From the Archived Catacombs - by The Recusant:

Below is an article by Fr. Anthony Cekada.  Obvious caveat: we wouldn't agree with him on everything, for one thing I take issue with some of the things he is on record as having said concerning Archbishop Lefebvre, for another he's about as sedevacantist as they come! That being said, this article isn't about sedevacantism or about his historic disagreement with Archbishop Lefebvre, it doesn't really even touch on any of those things. The article is concerning the question of bishops and priests who have had not one day of proper seminary training, who don't know any Latin, have only sketchy theology, etc and/or who were ordained by men who were equally as ignorant and untrained. His point that to ordain someone with no training is "un-Tridentine" in that it goes directlly against the Council of Trent is a well made. And he does make a number of other very good points which bear directly on the case of Fr. Pfeiffer's supposed "episcopal" consecration, "bishops" Webster, Hennebery, Terrasson, et al.

One of the things he says is something I was reaching for myself, though I fear I could never have expressed it as clearly as he does here, and it is this. If there is a general presumption of validity when it comes to valid Holy Orders outside the Church (the schismatic Orthodox, for instance), does that extend to garage bishops with not one day of seminary under their belts? And the answer has to be a resounding "No!" If anything, the contrary is true: one ought almost reasonably to expect a garage bishop to bungle the ceremony because, due to his lack of training, he really doesn't have a clue what he's doing. If anyone had any doubts about that, the scandalous example given by so-called "bishop" Webster recently, in the OLMC video of Fr. Pfeiffer's "consecration," is an eloquent lesson.

Here are a few extracts. The whole thing is well worth a read, and can be found here: www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/UntrainedUnTrid.pdf

Quote:But how far does this presumption extend? Does it extend  even to orders conferred by an underworld traditionalist “bishop” of the type mentioned at the beginning of this article — someone canonically unfit for the priesthood himself, lacking a  proper ecclesiastical education, summarily ordained a priest, and raised to the episcopate, perhaps by a bishop equally ignorant and canonically unfit?

I doubt that any Roman canonist explored such an issue in a pre-Vatican II canon law manual — Holy Orders conferred by, say, a chicken farmer-bishop untrained in Latin and theology.

The principle to be applied, nevertheless, is clear enough: Unless someone has received proper training, no presumption of validity is accorded to the sacraments he confers, because he may not know enough to confer them validly.
[...]

Quote:Old Catholic Schismatics

Canonists such as Beste26 and Regatillo27 concede the presumption of validity to orders conferred by the Old Catholic bishops in Holland, Germany and Switzerland only. Of orders conferred by the countless other Old Catholic bishops operating (in the U.S., England, etc.) at the time they were writing, the canonists say nothing at all.

Here too, the distinction appears to be based on whether or not the clergy had an ecclesiastical education. In Holland, Germany and Switzerland, Old Catholic clergy were required to have theological training. [Dutch Old Catholics studied at their theological school in Utrecht or at a university, Germans at a theological school in Bonn, and the Swiss at the University of Berne. P. Baumgarten, “Old Catholics,” Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Appleton 1913) 11:235–6. These groups were also organized and somewhat centralized. They consecrated a limited number of bishops, kept proper records, followed the old ordination rites, and had clear lines of succession.] In the other countries Old Catholic bishops conferred ordinations and consecrations pell-mell on hundreds of untrained candidates.

To demonstrate the problem this poses for the validity of Holy Orders conferred in the latter group, we need take as an example only one series of Old Catholic bishops in the U.S.: Mathew (consecrated 1908), de Landas Berghes (1913), Carfora (1916), Rogers (1942), Brown (1969).

While the first and third bishops in the line, Mathew and Carfora, had been properly-trained Catholic priests and presumably would have known how to confer a sacrament properly, the second and fourth, de Landas Berghes and Rogers, are identified only as, respectively, “a distinguished Austrian nobleman” and “a West Indian Negro.” But navigating through the second most complex ceremony in the Roman Rite — Episcopal Consecration — and getting the essential parts right (or even knowing what they are) is not exactly something a layman picks up in a Habsburg emperor’s court or a Caribbean sugar cane field. There is no reason then to assume that either de Landas Berghes or Rogers had any idea about how to confer this sacrament validly.

This problem is complicated by yet another: Rogers’ own priestly ordination was doubtful, which would in turn render his episcopal consecration doubtful. [He appears to have been ordained a priest in the Vilatte succession (Anson, 433), which was of uncertain validity. According to most theologians the order of priesthood is required to receive episcopal consecration validly.]

So by the time we get to Brown in 1969, there is no possible way to sort out whether his orders are valid or not. Such problems are encountered across the board with orders derived not only from the Old Catholics, but also from the Brazilian nationalist schismatics. [Apologists for the validity of Old Catholic or Old Roman Catholic orders in the United States (the terms are interchangeable) invariably try to support their case by citing the same group of published statements by various Catholic authors. With one exception, however, these statements appeared not in theological works, but in popular ones (various religious dictionaries for the laity, overviews of non-Catholic sects, etc.), or they refer to the Old Catholic bodies in Europe about whose orders there is no dispute. The one article cited from a scholarly journal (“Schismatical Movements among Catholics,” American Ecclesiastical Review 21 [July 1899], 2–3) is from a passage concerning the specific issue of the priestly ordination of René Vilatte which cannot be disputed. The passage cited proves nothing about subsequent Old Catholic episcopal consecrations in the U.S., which were a dog’s breakfast of the type already described above.] Sacraments conferred by the ignorant cannot be presumed valid.

Taken from The Recusant - Autumn 2020, pages 24-25

From the conference given by Fr. Pfeiffer in November of 2018 on Moran:

Quote:And at that same time was when Archbishop Ambrose appeared on the scene. And so, it just feels shortly before that, it was that same summer that he appeared on the scene, and he says, ‘you know, I want to meet with Bishop Williamson, I want to meet with you guys, I like what you’re seeing, what you're doing. My name is Archbishop Ambrose and I’m in Colorado.’ So, I called him up and thought it was just another one of these nut bishops or whatever, but I called him up and then he seemed very unusually knowledgeable for bishops who or priests that came from the non-seminaries or the Thuc line bishops and all that, who never went to a seminary, never studied, they don't know anything.

From the Archived Catacombs:

The following list was forwarded to me and is reprinted here with permission of the author, with slight formatting changes, the title is mine. All emphasis in the original. - Admin

• A Warning to Traditional Catholics Concerning False Shepherds
  The Angelus June 1982
  
  During his recent visit to America, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre referred several times to the report that several individuals including some claiming to be "traditional" priests had attempted to have themselves consecrated bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre totally condemned their actions and warned all Catholics to have nothing to do with them. "They will bring ruination and scandal on the Church," Archbishop Lefebvre replied when asked his opinion of the scandal-ridden "consecrations."
  
  "It is a direct result of what happens when one loses faith in God and separates himself with Rome and the Holy Father," Archbishop Lefebvre stated, "and the enemies of the Church, including those who so strongly promote Modernism, will try to associate us and other good traditional Catholics with these (fanatics) in hopes of trying to bring discredit upon the good as well as the evil."
  
  Archbishop Lefebvre also stated that the actions of Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, the former Vietnamese Bishop who participated in the so-called "consecrations," are quite questionable in view of the fact that he is the same individual responsible for the Palmar de Troya fiasco which took place in Spain some years ago. A "visionary" of sorts, Clemente Dominguez de Gomez induced Thuc to ordain and consecrate him and then proceeded to proclaim himself pope. This group scandalized the world by conferring orders indiscriminately on anyone who presented themselves to "Pope" Gomez. The sect now claims hundreds of clerics, including large numbers of 14-and 16-year-old bishops and cardinals.
  
  Soon after the questionable ordinations, Bishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc renounced his actions and published a letter saying that the "orders" he had conferred were null and void because he had withheld all intention of conveying orders to the Palmar de Troya sect. Given his past performances, there is no reason to believe that his present fiasco is any more credible.
  
  Referring to Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, Archbishop Lefebvre said, "He seems to have lost all reason."
  
  The proof of these individuals' bad intention is clearly evident in the fact that the new sect—which includes Father Moise Carmona and Father Adolfo Zamora of Mexico; Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., of France; and Father George Musey of America—have already conducted meetings with small groups of traditional Catholic priests and have announced their intention of calling their own "Council" and selecting one or more popes!
  
  Faithful Catholics are reminded that their faith prevents them from having any contact whatever with these schismatics and heretics, and that they are not permitted to support them in any way. All involved have incurred automatic excommunication, and all who support or affiliate themselves with them do likewise.
  

• A Journey with the Archbishop
  Taken from The Angelus July 1982
  
  “...The Archbishop also was adamant in his complete and total condemnation of the recent consecrations of so-called "bishops" by the Vietnamese bishop, Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc. The Archbishop's condemnation included the supposed ordination of an American priest by those "consecrated" by the Vietnamese bishop. His Grace urged all Catholics to totally reject these individuals and to have nothing whatever to do with them. He looks at the act as being an act of schism which, if carried to its logical conclusion, will lead to heresy. This is based on the fact that several of the "bishops" and a number of the priests with whom they have met have openly declared that their intention is to select a "pope" from among their group. The Archbishop predicted that these individuals would attempt to lure unsuspecting traditionalists into their schismatic schemes. He also said that eventually the movement will be a discredit to traditional Catholicism and would be used by the enemies of the Church as a means of trying to discredit traditional Catholicism. To emphasize his condemnation of these individuals, Archbishop Lefebvre specified that none of the chapels of the Society are to be made available to either these individuals or to those who support them...”
  

• Are the Masses of Thuc-line priests valid, and can we attend them? - by Fr. Peter Scott
  SSPX - Catholic FAQs
  
  I do not believe that there is a strong reason to doubt the validity of the episcopal consecrations performed by the exiled Vietnamese Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc. However, there are several lesser reasons, that might be considered sufficient to establish some kind of positive doubt in the matter. These include the absence of correct witnesses during the original ceremony of consecration, which was done in private, and in the middle of the night.
  
  Also relevant is Thuc’s confused mental state, as evidenced by his public concelebration of the New Mass with the local Novus Ordo bishop of the diocese of Toulon, just one month before these consecrations in 1981. Also, the lack of conviction can be seen in the fact that twice he consecrated bishops illicitly and twice he requested absolution from the canonical punishment of excommunication. These frequent changes indicate that he was a man who, to say the least, lacked conviction about what he was doing. This is further confirmed by his failure to join the Coetus internationalis patrum, the traditional group of bishops at Vatican II, and by a certain liberal tendency that he showed during the Council, speaking out against discrimination directed towards women and in favor of ecumenism.
  
  Consequently, although the logical thing would be to presume that he did have the intention of confecting the sacrament of Holy Orders, the absence of co-consecrators, and of a clear purpose, does open the door to some astonishment and doubt. Any doubt concerning the first bishops that he consecrated would clearly be passed on to any other bishops and priests ordained as a consequence. The moral theologians say that we must hold to the pars tutior,or safer position, when it concerns the sacraments.
  
  Consequently, in case of doubt, it would not be permissible to go to these priests for the sacraments, unless there was no other priest available, and in danger of death.However, even were there no doubt at all as to validity, it would still not be permissible to assist at the Masses and receive the sacraments from priests of the Thuc line. For they all hold to the radical sedevacantist position that there is no pope, and that if anybody says that there is a pope, or that he is in communion with the Holy Father, then he is in communion with a heretic and a heretic himself. By maintaining such a position, which makes no distinctions, and takes no account of the confusion in the Church due to the breakdown of authority, they not only condemn every other Catholic to hell fire, but effectively separate themselves off from all other Catholics, and make themselves into a church of their own. They are truly schismatic. It is consequently entirely illicit to have any kind of association with them. As a consequence of their loss of the sense of the Church, they abandon all sense of hierarchy and structure in the Church. Any bishop can consecrate any other bishop at any time, without authority between them. These bishops constantly ordain to the priesthood men who have no preparation or training, who belong to no religious community, and who are consequently entirely independent of one another and all Church authority. Throwing all canonical norms out of the window, they effectively become just as protestant as the modernists they pretend to defend the Church against.
  

• Meet the Sedevacantist Priests
  SiSiNoNo November 1998 No. 29
  
  Fr. Guérard des Lauriers was a Dominican theologian asked by Archbishop Lefebvre to be one of the professors at Ecône in the early 70’s. In the mid-70’s, he developed his theory distinguishing between “a material pope and a formal pope.” Archbishop Lefebvre strictly forbade him to teach this theory. In a retreat which he preached to the seminarians at Ecône (Sept., 1977) he defied the Archbishop and taught it anyway. Archbishop Lefebvre expelled him as a professor at Ecône. In 1981, he was dubiously consecrated "bishop" by the aging Bishop Ngo Di Thuc in a secret ceremony, and has since died.
  

• WHO IS MSGR. PIERRE MARTIN NGO-DHIN-THUC?
  The Angelus April 1983
  
  “...pseudobishops...”
  
  “...If we don't stop our apathy in so serious a case, the Catholic Church may be flooded in a short time by hundreds, or thousands, of vocationless impostors, consecrated and ordained arbitrarily, or having bought their Orders...”
  
  “...How odd this statement sounds, published in the sedevacantist "Trento" of March,1982, that Msgr. Ngo Dhin-Thuc held that it was necessary to dispel certain conjectures:
  
  "I testify that I performed the ordinations of Palmar deTroya in full lucidity, (sic) I do not have any relation with Palmar de Troya since its chief imparted himself a pope...etc.
  Imparted, December19,1981,in Toulon in full possession of my faculties,(sic) Pierre Martin Ngo Dhin-Thuc, Archbishop Tit. of Bulla Regis."
  
  Why such a curious self- criticism, that only could be valid with an affidavit of a physician? Its hows that he thinks the opposite beforehand. This is the reason why, in Europe, where Msgr. Thuc is better known, there exists some doubt oncerning the validity of those ordinations and consecrations. Validity depends on the mental responsibility of the consecrating bishop...”
  

• Archbishop Lefebvre Interview
  Fideliter 66, November-December 1988
  
  (Notice how in 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre does not call Fr. Guérard Deslauriers “Bishop” even though he was “consecrated” in1981. He also says about Munari, “the one who is called Monsignor Munari.” Munari was “consecrated”a bishop in 1987 by Guérard des Lauriers. The Archbishop does not acknowledge them as bishops.)
  
  Archbishop Lefebvre: “I think that it is maybe necessary to take care to avoid anything that could show, by expressions a little too hard, our disapproval of those who leave us. Do not label them with epithets which can be taken a little injuriously, it is useless, it is the other way around. You see, personally, I've always had this attitude among those who have left us, and God knows how many in the course of the history of the Society have left us; the history of the Society is almost a history of separations, isn’t it? I always believed, as a principle: No more relations. It's over. They are leaving us, they are going towards other pastors, other shepherds. No more relations. They tried, just as well I would say, those who left as sedevacantists, like those who left because we were not papists enough etc. All have tried to lead us into a polemic. I received letters from Father Guérard des Lauriers with lawsuit threats, didn’t they, if I did not answer? I threw it in the garbage - never replied. I never replied one word. Neither Monsignor, I mean the one who is called "Monsignor Munari"and the others, northe fourteen (or thirteen) of America, nor Cantoni who left us, nor the other Italians who left us. I never replied.
  
  This is what I said to Dom Gerard: "Dom Gérard you will never hear from me anynore, I will not set foot at your place. I will not write to you anymore and when you will write to me, I will not answer you. You will not hear a word from me. It is over. I consider you like those who have left us, like Fr. Bisig, like Dom Augustin, like the others who have left us. That’s it. I pray for you but it's over. We will not have contact anymore." This way they can’t ever pull out, none of them, from their sleeve, I would say, a letter [saying]; This is how the Archbishop treated me. This is what he told me. Because if one writes, the sole fact of writing, and it is false to claim: “See, I agree with the Archbishop. He wrote to me again 8 days ago.” So then, we would have almost had to denounce it right away. But I wrote, I didn’t say that I agree, and we write another letter, and we begin another polemic. It is over. We cannot. We cannot play that game. We have to leave them behind. I think there is nothing better to make them reflect and then bring them back to us eventually, if there are some, and there are not many who came back. But at least for eventually and in any case, they cannot say that we were unpleasant towards them or that we did them wrong. No. I think it's the best method, you know, except of course, when there are statements that are absolutely false. Then we must publish a communique to rectify them like the superior general for the declaration of Dom Gerard. It is normal but it is necessary to say for correspondence that is established, we could do it indefinitely, and then we come, in fact,easily and unfortunately to say things that we regret a little to have said, which are not charitable. That’s it. Thank you.
  
  Archbishop Lefebvre published in part in Fideliter 66 November-December 1988, p. 27-31.
  

To all my friends and benefactors,

We have recently learned with great sadness that on July 29 Father Pfeiffer has proceeded to have himself consecrated "bishop" by the Feeneyite and sedevacantist "bishop" Neal Webster, who also belongs to the so-called Thuc line. Several mistakes in one. All this is due to the desire to have quick and precipitate solutions. All this will only contribute more to the already existing state of disorientation that exists today not only in the Church and Tradition but also in the so-called "Resistance". It is regrettable that one wants to call oneself a "bishop" when it should be the Church who does so. From a dubious "bishop", because he is of the Thuc line, one can only have dubious sacraments as well. In no way can I associate myself with this new initiative, nor can I encourage any of the faithful to do so. Moreover, it is now time for the faithful to distance themselves from all contact with Father Pfeiffer. According to Bishop Lefebvre, this kind of adventure can lead not only to schism but also to heresy.

It is a great pity for me to have to say this about a priest with whom I once had a good friendship.

May the Immaculate Heart of Mary protect us from so many dangers,

Father Hugo Ruiz V.
Querétaro, August 1, 2020, the first Saturday of the month

July 1987 Angelus

Quote:"Then, a little disturbed," I said to the Cardinal [said the person questioning him], "is the situation in the Church really going to be changed?"

"Yes." [The response is solemn.] "Yes, the problem of the 1960's was to obtain the best expressed values of two centuries of liberal culture. [So that was the problem of the 1960's!] And indeed, there are values which, even though they are born outside the Church [appalling, such foolishness: which are born outside the Church!], can find their place provided mat they be depurati et correcti [what does that mean?] in the vision that the Church has of the world. [This is appalling, appalling!] And that has been done."

Quote: "Questo si e fatto," that is done, it is an accomplished fact. "But," he adds, "the climate is a little different, it has gotten a lot worse." "E molto peggiorato rispetto a quello che giustificava un ottimismo forse ingenue"—but now the climate is less good, "peggiorato," made worse in comparison with the time when we could have a true optimism rather unsophisticated. So, now, "Bisogna quindi cercare nuovi equilibri—now we have to look for a new balance."

Quote:"There is a theology of liberation which is possible, there is a theology of liberation for the poor, which is neither more nor less than the Marxist solution of liberation. But we must not arrive at the Marxist solution of liberation."

A number of even Novus Ordo bishops are plainly stating that Catholics cannot receive any vaccines that are derived from aborted fetal cells. [Not mentioned in the article below but who have also expressed similar sentiments are Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Viganò.]

Holy Scripture tells us "Or know you not, that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own?" 1 Corinthians 6:19.

How sad that, in contrast, the Conciliar SSPX has deviated from it's previous position and now advises it's faithful that they can indeed accept vaccines derived from or affiliated with aborted children. One has heard only silence from the 'False Resistance' Bishop Wililamson on the topic of vaccines derived from fetal cells- at least in his Eleison Comments publication. A search for 'vaccine' on Bishop Williamson's site nets zero results. A search for 'covid' results in only two results- neither of which deal with the topic of vaccines derived from aborted fetal cells. 

As an aside, please note that in typical Bishop Schneider fashion, he draws nearly exclusively from the post-Vatican II sources. But even in this, there is much to support the stance that Catholics cannot accept vaccines derived from or tested on aborted fetal cell lines.

Again, it is very disheartening to see the SSPX promote the acceptance of such vaccines - in an act of compliance with the global elites. One cannot help but presume that Pope Francis would approve of their position. And that says it all. - The Catacombs

Quote:

Bishops Schneider, Strickland: On the Morality of Vaccines
Written by  +Athanasius Schneider

The Remnant

Editor's Intro: With most of the world now facing the unsettling prospect of being forced to take a vaccination against a virus with a 99.5 percent recovery rate, we are truly grateful to Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Bishop Joseph Strickland for issuing this important new statement on the moral illicitness of vaccines derived from the fetal cell lines of aborted fetuses.

Not all the vaccine candidates include fetal cells, but it is important for Christians everywhere to understand the differences and to become familiar with the moral ramification of accepting vaccines which are the work of those who evidently have no problem violating the sanctity of life in this ghoulish manner.

Please note that this statement is dated December 12, 2020, the liturgical memorial of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of the Unborn. May she intercede for us to that we may have the strength to know and understand our duty as Christians to uphold the moral law in these troubling and indeed Christophobic times.

On the moral illicitness of the use of vaccines made from cells derived from aborted human fetuses

In recent weeks, news agencies and various information sources have reported that, in response to the Covid-19 emergency, some countries have produced vaccines using cell lines from aborted human fetuses. In other countries, such vaccines are being planned.

A growing chorus of churchmen (bishops’ conferences, individual bishops, and priests) has said that, in the event that no alternative vaccine using ethically licit substances is available, it would be morally permissible for Catholics to receive vaccines made from the cell lines of aborted babies. Supporters of this position invoke two documents of the Holy See: the first, from the Pontifical Academy for Life, is titled, “Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human fetuses” and was issued on June 9, 2005; the second, an Instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is titled, “Dignitas Personae, on certain bioethical questions” and was issued on September 8, 2008. Both of these documents allow for the use of such vaccines in exceptional cases and for a limited time, on the basis of what in moral theology is called remote, passive, material cooperation with evil. The aforementioned documents assert that Catholics who use such vaccines at the same time have “the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available.”

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

One ought to recall the following words of Pope John Paul II regarding the dignity of unborn human life: “The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.” (Christifideles Laici, 38). Using vaccines made from the cells of murdered unborn children contradicts a “maximum determination” to defend unborn life.

The theological principle of material cooperation is certainly valid and may be applied to a whole host of cases (e.g. in paying taxes, the use of products made from slave labor, and so on). However, this principle can hardly be applied to the case of vaccines made from fetal cell lines, because those who knowingly and voluntarily receive such vaccines enter into a kind of concatenation, albeit very remote, with the process of the abortion industry. 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. One who uses these vaccines must realize that his body is benefitting from the “fruits” (although steps removed through a series of chemical processes) of one of mankind’s greatest crimes.

Any link to the abortion process, even the most remote and implicit, will cast a shadow over the Church’s duty to bear unwavering witness to the truth that abortion must be utterly rejected. The ends cannot justify the means. We are living through one of the worst genocides known to man. Millions upon millions of babies across the world have been slaughtered in their mother’s womb, and day after day this hidden genocide continues through the abortion industry, biomedical research and fetal technology, and a push by governments and international bodies to promote such vaccines as one of their goals. Now is not the time for Catholics to yield; to do so would be grossly irresponsible. The acceptance of these vaccines by Catholics, on the grounds that they involve only a “remote, passive and material cooperation” with evil, would play into the hands of the Church’s enemies and weaken her as the last stronghold against the evil of abortion.

What else can a vaccine derived from fetal cell lines be other than a violation of the God-given Order of Creation? For it is based on a serious violation of this Order through the murder of an unborn child. Had this child not been denied the right to life, had his cells (which have been further cultivated several times in the lab) not been made available for the production of a vaccine, they could not be marketed. We therefore have here a double violation of God’s holy Order: on the one hand, through the abortion itself, and on the other hand, through the heinous business of trafficking and marketing the remains of aborted children. Yet, this double disregard for the divine Order of Creation can never be justified, not even on the grounds of preserving the health of a person or society through such vaccines. Our society has created a substitute religion: health has been made the highest good, a substitute god to whom sacrifices must be offered — in this case, through a vaccine based on the death of another human life.

In examining the ethical questions surrounding vaccines, we have to ask ourselves: How and why did all of this become possible? Was there truly no alternative? Why did murder-based technology emerge in medicine, whose purpose is instead to bring life and health? Bio-medical research that exploits the innocent unborn and uses their bodies as “raw material” for the purpose of vaccines seems more akin to cannibalism than medicine. We also ought to consider that, for some in the bio-medical industry, the cell lines of unborn children are a “product,” the abortionist and vaccine manufacturer are the “supplier,” and the recipients of the vaccine are “consumers.” Technology based on murder is rooted in hopelessness and ends in despair. We must resist the myth that “there is no alternative.” On the contrary, we must proceed with the hope and conviction that alternatives exist, and that human ingenuity, with the help of God, can discover them. This is the only way to pass from darkness to light, and from death to life.

The Lord said that in the end times even the elect will be seduced (cf. Mk. 13:22). Today, the entire Church and all Catholic faithful must urgently seek to be strengthened in the doctrine and practice of the faith. In confronting the evil of abortion, more than ever Catholics must “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22). Bodily health is not an absolute value. Obedience to the law of God and the eternal salvation of the souls must be given primacy. Vaccines derived from the cells of cruelly murdered unborn children are clearly apocalyptic in character and may possibly foreshadow the mark of the beast (see Rev. 13:16).

Some churchmen in our day reassure the faithful by affirming that receiving a Covid-19 vaccine derived from the cell lines of an aborted child is morally licit if an alternative is not available. They justify their assertion on the basis of “material and remote cooperation” with evil. Such affirmations are extremely anti-pastoral and counterproductive, especially when one considers the increasingly apocalyptic character of the abortion industry, and the inhuman nature of some biomedical research and embryonic technology. Now more than ever, Catholics categorically cannot encourage and promote the sin of abortion, even in the slightest, by accepting these vaccines. Therefore, as Successors of the Apostles and Shepherds responsible for the eternal salvation of souls, we consider it impossible to be silent and maintain an ambiguous attitude regarding our duty to resist with “maximum of determination” (Pope John Paul II) against the “unspeakable crime” of abortion (II Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, 51).

This statement was written at the advice and counsel of doctors and scientists from various countries. A substantial contribution also came from the laity: from grandmothers, grandfathers, fathers and mothers of families, and from young people. All of those consulted — independent of age, nationality and profession — unanimously and almost instinctively rejected the idea of a vaccine derived from the cell lines of aborted children. Furthermore, they considered the justification offered for using such vaccines (i.e. “material remote cooperation”) as weak and unsuitable. This is comforting and, at the same time, very revealing: their unanimous response is a further demonstration of the strength of reason and the sensus fidei.

More than ever, we need the spirit of the confessors and martyrs who avoided the slightest suspicion of collaboration with the evil of their own age. The Word of God says: “Be simple as children of God without reproach in the midst of a depraved and perverse generation, in which you must shine like lights in the world” (Phil. 2, 15).

December 12, 2020, Memorial of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Guadalupe

Cardinal Janis Pujats, Metropolitan archbishop emeritus of Riga

+ Tomash Peta, Metropolitan archbishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

+ Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop/bishop emeritus of Karaganda

+ Joseph E. Strickland, Bishop of Tyler (USA)

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

Quote:There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic. I’ve never heard such nonsense talked about vaccines. You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.