USA: SSPX Refuse Letters of Religious Exemption for Conscientious Faithful Facing “No Jab, No Job”editor
The Church has always emphasised the importance of following our – fully informed – consciences in matters of grave morality.
I was very surprised, then, to say the least, to read the following information which arrived in an email from Athanasius (Martin Blackshaw):
“I have concerns about a letter from Fr. Paul Robinson (SSPX) in response to the faithful in Colorado who have been asking the SSPX to supply priest letters preventing them from being forced into vaccination in order to keep their jobs. This is the new law in Colorado that comes into effect in September. Anyway, to cut a long story short, Fr. Robinson says the SSPX priests don’t need to sign letters because the faithful have their own human rights to stand on. He attaches a template letter for them to use if they have a conscience issue with the vaccines. but reiterates the SSPX position that it approves the vaccines under certain circumstances. In other words, don’t look to us for leadership, it’s every conscience for itself and the choice is yours. Very worrying! “
Here is the link to the article on the SSPX website, justifying the use of material from aborted babies in the Covid vaccines, which we have discussed on this blog more than once, and which Fr Robinson shamelessly included in his letter of reply to those Catholics seeking a letter of exemption, on conscience grounds, from their priest. This might be interpreted as an attempt to either stifle consciences, or to otherwise deter people from refusing the vaccine. To read our previous discussions on the subject of the SSPX support for the vaccines click here and here
Is there any justification – however remote – for refusing to support these conscientious faithful, who are possibly at risk of losing their livelihood? Is providing a template letter and leaving them to it, good enough?
Here’s a couple of pieces of very interesting information published in today’s Daily Sceptic, to take into account when considering the refusal of the SSPX priests to support Catholics who, in good conscience, cannot take the vaccines and thus risk losing their jobs.
Firstly, Public Health Scotland admits that the majority of people hospitalised and testing positive for Covid are vaccinated.
Secondly, the most educated are the least likely to take the vaccine. This from today’s Daily Sceptic:
“Barack Obama’s recent birthday bash wasn’t a high Covid risk, according to a New York Times writer, because of the “sophisticated, vaccinated” guests who attended. But is high sophistication really an indication that someone has had the vaccine? Certainly not, according to a new U.S. study which found that the most educated are the least likely to get ‘jabbed’.
Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh have studied well over five million survey responses and label those who “probably” or “definitely” would not get a Covid vaccine as ‘vaccine hesitant’.
As UnHerd reports, some findings are somewhat predictable, such as that counties with higher levels of support for Donald Trump in the 2020 election had higher levels of hesitancy. But others were, perhaps, less so.
More surprising is the breakdown in vaccine hesitancy by level of education. It finds that the association between hesitancy and education level follows a U-shaped curve with the highest hesitancy among those least and most educated. People a master’s degree had the least hesitancy, and the highest hesitancy was among those holding a PhD.
What’s more, the paper found that in the first five months of 2021, the largest decrease in hesitancy was among the least educated – those with a high school education or less. Meanwhile, hesitancy held constant in the most educated group; by May, those with PhDs were the most hesitant group.
Not only are the most educated people most sceptical of taking the Covid vaccine, they are also the least likely the change their minds about it.” Ends.
Well, that makes me wonder, big time, about the SSPX clergy. Seems that, contrary to all expectations, they have jumped to attention and followed Papa Francis for the sake of that false obedience that has placed them in the irregular situation which gives a lot of Catholics cause for “hesitancy” about attending their Masses. If, however, as this report suggests, intelligence and education play a part in the decisions of those who refuse the vaccine, well, that is yet another surprising cause for concern. Truth, as the saying goes, is stranger than fiction. And then some…
WOW. You just blew me away with that one.
In contrast, the Feb. 2006 Angelus had on its front cover: The Vaccination Question plus 4 articles, one of which was introduced by Fr. Peter Scott (he was either editor or editor emeritus at the time). He cited the Pontifical Academy for Life (when it really was such btw). One of the articles exhorted the laity to call the companies and ask them to make non-fetal-derived vaccines available. I wonder what Fr. Scott would think today.
This year is 30 years since +Lefebvre passed away. Monsignor, pray for your spiritual sons and daughters!
Yes, I understand your shock. Imagine my shock when I first saw the SSPX line on vaccines? I could not then, nor can I now, get my head around that one. Given that it ties in with a few other questionable hierarchical decisions, I am definitely beginning to wonder what’s going on at the higher levels.
I have to say in all fairness that the SSPX response to Francis’s anti-Traditional Mass motu proprio is a good, strong statement, entirely as I would expect from the SSPX. But the generally benignity in relation to the evils manifesting across the globe right now, not to mention this Pontificate, is seriously worrying. It can only be accounted for as loss of zeal in souls of the superiors.
That’s why, in a way, this attempt by Pope Francis to destroy the ancient Mass may be a blessing in disguise, for then the present lethargy may disappear as a new round of persecutions come our way. Catholics are always at their best under persecution. The last few years has seen a kind of uneasy compromising peace between the SSPX and Rome, which has spilled over into dioceses and parishes. As a result the SSPX has not experienced any resistance from local bishops, so long as they keep their heads down and don’t try to expand their apostolate. In the case of Glasgow, they are more than content as long as we remain isolated up hills steeper than Mount Etna in a dingy little church that holds no more than 100 faithful. The bishops will take that every day of the week, for then there is no real threat to Modernism.
Sad times indeed. I will not stop attending SSPX Masses as a result of these worrying things, I’ll just pray that Our Lord doesn’t allow the loss of zeal to descend into out and out indifference. The good news is that a majority of the SSPX’s 500 and odd priests are good non-clericalist priests who suffer no absence of holy zeal, piety, humility when it comes to defending the faith and sanctifying souls.
I am just stunned that any Catholic priest would refuse a conscience letter for faithful who don’t want the vaccine.
Even though they have, to their shame, gone along with the Vatican position on using material from aborted babies in the testing of these vaccines, the SSPX should still be able to write a letter saying that, as Catholics, these faithful have a right to have their consciences respected in this matter, without fear of losing their jobs.
It’s really diminished the SSPX in my sight – they talk about standing firm for Tradition and then do this to traditional Catholics.
I am not surprised, by the way, about the findings that show more educated people hesitate and don’t change their minds about not taking the vaccine. That stands to reason.
I’m afraid there are no words to describe my opinion of the SSPX since they came out in favour of these abortion tainted vaccines. Why would anyone be surprised that they don’t care if their people lose their jobs over it? It’s no big deal to these priests who don’t have to worry their heads about earning a living. I’m disgusted – and to answer the question in the intro, no it’s not good enough to hand them a template letter and let them get on with it. That’s about as much use as it would be to write our own references for a job, and hope for the best.
I should add that I have since discovered that the template letter Fr. Robinson attached with his letter is the same template letter that the Bishops Conference of Colorado provided to the faithful – but with one major alteration.
The Bishops of Colorado have at the bottom of their letter a place for the “pastor” to sign, which the bishops support. The SSPX has removed that part from the letter template they’ve supplied. This is like back to front, is it not? What is happening to the SSPX at the hierarchy level? Something isn’t right – this is not the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre. Neither is supporting abortion-tainted vaccines with sophisitc argument the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre. Archbishop Vigano is much closer to the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre, the spirit of Our Lord and His Church, than the SSPX leadership in this very grave matter. Hmmm! Who would have thought the SSPX in Menzingen and the U.S., its two major command centres, would react so mildly to a very clear manifestation of evil sweeping the world right now, leaving Archbishop Vigano and a few other brave prelates to get on with it alone?
I suppose the point they are making is that in both civil law and canon law, the faithful do not need the testimony of their pastors to act in accordance with their conscience. After all, it is widely accepted that vegans have a legal conscientious objection to using these vaccines and, as far as I am aware, there is no “Pope of the vegans” to back them up in the matter.
However, in a circumstance like this where Catholics are bound to be faced with the counter objection “But your pope says its OK!” (my wife has already had this one thrown at her in a workplace conference), it is callous and mean-spirited to leave the faithful to stand alone. Even if their priests disagree with their decision, they should defend their God-given right to act in accordance with their conscience and be prepared to remind any godless authority that this right and duty exists.
Thank God for the Colorado bishops who are acting like true fathers and leaders of the flock – at least in this matter.
I am very pleased you raised this point. It’s not that the SSPX priest in question is wrong technically, it’s that he should be prepared to offer that moral weight to any letter the faithful need to provide to employers. A priest’s signature always carries that certain weight of authority that a simple lay person does not have in the eyes of the world, even if, technically, they are perfectly within the law to refuse vaccines on conscience grounds. So it’s that failure to lend moral support and leadership to the faithful when they most need it that’s shocking. But then, to put forward the sophistry in support of these vaccines that the SSPX hierarchy has, even if it is with caveats, undermines the moral teaching of the Church. Archbishop Vigano, Bishop Schneider and other prelates are far more in tune with Tradition in this very grave matter. I still can’t believe the SSPX position on these vaccines, it’s shocking and disheartening.
Yes, I too am very saddened by the justification they put forward for using these vaccines. I am quite happy to accept that it is a matter of material co-operation rather than formal co-operation, as I am sure that no vaccine recipient with a conscience retrospectively and actively wills the killing of that child.
However, the claim that the co-operation is “remote” or “passive” seems only to be based on the CDF’s bald assertion that it is so. Is the only claim to remoteness dependent upon the fact that the initial crime happened a long time ago, despite the fact that similar crimes continue on a daily basis to feed the beast of scientific research? And despite the fact that the crime of cloning that baby’s tissues continues on a daily basis? If that is the case, I could use the same logic in my “day job” to justify placing, layering and integrating the proceeds of crime into the legitimate economy and get stinking rich in the process. I suspect many actors in the Vatican are already expert in that field, however.
Maybe there is an unexorcised Presbyterian still within me, but I stand with ++Vigano, +Schneider and dear Fr. George Roth rather than the compromisers. God help me.
I pointed out to the SSPX, when I wrote about this, that the Vatican document (2005) that they base their support on was actually very seriously flawed. We now know, through Pamela Acker and others, that many more than 2 abortions were carried out in the 70’s and 80s to perfect and test processes. So that document from the CDF arises from a pharmaceutical industry lie. Can’t get through to them, though. Once they make their decision no subordinate is going to change their mind. I think that’s called clericalism, a manifestation of great pride. Very sad.
We who know the Power of Distorting Language which was very well done by the Horrible
LGBTQ2WXYZ. Alphabet Mob have to Stop calling these Injections Va***nes we know that they are at the Very Least Experimental Injections that Joseph Mengele would have been proud of . No one except the Rats in the Laboratories ( the 2 Legged ones ) know the Destruction these Injections will have especially on Child Bearing Women. We had it straight from The Horses Mouth ,Billy Gates has already said it in a TED talk ” We can reduce the Earths Population by better Vaccination Programs ” these Injections ” And better Re Productive Health for Women ”
Murder of the unborn . Now even a 10 year old kid knows that Abortions alone won’t obliterate
Approximately 1BILLION from the Planet, although their trying their best .
There is only 2 ways 1BILLION. Humans can be got Rid off ( in Gates Language) either a Nuclear War and even the Chinese don’t want that . Or by Mass Sterilisation of The Peasants through Injections.
It’s not surprising that those who are Educated ( I discount myself ) are not taking these Sterilisation Drugs.
After all most of them don’t Eat Macdonalds .
As for the Obama Men and His crowd we know they are Satanists.
As for those Priests who say that WE should be Injected with a Poison. Their Day will come .
In fact am ( probably like all on Here. ) Sick of these Pansy Swish Priests . Bishops. Cardinals and a useless Pope ( as far as Catholicism is concerned ) telling us what is Good for us .
I don’t know how many of you Seen the Handouts that the Dioceses in the U.S.A. received from Uncle Joe . To be Honest it would make you Sick . It’s on Church Militant Ed just have a Look at the Money Handed to them .
I’ve missed you! I thought maybe you were mad at me (like just about everyone else in this world) 😀
Happy to agree with everything you say although I’ve not seen the CM handouts.
Also, don’t believe for a second that the so-called “educated” don’t eat McDonald’s. I’m in possession of a few certs myself (not that certs necessarily mean anyone is “educated”) and I have been known to indulge in a cheeseburger meal now and again…
ED to be Honest, I had fallen out with You and didn’t think that you deserved my impecable English. ( only Kidding of course) but i am certainly not Kidding when I say am ( and Probably like 99.99% on Here ) are Fed up and Sick with these Mealy Mouthed Catholic Clergymen most of whom by their Looks live on Macdonalds French Fries and know more about Grinders than I ever knew,as I thought Grinders were something for smoothing Down Rough Welding. Again going back to the Bishop Cancelling Our TLMASS. I of course read your Link to that So Called Priest Fr Morton who had more than a Few Ties with the LGBTQ2WXYZ. Mob yet was Backed to The Hilt by Bishop Toal . Also some of the Congregation who wrote to Bish said they received terrible Condescending Letters from Him asking them to more or less Re Join The Catholic Church.
My Email to Bishop Toal was more much more Forward. I said to Him that IF it was HIM who took the Decision to Bann a Sunday Mass which is well Attended has ( in my theological View ) committed a Sin against The Holy Ghost. If though it was The Horrible Arthur Roche who condemned the Latin Mass then the Sin that Cries out To The Heavens for Vengeance falls on His Conscience. As for Bergoglio I said to Bish that He’s a Write off and Archbishop Vigano at last Called Him out correctly as a Non Catholic. I also said to Bish not to send ME any condescending Answers Back . He hasn’t, So either Roche or Bergoglio carries the greater Sin.
He of course should know that from Scripture when Our Lord Jesus Christ said to Pilate ” The one who has handed me over carries the Greatest Sin ”
Thank God for this Site as it’s good to converse with Catholics who at least have an Open Mind .
As for our Problems. We should Go to a Doctor if we Have Health Problems.
We should go to a Psychiatrist , if we Have Mental Health Problems.
We should go to a Priest if we have Moral or Sinful Problems.
Priests. Bishops . Cardinals and A Pope should know this . Unfortunately they do not .
I don’t mean to be controversial but, given the Church has formally stated that Catholic are permitted to take the vaccine, surely it would not be credible for any priest to issue a letter claiming otherwise?
Any employer, or authority, or whomever would very quickly discredit such a letter, given the formal pronouncement of the Church. I think this is why Fr Robinson is advocating those who do not wish to take the vaccine make alternate arguments.
Quite apart from the scandal of the SSPX supporting the Pope & Vatican on this matter, there should be nothing controversial in a priest signing a letter to say that he supports a Catholic’s right to exercise their consciences on this important matter. “The Church” has not formally stated that Catholics are [morally] free to take the vaccine. A rogue pontiff has said so. There’s a difference and it’s one which the SSPX of all people, should know.
Your point, I know, is that now that the SSPX has accepted this unlawful statement from the Vatican, it’s not so easy for them to write letters of exemption, but as a qualified teacher of English language, it strikes me that this should not be beyond the bounds of their academic ability. Unless, of course, their grasp of the language matches their (lack of) grasp of moral theology.
As Margaret Mary points out – although I paraphrase – who would you prefer to write your letter of reference for a new job: a qualified professional or… yourself?
I am afraid that Mr. Syme does not understand that a “formal” statement from the Vatican on this matter in no way makes the matter settled. There are far too many moral theologians, Catholic biologists and scientists, and countless clergy and laity who do not agree with the arguments and conclusions drawn in the 2005 Vatican statement that caused Fr. Peter Scott of the SSPX to make a 180 degree turnabout from his previous position regarding the immorality of any vaccine tested or developed with, or including DNA/stem cells of murdered babies. As another commenter pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Fr. Scott was accepting of the newly developed guidelines issued by the Pontifical Academy for Life on June 9, 2005. The February 2006 issue of the SSPX Angelus magazine, titled “The Vaccination Question,” contains commentary of an approving Fr. Scott gushing over Vatican guidance that he would have rejected just a few years earlier. What changed, one wonders?
Regarding this absolutely abysmal situation of Fr. Paul Robinson, pastor of St. Isidore chapel of the SSPX in Watkins, Colorado, while it is tragic and deeply disappointing, it is not surprising. As we wrote in our 22 February 2021 letter to Fr. Pagliarani, Superior General of the SSPX:
Don Davide, this acceptance by the SSPX of the vaccine is really a betrayal! We say this because in the current political and hysterical climate, the far-reaching ramifications of such an acceptance will be disastrous. For example, employers will mandate vaccines, and when a Catholic employee explains that he cannot receive such a vaccine, the employer will go to the Vatican and USCCB websites and perhaps even to sspx.org. The employer will require the employee to demonstrate why his brand of Catholicism is different from the Vatican’s, the American bishops, and even the traditional SSPX. What a scandal! I ask you to evaluate whether this is not possible in light of what we have seen this last year. Moreover, this betrayal will affect familial relationships: many of us have children whom we are trying to bring back to the Faith, children who will consider parental guidance against illicit vaccines as one more “fanatical” opinion of marginalized Catholics these misguided offspring sought to escape. As St. Edmund Campion said, “the fort is betrayed by those who should have defended it.”
Yes, the handwriting was on the proverbial wall, and those of us who have been following the SSPX heartbreaking accommodation with the vaccines have had a very sick feeling in the pit of our stomachs for many months. The infamous “Vaccine Talk” of 4 January 2021 by the priests of Immaculate Conception chapel in Post Falls made it crystal clear that in their estimation, Catholics could, under certain circumstances, accept abortion-tainted vaccines. In fact, one of the two “hypothetical” examples given by Fr. Jonathan Loop, the priest who gave the talk, was the situation of a Catholic who would lose his job if he didn’t get the jab. Fr. Loop gave his approbation for such an individual to accept an abortion-tainted vaccine if it meant that otherwise he would lose his job. This was one of the incidents that caused us to write to Fr. Pagliarani, who never responded to us. Fr. Arnaud Selegny, instead, wrote to tell us that Don Davide had asked him to respond. Unfortunately, Fr. Selegny was the same moral theology professor who authored the scandalous article from the sspx.org website of 4 December 2020 that our Editor links above, so it does not take much imagination to arrive at what Fr. Selegny wrote to us regarding our concerns. You can be fairly certain that Fr. Paul Robinson was at the very least complying with the overall SSPX policy that was distributed straight out of the U.S. District, and perhaps even Menzingen itself.
What you say about young family members writing us off as expressing one more “fanatical” opinion jumped out at me, having been told recently, by a young relative that it was a pity about my “outdated beliefs”.
It’s shocking that the problem of trying to educate the young in the Faith (including true morals) is compounded, not only by the lack of such effort on the part of the clergy, including “traditional” clergy, but by the fact that they go along to get along with “the world”.
It’s hard to fathom what is going on in the SSPX.
Your comments put the entire matter into perfect perspective – this is a betrayal of the fort, and by those we thought we could trust the most.
Is it accidental that Fr. Paul Robinson is involved in this, given that he wrote that very controversial book, which Menzingen approves, called “The Realist Guide to Science and Religion”, a book which seeks, in my opinion, to marry the biblical Genesis narrative with the pseudo-scientific “Big Bang” theory?
Yes, it is shocking indeed, as is the refusal of Fr. Pagliarani to respond directly to faithful who write to him with concerns. Maybe someone should take a closer look at the motives of Fr. Selegny, Fr. Robinson and those who rn the U.S. District, for something is definitely rotten in the State of Denmark, as they say, and the SSPX had better get a grip on it before we all find ourselves in a similar situation to that faced by Archbishop Lefebvre and a handful of other Traditional prelates during the Council!
Yikes! No wonder Don Davide Pagliarani never responded to us. He thought he was dealing with historical illiterates. I just noticed that we inadvertently attributed to the wrong English martyr those stirring words about the fort being betrayed from within. As everyone knows, it was St. John Fisher, not St. Edmund Campion, who famously said those words. My apologies to all our friends in the UK.
I wouldn’t worry about because you got the main part right, which is that they’re the words of a saint.
I see your point, but it’s not actually applicable in this case. Fr. Robinson and the SSPX cannot sign letters for the faithful because they are compromised by supporting the Vatican document of 2005. Had they taken a stance against that document, as Archbishop Vigano and other Traditional prelates have done, then they would be able to morally support their faithful without making themselves hypocrites in the process. That’s why they won’t sign.
Athanasius – Catholic Truth template letter addressed to Fr Robinson et al…
To Whom It May Concern…
It is essential Catholic teaching that no-one should act against their informed conscience. Thus, I write in support of Mr/Mrs/Ms X, who is unable to accept the vaccine because his/her conscience dictates that he/she cannot accept a vaccine tested using aborted fetal material…
Something along those lines surely helps ease the pride of Fr Robinson et al…
Or am I being that simple gal, again? Don’t answer that…
I think those few words say everything that the priest needs to say – I can’t see why a short letter like that would be a problem.
Exactement! Or, as those of us who are NOT French say… exactly!”
I just don’t understand why the SSPX has gone with the Vatican on these vaccines. It’s beyond belief. That was bad enough but then to refuse letters of exemption is shocking. Will it really not bother them if any Catholic is left without a job because he or she is being true to their conscience on this? I can’t find strong enough words to say how much I am shocked at these priests.
Like Athanasius, I agree that the template letter does say everything that the priest needs to say. I had not expected the SSPX to go along with the Vatican on these vaccines.
I think it’s important to say that an SSPX priest not signing a letter will not neccesarily result in a loss of employment. The State of Colorado requires a letter of anyone who objects on moral or medical grounds to the vaccine, so the letter signed by a lay person who objects should technically be enough to protect them under the law. The real question is why the SSPX would not add that moral weight to any letter by having a priest sign it. The Bishops Conference of Colorado has instructed priests to sign such letters, so why is the SSPX refusing? Even just at the clerical leadership level, it’s a shocking development.
ED just as good night Shock have you Heard anything that Bergoglio is going to Permit Protestant Wife’s of a Catholic Husband and or vice versa if they attend The Novus Ordo Mass that Both can receive Holy Communion.
He’s going all out it seems to put The Boot Right in Before He goes to His Appointed Place .
I very much doubt that he will allow non-Catholic spouses to receive Holy Communion at his or any other Masses, for to decree such a thing would be a definite and indefensible act against the faith. It would, in short, be a papal licence to sacrilege. Can’t see him making such a public assault on the Blessed Sacrament. I reckon someone is making mischief. Where did you hear this piece of news?
FOOF’s comment rang a bell with me, so I took a minute to search and when I found it, I remembered this…
“During a question and answer session at that meeting, a Lutheran woman had told the Pope that her husband and she cannot receive together Holy Communion because she is not Catholic. The Pope first answered with the words: “It’s a problem each must answer, but a pastor-friend once told me: ‘We believe that the Lord is present there, he is present. You all believe that the Lord is present. And so what’s the difference?’ — ‘Eh, there are explanations, interpretations.’ Life is bigger than explanations and interpretations. Always refer back to your baptism. ‘One faith, one baptism, one Lord.’ This is what Paul tells us, and then take the consequences from there. I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this, because it’s not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything more.”
Not long after this incident, in January of 2016, a group of Finnish Lutherans received Holy Communion at St. Peter’s Basilica…
Unlike your good, charitable self, I would put nothing – absolutely nothing – past this pope.
Well, that does shock me to the core. He was, not to put too fine a point on it, advocating sacrilege. Absolutely unbelievable.
Marco Tosatti broke this news a few days ago and it seems he is intent on going further than just Protestant spouses of Catholics. He is using the German Synod as a means to ram through his nefarious objectives – all in the name of “Synodality” of course. Prepare for more sacrilege coming down the pipes.
I have just found this report on the subject – a shocker.
Here is a very timely short story on the life and martyrdom of Bl. Franz Jägerstätter, an Austrian farmer who refused to become a Nazi soldier and paid for it with his life. The parallel between this holy man’s situation and Catholics faced with clerical collusion in the COVID vaccine business is striking. I advise all to read this – it puts everything into perspective.
That article has the WOW! factor – big time. I copied this – surprising, perhaps – paragraph (but didn’t copy the ending thereafter, not to spoil it for others)…
Again and again, people try to trouble my conscience over my wife and children. Is an action any better because one is married and has children? Is it better or worse because thousands of other Catholics are doing the same? . . . Ever since people have existed on this earth, experience teaches us that God gives people free will and has only very seldom noticeably interfered in the fate of individuals and peoples, and that therefore it will be no different in the future either, except at the end of the world. Adam and Eve already completely ruined their destiny through their disobedience towards God; God gave them free will and they would never have had to suffer if they had listened more to God than to the tempter. Even His beloved Son would then have been spared infinite suffering. And so it will remain until the end of the world: that every sin has consequences. But woe to us if we always try to avoid shouldering those consequences and aren’t willing to do penance for our sins and errors.
As I say – WOW!
Exaclty! That passgae fits perfectly today with those so-called Catholics who welcome the closure of churches, lockdowns, masking and, above all, the abortion-tainted vaccines. They go along with the spirit of the world, which is demonic, and trample the Commandments and will of God.
That is a powerful article. Franz did not use the usual “I’m a married man with a family so I have to be prudent” argument to allow him to get on with his life not bothering his conscience at all. As you say, it fits perfectly with those (so called) Catholics who are going along to get along with everything to do with this pandemic.
I’ve wondered why people often don’t refer to Holy Scripture and the Catechism to use against those who argue with them about the vaccines:-
Holy Scripture, Romans 3:8 “And why not say (just as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let’s do evil that good may come of it”? Their condemnation is deserved.”
Catechism: “1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.”
I used those very Scriptual quotations many times when writing to SSPX superiors and others. They either ignored them or tried to say that I was quoting out of context.
It turns out that there were not one, but three letters from the Colorado bishops, each one affirming the same false Vatican teaching: December 14, 2020; March 17, 2021 and August 5 2021.
In typical Modernist fashion, they state A. and then undermine it with B:
A. The development of vaccines and other medicines using aborted fetal cells is ethically unacceptable. It offends the dignity of the preborn aborted baby and his or her family, as well as the dignity of the medical vocations of doctors and scientists. We affirm the Church’s teaching that “the corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings. The ethical problems with regard to “cooperation in evil” are important to consider in accepting or promoting any vaccine.
B. The Catholic Church teaches that it is morally permissible to seek and receive a vaccine that has not been ethically developed, when there are no other alternatives and there is a serious risk to one’s health, and provided that any immoral cooperation with evil is excluded.
Ethically unacceptable but morally permissible, eh? Yes indeed: 2 + 2 = 5.
They go on to reject the Johnson & Johnson vaccines because they “use aborted fetal lines in design, development, production, and testing,” but accept Moderna and Pfizer because “their use is morally acceptable since neither company used fetal cell lines from an aborted baby at any level of design, development, or production.”
However, that brand name preference is immediately contradicted by their next sentence: “However, we must also acknowledge that these two vaccine options are not untouched by abortion, as both relied on fetal cells from an aborted baby for one of the confirmatory lab tests.”
Finally, according to a chart linked in one of their letters, that lists the lineage of every known COVID vaccine by type, both Pfizer and Moderna use HEK293 cell lines.
So this is the spineless gibberish that Fr. Robinson is affirming.
( The footnote 5 link to the PDF chart, created by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, can be found at the bottom of the bishops’ December letter: https://cocatholicconference.org/a-letter-to-the-faithful-from-the-colorado-bishops-on-covid-19-vaccines/ )
You’ll note that at no time did they refer to abortion as “a sin crying to heaven for vengeance”. It’s all about human dignity – no mention of the outrage of child murder in the eyes of God. This, too, the SSPX conveniently bypasses.
“spineless gibberish” is about the best summary I’ve read on this subject, relating to the shocking response of the hierarchy (at the highest levels) to this vaccine dilemma – which is only a “dilemma” because of their spineless acceptance of the abortion-tainted vaccines.
It is being reported that Cardinal Burke is gravely ill with corona virus.
On 11 Aug he tweeted to inform people he had caught the virus, but said he was comfortable and sounded upbeat.
However, for the past two days he has required the assistance of a ventilator to breathe and some US Catholic commentators are now alluding that he is at death’s door (Christine Niles: “next 48 hours will be critical”).
Please say a prayer for his recovery.
This is indeed bad news about Cardinal Burke. Ventilators are not the answer to COVID, they’re a killer. His Eminence could have been given Hydroxicloroquine or Ivermetcin immediately and would have been back on his feet by now, but instead they put him on a ventilator and, sorry to say, that usually doesn’t end well. I hope and pray I’m wrong but I think they know that ventilators are killing COVID patients and a high profile Cardinal dying of COVID will reinforce their false narrative that COVID is a silent assassin just waiting to take us all out. As I say, though, hope I’m wrong.
I posted this news when it was first published that the Cardinal was seriously ill with Covid (can’t remember which thread now) – but it’s interesting to see how The Guardian is reporting it today..
The above Guardian news report will affirm your fears. The fact that they are describing him as a “vaccine sceptic” tells us that they are up to no good with this.
On a personal note/word of warning…
I have made it clear to the family member named to have authority over my affairs if and when I am incapacitated, that, if somehow the authorities get involved if and when I take ill, then under absolutely no circumstances, am I to be taken into hospital. And if somehow it happens that I am taken into hospital then under no circumstances am I to be put to death – using a ventilator or any other weapon. I think everyone needs to put something in writing to that effect for themselves. Urgently.
I have just read a LSN article on the Cardinal’s deteriorating condition – he now has serious pneumonia and is not responding to treatment. According to LSN, all the U.S. media outlets are making use of the story, like the Guardian you cite, to emphasise that he is a “vaccine skeptic”. These people will use even serious illness to push their false narrative in favour of these dangerous vaccines. The Cardinal could have been cured very quickly with proven “miracle” therapeutic drugs that we are all aware of but they have chosen to kill him with a ventilator. They know what they’re doing but are presenting their murderous intentions with a facade of medical concern and good intention. I really fear now for the Cardinal’s life, a fear I had from the moment they mentioned the word “ventilator”. Ventilators are a death sentence with this kind of respiratory illness, which is why I agree that we should all get something in writing to a person we trust to ensure we never end up on one under the pretext of curing us from COVID.
I have just received this (round robin email) from the Cardinal’s spokesman…
Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. (Jn 14:27)
The outpouring of love, prayers and support during His Eminence’s hospitalization has greatly consoled his family, edified those who serve him at the Shrine and elsewhere, and testified to the character and virtue of the man whom so many consider a spiritual father. We deeply and abundantly appreciate this charity, and we give praise and thanks to our Heavenly Father, especially for the brilliant and faithful service of Cardinal Burke to the Church he loves so profoundly.
As of August 17th, His Eminence remains in serious, but stable condition. His family, who with a team of doctors, is responsible for all medical decisions while the Cardinal remains sedated and on a medical ventilator, has great confidence in the care he is receiving. The Cardinal has received the Sacraments from priests nearby to him. There are several relics in his room.
While the Cardinal’s family appreciates the good intentions of those who have suggested treatments, consultations, etc., they ask that people refrain from sending anything further. They also ask that you not contact them, members of the Shrine staff, or the Cardinal’s residence in Rome to discuss his condition. Texts, phone calls and emails—while certainly solicitous and often gracious—can, inadvertently, become a burden. The family does not plan to disclose His Eminence’s location to avoid the obvious difficulties that might cause.
To provide a secure source for updates about the Cardinal’s health, the family has asked that the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe—in addition to the Cardinal’s personal media—be the only authorized platforms for accurate, timely information. Other reports may be incomplete or false and so may unnecessarily disturb the minds and hearts of those devoted to His Eminence.
The Cardinal’s family has also requested that only updates of significant changes in His Eminence’s condition be posted on the authorized platforms. In humility, we understand that it is not necessary for us to know every detail of the Cardinal’s treatment. Though his family realizes that the Cardinal “belongs” to the Church, they also ask that we respect his privacy. The period of hospitalization, and for now isolation because of the COVID virus, may be prolonged as His Eminence’s body fights the infection and recovers strength. For the time being, the sedation assists his own peace and rest.
Nothing falls outside of God’s providence. Nothing falls outside the reach of His grace. These are spiritual truths we know and that the Cardinal has taught us by his own example of fidelity in trust and surrender to the Good God. Confidence in these truths opens us to the peace the world cannot give or take. Were he able to speak with us now, he would tell what he has always taught us: that Our Father in Heaven is good, merciful, just, provident and sovereign; that we are His beloved children and that He will never leave us orphans; that we should not be afraid of the Cross as the way to eternal life; that the Sacraments are the most direct channels of grace and that we do the soul the greatest good by receiving Holy Communion often and by going to Confession regularly; that we should say our daily prayers; and that we should love one another as Jesus Christ has loved us: generously, even to the point of heroic sacrifice.
And one more thing so important and so dear to His Eminence: that we should pray the Rosary frequently and fervently, and so place ourselves under the mantle of Our Lady, confident in her maternal love and intercession.
Please continue your prayers for Cardinal Burke and for his family, particularly at the Holy Mass and in the praying of the Rosary. We are filled with gratitude for the abundance of prayers and love for this faithful son and servant of the Church.
God bless you.
Rev. Paul N. Check
Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe
As we had discussed Cardinal Burke’s health previously: the latest is that he is continuing to recover well and most recently I have heard that he is now sufficiently strong to be able to offer daily Mass once again.
What good news!
I think it is uncharitable to assert that Fr.Robinson/SSPX has chosen to “go with the Vatican” simply for not writing a letter. A letter is not needed to morally refuse the vaccine, and I can see how appealing to a letter in Court inadvertently gives credence to the opposition’s suggestion that a letter is even needed. A credence which could harm other people elsewhere who may not be lucky enough to live near a priest that is sympathetic/trad enough to write a letter.
And stating that there are some instances where a vaccine might be allowable is not the same as saying (like the Vatican) that the vaccine is a moral good. Take for instance, a priest that doesn’t agree with the vaccine but takes it simply so that he is allowed into the hospital to administer Last Rites to a dying person. Is the end good outweighed by the vaccine? I am generally against the vaccine, but such exceptional cases can’t be discounted.
Sorry your comment has not yet been acknowledged – it’s been one of those days (again!)
There is, however, not a lot more that I can think to add to what has already been said on this topic here. I’m assuming that you’ve read the introduction, including the links to our previous discussions, which contain a mountain of sound moral theology from solid sources.
Recently, I had a conversation with an SSPX priest who defended the Society’s position on vaccines by arguing that not to take the vaccine might cost someone their job, yet here we have Fr Robinson refusing to provide a letter which would spell out to an employer the fact that a Catholic’s conscience has to be respected, its dictates binding, and that, thus, he exhorts [employer] to accept [employee’s] legitimate and conscientious decision not to take the vaccine.
Why not offer that – a simple letter from a priest which could mean the difference between being sacked and keeping the job. His unwillingness to do this just confirms my personal view that the Society is going along with this scandalous enforcement of vaccines because, frankly, it’s the easiest thing to do. After all, it’s not good enough to say that Catholics can speak for themselves when the obvious response to that from a employer would be that the Pope has allowed it, so what’s the problem? The Society has been a huge let-down in this matter.
As for your “hard case” example – do you know of any such cases? Even in Ireland – which is about the most anti-Catholic, and anti-priest place on the planet, I hear that priests are permitted to administer the Last Rites. In any event, no, the priest should not take the vaccine for that reason. God’s infinite grace and mercy would supply in the case of a soul disposed to confess and unable to receive sacramental absolution through no fault of his/her own in such circumstances.
Comments are closed.