Man tends by nature toward the truth.
He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it…
Men could not live with one another if there were not mutual confidence
that they were being truthful to one another.
—Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), n. 2467, 2469
ARE you being pressured by your company, school board, spouse or even bishop to be vaccinated? The information in this article will give you clear, legal, and moral grounds, should it be your choice, to reject forced inoculation.
There could be heard collective gasps around the world when some bishops, bishop’s conferences, and even the Pope stated publicly or on their websites that there is a moral obligation to line up and take the experimental vaccines being issued now in several countries. The Holy Father, for instance, said in a televised interview:
I believe that morally everyone must take the vaccine. It is the moral choice because it is about your life but also the lives of others. I do not understand why some say that this could be a dangerous vaccine. If the doctors are presenting this to you as a thing that will go well and doesn’t have any special dangers, why not take it? There is a suicidal denialism that I would not know how to explain, but today, people must take the vaccine. —POPE FRANCIS, interview for Italy’s TG5 news program, January 19th, 2021; ncronline.com
I have already addressed Pope Francis’s claims that these vaccines do not have “any special dangers”, though they do,for example, read Grave Dangers – Part II and The Caduceus Key as well as why his opinions in this television interview, while important, are not binding upon the faithful.“…if you are troubled by some statements that Pope Francis has made in his recent interviews, it is not disloyalty, or a lack of Romanita to disagree with the details of some of the interviews which were given off-the-cuff. Naturally, if we disagree with the Holy Father, we do so with the deepest respect and humility, conscious that we may need to be corrected. However, papal interviews do not require either the assent of faith that is given to ex cathedra statements or that internal submission of mind and will that is given to those statements that are part of his non-infallible but authentic magisterium.” —Fr. Tim Finigan, tutor in Sacramental Theology at St John’s Seminary, Wonersh; from The Hermeneutic of Community, “Assent and Papal Magisterium”, October 6th, 2013; http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.co.uk; cf. To Vax or Not to Vax Also, it would be a mistake to read this present article as though it were an affront or attack upon these shepherds (who are not all in agreement on this issue, by the way). Rather, I present this in the service of truth for the sake of the “common good.”
Christ’s faithful… have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to their Pastors, and take into account both the common good and dignity of individuals. —Code of Canon Law, 212
In order to avoid rash judgment, we must assume that some of our shepherd’s positions on these matters, like many others in our society, are also the product of a highly controlled narrative, abetted by the media, that has obscured many facts about the vaccine industry, and above all, the true nature of these experimental vaccines being distributed now even on church property.
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved. —CCC, n. 2478
So all that said, here is why the experimental mRNA vaccines cannot be deemed morally obligatory…
THE “HERD IMMUNITY” FALLACY
The entire argument behind this moral imperative is the concept of contributing to “herd immunity.” The definition has always been understood to mean that a greater portion of the population has built an immunity against a certain contagion, either through prior infection or through vaccines. Put simply:
Herd immunity may be achieved either through infection and recovery or by vaccination. —Dr. Angel Desai, associate editor of JAMA Network Open, Maimuna Majumder, Ph.D., Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School; October 19th, 2020; jamanetwork.com
However, in October 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) quietly but significantly changed the definition:
‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it. —October 15th, 2020; who.int
The implications of this cannot be underestimated since unelected health officials, following the WHO’s guidelines, are now dictating public policy to entire populations with the goal of achieving “herd immunity” — and many bishops are simply getting in line behind them. This is deeply troubling. For now “exposure” of the healthy to a virus in order to build natural immunity is no longer considered a viable strategy; only vaccines can apparently achieve “herd immunity.”
This unscientific and little challenged redefinition has essentially made the entire world beholden to vaccine corporations, and thus, has already led to gross human rights violations — such as locking down the healthy until they are vaccinated,cf. When I was Hungry forcing healthy people to wear masks until they are vaccinated in contradiction to a mounting consensus of studies that do not support it,cf. Unmasking the Facts and now barring healthy citizens from access to public places without a “vaccine passport.”cf. Dear Shepherds… Where Are You? (A footnote to this disaster is the fact that PCR tests for COVID-19 are deeply flawed. The medical journal BMJ published an article on December 18th, 2020 that addressed this serious crisis, which is falsely inflating the seriousness of this pandemic with the aforementioned catastrophic consequences.Even “The WHO instructed PCR test users and manufacturers on December 14, 2020, and again on January 20, 2021, that PCR cycle thresholds needed to come down.” (mercola.com) See: “Covid-19: Mass testing is inaccurate and gives false sense of security, minister admits”; bmj.com. See also this article in The Lancet, and even the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) warning of PCR “false-positives” here.)
And here is where the whole argument that the mRNA vaccines are somehow a “moral obligation” takes a dark twist…
THEY AREN’T VACCINES
The experimental vaccines utilizing messenger RNA called “mRNA vaccines” do not meet the standard definition of vaccine. They were developed as “gene therapy” primarily for treatment of cancer. One of the manufacturers of this technology, Moderna, states as much in their legal registration:
Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. —pg. 19, sec.gov
The reason is that these COVID-19 “vaccines” are not conventional vaccines made with live or attenuated viruses.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are made with lipid nanoparticles that contain polyethylene glycol (PEG)8 and messenger RNA (mRNA). mRNA are snippets of genetic code that carries instructions for cells to produce proteins. The definition of genetic is “relating to genes” and genes contain instructional code that tell the body what proteins to make. Therapy is the medical treatment of disease, so mRNA vaccines are very clearly gene therapy. —Dr. Joseph Mercola, “Definitions of Pandemics, Vaccines, Herd Immunity All Changed”, March 22nd, 2021; mercola.com
Thus, he says, referring to COVID-19 vaccines as “vaccines” rather than gene therapies is a violation of 15 U.S. Code Section 41, which states that it is unlawful to advertise…
…that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made. —govinfo.gov
In fact, one friend wrote recently to say that even his insurance company would not cover him in the event that he was injured or died from these new “vaccines.” The reason, they said, is because they consider them “experimental.”
Conspicuously, notes Dr. Mercola, even the definition of a vaccine, meaning “a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease”, was altered recently by Merriam-Webster Dictionary. They changed it to include: “a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)”.
However, word-play is not science.
The so-called Covid-19 vaccine is not a vaccine at all. It’s a dangerous, experimental gene therapy. The Center for Disease Control, the CDC, gives the definition of the term vaccine on its website. A vaccine is a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease. Immunity is the protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without being infected. This so-called Covid-19 vaccine does not provide any individual who receives the vaccine with immunity to Covid-19. Nor does it prevent the spread of the disease. —Dr. Stephen Hotze, M.D., February 26th, 2021; hotzehwc.com
The problem is that in the case of Moderna and Pfizer, this is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy. It’s a chemotherapy agent that is gene therapy. It is not a vaccine… It’s not a prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then allegedly your body somehow gets used to dealing with, but unlike a vaccine, which is to trigger the immune response, this is to trigger the creation of the toxin… The companies themselves have admitted to every single thing I’m saying but they are using the public manipulation of the word vaccine to co-opt the public into believing they’re getting a thing, which they are not getting. This is not going to stop you from getting Coronavirus. —Dr. David Martin, “It’s Gene Therapy, Not a Vaccine”, January 25th, 2021; westonaprice.org
After viewing the clinical trial protocols of Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca,The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine actually enters the nucleus of one’s cells, according to a New York Times report: “The adenovirus pushes its DNA into the nucleus. The adenovirus is engineered so it can’t make copies of itself, but the gene for the coronavirus spike protein can be read by the cell and copied into a molecule called messenger RNA, or mRNA.” —March 22nd, 2021, nytimes.com former Harvard Professor William A. Haseltine observed that their “vaccines” were indeed only aimed at reducing symptoms and not stopping the spread of infection.
It appears that these trials are intended to pass the lowest possible barrier of success. —September 23rd, 2020; forbes.com
This was confirmed by the U.S. Surgeon General on Good Morning America.
They [the mRNA vaccines] were tested with an outcome of severe disease — not preventing infection. —Surgeon General Jerome Adams, December 14th, 2020; dailymail.co.uk
And hence, the entire argument that these experimental vaccines are a “moral obligation for the common good” because they will build “herd immunity”, collapses. They no more build herd immunity than taking a Tylenol prevents others from getting a migraine.
The only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the vaccinated individual, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit, it makes no sense to demand you accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community. —Dr. Joseph Mercola, “COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Are Gene Therapy”, March 16th, 2021
So if your co-workers, family, or even your pastor maintains that these vaccines are a “moral obligation” to protect others, show them the science. And if that does not convince, simply repeat the official document of the Church posted by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (noting the underlined words):
…all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience…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… In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination…— “Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines”, n. 3, 5; vatican.va; a “recommendation” is not the same as an obligation
It is urgent that the Church begin to listen to the facts, precisely for the sake of the “the common good” (read The Great Reset to understand the existential implications of how this “crisis” is being manipulated).
We apologized once for not following the science. It’s too bad Galileo was not alive to hear it.
Listen on the following:
Follow Mark and the daily “signs of the times” here:
To journey with Mark in The Now Word,
click on the banner below to subscribe.
Your email will not be shared with anyone.
|↑1||for example, read Grave Dangers – Part II and The Caduceus Key|
|↑2||“…if you are troubled by some statements that Pope Francis has made in his recent interviews, it is not disloyalty, or a lack of Romanita to disagree with the details of some of the interviews which were given off-the-cuff. Naturally, if we disagree with the Holy Father, we do so with the deepest respect and humility, conscious that we may need to be corrected. However, papal interviews do not require either the assent of faith that is given to ex cathedra statements or that internal submission of mind and will that is given to those statements that are part of his non-infallible but authentic magisterium.” —Fr. Tim Finigan, tutor in Sacramental Theology at St John’s Seminary, Wonersh; from The Hermeneutic of Community, “Assent and Papal Magisterium”, October 6th, 2013; http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.co.uk; cf. To Vax or Not to Vax|
|↑3||cf. When I was Hungry|
|↑4||cf. Unmasking the Facts|
|↑5||cf. Dear Shepherds… Where Are You?|
|↑6||Even “The WHO instructed PCR test users and manufacturers on December 14, 2020, and again on January 20, 2021, that PCR cycle thresholds needed to come down.” (mercola.com)|
|↑7||The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine actually enters the nucleus of one’s cells, according to a New York Times report: “The adenovirus pushes its DNA into the nucleus. The adenovirus is engineered so it can’t make copies of itself, but the gene for the coronavirus spike protein can be read by the cell and copied into a molecule called messenger RNA, or mRNA.” —March 22nd, 2021, nytimes.com|