such a way as to deceive even the simple and push them to conform to a collective cult that exempts them from making decisions independently and binds them to an uncritical obedience. We cannot forget the funeral processions of military trucks, the contradictory and intolerant attitude of the Covid priests, the health magisterium of the “experts,” the inquisition against the denier “heretics,” and the fideistic adherence to the most grotesque superstitions passed off as science by virologist sorcerers and television vestals.

The gene serum that is called a vaccine, as scientists and specialists have very well demonstrated and as its producers themselves admit, does not guarantee immunity; it does not rule out serious short-term and long-term side effects; it is not effective against certain variants of Covid; it does not eliminate the need for masks and social distancing; in the majority of cases the number of positive tests increases, and so media terrorism and the tightening of containment measures also increases. Proposed as a panacea, the so-called “vaccine” has turned out only to be the source of enormous, scandalous profits for Big Pharma and, at the same time, serves as a pretext to impose health passports and other systems for controlling the masses and limiting natural liberties.

But alongside this obvious uselessness of the “vaccine” – a uselessness that any doctor not subservient to the system would have considered from the beginning, since the Corona viruses are susceptible to mutation – we cannot fail to see how instrumental it is, precisely in its “mystical” value, to the collective acceptance of human sacrifice as normal and indeed necessary: the most innocent and defenseless creature, the baby in the womb in the third month of gestation, is sacrificed and dismembered in order to extract tissue from his still palpitating body with which to produce a non-cure, a non-vaccine, which not only does not heal from the virus, but in all likelihood causes a greater percentage of death than Covid itself, especially in the elderly or those who are sick.

But who are the mothers who, denying their very nature, agree to kill their own child? The majority of them are women in their first pregnancy, unaware of the horror they are about to commit and the remorse that will accompany them forever. Here are the first-born to be consecrated to Satan: the children of unfortunate mothers and spoiled girls, who discover what it means to be mothers precisely in not wanting to be so, instead perverting their femininity by reducing it to a bargaining chip or an instrument of ephemeral enjoyment, in the name of rights which they claim for themselves but which they permit themselves to deny to the creatures they carry in their womb. The non serviam repeats itself inexorably every time the obedience of the fiat is refused and the will of the Almighty is rebelled against.

In abortion, Satan achieves the greatest injury to God: he offends Him as Creator, making the mother the murderer of her own child; he offends Him as Lord, usurping the right of life and death over innocent creatures and claiming the right to violate the Fifth Commandment with impunity; he offends Him as Redeemer, nullifying the fruits of Christ's Passion for creatures killed without the grace of Baptism; he offends Him as Father, while also vilifying the Sacred Maternity of the Most Holy Virgin.

Great confusion reigns in this painful phase of the history of the Church: the inaction or abuse of the authority of the Hierarchy, along with the betrayal of so many false pastors and mercenaries, does not help to dispel the confusion of the faithful, and indeed the Shepherds even feed the confusion with partial, discordant and contradictory directions. In this too we can realize the gravity of the situation, and how much the defection of the Pastors is a necessary premise for the establishment of the kingdom of the Antichrist. If the Pope and the Bishops had a minimum of fear of God, they would not try to justify with unworthy sophistry a vaccine that in order to be produced requires stem cells obtained from voluntarily aborted fetuses. The pretium sanguinis would be enough to make them not even take it into consideration, but perhaps among the beneficiaries of that pretium there are also Prelates who care more about the hypocritical praise of the enemies of Christ than the heroic witness of the Faith. [...]

[Stone]

We all know that once doctrine goes, so do the morals. When the SSPX forsook the traditional faith by accepting Vatican II in its 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, we knew that was not the end of it.

We may never know what is motivating the SSPX to act in this manner, that is, to make allowances for the vaccine in the name of 'charity,' blithely ignoring their moral illicitness because of their link with the murder of aborted children. We may never know why the SSPX is making allowances for the communistic implementation of the vaccine passes. We may never understand why the SSPX has aligned itself on the side of the globalist and 'Great Reset-ers' in opposition to Church teaching. We do know that these things will be judge by God and God alone. 

But the following article may shed some light? A CBS article published in December 2020 entitled, Inside the $250 million effort to convince Americans the coronavirus vaccines are safe, is interesting: it essentially outlines the propaganda campaign being employed to move people to accept the vaccine.

"You want to go for the low-hanging fruit, those that are easiest to pick and harvest. Those who are open to vaccination in general, but are currently hesitant about this vaccine," said Winsten [Harvard public health professor], who advised Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

"I think a lot of people in that group may be worried about potential side effects and they're taking a wait-and-see approach, and it's not that they need further explanation at this point. They need some additional data on the basis of millions of people having taken the vaccine. They often say in interviews, 'I don't want to be the guinea pig. I'm going to wait a bit and see how it goes,'" said Winsten. [...]

Weber [HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary] said the government is running focus groups geared toward finding spokespeople who are respected within different groups. It has already begun placing radio spots focused on continuing to "slow the spread" until vaccines are more widely available, as well as social media ads. A much wider push with television commercials and public service announcements, and radio and online ads, is planned for early 2021.

"Communication science says you need a messenger who is someone who resonates as trusted," Weber said.

On the national level, Winsten believes Fauci fits the bill — and he is currently appearing in HHS' digital ad campaign as well as Ad Council promotions, primarily digital and social media video ads — but Weber cautioned, "while many of us like and trust Fauci, it is clear from our focus groups not all feel the same way."

Winsten said the more intensive campaign geared toward smaller groups should focus on finding people who are locally influential.

"People trust their own doctors, their own nurses, their own pastors, their own social networks. That's very, very different from a distant figure."

Just food for thought...

[TheRecusant.com]

Others in the media are beginning to pick up on this:

SSPX leader says vaccination can be morally 'prudent'

Sep 24, 2021
by Cindy Wooden, Catholic News Service

https://www.ncronline.org/news/coronavir...ly-prudent

... a leader of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X said getting vaccinated "may sometimes be an eminently prudent act in the moral sense of the term."

Father Arnaud Sélégny, secretary general of the SSPX, also said if hospitals or nursing homes admit only chaplains who are vaccinated, priests should comply