A Priest’s Moral Analysis of the COVID “Vaccines”

The following was shared with me by a priest who I trust.

Moral Analysis of Vaccines

JMJ

On the blatant immorality of the currently employed COVID vaccines 

What follows are a series of briefly outlined moral arguments. Each argument stands alone, and in itself is sufficient to demonstrate the immorality of receiving the currently employed “vaccines”.

(For the sake of brevity, dozens of supporting links have been omitted; I do not advocate for all the content on the websites linked to below.) 

1)  Using human subjects as lab rats.

“doctors may not use the bodies of the sick as a corpus vile*  for experimenting with uncertain remedies when surer remedies can be usedWhen there are no sure remedies, a doctor may test the remedial nature of newly discovered drugs, if there is no risk to the patient.” Moral and Pastoral Theology Vol II, Henry Davis, 1949, 6th Ed.,  page 155, emphasis mine.

*“Something felt to be of so little value that it may be experimented with or upon without concern for loss or damage.” Merriam Webster. (In popular terms: guinea pig; lab rat.)

As to first highlighted statement: surer remedies.  There are surer remedies, for example ivermectin, or the antimalarials with zinc.

Furthermore, nothing could be more uncertain than using mRNA type “vaccines”, “treatments” which are completely novel, never before seen and not even tested in animals.  

[Parenthetical remarks.  With regard to the value of these vaccines as “remedies”, these articles are well worth meditating on.

WHO’s chief scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, noted…”At the moment I don’t believe we have the evidence of any of the vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on,”

Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory wrote:  There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic. I’ve never heard such nonsense talked about vaccines. You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.

Given the above, what is the purpose of these “vaccines” then? 

A suggestive statement: in February 2010, Bill Gates stated: “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” 

One possibility to consider: (from an interview with Robert F Kennedy Jr.)

According to the World Health Organization, there are 70 vaccines in development — three of which are in clinical trials. What do you think about the push for the rapid development of a COVID-19 vaccine? Is it okay to skip animal trials and go straight to human trials? Can those human volunteers truly have informed consent?

KENNEDY: No. What we know about coronavirus from 30 years of experience is that a coronavirus vaccine has a unique peculiarity, which is any attempted making of the vaccine has resulted in the creation of a class of antibodies that actually make vaccinated people sicker when they ultimately suffer exposure to the wild virus. Following the SARS epidemic that began in 2002, China launched a concerted effort to develop a coronavirus vaccine. They succeeded in developing 30 promising models, and they chose the four “best in class” to fabricate and then test on ferrets, the animal most analogous to human beings when it comes to upper respiratory infections.

The ferrets all developed admirable, robust, and durable antibody responses, and the scientists believed they had hit the jackpot. But then, when the animals suffered exposure to the wild virus, something frightening happened. The vaccinated animals sickened and died with body-wide inflammation. The vaccine had created a condition known as paradoxical inherent immune response, which amplified the injury caused by the illness rather than preventing it.

The scientists at that time recalled a similar occurrence from the 1960s where the NIH had conducted studies on a vaccine for RSV, an upper respiratory illness very similar to coronavirus. The 35 children in that study had developed a strong antibody response but had become terribly ill upon exposure to wild RSV. Two of the children died. Remembering this incident, the scientists in 2012 abandoned their efforts to create that vaccine. And that is why today you are hearing dire warnings from unexpected quarters — Paul Offit, Peter Hotez, Ian Lipkin, and even Anthony Fauci himself — who have all warned that a coronavirus vaccine may end up making people sicker from coronavirus rather than avoiding the disease.

Another possibility to consider:

“in 2015, Vatican Radio charged that the UN organizations WHO and UNICEF were again executing vast international programs of depopulating the earth by using vaccines to surreptitiously sterilize women in Third World countries, this time in Kenya. It stated that “Catholic Bishops in Kenya have been opposed to the nationwide Tetanus Vaccination Campaign targeting 2.3 million Kenyan women and girls of reproductive age between 15-49 years, terming the campaign a secret government plan to sterilize women and control population growth”” “the WHO was for decades receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for research and testing, to produce an antifertility vaccine that would make a woman’s immune system attack and destroy her own babies in the womb, a vaccine they would surreptitiously combine with a tetanus vaccination without informing the victims… The WHO inoculated more than 130 million women in 52 countries with this vaccine, permanently sterilizing some very large percentage of them without their knowledge or consent.” 

Close of parenthetical remarks.]

(Show Notes for the Interview with the Former Pfizer VP)

As to second highlighted statement: no risk to patient.  That is manifestly not the case here.  As of “Feb. 12, 15,923 adverse reactions to COVID “vaccines”, including 929 deaths, have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since Dec. 14, 2020.”   The actual numbers of deaths and injuries are likely much much higher, since  “Historically, however, fewer than 1% of adverse events have ever been reported to VAERS”. (In other words, to get a more probable assessment of the actual numbers, multiply the data above by 100.)

As to the complete statement itself: doctors may not use human beings as experimental lab rats.  No sane human being, and certainly no Catholic, can argue this point, as is clear from the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2295:  

Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subjects’ potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject’s life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him.  CCC 2295

See also the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declarations, eg Helsinki IV Sept 1989 esp Basic Principles #1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 

2) Mutilation.

“The body may not be mutilated unless mutilation is the only available means of saving the rest of the body, i.e., its life or health. Since man may not take away his life, so neither may he mutilate his body, for the members of his body are not his to dispose of, but are to be used in their integrity to help him to fulfill the divine purpose and achieve his own perfection and last end. But since life is better than a member of the body, the latter may be sacrificed, if necessary, to save the whole body.”  Ibid., page 156, emphasis mine.

Before addressing the highlighted passages, let’s start with the obvious question: how does the question of mutilation enter into a moral analysis of these “vaccines”?

It is not even possible to think of a more serious mutilation than to permanently and irreversibly change one’s genome.  It makes what Bruce Jenner has done look trivial (and that certainly is not.)  And yet it seems very likely that that is exactly what these “vaccines” do.  

To cite only one authority: Dr. Luc Montagnier (2008 Nobel Prize for discovery of HIV) who disputes “the label of “vaccine,” arguing that these products represent a new form of gene therapy” and who “opposes the use of mRNA vaccines in humans, stated in an interview…  “The human genome contains 7% to 9% of endogenous retrovirus sequences. Some of these sequences code for reverse transcription of RNA into DNA. Therefore, it is possible that the spike protein mRNA of the vaccine could be absorbed by human cells, reverse transcribed, and integrated as a human gene in these cells… (in other words, the recipient of this “vaccine” would become a genetically modified organismEven if animal testing showed protection, nobody could predict long-term pathologic effects in a human population and the precautionary principle should apply.” (emphasis mine.)

As to the first highlighted statement: the body may not be mutilated unless mutilation is the only available means of saving the rest of the body, i.e., its life or health

As already pointed out above, this is simply not the case.

As to the second highlighted statement: mutilation is forbidden, excepting in the cases of sacrificing a part to save the whole, such as removing a gangrenous limb, which is manifestly not the case here.

3) Aborted Fetal Cells

Aborted fetal cell lines are being used for the making and/or testing of the “vaccines”.   In order to really appreciate the gravity of the aborted fetal cells, this video, and contents of this article, are absolutely essential to digest:

To produce the cell line used in the development Merck and Pfizer “vaccines”, scores of babies (probably hundreds) were delivered alive by the abortionist(s), via c-section, and then handed over to the “scientist” who immediately stretched out the baby and gutted him out – alive, kicking and struggling – in order to get the desired tissues.  

Clearly satanic. 

This same cell line was not only used in the development of these “vaccines” but – as pointed out in the above video and article – is apparently being used in the production phase of each new batch, for “quality-control” purposes.

Apparently this is not a very serious concern for many of our religious leaders.  Abbey Johnson has called them out on that, and (in a sad commentary on our times) she makes far more sense than almost any of our moral theologians or religious leaders:

The bottom line is that either we are for abortion or against it. Either we are for using fetal cells derived from abortions or we are against it. Either we are for using “vaccines” manufactured using fetal cells or we are against it.  Is it really morally acceptable to possibly extend our lives (a dubious claim at best) by means which employ the sacrifice of babies?  

And in this regard, we have been blessed by some very clear teaching from Cardinal Janis Pujats, Archbishop Tomash Peta, Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga, Bishop Joseph E. Strickland, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider in their brilliant letter On the moral illicitness of the use of vaccines made from cells derived from aborted human fetuses.

The whole letter deserves prayerful consideration; here are a few important excerpts:

In the case of vaccines made from the cell lines of aborted human fetuses, we see a clear contradiction between the Catholic doctrine to categorically, and beyond the shadow of any doubt, reject abortion in all cases as a grave moral evil that cries out to heaven for vengeance (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2268, n. 2270), and the practice of regarding vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines as morally acceptable in exceptional cases of “urgent need” — on the grounds of remote, passive, material cooperation. To argue that such vaccines can be morally licit if there is no alternative is in itself contradictory and cannot be acceptable for Catholics. 

…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). 

4) A very important but somehow overlooked spiritual consideration

What we are seeing here, for those who have eyes to see, is actually nothing new.  Modern technology is being employed in the service of an ancient technique.  A brief review of a number of historical precedents will make the application obvious.

Eusebius: (the emperor Galerius Maximinus ordered)… that all men, women, and children, even infants at the breast, should sacrifice and offer oblations (to the idols); and that… they should be made to taste the execrable offerings; and that the things for sale in the market should be polluted with libations from the sacrifices; and that guards should be stationed before the baths in order to defile with the abominable sacrifices those who went to wash in them. (Ecclesiastical History, Book 8, Chapter 9), cited in Malvenda

From a sermon by Nectarius, the Bishop of Constantinople:  Julian the Apostate had all the food put up for sale in the markets in Constantinople secretly corrupted by sprinkling with blood,  so that in this way it might be polluted.  St Theodore, who had been warned by a Divine revelation, cautioned the Christians to carefully abstain from all this, and to use wheat cooked in oil as their food.  (Malvenda, De Antichristo, Book 9, chapter 31)

Theodoret: (Julian the Apostate) cast things offered to idols into the fountains of the city of Antioch, and into those of Daphne, so that no one could drink of the streams without partaking of the hateful sacrifices. He defiled in the same way everything that was sold in the marketplace, for he had water which had been offered to idols sprinkled on the bread, meat, fruit, herbs, and all the other articles of food. (Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 15), cited in Malvenda*

The pagan rulers, lusting to bring the masses into fellowship with them and with their diabolical sacrifices, and yet recognizing that many Christians would not willingly partake of items that had been offered to pagan deities, attempted to force everyone to enter into communion with their evil sacrifices and the spirits behind them by contaminating everything possible: foods, drinks, herbs (medicines), etc.   

Today, we are seeing similar attempts, cloaked under modern technology.  Because these “vaccines” have been tainted in a fashion analogous to that seen above, it would be far more accurate, spiritually speaking, to refer to them as potions or malefices.  

Many of those who are taking these “vaccines”/potions/malefices are quite aware that these have been prepared using tissue derived from abortion.  Insofar as they have not been actually held down and forcibly injected, it is very difficult to see how such individuals are not positively willing, in some way, to employ the satanic sacrifice of babies to make their own life “safer” or “easier”, (any and all claims to being “pro-life” notwithstanding.)  

Why is this significant?  Because the more willing the recipient, the more open he is to receive the spiritual effects. 

The spiritual reality is that by being injected with one of these “vaccines”/potions/malefices, the recipient receives an Unholy communion – via a syringe – with the human sacrifices used in their preparation.  Spiritually speaking, this is simply a slightly camouflaged diabolic inversion of the way that a Catholic enters into Communion with Our Lord’s Sacrifice on the Cross when he receives the Eucharist worthily: every time that a properly disposed Catholic receives Holy Communion,  he comes into union with the crucified and resurrected Savior – and receives the graces and gifts of that union – the spiritual fruits of Our Lord’s death upon the Cross: Peace and Life, virtues and strength.

But every time someone receives one of these Merck or Pfizer “vaccines”, he comes into union with the violent and horrific sacrifices of hundreds of babies who – at the request of at least one of his parents – were delivered alive, then carefully stretched out, gutted out and sliced apart, by the satanic priest/scientist – his tender little life savagely snuffed out while suffering the most excruciating pain.

And by receiving that injection, he also receives the spiritual fruits of those sacrifices to the demon: as time goes on, these will become more apparent, but very likely include the spirits of inchoate rage, pain and death. 

And, as we’ve seen, the more willing the recipient of these potions, the more open he is to receive their spiritual effects. 

Fundamentally, this is just a question of communion: who, exactly, do you want to be in Communion with?

Christ?

Or satan?

It’s literally that simple. 

* These historical examples (and more) which prefigure our current dilemma can all be found in Fr Tomas Malvenda OP’s monumental 1604 work De Antichristo (On the Antichrist), Book 9, chapter 31.  It is worth pondering that these examples are found in his commentary on Apocalypse 13:17.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “A Priest’s Moral Analysis of the COVID “Vaccines””

  1. God bless you and thank you for this information which is really necessary for any practising Catholic to know. Prayers from Ireland.

    1. as one doc says if you are under 60 you have a higher chance of dying from the flu. If a 20-30 yr old won’t get the flu vaccine why in the wide world of sports would you get this experimental injection when you have little to nothing to worry about.

  2. Even though I’m generally sympathetic to it, I’m having difficulties with the rationale of the last spiritual consideration.

    The spiritual consideration seems to presuppose that using things sacrificed to idols is sinful in itself.

    However, in his nuanced admonition of 1 Corinthians 8, S. Paul explains that eating such meats is not sinful in itself, but should be avoided insofar as it could scandalize the weaker faithful.

    Why, then, would the Catholics described in the excerpts from Eusebius be so wary of things secretly offered up to idols?

  3. Please in your charity say a prayer for me.. my primary source of income (multinational retail corporation) is going to mandate vaccines within the next two months. I’m going to try for a religious exception, but even if I’ll get that, I’ll be set apart by having to test weekly and wearing a mask. I’m concerned the time will come when I’ll be fired outright for not getting the shot. Churches in our archdiocese aren’t much better.

Leave a Reply