Bishops Schneider and Strickland: On the Morality of Vaccines
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

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
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre
Fr. Hewko commenting on the above letter and expanding upon it - from the Sermon for the Third Sunday of Advent [Second Mass] December 13, 2020:

"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre
This was an excellent interview with Bishop Schneider on the subject of abortion-tainted vaccines. However, you will notice that while emphatically stating that Catholics cannot accept such vaccines, that they must choose fines, prison, etc., he sadly does not cite Church teaching. This may well be because Bishop Schneider is still very entrenched in the Conciliar Church (let us pray he finds his way out!). So he appeals to our 'consciences' to help us make the right decision rather than on the perennial teachings of the true Catholic Faith. He rightfully notes that the 2005 Vatican documents published under Benedict XVI that give permission to take such abortion-tainted vaccines are NOT infallible documents. For reference, Fr. Peter Scott's little catechism from the once-traditional SSPX on the subject of abortion-tainted vaccines can be found HERE.

+ + +

Bishop Schneider explains why Christians must never take abortion-tainted COVID vaccine
Bishop Schneider joins John-Henry Westen to discuss the immorality of vaccines connected to aborted baby cells,
whether inside the vaccine itself or used during the testing stages.

December 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – “God knows these souls by name,” Bishop Athanasius Schneider said to me today on The John Henry Westen Show. He was referring to unborn children who were aborted and then had their murdered bodies used in the manufacture of cell lines used for the COVID and other vaccines.

Bishop Schneider explains that in calling on pro-lifers to resist abortion-tainted vaccines, he prayed for inspiration asking the intercession of the very babies who were killed. Watch my interview with him below or visit LifeSite's new account on Rumble by clicking here. If you’d like to watch it on YouTube, click here

Bishop Schneider’s position was articulated in a paper released last week that was signed by himself and Cardinal Janis Pujats, Bishop Joseph Strickland, and Archbishops Tomash Peta and Jan Pawel Lenga. The statement was spurred by the push of bishops across the world to support a COVID vaccine despite it being tainted with cells from aborted babies.

Bishop Schneider explained that he and his brother bishops who signed the statement understand the gravity of what they have suggested in that refusing the COVID vaccine may lead to harsh penalties. His Excellency explained, like fellow signee Bishop Strickland already has as well, that he would go to prison before taking an abortion-tainted vaccine. Moreover, should it even be demanded at the price of his life, he said he believed God would grant him the strength to make the ultimate sacrifice. 

Bishop Schneider said it was “a pain in my heart” in seeing so many people he esteems backing the permissibility of taking an abortion-tainted COVID vaccine. He believes they are “simply blinded,” but that God will show them the consequences and their eyes will be opened. 

Simple people, he said, reject this automatically, instinctively, which is for the bishop a sign of the Sensus Fidelium. But even were he alone in this, the bishop said he must “follow the truth, even if I will lose all of my good friends.”  

“Even if I will be alone, I will follow my conscience, as Thomas More and John Fisher,” he said. 

Bishop Schneider believes it is also a sign of the last times where even the good ones are confused. (Mt. 24:24) 

In the interview Bishop Schneider responds to the following questions: 

Why now, when abortion-tainted vaccines have been around for decades
What about the Vatican documents which say these are okay to use
What is the difference between this and paying taxes some of which are used for abortion
Are we guilty for having already taken abortion-tainted vaccines?

+ + +

Below is the transcript for the show: 
JHW: Welcome to this special episode of The John-Henry Westen Show, where we are very pleased and blessed to bring to you Bishop Athanasius Schnieder. Most of you know him as a very outspoken defender of the Catholic faith in these most troubled times. He is the auxiliary bishop of Astana in Kazakhstan. Welcome, Bishop Schneider, to The John-Henry Westen Show.  

Bishop Schneider: Thank you. God bless you. 

JHW: And we're going to be discussing something very, very important for these times, the issue of vaccines – COVID vaccines developed with abortion-tainted COVID vaccines, both in terms of their development, some with aborted fetal cell lines used in their manufacture, some used with its testing of these vaccines. And so we're going to get into all of that. You're going to want to stay tuned. Excellency, if you wouldn't mind leading us.  

Bishop Schneider: In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. 

JHW: Amen. Amen. So, Bishop Schneider, that recent document that you put out on vaccines is very timely, but also, I must say, very controversial. I have never seen such controversy among very good people. So if you could tell us a little about it first, about what it is and how it came to be and maybe your consultation process that that got it, brought it to fruition.  

Bishop Schneider: This document came because in the last month and weeks, several bishops from around the world made public statements justifying the use of vaccines produced by cell lines of aborted babies. I only say in a simple manner, and they were justifying this because apparently, allegedly, [there] would not be other means and several explanations, even of theologians and church communities were based on the moral theory of moral cooperation, distant or remote, and of two documents of the Holy See from 2005 and the Pontifical Academy for Life in 2008. The Doctrine of Faith, where this issue was discussed and substantially both documents allow to use such vaccines in an exceptional way. We have to stress this as these documents say that not only you can just use this on the base of the so-called principle of moral, material, remote cooperation, but it should be in an exceptional way. And at the same time, those who use it should ask, demand an alternative of vaccine which [does] not use in any way such cells.  

So this caused to me and to other countries, bishops, some bishops and faithful concern because this is confusion and it is undermining ultimately. If you want or not, it's undermining the First Commandment of God and the absolute maximum determination of the Church to oppose the evil of abortion. And therefore, we considered this as not responsible to be silent.

It is not responsible to enter the great quarrels group, even of good theologians and good-minded people. And we did not consider this responsible just to go together with it all because in our conscience – we have to follow the conscience and our conscience says it is not possible. It is a damage and we explained then after we can see the reasons. But as I already mentioned for this – and this is not a matter of quantity, of numbers, but of truth – of that which we are convinced of as presbyters and I discussed this [with] all the signatories very carefully and we were really all convinced we have to speak.

JHW: Now, just so that everyone gets the gravity of what...I know you understand this, but the gravity of what is at stake here is quite something. The vaccine is being approved. They have already approved the first one in some countries.
They've already started administering it in the U.K. and in the U.S. as well. One of the bishops in the U.S. has just become one of the first people to receive the vaccine. We have the U.K. bishops’ conference saying that there is a, you know, Catholics are compelled to take the vaccine even if it's abortion tainted. And they're basing themselves, yes, on these documents from 2005 and 2008. But they don't even seem to be as concerned with the stipulations, even those documents put into place that Catholics have to demand vaccines that aren't abortion-tainted and so on. But your position goes beyond that of the 2005 [and] 2008 documents in that it suggests that Catholics cannot morally take such vaccines at all, the abortion-tainted vaccines. And we'll get into some of the specifics later. But I wanted to draw, first of all, the severity of what this is and that, you know, with Catholics being now asked as as is the whole world to take this vaccine, very likely in a way that is mandated while they're saying it's going to be forced, they're saying it's going to be. Well, yes, if you want to travel or if you want to go to the theater or if you want to perhaps even enter stores to purchase your food, you're going to need to have the vaccine. So can you speak for a moment to the severity of what we're facing and also your consideration of that severity when you made the statement?  

Bishop Schneider: Yes, we could see this and we all will see this that with this vaccine which used these cell lines of [aborted] children. The world powers, anti-Christian and those who promote the culture of death will impose [on] the entire population of the world, an implicit, even if it is remote, passive collaboration with abortion – this is also the evil and to the perversion of the world powers and we have to recognize this, we have to resist. This is an effort to resist and not to collaborate in any way with these vaccines. Exactly. Because in this case, into some kind to receive in our body the fruits – so-called fruits in the way of the greatest evil, one of the greatest evils of mankind, the cruel genocide of unborn. We will be marked. We will receive a sign in our body which will in any way and some way demonstrate that we are connected to this greatest, one of the greatest evils. Not in a direct way, of course, I repeat, but anyway we are because if there would not had been murdered cruelly and not even one innocent child. Then, we would not have these vaccines.

You have to recognize the logic of this and also that the circumstances of the deliberate promotion, because there are of course...we have to not be so ingenuous and naive not to see that behind these vaccines is not only to protect our health, but to promote also together ever, ever more abortion. Of course not! For example, there are arguments if people do not take these vaccines, the abortion will continue. Of course, we will not reduce the abortion in numbers [if] we will not take the vaccine. But this is not a question. It is the moral weakness, the moral in some way support. And then the abortionists will say, you see the entire Catholic Church, the hierarchy in some way accepts, even reluctantly, but accepts this. And so this is very dangerous. And we have to really to awaken to see the real dangers, the consequences and the circumstances.  

JHW: Could they not have said that already for a long time, since even 2005 or 2008? Because vaccines and indeed abortion-tainted vaccines have been around for decades now and have been taken by Catholics at the advice of Church hierarchy, the Vatican itself, there seems to have been very little, if any, opposition. I know there were some, but very little opposition. And so we sort of had this situation for decades already. Is there something new now that that led you to make the statement at this time and consider this?  

Bishop Schneider: Because 15 years ago, 12 years ago, it was not only not yet spread and maybe it was limited and not so much, but today in our days, with the spread of the COVID vaccine, it is becoming very timely and almost globally spreading. And, with the growing statements of bishops in favor of accepting these vaccines, it changed the situation, of course. And therefore, we have to speak about this in a more deeper way and not to remain in the superficial some way juridical positivism with a theory  of cooperation. This...for me is superficial. We have to go deeper, to the roots and is, I repeat, to consider the proportionality and this is a very horrible and incompatible issue of the proportionality of these crimes of abortion. 

JHW: Okay, so in 2005, this issue was looked at by the Pontifical Academy for Life, full of very good scientists, medical doctors, of theologians, of moralists, of philosophers headed up by Bishop Sgreccia at the time, a very good and faithful Catholic bishop. It was approved of. I know that there was some dissent, but nonetheless, it was approved of. Then in 2008, the Vatican's document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith seemed to give that approval, that initial approval from 2005, these sort of imprimatur or basically the approval of the Vatican. And so what kind of consultation and work have you done and where have you found fault in those documents? And perhaps you can also address the issue of remote material cooperation, which is what they base their determinations on. 

Bishop Schneider: First, we have to say that these two documents are not infallible decisions of the Magisterium. That they can be wrong and there had been some expressions of affirmations of the recent Magisterium which had to be corrected after. So, it is the first statement and then. As I already said...that the basic error is that it's not the theory of material or passive and distant or remote cooperation. This is a valid theological principle in moral theology. 

But the problem is that you cannot apply this principle to these exceptional, horrible crime[s] of abortion. And therefore, because of the gravity of the abortion, of the exceptional character of the abortion, of the incomparable evil, and the current situation of an ever daily growing industry of killing unborn children. So you cannot compare this principle, for example, with paying taxes or with using some products of slave labor. Slavery is not comparable to killing an innocent, to killing cruelly innocent child. It's also an evil, but we have to have the proportionality. And therefore, this is already the basic error of these two documents, the application of the principle of material cooperation to this concrete case of abortion or of the vaccine, which uses the cells of aborted children. So material cooperation is when you are linked to an evil against your will.

As, for example, you pay taxes to the government and from the taxes the government takes without asking you the money for doing an evil action and different evil actions. So in this way, they could be a distant corporation, but they're against your will. I mean, even I, I would even not apply directly this principle to these paying taxes, because in this case, the money belongs to all the system, to the state, as our Lord Jesus Christ said, to whom belongs this coin. “Unto Caesar." So give to Caesar what is his. And so and if the government would ask me, could we take your money from your taxes to do this or that action? I would say, no, I will not consent. And then they will do nevertheless so in some way, it would be they will steal from me my money and do this as a theft. It is stealing my money and then with my money is doing an evil action. In some way, we can compare this and so on. So I repeat. This is the proportionality is extremely extraordinary and grave with this [abortion-tainted vaccines] and they cannot apply this [principle of moral cooperation]. This is the basic error and this is already this small hole, which was made on the dam of the Catholic Church against abortion.

How we can with this entire determination be and proclaim being against abortion, then, when we accept these vaccines? When at the beginning it is the murder of a child. So I repeat, logic and common sense demands; if there would not not have been murdered, even one child they would not have made these aborted-tainted vaccines. It is clear, it has to be logic and common sense. So people with common sense, more people with common sense, they see this. And oftentimes, God, in difficult times when there is confusion. When, all are going in the same direction, even the good ones today, unfortunately. And no one is saying, “STOP. This is not good. This is a danger.” Therefore, we five Bishop had the conviction, we had to say “Stop.” To say, I am not, as if somebody else said it, I am not guilty of the blood of this child. I will not be.

In any case, we have to be very correct and to give also a sign to the entire world in not accepting these vaccines, given as a sign of witness. A strong witness, a material. We will not accept this. Of course, we consulted also scientists, we consulted doctors from different countries. And they also instinctively with almost all these arguments, which I proposed, rejected this. And then also the common sense of people, Sensus Fidelium and it's interesting that most, the majority of those consulted were women, so female souls. And the female souls, they are feeling more deeply the horror of killing an unborn child. The maternal instinct. It's different in a female person than in a male person. And this to me [is] also interesting that those who wrote these documents and now are defending the use of these vaccines are mostly male persons. They didn't know the child. And then I would ask to them seriously and and and honestly. If you would be, let us say, a time machine, if you would be present and see a cruel murdering of an unborn child, the dismembering of his body, you will see this and then you will see how they take the cells. From his body, you will see this, you will see this how then these cells will be put on the vitro and so on, all these processes. And even if there would be hundred or thousands of chemical processes, once you were present, in one abortion and from this child, exactly from this child which cells were used. I cannot imagine that you will accept the vaccine in your body, that before your eyes you will have this horrible scenario. Of dismembering a child and from this same child in some way, you are ultimately benefiting for your health. We have to be very honest.  

JHW: There's a distinction in the vaccines that are currently available. There are some that are developed with the use of aborted fetal cell lines and therefore also have the aborted fetal cells in the vaccine. And then there are those that are developed without aborted fetal cells, without the use of aborted fuel cell lines. However, in their testing, they make use of aborted fetal cell lines. That's a distinction in the vaccines that are currently being proposed for acceptance. Does that distinction play a part in its acceptability or not?

Bishop Schneider: Of course, this is already a distinction, and it is, of course, objectively less than grave, grievous the direct...Cells which are directly used. It's much more grave than only in testing, but also in testing, we cannot in not in the slightest and most remote, cooperate with these horrible crimes, even to use cells of aborted children for testing, it's already immoral. It's a horrible crime. So there are an accumulation of horrible crimes. The first horrible crime that killed a child and then to have developed his cells is also a crime, and then to make testing of these cells, it's another crime. So this accumulation of crimes, we cannot collaborate with this in no way. 

JHW: What would you say? (crosstalk w/ Bp. Schneider) 

Bishop Schneider: You have to hear your conscience. And you know that. And Pope Paul VI made, of course, I don't want to to compare this from the content, but only from the phenomenon. When Paul VI had the committee on the discussion of the contraception pill on Humanae Vitae. Before Humanae Vitae, the vast majority of the commission, which were philosophers, scientists, all the doctors, moral theologians, they were in favor of the moral use of contraception in the committee of politics and only the minority were against. And then they were accused, the minority there, you had not on your side so famous philosophers or famous scientists, as we have today, which were in favor of contraception. And therefore, I repeat, it's not the question of numbers. Even if we made only a few bishops, the truth will win. And after this, the history of the church will say that even the good ones yielded. They did not see clearly. They were in some way blinded by these simple theories of material cooperation. It's a theory, I repeat, it's valid, except that the blindness is to apply it to these vaccines, which are an accumulation of horrible crimes. You are not, of course, directly guilty of these crimes. This I would not say this, but even as most remote and slight connection is already unacceptable for a Catholic, because of the extraordinary crime and the consequences and the historical context.

JHW: What would you say to Catholics, to millions and millions of Catholics who totally unwittingly, first of all, had never heard this kind of thing before, had never even thought of this because it was given they were given the green light, as it were, by the Vatican, by their priests, by bishops. No one ever thought of this. And for a long time, the whole notion of abortion-tainted vaccines seemed to be kind of a conspiracy theory. Now we know that it's actually true. I think the truth of it only really comes to play in the last decade or so, because for a long, long time, although it was known in the scientific community, most people really didn't believe it was true. So what would you say now to the countless Catholics who, through no fault of their own, have taken vaccines, who have given it to their children, who have, you know, friends even who for a while resisted vaccines, and then, you know, one of their kids caught something and it was devastating. Some even died and therefore gave it to their other children or what not. What do you say to people like that? 
Bishop Schneider: Well, I mean, they they did not have guilt because they followed the instructions of the Vatican. And so those who gave the instructions they have the ultimate responsibility. In this case, the Catholics believed this. But on the moment that they will recognize this, everyone, it depends on the conscience of everyone, on the extent how he or she recognizes the immorality of even the slightest, most remotest connection to abortion. Well, at the moment, when a person is recognizing this, then he has to follow his conscience and his conscience will say to him, "No, you cannot do this in future."

And he will be grateful to Divine Providence that he could recognize this, personally. It's his personal conviction and he will not do this, because health is not the absolute value we have to remind this. And in our world's mentality, the materialism has [become] a god, an idol to which we have to give sacrifices as we wrote, and this is true, we have to recognize this and to trust in Divine Providence. And then also it's so anti-pastoral and so counterproductive to justify these vaccines of these cells of aborted babies. Because, in this way, we will cooperate in another evil in some way. We will cooperate to propagate the myth that there is no alternative. There is an alternative. The world powers will say, "There is no alternative. Please take this abortion-tainted of vaccines." They will say to us, but it's impossible. There is, there should be, and there are alternatives. God in His Providence will illuminate man to find this as God always did. Men need to trust in God, and then He will give to scientists the illumination to find alternative without using the cells of aborted babies.

Imagine only theoretically, hypothetically, if we would live in a society, as it was until maybe 50 years ago, where abortion was, in almost all countries except for the Soviet Union, a crime. So it was forbidden. Let us say the entire, it would be an ideal time, when the entire humanity will strictly forbid abortion in any case. And so and then there would be no possibility to develop and to take these fetal cells and to develop such a vaccine. And then they have to have another means and God will give us when we observe the law of God, the Fifth Commandment, more faithfully and more consequently, God will give us His help, then we will now use these vaccines. I'm convinced I'm not a prophet. God WILL punish us! We cannot do this in any way, therefore. I cannot understand how good Catholics can justify this dissolution of material remote cooperation, the use of this vaccine. It's so irresponsible. It is so not prudent. They don't see the consequences of all of this. We have to be more supernatural and consequent in our decision. And I'm repeating, we have to resist the myth that there is no alternative.  

JHW: I think that that is very true already because both in the vaccine world and in many of the medical fields where they also test the medical treatments with aborted fetal cell lines, there are alternatives. There are clean alternatives in terms of vaccines. One of the organizations called Children of God for Life have spent decades already pointing out non-abortion-tainted vaccines. There are all sorts of abortion, non-abortion-tainted medicines out there because the problem of abortion, fetal cell lines being used is not only in vaccines, it's used also in medical products, even, believe it or not, in makeup and other products, all sorts of products. The difficulty is we very often don't know anything about it. How many people, even a decade, couple of decades ago, realize at all that was abortion, tainted vaccines, that there was such a thing? People thought that was a myth. Well, they're actually used in many other products as well, but we just don't know it. Which leads to a question about how incumbent is it upon Catholics to research into all the products that they use because there's so many of them. But there definitely are alternatives. And we need to definitely even the 2005 and 2008 documents from the Vatican stressed that we do need to call for ethical vaccines, ones that aren't abortion tainted.  

Bishop Schneider: Yes, this is true and this is evident, and therefore, I repeat, it is the most anti-pastoral and counterproductive, that in this time, exactly in this historical hour, as Catholics will justify their use of abortion-tainted vaccines with the theory of material remote cooperation. It is so illogical, we have to recognize this in this historical hour in which we are living.

I was, when we were preparing the document, I was very much the souls of these babies who were murdered in the womb of their mothers. Because they are in God because from the first moment of the conception there is a human soul, a person. And these souls of children, because they died innocently, they are in the reign of God. I will not enter the theological questions of limbo and so on, but they are in the reign, in the kingdom of God. Of course, they are not in the kingdom of the devil to control it because they are in some way martyrs, also. Martyred souls. And so, I ask specifically those souls of children who were killed and whose cell lines were used for the vaccine. Because God knows the line which came from this child to the vaccine. And so I pray to this child or children, we don't know how many were taken from different children, because probably they were taken from all sorts of different children. And we know that now in China, they continue to murder and take the cells from these children for other purposes, also in China, you know. Well, I was praying for all this because God knows these souls by name. Of course. And I asked them for illumination, to pray and to assist us. And I ask them to pray also our prayers of reparation, expiation for all these crimes of fetal technology and all these processes of using cell lines. It's already not only the killing, the abortion moment, but also the process of using even for tests or other experiments and so on, and manufacturing is already horrible as a crime. And for this, we have to expiate, to make expiation. And I cannot understand how good people and clergy and pious people are now justifying the use of these abortion-tainted vaccines with this theory of material remote cooperation. This is not understandable because they have to make expiation, reparation for every one of these crimes in this long train. Even if it was even in terms of processes, we have to make reparation. So this is what I wanted to share in some way, my very personal feelings.

JHW: Right. There is a there's a follow up question in this respect, because when it comes to the example of paying of taxes and the vaccines, the issue could be the same. Because, for instance, in Canada, the UK, in America and in many countries, perhaps most countries of the world right now, the issue of abortion remains the same. So, the issue of the severity of the killing of unborn children, a crime which, as you said in your letter, cries to heaven for vengeance and so therefore is the most serious crime. So, the issue then becomes the same in terms of we pay taxes, the taxes part of them go to supporting abortion, the vaccine. We're asked to take it. So what's the difference then there? Because now the issue has become the same of the abortion. What's the distinction between legitimacy in paying our taxes and illegitimacy of taking the vaccine?  

Bishop Schneider: Yes, there is a difference because the proportions are different. Because they are not asking me if I am consenting. They simply impose general taxes or a general compulsory insurance for health without asking us. And so in some ways, this is different. But when I am standing before the vaccine, so I'm personally confronted directly with this evil. I can see the tube of this vaccine. And so I'm confronted directly and I have the freedom, I say no. If they will force me, then I will go to prison. But to pay taxes there is a general, a collection of money, which even when I know that they can order to use my money for abortion, or for other evil actions besides abortion, but concretely for abortion, for example. I say they are stealing my money in this case because I'm against. I will ask my money back. They give me at least this portion of money back to me, which we use for the abortion, but they will not do this. And so they will in some way steal my money. 

JHW: Right. Right.  

Bishop Schneider: And so this is a difference, even a logical difference. And I repeat, here you are standing directly before the tube of the vaccine. In paying taxes, you are not standing before. They are not asking now. We are not making their budget. And they are using our money, This is different. 

JHW: I guess you could make could make it relate if they said, OK, now you have to pay your taxes, that will go to support abortion. And if you refuse that, you'll have your house taken from you. You'll have everything taken from you, but you'd still have to refuse because that is then directly about abortion. And that would be asked of you to participate in a very real way.  

Bishop Schneider: Exactly. This is a good, good comparison. Cooperation and so. But in any case, when they will ask me, “I will take your money for abortion,” I have to refuse this even when they will take my my house and so on, also in the same way. But they do not ask me completely. And as I repeat, the tax systems are imposed in a way where the government is depriving us from our just money. So there they are doing against our will. But in the vaccine, I can express my will completely here. 

JHW: Excellent.  

Bishop Schneider: But I repeat that Catholics have in any case also to seek other insurance, health insurance. To pay other health insurances that will not pay the abortion. But unfortunately, in some countries, there is no other possibilities. Right. Right. As it was, for example, in the Soviet Union, where I lived. All the people had to pay health insurance and then they did also abortions. And they were forcing us, stealing our money. 

As I repeat, they have to be witnesses without any shadow of even the slightest collaboration with abortion in the case of the vaccines. Because there is a concrete murdering of children, and so we have to proclaim this with our gestures, with our acts. Not to collaborate with this  concrete act, and therefore to be witnesses, witnesses in this terrible anti-life culture that it is a culture of death. We have to resist, otherwise our witness will not be really convincing.  

JHW: You mentioned in your document that this has some play in with the Mark of the Beast. Now, Mark of the Beast, is that very, you know, stark statement in the Scriptures that the Mark of the Beast comes and that anyone who accepts it basically goes to Hell. So that's a very stark comparison. What do you see in this that's similar to the Mark of the Beast? I presume you don't think this is the ultimate mark of the beast, but what are your thoughts around that that point?  

Bishop Schneider: I think it was not directly formulated such. I think it was formulated, [that] it could be an indication. So, it was formulated in a possibility, so it could be. Because to accept in some way the fruits of the abortion and all of these horrible testing and production of cell lines, it is really horrible, and then when all the people of the earth will have this sign in their body, which is a sign of death, ultimately. Because without the first act of death, of murdering of this child, they would not have been this mark on your body with this vaccine. So this is a connection to death. And the Beast is death. It could be, we did not state it straight away, but we formulated this in order to reflect about this. To think on this.

JHW: It's a very interesting reflection because the an act of the will is necessary because the scriptures describe the mark of the beast as something that you take that if you take it, you are guilty. And I presume under the normal circumstances where you know, under all the normal circumstances of mortal sin, you have to recognize that it is grave moral evil and it has to be grave and you have to recognize it as such and you have to consent to it freely. And so under those circumstances, I can see it being that way. But also it might in this case, forbid us buying and selling. The Scriptures talk about how all those who refuse the Mark of the Beast won't be able to buy and sell. And in this case with a vaccine, it's the first time I've seen anything like other than perhaps, you know, making a chip in your hand where you had to basically have it in order to transact business at all. This possibility has that as well, and that you won't even be allowed into stores to buy or sell.
Bishop Schneider: Yes, it could be, but therefore, the Apocalypse and the Revelation of St. John was written for us also. There will come a time where what is written in the Apocalypses will be realized. And we don't know when the Lord is coming. Maybe the second coming of the Lord is already close. We don't know. And maybe there are already signs of apocalyptic signs, it is, of course, difficult directly to state this. Therefore, we set a possibility of an indication, not a direct or some apocalyptic atmosphere. It's already we are seeing this before our eyes, these apocalyptic signs that can last still another time until the Lord is coming. We don't know how long. But in the other case, on the other side, we have to hope that God is stronger than all these apocalyptic powers even of our time. And that Our Lady promised in Fatima that her Immaculate Heart will triumph, will win. And we can believe that also God will grant the triumph of the Immaculate Heart also in our time before the coming of Christ. We can believe that he will grant His Church a time of extraordinary flourishing holiness, The Entire Church, so they can have this hope and trust.  

JHW: Definitely because this has been the most confusing time. People whom I love and I respect and I believe are truly saints of this day and age are divided on this question and it tears my heart to see. It's so confusing and I guess we have to cry to heaven for help, because this is the most...unbelievable time, and I don't even mean, you know, larger out there that the church, as it were, there's lots of confusion over things and that really there is no confusion. The truths of the faith, the concept of marriage and all this. That's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the best of the best people who have worked their whole lives for life and family, who have recognized in all of the liturgical wars, the wars on life and family and contraception, all these minute issues. But even among them, this is this is causing's division. It's not animosity, but it is a divided heart and it's been quite something. 
Bishop Schneider: Yes, I can understand you, and it's also for me also a pain in my heart to see people whom I esteem. As you said it, they are to my opinion, they are in this in this case, simply blinded. They do not see the depths. And this is, for me, mysterious how this is against reason, against common sense, that the simple people, they reject this automatically, instinctively. Make an inquiry of simple people, they will reject this. This is the Sensus Fidelium. And this is for me, a demonstration and a consolation also. We have to follow the truth, even if I will lose all my good friends, I will follow my conscience. Even if I will be alone, I will follow my conscience, as Saint Thomas More and Saint John Fisher. They followed their conscience. And I am not alone, thanks be to God. There are even other bishops who did not sign it, who are also in the same position and priests and, I repeat, more simple people. This is for me, a demonstration. And then, as you mentioned, dear Mr. Westen. I think that this is also a sign of the last times where the good ones are confused in one point, and as Our Lord said to the elect once, we will be also seduced. And they see not more clearly in this concrete grievous fact. It is a mission of God to purify our soul, to be more convinced, to go the way of our conscience for truth, we have to follow our conscience, in this case, a conscience which we have prayed, studied, consulted before God. And I assume that this cardinal and these bishops there have a cultivated conscience, also. The simple people. I am believing that after a time these people...who are defending the morality of the use of the abortion-tainted vaccines, I think that God will show them some consequences. Well, where their eyes will be open, I'm convinced will come the time, because the truth is so powerful. And the truth, when we are seeking the truth, is pure heart. God will reveal this and show us. And so we have to live for the truth and for eternity. 

JHW: You say this recognizing the severity of the consequences as we started talking about. Because the Vatican position voiced in 2005 and 2008, promoted by many, many prelates all over the world, leads to an opposite conclusion in its fruition. In its full fruition, the acceptance of this as remote material cooperation, combined with a belief that, you know, coronavirus is so serious that it needs to be treated with a vaccine makes for exactly what the UK bishops have done. A moral compulsion on Catholics to accept the vaccine. And yet your position...That is I think that Abby Johnson just voiced as well. I mean, because actually she said very much like you just said. If the bishops were to oppose this resolutely, there would have been another ethical solution a long time ago. But, you know, it's interesting because your position and the position of Cardinal Pujats and Bishop Strickland and the other bishops that and archbishops that signed onto that document with you leads to the opposite conclusion. So on one hand, the position voiced by the PAV and the CDF in 2005 and 2008 leads in its most extreme to Catholics are compelled to use the vaccine abortion tainted vaccine. Whereas on the other hand, your position would lead, also an extreme, to Catholics must resist this to the point of any kind of restriction on their freedom and perhaps even their deaths. And if you can talk about that last possibility of if if this is forced to such an extent that the only way to resist it is with your own death, what what would you say to that?  

Bishop Schneider: It would be a decision of every one and his conscience. So when my conscience says I cannot accept an abortion tainted vaccine, even not in a most remote way, because I repeat, I am entering even a most remote concatenation, which is different from paying taxes, of course, cannot compare this. Then my conscience says I cannot accept this. And then I have to follow the decision of Thomas More and Cardinal John Fisher, who remained the only one[s] to not accept the Oath of Succession of Henry the Eighth, which he demanded them. He did not demand them to deny Christ, and Henry the Eighth asked John Fisher and Thomas More to take the Oath of Succession which would be an implicit recognition of divorce, because Henry the Eighth ask them to recognize the descendants of Anne Boleyn as legitimate and sovereign, and they will recognize that their descendants are legitimate children. Then they would say this is a legitimate marriage and this was not a legitimate marriage and they would be implicitly recognizing divorce. And so they prefer to die than to do this. So I think even as Bishop Strickland spoke some weeks ago on video, he said he will prefer to go to prison rather than to take an abortion-tainted vaccine. I am the same. My archbishop also said to me the same, He would prefer to go to prison and if even if we would be alone, but they will not be alone. I am convinced that there will be a great, maybe not so great, but there will be a considerable number of simple people. Not so much clergy and not so much intellectuals, but simple people. Mothers, simple grandmothers, and good young people, they will go to prison. I think they will not accept this vaccine. And if they don't kill them, make them a death penalty, I don't know. God will illuminate us, who will confess His truth and give us the strength. What is this short life in comparison with eternity, with the truth? With this witness of the prophets! Uncompromising witness. With the spirit of the prophets of the Old Testament, of St. John the Baptist, with the prophets, with the saints, martyrs, with all these. We have to follow them even when we will lose our short temporal life. 

JHW: Amen. Wow. It's a very powerful statement and conviction that that you bring and I would like to conclude there and if you wouldn't mind, Your Excellency, giving us all your your blessing. 
Bishop Schneider: Dominus vobiscum.

JHW: Et cum spiritu tuo. 

Bishop Schneider: Et benedictio Deo omnipotentis Patris et Filii et Spiritu Sanctis descendant super vos et maneat semper. Amen. 

JHW: Amen. Thank you so very much, Bishop Schneider, for being with us on this episode of the John Henry Westen Show, may God bless you. 

Bishop Schneider: [God bless] you also.

[Emphasis mine.]
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)