+- The Catacombs (https://thecatacombs.org)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://thecatacombs.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Forum: Health (https://thecatacombs.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=78)
+---- Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Spiritual] (https://thecatacombs.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=81)
+---- Thread: SSPX formally refuses to take a stand on the vaccines: Transcript (/showthread.php?tid=3236)
SSPX formally refuses to take a stand on the vaccines: Transcript - Stone - 01-11-2022
NB: The following is a transcription done by a professional transcribing service of Fr. Pagliarani's recent conference (published January 5, 2022) on the subject of the vaccines. I have not double-checked the accuracy of the transcription word for word. Please do keep in mind too that English is not Fr. Pagliarani's native tongue.
As an aside, the SSPX missed the irony in entitling this Conference by Fr. Pagliarani, "The Superior General of the SSPX Clarifies the Vaccine Debate" because in reality, the SG did nothing of the kind. He simply stated repeatedly that the SSPX makes no stand on the topic. The comments to the video are rather interesting too...
Father Pagliarani (00:00):
I think it is worth it to spend few words about vaccines. It is a big issue. I can see that many of you are starting now to take some notes. It's a complicated issue. The theme of this talk is the mission of the Society. So, we will see what's the relation, if there is any, between the mission of the Society and the vaccines.
Father Pagliarani (00:37):
The Society of Saint Pius X seems too prudent about this question. Why the Society doesn't speak up about this problem? That all humanity now is kneeling, is exhausted because of this problem all over the world. Why Society doesn't speak up? The question is legitimate. We will try to answer this question. I will try to explain. So I'm going to settle the issue. And I'm going to answer the 1,000, 1,000, 1,000s of problem, objection, raised up in the Web. Huh? You can spend your entire life if you want, to have a complete idea of what's going on, updating yourself, I hope every day, because every day there are new elements.
Father Pagliarani (01:48):
But the question is really complicated. We don't deny this, not at all. But I want just to let you know why the Society's prudent. Another term without settling the issue, we will try to put this issue at its place. This is the purpose of this few words.
Father Pagliarani (02:19):
Well, until one year ago, mankind was come concerned about COVID only. Is it made in China? Was made in Taiwan? Does it kill? Does it not? Does it exist? Is it an influence like others? People in the hospital, they've been killed or they died out of COVID. Oh, all these questions, they have been very, very common until one year ago. They attract all the attention.
Father Pagliarani (03:05):
Right now I don't say that we forgot about the COVID, but right now all the attention is spent, paid to the vaccine issue. And that's understandable in a way. The governments, they try to impose the vaccine to everybody. It provokes a general excitement, and most of all provokes two camps, people who are against and people who are in favor. There are not a lot of people neutral. And the Web provides all the necessary information, tools to both of these groups.
Father Pagliarani (04:05):
So there is a general panic because of the danger of the vaccine in itself. But there is another panic, especially in people who are pro-vaccines, because mankind cannot go back to normality without the mandatory vaccine for everybody. So you see that the [electus 00:04:33], it's quite strong. As a result you should get the COVID. Your lungs are weakened, but people without COVID, doesn't keep upside of the problem. People without COVID are, in a way more stressed, than the sick ones.
Father Pagliarani (05:03):
So let's try to step aside for a few minutes of this very complicated situation, of these two camps, if you prefer, trying to analyze a bit deeper what's going on. Right now the great debate is around the side effects. The side effects of a vaccine produced very, very quickly, too quickly. It is true. And related to this medical issue, there is a political issue. How can the governments, the authorities impose such a vaccine, which is not tested enough? You know that normally for a new vaccine, you need seven to eight years. I leave it to the doctors the details about all this. Seven, eight years, for a complete testing, experimentation.
Father Pagliarani (06:19):
Everything was done very, very quickly. Why? Because there is a business behind. There are several countries that were producing their own vaccine, and they gave up a few, six months ago, because when the universal vaccinations started, they realized that they were going to lose the market. So there is a big business behind.
Father Pagliarani (06:55):
The side effects as a consequence of this lack of experimentation are not known enough. This is the first problem, but there is another problem, also a medical problem. This vaccine, it seems it doesn't last. It doesn't work enough. So, medical side, and again, political side. Political problem related to the first one. The authorities are making vaccinations mandatory, and they have to convince two kind of people. First of all, they have to convince the non-vaccinated people. They have to tell them, to explain to them that it's working. It's worth to receive the vaccine. And that's the only way we can get out from the crisis. This is the message for people not yet vaccinated.
Father Pagliarani (08:14):
But for people that they already got at least one, the vaccine, they have explain that they need a second, a third injection. Why? Because it doesn't work. So, the first one, they have to be convinced that it works. The second one, that it doesn't work enough. They are talking already about of course the third injection and then a booster every year. But they don't know how long it will last, this problem.
Father Pagliarani (08:55):
So, let's get to the point. Is it complicated? Yes. Is it a bit crazy, all this? Yes. Yes. Is the stress that right now is on the entire humanity, is it understandable? Yes. Yes. Is it legitimate to question all this? Yes. Is it legitimate to be against mandatory vaccination? Yes. Yes.
Father Pagliarani (09:38):
But this problem, this big problem, is related to a medical issue. This is the first reason why the Society of Saint Pius X is not entering straight into this debate. Of course, a priest can give a suggestion, can advise, but the Society as such is not entering into this debate. The mission of the Society is not to settle medical issues. The mission of Society is not to give an answer about all the possible side effects of the vaccine. And that's not only for COVID, even for other drugs. If they produce a new vaccine against chicken pox, and it seems there are some side effects or that vaccine is not tested enough, well, this is not the problem of the Society of Saint Pius X.
Father Pagliarani (11:17):
This is, I repeat, I stress, it's a medical problem that we cannot transform into a theological problem. Again, a priest can give a suggestion, can advise on a personal basis. Of course. You see on the opposite. Let's take another drug. There is a new drug produced against a cold that it seems has no problem, a normal drug against a normal cold. Well, if the Society states this drug is okay, and then that drug will provoke allergies, for instance, the Society is going to respond about the allergies. But what is the mistake? Mistake would be the Society expressed ourself on a particular topic, which doesn't correspond to our mission. This is the main reason, but there are other reasons why the Society, again, is kind of stepping aside. Doesn't want to enter straight into the debate.
Father Pagliarani (13:00):
It's a problem of globalism. Globalism, conspiracy. It seems that globalism conspiracy started one year ago with the vaccines. So now it's clear through the vaccine, there is a worldwide, universal authority imposing the same drugs for the same illness all over the world. That's globalism. Finally, the globalism did show up. The monster did show up. Be careful, because if all the attention is paid to this particular problem, and I repeat, we don't deny that it is a big problem, the risk is to forget that conspiracy started 300 years ago against the Church.
Father Pagliarani (14:09):
What's globalism, though? Globalism is this idea, this project, this intention to replace the Catholic Church with another universal authority. You know very well what I'm talking about, but let's not forget the origin of this conspiracy against the Church, which is affecting the entire humanity. Let's put in our terms the current crisis, the current problems, inside this entire picture. But to keep the entire picture, you can focus only about the present problem, talking about the present problem only. You cannot. And we have not the right to lose the entire picture.
Father Pagliarani (15:12):
Another point which I think is important, let's keep a supernatural perspective. [inaudible 00:15:20], it's normal, you are a priest. It's normal that you talk always about supernatural perspective, but here, the problem is the vaccine, and is a liquid, so there is nothing supernatural. Oh, the COVID, as every pandemic throughout history, COVID is also a punishment allowed by divine providence in order to purify us.
Father Pagliarani (15:55):
Because there is danger. I said at the beginning, we got tradition. We kept tradition, but we are not necessarily better than the others. We are sinners also. And if there is a universal punishment, it's for us also. If God allowed COVID it's not just for the sinners, for the sins of the others, it's for ours also. We die also, traditional people and priests die also out of COVID.
Father Pagliarani (16:32):
But I go back to the problem of globalism. Pay attention. During this year, thanks to the attention paid to the vaccine, which absorbed again for different reason, the entire humanity, the worst loss against the natural order. They have been approved in many, many countries. In Europe right now, in Western Europe, in every country, the same-sex marriage is approved, except one country, because there's still a debate. But our focus is not there.
Father Pagliarani (17:37):
Since our focus is somewhere else, it is much easier to promote and to approve all those laws. They are the main expression of globalism, of the destruction of the natural order. The order that the Church was keeping, was protecting, in order to create a new world with new laws, with the new authority, with or without COVID, with or without vaccines. This project didn't, I repeat, didn't start two years ago. It's much older.
Father Pagliarani (18:29):
And last reason, thank you for your patience and your attention also. There is another reason, again, why the Society steps aside. It's this anti-vaccine alliance. It is very heterogeneous. There are Catholics, but there are people with, without special political or religious creed, but there are people from the right side in this alliance against the vaccines, and mostly people from the extreme left to use a political language. Anarchist, the green. [inaudible 00:19:38] the green? The green are the people committed to the safeguard of, not the creation, of Earth, the ecologists.
Father Pagliarani (19:54):
This is a good left, extreme left. They know what they are talking about. They have targets which are very, very clear. Those kind of parties are quite strong in Europe. They're against the vaccine. In the name of what? In the name of what? In the name of individual freedom, human dignity, human rights. In other terms, with my body, I do whatever I want. With my life, I do whatever I want. So I decide if I take or not the vaccine.
Father Pagliarani (20:41):
We find again the same slogans of the '60s, of the '70s, of a particular class of women, "With my belly, I do whatever I want." You see? We find again the same principles of the new order started 300 years ago in the name of human rights, human dignity.
Father Pagliarani (21:18):
Let's be careful. On the other side, the pro-vaccine also, I think, it's good to stress this point, it's a paradox. They fight in the name of the same principles, in the name of human rights, in the name of freedom. Why? The conclusion is the same, but the principles are the same, but the conclusions is not the same. They want the mandatory vaccine in order to go back to normality, because if the others that don't take the vaccine, I'm touched in my freedom. I'm limited in my freedom. So I cannot travel. I cannot go on holiday. I cannot earn money as I used to do before. I cannot enjoy life. Why? Because I still have to put a mask or other restriction because of the others.
Father Pagliarani (22:26):
So I want to impose to the others in the name of human rights, the mandatory vaccine. In other terms, I don't want to have any restrictions because of the others. So, we all take the vaccine. It's a paradox, the same principles are on one side and on the other side. Shall we enter into this debate? Shall we take simply a part into this debate, entering [stride 00:23:07], the Society of Saint Pius X, for the reasons I gave. And other reason, of course that we don't have the time here to develop. Prefer, I repeat, to step aside.
Father Pagliarani (23:26):
But of course, it's a big issue. The issue is not settled. As I said, we leave present and live the future to Divine Providence. And we are sure that Divine Providence as well has never abandoned us in our struggle, fight for Tradition, is not going to abandon us in the middle of these new crisis. Thank you for your attention.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
The first question is about vaccines, which probably surprises no one. So the question, and a lot of these will be addressed to the panel and occasionally, at least initially to an individual, but everyone's happy to weigh in. The question, Father Pagliarani, is more or less in the end, is there official position of the Society on vaccines, on the COVID vaccine, whether it's the articles that have been published in the past or your talk? In light of your talk yesterday, is the only position the question of moral principles? Yeah. I thought I'd start with an easy one.
Father Pagliarani (24:52):
Yes, in my talk yesterday, I tried to focus on the main debate, the nowadays debate, which is on the side effects. And as I said, as a consequence, the political problem, how can an authority impose that vaccine which is not tested, which is not sure?
Father Pagliarani (25:29):
Of course, there are also moral questions, especially for this link with fetus, the cells coming from abortions. The Society, why this Society gave this particular answer and why the Society on that particular point didn't step aside, as we are doing now for the main present debate, well, question is quite easy to understand. People are faithful, as us. If I am a father, I have a family, I am the only one earning money. I don't have another solution. If I'm obliged to take the vaccine, am I doing anything immoral? Because if it is immoral, I will refuse the vaccine, and I will entrust the future of my family to Divine Providence.
Father Pagliarani (26:50):
So they ask this question, this specific question. The Society... You know the answer, the Society [esteems 00:27:03] that it is legitimate to accept the vaccine. Nevertheless, it remains a prudent decision. Anyone has to take into consideration the dangers for his health and so on.
Father Pagliarani (27:24):
So to go back to this controversial, I acknowledge the question is extremely delicate. As soon as we mention the word abortion, we feel repulsion. We feel... Of course, we don't want to have anything to do with that. It's clear. And we cannot have anything to do with that. But the principle that the Society apply, I try to explain maybe better, this point, is that it is in some circumstances legitimate to take advantage of the evil of others.
Father Pagliarani (28:20):
I will give you some examples. It is legitimate provided you don't corporate to the bad action. So the Society doesn't push anybody to receive the vaccine, but at the same time, the Society doesn't condemn. And that was the meaning of that article. Doesn't condemn somebody who in his personal, particular condition, situation will receive the vaccine.
Father Pagliarani (29:04):
I try to give you some examples of this principle, which is a classical principle of theology. St. Thomas Aquinas also is using this principle, is teaching this principle. You know that you can take out the cornea of somebody who is dead, even two, three hours after death. Is it legitimate to take out the cornea from somebody who is dead? Yes. Yes. There is not a problem that we can find with the organs, right? It is a tissue.
Father Pagliarani (29:48):
So, can you take out the cornea from somebody who was killed? Question. Yes. Provided you don't kill him on purpose to take out the cornea. That's the point. That's the point. You are taking advantage of a martyr. Somebody was killed. And without that sin, [honorable 00:30:26] sin, you couldn't take out the cornea, but of course you don't cooperate in any manner to that bad action.
Father Pagliarani (30:42):
Another example, if it can be useful for you, can the district of the United States of America donate your money for the building of a mosque? Of a synagogue? I think no, and I hope we are all agree. Can the district of the US receive as a donation a mosque in order to transform the mosque into a church?
Speaker 2 (31:25):
The answer is yes.
Father Pagliarani (31:29):
Yes. In the south of Spain, you have cathedrals that they were a mosque, and they kept something of the old ancient mosque. So, it's another example we could... Of course, we could multiply the examples.
Speaker 3 (31:51):
The Pantheon.
Father Pagliarani (31:51):
The Pantheon?
Speaker 3 (31:51):
The Pantheon.
Father Pagliarani (31:52):
The other example, obviously in Rome, the churches that were used, the Pantheon. I mean, Christians were martyred there, and yet it was used.
Speaker 4 (32:11):
There are dozens and dozens of churches in Rome built on pagan temples. Can I just give us a footnote to the Superior's remarks? Until Catholic answers had our own statement with respect to the vaccine up on catholic.com, I was very happy to refer to people the article, the first one in particular, with respect to the vaccine, which is thoroughly consistent with Catholic moral theology.
Father Pagliarani (32:38):
Yes, but it is understandable that when we mention abortion, there is a repulsion, right? To us, abortion. I'll give you another example. The last one, if you allow me, because the question is important, something that will fill you the same repulsion. Can you eat the meat? Or it's not anymore a modern problem. Some meat offered to the idols? The question arised 2,000 years ago. In the pagan rites, they used to offer, sacrifices, of course, and a part of the meat then was consumed by the offerers. And that meat was sold in the market.
Father Pagliarani (33:45):
Or maybe, whether you were invited from a pagan, and it was serving you, that meat offered the day before to the idols. So a matter, as a part of a pagan sacrifice. So can you eat that meat? Could they eat that meat, if you prefer? Because the Jews, they were scandalized. As [inaudible 00:34:16] said, "Yes, you can provide." You take to consideration the very fact that you could scandalize others, but this is another matter. But they could eat that meat.
Father Pagliarani (34:32):
Of course, a pagan's rite was the abomination for a Jew, like for us also. Nevertheless, they could eat that meat. So, it's understandable. It's understandable. Again, the [phase 00:34:53] of the abomination of abortion, right? There is this repulsion, but I take advantage of this explanation to try to make you understand why the Society was prudent. And again, if anyone is obliged, or there are particular situation, needs, well, the Society esteems that it's just taking advantage of a big sin of somebody else, but he doesn't participate to that sin.
RE: SSPX formally refuses to take a stand on the vaccines: Transcript - Stone - 01-12-2022
In stark contrast to the now conciliar-SSPX's deliberate silence and lack of leadership on this important issue, the once traditional-SSPX did not shirk from pronouncing the truth and guiding souls to make decisions that would save their souls!
In quite plain language, Fr. Peter Scott's answer to the question on vaccines linked to abortion, which appeared in The Angelus of 2000, was not indecisive, it was not cowardly, it clearly was that of a priest being a good shepherd to the souls entrusted to him.
But the influence of the Conciliar Church continues to manifest itself throughout the SSPX leadership since 2012 (cf. The Doctrinal Declaration) in the official and unofficial actions of the now conciliar-SSPX.
Notice in Fr. Scott's answer below, there is no 'debate!' There is no need for 'prudence.' It was a firm 'No!'
Quote:Question:.
Is it licit to allow one's children to be vaccinated for rubella with vaccine manufactured with the help of fetal cells from aborted babies?
Answer:
There is no doubt that it is illicit to prepare vaccinations by the use of cell cultures from aborted babies. It certainly is a very troublesome situation if the only way of obtaining such necessary vaccines is from cultures prepared from the by-products of abortions.
The question here is whether or not it is permissible to use such vaccines if they are the only ones that are readily available. Can the principles of double effect be applied, that is when only a good effect is directly willed, and a bad effect is simply permitted, but not directly willed in itself? The good effect in this case is the immunization against the infectious disease. The bad effect is the abortion, the killing of the innocent. It is never permitted to do something evil in order that a good can come of it, that it, it is never permitted for the good effect to come from the bad effect. However it is possible to permit an evil, that is not directly willed in itself, and this is called the indirect voluntary.
Here one could argue that the person who seeks the vaccination does not will the abortion, but simply uses the cells that are obtained as a consequence . However, the vaccine is not just an indirect effect of the abortion. There is in fact a direct line of causality, from the abortion, to the available fetal cells to the development of the vaccine, to the immunization. Therefore, the immunization is a direct consequence of the abortion, and not just an indirect effect. Consequently, it would be immoral to use a vaccine that one knew was developed in fetal cells, not matter how great the advantage to be procured.
Moreover, even if it were to be admitted that the vaccination is not a direct consequence of the abortion, for the abortion is not performed directly in order to obtain fetal cells, and those who use them might claim, as for themselves, that they do not directly will the abortion in itself, the Catholic sense tells the faithful that they can never use the by-products of abortions for any reason at all, for by so doing they promote the mass murder of the innocent which is destroying modern society and all sense of morality. There must always be a proportionate reason to use the indirect voluntary, that is to permit something evil which is not directly willed. Here the reasonable gain obtained by the use of the double effect (if it truly were indirectly willed only, which it is not) would not in any way be proportionate to the horrible evil of abortion and the scandal would be immense.
If a parent is not aware of the fact that fetal cells are being used in the culture of the vaccines that he or she is giving to his/her children, then clearly there is no moral fault involved. However, if he/she is aware of this, then he/she is morally obliged to refuse such vaccinations on principle, until such time as they can be obtained from cultures which are morally licit. Furthermore, if civil law should make such vaccinations obligatory (e.g., for attendance at school), then the parent would be obliged to object in conscience to such immoral means of vaccinating their children.
Moreover, it is not permissible to remain in willful ignorance on such a question. If there is a positive reason to suspect that fetal cells are indeed involved in the production of the vaccine, then a person is morally obliged to clarify the matter, and find out if this is indeed true or not
RE: SSPX formally refuses to take a stand on the vaccines: Transcript - ThyWillBeDone - 01-12-2022
It was ambiguous and I felt like he was pointing the fingers at the anti vaxxers when he said we have the stance of My Body My choice." Very sad that a lot of people are not smelling the funk in the new SSPX. Maybe it's my maternal instinct knowing that things are not right but I still attend the new SSPX because i don't have Fr. Hewko nearby or any of the MC SSPX Priests. ???? Archbishop Lefreve Ora Pro Nobis.
(01-12-2022, 10:07 AM)Stone Wrote: In stark contrast to the now conciliar-SSPX's deliberate silence and lack of leadership on this important issue, the once traditional-SSPX did not shirk from pronouncing the truth and guiding souls to make decisions that would save their souls!
In quite plain language, Fr. Peter Scott's answer to the question on vaccines linked to abortion, which appeared in The Angelus of 2000, was not indecisive, it was not cowardly, it clearly was that of a priest being a good shepherd to the souls entrusted to him.
But the influence of the Conciliar Church continues to manifest itself throughout the SSPX leadership since 2012 (cf. The Doctrinal Declaration) in the official and unofficial actions of the now conciliar-SSPX.
Notice in Fr. Scott's answer below, there is no 'debate!' There is no need for 'prudence.' It was a firm 'No!'
Quote:Question:.
Is it licit to allow one's children to be vaccinated for rubella with vaccine manufactured with the help of fetal cells from aborted babies?
Answer:
There is no doubt that it is illicit to prepare vaccinations by the use of cell cultures from aborted babies. It certainly is a very troublesome situation if the only way of obtaining such necessary vaccines is from cultures prepared from the by-products of abortions.
The question here is whether or not it is permissible to use such vaccines if they are the only ones that are readily available. Can the principles of double effect be applied, that is when only a good effect is directly willed, and a bad effect is simply permitted, but not directly willed in itself? The good effect in this case is the immunization against the infectious disease. The bad effect is the abortion, the killing of the innocent. It is never permitted to do something evil in order that a good can come of it, that it, it is never permitted for the good effect to come from the bad effect. However it is possible to permit an evil, that is not directly willed in itself, and this is called the indirect voluntary.
Here one could argue that the person who seeks the vaccination does not will the abortion, but simply uses the cells that are obtained as a consequence . However, the vaccine is not just an indirect effect of the abortion. There is in fact a direct line of causality, from the abortion, to the available fetal cells to the development of the vaccine, to the immunization. Therefore, the immunization is a direct consequence of the abortion, and not just an indirect effect. Consequently, it would be immoral to use a vaccine that one knew was developed in fetal cells, not matter how great the advantage to be procured.
Moreover, even if it were to be admitted that the vaccination is not a direct consequence of the abortion, for the abortion is not performed directly in order to obtain fetal cells, and those who use them might claim, as for themselves, that they do not directly will the abortion in itself, the Catholic sense tells the faithful that they can never use the by-products of abortions for any reason at all, for by so doing they promote the mass murder of the innocent which is destroying modern society and all sense of morality. There must always be a proportionate reason to use the indirect voluntary, that is to permit something evil which is not directly willed. Here the reasonable gain obtained by the use of the double effect (if it truly were indirectly willed only, which it is not) would not in any way be proportionate to the horrible evil of abortion and the scandal would be immense.
If a parent is not aware of the fact that fetal cells are being used in the culture of the vaccines that he or she is giving to his/her children, then clearly there is no moral fault involved. However, if he/she is aware of this, then he/she is morally obliged to refuse such vaccinations on principle, until such time as they can be obtained from cultures which are morally licit. Furthermore, if civil law should make such vaccinations obligatory (e.g., for attendance at school), then the parent would be obliged to object in conscience to such immoral means of vaccinating their children.
Moreover, it is not permissible to remain in willful ignorance on such a question. If there is a positive reason to suspect that fetal cells are indeed involved in the production of the vaccine, then a person is morally obliged to clarify the matter, and find out if this is indeed true or not