Warning: SSPX Shock Approval For Covid-19 Vaccine – Catholics Beware…

Warning: SSPX Shock Approval For Covid-19 Vaccine – Catholics Beware…

A few weeks ago the SSPX USA District published an article on its website headed: “Is it morally permissible to use the Covid-19 vaccine?”  It was a rather short piece advising on the moral implications for Catholics weighing new and existing vaccines produced from the stem cell lines of aborted babies.

Short as it was, however, the article was read by many Traditional Catholics, myself included, as a scandalous capitulation to Modernist moral theological thought. I wrote immediately to the District Superior of the U.S., as did others, raising objection to the piece which was subsequently removed and replaced with a message that said something to the effect that the Society’s moral theologians and medical experts were now reviewing the content under the supervision of SSPX superiors and would re-publish in due course.

Well, the SSPX reposted their review on December 4 and it said exactly the same as the first time around, except this time with lots of added superfluous passages to make it appear more deeply researched and authoritative.

Here are the three principal erroneous teachings expounded in both the original and revised articles:

1: “The doctor who vaccinates a patient, or the patient who is vaccinated, has only distant cooperation, for these acts only encourage and promote the sin of abortion in a very remote and very slight way. For sufficient health reasons, such acts could therefore be morally permitted.”

2: “A young woman who is to get married can thus receive the rubella vaccine, although such a vaccine is almost always prepared on fetal cells obtained by abortion. The reason is the danger for the child: if a woman contracts rubella during pregnancy, especially during the first trimester, the risk of birth defects – eye, hearing or heart – are significant. These malformations are permanent.”

3:As cooperation is only distant, and the reason given is serious enough, it is possible in these cases to use such a vaccine. Moreover, it remains for each individual to judge, with the help of appropriate advice, this real need. ..It must be clearly stated that we are here in the domain of a prudent judgment, which cannot be uniform for all and in all cases. Moral theology says what is lawful or unlawful. It gives the principles. But it is for personal prudence to judge their application on a case-by-case basis.”

Concerning this third erroneous proposition, it seems to me that there’s a bit of sophistry being employed here similar to that used by the Francis revolutionaries who also use the ‘principle Vs. prudence’ argument in order to justify the admittance of divorced and remarried Catholics, cohabiting couples, etc., to Holy Communion. At any rate, I ran these past a trustworthy Traditional Catholic priest of more than 35 years and he in turn responded with the following three reasons showing why this SSPX advice is both ethically and morally wrong:

Vaccines Derived from Aborted Fetal Cells (Fetal DNA) are Immoral and Must be Rejected

(1) Reason 1: It is sinful to do evil to accomplish good (Rom. 3:8). Thus, it is sinful to make use of a good effect/benefit that has been derived or procured from an evil means. Using a covid-19 vaccine derived from, or tainted with, or tested with, aborted fetal tissue (fetal DNA) would constitute using an evil means, i.e., tissue (DNA) from an aborted fetus, in order to accomplish a good end, i.e., a medical cure. Therefore, the use of vaccines derived from, or tainted with, aborted fetal tissue is immoral and forbidden.

The “double effect” cannot be invoked: According to the moral principle of “double effect,” it is morally permitted, in cases of necessity, to employ an action which simultaneously produces two effects, one good and one evil, provided that: (1) only the good effect is willed, and (2) the good effect is not derived from the evil effect (for it is sinful to obtain a good end by the use of evil means). The principle of the “double effect” cannot be invoked in the use of vaccines derived from, or tainted with, or tested with, aborted fetal tissue (fetal DNA). The reason is because the good effect, i.e., medical cure, is obtained by means of the evil effect, i.e., the sin of abortion, from which the fetal tissue (DNA) was procured and used in the development and/or testing of the vaccine. Thus, the use of such vaccines is morally illicit.

[An example of a permissible action with a “double effect” would be a doctor’s prescription of a strong pain medication to relieve severe pain in a cancer patient, even though the use of such medication may also have the side effect to slowly shorten the patient’s life. In this case, the good effect, i.e., the present relief from severe pain, is the direct result of the pain medication, and is not derived from the evil effect, i.e., the shortening of life. Rather both good effect and bad effect are a simultaneous result of the use of the strong pain medication.] 

(2) Reason 2:  Just as it is forbidden to knowingly receive and use stolen money, especially if the victim was murdered in order to steal his money (for it is unlawful to benefit from a crime), so also it is forbidden to use a vaccine which is developed with the use of fetal tissue (fetal DNA) that has been stolen from an aborted (murdered) fetus—which is already a human person. Just as the stolen money always remains the property of the victim of theft or robbery, so also the vital organ (e.g., kidney, liver, etc.) and the tissue/DNA taken from it, always remain the property of the fetus—and connected to the physical integrity of his/her body. Therefore, it is immoral and illicit to use vaccines that have been developed or tested with the use of aborted fetal DNA.

(3) Reason 3: “Organ donation”: The use of covid-19 vaccines derived from aborted fetal tissue cannot be likened to the use of a donated vital organ, e.g., kidney or liver, for in the case of organ donation, the organ donor gives consent to donating his organ, i.e., he freely donates his organ. However, if an organ “donor” is murdered in order to obtain his vital organ, the use of such an organ, or tissue (DNA) from this organ, is immoral and forbidden. Consequently, since this is the method used in obtaining fetal tissue from an aborted fetus, it follows that using a vaccine derived from aborted fetal DNA is immoral and not permitted.”

Now some may argue that this response is merely the opinion of one priest setting himself against eminent moral theologians of the SSPX. My answer to that is to quote the following statements of far more eminent Church prelates whose words ring true in every properly formed Catholic conscience.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider

From a Lifesitenews article, for example, which includes an interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, we have this:   

Maybe I’m wrong, but I have the suspicion that partly this COVID situation was created not only to implement a new dictatorship and control of the population, but in some way to legalize abortion globally – the killing of unborn babies – so that the entire planet will be collaborating in the process of killing babies through the vaccine which will use parts of aborted babies. The vaccine will be imposed and obligatory – so that you cannot work, travel, go to school without it, obliging the entire population to receive the vaccine, but the only vaccine will be that made with cells from aborted babies. Perhaps they will not accept other vaccines, and they will lie, saying that these are not effective, that the only effective vaccine will be from aborted babies. I am not affirming now that this will happen, but it is my suspicion: it appears to me realistic that this could come. This is for me the last step of Satanism: that Satan and the world government – ultimately the Masonic world government – will oblige all, even the Church, to accept abortion in this way. And therefore we must resist very strongly against this, if it comes. We must even accept to be martyrs…Unfortunately, some Bishops, even good Bishops and priests, are already presenting what for me is a sophism in justifying that you can accept this vaccine from aborted babies according to moral principles.”

From the same article Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas concurs thus:

Bishop Joseph Strickland

  “…if a vaccine for this virus is only attainable if we use body parts of aborted children then I will refuse the vaccine…I will not kill children to live.” The bishop publicly re-issued this rejection of such vaccines: “I renew my call that we reject any vaccine that is developed using aborted children. Even if it originated decades ago it still means a child’s life was ended before it was born & then their body was used as spare parts.”  Source

Also, in an open letter published in May, several Catholic Cardinals and bishops led by former papal nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Cardinals Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Joseph Zen, and Janis Pujats said that “for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses.”

Additionally, at the May 2020 Rome Life Forum Cardinal Raymond Burke said: “It must be clear that it is never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of the cell lines of aborted fetuses.” He added that forced vaccines violate the
“integrity of citizens.”

Cardinal Raymond Burke

These authoritative declarations conclusively show the moral theologians of the SSPX to have deviated from Traditional Catholic teaching in so grave a matter, a fact confirmed by the references they cite from more recent Vatican advice that just happens to be shared by most of the destructive Modernist hierarchy right up to Francis himself.   

And this is not an isolated incident. Recall, for example, the invitation extended to Fr. Sean Kilcawley to share the lecture podium with Bishop Fellay during the October, 2019 Angelus Conference. this Novus Ordo priest, said to be an expert on John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”, is touted as a pornography addiction counsellor. Here is one example of Fr. Kilcawley’s counselling, a highly controversial video statement that went viral:

“… simply invite Our Lord into our temptation and into our thoughts in the present moment. To say, “Jesus, I want to look at pornography right now.” Or, “Jesus, I’m having an impure thought right now. You’re welcome into my imagination. You’re welcome to watch these thoughts with me.”   [Ed: click here to read our discussion in response to that scandal].

Nor is it just in the sphere of morals that we have reason to question the direction of the SSPX right now, for there is also a definite lean towards embracing modern pseudo-scientific thought.

Most informed Traditional Catholics, for example, are fully aware that the Covid-19 plague narrative is a geopolitical ruse concocted by a world Socialist elite as a means of supplanting global democracy with Communist totalitarianism. Proper official science has long proven this Coronavirus to be harmless for 99.97% of the global population, a fact easily discerned from a mere cursory glance at national and global death figures, yet the SSPX raises the controversial question of vaccines for the virus as though the plague narrative were credible and the vaccine question of some urgency.

Covid-19 patient, 120 years, mother of 12, wheeled out of hospital after two weeks “with clean bill of health” to applause from NHS staff .

A similar example of drift towards pseudo-science was Fr. Paul Robinson’s book “The Realist Guide to Religion and Science“, a work that has nothing whatever to do with the supernatural mission of the SSPX but which nevertheless negatively impacts on the Traditional Catholic understanding of Genesis by attempting to reconcile the Scriptural account of Creation with the utterly ridiculous “Big Bang” theory.

This is all very concerning, indicative of a serious problem within the higher clerical structure of the Society of St. Pius X. Whether the issue is one of infiltration or weakening of faith, I cannot say. What I can say to all those who, like me, are decades attached to the SSPX, to the saintly memory of Archbishop Lefebvre and to the many good priests who still make up the majority in the Society, is that we must watch like hawks going forward!

Not only must we reject deviations such as the advice on vaccines, the Fr. Kilcawley experiment and the Fr. Robinson science fiction, we must also henceforth check everything the SSPX superiors propose touching on faith and morals against the Traditional teaching of the Church and we must be vigilant in particular with regard to what is being taught to children in SSPX schools.

While it grieves me very greatly to have to say this publicly, I’m afraid there is no other option given the gravity of the situation and a demonstrable track record of SSPX superiors treating the concerns of subordinates with a contemptuous silence and a “business as usual” attitude which is utterly destructive of trust.

We all know the subtlety of Modernism, how it creeps in by degrees and ends in the destruction of everything we hold dear. If Vatican II and its aftermath have taught us anything it is that silence in the face of error is fatal to faith and must therefore be stopped immediately at source. That’s our task now, to react instantly like an immune system whenever the least sign of Modernist poison is detected within the SSPX. So let us be vigilant and let us not fail to raise our voices dutifully in respectful correction whenever error is taught, regardless of the dignity of the one who teaches it. Let us also pray fervently for all our priests.   (Published with kind permission of the author, Martin Blackshaw aka Catholic Truth blogger Athanasius).

Comments invited…  

Comments (114)

  • RCAVictor

    I think the SSPX’s announced position on these criminal vaccines can be summed up by the old saying, “Straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.”

    December 16, 2020 at 3:15 pm
  • pearl87

    How would a faithful Catholic go about effectively registering his concern to the SSPX? I attend an SSPX chapel. I consider myself a member of that “parish”, if such a designation can have any meaning in these circumstances. But I have noticed a distinctly cult like devotion to the SSPX hierarchy among many fellow parishioners. They have transferred their instinct for submission, properly attached to a valid pope, to the SSPX hierarchy, which is woefully unworthy of such slavish obedience. I believe we must make Truth our guiding principle now, from whatever source, and pray for discernment, that we not be led astray. How can we push back against the soul crushing authoritarianism being manifested in the NeoSSPX hierarchy which is clearly aligned with all the worldly forces united against humanity?

    December 16, 2020 at 4:43 pm
    • editor


      You are, sadly, absolutely correct about the wrong-headed and cult-like behaviour of too many in the SSPX. The correct attitude can only be our gratitude to the priests for their provision of the traditional Mass, sermons and Sacraments – end of discussion. That is what has been taken from us, and – it seems – God has given them an important role in preserving these, in anticipation of a full restoration of the Faith in due course. The SSPX is only charged with cherishing and preserving the traditional Faith until good order in restored, after the current, horrendous crisis. They are not a replacement or parallel Church.

      As for registering concern to the SSPX… Well, in my own experience, disappointingly, the expression of any concerns is regarded as troublemaking. It’s incredible that the Society clergy and hierarchy are unable to tell the difference between laity with genuine concerns and troublemakers. Incredible.

      So, having tried and failed in that regard, I simply attend the SSPX church, applying to that situation the same response I make to concerns in the wider Church and to this dreadful pontiff. Where they preach the Faith and stick to Catholic Tradition in all pertinent matters, I’m happy to accept and submit. Otherwise, I apply the same “yeah right” attitude which reaches the ears of Pope Francis day and daily – assuming he has spies in Scotland 😀

      Not sure if this is any help but others will throw in their tuppence-worth and may have more useful insights and suggestions to offer.

      December 16, 2020 at 7:25 pm
    • Athanasius


      It seems the position on vaccines is not uniform throughout the SSPX. For example, the prior in Scotland declared on Sunday past that we must not take the vaccine, yet the U.S. District Superior is telling American Catholics that it’s just a little sin so carry on. Some little sin!

      The best way to register your objection is to go to the SSPX U.S. website and complete their “Contact Us” form. I suspect a lot of people have already done that. But here’s the downside: If they disregard the Traditional moral teaching upheld by senior Church prelates such as Archbishop Vigano, Cardinal Muller, Bishop Schneider, etc., then it is highly unlikely that anything we say will move them. Once the Modernism is entrenched in the mind together with a clericalist mentality you’d be as well complaining to your coffee table. The U.S. District has had serious issues in its clerical hierarchy for years.

      What you might want to do as an alternative is write to the Superior General in Menzingen – the address can be found via a Google search. From experience, however, I think he already knows and approves of the U.S. position and he is not given to responding to the concerns of lower beings such as ourselves.

      As Editor says, we thank the SSPX for providing the Mass, Sacraments, etc., during a time of crisis in the Church, but we likewise recognise that it has a very dangerous and destructive problem with clericalism at the higher levels. It is never a good sign when superiors treat subordinates with contemptuous silence – that was the business of the proud Pharisees in the Gospels, it’s not the spirit of Our Lord. Hence the reason why I said in my article that we need to pray for our priests, especially those who imagine themselves to be rulers rather than Fathers.

      December 16, 2020 at 7:49 pm
    • cathjnc

      Laity at SSPX chapels are being poisoned with modernism/UN agendas (subtly or otherwise) & will be enslaved in the Vatican’s NWO social impact system (changing values, attitudes, beliefs, & behaviors…at the detriment of souls).

      All SSPX priests (who remain) are tacitly approving the poisoning of souls by their continued silence at the pulpit re: current threats & obedience & submission to apostate leadership…leading the sheep to the slaughter. Archbishop Lefebvre said that the Church will destroy herself through obedience. Archbishop Lefebvre left the Holy Ghost Fathers when they abandoned the True Faith. He would be appalled that SSPX priests are making concessions to Rome & destroying the Faith. Current SSPX priests & laity do not have the discernment nor love for the Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre had. Can you name one priest who spoke from the pulpit in opposition to the SSPX’s invitation to attend Kilcawley’s “psychotherapy for sin” workshops aligned to the UN’s SEL (social emotional learning) that has been proven to destroy the Faith?

      One of Satan’s most insidious acts is to disguise his works under the guise of Tradition. And SSPXers are enabling this. Some may speak out, but then their actions speak louder than words…approving (with their presence & finances) leadership’s direction in leading the sheep to enslavement in the Vatican’s Social Credit System. Did any of your protests against the Marriage Deals (bringing Marxist N.O. bishops in to SSPX chapels to impress young souls & sending sacramental records to dioceses) change the direction of the SSPX?

      I heard that the local SSPX priest said from the pulpit that it is okay to take the vaccine if your “back is against the wall”, and then stepped down from the pulpit and announced that he would not take the vaccine. This same priest told me that my concerns about Kilcawley were unreasonable, and that if my concerns were reasonable, then there would be a mass exodus of priests and laity. So there you have it… your presence shows approval to these priests, and based on this criteria on whether something is reasonable or not, Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions are considered unreasonable by these priests since he was one of only a few who refused obedience to apostasy. He and few others are willing to flee into the desert to stay true to God, the Faith, & our baptismal promises…rejecting Satan & his works.

      You do know that the SSPX is handing over sacramental records that will be put on Catholic Blockchain with Smart Contracts so that you can be used as the Vatican’s (& possibly SSPX’s) commodities in Social Impact Finance Schemes to profit the elites, which has been encouraged at Vatican Impact Conferences by Sir Ronald Cohen, the W.H.O,, and other globalists. Go ahead & remain in those seats for “Tradition” while enabling those who destroy the Christian doctrine that liberates the soul.

      We’re having Vatican II-b, and sadly, those who supposedly were opposed to Vatican II-a are going along with it. Satan continues to be much more clever than laity, who rationalizes staying in a place of comfort rather than choosing to follow God into the desert.

      January 31, 2021 at 11:45 pm
      • Athanasius


        Yes, the SSPX has problems within its hierarchy, more clericalism than Modernism, but the real trick of Satan was the Bishop Williamson position and that of his fellow “Resistance” people, make no mistake about that. These are true sedevacantists, even if they won’t admit to the fact, have nothing to do with them and their bitter zeal.

        February 1, 2021 at 3:20 am
      • cathjnc

        The SSPX is now spreading the Revolutionary principles & work in union with the apostates to include “Trads” in their inclusive capitalism. They are no longer the lifeboat. They are the net to keep souls on the Masonic slave ship. The priests who left could not in good conscience participate in this new mission.

        In the words of Archbishop Lefebvre:
        “Satan’s master stroke will therefore be to spread the revolutionary principles introduced into the Church by the authority of the Church itself, placing this authority in a situation of incoherence and permanent contradiction; so long as this ambiguity has not been dispersed, disasters will multiply within the Church. […] We must acknowledge that the trick has been well played and that Satan’s lie has been masterfully utilized. The Church will destroy Herself through obedience. […] You must obey! Whom or what must we obey? We don’t know exactly.
        Woe to the man who does not consent. He thereby earns the right to be trampled under-foot, to be calumniated, to be deprived of everything which allowed him to live. He is a heretic, a schismatic; let him die – that is all he deserves.” (October 13, 1974)

        …and you can add to the name-calling of those who do not consent the term “sedevacantist”, which has become the key word to demonize anyone who even holds the line of Archbishop Lefebvre.

        If someone simply repeats the words of ABL in disagreement of toeing the line of the new SSPX, he can expect to be called a sedevacantist (or any number of terms considered derogatory…even bitter) at the pulpit. I was labeled as such, made an example of, & demonized for being opposed to bringing in Kilcawley and his anti-Catholic methods that destroy the Faith….by an SSPX priest & cult-ish members of the Mass center. Kilcawley’s methods that the SSPX endorses is full-blown Modernism & align to UN agendas.

        “The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family.” (Spiritual Journey, p. ix)

        Today’s SSPXers would demonize anyone who repeated the above paragraph stated by Archbishop Lefebvre.

        “We are dealing with people who mix up truth and error, who live in a continual contradiction. If you read the book on liberalism of cardinal Billot, you see that the cardinal defines precisely what a liberal is: a man who is in contradiction all the time, a man who constantly contradicts himself and who lives in contradiction. He is always two-faced. And so, they are dangerous people. This is what Pope Pius IX said. Pope Pius IX considers them as the greatest danger in the church because they mislead the faithful. Sometimes, we believe that they are traditional and that they conform to the truth of the Church, and then, all of a sudden, they fall into error and lead people into error. It is very, very dangerous. They scandalize and lead millions of faithful into error.” – This describes the New SSPX & its worshipers to a “T”.

        February 1, 2021 at 4:39 pm
      • editor


        I am paying a flying visit to the blog just now so have only skimmed your latest comment; apart from the intensely irritating “Trads” where “Catholics” should be, this jumped out at me…

        I was labeled as such, made an example of, & demonized for being opposed to bringing in Kilcawley and his anti-Catholic methods that destroy the Faith….by an SSPX priest & cult-ish members of the Mass center.

        Well, that is a disgrace. ~We ran a thread on the Kilcawley scandal and a couple of us wrote to the SSPX priests and superiors concerned, as well as to the Angelus people who hosted the event, all to no avail, so there is no question about it, all is not well in the SSPX.

        As for not being the lifeboat – actually, one of our previous priests said that himself, he said that it may be that God will send some other “lifeboat” – who knows. If, indeed, that is to be the case, let’s hope it sails into view sooner, rather than later 😀

        I’d urge you, though, to work at ridding yourself of the bitterness which you clearly (understandably) feel. Rest in peace (so to speak!) in the sure and certain knowledge that all those priests, including the so called traditional priests, who are causing scandal at this time, will be punished, and that severely for their betrayal. The Kilcawley scandal is in a class all of its own. I could not believe that Bishop Fellay would share a platform with that priest and allow him to address an audience which included many young people. Incredible.

        You are also correct about the “cultish” behaviour of some lay people who attend SSPX churches – it’s not so long ago that I had a sound telling off-cum-lecture from one attendee for criticising priests. I (only just) refrained from informing that delicate soul that the last priest (not SSPX) who similarly criticised me has just been sentenced to 11 years and 6 months in prison for child abuse.

        Laugh? I thought I’d never start!

        February 1, 2021 at 8:43 pm
      • RCAVictor


        Just a couple of observations from your posts (and I’m sorry you were demonized for standing up for the truth. Don’t forget, though, that you are in quite holy company: “And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.”

        1. Abp. Lefebvre was not infallible: the Church cannot be destroyed, nor can she destroy herself, as he claims. She is obviously going through her passion, as the Mystical Body must traverse the same path of suffering as Our Lord, and it may appear as though all is lost. But Our Lady of Fatima had something to say about when things reach that point.

        2. The priests that I know of who have left the SSPX have mostly joined the Resistance (whose typical reference to the SSPX is to call them, like you do, “the new SSPX”) and thus they have gone from the Modernist frying pan into the bitter sedevacantist fire. Please don’t succumb to that bitterness. There are other options to consider for traditional parishes.

        February 1, 2021 at 10:13 pm
      • Athanasius


        You and I are normally of one mind on most things so it grieves me to have to differ with you regarding Archbishop Lefebvre. The Archbishop was fully aware of the divine promise that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, so any references he may have made to the destruction of the Church were merely on the human level.

        Besides that, to destroy is not necessarily to eradicate. Hence if the visible universal Church on earth were to be reduced to catacomb status by the Modernists it could be said to be destroyed, yet it would not be eradicated.

        Everything else in your post I agree with.

        February 1, 2021 at 11:40 pm
      • maryw52


        I recall something I heard many years ago – that even if there was only one priest in the world saying Mass, the visible universal Church is there.

        Do you agree with that idea? It seems correct to me.

        February 2, 2021 at 12:03 am
      • Athanasius


        Yes, I agree with that statement – absolutely.

        February 2, 2021 at 12:40 am
      • RCAVictor


        Thank you for clarifying that. I was startled when I read that statement and reacted instead of thinking it through. I hope CATHJNC doesn’t make the same mistake….

        February 2, 2021 at 2:36 pm
  • editor

    This is good news – debate in the Westminster Parliament came out against forced vaccines and coercion through vaccine “passports” – reported on the Lockdown Sceptics website

    December 17, 2020 at 10:17 am
  • editor

    Here’s a link recommended to me by a reader – I’ve not yet read it but it looks very interesting indeed – senior prelates saying Catholics must refuse vaccines tainted by abortion…

    December 17, 2020 at 10:22 am
    • Athanasius


      I have copied that linked report in a new email to the U.S. superior via the SSPX website, requesting again that he remove the contradictory Modernist advice being offered by the SSPX in this serious matter. I received no response to my previous communication and expect that this one will likewise fall on deaf ears, which is extremely worrying.

      December 17, 2020 at 1:49 pm
      • editor

        That’s great Athanasius.

        I’ve just received this very worrying link in my inbox – a nurse collapses soon after being injected… I had to click the “translate to English” button but it seems to open the video, without the option to translate the text here. It was sent to me by a reader who received it from a Polish friend. The nurse is American so you can hear her speaking positively about having taken the vaccine (17 minutes previously) and then she collapses…


        December 19, 2020 at 11:07 pm
  • Peter

    Wow. Such a lengthy “rebuttal” and done without a single reference to any theology manual whatever (such as Prümmer, Merkelbach, Callan and McHugh, Jone, Davis etc.). Still, that is in keeping with everything else I’ve read against the vaccine, including the open letter from Bp. Schneider et al.

    This is a poorly written article.

    It purports to be some authoritative and final declaration on the matter, written with such clarity and certainty that it be accepted as unimpeachable. It is anything but; the subject matter is complex. There are a number of different aspects to consider, subtleties and nuances to be understood, with arguments both for and against; I’m actually scandalized that Mr. Blackshaw could write such an article in ignorance of all this.

    The SSPX’s position is that of Pontifical Academy’s Moral Reflections (2005) [incidentally, Abp. Vigano accepts this as authoritative as he made clear in a Remnant interview]. The Society’s position has been the same for years viz. the taking of the MMR vaccine. Indeed, if we accept Bp. Schneider’s and Mr. Blackshaw’s proposition then a number of priestly fraternities and other traditional priests have been dispensing the wrong guidance for two decades.

    To state “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.” raises a couple of things:

    i) The “traditional” opinion (or example) of a plumber fixing a water pipe in a hospital that performs abortions becomes unacceptable. All material cooperation, no matter how indirect and remote, is forbidden;

    ii) It appears to reject Catholic moral theology which seeks to weigh certain things and circumstances when trying to judge material cooperation in a sin. For example, in this case, weighing the benefits of taking the vaccine (including not losing one’s employment) versus the taking of a vaccine produced from the cells of an aborted baby.

    Again, there is no reference to any manual on moral theology it all has to be accepted at face value.

    December 21, 2020 at 1:32 pm
    • Lily


      I always stop short when I read an attack on the writing of someone such as your comment “this is a very poorly written article”. That immediately weakens your argument because Athanasius’s writing are anything but “poorly written”. Not that anyone has to have a degree in English to write an article or a blog post! I notice that you think this “poorly written” article has “such clarity”, though – LOL!

      I don’t see you quoting any of the theology manuals you are blaming Athanasius for not quoting – can you quote something that says it is OK to use a vaccine which uses material from aborted babies? I’d like to know that.

      No Catholic should need a theology manual to know that it is immoral to support abortion in any way. Your example of the plumber is a bit silly – that’s like saying we cannot be heart or lung patients or even visit someone in a hospital because it does abortions. The heart or lung patient or the visitor or the plumber are not supporting abortion just by being there. That’s ridiculous.

      Plenty of people have concerns about this vaccine, even aside from the moral argument about the use of tissue from aborted babies. Already people are becoming ill and there have been deaths already, so why you are so keen to push the SSPX approval of it, would be good to know, if you’d like to share.

      December 21, 2020 at 3:35 pm
      • Athanasius


        Your response is absolutely the right one – there can be no pouring over theology manuals looking for loopholes in Church teaching. This is precisely what the pro-vaccination Catholics are doing, seeking by sophistry to undermine the moral law given by God and infallible established by His Church.

        I am about to post off my article and associated proofs to Menzingen in the hope that the clerical author of that SSPX article realises his error and takes it down. Thus far I have not received so much as an acknowledgement from the U.S. District to any of the correspondence I have sent, which is both appalling from a good manners point of view and indicative of deliberate misleading of the faithful from a theology/doctrinal point of view. The matter needs to be clarified and rectified with urgency.

        December 21, 2020 at 4:11 pm
    • Athanasius


      It is the sophists who seek to change the Church’s teaching, adapting it to Modernist thought, who pour over theological manuals looking for loopholes, hence the reason why I chose to quote sound Traditional quotes from eminent prelates in my article, the simple plain moral teaching of the Church that every properly formed Catholic conscience identifies with.

      Now, you write: “…the subject matter is complex. There are a number of different aspects to consider, subtleties and nuances to be understood, with arguments both for and against…”

      How identical this statement is to those of Modernist prelates in Rome and elsewhere who seek to admit the divorced and remarried, the cohabiting and practicing homosexuals to Holy Communion. No, in the matter of clearly defined moral teaching there is zero discussion to be had!

      You speak favourably of the SSPX as having aligned itself in the matter of vaccines with the Pontifical Academy’s Moral Reflections (2005), adding incorrectly that Archbishop Vigano approves in a Remnant interview.

      In the first place you should know that such “Moral Reflections” carry no doctrinal authority whatsover and that the Pontifical Academy is now fully aligned with the globalist agenda under Pope Francis. The SSPX was founded by Archbishop Lefebvre precisely to counter potential false teachings from such Modernist institutions, not use them to re-align the consciences of Traditional Catholics with Modernist errors.

      As for Archbishop Vigano, here’s an extract from a letter he wrote to Italian mothers on August 15, 2020, taking exactly the opposite position to that which you claim he takes:

      “…Obviously the moral principles which form the basis for norms to be adopted in the medical field remain perennially valid, nor could it be otherwise. The Church is the guardian of the teaching of Christ and she has no authority to modify or adapt it to her own liking. We remain bewildered, however, as we witness the silence of Rome, which appears to be more concerned with promoting recycling – to the point of writing an encyclical about it – rather than the lives of the unborn, the health of the weakest, and the assistance of the terminally ill. This is only one aspect of a much wider problem, a much greater crisis, which as I have said many times stems from the moment in which the deviant part of the Church, led by what was once the Society of Jesus, seized power and made her a slave to the mentality of the world.

      When we consider the new orientation of the Pontifical Academy for Life (whose presidency has been entrusted to a person who is well-known for having shown the best of himself when he was bishop of Terni), we cannot expect any condemnation of those who use fetal tissue from voluntarily aborted children. Its present members hope for mass vaccination and the universal brotherhood of the New World Order, contradicting previous pronouncements of the same Pontifical Academy. In recent days the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales has entered this anomalous wave. On the one hand it recognizes that “The Church is opposed to the production of vaccines using tissue derived from aborted fetuses, and we acknowledge the distress many Catholics experience when faced with a choice of not vaccinating their child or seeming to be complicit in abortion,” but it then affirms, in very grave contradiction with the stated unchanging principles of Catholic morality, that “the Church teaches that the paramount importance of the health of a child and other vulnerable persons could permit parents to use a vaccine which was in the past developed using these diploid cell lines.” This statement lacks any doctrinal authority and instead aligns itself with the dominant ideology promoted by the WHO, its principal sponsor Bill Gates, and pharmaceutical companies.

      From a moral point of view, for every Catholic who intends to remain faithful to his or her Baptism, it is absolutely inadmissible to accept a vaccination that utilizes material coming from human fetuses in its process of production. This has also been restated authoritatively recently by the American Bishop Joseph E. Strickland in his April 27 Pastoral Letter[4] and in his August 1 tweet…”

      You can read the entire letter here: https://www.vanthuanobservatory.org/eng/12697-2/

      I will refrain from responding to the final two parahraphs of your comment, yet two more sophist arguments that are not pertinent in a matter treating of infallible moral teaching. I will, however, link the following for your correction:



      In summation, I don’t know who you are or anything about your background but I think it fair to assume from your manner of writing that you are not a Traditional Catholic. Hence, while I can cut you some slack as perhaps a victim of poor formation in the faith, there can be no such indulgence extended to the SSPX U.S. District Superior and others given their knowledge of Traditional Church teaching.

      December 21, 2020 at 3:48 pm
      • RCAVictor


        Thank you for focusing in on the “subject matter is complex…” nonsense. No, the subject is not complex, no more so than Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God’s command not to eat the forbidden fruit.

        I wonder what “complexities” the Modernists would cook up to excuse Adan and Eve’s rebellion? Their parents didn’t properly teach them the Faith? They had a disadvantaged upbringing? They were hungry and couldn’t find any other food?

        The only thing complex about such a starkly simple moral law as forbidding the use of cell lines from aborted babies is this: the attitudes of those who do not wish to obey.

        December 21, 2020 at 4:09 pm
      • Athanasius


        You are absolutely right – it is instinctive in the consciences of all properly formed Catholic to recognise false doctrine as soon as it appears. Before I even checked the various eminent voices of opposition I quoted in my article, I already knew that what that SSPX article advises is contrary to the divine moral law. And so it proved upon research.

        December 21, 2020 at 4:16 pm
  • magdalene

    2: “A young woman who is to get married can thus receive the rubella vaccine, although such a vaccine is almost always prepared on fetal cells obtained by abortion. The reason is the danger for the child: if a woman contracts rubella during pregnancy, especially during the first trimester, the risk of birth defects – eye, hearing or heart – are significant. These malformations are permanent.”

    A young woman, about to be married, can and SHOULD request her doctor perform an ELISA rubella antibody test, rather than the cheaper, quicker test normally done. When I was pregnant, my doctor did the cheaper test. He told me I needed the rubella vaccine to protect my child. I knew all about vaccine risks because I have four neices and nephews who have been vaccine damaged, so I was very concerned about taking the vaccine recommended by my doctor. I contacted the National Vaccine Information Center in VA (nvic.org). They were very cordial and informative. The woman told me that she had been in exactly the same position as I was. She took the vaccine. She immediately had a miscarriage and since then has had serious medical problems, as a direct result of the vaccine. She told me to request an Elisa rubella test. I requested such of my doctor. Thank God I listened and thank God the doctor cooperated. The test came back positive for antibodies. I did NOT need the vaccine. To this day I thank God for sending the woman into my life.

    December 21, 2020 at 3:09 pm
    • Lily


      Thank you for that very helpful comment and yes, thank God for s ending that woman into your life.

      December 21, 2020 at 3:37 pm
    • Athanasius


      Very well said! See how Almighty God looks after those who trust in Him and are committed to following His divine law in all things? I think your Guardian Angel was doing quite a bit of whispering into your ear at the time!

      December 21, 2020 at 4:02 pm
  • Athanasius

    Here is the latest interview with Bishop Schneider on LSN. It is a powerful reiteration of why Catholics can never take vaccines produced or tested using the stem cell lines of aborted babies. I’d sure like to know what Peter makes of this solid teaching.


    December 21, 2020 at 6:13 pm
    • Michaela


      You are absolutely correct all the way but the Vatican has just issued a note to say the opposite. It’s just further proof (not that we need it) that Francis is a lost cause.

      December 21, 2020 at 7:00 pm
      • editor


        Who can be even remotely (to use the in-word) surprised that the Vatican has come out on the side of the globalists and their alleged experts?

        In any event, here’s the key fatal flaw:

        3. The fundamental reason for considering the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote. The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent[3]–in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19.

        Since 99.97% of those who become infected with this virus, recover, and that fully, there is no “grave danger.”

        As they might say in the Supreme Court, no standing, not enough evidence…

        December 21, 2020 at 8:26 pm
      • Athanasius


        It’s as if they are completely lost to the supernatural reality of the immortality of the soul and the superior divine law governing human activity. Everything is weighed on a purely natural basis to meet the needs of humanity as though this life is all there is.

        The most recent stem cell line from an aborted baby to be used in the development of vaccines in the West is apparently one from 1985. China is said to have updated already to a 2015 murdered baby. These cell lines do not last forever, they have a “shelf life” and will therefore have to be updated at some point in time. Does anyone from the Pope down really believe that future abortions will not continue to supply the demand?

        At any rate, whether it was 40 years ago, 50 years ago or 200 years ago, a baby was murdered in order to produce and/or test these vaccines, they are consequently forbidden to Catholics. For, as St. Paul (I think) declares, it is never permissible to say “let us do evil that good may come of it”.

        Using the same Modernist sophistry proposed by Pope Francis and others, we could legitimately call into question the Sacrament of Baptism. I mean, why should every soul require to be cleansed of a sin in which they did not directly participate, a sin that took place at the begining of time and is therefore far remote from us? That argument could then be extended to propose this evil: Was there really a need for the Redemption given the remoteness of the sin of our First Parents and our non-participation with them? See how specious and dangerous the Modernist vaccine advice is – how fundamentally perverse?

        We could also argue, given this Modernist specious reasoning, that the martyrs could and should have chosen not to sacrifice their precious lives for the sake of burning a mere grain of incense before the false deities of the pagans. After all, had they complied with the demands of their persecutors under duress and with suitable objection, given that their very lives depended on it, then surely there would have been no formal sin on their part, just a material breach of the divine law at worst. Thankfully, the martyrs realised that the divine law does not exist to be eroded in such a deceitful way.

        Abortion is a sin crying to heaven for vengeance – it is the voice of the slaughter of the innocents. That voice does not diminish with the passing of time, nor does the sin of participating in any way in so great an evil mitigate with the passing of time. There are options for vaccines, perfectly sound ehtical options, so no excuse.

        December 21, 2020 at 8:53 pm
      • maryw52


        An SSPX priest says that he will say yes to the COVID vaccines on account of someone possibly losing a job etc. so can’t support a family, travel and so on. He also thinks that remote cooperation is not a problem even for recently produced cell lines, plus the fact that he dismisses the bishops who oppose the tainted vaccines.

        My question is, shouldn’t the response be “don’t have the vaccine, we’ll help you”? Or such like? Wouldn’t that be the true Catholic way of thinking?

        December 21, 2020 at 9:19 pm
      • Athanasius


        It’s not in the gift of the SSPX or any other Church organisation to help people who may lose jobs, etc. for refusing the vaccine, although it’s fair to state that the vaccine is not yet mandatory in that way. All the priests of God can do is echo the infallible moral teaching of the Church that vaccines tainted with abortion cell lines are forbidden to them if they value the eternal salvation of their souls.

        Should the vaccine be made mandatory further down the road then we may find ourselves confronted with the same choice as the martyrs, to quote Bishop Schneider, sin or death. In any event the law of God is not open to compromise.

        December 21, 2020 at 10:36 pm
      • maryw52

        Thank you Athanasius.

        December 21, 2020 at 10:57 pm
      • Deacon Augustine


        I wonder if he would have counselled the early Roman martyrs in the same way: “Of course its fine to offer incense to Caesar if it avoids losing your job or being unable to travel…”???

        It seems that the loss of supernatural faith within the Church is spreading everywhere. Alas, so many of the clergy today are moral cowards who care only for saving lives in this world and are happy to lose them in the next.

        January 5, 2021 at 11:39 am
  • Athanasius

    Here’s an interesting article on the hierarchy’s attempts to force the faithful into vaccination. It concludes with the intriguing thought that Catholics who subsequently die or suffer disability as a result of this moral blackmail may sue the Church’s bishops for compensation.

    Given the many adverse effects already linked with the rushed-through Covid-19 vaccines, including cases of anaphylaxis and death, I would definitely advise any Catholic ignorant enough to be led into sinful stupidity by these vaccine prelates to make certain to sue them for a fortune when it goes wrong, bearing in mind that human cell alteration is new and therefore the negative effects may take as much as a few years to manifest.

    The pharmaceutical companies cannot be sued, they are protected by governments, but idiotic Modernist prelates can be sued for acting irrespsonsibly as promotional and enforcement agents for the Satanic the New World Order. I foresee many future compensation claims arising as a result of their emotional blackmail!


    December 21, 2020 at 11:22 pm
    • editor


      These public shows of bravery in taking the vaccine are abhorrent in every sense. For one thing, it seems the majority of people are just lining up to be vaccinated, so why these public vaccinations by people like that (insert adjective) bishop. What is the point? His claim that he wants to show confidence in the vaccine is unnecessary (most people waiting in the wings, it seems), and – shockingly – his assertion that there is nothing unethical about taking vaccines using material from aborted babies contrasts starkly with Bishop Schneider’s statement:

      Bishop Athanasius Schneider has stated in reference to vaccines that are in some way connected to abortion that one who “uses these vaccines must realize that his body is benefitting from the ‘fruits’ of one of mankind’s greatest crimes.”


      December 22, 2020 at 12:58 am
      • Athanasius


        Yes, why the desperation on the part of these Modernist prelates to lead people to vaccination? They’re nowhere to be seen when Catholics are out fighting against the murder of the innocents but right there on the front line when it comes to pushing vaccines created or tested using the cell lines of aborted babies. They are faithless individuals trying to emotionally coerce the ignorant faithful into unnecessary dangerous vaccinations.

        December 22, 2020 at 3:02 am
  • gabriel syme

    I thought this was a useful article and chart from a pro-life organisation.


    I understand the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines did not use abortion-produced cells in their design or production, but did in a part of the testing.

    Is that not a significant point, in that the usage of cells from an abortion does not fundamentally underpin the existence of the vaccine? Such unethical usage enters into the matter later, either due to the choice of the researchers as to how to test their vaccine, or the decision of groups like the FDA as to what tests to mandate.

    They didn’t have to use those cells for the testing phase, but found it advantageous to do so for some reason. They could have used some other means to test. For example the annual flu vaccine is developed using chickens eggs.

    But does the choice of the researchers here (which I doubt is assisted by a serious moral reflection) then make the vaccine unacceptable for others, given it was only their own choice (and not the vaccine itself) which introduced a moral dimension?

    If the choices of the researches do impinge on the morality of other’s actions, then does not their every sin also impinge on others like this? Indeed the argument leads on to says that anyone who has ever taken any medicine produced by a company which has used abortion sourced cells, even once, even on separate drug development, is benefiting from abortion.

    As an aside I have found it quite interesting to read a little about RNA vaccines.

    The linked chart above indicates several vaccines confirmed to have no connection to abortion sourced cells whatsoever and so such vaccines should become available.

    (Of course the question of how ethical a vaccine is is quite separate from considering if the vaccine at all necessary, given the very low fatality rate.)

    December 21, 2020 at 11:41 pm
  • Athanasius

    Gabriel Syme

    You raise a really important point – there are indeed vaccines for Covid-19 that do not utilise the stem cell lines of aborted babies in their production. The problem is the manufacturers use these stem cell lines in testing which invalidates those otherwise ethical vaccines for use by Catholics. The underlying moral principle is that Catholics may not make use of vaccination products made or tested using the cell lines of aborted babies given the great evil that abortion represents before God and humanity. It is not a question of culpability by individuals in the process, it’s the general breach of the divine and eternal moral law.

    As regards the ethical question of encouraging and/or enforcing a newly developed, largely untested and potentially deadly, vaccine, the global death toll for Covid-19 is so low that we have to conclude that it is unethical, not to mention dangerously irresponsible. Had we been looking at Spanish Flu or the Black Death then certainly there would be good grounds for widespread use of ethically-produced vaccines. But that’s not the case with Covid-19, a virus we know to be relatively harmless for the majority. It’s not about health it’s about control and other sinister objectives.

    December 22, 2020 at 12:47 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: