Fr. Joseph (aka Fr. Regis de Cacqueray): On the question of the morality of vaccines

[Stone]

Non Possumus [We Cannot!] - A Study by Fr. Joseph on the Question of the Morality of Vaccines against Covid in Bioethics, Health, and Science 
published by Alain Escada March 29, 2021
Translated from the French via Google [slightly adapted - emphasis mine]

NB: Some of you may recall that prior to joining the Capuchins of Morgon Fr. Joseph was formerly Fr. Regis de Cacqueray of the SSPX.

On the Use of the Criminal Line HEK 293: The Question of the Morality of Vaccines against Covid

In tribute to Doctor Alexandra Henrion-Caude and to Mrs. Pamela Acker for their courage.

“Every man of the children of Israel who delivers one of his children to Moloch, will be put to death… I will cut him off from among his people, because he will have delivered one of his children to Moloch, so as to to defile my sanctuary and to profane my holy name " 1

“(…) Those who lead a life in conformity with the precepts of the Lord, abstain from all the remedies which God has not intended for this end; even though they would be sure of being cured by this means, they would not stop loathing them as artifices and enchantments of the devil.”

These words are taken from the Catechism of the Council of Trent in its explanation of the seventh request of Sunday Prayer. They lead us to question ourselves, as well as the instinctive reaction of many Catholics, on this genetic information - improperly called vaccines -, the development of which calls upon human cells from an aborted fetus. The fact is not in dispute. Mrs. Pamela Acker, in her successive interviews on Life Site News and in her book “Vaccination: a Catholic Perspective ” provides us with a documentation of the greatest importance on the subject and which we will use for our study, which will be limited essentially to estimating the morality of the acceptance to be vaccinated when the vaccine calls with HEK-293 cells in its fabrication.2  We thank her for having also transmitted to us Alvin Wong's reflections in "The Ethics of HEK-293" and for thus giving us the opportunity to discover other American authors who have been communicating a theological argument on the subject for nearly twenty years. years.

It must be recognized that the Catholics of the United States, in conservative or traditional circles, have a strong lead over us on this issue and that we would be very wrong to neglect their thinking. In the present work, after having described the origin of the HEK-293(I) cell line, explained its relationships in the manufacture and production of vaccines against COVID (II), we will seek to identify and enumerate the sins that are committed during the preparation of vaccines (III) and we will then propose a reflection of a moral order on the conductivity of sin (IV). Finally, we will seek to estimate how far the consent to be vaccinated is from the sins committed(V).


1. On the Origin of HEK-293 Cells

"HEK" is the acronym for "human embryonic kidney". There is evidence here that the origin of the cell line that bears this name originates from the kidney of a human embryo.

The number 293 tells us about the number of previous experiments which were necessary to lead to the stable and quasi-immortal development of this cell line. “This does not mean that there were 293 abortions, but for 293 experiments, it takes more than one abortion. We are probably talking about hundreds of abortions."3 To give an order of magnitude, we know that for the cell line WI38 also after an aborted fetus, it took 32 abortions.4 This proportion is more or less the same in the case of several other lines. If one is based on this proportion, there would then have been more or less 246 abortions before that of the aborted fetus in 1972 in the Netherlands and from which the so-called cell line originated HEK-293.

In his book The Ethics of HEK-293, Alvin Wong mentions an interview with Dr. Alex van der Eb who was involved in the development of this lineage and who specifies, as far as he remembers, that the fetus at the origin of this line was perfectly normal. The reasons for this abortion were probably known to him but he does not remember them.5 This fetus was that of a little girl.

Wong gives the many compelling reasons why it is extremely likely that the initial abortion of the HEK-293 lineage was not a miscarriage but an abortion. It should be noted above all, as Pamela Acker explains, that researchers need to obtain human tissue within five minutes of the abortion so that it is certainly usable.6 Removing the kidney an hour after the fetus dies is no longer useful. However, it is obvious, if it was a miscarriage, that there is very little chance of being able to intervene in time. Only abortion makes it possible to extract the coveted kidney with great speed.

In this logic, we understand the desire of researchers that babies be brought into the world by cesarean section. It is indeed when they are recovered alive that the chances of extracting the kidney under the best conditions are optimal. The kidney is therefore extirpated from a fetal body whose heart often still beats. Eradication of the organ normally takes place without anesthesia so as not to create cellular disturbances. Pressure may also be exerted on mothers to delay the date of the abortion in order to collect a better developed kidney.


2. On the Use of HEK-293 cells in the Manufacture of the "Vaccine"7 against Covid.

To arrive at the vaccines put on the market by laboratories, it is necessary to distinguish three different uses from HEK-293 cells. The first takes place in the design and production phase of the vaccine. The second takes place in the phase of experimentation of its effectiveness, and the third to allow the tests of effectiveness of the batches of vaccines before using it. Let us briefly explain what they consist of in differentiating conventional vaccines from so-called messenger RNA vaccines for the design and production phases.

For vaccines based on a viral vector, the HEK-293 cells can be used at all stages of their preparation: for the design and the production of the vaccine by transfection of said cells.

In contrast, for so-called messenger RNA vaccines, even though the nucleic acid is made by biotechnology from the karyotype of the Coronavirus, scientists have been forced to genetically create a more resistant Spike protein than the one that exists naturally. However, the experiments with a view to obtaining the desired mutations in the protein were initially carried out in HEK-293 cells. Pamela Hacker concludes, “the spike protein encoded by vaccines was originally developed in aborted fetal cells."8

Subsequently, before attempting to inject the vaccine into a human being, we started by testing it in cell culture in the laboratory because it is much cheaper and dangerous than trying to test it on humans. It was then possible to verify that the artificially produced mRNA made it possible to obtain the ordered production of the protein. The same is true for conventional vaccines. However, these verifications were carried out on HEK-293 cells.

Finally, each time that new batches are produced - or more often - we first see their effectiveness [being tested] on HEK-293 cells .

Let's conclude by saying that, although the “vaccines” offered by the laboratories using HEK-293 cells theoretically do not contain any remains of these human cells, there is no certainty about this. In fact, the purification of vaccines is generally carried out by centrifuge because this process is inexpensive. If one wanted a perfect guarantee of purity, otherwise expensive means would have to be used.


3. Identification and enumeration of the sins committed to lead to the marketing of "vaccines".

We are now able to distinguish, list and identify successive past and present sins to bring vaccines to market, and predictable in the future to fuel the market.

Past sins

Originally, abortions:

We conjectured the plausible range of the number of abortions required to obtain the renal cells in good condition sought: between 240 and 250 and we indicated the reasons for ruling out the hypothesis of spontaneous abortions. While it is true that a single abortion is an abominable crime, the mass grave of babies that we discover at the origin of the HEK-293 cell line singularly adds to the horror and underlines the cynicism of the merchants of human flesh, of the accustomed to crime. Even if the abortions were not decided with a view to obtaining human cells, it can be seen that the method used was chosen with this intention.


Vivisection on human beings:

For lack of knowing a more appropriate word, we use the word here to designate the dissections which one makes on living animals. But they are therefore performed on babies who have been torn from the mother's womb. They have one kidney or the other removed, if possible while they are still alive, so that the tissue collected is of better quality. We even avoid carrying out a prior anesthesia so as not to risk a disruption of the cells. This deli on live babies is probably repeated about as many times as the abortions counted.


Deprivation of both lives:

All these babies die without being baptized and go to limbo. Homicides not only deprive them of their earthly existence but also of the hope of a happy life. At the same time, they deprive God of all those who could have been his children by grace and his worshipers in Heaven. Whoever looks at things according to Faith must recognize in this third sin the height of abomination.


Organ theft and theft:

Babies skinned have obviously not given their consent to have their kidneys pulled out for use in science, research or industry. And, admitting that a mother has accepted that her baby be delivered alive to the flayers, her consent, following that which she gave for the murder of her child, is unfair, devoid of any value. Would it be admissible that the practice of vivisection definitively excludes any legitimacy for the juicy recovery9 of these kidneys?

There is therefore, at the origin, criminal theft of human organs. It should be added here that there is not only theft but also theft because there is truly an appropriation by the holders of the rights to these organs.

The indisputable sign of this usurpation lies in the reading of the DNA of any cell of the HEK-293 line. It would show in an infallible way that the DNA is that of a unique person, that of this embryo killed in 1972 in the Netherlands.

If it is true that man has only the usufruct [the right to the use and profits of something belonging to another] of his body and that his usufruct ceases from his death until the Resurrection of bodies, the remains of this body belong only to God and must be placed in the ground. Throughout the centuries, scavengers and flayers have been punished with death.


Sins present

Receiving and illegitimate exploitation of human cells:

Concealment is the unjust possession of what does not belong to us. Laboratories in possession of HEK-293 cells are guilty of concealing human cells. Their activity from these cells remains illegitimate on the grounds of the initial criminal usurpation and no prescription can be admitted in such a matter. The triple use that is made of these cells for the design, production and verification of the efficacy of the vaccine and of the quality of its batches placed on the market is therefore illegitimate.


Cooperation in the industrialization of the human body:

Laboratories, heirs to criminal thefts, usurpers of human organs, receivers and exploiters of these tissues, are obviously actors in the gigantic enterprise of commodification of the human body. Although actors, they are at the same time accomplices, formally accomplices of this terrifying multifaceted activity of instrumentalization of the bodies of the weakest human persons and therefore in particular of those who are still intrauterine. While it is true that this complicity does not enter directly into the genealogy of the sins which separate the initial abortions from the vaccines offered, it is nevertheless required to be taken into account.


Injection of a vaccine containing human debris:

Laboratories cannot guarantee that vaccines do not contain any human cell debris. There is therefore a risk of an injection of DNA fragments, even if they are only present in infinitesimal quantities. It is therefore ultimately a question of directly exploiting here something of the aborted fetus in the vaccine. This time, it is no longer simply the instrumentalisation of the human body in the service of the manufacture of the vaccine but the injection of human fragments recovered following a murder. It is easy to understand that we are crossing a new course of gravity. Do not retort that human debris is found in infinitesimal quantities because the smallest strand of DNA is enough to characterize human nature.



Sins to come

Encouraging the vicious circle of creating new fetal cell lines:

Although they are referred to as immortals, cell lines are not actually. They don't last indefinitely, and of course, when they run out, labs will need to create more. Then the history of the same sins that were committed begins again and will always begin again until the protest is heard.



General thoughts on the conductivity of moral evil:

Our goal now is to investigate the morality of consent to receive a vaccine that has been made using HEK-293 cells . Imagine that there is no other difficulty in receiving this vaccine (which is not true) than that of the history of sins that we have just given, the question is whether it would be legitimate to get vaccinated. Can we not say that these are mainly sins that belong to the past, that we must certainly deplore but that the damage is done and that receiving the vaccine or not will no longer change anything?

On an easy-to-understand example, let's show that just because a sin has taken place in the past, without our taking any part in it, doesn't mean that we cannot be morally contaminated by it. Or a man who stole a million euros. He dies. His son - aware of his father's theft - inherits and does not return the stolen sum. He in turn dies and his son inherits, aware of his grandfather's theft… I am a friend of this grandson who offers me a car from this money while warning me of its stolen origin. Am I entitled to receive the car? No. If I accepted it, I would be stealing myself. We can therefore clearly see that there is a conductivity of past sins which can have a strong impact on the morality of present sins. By certain acts that we take,

It may just be enough to approve them for them to resonate with us. But their resonance becomes even more penetrating when we step into the enjoyment we get from the fruition of these past acts. If it is sins, their appropriation is likely to take place in a very profound way.

Nevertheless, it is wrong, it seems to us, that we speak of cooperation with evil when we want to speak of the connection that is established between an act of the present with an act of the past. Indeed, the concept of cooperation supposes the exercise of a causality, of a real influence on a sin. So it should only be used in the case of a present or future sin.

Despite this difference between past acts on the one hand and present and future acts on the other, it must however be recognized that the distinctions which identify the nature of the cooperation and its legality are also useful in analyzing the question of the right to enjoy the fruits of sin.

We therefore recall that cooperation in sin is never possible if it is formal, that is to say if the cooperator has made his own the evil intention of the actor of sin. It is also prohibited if it is immediate. By immediacy is meant cooperation in the very act of sin. This immediate cooperation is of course prohibited, if it is a formal cooperation but even if it is only material, that is to say without there being participation for the intention of the principal agent because the action to which the cooperator participates would be a sin. There remains the case of a mediate cooperation where one brings an indirect contribution to the sin and without entering into the intention of the one who commits it. Ordinarily unlawful, distant material and mediate cooperation can sometimes be lawful for proportionately serious reasons.

But how do you know that these proportionately serious grounds exist and are sufficient to admit distant mediated cooperation? The prudential judgment that must be made is delicate and complex. All the circumstances must be taken into account and the following criteria analyzed.

The reason must be all the more serious:

• that the sin in which we cooperate is more serious,
  
  
• that the act by which we cooperate will cause scandal of the weak,
  
  
• that the act by which one co-operates comes nearer to sin,
  
  
• that the sin in which we cooperate would be avoided without our cooperation,
  
  
• that the obligation to prevent this sin is greater because of the nature of things, of the circumstances, of the personal situation of the cooperator.
  

It can be noted that two of these criteria (the avoidance of sin without our cooperation and the obligation to prevent it) are only relevant if it is a question of cooperation. In the case where it is a question of knowing whether one can enjoy the fruiting of sin, these criteria no longer come into play since the sins have already taken place.

Finally, we must draw attention to the notion of scandal. We must call scandalous "any fact, omission, word, whatever action having at least one less good aspect and capable of producing a moral fault in others." If this does not fall, the scandalous fact will at least be the occasion of a painful and reproving astonishment. Consequently, any scandal willed or permitted without a proportionate reason is, by its nature, a more or less serious fault against Christian charity."10

If one should not take into account the Pharisaic scandal which is caused in others because of his bad personal dispositions, one should be concerned not to scandalize the weak who, because of their ignorance, are scandalized on the occasion of yet legitimate actions. It is for this reason that St. Paul, while defending that the meats which have been consecrated to idols could be eaten without scruple, nevertheless concludes that if this manducation [act of chewing/eating] were to scandalize the weak, it would then be necessary to abstain from it.11

Another example, strong lighting, is in the life of St. Pascal Baylon, a Franciscan lay brother of the XVIth century. While he was doorman of his convent and had come to warn his superior that he was requested, the latter asked him to tell his petitioners that he was not there. We know that this response is a so-called conventional speech which must be understood in the sense that the one requested is not available. But the saint, after having tried to get to be able to give another answer, colliding with his superior, ended up saying to him: "Father, that would be a lie and therefore a sin, and sin is the offense against God. .  " 12 And [that was] the only time in his life, he didn't obey. We must add to this anecdote that, [even] if the humble Brother had not studied, God had given him such a great infused knowledge that the greatest theologians of the time came to consult him and were amazed at the extent and from the depth of his science! Which - it must be admitted - does not plead too much in favor of mental restrictions.


Estimation of the existence of a commensurate motive for receiving this HEK-293 vaccine

Of the sins we have listed, almost all of them are past sins. We have explained how these sins can contaminate us, however, even if we have not cooperated in their fulfillment. One of them, however, is an ever-present sin: it is the concealment of human cells originally stolen by crime. The same is true of the illegitimate exploitation of these cells and in particular, in the case of the Covid vaccine, of the use made of them during the design of the production and of the quality tests on occasion, the marketing of new batches of vaccines, as well as during vaccination. As we have written, two of the five criteria for judging whether there are reasons proportionate to mediate material cooperation no longer make sense if they are past sins. We will therefore only consider these two criteria for the sins still present. So let's review the five criteria.


1st Point: Severity of sins with which they come into connection, or those who have committed, or those who continue to be.

The first criterion to be considered is the seriousness of the sins in which one cooperates, if they are sins present or future, or from which one derives a profit, if they are past sins. And we understand that the greater gravity of sins makes it all the more difficult to cooperate or to derive fruits from them. Indeed, the connection which is established with them, installs a kind of guarantee of complicity which is all the more important [as] that sin is serious. Now it is obvious that the gravity of the sins with which the one who decides to receive this kind of vaccine enters into connection, is extreme. We think a little of a nuclear explosion whose irradiation is such that even those who are very far from the epicenter suffer the effects. To put the question differently: even if it is a question of preserving the greatest goods such as health or life, is it legitimate to accept even a slight complicity with such sins?

Although this criterion alone does not, it seems to us, still answer this question, it suffices on the other hand to show already how morally dangerous the acceptance of this vaccine is.


2nd Point: Evaluation of the scandal caused by vaccine acceptance

We put aside the Pharisaic scandal which seems to us absent from the reactions we are witnessing. Two very different reactions appear when one learns that ecclesiastical authorities consider the vaccine possible, for proportionate reasons. The first is a misunderstanding, a revolt, an indignation against the admission of a collusion which scandalizes them. The reasoning does not pass. That the Vatican has declared itself in favor of the possibility of using these vaccines is today considered, by a notable fringe of Catholics, as an additional sign that it should not be used, so much the discredit of conciliar Rome is immense and not only in traditionalist circles.

Mutatis mutandis, one thinks of the reaction of Saint Pascal Baylon… This reaction is also already accredited by positions in favor of the uncompromising line. Let us add that it is often also motivated by other aspects, medical and/or political that we do not address in this article.

Conversely, the second reaction is a sigh of relief. We can, in conscience, receive the vaccine. Which removes the specter of many anxieties and difficult tomorrows that we envisioned ... Has there been a scandalous effect among those who react in this way? We feel among them the fear that morality would one day impose on them something that would make their civic integration very difficult, if not impossible, but does not their desire to always find arrangements end up outweighing moral judgment? There is a submission to ever more restrictive diktats which leads men, and Catholics in particular, to have to accept ever greater complicity and to move away from the “non possumus -we cannot” line.

Even if we thought we had to conclude that this vaccine is possible, should we not add like Saint Paul about idolothytes [meats offered to false gods], that it is nevertheless better to abstain from it so as not to injure the conscience of those we felt to be weak? This would be a first motive. But is there not a greater one which pertains to the common good and which is that the worsening of cooperation weakens us more and more and makes us less and less able to oppose the Catholic principle against the barbarity?

We will not yet end the debate here, even if we believe that taking into account the scandalous effect is essential.


3rd Point: Evaluation of the proximity of consent to the vaccine to the sins listed.

As we said, three sins are present: the concealment of human cells without and against the consent of the usufructuary, the exploitation of these cells in particular in the design, the production and the realization of the quality tests on the vaccines against Covid, and the vaccination itself, given the presence of human debris in the vaccine.

Probably more tellingly, imagine a business known to operate on a serious initial theft of materials from which all the products it sells would be made. It seems to us that these products could only be purchased for very serious reasons and to the extent that there was no other possibility.

We find ourselves in a similar situation with these laboratories, except for one terribly aggravating circumstance for them. It is obviously that their theft, their initial usurpation, their present exploitation is not that of materials but of human cells coming from a living dissected child.

Vaccine consent would not only connect us to theft but to a crime. But at what distance? Considering the initial abortions and vivisection, let's count for nothing the distance in time, space, and incognito of the child. Whether it is a child who had an abortion in 1972 in Amsterdam or a little girl who had an abortion an hour ago in Paris and whose name is known does not change the question at all. The notion of moral distance does not have to deal with these factors. The moral estrangement that exists is that the one who is vaccinated is effectively far from the initial act from which he benefits in a mediate and distant way.

On the other hand, the distance from sin is much less if we consider criminal concealment and cell exploitation. It is from this concealer and criminal laboratory, illegitimate exploiter of human cells that the said vaccine came from. If they were only vulgar stolen materials, proportionately serious reasons could exist to buy them but we will not be able to find any which is not sufficient to legitimize the acquaintance which is no longer distant - and even less very distant. - with the crimes of concealment and exploitation.

But now we must ask ourselves if the acceptance to receive a vaccine which contains fragments of DNA is not constitutive of a material cooperation but immediate in this "unspeakable" sin which consists in accepting that the man is made " consumer ”of elements of the human body resulting from the crime.



4th and 5th Point: Hope of avoiding sin if one does not enter into a connection with it and having more or less strict duty to prevent it.

We group these last two criteria which make us feel more strictly than the others how much sin has invaded the world since we must confess and that the individual refusal to receive the vaccine will not prevent the laboratories from continuing to develop their immoral activity and that we feel very powerless to oppose it.

This observation should not, however, lead us to this perverse reasoning which would consist in estimating that it is therefore useless to oppose it and to undergo all the damage to the key which would result from it perhaps. Each of us must act according to his conscience formed according to divine law and not do what is wrong, even if he is the only one in the world to oppose it.

On the other hand, the heroic example he would set has in reality an incomparable exemplary scope as shown by the history of heroes and saints. Finally, let us say that we will not tear down the walls of this Jericho of evil by the utopia of numbers but by the strength of God and our availability to be his docile instruments in this struggle.

[With] supernatural light, it becomes clear that a courageous refusal is already shaking the system and helping to weaken the Goliath of iniquity which challenges the Catholic world.

We have not addressed in this article neither the medical aspect nor the political aspect of the vaccination which also deserves the attention of morals. As for the medical aspect, it should be remembered that man being only the usufructuary of his body must not be resigned to being used as a guinea pig by science. However distinguished and courageous voices like that of Mrs. Alexandra Henrion-Caude, and many others still, warn us of the potentially serious consequences of these new gene therapies which are not controlled.

The names of the most illustrious virologists appear to warn us of the genetic changes that will result from mRNA vaccines. At the risk of surprising us, we do not hesitate to write that this manipulation of the genetic heritage constitutes a moral reason to oppose the vaccine, even more serious than that of the use of human cells from sacrificed children.

Finally, it is not difficult to demonstrate that the most determined supporters of this compulsory vaccination, among those who hold the financial and political power, are very often at the same time the militants of a reset humanity and of a forced depopulation.

Moral reflection on these medical and political aspects of vaccination could only strengthen our moral conclusion on HEK-293 . However, in this time of deviation from ecclesiastical authorities, we are well aware that we can only deliver one opinion. It is worth what the arguments we have given are worth. Other voices have concluded differently. May this article make its modest contribution to the substantive debate which the gravity of the question deserves.

Footnotes:

1.Lev. 20; 2-3.

2. Among the laboratories which use these HEK 293 cells one or more times in the manufacture of vaccines and before their marketing, let us cite Astrazeneca, Sputnik V, Novavax, Moderna, Pfizer.

3. Pamela Acker in an interview with John-Henry Westen of Life Site News and translated by Jeanne Smit, on her blog January 23, 2021.

4. Ibid.

5. Alvin Wong in The Ethics of HEK-293 , The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 2006, p. 274.

6. Pamela Acker, ibid.

7. As several scientific authorities have pointed out, and in particular Dr Alexandra Henrion-Caude, the word " vaccine " is in fact inadequate. It will be better to speak of "genetic information". We use the word “ vaccine ” for convenience.

8. Pamela Acker, ibid.

9. Available over the counter on the ATCC website, you can add 10 µg of HEK-293 to your basket for € 439.

10. JMVittrant, Theologie Morale, Beauchesne 1954, n ° 150, p.97.

11. I. Cor. VIII.

12. Father Louis Antoine de Porrentavy, Saint Pascal Baylon , Plon 1899, p.142.