Go here to read the story. A rushed vaccine, shielded by a law forbidding law suits for harm caused by the vaccine, produces devastating results on some of the vaccinated, which includes almost all of the population due to government pressure. All of this carried out under a reign of national hysteria and censorship. The “cure” was much, much worse than the disease.
But The Science Was Settled
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 41 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
IMO every bishop who went along with and/or promoted the lockdowns and the jabs should resign. Given that this would practically leave only a handful of the hierarchy and would never happen anyway, the best alternative would be some sincere or at least very public mea culpas along with spending the remainder of their lives in severe desert father style penance. The damage that has been wrought – both in the immediate aftermath and in the years to come- is immense, especially as the Covid regime was practically given the church’s imprimatur and cloaked with a misguided (my charitable alternative to diabolical) appeal to “love.”
To be fair, I am torn about such a resignation proposal, as a massive new crop of hierarchy could be even worse. At least now the masks are off and you know exactly what you’re getting. So perhaps in that sense covid was a severe mercy in that more and more dark corners are receiving their share of illumination. There is certainly currently no lack of that.
Acceptable losses.
They got Trump. They spread a couple trillion among the donors. They successfully tested the dictatorship.
Here’s the drill. Vaccinated. Vaccinated. Boosted. Boosted. Boosted.
Died suddenly.
They were expendable.
Nothing in the article indicates that the vaccine was [DIOCESE-MANDATED?]. But I’d have no problem with diocesan priests and active religious being required to take the vaccine.
But I’d have no problem with diocesan priests and active religious being required to take the vaccine.
I would. It’s not very effective, it has some side-effects (which it will take some years to suss out fully) and it’s not sterilizing. The only reason you’d recommend it for priests and religious is that most of them are old.
The science about vaccines was definitely not settled. No risk vs reward questioning, i.e. vaccines for elderly with high mortality rate, no vaccines for under-25 with very low mortality rate. (see heree for graphs showing this.) No long-term studies of vaccine side-effects were made.
Pinky, he explained why he took the injection: ” hospitals and nursing homes told priests they could not visit if they were not “fully vaccinated.” The hierarchy did nothing to discourage such policies, but to the contrary, many if not most were telling the faithful it was their “moral duty” or an “act of love” to get it.
If you have no problem with anyone being forced to take it, regardless of moral objections and/or lack of confidence in the safety and/or efficacy of it, that’s pretty sad. No concern about possible long term side effects? How about the precedent of compelling the use of abortion tainted products?
I read that part, and it doesn’t justify the [DIOCESE-MANDATED?] bit that Frank Walker added. A diocese shouldn’t be trying to override policies of nursing homes or hospitals. As for priests being required to take it, in my mind that falls under obedience. If the claims about fetal cell use were accurate, there might be an argument for following one’s conscience over obedience, but from what I’ve read those claims aren’t true.
A diocese shouldn’t be trying to override policies of nursing homes or hospitals.
Agree, however if a priest was uncomfortable taking the vaccine for whatever reason, he should have been given the option of not visiting and serving at places where it was mandatory to be vaccinated. It does not appear to be the case that he was given the choice (if he was infact given the choice- I stand corrected- but again, it doesn’t appear to be the case in this instance and in many instances for clergy).
Besides, I think the term “obedience” is stretched. A priest is not required to be “obedient” if it threatens his health or safety. Superiors have a duty of care to the priests who serve under them and if the Superior is disregarding his priest well-being, then the priest has every right to look out for his own well-being and “disobey”. Priests are not robots.
There is no serious dispute that abortion derived technology was used. Official Church statements acknowledged that fact, while offering that, if there were no alternatives one could, not must, but could take the injection. The Church stated that one could refuse for reasons of conscience. Why would refusal have been allowed if not for the undisputed connection with abortion? It was undisputed that using these products constituted a cooperation with evil, the only question being whether that cooperation was remote or not.
Not sure why questioning a policy or practice would be problematic. For example many hospitals and nursing homes banned priests altogether from being present to administer last rites. Would a diocese be wrong to protest against such restrictions?
As for obedience, I’m not an expert in canon law, but I doubt if a bishop can compel someone to inject a substance into their bodies if, in their best judgement, they have reasonable doubts as to safety or efficacy, particularly if there are well grounded moral objections. It would seem to be a matter of basic natural law. By what defensible principle could one be compelled to take an action that they sincerely believe places them at risk, or which violates their well formed conscience?
As for priests being required to take it, in my mind that falls under obedience.
Your mind isn’t working very well. There is no proper object served in requiring men to take a low quality vaccine. Even moreso in regard to this particular priest, who is neither aged nor obese.
A diocese shouldn’t be trying to override policies of nursing homes or hospitals.
The policies are perverse. The vaccines are not sterilizing.
There was a catastrophic abrogation of leadership within the Church on the vax issue. If there was ever a moment for bishops to stand up to secular authority it was when they started mandating that houses of worship be closed and an abortion byproduct be injected. Has the Church hierarchy grown so fat and lazy, so seduced by comfort, that we cannot recall the sacrifices our martyrs made in the face of much more threatening circumstances? The answer unfortunately is yes. The despicable cowards paved the way for the poisoning of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. And the ranks of “obedient” priests, already woefully thin, will be further depleted as the “died suddenly” fad continues to sweep the nation.
A diocese shouldn’t be trying to override policies of nursing homes or hospitals.
Why? A patient needs Last Rites and the Bishop should tell them “Oh well, my hands are tied.”? What should be more important to clergy, policies or souls?
As for priests being required to take it, in my mind that falls under obedience.
It seems in today’s Church, conscience will allow one to do anything except refuse an abortion-tainted experimental clot shot.
If the claims about fetal cell use were accurate, there might be an argument for following one’s conscience over obedience, but from what I’ve read those claims aren’t true.
Funny, I posted a lot of good information verifying the “claims” a while back and you said you didn’t have time to read them. If you only expose yourself to materials which uphold your pre-conceived notions, you’ll never learn anything. (FYI, Pfizer, Moderna and J&J all readily admit using abortion-derived cells in either the production or testing of their products)
@Faithful —
I think the Church statements to which you refer relate to the J&J vaccine, but not the PFizer or Moderna vaccines. The former did use fetal cell lines in the development or creation of its vaccine, whereas the latter two did not. Of course, no actual fetal cells or tissue were contained in the vaccines available in the US.
[…] BUT THE SCIENCE WAS SETTLED […]
no actual fetal cells or tissue were contained in the vaccines available in the US.
J&J also admits that “host DNA is present” in their vaccine in small amounts. The host cells are from the aborted child.
@ Mike Petrik-
Mike, the J&J injection utilized abortion derived material in the manufacture of the product while both Pfizer and Moderna utilized it in the testing of it prior to production; perhaps after as well though I’m not sure. Use of abortion derived technology was fundamental in the development of all these products.
CAG, there was a lot of contradictory information about fetal cells and the vaccines. I read quite a bit, but I’m sure I didn’t read it all. That Johnson and Johnson vaccine was never available for me – from what I recall, it was discontinued or fairly rare in the US. I did my due diligence, including reviewing Church statements and corporate and scientific statements. I didn’t see the evidence that any of the vaccines that were available to me were morally objectionable in this respect. As I said above, “if the claims about fetal cell use were accurate, there might be an argument for following one’s conscience over obedience, but from what I’ve read those claims aren’t true”.
Pinky, obedience wouldn’t enter into it at all since the statement from the CDF specifically allowed for moral objections to the taking of these injections and made clear that no one should be forced to take them. And the evidence that they were considered morally objectionable is contained also in the CDF statement which allowed that they were made by evil means but that any cooperation could be considered “remote”; which nevertheless would not obligate anyone to take them but only allow them to do so if they made their personal objections known, and there were no alternatives.
Ezabelle –
“It does not appear to be the case that he was given the choice”
The article and video never claim he was forced, not once. He says “highly encouraged”.
Faithful, the CDF document says, “Here, our objective is only to consider the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted.” It is only those that are being addressed. A person can say that there are moral issues with them, but that doesn’t imply that there are moral issues with all covid vaccines or that all covid vaccines have been developed from fetal tissue.
Also, the Father talks about getting the “first vaccine” and “second vaccine”. The Johnson and Johnson vaccine was the only one in the US that was administered in one shot. So he couldn’t be talking about that shot. And that was the only one that has been reported as using fetal cells in production. So the whole conversation isn’t about any vaccine that the CDF addressed.
Also, the Father talks about getting the “first vaccine” and “second vaccine”. The Johnson and Johnson vaccine was the only one in the US that was administered in one shot. So he couldn’t be talking about that shot.
———————————-
Balogna!! Those administering the poison in our area of the country were mixing shots at one point in time.
There is no serious dispute that abortion derived technology was used. Official Church statements acknowledged that fact, while offering that, if there were no alternatives one could, not must, but could take the injection. The Church stated that one could refuse for reasons of conscience. Why would refusal have been allowed if not for the undisputed connection with abortion? It was undisputed that using these products constituted a cooperation with evil, the only question being whether that cooperation was remote or not.
—————————
Exactly!
Faithful, You can give all the evidence you want to people who refuse to accept it because they are unable or unwilling to admit that they are/maybe wrong and/or messed up. It is futile.
I am somewhat mystified* that the Church could say on the one hand no one should be required to take the jab, and on the other, there were/are bishops who require it of their priests and lay employees, who in a (very) few cases required it to attend Mass or parish functions. And of course, the Vatican required it.
.
(*I’m not really mystified. Parish schools require the children to take vaccines derived from fetal cell lines all the time. This is just an extension of that.)
Christian Teacher, what statements are you referring to? I already showed that the CDF document doesn’t say that. That said, I see a big difference between fetal cells used for development, production, and testing. Any use of them is morally repellent, but the early two-dose vaccines in the US weren’t created using fetal cells, and weren’t manufactured using fetal cells. The use in testing, that’s on them. But the vaccines didn’t require the use of fetal cells. So your use of the phrase “abortion derived technology” seems like a shifting of the goalposts.
This is the covid vaccine page for Children of God for Life. They have extensively researched the use of fetal cell lines in vaccines. I would take their word as definitive
.
https://cogforlife.org/guidance/
Pinky, sorry but you are incorrect in saying there is no connection with abortion and the Pfizer and Moderna products. The CDF does not address the matter directly but the U.S. Bishops did in a document from Jan 2021, entitled “Answers to Key Ethical Questions About COVID-19 Vaccines” in which they state an abortion derived cell line “was used to test the efficacy of both vaccines” and that therefore “neither vaccine is completely free from any use abortion-derived cell lines”. They allow that they can be used under defined conditions and consider them less problematic than the J&J product but it is beyond dispute that abortion derived technology was used to test these products rendering them morally problematic though again permitting, not mandating, their use under certain defined circumstances.
Pinky, in your response to Christian Teacher you state that you think there is a “big difference” between development, production and testing without really establishing why you think so. All such steps are indispensable in the making of these products. And significantly you acknowledge that any such use is nevertheless “morally repellant”. But then you seem to deny that very point. Hard to follow.
The term “abortion derived technology” which seems to cause you confusion, refers not only to what the makers are doing but who they are cooperating with and doing business with, namely medical researchers who knowingly use the products of abortion which they in turn sell to the makers to use as they seem fit, knowing full well how these products were obtained.
The article and video never claim he was forced, not once. He says “highly encouraged”.
He felt pressured…which apparently is interchangeable with “highly encouraged.”
“Fr. Looney said that he felt pressured to get jabbed in February 2021 because hospitals and nursing homes told priests they could not visit if they were not “fully vaccinated.””
[…] in Nigeria – N. C. Register Death of Cardinal George Pell – Raymond Cardinal Burke But The Science Was Settled: Fr. Looney Suffers Consequences of Vax – The American Catholic Australians Pay Tribute to Cardinal Pell as State Funeral Ruled Out […]
Faithful, I’d like to use an analogy, and make it clear that this is only an analogy about degree of responsibility, nothing more. I think about the idea of a just war. A war declared for unjust reasons can’t be just on the part of the aggressors. A war justly declared isn’t just if bombing civilians is central to its execution. A war can be just if there are war crimes, though – things which weren’t essential to the war but did take place. I won’t honor the war criminals, but I can recognize the good in the war. In like manner, if a vaccine was created and manufactured in a way that’s morally acceptable, I can still be offended by the non-essential use of fetal cells.
Ezabelle – Pressured is different from forced. There can be a grey area in the middle, but if the Father were forced, he could have said so. He didn’t. There’s no evidence of him being forced, and there’s no reason for us to assume he was.
DJH – That website is blocked for me from the office, but I did start to look at it last night. It looked like the development of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines used fetal cells, but those companies’ research didn’t. It was published research from NIH and a college in Texas, IIRC. In a better world there wouldn’t have been any such research, but from my initial reading neither of those companies engaged in the use of fetal cells for research.
Pinky why do you assume the use of the abortion derived cells was “non-essential”? Do companies ordinarily take unnecessary steps in the making of their products? The testing of a product before marketing is non-essential? Maybe you should re-think this.
As for your just war with war crimes analogy, one can participate in a just war even though war crimes may be an ancillary part of it. But one cannot participate in war crimes, nor can one take deliberate actions which encourage the commission of war crimes by knowingly providing the means by which such crimes may be committed or by consent to their commission expressed either explicitly or by virtue of silence.
” I can still be offended by the non-essential use of fetal cells.”
With the resurrection of our bodies, those fetal cells will rejoin their living souls and accuse their abusers. These aborted babies are being treated as medical waste. Jesus says “Suffer the little children to come to me,” …to grow, to be born, to become adult sovereign persons as they are created by God.
That is going to be some judgement day.
Pressured is different from forced. There can be a grey area in the middle.
Pressured is also different from “encouraged” Pinky. He was “encouraged” you said. No Pinky, he was pressured. Take the jab or he can’t do his job. He took it in order to do his job. Now he is unwell.
I didn’t say he was encouraged; I quoted him saying he was encouraged.
He also said “the vaccine was pushed on us”. But you are trying to paint a picture that he had a alternative choice by saying he was “highly encouraged”. That misses the point of Fr Looneys post because the reason he did the video was to “speak out” at the harm the vaccine had on his heart as a healthy 33 year old. That’s misrepresenting the priests point. Father Looney also finishes with “you can readily accept it or you can deny it…” Thats your choice.
The Vatican required the jab for employees and were fired for not complying. Jab tyrants.
The latest reports out are that the CDC is looking at a possible link between the new bivalent jab and strokes in the 65+ population. Also, the latest variant XBB1.5 appears more likely to infect the vaccinated and maybe those who have had covid before (not sure if they mean the original Wuhan strain, Delta, or Omicron.)
.
It was folly to mandate an experimental drug technology. More than folly; downright immoral.