Father Ripperger on COVID Vaccine

The following transcript is taking from the Resistance Podcast, episode 143

Steve: Welcome everybody. Steve with Sensus Fidelium coming at you again with Father Ripperger and our friend Ryan Grant. Father, Ryan. Good morning. Whenever, wherever you are.

Father: Good morning.

Ryan: Good morning.

Steve: So today’s topic: we’re talking about vaccinations. That’s obviously the topic in the news with [Project] Warp Speed, etcetera going on. Father, why do an interview on vaccines when the Vatican has already made a statement about it?

Father: Well, that’s actually a really good question, because a lot of the bishops, as you know, and even some of the Catholic doctors are just defaulting to what the Pontifical Academy for Life has said regarding it. But it’s precisely because of this statement that they made and a lack of precision in a particular area, which I hope to cover while we’re here. There’s a specific area, a lack of precision, again, and how they actually addressed it. I think that there’s a lot of disinformation now, and not just about the Pontifical Academy for Life Statement, but there’s just a lot of disinformation in general in this particular area, where everyone’s just saying, Yeah, it’s OK. And I think that there is a a real push–which I will talk about towards the end–but there’s a real push to allow the vaccination–is precisely because of the fact that people are scared to death because of what the mainstream news media has done and what other people have done. They’re scared to death of this thing. I noticed that when I went back East for a short period of time in May, that the people there were much more fearful of this thing than they were, say, for example, in Colorado, where I live, except for what they call the front range, that is in the Denver area and things like that. Most people that lived rurally just don’t have that same level of fear regarding this thing, but there’s a lot of fear, and that’s driving people’s judgment, and I think that’s one of the things, so everyone wants to be able to get this vaccination. Part of it is, is because it’s being dangled like a little carrot in front of everybody. We’re not going to get back to normal until everybody’s vaccinated. So everyone’s like, we’ve got to get the vaccination So there’s a certain element which is driving that. But I think that’s even true in relationship to the Vatican’s discussion of it. There’s a lot of pressure to allow these things. And so the statement, which the Pontifical Academy for Life made I think is, doesn’t quite grasp it all. Fortunately, the Pontifical Academy for Life is not part of the Magisterium, although I’m open to correction on that. That’s my understanding. It’s not part of the Magisterium, So any statement that it makes is technically speaking, just a statement made by theologians, albeit theologians chosen by the Holy Father. So, I just want to read this statement by the Pontifical Academy for Life. This is Protocol Number P 3431. It states

“As regards to those who need to use such vaccinations for reasons of health, it must be emphasized that apart from every form of formal cooperation in general, doctors or parents who resort to the use of these vaccinations for their children, in spite of knowing their origin, voluntary abortion, carry out a form of very remote immediate material cooperation, and thus very mild in the performance of the original act of abortion and immediate material cooperation with regard to the marketing of cells coming from abortions and immediate with regard to the marketing vaccinations produced with such cells. The cooperation, therefore, more intends on the part of the authorities and national health systems that accept the use of vaccinations.”

And so basically what they’re saying is that it falls under the category of remote material cooperation, which we’re going to talk about a little bit better later. It’s a principle that because there’s something that they don’t really fully parse out in there. And there’s a misunderstanding, I believe, in relationship to a particular aspect of what we call the fonts of the moral act, which will go into here in just a minute. But basically I think that this thing has caused a lot of confusion. There are people that are writing against it. Good moral theologians, priests, etcetera, who are throwing up the red flag, saying, No, there’s a problem here, and it needs to be addressed because it was not properly parsed out. I did have a chance to read the whole protocol, and it does go into all the distinctions, but I think the distinctions are misapplied because of a lack of understanding of the circumstances.

Ryan: Well, Father, let’s maybe, it’s probably right then to talk a little bit about the moral act, given that you have dioceses now that require all sorts of immunizations in order to even get into a diocesan school. And no doubt, in the future, will be requiring a covid vaccine, and it’s good to parse out the moral principles because you always find in forums, on blogs, Facebook, whatever you find, you know you have anti vaxxers and various things you’re leveling out, and then you have those defending, I guess, pro vaccination. They say, No, no, no. You guys are idiots, and often times you see a lot of phony arguments on both sides of that issue to properly take into account what’s really going on. So let’s distinguish, you have a moral act. You choose to do a certain act that has certain principles. There’s certain evils and say I can’t do this because it’s a complete cooperation with evil. Then how about these areas of remote cooperation as they descend down? What does that mean? How does that impact us morally in terms of our choices?

Father: Yeah, I think that’s really what the issue is. Even when I see this discussion on the forums or even in articles that are being written by people, you see that the proper distinctions are not being made or that if they’re being made, people don’t properly understand them. And so we need to actually go into them. I also see that it’s, I think, one of the things that’s coming down the pike, is that a lot of priests have been emailing me, and that’s another reason why I’m doing this, is a lot of priests and laity are emailing me because they have misgivings about what we’re being told and things like that in regard to it and because the people that have the voices out there, a lot of them, are just simply saying, Oh well, the Vatican said that you can do it, or there’s no reason why you can’t because it’s so remote, etcetera. And so as a result, you can have the vaccination. So there was a lot of questioning in relationship to that. Regarding the fonts. A font is something. It’s a source. It’s from which something comes. So when we make a choice, three things come together in that choice, St. Thomas says. And he calls them the object. And in circumstances this is – these were terms that were used throughout the history of moral theology, and they’re still used even today to distinguish the various aspects that come together in the choice. So the object is what you’re doing. It’s the external act as conceived by reason about what you’re doing. So, for example, in the case of theft, the object is the taking of the person’s purse that belongs to somebody else. That’s the formal definition of theft is taking something that belongs to another. So it’s what you’re actually doing, the actual action. Then there’s the object. The object. Sorry, the end. The end is the reason why you’re actually doing it. Now, St. Thomas says, technically speaking, this is a circumstance, but because it determines the means, it is treated differently than the rest of the circumstances. But it’s the reason why you’re actually doing it. And then the circumstances are those things that stand around the act that can have an impact on the act. They can reduce the evilness of it. They can actually increase the evilness of it. They call it aggravating circumstances, which increase the evil of the act. But then there’s also those where if you have a morally good act and this is what we’re going to see, you can have an act that’s good in the object and good in the end, but the circumstances are bad. So suppose a person wants to go for a walk for the sake of health. So there’s the object in the end. But he does it after curfew time when his parents said, No, you can’t go out of the house after eight o’clock. Well, that circumstance of time renders the act bad so circumstances could render a morally good act bad. And that’s a principle that people have to understand is based on the principle of the integral good, which, of course, I wrote a book on. Also, all these fonts and discussions about them, and all the distinctions, people could get my book, which I did for my doctoral dissertation, that goes into all these distinctions. It’s not going to talk about vaccinations, obviously, but if it is something that they want to know more about – how the these fonts work, they can get that. So if you look at vaccinations, the end can be good. It’s not good in everybody. This case, I admit, that there are times in which people can be good, because very often people do it for the sake of their own health or the health of their children, etcetera. So they’re trying to do something good. They’re trying to achieve some good, that is health. Now, I think one of the things that people will be doing is doing the vaccinations for the sake of compliance with the governments, that they can actually function in society, etcetera. And that’s not necessarily bad, unless there is acquiescence to things that are illegitimate, which we could discuss towards the end. But that’s basically the issue – is the end, generally speaking, could be considered good because I’m going to this couch this, I should say, in the context of people who are trying to do the right thing, not people who join it for nefarious reasons. Okay, so the end can be good. The object, that is what you’re doing, is an active vaccination. It’s an act of helping your health. This could be morally licit if it is in the form of immunotherapy. So if you watch the series Plandemic, Judy Mikovits actually talks about how certain forms of vaccinations, their immune therapy. They actually help your immune system to develop a certain thing in relationship to a certain virus or bacteria. What have you. But there’s a certain way in which it can actually be healthy. Here, I’m putting aside discussion of the contents of the vaccination. We’re going talk about that in just a minute. But here we’re just talking about, in general, vaccinating oneself as a form of immunotherapy. If it contains ingredients which constitute a health issue, then it may be illicit just on that level. For example, if it’s discovered with certainty, which I personally think there’s sufficient evidence for this, that there’s certain levels of mercury that can cause autism. I know that’s going to blow up the internet because everyone’s going claim it’s not. I know people personally who have had their kids vaccinated, and within two weeks the kid ended up with problems. The only thing that it could be traced to was that. So on this is, and it’s not just one or two. We’re talking numerous people that have had that problem. We also know that the United States government’s involvement in providing vaccinations in parts of Africa where sterilants were put in the vaccination intentionally to sterilize the women so there was a high percentage of women in that population that ended up sterile, etcetera. So if it contains those things that are that are contrary to your health, then objectively speaking, you should not actually end up taking it. Now there could be grave cause for that, which we’ll talk about in a little bit. That’s part of it. And if you want to see which vaccinations have which problems and which don’t, you could go to The Children of God for Life, which is cogforlife.org for the breakdown of the various vaccinations and things that are actually there. So then the last one are the circumstances. Those are the things that stand around the act morally in relation to what you’re doing. St. Thomas calls them accents, that is, they stand on the outside. They don’t change the essence of what you’re doing, but they can render the act morally bad. In relationship to vaccination. I’ve talked already a little bit about this, but they’re in a separate video. But when you’re talking about vaccinations and you’re talking about the gravity of the vaccination and relationship to its possible use of aborted fetal tissue, derivations and things of this sort, there is a particular there’s – it depends on how you look at that from what perspective. So it’s going fall under one of two circumstances in relationship to the quality and relationship to the vaccination. The first is a circumstance which St. Thomas calls quibis auxilius. That is, by what aid. So you perform an action but you might use a particular aid in order to make it better or not make it better, etcetera. And this is where the gravity of the aborted fetal tissue question is really attached. That is, you’re vaccinating somebody by using a vaccination, which is the aid, which contains something which could be morally compromised. And that’s the real problem is the aid that you’re using to vaccinate yourself with contains a problem. I discussed this in the other video, but this is one of the ways. So in relationship to aborted fetal tissue the real question comes down to is the vaccination carrying the quality of the abortion in relation to, the moral quality of the abortion, in relationship to the vaccination itself. That’s the real issue. And so that’s the quibis auxilius. That’s by what aid. However, St. Thomas also says that you can have two separate certai n circumstances that come together and constitute the same circumstance. So he gives the example of the quibis auxilius and quando, that is, by which aid and when. So I might want to aggravate my parents, for example, if I’m a teenager, I might go outside at a specific time when I’m told not to But that’s the aid that I’m using in order to drive my parents bananas. So they can sometimes converge, and I think that’s kind of what’s happening here. The other circumstance that I think comes together with quibis auxilius, and they’re basically the same circumstance looked at from different points of view in this particular case, is the circumstance of quid, which Saint Thomas called what. Now this circumstance requires a bit of explanation because it was heavily misunderstood by several theologians in the 1960s. They thought this quid, what you’re doing, was merely the exterior act, failing to realize because that’s what you’re doing. Well, that’s actually not what St. Thomas is talking about. What St. Thomas and the theologians talk about is that quid is a quality of the circumstance, of the quality of the object which undergoes the action. What does this mean? Let me give you an example. If I steal $10, that’s in the accent of quantity, so I steal $10 and this is normally considered venially sinful to steal $10 according to the moral theologians. But if the $10 is owned by a poor elderly woman who lives hand to mouth, and as a result, she’s going to go without food for a couple of days, this renders the act mortal, mortally sinful, because of the circumstance of quid. That is, the quality of the $10 is that it’s owned by a woman who needs the money. So that the object can have a quality about it, which reason recognizes, and that ends up impacting the choice that I make. So knowing that it’s coming from an elderly woman, for example. So in relationship to vaccinations, the injecting the content of the vaccination, as it’s injecting into my – so I’m injecting myself with something -that’s the physical act. The contents is this vaccination, and that vaccination can have moral qualities attached to it. And so in relationship to the vaccinations, this means that those, for example, that contain the DNA of the child, which we’ll talk about here in just a bit, therefore, it takes on the character of the DNA that came from that child and anything and how that DNA was obtained. So many theologians and priests and these theologians are also late theologians, hold that the DNA, the DNA because it’s derived from aborted fetal, that is, the child was murdered. I’m going to read a quote from a priest to summarize what I actually talked about, but he summarized it, I think, in a very pithy way and done very well. But that means that the DNA that’s being injected, we’re putting aside right now the medical consideration, because we can talk about that, too, that the DNA from the child contains a moral quality of having come from a child that was aborted. So the derivation of this thing was illicit to begin with, and therefore, the character passes into that DNA, that is, the DNA has basically been stolen from the child. Now, before I read this quote from the priest cause I think it’s really good, we have to understand that grave circumstances – when you have a circumstance that is gravely disordered, it can render a morally indifferent or good act gravely sinful, that is mortally sinful. So as I mentioned in relationship to stealing the money from the woman, if it was from Bill Gates, stealing 10 bucks, my temptation is to say it would be a virtue, but I’m not going to say that, but in this particular case, it would only be just a venial sin. The point being is that we can render these things bad. So in the case of the taking it from an elderly woman, it becomes morally sinful to do so. I just want people to understand that because sometimes you’ll get people who think, well, it’s just a circumstance. What I intend, and what I think I’m doing is okay. No, that doesn’t suffice. It also – the circumstances, circumstances that relates to the object of the moral act. And by the way, if you want to know which ones do and which ones don’t, you can read my book on the morality, the object of the moral act, which is for sale on Amazon. But the point being is, is that can render a morally good or indifferent act mortally sinful, because people are very often want to ignore circumstances. There’s a priest by the name of Father Michael Copenhagen, and he says, he summarizes what I said earlier. I think I said this in 2005 – I think was the first time I started discussing these. Or maybe it’s 2007. The problem with some of these vaccinations where they’re coming from. So I’m not sure if he came up with this on his own, independently of having listened to me or if he kind of didn’t, or what have you. But he, I think, he summarizes it very good. He says, “An assessment of cooperation with evil in terms of distance from the original abortion is necessary but ultimately insufficient as criterion because there is another distinct and more immediate category of sin involved.” And I think this is where he gets it right, by the way. “The recipient is an immediate participant in the commission of a continuous theft of human remains obtained through deliberate killing, their desecration through exploitation and trafficking, as well as ultimate omission to respectfully burying them.” And that’s what I mentioned in my other conferences. It’s ongoing theft. There’s the only way to restore the order of justice is you’ve got to bury the aborted fetal lines. That’s the only way that you can, because you’ve got to return them back to God. You can’t return them back to the kid but you can at least fulfill the transcendent order of justice and give them back to God. “While the original killing establishes the illicit character of using the remains, their possession and use becomes a distinct evil in itself, the circumstances of which do not cease as a form of theft, desecration, exploitation and refusal to bury, regardless of the customer’s distance in time from the abortion or the number of cell divisions or the merely sub cellular fragmentary inclusion of the child’s DNA and protein in the final dose.” I think that’s where he gets it right. The quality from the original abortion passes, even though that the abortion is distant in time, and even in physical effect, the fact of the matter is, is that the physicality of using the aborted derived DNA from the child renders the vaccination, even today, from a moral perspective, sufficiently proximate, although it’s still remote in relationship of the persons using it. That’s why it is remote material cooperation. It’s not as remote as the Pontifical Academy for Life wants to make it out to be, or others want to make it out to be. At least that’s what it seems to me. That’s where the problem is. So, in other words, the fetal cell line was derived in the 1970s, which is derived from, I think, I want to say, Sweden. Or was it the Netherlands? It was one of those two. It does not doesn’t change its character. The fact that the quality of the object, the quid, remains the same, that is, it’s an aborted fetal cell line. A part of the body belonging to a child which was robbed from him by murder. It is still part of his remains because of his DNA. It’s basically his cell line. Hence, it must be buried. That’s the only way to fulfill justice. Because the quality remains, the temporal distance in this case has no bearing. That’s what people have to understand. The fact that the abortion happened back then doesn’t have any bearing on the fact that you’re using it now, because you still haven’t fulfilled the justice. It’s an ongoing theft in relationship to this kid that this happened to him.

Ryan: There is a lot of people, a lot of people, that will say, especially when you bring up this particular discussion about the use of aborted fetal cells for the cultivation or the incubation or what have you, they’ll say, “Well, I mean, that that was so long ago, and they look, there’s there’s almost no matter of that, in the vaccine itself” is often what these people will say.

Father: Yes, that’s actually true. It’s also the same problem that we actually have in a relationship to human beings, right? Because the matter in our body changes every seven years. Does that mean I’m a different individual human being every seven years? The actual answer is no. So the point being is, that it’s the fetal lines are perpetuated and so it’s not the same matter. That’s because first of all, you’ve got to grow a certain number of these cells anyway, just for the production process. But that doesn’t mean it’s still not part of his body. It belongs to him by virtue of the fact that it’s his DNA. You stole it from him, and this is how you got it. And the fact that you’ve replicated, doesn’t doesn’t change the quality of the thing. It just means that the quality each time that that cell is replicated, that new cell which came from him, which ultimately belongs to him, still carries that quality on. That’s, I think, where the real argument is hinging. So you’re right. That’s the real argument hinging. Does it continue after? Yes, it does, because it’s still part of his body, albeit after he’s dead. It’s still replicated in that regard.

Ryan: So I think that in the case of listeners not familiar with that, the process is called immortal cells, where they remove the genetic code that breaks down that cell and causes it to die, so that it will just continue reproducing.

Father: And that’s also why they have to – part of the other reason is, too, is that some, at least they used to, I don’t know that before they perfected that mechanism, they would just keep redoing the lines or just keep it fresh. Just keep redoing it. And that’s how they got around that. But it’s still the same. The problems still persist in the sense that the quality is passed on from one thing. It’s analogous to this. It’s analogous, so it’s not the exact same, but it’s very similar. If I steal a million dollars, if Ryan steals a million dollars from Steve and Steve, and by the way, if Steve, if you got a million dollars, please see me after this time. But if Ryan steals a million dollars from Steve, and then Ryan gives that money to three other people, and it finally ends up in my pocket, if I know where it came from, it doesn’t matter if it was three weeks or a month, I still have the obligation to give it back to Steve, right? It’s very similar to that. This is the remoteness, time wise was actually used in matters that pertained to those things that were being of reason, as opposed to those things that were real beings. What does that distinction mean? Let me give an example. This is something which I’m sure will blow up the Internet. But here it is. The moral theologians used to talk about how if something was taken from somebody 100 years ago, and then it was never recovered. It was never protested, etcetera, and it got to the point, or even if it was protested, but it passed through the person’s generational line for the 4th and 5th generations after 100 years. The people that were 100 years out did not have the obligation to render restitution to the people that it was originally taken from. In the theological books, we all recognize that because by that time, the beings of reason, that is the ownership, which is a being of reason, is viewed as now different by anybody who has normal use of reason. Well wait. Basically, it’s in these people’s possession. You can’t rob these people of their livelihood and everything else to give it back to people that are 100 years later that the progeny of the people that it was taken from. This is why reparations for slavery doesn’t hold water in a Catholic moral system at this stage. Reparation should have been made to the 1st and 2nd generations of the slaves. That’s where it should have been made. This is why the government actually discussed about giving the slaves 40 acres and a mule. The point being is that now we just don’t have to. But when it comes to things that are, that we’re talking about, real things like this, in the case of the aborted fetal tissue, the fact that it’s replicated from that means it’s still his part of his body in the end. And that’s why, even though it happened in the past, it does not change the moral character of them using the lines now. So the temporal distance at this point doesn’t have any bearing. It’s the physical distance from the abortion that also doesn’t have anything about the quality of the lines. Now, the quality is still -this belongs to this guy and you’re using it illicitly. And so that’s why it still persists.

Steve: Do they have to have grave cause to use the vaccine, which is derived from an aborted fetal tissue?

Father: So the actual answer is yes. And this is where part of the – so I think that they’re correct and everybody is – except there’s one guy who tried to say, “Well, this is the principle of double effect.” And actually principle of double effect doesn’t have any bearing on this. Because I was looking at that. I’m like, Yeah, this guy doesn’t understand the principles that are involved. Most of the moral theologians agree that the question about aborted fetal tissue derived vaccinations – the real question is, is that it’s a part of remote material cooperation. It’s remote because of the fact that I’m not the one that actually aborted the child, and I’m not the one that’s actually producing the vaccination. Even when I get the thing. On its material cooperation, in the sense that I don’t want to participate in this. If I want to participate in it, it’s formal cooperation. That’s when you want to. Then it’s grave matter, obviously, and its cooperation because of the fact that there was something illicit that was done, and you’re you’re taking part in it in some way. And we see how we’re taking part in it. It has to do with using the vaccinations that are derived from it. Now, in my opinion, because the quality in the cell lines doesn’t change morally speaking, the fact is, is that you still have to have grave cause for its use. And the theologians say that when it comes to remote material cooperation, there has to be a proportion between the level of the sin, that is the gravity of the sin, and what you’re doing. And this is going to become really important when we start talking about the specific vaccinations. So, if it’s something that’s venial sinful, you have to have something that at least some form of slight cause in order to be able to do it. So whereas if its grave matter, then you have to have a sufficiently grave reasons to do so. The classic example that they used to discuss back in the eighties after Roe versus Wade, because it became an actual issue after Roe versus Wade, was what if a woman worked as a secretary in an abortion clinic but she’s not participating in the actual abortion, like handing them the instruments and things of that sort. It’s not immediate material cooperation. It’s somewhat remote because she’s just processing the paperwork. And so the question becomes, can she do that? And the moral theologians say yes, but there has to be a proportionate grave cause for doing so, and so they usually would say it has to be like you’re going to lose your house. Your job is absolutely necessary. There has to be, and you can only do it as long as – and this is the other thing, which they don’t talk about in this whole discussion in aborted fetal tissue lines is that you have to have the proportion of grave cause to the abortion or to the fact that you’re continuing to rob this child of that which properly belongs to him. It’s a form of theft and trafficking, so there has to be proportion to that level. But in the classic case of the woman who works as a secretary in an abortion clinic, they said even if she continues working there in order to financially survive because she can’t – there’s no other means by which she can do it, there’s still the necessity off trying to find a different job. She has to keep looking for another job. She has to get out from underneath it as soon as she possibly can. If there are alternatives to a vaccination then, and this is where the real issue comes up, if there are vaccinations, which we’ll talk about, that are derived from aborted fetal tissue or have a relationship with aborted fetal tissue lines, then we have an obligation to seek out those that are not doing that. Even if there is sufficiently grave cause, to have the vaccination done, you still have to seek the alternative, and you must use the alternative if there is an available alternative, if there is sufficiently grave cause. This is the problem with some of the stuff coming out recently. The real problem with Covid, which I’ll talk about here in just a little bit, is there is not sufficiently grave cause to be vaccinated for it. Now I know that’s just going to blow up the Internet. And why is it? It’s because people are being brainwashed by the mainstream media. There’s constantly harping on this thing, and they’re all talking about all these people dying from it, etcetera, and the other problem that we’re having, too, is that people today, because they lead their life according to the emotion, their emotions, if they get a hangnail, that’s grave cause. It’s time to get the vaccination because I got a hangnail and that’s where we’re actually seeing people’s ability to reason break down. And this is why, when people start doing that, it’s always important to fall back to the principles.

Ryan: Quick question before we move on to the question of Covid in general, when there is a proportionate reason and you can cooperate in this because of whatever proportionate reason, are you ever morally required? to engage in remote cooperation with an evil?

Father: That’s a good question. Actually I was was going to talk a little bit about it later but let’s just address it now. The actual answer is no, you’re not obligated. In fact, even though it might be licit to get a vaccination because there is sufficiently grave proportionate reason for it, the fact is, is that you don’t – you’re not obligated to do so when considered in itself. There might be further obligations, like if you are the only one that can supply for your family and things like that. Then there’s prudential questions that would come up, etcetera, that would have a bearing on the decision and if the moral is the same in that decision. But outside of context like that, where there’s some other reason for it that you really need it, the answer is no. You’re not obligated, at least according to the theologians.

Ryan: So let’s let’s talk about Covid and the vaccines for Covid. You just mentioned a minute ago, again, that the must flee TV has been instilling everyone with the idea that this is the black death and everyone’s dying on the street, and so on and so forth, even though in reality when we go out, we don’t really know that many people – we might know a few people that had it, were sick from it, might’ve heard about somebody that had somebody die from it. But it’s so distant. It’s not people we know. It’s not bodies in the streets. It’s not any of that. So and then the official numbers show, it’s a 0.4% death rate nationwide, half of which is spiked by the state governor sticking patients who did have it back into nursing homes and things like that. That’s really where the big spike in deaths are. So when we look at the vaccines they’ve been producing for Covid, they produced these things at record speeds. I’ve never seen anything like it that where they produced it so fast. So my question is kind of twofold. One, given how fast they produced it, there’s natural incredulity about how safe these things they’re going to be on. And two, have these been produced in the same way using aborted fetal tissues as other vaccines that we’ve had issues with in the past on the subject.

Father: Those are actually two really good questions. As to the first question, the rapidity of it which these are being made with warp speed, I can understand, given people’s psychological state, thinking we’ve got to have this thing now, why people would push it along. I think the objective reality is another matter which we’ll talk about a little bit later. But I think that the part of the virtue of prudence, one of the sub virtues of prudence, is caution. Caution, basically, St. Thomas says, is that having that when you’re dealing with something that’s unknown or that in the past has caused damage, that you are more circumspect and you’re much more careful about the employment or the use of this thing as a means. In other words, so you were much more cautious in relationship, which is basically the intellect judging the danger. It’s not driven from fear. Fear is in the emotions. This is an intellectual judgment that this thing could cause some serious damage. We better slow things down. I think that’s where we are with this relationship to the Covid thing. These are things which are being done so quickly, and there’s already some initial discussions coming out. I don’t know how accurate they are because I haven’t been able to track the accuracy of these things down. But some of the initial trials are already seeing problems and in certain high percentages, like 10 to 15% of people having difficulties in certain cases of certain forms of vaccinations. So I think that if you look at the number of vaccinations coming out that are currently being developed, I think it’s about 40 of them right now, at least in the last chart that I looked at in relationship to them. So the number that is being done is overwhelming, but the speed in the rapidity of it, the fact that they’re putting aside normal safeguards even in the getting this thing up, I think sets a dangerous precedent because if there actually is a biological pathogen that ends up getting into our culture that has a death rate that is much much, much higher, I think that that this is a sign that people are going to have a moderated judgment in how to proceed in those matters. So I think that that’s just too quick. As to the different kinds of vaccinations then, there’s essentially, if you look at the ones that are being developed, is essentially four kinds of vaccinations. Here we’re talking morally, not medically. We’re talking morally. So the first is that which is derived from aborted fetal tissue. And this essentially means that part of the DNA of the child ends up in the person, as we just discussed above. So part of the DNA of the child ends up in the individual. So I think that that vaccination could not be used except for in the gravest of circumstances. And that’s because of the fact that the moral quality of the DNA coming from the child and this is his DNA, is theft basically, participating in in theft and human trafficking, etcetera. So that’s the first kind. And there’s a lot of other kinds of vaccinations not just in relationship to Covid, that are also done that way. And this is one of the reasons by going to cogforlife.org they keep track of all those things for you. So those are actually, they’re very helpful in that regard. The second kind are those which are not derived from the aborted fetal tissue with. That basically means they’re not taking the DNA from the child, etcetera. But what they’ve done is, and this is where the Moderna vaccination has occurred. And if I don’t get this exactly right, I’m open to correction because I’m not a doctor. But basically what they did, is they took the fetal cell lines. They developed an independent – they developed a protein from that cell line, that protein is then extracted from the cell line, but it’s then tested, and and that protein is what’s used. It’s inserted into the virus in order to basically debilitate it, if I understand it correctly. Then it’s tested and then produced, yet again, in the cell line. So that is it. So it’s produced in the cell line. So even though it’s less evil than the first kind in which you’re using the DNA from the child, it’s still takes a grave matter because you’re using this kid’s body to develop the thing and then tested and to produce it. I have heard that they have a way of producing it outside that context, but it’s much easier and much more rapid to do it within and probably cheaper, I would suspect within the fetal cell lines.

Ryan: So it’s still a question of the quid then?.

Father: Yes, exactly. It’s still the quid. So we still have that particular problem. And it still requires grave cause, not as grave as the first kind, but it still requires grave cause. And so we know that this is being done by Moderna because they openly admit in their stuff that they’re using the fetal cell line HEK 293, and that’s the cell line that they’re actually using. Then there’s the third kind of those which modify one’s DNA. That is, they develop a way in which, through the injection, that can actually modify the person’s DNA so that it is more resilient in relationship to the particular virus. That’s the theory. That’s what some of them are actually working on. The problem with this is that St. Thomas talks about in relationship to the natural law, that there’s what he called the three categories of natural inclination. And these, that is, that God instructed human beings inclined to perform certain kinds of acts and those different kinds of acts can be divided into three different categories. In the first category is that which, it has to do with the conservation of our being, as it is. So, for example, he says that anybody who has use of reason naturally wants to protect themselves, so they don’t want to cut their fingers off, and things like this. This is why, for example, transgender operations are against the first category of natural inclination because it’s contrary to being as it is. And he said that we can actually get to the point where we think things are actually good, because reason starts to break down through malformation and things of that sort. But anyway, that all being said, to modify one’s DNA is to change. It’s not conserving you’re being as it is. Therefore, in order to do so, it falls upon the same kind of moral analysis that you see in relationship to survival things. So, for example, I’m sure you’ve heard about this. There was a guy who fell down a crag because he was rock climbing. He fell down on his arm and it got lodged in the rocks. There was no way for him to get his arm out, but he was going to die from exposure. So he cuts his arm off in order to survive. And so St. Thomas and the moralists say that sometimes you have to sacrifice a part for the sake of the whole. And that could actually be the case in relationship to the first category of natural inclination. So he cuts his arm off in order to survive. In the case of those types of things which modify the DNA, there’s only two times in which they would be permissible, at least from an initial moral analysis. The first is when it’s absolutely necessary for survival. That is, this is the only way that our culture can survive. It’s going to get completely wiped out. They’ve introduced a pathogen or a pathogen is naturally arisen, which will wipe out 90 to 95% of the population, and therefore it’s a matter of survival, and this is the only one that’s available. Then you could use it. So that’s provided that there’s other things that don’t go into the moral analysis. The other time would be you can modify your DNA when it’s necessary to restore the order of nature. So, for example, if someone has the MS gene and they figured out a way to modify that in a morally ethical way, because they’re using aborted fetal tissue for that development now, too. But if they can modify the DNA to remove that specific slice of DNA in the individual in a safe, medically safe, and a morally ethical way, then it would be permissible to restore the order of nature. You cannot modify human DNA in order to make us bigger or more robust or giants, or whatever the case is, because that’s contrary. That’s contrary to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd categories of natural inclination but that requires a whole different analysis. So the last form of vaccination is those which are ethically produced. So, for example, the John Paul II Medical Research Institute uses a live attenuated virus itself, and so that attenuated virus is what could be used for vaccination. They’re trying to develop a morally acceptable vaccination. This also brings up a particular problem. then when you’re talking about some of the medically safe things, because there is a question of prudence here, as I mentioned before, in relationship to caution. There are problems with MRNA vaccinations. Any vaccinations, that is any vaccinations that are derived from human RNA and animal RNA, Judy Mikovits in Plandemic talks about what the problem is in relationship that there is a problem with this. They know there’s a problem with this. I realize that scientists are going to say, Father, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You need to stick to your lane, etcetera. That’s fine. I’ll accept that I should stay in my lane, but then you better pay attention to the person who is in the lane and is saying no – here is legitimate scientific question about it. There’s also other sociological questions in relationship to vaccines. And I think this is where James Corbett in the Corbett Report has done a lot of very important work in relationship to the vaccinations and government and certain people who have a lot of money, etcetera. I am not an anti-vaxxer, per se. It’s like I said, if there was a pathogen that got in, and we were having all sorts of problems in our culture as a result of this and there was a morally licit vaccination, I have no problem with people getting it. So if the vaccination is morally licit and it’s truly, medically safe and there’s sufficient reasons for its use, then I think people should use it. I don’t have any objections. At times it may even be necessary. And this is where the real question about Covid comes in. Covid does not have a sufficiently high mortality rate in relationship to this, except in relationship to certain demographics. There’s certain demographics that it’s probably sufficient. For example, elderly people with co-morbidity or morbidity issues. They themselves might have, on a case by case basis, a legitimate use of these things. That would have to be more discussed on a medical level than otherwise. But they might have a sufficient moral reason to use the vaccination because of the fact that they’re in a situation where they’re highly likely to get it, and it could easily lead to their death, etcetera. But among those who are the average population, it has less than 1% death rate. But if there was a pathogen, because we could get into that here, if you like. If there is a pathogen which has a 10 to 25% mortality rate or higher for the general populace, then I can see using some of these things, if nothing else is available. But when you have less than 1%, then in my humble opinion, it does not rise to the level of grave cause. And this is where the fear factor is driving people’s judgment in relationship to all this

Ryan: Let’s break a little bit of the nitty gritty of the percentages down a bit. So to recap what you’re saying, because it’s a 0.4% death rate, something absurdly low compared to what’s hyped in must flee TV, it’s not sufficient cause to get it. But what’s the principle of demarcation? Why is it that once you get to 10, 20, 30% that now it’s morally licit? But not when its 0.4%. I mean, do you want people to die? I guess that’s the objection that’s going to be raised to you. Why do you hate people? Why do you want to kill people? It is sort of stupid stuff. Where is the line drawn for determining that percentage?

Father: Well, it’s funny because the moralist would say, what right reason dictates. What’s right reason? Right reason is that which is in congruity with moral principles. In this particular case, when people say, well, do you want people to die. Well, let me just dive into this a little bit. There was a John Hopkins study, I don’t know whether Steve or you Ryan saw this. There was a John Hopkins study that was just put out on November 22nd. The guy crunched the numbers, and he shows in this, I actually downloaded it to keep it because they put it up and within three hours it was taken back down. By the grace of God, and we can thank archive.com for this, even though they’re violating my copyrights, we can thank God for them in this respect. They actually have a copy on way back machine, so you could go to way back and actually get the copy of it, which I did. And basically, he shows conclusively that Covid 19 has relatively no effect on deaths in the US. If you look at the number of people dying that are supposedly dying from Covid, and look at the number of deaths that happened in the United States every year, there is not a statistical significant difference. So if that’s the case, then you’re talking about something that’s on the level of the flu, or so. You wouldn’t do this with every single flu or thing that comes along. So in other words, right reason indicates that, well look, just a certain number of people are going to die every year, it is the nature of the beast. And as a result of that, when you’re talking about the natural number normal of deaths from something, you haven’t reached grave cause. Whereas wiping out 10 to 25% of a population would have a great impact on the common good, etcetera, and as a result that, they would say that would suffice. So I hope that answers your question.

Steve: It’s kind of funny that you see everyone was pushing for the shots, but they never bring up eating well, exercising, getting good vitamin D, etcetera.

Ryan: When are they going to lockdown McDonalds?

Father: Well therein lies the real issue is that a lot of aspects of the lock down did not really take into consideration the real science. You hear politicians saying, “well, they’re not following the science.” Well, maybe they’re not in some respects, but the fact is, is that if you actually follow the real science, they wouldn’t actually be doing what we’re doing. And this is, that’s not me saying, by the way, that’s what I’ve been informed by doctors who are experts in this area who really know what they’re talking about, who have studied this stuff and say, “look, this is just how this works.” And of course, any type of voice that’s tried to state something contrary to that, they’ve immediately shut down, which is a sign that, and as I always say, if the media doesn’t let you talk about it, there’s some truth in it. You better figure it out.

Ryan: Exactly. So I guess the last thing we have really is – so we’ve talked about whether it’s morally licit to get it under certain circumstances. What about if the government comes in? I’m pretty convinced the church is going to cave in and just say, “oh, yeah, you can’t even walk in the church building unless you’ve got it” and they’re issuing ID systems and Covid passports, whether immunity passports or what they’re calling it. So which if I said a year ago, there’s like, Oh, that’s nutty, that’s crazy. And now they’re openly talking about that on the news. So if we end up in that situation, you can’t fly. We go cashless. You can’t even pay your bills or your taxes or your groceries. You can’t get anything unless you have this. Are you able or do these considerations change where you can still refuse to get vaccinated morally speaking, as the civil authorities, cramping down and making life difficult saying that you have to. Can you still stick to your guns and refuse or these other circumstances require you to. Basically, I’m going to fall in line and get it.

Father: That requires a bit of moral analysis. Before I do that, let me just kind of preface it with this. When it comes to getting a vaccination, it depends on which one you’re talking about. So if you’re talking about the one that’s derived morally licitly and it’s medically safe, generally speaking, then you don’t. It falls to other principles to judge whether you would actually get it or not. When it comes to these things that are derived from aborted fetal lines, there has to be grave cause, and I mean grave. The biggest problem today is, and you actually see this in the discussion of NFP. The popes in the past have said you have to have grave cause in order to use it. So now you have people making a distinction between grave and mortal sin. There’s grave and mortal sin. Well, first of all, that’s what the proportionalists came up with. But second of all, it’s a breakdown of understanding that grave and mortal meant the same thing. And so you’ve got a problem with terminology, but by grave, I mean grave. You’ve got to have major cause. For example, one would literally lose one’s home because his job requires it or that he can only survive with this particular job, much like this secretary working in an abortion clinic. They’ve got to be looking for other jobs, but they could do it if it’s absolutely you’re going to lose your home or starvation is going to set in. For example, I think one of the things that’s coming down the pike is a health passport. They’re all talking about it already, and you’re already seeing it. Qantas, the airline which – the governments may not impose this. They may just force the major corporations to require a health, passport or vaccination card, what have you, in order to fly, or buy food or things of this sort. When it comes to flying, there’s alternatives. You don’t have to do that. And if there’s not grave cause, you can’t get this just so that you can fly unless it’s again, absolutely necessary for you to financially survive with things like that. But it has to be grave cause. And this would only apply where there is no other means of securing food. No other means. So it has to be serious. Normally there would have to be mass death, in other words. There has to be mass death in order for us to start using things that are gravely, morally illicit in order to survive. Covid has less than 1% death rate as you’re observing, Ryan, therefore, it is not something which the health requirements suffice, in my opinion. They don’t suffice in order to, and even when it comes to medical indications about the safety of the vaccinations, there’s a less than 1% death rate. Is it medically indicated that therefore, I should try a vaccination that’s been unproven and untested? I think even on a medical level that’s even questionable, just from a prudential point of view, as I mentioned in relationship to caution. It has to be, but in extreme cases, that is, in a case by case basis, it might permit a particular individual to get the vaccination. The problem today, as I mentioned, is the news media spin is causing people’s judgment to be precipitated. What does that mean? When St. Thomas says that our emotions, because we judge the truth of a proposition based upon what’s in our imagination, he says our emotions, when they get into our imagination, they tend to drag our judgment to excess or defect. That is, we tend to think some things worse than it is or better than it actually is, and I think what’s happening with Covid, with a less than 1% death rate, with all the way that it’s being spun by the media, what’s happening is, is that it’s affecting people’s judgment. They’re not judging this -their literally in panic mode, or doing it out of human respect, which is a big problem. So that brings up can you refuse to get vaccinated? If you’re talking about a vaccination which there is less than 1% death rate and the government is trying to require you to get it, just the government requiring you to get it does not suffice for it to be morally permissible. Now the government can start cracking down and doing certain things in order to make it so impossible for people to function. Then it shifts to a case by case basis because some people can survive even if the government shuts them down, like myself. I don’t need to fly. I don’t have to fly. When it comes to food, I’m willing to beg. I’m a priest, after all. People will feed a priest, generally speaking, so I’m willing to beg. But there might be certain people that are not in that particular position. So it’s just a case by case basis. So while it might be morally licit to engage in something that is remote material cooperation with sufficiently give cause, one is still free to decline the vaccination for some greater good. So, for example, if collectively people realize that the government was using Covid, let’s just say this for the sake of argument – I’m not reporting it. You can all look at the stuff out on the Internet just have to make up your own mind on this particular thing. But if the government is using Covid in order to control and manipulate people, refusal of the vaccination, if the government requires, may be a way in order to break the government’s stranglehold on the people. It may be a way in which that is done. And so in that particular case, it actually could become something good. I’m not proposing insurrection or revolution and all that. I’m just saying that citizenry sometimes has an obligation to put the brakes on a government when it gets out of control. So that’s something which I think is, it could be morally, so you can refuse to get the vaccination even if it’s required by the government. Then it shifts the other principles. You might need to get it, again, for sake of prudence because of the fact that you’re going to starve to death or what have you or your kids are going to starve to death. But if there is a greater good that would come of it, then you can legitimately put it aside. So and in a way, this refusing to get the vaccination is a form of passive protesting.

Ryan: Like we see in Denmark recently. They protested a mandatory vaccination ordered by the, I don’t know if it’s the local, the government of Denmark itself, or just a couple of their counties, or whatever – their provinces. But either way a lot of people protested. They backed off.

Steve: Melbourne did that a couple months ago. It was a toy. Their mandate. They said the word mandate. The people revolted, not revolt with pitchforks. And they backed away saying no pokey, no workey. So it wasn’t a mandate. But if you wanted to live, you had to take it.

Father: I think that if Trump gets in, which seems to be a long shot. But if he gets in, I think what’s going to happen is they’re going to shift the burden. The elite will shift the burden to the major corporations to try and cram this down our throats – that is to require the vaccination. They might even be so draconian as to require certain vaccinations. Oh, well, the one ethically derived isn’t as effective, so you’ve got to get this one, if you want to do this. So I could see them kind of trying to force that issue. If Biden gets in, who knows what’s going to happen? He says he’s not going to, but Democrats, if you look at all the draconian measures that are being implemented in this country, they’re all by democrats. I’m not telling people how to vote and I don’t want to create a war. But the fact is, is that that’s the reality of it. And so we people have to be prepared to and this is, I think, the real issue is the Catholics specifically who have a morally developed system, have to be prepared to be willing to stand the line, even in relationship to this type of thing. Even if it means grave inconvenience. . They’re going to have to be willing to fight this battle. Because if we don’t, if we compromise, then they’re not going to take away just our right to follow our conscience. They’re going to start taking away our right to worship. All this stuff. They’re just going take all that away. That’s just what it’s going to happen.

Steve: United Kingdom passed the thing yesterday that restaurants and bars are required, – to get in you have to get the vaccination, and Ice Age Farmer reported yesterday 400 grocery stores and pharmaceutical companies, Walgreens and things like that, are going to be issuing the vaccine which he made the conclusion do you have to have it to get in eventually to a grocery store, which goes back to what you were saying about the food.

Father: I don’t think this is a conspiracy theory. They’re already signaling it in certain countries, they’re signaling it. Their openly talking about it in certain cases where you’re not going be able to be permitted to even travel. You’re not going to get to go to the grocery stores or to shop except unless you have this health passport. Their openly talking about it. So it’s not a conspiracy thing. When someone is openly talking about it, it’s not conspiracy.

Ryan: Well, it’s the same type of thing with the cashless, where we’re going with cashless, where basically all central banks will control every transaction that takes place and all that’s crazy conspiracy theory? Well, if it is, why is the Bank of International Settlements gloating about the fact that very soon they will be able to track and control every transaction in the entire world? Why is the Federal Reserve talking about it? Why is the Bank of England talking about it? Why did the World Economic Forum put out a white paper on cashless society? Why is it that that factors in very heavily into the great reset? Because it’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s where the powers that shouldn’t be, central banks, the wealthy elite, that’s where they want to go because they need to control the system and much as Hilaire Belloc predicted, in The Servile State, say what you will about Belloc’s critique of capitalism, whatever. But what he says about where capitalism is going to go is that it will get to the point where it simply can’t sustain itself. Its lowered the wages of its own workers so low, and it’s trying to protect certain areas of its markets by off shoring that somewhere else. Now it can’t deal with that anymore. Now it can’t deal with paying higher wages and keeping the class that owns all the capital to be allowed to continue to own all the capital. So what’s going to happen is they’re going to have to restore the servile state, and then you have socialism, which pretends to solve all these problems, but it’s just a shortcut that brings you to the servile state faster. So in the end, what you get is what the World Economic Forum is boasting. That they want to see is a world where you owe nothing. All cash is digital, and you are basically asleep. You are paid to do whatever they determine you’re going to do, and I don’t know what they’re going to do once all the robots take over and you don’t have a job anymore.

Steve: We saw that. John Connor never defeated Skynet.

Father: Well by then we’ll have universal basic income, which is, by the way, is a violation of the principle that Christ laid down. If you don’t work, you don’t eat.

Steve: Father is there any books on vaccines?

Father: Yes, there was one that was just put out literally days ago by Pamela Acker called…. (Remind me, Steve, what it is again)

Steve: Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective

Father: Yes, I’ve started to take an initial look at it, and everything in there is very solid, both from a scientific and even from a moral point of view. So that’s one of them I would really recommend. Also recommend people going to The Children of God for Life because they’re one of the few that are still trying to argue against the Pontifical Academy of Life that, no, you still can’t use these. So I think they’re doing good work there, too.

Ryan: Could we do one more question, Steve?

Steve: Yeah. Go for it.

Ryan: Okay. I,ve just got a frame it in the right way so we don’t get in trouble. So Pope Francis, in a tweet about a month ago, said that we need to work to make sure vaccinations are available for all. So it’s abundantly clear that the pope thinks getting a vaccination is a good thing. I don’t know how much he’s actually looked into the issue or hasn’t, frankly. What would you say to Catholics who would say, “well, look, the pope says that we should get it and the experts he’s put in place said that it’s perfectly fine, So why should I listen to this”.

Father: I think there’s two reasons. One is that by him making that statement, that they should make it available. That’s not – he’s not speaking ex cathedra. He’s not speaking even within his domain of competence. He should simply say that a vaccination, when it’s morally licit, should generally be available to those people who run grave risk, basing it on moral principles. In other words, his job is to state the moral principles and state how they’re generally applied and leave it alone. It’s up to the scientists to determine other things. So I think that he’s kind of, in my own opinion, he’s stepping out of his domain in that regard. He’s free to do so, but it’s basically the opinion of a private individual in the end, and in that regard and with the relationship to the Pontifical Academy for Life, because they’re not part of the Magisterium in the statements they make, or just merely that on the level of a theologian., then basically, then it’s really a question of, well, other theologians and other things. And so the topic is still open legitimately to discussion. I think that the discussion when this follows strong Catholic principles is pretty clear to me, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be clear to other people. And so I think the discussions is going to have to be ongoing. So I don’t think just because the pope has said it, just because these people have said, I don’t think that ends the discussion primarily because of the fact that they haven’t parsed it out as clearly as necessary on the moral principles. If they would have done that, I think it would have been, even though there was a fair amount even in the protocol that the Pontifical Academy for Life put out, there is a fair amount of it, but it still was not as detailed and as tightly argued as it needed to be. And I think it’s precisely because of that, that there’s still questions about it. And I think that their, as I mentioned in the beginning of this interview, their application, I think, is open to question. So it has to do with the circumstances.

Steve: I know the book for everybody to get for Christmas. Magisterial Authority.

Father: Well, there you go. There you go. So and also the binding force of tradition because both of those books, if you take those two together, I’m thinking of just putting them together and having it over with. If you put those two books together, it actually gives you a coherent picture of when you have to believe what the Magisterium says, when you must give assent to it, when you don’t, what degree of authority. Ryan and I have been talking about this. We need to do an interview on the theological notes, because that’s something that’s completely misunderstood by people because they basically think, well, if the pope doesn’t speak ex cathedra then I could just just dismiss him. Well, no, there’s other levels here, and you have to analyze them. And that’s why I said here that his opinion in relationship with those things is the same as somebody speaking as a private individual. Which doesn’t mean that it has less of a theological note, so to speak. So but that’s why I would recommend that, that people have a better understanding of what you’re required to give assent to when they make these statements. And I’m sure at some point, someone’s going accuse me of disobeying the pope because I didn’t follow the Pontifical Academy of Life. And that’s just the type of criticism I get from people who don’t know proper distinctions, basically.

Steve: Father, we appreciate your time. Ryan, thank you, as well, for joining in, and can we get a final blessing before you head off.

Transcript provided by WQPH