lifesitenews--2020-12-11--French infectious disease expert shocked by the number of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccine

December 11 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) -- Professor Eric Caumes caused the equivalent of a medical earthquake by stating Wednesday evening that he has never seen as many undesirable effects with a vaccine as with the Pfizer injection that is scheduled to be widely distributed in France starting in January .
Caumes , head of the infectious and tropical disease department at a major Paris hospital , is part and parcel of the fear game around COVID-19 , favoring France ’ s second lockdown that became effective at the end of October and promising a “ third wave ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gestures ” are not observed and people don ’ t limit the amount of family dining together at Christmas .
He has clearly stated that he will take a anti-COVID-19 vaccine as long as it is not an “ RNA ” vaccine like those being distributed in the United Kingdom now .
`` RNA '' vaccines are expected to start in France in January with the residents of care homes for the elderly .
Caumes has voiced concerns regarding these vaccines .
He complained earlier about the lack of available scientific data from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would never blindly trust the vaccine industry merely on their press releases .
On Wednesday , Caumes went much further in an interview he gave to the French daily Le Parisien .
After seeing a report on the Pfizer vaccine from the American Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) on Tuesday evening , the data used by Pfizer to obtain marketing auhorization turned out to be a shock .
Caumes measured his words , saying , “ As I read the 53 pages , something struck me .
I have never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events for a vaccine .
Apart from minor injection reactions such as local redness and pain , other side effects occur at relatively high rates , especially in young people and after the second dose .
`` Take the example of fever .
It can occur transiently after an injection ; it is classic .
But here , 15.8 percent of 18- to 55-year-olds had a fever of 38 degrees Celsius or higher within seven days after the second injection .
And 45 percent had to take medication for fever or pain .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent were tired .
No , really , that 's much too much , perhaps there 's a problem … ” Caumes said .
Considering France , with less than 68 million inhabitants , has already bought enough vaccine doses to give double shots to 100 million people , including from Pfizer , such a declaration obviously will have repercussions in a country where about half of the population , according to surveys , does not intend to get an anti-COVID-19 vaccine .
Caumes ' statement is significant because as a doctor and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspected of not supporting the French government ’ s management of the Wuhan virus , he is saying the Pfizer RNA vaccine is not safe and should not be recommended given the lab ’ s own data , which was decidedly late in coming to specialists ’ attention .
In the interview , Caumes was subsequently asked him what he thought of the situation in England , where two days into the first vaccination campaign the authorities issued an emergency recommendation asking people with severe allergies not to take the Pfizer injection after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Caumes ’ response gives rise to further concerns .
“ I 'm surprised because these adverse reactions are not listed in the U.S. drug agency document , which is my only source , '' he said .
`` This confirms that we should not rush.
” Nevertheless , Caumes would still advise elderly people most at risk from getting severe forms of COVID-19 and dying to take the Pfizer or Moderna RNA vaccines because of what he considers to be a favorable benefit-risk balance .
But he did not advise young or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not only is there a lack of information , but these injections based on genetic material ( messenger RNA ) have never passed the commercialization stage until now , '' Caumes said .
`` Perhaps they are revolutionary , but I want proof of their reliability , otherwise it is tantamount to placing blind trust in industry.
” Is the vaccine really the only solution for frail elderly people , as Caumes appears to suggest ?
It should be noted that official guidelines in France include asking people who test positive for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paracetamol as long as they are not in respiratory distress .
While many doctors and hospitals are now ignoring this advice and many patients are actually receiving treatment , the situation is not good in care homes for the elderly , with about one person in four who tests positive dying of COVID-19 and , if necessary “ helped ” along with a dose of muscular relaxant Rivotril , which was officially recommended in these situations outside of its normal medical indications .
This is true in many places but not in Marseille @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing system of sewage waters in care homes for the dependent elderly , allowing them to receive immediate notification of SARS-COV-2 infections there .
In these homes , the elderly are treated with Professor Didier Raoult ’ s protocol ( including hydroxychloroquine when possible , a proper antibiotic , azithromycine and zinc ) and the mortality rate is much lower .
Some 15 percent of the infected die instead of over 25 percent in comparable homes elsewhere .
These are the most fragile people regarding COVID-19 .
Caumes will probably face more backlash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His condemnation of the rush to obtain Pfizer and Moderna vaccines was already seen as an obstacle to France ’ s vaccinal policy .
French Health minister Olivier Véran immediately reacted , saying that Caumes “ sometimes speaks nonsense.
” But Caumes repeated his critique to Le Parisien , stating , “ Pfizer and Moderna simply announced their success in a press release .
In my career as a physician , I 've never seen anything like this before .
You have to realize there is still no trace of scientific publication .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ He also told the newspaper that he is afraid that he 'll play into the hands of the “ conspiracy theorists.
” “ Yes , I am terribly afraid of it , but as soon as you step out of the single dominant thought , you are immediately considered to be a conspiracy theorist or an ‘ ass , ’ as Véran called me , even though I am one of those who defend vaccines the most , '' Caumes said .
`` They are the miracles of infectious diseases , the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent rather than cure .
But I tell people the truth , otherwise they will no longer trust us , the doctors … ” He added that he was concerned that things “ are not going well with these COVID vaccines.
” Warning that this could backfire , especially since the French government has already ordered and paid for them “ without even knowing if they were safe , ” he said .
`` If we mess this up , the entire history of vaccinology will be discredited , ” Caumes said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources page .
View it here .

'I have never such a high frequency' of side effects from an injection, the head of the infectious and tropical disease department at a Paris hospital observed.
December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Professor Eric Caumes caused the equivalent of a medical earthquake by stating Wednesday evening that he has never seen as many undesirable effects with a vaccine as with the Pfizer injection that is scheduled to be widely distributed in France starting in January.
Caumes, head of the infectious and tropical disease department at a major Paris hospital, is part and parcel of the fear game around COVID-19, favoring France’s second lockdown that became effective at the end of October and promising a “third wave” of infections and disease if “barrier gestures” are not observed and people don’t limit the amount of family dining together at Christmas.
He has clearly stated that he will take a anti-COVID-19 vaccine as long as it is not an “RNA” vaccine like those being distributed in the United Kingdom now. “RNA” vaccines are expected to start in France in January with the residents of care homes for the elderly.
Caumes has voiced concerns regarding these vaccines. He complained earlier about the lack of available scientific data from their results and side effects, saying he would never blindly trust the vaccine industry merely on their press releases.
On Wednesday, Caumes went much further in an interview he gave to the French daily Le Parisien. After seeing a report on the Pfizer vaccine from the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday evening, the data used by Pfizer to obtain marketing auhorization turned out to be a shock.
Caumes measured his words, saying, “As I read the 53 pages, something struck me. I have never seen such a high frequency of adverse events for a vaccine. Apart from minor injection reactions such as local redness and pain, other side effects occur at relatively high rates, especially in young people and after the second dose.
“Take the example of fever. It can occur transiently after an injection; it is classic. But here, 15.8 percent of 18- to 55-year-olds had a fever of 38 degrees Celsius or higher within seven days after the second injection. And 45 percent had to take medication for fever or pain. Another 55 percent had headaches and 62 percent were tired. No, really, that's much too much, perhaps there's a problem … ” Caumes said.
Considering France, with less than 68 million inhabitants, has already bought enough vaccine doses to give double shots to 100 million people, including from Pfizer, such a declaration obviously will have repercussions in a country where about half of the population, according to surveys, does not intend to get an anti-COVID-19 vaccine.
Caumes' statement is significant because as a doctor and a university professor who cannot be suspected of not supporting the French government’s management of the Wuhan virus, he is saying the Pfizer RNA vaccine is not safe and should not be recommended given the lab’s own data, which was decidedly late in coming to specialists’ attention.
In the interview, Caumes was subsequently asked him what he thought of the situation in England, where two days into the first vaccination campaign the authorities issued an emergency recommendation asking people with severe allergies not to take the Pfizer injection after two patients suffered from severe side effects.
Caumes’ response gives rise to further concerns. “I'm surprised because these adverse reactions are not listed in the U.S. drug agency document, which is my only source,” he said. “This confirms that we should not rush.”
Nevertheless, Caumes would still advise elderly people most at risk from getting severe forms of COVID-19 and dying to take the Pfizer or Moderna RNA vaccines because of what he considers to be a favorable benefit-risk balance.
But he did not advise young or healthy people to do so. “Not only is there a lack of information, but these injections based on genetic material (messenger RNA) have never passed the commercialization stage until now,” Caumes said. “Perhaps they are revolutionary, but I want proof of their reliability, otherwise it is tantamount to placing blind trust in industry.”
Is the vaccine really the only solution for frail elderly people, as Caumes appears to suggest? It should be noted that official guidelines in France include asking people who test positive for the Chinese coronavirus to stay at home with paracetamol as long as they are not in respiratory distress.
While many doctors and hospitals are now ignoring this advice and many patients are actually receiving treatment, the situation is not good in care homes for the elderly, with about one person in four who tests positive dying of COVID-19 and, if necessary “helped” along with a dose of muscular relaxant Rivotril, which was officially recommended in these situations outside of its normal medical indications.
This is true in many places but not in Marseille, where local firefighters set up a testing system of sewage waters in care homes for the dependent elderly, allowing them to receive immediate notification of SARS-COV-2 infections there. In these homes, the elderly are treated with Professor Didier Raoult’s protocol (including hydroxychloroquine when possible, a proper antibiotic, azithromycine and zinc) and the mortality rate is much lower. Some 15 percent of the infected die instead of over 25 percent in comparable homes elsewhere. These are the most fragile people regarding COVID-19.
Caumes will probably face more backlash from French authorities for his outspokenness. His condemnation of the rush to obtain Pfizer and Moderna vaccines was already seen as an obstacle to France’s vaccinal policy. French Health minister Olivier Véran immediately reacted, saying that Caumes “sometimes speaks nonsense.”
But Caumes repeated his critique to Le Parisien, stating, “Pfizer and Moderna simply announced their success in a press release. In my career as a physician, I've never seen anything like this before. You have to realize there is still no trace of scientific publication. We're walking on our heads.”
He also told the newspaper that he is afraid that he'll play into the hands of the “conspiracy theorists.”
“Yes, I am terribly afraid of it, but as soon as you step out of the single dominant thought, you are immediately considered to be a conspiracy theorist or an ‘ass,’ as Véran called me, even though I am one of those who defend vaccines the most,” Caumes said. “They are the miracles of infectious diseases, the most intelligent drugs there are, since they prevent rather than cure. But I tell people the truth, otherwise they will no longer trust us, the doctors … ”
He added that he was concerned that things “are not going well with these COVID vaccines.” Warning that this could backfire, especially since the French government has already ordered and paid for them “without even knowing if they were safe,” he said.
“If we mess this up, the entire history of vaccinology will be discredited,” Caumes said.
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.
— Article continues below Petition — SIGN: Join petition calling for a stop to COVID vaccine testing in Europe Show Petition Text 16601 have signed the petition. Let's get to 17500 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition Concerns over the health and safety of the human test subjects in Pfizer's European COVID vaccine study have caused two eminent doctors to launch a petition calling for an immediate halt to those studies. On December 1, 2020, Dr. Michael Yeadon, an ex chief of research at Pfizer and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a lung specialist and former department head of public health lodged an appeal to the EMA, the European Medicine Agency responsible for approving drugs across the EU, asking them to suspend the ongoing Pfizer/BioNtech COVID vaccine study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42). LifeSite is joining Drs. Yeadon and Wodarg in their call for an immediate suspension of this study and we are encouraging people to co-sign their petition to the EMA which is to be found in the petition section on this page. Please SIGN and SHARE this important petition, and then please contact the EMA at the address listed below, in the 'For More Information' section. In their application to the EMA, Drs. Yeadon and Wodarg give the following reasons why the Pfizer study could pose dangers to the health and safety of the study participants: First, the doctors say that the study design must be improved as the highly inaccurate PCR test is currently being used to detect the presence of COVID in the study participants. This means that the efficacy of the vaccine is in doubt. The doctors recommend changing from the PCR test to Sanger sequencing.
Second, and more important, the doctors advocate animal testing of the vaccine to exclude the possibility of the risks to the life and health of human participants from known side-effects of other similar studies on corona viruses. These side-effects can include: an exaggerated immune response when the subject comes into contact with the "real world" virus; possible infertility of an "indefinite duration" for women; severe allergic responses to polyethylene glycol which is contained in the mRNA vaccine being tested by Pfizer; and, other latent, serious side effects which, because of the short duration of the study, may only become known well after the conclusion of the study. Because of these unacceptable risks to the life and health of the Pfizer/BioNtech COVID vaccine study participants, we are joining with Drs. Yeadon and Wodarg as co-signers of their petition to the European Medicine Agency, asking for an immediate halt to these studies. Thank you for SIGNING and SHARING, today! And, after you have signed this petition, please send the sample email in the section below to the official European Medicine Agency email: [email protected] FOR MORE INFORMATION: Actual Petition Text (pdf): https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wodarg_Yeadon_EMA_Petition_Pfizer_Trial_FINAL_01DEC2020_EN_unsigned_with_Exhibits.pdf Sample Email: Subject: Please act on the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon and stay the Phase III clinical trial(s) of BNT162b Dear Sir or Madam, I am hereby co-signing the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon to support their urgent request to stay the Phase III clinical trial(s) of BNT162b (EudraCT Number 2020-002641-42) and other clinical trials. The full text of the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon can be found here: https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wodarg_Yeadon_EMA_Petition_Pfizer_Trial_FINAL_01DEC2020_EN_unsigned_with_Exhibits.pdf I hereby respectfully request that EMA act on the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon immediately. Regards, [Your name] **Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
Share


lifesitenews--2020-12-11--On the moral illicitness of the use of vaccines made from cells derived from aborted human fetuses

Editor ’ s note : The following statement is from the Catholic prelates listed below .
December 11 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 June 9 , 2005 ; the second , from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith , is titled , “ Instruction Dignitas Personae , on certain bioethical questions ” and was issued September 8 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 can not 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 ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 can not 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the inhuman nature of some biomedical research and embryonic technology .
Now more than ever , Catholics categorically can not 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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

Editor’s note: The following statement is from the Catholic prelates listed below.
December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – 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 June 9, 2005; the second, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is titled, “Instruction Dignitas Personae, on certain bioethical questions” and was issued 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 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
Share


lifesitenews--2020-12-11--Cdl. Sarah’s signature absent from Vatican letter backing ban of Communion on tongue during COVID

KNOXVILLE , Tennessee , December 11 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The signature of the Vatican ’ s liturgy chief is missing from a controversial letter signed by the secretary of the Vatican body that supervises worship and sacraments in the Church .
The letter supports the decision of a U.S. bishop to ban reception of Holy Communion on the tongue in his diocese on account of the coronavirus outbreak .
In a letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments dated November 13 , the Vatican dicastery stated it had “ received and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faithful regarding a decision by Bishop Richard Stika of the Diocese of Knoxville , Tennessee , to ban Holy Communion on the tongue during the COVID-19 pandemic .
“ As has already been enunciated in the circular letter of Card .
Robert Sarah of August 15 , 2020 , and approved for publication by His Holiness Pope Francis , ‘ in times of difficulty ( e.g.
, wars , pandemics ) , Bishops and Episcopal Conferences can give provisional norms which must be obeyed , ’ eve clearly , as in this case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be required , reception of Holy Communion on the tongue at the public celebration of the Holy Mass , ” the letter states .
“ This Dicastery does hereby therefore act to confirm the decision of Bishop Stika and thereby rejects your petition seeking its modification , ” the letter adds .
The letter was signed by Arthur Roche , Archbishop Secretary of the Vatican ’ s Congregation for Worship and the Sacraments .
The signature of Cardinal Robert Sarah , who is the prefect of the Congregation , did not appear in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2009 letter from the same Congregation regarding the same question in the midst of the H1N1 influenza pandemic .
At that time , the Vatican under Pope Benedict , wrote that Church law on the subject stipulates , “ each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue '' and that it may not be abrogated .
The new letter from the Congregation was published today on the Diocese of Knoxville ’ s website .
A separate letter from the Vatican informing Bishop Stika of the decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s website .
While the document quoted Sarah ’ s August 15 letter titled “ Let us return to the Eucharist with joy !
” as justification for suspending Holy Communion on the tongue , at no point in this document did the cardinal make such a point .
He only referred to bishops giving “ provisional norms which must be obeyed ” without mentioning anything about such norms including rules for the reception of Holy Communion .
“ In times of difficulty ( e.g .
wars , pandemics ) , Bishops and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be obeyed .
Obedience safeguards the treasure entrusted to the Church .
The measures given by the Bishops and Episcopal Conferences expire when the situation returns to normal , ” wrote Sarah in his August letter .
Cardinal Sarah , when asked in a May 2020 interview during the height of the pandemic about what should be done when Catholics return to churches after the lockdowns and may be told it is “ more appropriate ” to receive Communion in the hand , replied : “ There is already a rule in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the faithful are free to receive Communion in the mouth or hand.
” Indeed , the Church ’ s 2004 instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum teaches that “ each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.
” The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments under Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera reaffirmed this teaching in the midst of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic , making it clear that a pandemic did not negate this teaching .
LifeSiteNews reached out to Cardinal Sarah with the following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stika from the Congregation which the Cardinal heads .
• Were you aware that a letter from your Congregation was sent to U.S. Bishop Richard Stika of the Diocese of Knoxville on Nov. 13 , 2020 confirming him in his decision to ban Holy Communion on the tongue on account of the pandemic ?
• Does this letter accurately reflect your position and the position of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on this matter ?
• Does this letter reflect a change in Church teaching regarding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Redemptionis Sacramentum , to receive Holy Communion on the tongue ?
LifeSite did not hear back by press time .
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski , a Thomistic theologian and liturgical scholar , told LifeSiteNews that the Congregation ’ s letter to Bishop Stika was “ most unfortunate.
” “ It undermines the universal norms and tradition of the Church , reiterated many times , concerning the most appropriate and reverent manner for receiving the Holy Eucharist , ” he said .
Kwasniewski said that the letter establishes a “ dangerous open-ended precedent.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific evidence that we are not in a grave pandemic like the 1918 Spanish Flu , much less the Bubonic plague , the decision reflects and reinforces the panic-driven response of civil and ecclesiastical authorities , ” he said .
“ In this way the CDF 's defense of Bishop Stika 's policy establishes a dangerous open-ended precedent that can be easily abused , given how often there are seasonal illnesses that threaten the lives of certain members of the faithful .
Moreover , since many doctors and pastors recognize communion on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the hand ( and indeed have argued that communion in the hand presents its own hygienic problems ) , the decision also betrays a lack of appreciation for the age-old wisdom of the Church as well as a lack of consultation with qualified experts , ” he added .
The liturgical scholar noted that the Congregation ’ s letter only adds to the “ worldwide crisis of sacrilege and apostasy ” when it comes to Catholic belief .
“ Above all , the decision strengthens the worst plague of our time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made the Mass into a communion service , and communion into a mere token of our belonging , which we feed to ourselves like ordinary food .
No emergency could ever justify compelling the faithful , in many cases against their consciences , to adopt a practice that conflicts with the spirit of humble adoration given to Our Lord in the host , whom the Church entrusts to the hands of ordained ministers .
In that sense , this decision contributes to the counter-catechesis of bad liturgy that has created a worldwide crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kwasniewski .
Kwasniewski ’ s point about the “ counter-catechesis of bad liturgy ” is backed by data .
Last year , Pew research found that only one-third of Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus .
Kwasniewski said the Congregation ’ s letter to Bishop Stika “ far from being the end of this discussion , indicates instead the ill-informed and confusing advice the faithful are receiving from the hierarchy today.
” He cautioned Catholics about the decision , saying that they “ can not be obliged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , law , common sense , conscience , and medical evidence .
”

The Congregation for Divine Worship seems to have confirmed Bishop Richard Stika's decision to suspend communion on the tongue – but the Congregation's head, or prefect, did not lend his signature to the controversial document.
KNOXVILLE, Tennessee, December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The signature of the Vatican’s liturgy chief is missing from a controversial letter signed by the secretary of the Vatican body that supervises worship and sacraments in the Church. The letter supports the decision of a U.S. bishop to ban reception of Holy Communion on the tongue in his diocese on account of the coronavirus outbreak.
In a letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments dated November 13, the Vatican dicastery stated it had “received and attentively studied” a petition from the faithful regarding a decision by Bishop Richard Stika of the Diocese of Knoxville, Tennessee, to ban Holy Communion on the tongue during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“As has already been enunciated in the circular letter of Card. Robert Sarah of August 15, 2020, and approved for publication by His Holiness Pope Francis, ‘in times of difficulty (e.g., wars, pandemics), Bishops and Episcopal Conferences can give provisional norms which must be obeyed’, even clearly, as in this case, to suspend for whatever time might be required, reception of Holy Communion on the tongue at the public celebration of the Holy Mass,” the letter states.
“This Dicastery does hereby therefore act to confirm the decision of Bishop Stika and thereby rejects your petition seeking its modification,” the letter adds.
The letter was signed by Arthur Roche, Archbishop Secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Worship and the Sacraments.
The signature of Cardinal Robert Sarah, who is the prefect of the Congregation, did not appear in the document.
The letter contradicts a 2009 letter from the same Congregation regarding the same question in the midst of the H1N1 influenza pandemic. At that time, the Vatican under Pope Benedict, wrote that Church law on the subject stipulates, “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue” and that it may not be abrogated.
— Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Ask Pope Francis to clarify and rectify scandalous remarks on homosexual civil unions Show Petition Text 22787 have signed the petition. Let's get to 25000 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition Remarks attributed to Pope Francis (and, not denied by the Vatican) in support of homosexual civil unions have caused grave scandal to the faithful. Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks Pope Francis to clarify and rectify these heterodox and scandalous remarks on homosexual civil unions, and which will be delivered both to the Vatican and to the Papal Nuncio of the United States (the Pope's official representative in the U.S.). As the last guarantor of the Faith, the Pope should clarify and rectify these remarks, which go against the perennial teaching of the Church, even including the teaching of his living predecessor, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. "What we have to create is a law of civil coexistence [meaning civil union law, for homosexuals]...," Pope Francis is reported to have remarked, in what is arguably his clearest statement of public support for a practice morally prohibited by official Catholic Church teaching. In fact, the Church has been crystal clear in Her opposition to homosexual unions. Just in 2003, Pope Saint John Paul II approved a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, titled 'Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons' and written by Cardinal Ratzinger (now, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), which concludes with the following: "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself." It could not be more clear: the Church is calling people to repentance, not to be left to indulge in grave sin. Since becoming public, several senior prelates as well as other notable Catholic figures have voiced their opposition to these remarks attributed to the Pontiff. Cardinal Raymond Burke stated: "It is a source of deepest sadness and pressing pastoral concern that the private opinions reported with so much emphasis by the press and attributed to Pope Francis do not correspond to the constant teaching of the Church, as it is expressed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition." Cardinal Gerhard Müller commented: "Where there is tension between the plain and obvious Word of God and the infallible interpretation on the one hand, and private expressions of opinion even by the highest church authorities on the other, the principle always applies: in dubio pro DEO [When in doubt, be in favor of God]." And, Catholic theologian and apologist Scott Hahn, without directly quoting Pope Francis, shared on Facebook the 'Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,' published by the CDF in 1986, with the statement: "Holy Father, respectfully and humbly, I beg to differ... if that is indeed what you said. In any case, please clarify and rectify your statement, especially in view of the official teaching of our Lord through the magisterium of His Church." But, the silence from the Vatican has been deafening, with no clarification forthcoming. We must, therefore, ask the Pope for clarification in this serious matter. Please SIGN and SHARE this petition which asks Pope Francis to clarify and rectify remarks attributed to him in support of homosexual civil unions. FOR MORE INFORMATION: 'Cdl. Burke: Pope’s homosexual civil union remarks ‘contrary’ to Scripture, Tradition' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/cardinal-burke-on-popes-homosexual-civil-union-remarks-contrary-to-the-teaching-of-sacred-scripture-and-sacred-tradition 'Cardinal says Catholics ‘can and should’ disagree with Pope’s ‘opinion’ on gay civil unions' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/cdl.mueller-popes-words-on-gay-civil-unions-purely-private-expression-of-opinion-which-every-catholic-can-and-should-freely-contradict 'Archbishop Vigano, Bishops Tobin and Strickland respond to Pope’s approval of homosexual civil unions' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/archbishop-vigano-and-bishops-tobin-strickland-respond-to-popes-approval-of-homosexual-civil-unions 'Pope’s comments on gay civil unions cause shockwaves around the world' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/deepest-sadness-cardinal-burke-condemns-pope-franciss-remarks-supporting-civil-unions Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
The new letter from the Congregation was published today on the Diocese of Knoxville’s website. A separate letter from the Vatican informing Bishop Stika of the decision was also published on the diocese’s website.
While the document quoted Sarah’s August 15 letter titled “Let us return to the Eucharist with joy!” as justification for suspending Holy Communion on the tongue, at no point in this document did the cardinal make such a point. He only referred to bishops giving “provisional norms which must be obeyed” without mentioning anything about such norms including rules for the reception of Holy Communion.
“In times of difficulty (e.g. wars, pandemics), Bishops and Episcopal Conferences can give provisional norms which must be obeyed. Obedience safeguards the treasure entrusted to the Church. The measures given by the Bishops and Episcopal Conferences expire when the situation returns to normal,” wrote Sarah in his August letter.
Cardinal Sarah, when asked in a May 2020 interview during the height of the pandemic about what should be done when Catholics return to churches after the lockdowns and may be told it is “more appropriate” to receive Communion in the hand, replied: “There is already a rule in the Church and this must be respected: the faithful are free to receive Communion in the mouth or hand.”
Indeed, the Church’s 2004 instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum teaches that “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.” The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments under Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera reaffirmed this teaching in the midst of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, making it clear that a pandemic did not negate this teaching.
LifeSiteNews reached out to Cardinal Sarah with the following questions regarding the letter sent to Bishop Stika from the Congregation which the Cardinal heads.
Were you aware that a letter from your Congregation was sent to U.S. Bishop Richard Stika of the Diocese of Knoxville on Nov. 13, 2020 confirming him in his decision to ban Holy Communion on the tongue on account of the pandemic? Does this letter accurately reflect your position and the position of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on this matter? Does this letter reflect a change in Church teaching regarding the right of Catholics, as taught by Redemptionis Sacramentum, to receive Holy Communion on the tongue?
LifeSite did not hear back by press time.
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, a Thomistic theologian and liturgical scholar, told LifeSiteNews that the Congregation’s letter to Bishop Stika was “most unfortunate.”
“It undermines the universal norms and tradition of the Church, reiterated many times, concerning the most appropriate and reverent manner for receiving the Holy Eucharist,” he said.
Kwasniewski said that the letter establishes a “dangerous open-ended precedent.”
“Since it is clear from all actual scientific evidence that we are not in a grave pandemic like the 1918 Spanish Flu, much less the Bubonic plague, the decision reflects and reinforces the panic-driven response of civil and ecclesiastical authorities,” he said.
“In this way the CDF's defense of Bishop Stika's policy establishes a dangerous open-ended precedent that can be easily abused, given how often there are seasonal illnesses that threaten the lives of certain members of the faithful. Moreover, since many doctors and pastors recognize communion on the tongue as no less hygienic than communion in the hand (and indeed have argued that communion in the hand presents its own hygienic problems), the decision also betrays a lack of appreciation for the age-old wisdom of the Church as well as a lack of consultation with qualified experts,” he added.
The liturgical scholar noted that the Congregation’s letter only adds to the “worldwide crisis of sacrilege and apostasy” when it comes to Catholic belief.
“Above all, the decision strengthens the worst plague of our time, namely, the utilitarian pragmatism that has made the Mass into a communion service, and communion into a mere token of our belonging, which we feed to ourselves like ordinary food. No emergency could ever justify compelling the faithful, in many cases against their consciences, to adopt a practice that conflicts with the spirit of humble adoration given to Our Lord in the host, whom the Church entrusts to the hands of ordained ministers. In that sense, this decision contributes to the counter-catechesis of bad liturgy that has created a worldwide crisis of sacrilege and apostasy,” said Kwasniewski.
Kwasniewski’s point about the “counter-catechesis of bad liturgy” is backed by data. Last year, Pew research found that only one-third of Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus.
Kwasniewski said the Congregation’s letter to Bishop Stika “far from being the end of this discussion, indicates instead the ill-informed and confusing advice the faithful are receiving from the hierarchy today.”
He cautioned Catholics about the decision, saying that they “cannot be obliged by anyone on earth to violate tradition, law, common sense, conscience, and medical evidence.”
Share