No Covid amnesty for bishops, theologians, et al., either

In her infuriating and ignobly equivocal article in The Atlantic, Let's Declare a Pandemic Amnesty, Emily Oster hides her own culpability* in lockdown matters by begging for universal amnesty, so that we can "try to work together to build back and move forward." 

"In April 2020, no one got the coronavirus from passing someone else hiking. Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare. Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway. But the thing is: We didn’t know."

We knew, Emily. And we tried to tell you. Ask yourself what happened to our voices.

"When the vaccines came out, we lacked definitive data on the relative efficacies of the Johnson & Johnson shot versus the mRNA options from Pfizer and Moderna." 

With this anodyne statement, hopefully trying to cast the "sides" as equally culpable, as if one side were not in power, silencing and harming the other, Oster fails to mention further developments warned against by honest questioners, at great cost to themselves and their reputations, that the lockdowns and shots would prove to be devastating (the real, if soft-pedaled, meaning of the quote above).

For many reasons, not least having to do with how much we let ourselves know in the future, we should not move on, despite this transparent effort from a now-spooked ruling class to impute bad motives to those they attacked and harmed, hoping to evade a reckoning.

But there's another class of experts who also must not be allowed to fade into the background. 

And that is Catholic authorities and experts who followed those in the government and the media who now say "we didn't know" -- but who at the time were obviously silencing discussion (let alone criticism).

These Catholics insisted on following calls to mask and vaccinate, using religious authority, theological arguments, and the virtue of obedience to harm persons, families, and consciences. 

This group includes various bishops' conferences, bishops, vicar generals, pastors, parish administrators, theologians, and ethicists, not to mention random pundits, columnists, and podcasters. Many are left-leaning, politically, but some are conservative and even quite traditional. 

All abdicated their duty to defend personal autonomy and bodily integrity, as well as justice and right reason. 

Astoundingly, this cohort, this unholy cabal, ratcheted up fear and shut down our churches. Oh, some of them may have not wished to go that far, but their complicity in one or more aspects of the regime undermined their discomfort.

On a matter of utter prudential judgement on medical and social matters -- the Covid response -- that required information and only then, consent, by the persons in question, these religious experts and authorities abused their position and the respect accorded to them by the helpless faithful, and presumed to make judgements about matters outside their proper sphere of providing teaching of objective principle. 

They pompously rejected or provided the pretext for rejecting religious (really, conscience) exemptions from tormented people, their brothers and sisters in Christ. (My husband Phil Lawler wrote a book about all this: Contagious Faith - affiliate link.) 

Never will I forget images of children sitting at desks, once school did reopen, swathed in plastic, masked, behind plexiglass -- for the cowardice of our moral leaders. 

Many young people missed meeting their best friend or spouse; are now drug-addicted; many committed suicide. Many families lost a loved one and did not have the opportunity to say goodbye or comfort them in their last hours. 

For these Covid fellow-travelers, too, who enabled all this, there ought to be a tribunal and a requirement for apology and reparation. I don't know what that tribunal would be. Let their consciences accuse them.

The important point I want to emphasize in this matter of "moving on" is that the harm is not all in the past. The economy is in tatters (with the fallout being borne by the truly poor, near and far away). So is the Church (ditto). 

Fathers of families still are without jobs and pay, anguished and burdened by their means of provision and protection being taken away. Mothers are still traumatized by not being heard, by giving birth wearing a mask and alone, by being kept inside with young children who needed to go outside. Children have been subjected to loss of education, friendship, and well being (including physical well being, as immune systems are weakened by lockdown). Children in some places still wear a mask. Many of us can't go to the doctor without one (though I won't wear it).

Even today, the fearful wear masks outside or while driving alone, their psyches permanently scarred. 

I can't even go through the whole list of wrongs and evils -- it's too long. And it's not over.

But anyone in the Catholic Church who went along with lockdowns, vaccine mandates, masking, and/or social (and religious!) pressure ought to be ashamed. All along, we told them how it would end. Now even the ones who tried to suppress the truth see that it's coming out. Will they too ask for amnesty without any sign of repentance? For shame.

The hidden reason Roe fell

This article by Suzan Sammons is exactly right! Covid Jabs Revealed Hidden Pro-life Heroes

There are so many heroes of the pro-life movement -- some we know well, some we do not know. My own dear husband, Phil Lawler, was arrested when we had five small children (I think it was five then... ) and became the object of a federal RICO suit. 

Phil even wrote a book about the largest civil rights movement ever in our country, the one you never heard of (both the movement and the book): Operation Rescue, a Challenge to the Nation's Conscience. 

Our friend Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue leader, spent 18 months in prison for a misdemeanor in his efforts for the unborn. That was so long ago that most pro-life activists today would hardly recognize his name. Joan Andrews spend that long in solitary confinement -- solitary confinement -- for her peaceful witness in saving the unborn. 

But Suzan is correct when she says:

As much gratitude as I have for the pro-life leaders—the big names—who inspired me and guided me in my pro-life work, I am proudest of you hidden heroes. You were only revealed by the diabolical process that brought us the Covid vaccines, and few of us know your names. But when the moment of truth came, your convictions withstood the intense pressures of the regime that surrounds us. You stood by those truly nameless little ones whose only voice is ours.

Finally, after years and decades of some (but not all) pro-lifers trying to tell people that many vaccines use aborted fetal tissue in their development, testing, and production, the truth came out and people had the time -- were forced into having the time -- to read about it. 

As Suzan explains, the extreme Covid lockdowns and unjust pressure to take the jab are to thank for the awakening of a solid portion of our population to the ugly reality of our medical system's reliance on the death of countless unborn babies. 

Those who were awakened took a costly stand in many cases.

Everyone whose heart was truly with the unborn quickly realized the moral problem presented by the Covid vaccines. With their release coming at the same time as ever-increasing and horrifying revelations about the use of fetal tissue, many individuals had simply had enough. 

Sure, they’d prayed for an end to abortion, they’d gone to the March for Life for years, they were dedicated to supporting their local pregnancy care centers, they’d voted pro-life, boycotted the right companies, and stood up for life in debates with their friends or family. But now their beliefs were going to really cost them. They were going to lose their jobs—or in some cases their whole careers. They were not going to be able to go to their chosen college. They would not be able to visit their aging parents. The rubber met the road. 

And we passed the test. A pharmacist was fired because he refused to administer the vaccine…A hospital insurance processor took an entry level job in a new field to get out of the healthcare industry… A 30-year veteran teacher was forced out of her school system…A priest was willing to sign religious exemptions in spite of pressure not to do so…A breadwinner of a large family risked his job rather than comply with a vaccine mandate…A career military dad had to leave the Air Force without his benefits because of his refusal to take the jab…

And these real life examples? Multiply them by thousands. 

Finally, many did what is the only thing one can do, when moderate theological arguments fail and hope for gradual change runs out, when bishops refuse to witness (with a few exceptions) and people lose interest or succumb to what they see as the exigencies of normal life (school and sports participation, for instance). In the lockdown shakeup of everyday life, in the midst of fear, with all normality vanished, it was the ultimatum of all the so-called experts to submit that made enough people say, "I'm just not going to go along with this any more. There is no way I will take that shot. It's just wrong."

I do give credit to and must name one clergyman (and husband and father, as he is a Melkite), who spoke out in a compelling way before the lockdowns, when the political pressure for mandated vaccines was looming, and that is Fr. Michael Copenhagen. 

At a rally in 2019, in a brief but stirring speech, Fr. Copenhagen made the case that in conscience, one cannot go along with immorally derived medical products or the legalistic rationale for accepting them. I believe his clarifying words broke the ground for people to rise up against the Covid vaccines when they were pushed on us.

Fr. Copenhagen was able presciently and boldly to challenge* the prevailing line of acquiescence to immoral products comfortably offered by theologians and adopted by the hierarchy:

For those who argue that participation becomes licit if receiving the vaccine is looked at as a temporary solution to a significant public health danger, they should know that it is not temporary but expanding and that it will be forced regardless of whether it helps public health or not. Public authorities who support public murder cannot be taken seriously as guarantors of public health...

When [Tobit] was mocked by his kinsmen for adherence to these good works and told that his deeds were hopeless, he rebuked them: “Speak not so. For we are the children of saints, and look for that life which God will give to those that never changetheir faith from Him.”3 I remind all those who imitate Tobit’s naysayers and persecutors that the God of heaven and earth is very much alive and very much offended, that He loves each of these murdered and exploited children as His particular creatures, that He will restore life to their bodies in the Resurrection on the last day, rejoining body and soul in these innocents who were denied baptism and the chance to live based on the whim of tinkerers trying to extend our finite years, that He will restore this “biological material” to its rightful place and its rightful owner on that day, and we will all meet these children face to face. 

Suzan says:

In the profound working of God’s unfathomable providence, Roe was overturned on June 24, when the feast of the Sacred Heart of our dear Lord converged with the feast of St. John the Baptist. Overflowing love meets unshakeable moral conviction in these two feasts, and this is no coincidence. 

St. John the Baptist [on whose feast and that of the Sacred Heart Roe was overturned] refused to wink at the sin of Herod, and he publicly called him to repentance. He gave his life to uphold the moral law. You who were willing to sacrifice rather than accept a jab tainted by abortion did likewise. Perhaps you felt your stance was small in the grand scheme of things. I would say that our Lord has shown us otherwise. Your choice was rooted in sacrificial love like that of His own Sacred Heart. He honored that gift—those thousands of gifts from the lifeblood of American pro-lifers. 

Do read Suzan Sammons' whole article -- it's outstanding. 

It's never a waste to follow one's conscience. In fact, it's required of us. In this case, we were given the grace to see the outcome in a big way: the final toppling of the most deadly court case our nation has ever known. 

The Path Out

In case anyone cares what a housewife in Central Massachusetts thinks about war in Ukraine, I will say, I don't know.

I know that I am scarred by the total collapse of trust and honor in the news. On the one hand, disinformation, lack of trust. On the other, controlled opposition, designed to entrap the unsuspecting.

Meanwhile, here we are in the middle, in the dark, being asked to support rationalizations that could lead to WWIII and facing serious issues here at home while waiting for things to simmer down. And no, I don't think it's embarrassing to question how our standard of living suddenly tanked while some people in the world are facing worse. First, that disparity will always be true (whichever side of it we are on at the moment -- one entity's suffering is not cause for discounting the suffering of another, and it's possible that they are connected); second, it won't help anyone if we Americans are plunged into using our mental energy to cope with drastic changes in our day-to-day lives for no reason. 

Prescinding from the question (a real one) of whether our prosperity was well derived and stewarded in the first place, the fact remains that there is something that doesn't ring true about its manner of being disrupted, with the inevitable burden on the poor, and the new crisis that we are virtually unilaterally being forced to sign on to, now that the old one has lost its grip. 

That's all I've got. There's something not right about all of it. 

Early articles to help with critical thinking while the information is being sorted out (if that ever happens), chosen with the hope of avoiding the two pitfalls, mentioned above. I don't claim that they do more than say, "I don't know!" with a healthy dose of "we must 'preach Christ and Him crucified'":

The Ukraine Mess: Points to ponder about narratives, criteria, possible responses by Fr. Jerry Pokorsky -- an outline, not an academic investigation, but important nonetheless. Just war criteria are not abstract idealisms but common-sense guides for prudent action, and as such, important to have in mind.

You'll need to have your sarcasm meter on for these; Jones and Zmirak are not endorsing, they are describing; Warren is observing and giving the only possible prescription:

Russia is Mordor, but the West is Sodom by Jason Jones and John Zmirak

The Path Out by David Warren

 As I read more, I will share more. 

University of Chicago students push back

It's very heartening to read this strong statement from students at the University of Chicago: Editorial: UChicago Must End Its Booster Mandate—We Are Not Lab Rats.

Sound logic, airing of facts, and exposé of hypocrisy (doctors and scientists at UC are exempt from the mandates imposed on the students!) characterize this editorial. I urge you to read the whole thing.

I hope students everywhere use it as a template for their own resistance. 

Have vaccines always been mandated?

Just a note about this truism going around, that there is nothing unusual in mandating vaccines for 100% of the population -- in part because I think a lot of men have seized on it, and men aren't the ones to take the kids to the doctor to get their shots. Most men leave those things to their wives, and everyone is very busy and forgets how things actually were. Or perhaps we are getting used to being told what the past was like, instead of consulting our own memories and experience.

I am here to tell you that it is not true. Not everyone got all the shots -- and brace yourself: the doctor did recommend shots but also answered questions, and the assumption was that informed consent was the basis for proceeding. If mom said no, it was no.

The situation with vaccines changed quite a bit -- and not without some careful orchestration that in hindsight looks rather fishy -- around ten years ago. I don't have the time to pull out all the threads, but I will say that as the nomination process for both parties' presidential races got going, in that 2015-16 season, suddenly ridicule for "anti-vaxxers" which had been simmering came to a boil on social media (especially on Twitter); those who questioned the rising insistence on children getting every shot on the prescribed schedule were called out for being nutty leftists (which some of them undoubtedly were, far out of proportion to their numbers). 

It was odd, because most parents just went along getting most vaccines. But not all parents were getting all vaccines; many who were not at all liberal but more conservative were simply making quiet observations and deciding they didn't trust the government with their children's health (see this post -- the 60 Minutes segment from 1972 is of particular interest). And this new awareness made statists on both sides of the political spectrum go insane with the desire to impose their will in this matter, which surely they knew very little about. Most of the talking points and online rants seemed to be written by young staffers wet behind the collar and without much in the way of epidemiology credentials or for that matter, experience in taking children to the pediatrician.

That was when, as I say, things flared up (but not in a random, disorganized way) with some provocateurs on the Right calling for parents who refused to vaccinate their children to have them taken away (as one Op-Ed in USA Today screeched) and tweeting "Vaccinate your damn kids." The word had gone out and the talking-point (really, just talking-slogan) push was on. There seemed to be a larger agenda, but it was hard to pinpoint what it could be. 

All this coincided with a steep increase in something that had been going on for some time: insurance companies demanding that doctors treat patients according to their, the companies', actuarial policies rather than how we usually assume it happens, on a one-on-one medical basis. Schedules set by the manufacturers had become the norm, and people probably mostly don't realize that their physicians' medical practices had begun to take incentives from the insurance companies to vaccinate children fully and on their schedules. They were -- and are -- getting money for shots.

The first step in this effort was to say that doctors, as medical experts, not parents, knew what was best for the child. This reversed the practice in place, for the physician to inform the parent, who made the decision. It bears repeating that what was unsaid was that the doctors were being leaned on by the insurance companies, who got their information from the vaccine manufacturers as to when the shots were to be given and how often.

The next step is important for you to understand. It was for the state to begin taking the decision-making process away from doctors; the next few years saw an increase in initiatives to move the whole vaccination program over to the states' boards of health; to put bureaucrats, not doctors, and certainly not parents, in charge. Here in Massachusetts, citizens have had to beat back on a regular basis a bill to give these board of health bureaucrats the power to vaccinate minors (not defined) without parental consent or even knowledge.

But back when mom took baby into the pediatrician's office, there was a discussion between them about many factors regarding the little one's care. And this is what I really hope sticks in your mind, although I suppose it's quixotic of me to think that a little post here would have any effect on the banding-about of these talking points: it really did happen. The doctor really did explain what the shot was, although in my memory there was never a discussion about possible side effects, apart from being told to expect a fever and a sore arm. And there was never any inquiry into harm that came afterwards, but observation is what started to make some more wary.

Take it from me, though. It's hard to believe, but there was a time when informed consent really was a thing. Remember too that there were far fewer vaccines. This chart leaves out the main years that my children were going to the doctor's office under my supervision, but you get the idea.

Even though, as I look back, I see that the drug companies were covering up harms they were causing, the alert parent had a choice. And the vaccines that were mandated were still few. The others were recommended. (By the way, as far as I know, although each individual vaccine has been tested extensively, they have never been tested all together -- but that is how they are given, with the prospect of a massive "one dose" shot containing all the vaccines the child supposedly needs at a given point.)

I personally had discussions with my children's pediatrician over which ones to take and which ones to leave. I had a say about the schedule. I wasn't berated if I chose to wait or to leave one or more off. It was a decision that I made and he respected.

He then filled out a card saying which ones my child had received. And that was that. Although we did homeschool, we didn't start out doing so. Some of our kids went to public school and some to private school. The respective school accepted the record provided. Had there been any sort of dispute, I could have invoked a religious exemption, which probably should have been called a medical freedom exemption, but who was to know that the state would become wedded in this way to the giant corporations that now run our medical institutions. Well, I suppose we should have known...

It's just not honest to compare Covid vaccine mandates with those of the past (and for that matter, to compare previous vaccines to the substance given for Covid, which is only called a vaccine because the definition has been changed to suit it -- changed within the past few months). For starters, consider that the vast majority of adults do not receive any boosters for their childhood vaccines (barring an injury that might lead to a tetanus shot). So the truth is that most adults walk around lacking immunization, natural or otherwise, for all these supposedly dire diseases. Even tuberculosis, a highly contagious and deadly disease, is not normally vaccinated for. If you go to the ER, no one is going to require that you have a TB vaccination. I cannot recall anyone ever asking me about my vaccination status (other than that tetanus shot).

Until very recently, the state acknowledged the ultimate right of the parent to decide. That's what religious exemptions are all about, but it usually didn't get to that point. The doctor might have imperiously indicated what was going to happen (or the system might just have rolled along), but if the parent (usually the mother) said something or asked a question, he knew that informed consent required that he give way. Don't get me wrong: I don't think many did resist the system. But those who did (and I was one in a moderate, and then more strict, way) really didn't come up against a lot of opposition. 

I just don't want anyone to think that "we've always had these mandates" -- i.e. losing our jobs and even care at a hospital over vaccine status -- because that is just not true.

Janet Smith on the fake theology of vaccine promoters in the Church

If you're attacked (and yes, it's an attack) by someone in the Church to accept the Covid vaccines against your will, I urge you to read Janet Smith's article: The Fake Theology behind Vaccine Mandates. Janet recently retired from the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. Her impressive academic credentials don't prevent her from writing a spirited and readable essay!

She rightly observes that most arguments rely on authority, not good reasoning. But what authority? The most important point she makes is that the decision to accept or reject a medical procedure is a prudential one. 

Therefore, such prudential decisions cannot be made under authority -- no authority can do more than simply offer principles. The principles in the case of the Covid vaccines tend more towards rejecting them than accepting them -- but that is my determination and opinion. Yours might be different. In the matter of a particular treatment, one must decide for oneself (or for one's children or other legal dependents).

Prof. Smith considers it deceptive that those urging vaccination, (and even, incredibly, approving of or enabling mandates), though they rest their argument on authority, fail to cite the most authoritative statement to this effect: "At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary." (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Note on the Morality of Using Some Anti-Covid-19 Vaccines)  

However, as she points out: "None of these documents, however, have the degree of magisterial authority to require assent; they are all low-level documents or non-magisterial statements that cannot impose obligations on Catholics."

"Lumen Gentium 25 [cited as authority for getting the vaccines] cannot possibly apply: so far as I know, no respectable theologian has ever claimed that the authority of the papal magisterium extends to whether or not an individual should get a vaccine, any vaccine, let alone an experimental vaccine. The Holy Father is not an expert on the health risks of a virus or the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and even if he were, again, papal authority does not extend to such matters."

Her whole argument should be read by everyone and shared widely with pastors and others pushing vaccines and mandates on the faithful.

I would like to add a few notes of my own:

1. Among other prudential considerations, the implications are obviously dire if we acquiesce to the power of the state to force a medical procedure on the populace, particularly one that infringes on bodily integrity, including even a passive acceptance of other institutions (corporations, schools, medical facilities, and so on) making the procedure a condition of participation. 

In this case the procedure is touted as life-saving (something questionable even by the authorities' own metrics and definitions, which change daily) Even the vaccines' manufacturers claim no more than that they will alleviate symptoms -- not that they will prevent death or even transmission), and they do carry significant risks. 

In another case the procedure could be overtly life-threatening. It's already established, and scandalously not opposed by our moral leaders, that children can be taken for an abortion or to be implanted with a contraception without parental consent or knowledge. 

We simply must be aware of where this power has already led and could lead and not be naive about the larger context. 

2. Janet points out:

Yes, the “Note” does speak of the “duty to pursue the common good” but implicitly acknowledges that there may be other ways to protect the common good and also, extremely importantly, that those who have a conscientious objection to vaccines produced from cell lines from aborted fetuses, if they work to protect the vulnerable, need not get a COVID-19 vaccine. [my emphasis]

I must add that the CDF's "Note" overreaches here in imposing an extra responsibility on those refusing the vaccine, as if we don't have positive reasons. Again, these theologians are not medical experts. They are accepting government authority's claims. The burden of protecting the vulnerable falls on all, not only those who do not take the vaccine. 

Everyone must take reasonable precautions such as normal (not obsessive) washing of hands, staying home when sick, and not coughing and sneezing on others. Some have pointed out the considerable evidence that it's the vaccinated who put the vulnerable at risk. This is certainly the case for other (actual) vaccines. It's known (though not widely so) that those receiving certain vaccines are responsible for outbreaks of the very diseases their shots protect against. 

At the same time, no one has the right not to die of natural causes. Life is about assessing risks and making decisions. We would be paralyzed -- and actually end up endangering others -- if we considered ourselves ultimately responsible for risks to others that we can't actually control.

3. Janet points out that those insisting on the vaccines give "no consideration to the fact that people have no obligation to use experimental medicines or procedures. The Declaration on Euthanasia (section 4) makes it clear that patients may use experimental means but that they need not do so if they judge the risk to be too great."

She is right. 

But additionally, it simply has to be stated that one has the right to bodily integrity, and therefore one is not under an obligation to undergo any medical treatment one wishes to avoid. Society may have the right to quarantine a contagious person (but would have to demonstrate the need and be subject to recourse in law). But as far as requiring that someone undergo a procedure such as an injection that violates bodily integrity, no. 

4. Pope Pius XI stated in the encyclical Casti Connubii paragraph 70 the position of the Church in her teaching role: "Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason." 

Anyone claiming to argue from authority in the Catholic Church must grapple with this statement and the larger support of practical wisdom and conscience that the Church has always maintained.

Attention to hygiene

Anent my previous post about Holy Communion on the tongue, and how strange it is that our hierarchy seems to have successfully indoctrinated the majority of the faithful in the hygienic myth that on the hand is safer, and in honor of the new collection of some writings of Fr. Paul Mankowski, SJ (more to come -- one edited by my husband and another by another friend of Father's), I reproduce here in full an email conversation of note*:

From Fr. Mankowski to three friends, circa August 2020:

"Receive this mask as a sign of craven submission, and future docility, before the moral faddisms of profane elitist authority.  May CNN, Disney, and Under Armour, who have begun this work in you, bring it to fulfillment ..."

From me to three friends:

That is a nice effort at parody, but in future I suggest that you try something not so close to reality -- the effect is better. I realize that things in the parody business are getting more difficult, but try harder.

I can't help remembering that some years ago (I've lost track), the sanitizer bottle made its way onto the credence table. Now at our parish (which truly is one of the better ones), there is a bottle on a pedestal -- yes, a small pedestal -- in a few places in front of the sanctuary and at the entries.

We call this "organic development of liturgy" and "authentic inculturation."

The sanitizing of the celebrants' hands is a nice addition, as is the paten with the hosts to be distributed placed some inches away from the main one, and the positioning of the concelebrant 6 feet away from the altar (specifics are on file at the diocesan offices). **

I heard last night from a friend that in his diocese (Joliet?), Communion was distributed through a slot in the plexiglass -- it made it difficult but not impossible! for him to receive on the tongue...

Future historians and archeologists will have a fine time documenting all of this when the remains of our faith are dug up...

 

From Fr. Mankowski to three friends: 

I can't help remembering that some years ago (I've lost track), the sanitizer bottle made its way onto the credence table.

When you think of how many hundreds of millions of hosts were placed on hundreds of millions of tongues in Catholic churches, the practice itself should have long served as an epidemiological benchmark -- from the very beginning of epidemiology, in fact -- if transmission of disease thereby ever reached the faintest statistically measurable level.  Given the attention to hygiene of the average priest over the past centuries, the insignificance of the morbidity stats points, if anything, to the miraculous properties of the consecrated host. 

*Sorry for the shock value that readers might find herein, but Fr. M was not a tame servant of the Lion. 

**For Fr. M's parody of this careful, Covid-aware placement of the paten, go here.

Catching up with Covid-related links

Some news items and analysis you might not have seen:

• Contrary to what you might have heard, that there have been "recent increased hospitalization rates" in children, those rates have, by the CDC's own data, decreased by 61% since April (and were very low to begin with). "A smaller subset of states reported on hospitalizations and mortality by age; the available data indicate that COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death is uncommon in children. At this time, it still appears that severe illness due to COVID-19 is rare among children."

• Where did the virus originate? 

• What do Dr. Fauci's emails reveal so far?

• Is the jab causing bleeding and miscarriage? 

• Is the Second Shot Giving Young Men a Dangerous Heart Condition? and before you say "that's anecdotal" or "correlation does not prove causation," let's just remember that the shot is experimental and thus the effects by definition will be anecdotal until studied. That's how studies come about: someone observes effects and then studies them. Shockingly, the jabs are handed out willy-nilly. (I read one news report months ago that mentioned a specialized freezer breaking down and nurses going out on the streets to find people to give the shot to before it expired!) There is clearly very little follow-up, nor is there screening done beforehand. 

• Relatedly: Highly cited COVID doctor comes to stunning conclusion: Gov’t ‘scrubbing unprecedented numbers’ of injection-related deaths. "McCullough holds the honor of being the most cited medical doctor on COVID-19 treatments at the National Library of Medicine, with more than 600 citations. He has testified before Congress and won numerous awards during his distinguished medical career."

• Evidence that the studies have been "unblinded."

How the CDC is manipulating data to prop-up “vaccine effectiveness”

I doubt many would get the vaccine if they didn't think it was necessary to live normally (vs. necessary to escape infection). Yesterday I learned of another elderly person who died after receiving the Pfizer jab. Apparently, what is not well known is that acute appendicitis is the leading side effect, and that indeed is what she died of, in a miserable and drawn-out way. 

So what do we think of this new development: How the CDC is manipulating data to prop-up “vaccine effectiveness”? 

The trick is in their reporting of what they call “breakthrough infections” – that is people who are fully “vaccinated” against Sars-Cov-2 infection, but get infected anyway.

Essentially, Covid19 has long been shown – to those willing to pay attention – to be an entirely created pandemic narrative built on two key factors:

False-postive tests. The unreliable PCR test can be manipulated into reporting a high number of false-positives by altering the cycle threshold (CT value)

Inflated Case-count. The incredibly broad definition of “Covid case”, used all over the world, lists anyone who receives a positive test as a “Covid19 case”, even if they never experienced any symptoms.

Without these two policies, there would never have been an appreciable pandemic at all, and now the CDC has enacted two policy changes which means they no longer apply to vaccinated people.

Really, tell me (the CDC link is here, on which this analysis is based). I don't pretend to be able to interpret these things with any particular expertise. But I do think that there is something not above-board about the way the vaccine has been presented. The book The Price of Panic (affiliate link) details the issue of first, the models used to predict the pandemic and secure support for policies (or at least silence criticism) and second, the testing used to shore it all up. Now that we are well in the vaccine phase of our national and global ordeal, I think we need to start asking hard questions about how the data are presented.

Some legitimate information that's being withheld

My friend Leila Miller has put together some important pieces that need to be looked into regarding the pandemic's origins, Dr. Fauci's role, the responses, and Bill Gates: Maybe We Are Not Angry Enough. Please go to LeilaMiller.net* to read this post. 

It's no good calling every question a conspiracy theory and then dismissing it. We have to be informed. I suggest taking the time to go through each aspect (article, video) that she includes in this post and look at the sources, not just the claims.

Is gain of function research inherently dangerous? What is Dr. Fauci's connection to the Wuhan lab and to the pandemic? Who is Bill Gates? What are his connections to every single global health care initiative and institution? What are his connections to major media outlets? 

Read the whole thing at LeilaMiller.net* (and read or watch the embedded things!).

*I have removed the link to Leila's post because I think it was causing my site here to be flagged as dangerous (for "ads that are misleading or potential phishing" -- which obviously her post is not, nor does my site have ads). We will see if the problem is remedied. But I really do urge you to take the time to copy and paste her URL and go read for yourself! 

Important information about rights and conscience

Covid-related action items that I wanted to put in one place. I may update if other statements become available. If you have something to share, please let me know, either in the comments or by emailing me at LMLDblog@gmail.com.

These links might be informative and/or useful; even if you don't agree with me, you might, as a fair-minded person, want to understand where those who are resistant to the mainstream narrative are coming from:

• A detailed and thorough explanation of why the measures imposed in the Catholic Church in Grand Rapids, MI, are inappropriate, from a spiritual and liturgical point of view. Rather than or in addition to signing it, consider talking to friends and sending something similar to your own bishop if it is applicable.

• Can you be required to take the Covid vaccine? No, because it is classified as experimental, among other things. Legal information.

• Has enough information about the vaccines been released rise to the standard of informed consent?

• A statement about the morality of vaccines, embedded in this informative article by Stacy Trasancos. Please sign to safeguard the conscience of your neighbor.

Lockdowns don't save lives, they lose them

Important points from Deaths and Lockdowns, by John Tierney, a contributing editor of City Journal, a contributing science columnist for the New York Times, and coauthor of The Power of Bad: How the Negativity Effect Rules Us and How We Can Rule It.

I'm summarizing and condensing here, but read the whole thing:

Excess mortality rose among older Americans because of Covid-19, but it rose at an even sharper rate among people aged 15 to 54, and most of those excess deaths were not attributed to the virus.

We don't hear very much about all of this; many of us know people who got Covid and recovered; many of us know people who died this past year without receiving the medical care they would have the year before. These observations are anecdotal, to be sure, but you wouldn't think that during what seems to be a plague if you listen to the media, it would be the case. 

The deadly impact of lockdowns will grow in future years. The United States will experience more than 1 million excess deaths in the United States during the next two decades as a result of the massive “unemployment shock” last year, according to a team of researchers from Johns Hopkins and Duke, who analyzed the effects of past recessions on mortality.

Other researchers, noting how educational levels affect income and life expectancy, have projected that the “learning loss” from school closures will ultimately cost this generation of students more years of life than have been lost by all the victims of the coronavirus...

The lockdowns may also have saved some lives, but there’s still no good evidence. The more restrictive the state, the higher the unemployment rate. But there’s no pattern in the rate of Covid-19 mortality. International comparisons yield similar results. One shows that countries with more stringent lockdowns tend to have slightly higher levels of Covid-19 mortality. Another suggests that European countries with stricter lockdowns have performed worse economically while also suffering higher rates of excess mortality...

It seems intuitively obvious that lockdowns would save lives by reducing social interactions and therefore the spread of the virus, but there are other consequences...

Sweden’s cumulative death toll per capita from Covid-19 is now slightly below the European Union’s average and about 20 percent lower than America’s... 

Before you get your knickers in a twist about Sweden, read the lengthy paragraphs supporting the conclusion.

Basically, lockdowns and mandates have hurt us and the push for vaccines will only compound the hurt: 

If a corporation behaved this way, continuing knowingly to sell an unproven drug or medical treatment with fatal side effects, its executives would be facing lawsuits, bankruptcy, and criminal charges. But the lockdown proponents are recklessly staying the course, still insisting that lockdowns work. The burden of proof rests with those imposing such a dangerous policy, and they haven’t met it. There’s still no proof that lockdowns save any lives—let alone enough to compensate for the lives they end.

 

 

Statement of conscience, to awaken conscience

 I urge you to read (and click through to sign if you agree that conscience must be protected) this statement on the morality of Covid vaccines.

It's disheartening to see fellow people of good will acquiesce to the premise of the vaccines -- that the situation is grave and warrants such a response, and that a morally tainted response is the right one. 

Statement of Conscience to Awaken Conscience (when you click through you will also see embedded links to support statements)

“Abortion has become the greatest destroyer of peace, because it destroys 

two lives, the life of the child and the conscience of the mother.” 

Mother Teresa of Calcutta (1988)

“She is the human and sacred image; all around her the social fabric

shall sway and split and fall; the pillars of society shall be shaken, and the 

roofs of ages come rushing down, and not one hair of her head shall be harmed.”

G.K. Chesterton, What’s Wrong with the World

We the undersigned, men and women in solidarity with the weakest among us, wish to respond publicly to what appears to be a growing consensus among Catholic ethicists that vaccines derived from aborted fetal tissue are not only morally permissible (licit), but also (nearly) morally obligatory for the sake of the common good. Examples include, among others, this statement organized by EPPC, the steady position of the Catholic Health Association (CHA), and a December statement of the USCCB which says that receiving the (abortion-tainted) COVID-19 vaccine “should be considered...part of our moral responsibility for the common good.” These statements are troubling to us, and seem to run afoul of our rights of conscience to refuse such vaccines, clearly defended by the Church, in Dignitas Personae (CDF 2008) and Note on the morality of using some Covid-19 vaccines (CDF 2020). We now fear the circling of the wagons around abortion-tainted vaccines, advanced by powerful voices which seem ready to silence our moral intuitions. 

We resist this “consensus” being foisted upon us as morally repugnant: we do not wish to benefit from abortion. We deplore the lack of moral imagination displayed by public health officials, politicians, and all those who disregard the natural disgust felt by persons who wish to remain separate from the crime of abortion in every way possible. And we lament a “soulless scientism” that fails to account for the unique dignity of the human person and the role of suffering in human life.

We are puzzled and pained by the lack of reasonable skepticism which pro-life persons ought to show for the scientific-industrial complex (SIC). A distortion of medical and scientific standards so often accompanies questionable ethical practices, and a “science” which denies life inevitably takes life. Consequently, there are many reasons why a person may feel duty-bound to avoid these vaccines besides religious conviction, such as the experimental nature of them (FDA “emergency use”) and the unknown effects, especially on children and pregnant women. 

We hereby urge, by our witness and testimony, that people who agree with us—and also those who disagree but who admire our stance, and who wish to defend our right to hold it—join together to claim the freedom in conscience to refuse vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines.

“There is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems,” wrote the Pontifical Academy for Life in 2005, in guidance confirmed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; abortion-tainted vaccines create a ”context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience.” Indeed, many of us have spent decades trying to resist the abortion-tainted varicella and MMR vaccines, which were produced in the same compromised way, meeting resistance everywhere, being ‘fired’ by our physicians, and opposed even by leaders of our own churches. Many Catholic schools even require students to obtain the morally objectionable vaccines in order to attend.

These failures make us now question whether earlier capitulations (on the grounds that there was ‘no alternative’) were the right courses of action. The threats grow by the moment. Even now, there is pending legislation which would allow children the right to consent to vaccines without parental knowledge. Such a policy has implications far beyond the present crisis. We wish to call attention to the unintended consequences of a ‘soft opposition’ of words and not of deeds. Coercion in these and other matters hostile to life is coming.   

We are told there is nearly ubiquitous use of HEK-293 cells in the scientific and medical industry. If this is so, we take it to be evidence of structures of sin surrounding abortion. We invite (and call upon our lawmakers to require) all product manufacturers to reveal publicly and label their use of these cells, so that we can go forward avoiding such products. More has been done to resist animal cruelty and the use of genetically modified organisms than to resist the benefiting from the murder of a child. (The very same papers which report tests of vaccines using HEK-293 cells take pains in their disclosures to say that no animals were mistreated in the course of their research!) We lament that we have been led to use compromised products and medicines in the past without knowledge. Let all that has been hidden be brought into the light. 

We find insufficient the accounts of moralists who lean on casuistical distinctions, originally designed to analyze private action in a Christian society, when we are crushed by a public edifice determined to protect the so-called ‘right to abortion’, and determined in addition to benefit from its byproducts in many ways beyond the current (and previous) vaccines. We know that trafficking in aborted fetal body parts exists and amounts to an industry. The acceptance of the use of tissues derived in the past does have implications for incentivizing this industry. While no attention is given to the truth about human life in the public square, and while academia, the media, and elite institutions remain in the grips of a “culture of death,” we believe a more radical public witness is needed today.

We remember the holy mother in 2 Maccabees, a type of Our Lady, who urged her sons to resist violating God's law even if it meant their death, saying, "Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws.” We expect great public good to arise if her example of witness to higher goods and God’s sovereignty inspires our actions today. The march of science, the treatments it pursues, the political incentives it responds to, are none of them are immune from moral witness. Without our courage we fear that pinches of incense will continue to be extracted from us, rendering us insensitive to what should cause our indignation, sorrow, and determination to change. 

The abortions from which the cell lines are derived are said to be so “remote” as to be like roads constructed by slave laborers hundreds of years ago. Surely remoteness is a judgment in conscience. How “remote” is a cell line connected by continuous life with the murdered child? How “remotely” long ago is the abortion of a child who would be only 50 years old today? It is urged, as if it mattered, that the abortions were not carried out in order to create the cell lines—and yet the tissue of the aborted child (which no lab scientist had authority to use) did not miraculously give rise to cell lines but instead was manipulated deliberately, precisely in order to create the cell lines. Therefore, the use of these cell lines exactly corresponds to and complements the depraved intention to create them.

“Protect unborn man from born man!” St. John Paul II exhorted us. We live in a world divided into a Way of Life and a Way of Death. The Way of Death is this: born man subordinates unborn man to himself, for his own advantage. The Way of Life is this: born man unwaveringly and resolutely protects unborn man, even to his own disadvantage. To which culture do we wish to belong? With which do we identify? “What does it profit a man to gain his life but lose his soul?”

We therefore urge our ethicists to resist a premature “consensus” about abortion-tainted SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We insist on our freedom of conscience in this matter, to witness to life as we judge we are being called to do.  We also urge a reconsideration of earlier “consensus” views about previous abortion-tainted vaccines. And we urge a public reckoning as regards every secret use of these cells derived from an abortion. 

We reiterate in closing: even if, as a matter of general principles, it is not always morally illicit to use such abortion-tainted vaccines temporarily, in extreme necessity, and even then under strenous protest, the use of such vaccines must never be advanced as mandatory, or as a universal duty.  Because some of us in conscience believe that we are called to refuse to take them.

St. Gianna Beretta Molla, pray for us!

Signed by,

Catherine Ruth Pakaluk, Ph.D. 

The Catholic University of America

Washington, DC

[Corresponding Author: pakalukc@cua.edu]

And by,

Stacy Ann Trasancos, Ph.D.

St. Philip Institute of Catechesis and Evangelization

Tyler, TX

[Correspondence: strasancos@stphilipinstitute.org]

Michael Pakaluk, Ph.D.

The Catholic University of America

Washington, DC

Jose Luis Trasancos, Ph.D. 

Children of God for Life

Tyler, TX

Most Rev. Bishop Joseph E. Strickland, J.C.L.

Bishop of Tyler

Tyler, TX

Media Inquiries: ysosa@stphilipinstitute.org

Well, it still doesn't make sense

Sen. Rand Paul urges people to trash their masks after getting the vaccine or recovering from the virus itself.

"Paul was responding to a CNN article detailing updated CDC guidance, which now advises that people who have been fully vaccinated can gather with other fully vaccinated individuals but continued to urge caution, including the use of masks in public."

I'm glad he's saying this, baby steps, but it still doesn't make sense, because it implies that one wears a mask to protect oneself, which we have been repeatedly told, nay, been indoctrinated about, will not work.

Unless it does work... in which case, it's up to the person to decide (it is up to the person to decide in any case).

In short, masking is not the magic the CDC (and many of our non-"expert" authorities) say it is (and that is amply borne out by 80 years of research).

So Paul's advice applies to everyone. Just trash the mask and live free.

Do only hypocrites object to testing vaccines using aborted fetal tissue?

Some hold that it is immoral to test vaccines using aborted fetal tissue, and that this moral taint makes it impossible for them to take the vaccine (especially considering that the need for it is not grave).  

One argument against those with this position (not, notice, an argument saying it is moral to test using aborted fetal tissue) is that many if not most of the drugs we use are tested this way.

I have been one of the more aware observers on the issue of aborted fetal cells in the production of medical products. I don't say I'm an expert -- I am not. I just say that I am what could be called a "high-information" reader on the topic.

And I had not known that this was the case. (*see UPDATE below)

I think it safe to say that most people don't know that vaccines or any other medical product is tested (leaving aside other steps) using aborted fetal cells.

Therefore, it is not correct to state or even imply some sort of double standard on the topic. I'd say it's information that is only now becoming known. 

The position that there is some sort of hypocrisy in refusing such vaccines while taking, say, a heart medication is an example of the "tu quoque" logical fallacy. 

You know who indulges in this fallacy on a regular basis? Fr. James Martin, SJ. He often faults Catholic institutions for dismissing employees in "same-sex marriages" on the basis of the same institutions allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to continue to be in their employ.

The two instances (vaccines and irregular unions) differ in this way: No one, as I say, in the general public knew until very recently that most medicines are tested using aborted fetal products, while many Catholic institutions do wink and nod at divorced and remarried couples. 

But in both cases, the appropriate response (and the one that anyone committed to following Our Lord's teachings on the Commandments is ready to give) is simply to conclude that something is also very wrong in the prior case.

We have been too lax in allowing the divorced and remarried to hold positions where they present a bad example and present a scandal, especially to young people. Only a person bent on the destruction of the common good would say, "Oh, right, we've broken God's Commandment in one way, therefore let us go ahead and break it in some other ways as well!"

Likewise, the proper conclusion to draw from this discovery that aborted fetal cells are used broadly in medical production is to begin holding our medical system accountable and to require changes in how medications are tested, derived, and produced -- certainly not to say that our previous ignorance now makes this heinous activity acceptable.

On the contrary. Vaccines represent a challenge, a line we will not cross, when we can call a halt to a practice we oppose. We can seize this opportunity and then begin to address the rest. My husband called for us to do this when we were able, and sadly, the opportunity passed. Nevertheless, better late than never. 

And you know, Providence is actually making it easy for us. We have very little to lose by refusing this vaccine. As far as any risk is concerned, the odds are overwhelmingly in our favor.**

____

*UPDATE: Please read this article by Dr. Brian Kopp to understand how Fr. Matthew Schneider LC uses spurious methods to arrive at the conclusion that most objecting to the aborted fetal tissue use are hypocrites: Not so fast. The Very Misleading Article By a Priest on Drugs And Abortion Testing

"The author simply searched an over the counter or prescription medication name plus “Hek 293” cells and if they came up positively associated in medical or scientific literature, he claimed they too were “ethically tainted” and all us pro lifers had to abandon the use of those drugs too, if we were going to oppose fetal stem cell tainted Covid vaccines on those grounds.

"However, when he researched these medications, he failed to distinguish those that were tested on, developed with and/or manufactured with fetal cells before or during their initial introduction, from those that, for academic reasons, years later were tested on fetal stem cell lines." 

The article goes on to show how most of the medications cited by Fr. Schneider LC do not meet the criterion of taintedness. 

**Manufacturers of the vaccines do not recommend them for those at risk; those not at risk are... not at risk. I'm not going to argue about this, as it's all a matter of record and can be read in their own material (as opposed to the propaganda put out by the so-called experts who have a vested interest in our overlooking what the manufacturers themselves claim for their products). In addition, every medical intervention, including vaccination, carries risks. The key is to evaluate relative risk.

Johns Hopkins Med School Prof: Herd Immunity by April

"Some medical experts privately agreed with my prediction that there may be very little Covid-19 by April but suggested that I not to talk publicly about herd immunity because people might become complacent and fail to take precautions or might decline the vaccine. But scientists shouldn’t try to manipulate the public by hiding the truth. As we encourage everyone to get a vaccine, we also need to reopen schools and society to limit the damage of closures and prolonged isolation. Contingency planning for an open economy by April can deliver hope to those in despair and to those who have made large personal sacrifices."

Dr. Makary is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, chief medical adviser to Sesame Care, and author of “The Price We Pay.”

 

The Wall Street Journal carries a piece today that explains how we will have herd immunity from Covid by April. I hope you can access it.  

Here are some excerpts:

Amid the dire Covid warnings, one crucial fact has been largely ignored: Cases are down 77% over the past six weeks. If a medication slashed cases by 77%, we’d call it a miracle pill. Why is the number of cases plummeting much faster than experts predicted?

In large part because natural immunity from prior infection is far more common than can be measured by testing. Testing has been capturing only from 10% to 25% of infections, depending on when during the pandemic someone got the virus. Applying a time-weighted case capture average of 1 in 6.5 to the cumulative 28 million confirmed cases would mean about 55% of Americans have natural immunity.

Antibody studies almost certainly underestimate natural immunity. Antibody testing doesn’t capture antigen-specific T-cells, which develop “memory” once they are activated by the virus. Survivors of the 1918 Spanish flu were found in 2008—90 years later—to have memory cells still able to produce neutralizing antibodies.

Researchers at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute found that the percentage of people mounting a T-cell response after mild or asymptomatic Covid-19 infection consistently exceeded the percentage with detectable antibodies. T-cell immunity was even present in people who were exposed to infected family members but never developed symptoms. A group of U.K. scientists in September pointed out that the medical community may be under-appreciating the prevalence of immunity from activated T-cells.

Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. would also suggest much broader immunity than recognized. About 1 in 600 Americans has died of Covid-19, which translates to a population fatality rate of about 0.15%. The Covid-19 infection fatality rate is about 0.23%. These numbers indicate that roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population has had the infection.

In my own conversations with medical experts, I have noticed that they too often dismiss natural immunity, arguing that we don’t have data. The data certainly doesn’t fit the classic randomized-controlled-trial model of the old-guard medical establishment. There’s no control group. But the observational data is compelling.

Vatican Requires Covid Vaccine

Again, something I would post about on Facebook but prefer to mention here -- I would appreciate comments being about this particular vaccine and the principle of medical freedom/bodily integrity:

This article about the Vatican giving consequences to employees not receiving the Covid vaccine prompts a few quick thoughts:

Vaccines are not magic. They have side effects and risks (and they are all different and target different kinds of health issues) -- you only have to read the inserts that come with them to know this. 

Agreeing to a vaccine is a matter of being informed and of medical freedom. Up until recently, it was understood that one ought to have recourse to a "religious exemption" -- which I think is commonly interpreted to mean having a right to refuse (which could be and often is actually a scientific, medical assessment of risk/benefit). I think it's not a good name for it; it should be a "medical freedom exemption."

Not allowing medical freedom in the matter of something that is injected into one's body is a dangerous stance. Just because the substance in question seems inoffensive doesn't mean that every substance will always be inoffensive. Next time it could be something to cause sterility or a chip... remember, even today girls are given contraceptives (including implants) by health operatives without parental knowledge; they are even taken for abortions.

This particular vaccine is stated by its manufacturers to be experimental, and it's a human right not to be medically experimented on without one's consent.

The administrative body making decisions is usually the department of health, which is an agency run, remember, by bureaucrats, not scientists. In the case of an institution like the Vatican or a university or a hospital, it's just managers. Much of what drives vaccinations is a combination of checking off public health boxes and trying to avoid lawsuits.

The information they base their decision on comes from the manufacturer of the vaccine, who is indemnified (cannot be sued) for this product's malfunction (unlike other products they offer).

Bodily integrity is a human right. In Casti Connubii #70, Pope Pius XI writes: "Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason."