Whether there is a moral obligation to disobey the coercive mandates

(Image: Nadine Shaabana/Unsplash.com)

Objection 1. It seems there is no such obligation, and can be none, for governments are charged with oversight of things pertaining to the common good in temporal affairs, and matters of public health, especially in times of plague, pertain to the common good. As the apostle says: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad” (Rom. 13:1–3).

Objection 2. The State has lawful authority to impose extraordinary measures to protect the population from infectious diseases and other disasters, by deploying emergency powers that override individual or collective liberties. So does the Church, acting in concert with the State in matters of common interest to the earthly and heavenly cities. As St Peter says, “be subject to the elders” (1 Pet. 5:5).

Objection 3. The citizen of either city, though free to examine the claims of governing authorities and to question their judgment, is not free to substitute his or her own judgment for that of the authorities, which substitution is divisive and destructive of the common good, but is morally obligated to preserve order by obedience in all matters of positive law that do not contravene natural or divine law. The citizen of the heavenly city is encouraged, moreover, to add generosity to obedience. “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two” (Matt. 5:41).

Objection 4. As St Thomas says, “the end of the law is the common good” (ST 1–2.96.1). Hence “all men should be subject to human law” (96.5). Those who disobey, by the very fact of their disobedience, do grave harm to the law and so to the common good. Just so, they are rightly deprived of its benefits and may be punished by all condign punishments. Even those who refuse kindness to their neighbor through cooperation in matters of the common good may justly be excluded from the community of goods.

On the contrary, St. Augustine says that “it is not kindness to cooperate in the loss of a greater good, nor blameless to acquiesce and to permit a slide into greater evil” (Civ. 19.16). And Pope Leo XIII says: “If then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society” (Libertas 10).

I answer that, one is obligated to resist unjust laws, not only by disputation, but also by civil disobedience, whenever obedience would violate the conscience or direct others away from the common good.

Mandates, civil or ecclesiastical, that require injection of medical products of disputed safety, effectiveness, political purpose, and moral propriety are indeed capable of violating the conscience and of directing others away from the common good, or even from their own good and the good of those in their care. Moreover, mandates that stop short of that but divide society without manifest necessity are always unjust, for they constitute attacks on the common good and on human dignity.

This is true as regards the earthly city and true a fortiori as regards the heavenly, which is one body under one Lord, that through it “the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers” (Eph. 3:10).

Reply to Objection 1. The premises are true. Matters of public health pertain to the common good and oversight of the common good belongs to duly established governments acting lawfully. From these premises, however, the conclusion that one ought to obey a given mandate cannot be drawn, for the mandate may be ultra vires or otherwise invalid, even morally illicit.

Reply to Objection 2. The assertion that both the State and the Church may employ extraordinary powers in extraordinary times is true, but it begs questions by which any appeal to such powers must be tested: first, whether special protection of the common good is required in a given instance; second, whether the proposed protection really is protection; third, whether the attendant impairment of rights and liberties is as minimal as possible, while warding off still greater evils than the impairment itself; fourth, whether the powers are directed to the common good in a manner compatible with that good; fifth, whether their exercise is compatible with the moral law; sixth, whether the laws so established are just laws; seventh, whether they serve their proper end or some foreign end. (These tests will be treated in a supplementum, rather than constituting distinct articles.)

Reply to Objection 3. This objection fails if the condition, “in all matters pertaining to civil law that do not contravene natural or divine law,” is not met. Moreover, what is coerced leaves no room for generosity, which is a counsel not a command, rendered “not as an exaction but as a willing gift” (2 Cor. 9:5).

Reply to Objection 4. This objection is moot where the law in question is not directed to the common good, but to an end that entails grave harm.

Supplementum. We elucidate by applying the seven tests identified in the reply to the second objection. To show that disobedience is not mandated in the present circumstances, each test would need to be passed. But none of them are passed. It therefore becomes manifest that the mandates are unjust and must be opposed, even to disobedience.

Is protection required?

Protection from coronaviruses is required for people whose natural defenses are severely compromised; or, failing protection, early treatment is required when symptoms occur. No protection is required for most people, however, beyond what their natural immune system supplies. This is especially so in the case of children, who (absent co-morbidities) are in no danger from the present virus.

Does the proffered protection protect?

The mandated protection is not narrowly targeted to those in need of it and does not include early treatment, access to which is in some places denied. Instead, it is universal, taking two forms: social restrictions, including full lockdowns, and “a needle in every arm”; that is, experimental gene therapy for the entire population.

Neither measure prevents viral spread, hence neither protects even the small portion of the population that needs protection. The former has been shown by numerous studies to be damaging to more people, in more serious ways, than is the virus itself. The latter sometimes reduces the severity of symptoms and so eases the burden of illness both for the individual and for the healthcare system. On the other hand, it may produce, and with alarming frequency does produce, severe adverse reactions or even death.

Further, there is grave doubt concerning its short- and long-term effects on the immune system, which it appears to weaken, and on the mutation of the virus, which learns to escape it or even to make use of it. There are dangers also to the circulatory, nervous, and reproductive systems. It therefore cannot be concluded that the injections will have a net benefit either to individual health or to the viability of the healthcare system. There are many reasons to think that the overall effect on both will be negative. In any event, expansion of healthcare readiness would be a much less costly approach than universal mandates, for which there is no warrant.

Is the impairment of rights and freedoms minimal?

As neither protective measure provides anything like maximal protection, either for individuals or for the community, the minimal impairment bar must be set very high. But neither measure comes close to achieving minimal impairment. The first measure, by its very nature, directly assaults basic rights and freedoms, including freedom of movement or mobility rights, freedom of association, freedom to work, and freedom of religion. The second measure, when those rights and liberties are made conditional on the injections or when the injections themselves are universally mandated, violates both bodily autonomy and freedom of conscience (concepts which, despite abuse, have proper philosophical and theological grounds).

Moreover, the impairment is not minimal in duration. Economies recover only slowly. Jobs, incomes, and opportunities for development may be lost permanently. The injection, with its risks, cannot be undone. Psychological or spiritual damage has lasting effects. Social divisions may deepen rather than resolve.

Meanwhile, the institution, maintenance, and enforcement of these measures requires routine renewal of emergency powers over a period of months or years, though in the law they are specified in periods of days or weeks only. Routine renewal has been taking place unaccountably, by the very people who wield these powers. And the wielding, as courts have begun to notice, violates the proper separation of the branches of government, which is unconstitutional and has dilatory effects on the citizen who is seeking redress for injustices.

Still further, options for meaningful protection exist that have none of these consequences; notably, early treatment with readily available drug, vitamin, and mineral protocols. But these treatments, which infringe no rights and impair no freedoms, have been suppressed in an attempt to justify the putative protections that maximally impair rights and freedoms. This, being at the expense even of the most vulnerable, implies that minimal impairment was never a consideration, that saving lives was not the primary goal, and that protecting the healthcare system was not and is not the goal either. Hence the third test is failed in multiple ways.

Are emergency powers directed to the common good in a manner compatible with that good?

A person’s inalienable rights, bestowed by the Creator, include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—happiness being that which all want and for which all are made. The social nature of the human person, however, requires consideration of the common good, for which governance is required.

Now the common good, as the Catechism says, consists of three essential elements: respect for the person, such that their fundamental rights are kept inviolate and there is sufficient freedom for them to follow their own consciences and fulfill their own vocations (1907); the “social well-being and development of the group itself,” which requires arbitration between particular interests (1908); and peace within a just order, which “presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members” (1909).

The order of these elements is important. In civilizations shaped by Christianity, the person is known to be more, not less, substantial than the nation, and the polis is known to exist for the sake of the person, not the person for the sake of the polis. Thus a heavy burden of justification falls on any law that seeks the common good at the expense of the person. Measures concerned with the development of the group as a whole or with the maintenance of its peace and security must still begin and end with respect for the person, adopting means in conformity with that respect. Otherwise they cannot hope to serve the common good. “The order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons and not the other way around'” (1912).

Both measures or sets of measures fail in this regard. The lockdown—a measure drawn from the penal system—is designed to prevent social interaction and development, whether of the individual or of the group. Mandatory injection, or proof of injection as a condition of social engagement, overrides either the right to engage or the right to privacy and bodily autonomy, or both. While it does not follow that the latter requirement—as proof of immunity, not proof of injection—can never be justly established, the threshold at which it is warranted is only rarely reached. When reached, it necessitates provision of a just alternative for dissenters. Their dehumanization and domination is unacceptable.

In brief, the measures of which we are speaking remove “the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as ‘the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard … privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion'” (1907). Hence they are incompatible with the common good, which “is always oriented towards the progress of persons.”

But can they be saved by appeal to a state of exception? The short answer is “no,” for in moral matters there is no such thing as a state of exception. It is never licit to do evil, even that good may come. “Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed” (1901, emphasis added). A longer answer follows.

Are the measures compatible with the moral law?

Consideration of the common good, as of the underlying good of the person, points us to the moral law, which is summed up in the two great commandments. Those who argue for voluntary subjection to the measures in question often do so through appeal to the second of these, the command to love the neighbor as oneself. This argument is badly flawed, as already observed. Prima facie, it is also incompatible with support for coercive mandates, for love does not coerce and cannot be coerced, nor does one coerce oneself.

When engaging in coercion one may still be acting for the good of the person or of the community, of course, as when a parent physically restrains a child from running into the road or one nation justly restrains another. Moreover, just laws and condign penalties are rightly regarded as forms of love, for the law of God on which they ultimately depend—witness the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which still acknowledges that dependence “—is itself a form of love. Yet it remains the case that obedience to the law of God, insofar as it is meritorious, is always voluntary. It is love responding to love. As Irenaeus says, “the greater the operation of liberty, the more ingrained in us has become subjection and affection toward our liberator” (Haer. 4.13.3). And this holds, mutatis mutandis, even in the secular sphere, for citizens who love their country and admire its laws obey much more gladly than citizens who do not or cannot.

Now, the moral standard is far less demanding in the secular sphere than in the ecclesial. In the latter, the grace of the Holy Spirit enables us to abide in the law of love. “Those laws that are natural, and liberal, and common to all, He has enlarged and expanded, generously and ungrudgingly granting to men, through adoption, to know God as Father, and to love him whole-heartedly, and to follow his word unswervingly, abstaining not only from evil deeds but even from the desire of them” (Haer. 4.16.5). In the former, by contrast, it suffices, through some lesser grace, merely to conform to those laws that use morally acceptable means to pursue a reasonable approximation of the common good, with the proviso that the “good” in view must always be compatible with the love of God and neighbor.

So we return, perforce, to the question of morally acceptable means. Here it may be conceded immediately that vaccination is a morally acceptable means for the promotion of public health, where the vaccine is safe and effective and produced in a morally acceptable way. But these are the very points in contention. Genetic therapies are not vaccines in the traditional sense, and calling them vaccines has required a redefinition of the term so generous as to include any agent that stimulates the immune system with a view to better health. (The new definition, as some have been quick to observe, is capable of embracing vitamins, or beer, or even the pathogens themselves; which perhaps is a positive development, at least where the beer is concerned.) Moreover, these therapies are neither effective, as even their commercial architect and primary profiteer, Bill Gates, has admitted, nor safe, as is easily demonstrated through EudraVigilance, VAERS, and other systems for reporting adverse effects.

Because they are not safe, their use is immoral except under strictly controlled experimental conditions involving free and fully informed consent—which children cannot give—and where serious injury or death is not an acceptable outcome. Their use is immoral for the additional reason that they still depend upon fetal material and remain implicated in the ongoing crimes of abortion and fetal experimentation. And for the further reason that they belong to an aggressive program of genetic experimentation, a program including DNA and germline modifications (with the backing of Mr. Gates, Gavi, and the World Health Organization) that proposes to redesign the immune system and other natural features of the human animal.

This is not merely a profit-seeking program, euphemistically referred to as precision medicine. It is, in its way, an extension of the contraceptive mentality, which seeks to dismantle and reconstruct nature so that it may be put to quite different ends than those divinely intended. This can only exacerbate, to a hitherto unimaginable degree, the tendency of that mentality “to give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate” features of human existence (Humanae vitae 17, 23) and indeed to redefine what it means to be human, as some now openly advocate; which, being a rejection of natural and divine law and of the Creator himself, is at once profoundly immoral and antipathetic to morality.

As for forcible confinement of the healthy or their exclusion from public spaces, which differs fundamentally from quarantine both in nature and in duration, this can never be a morally acceptable means to any end but punishment. And since punishing the innocent is thoroughly unjust, even more more unjust than failing to punish the guilty, it must be established that those so treated are guilty. (This point stands, even if a genuine emergency is conceded, which in the case of a coronavirus, not per se lethal, it cannot be.) But of what are they guilty? Nothing at all, unless perchance they are guilty of standing in the way of a political or economic venture decided upon by pharmaceutical companies and their well-funded friends in high places.

Are the decrees and mandates just?

Here we must attend closely to the distinction made by Aquinas between just and unjust laws. Granting that law in general “denotes a kind of plan directing acts towards an end” (ST 1–2.93.3), he posits that “a human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence” (ad 2; cf. 95.2). He elucidates as follows (96.4):

Laws are said to be just by reference to their end, that is, when they are ordained to the common good; and to their author, that is, when the law that is made does not exceed the power of the lawgiver; and to their form, that is, when burdens are laid on the subjects according to an equality of proportion and with a view to the common good. For, since one man is a part of the community, each man in all that he is and has belongs to the community, just as a part, in all that it is, belongs to the whole; wherefore nature inflicts a loss on the part, in order to save the whole: so that on this account, such laws as these, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding in conscience, and are legal laws.

Now, this appears to be the very reasoning on which people lean in support of coercive mandates, as if they indeed imposed proportionate burdens. (The unqualified qualifier, “all that he is and has,” lends itself to that error.) But let us attend to what Thomas says next:

On the other hand, laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good … either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive not to the common good but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory; or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him; or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws, because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5), a law that is not just seems to be no law at all. Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should even yield his right... Second, laws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine good: such are the laws of tyrants inducing to idolatry, or to anything else contrary to the Divine law. And laws of this kind must nowise be observed, because, as stated in Acts 5:29, we ought to obey God rather than man.

The second way—direct contradiction of divine law—leaves no need or room for discussion. Disobedience is always required. This would appear to be the case as regards mandates that divide the Church, for “there is one body and one Spirit” (Eph. 4:4). What God has joined together, let not man put asunder! Is it not because of long-standing divisions among the faithful that the Church is today so weak and sickly that it even takes orders from the State as to whether it may meet, who may meet, and how they may meet?

But the first and broader way—being contrary to human good—does leave room for discussion, a discussion of whether the law is defective in its author, its form, or its end. A serious defect in any of these would render it unjust and incapable of binding the conscience, though for the sake of avoiding “scandal or disturbance” it might nonetheless be obeyed, if (i) the defects were not themselves scandalous, (ii) disobedience would do more harm than good and (iii) obedience were possible without doing evil that good may come. Where these conditions are not met, and the law concerns grave matter, the conscience is again bound, not to obedience, but to disobedience.

In the matter at hand, which is indeed grave, there are scandalous defects in all three. There are defects as regards the author, whether because unelected public health officials are issuing orders beyond their jurisdiction and competence; or because elected officials are issuing decrees in defiance of the constitution through the perpetual use of emergency powers; or because foreign agents, including Pharma executives and “global stakeholders” of various descriptions, are interfering with national sovereignty and local law-making; or because some or all of the above are trespassing on the pre-political rights of the Church or of the family (ordering alterations to liturgies, say, or the inoculation of children without parental consent); or because bishops are issuing commands lacking any foundation in canon law, such as making “proof of vaccination” a condition for dispensing or receiving sacraments.

There are defects also as regards form, as when children, who are at no risk from the virus, are made to bear the risks of novel genetic treatments that may permanently damage their hearts or brains or eventual fertility, in the vain hope of reducing transmission to their elders; or when people with natural immunity are asked to undergo injection with a substance they do not need and which may even induce sudden death; or when “the unvaccinated” are punished for sins of transmission that belong equally to “the vaccinated,” who are not so punished; or when legislation that denies fundamental rights is introduced with preambles full of false claims about the situation that allegedly requires it; or when lockdowns are ordered that disproportionately disadvantage children and parents, the poor and the working class, or the owners of small businesses. Even without the inequities in such measures, there is often a more fundamental defect of form that corresponds to the ultra vires action of their authors; which is to say, the measures are inapt and ineffective. They do not resolve, and cannot resolve, the problem they are purportedly trying to address. They may even make it worse, at the expense of young lives, including young priestly lives.

There are defects also as regards ends, which is the concern of the final test.

Do they serve their declared purpose?

The stated goal of the mandates is to prevent or control the transmission of a virus and to maintain or restore a pre-existing equilibrium in healthcare or in social and economic life. Why instruments so manifestly unfit for purpose are being deployed with such determination is a fair question. While the right answer is sometimes “incompetence” or even “psychosis,” insincerity (ulterior motives) also suggests itself. Otherwise put, the problem may lie, not in the fact that the chosen instruments are unfit for their stated purpose, but rather in the fact that they are quite fit for their unstated purpose.

And what is that? We do not have to speculate much, for there are venues in which the unstated purpose is stated, viz., to effect systemic change otherwise unpalatable to the people. That change is in the direction of what the World Economic Forum calls stakeholder capitalism, backed by biodigital convergence, universal surveillance, and technological control of a wide range of human activities, from reproduction to religion. Information exchange, like monetary exchange, is to be monitored and controlled. A social credit system is being devised in which conformity will be rewarded by inclusion and lack of conformity punished by exclusion.

What is already operative in China, in other words, is advancing very rapidly in the West. It is even gaining ground in religious circles, where it is actively promoted by the Council for Inclusive Capitalism that is lobbying the Vatican and by a host of other ventures encouraged by the World Economic Forum. Private bodies with official-sounding titles like the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board or the Commission on Information Disorder are proliferating like flies, buzzing round the carcass of the old normal with announcements about the new normal. These announcements, let it be noted, began before the advent of “the Covid crisis.”

The generation of a new-normal pandemic—one based on spread not severity, though unconscionable and even murderous attempts are made to amplify its severity—advanced the cause, not only of mRNA treatments but of digital health passports; that is, of vaccines falsely so-called and of universal track-and-trace mechanisms. It made possible a systematic invasion of privacy and a permanent state of exception that nullifies constitutional protections. In such a context, law is no longer responsible to reason, to justice, or to what actually makes for the common good. It is no longer beholden to the principle of subsidiarity. It is merely the means for a transference of power from local to global governance, where “global” means whatever the most wealthy wish it to mean and “local” means that petty bureaucrats inform us that we have no choice but to obey.

At the moment, this entails “a needle in every arm.” What it will entail in the future, apart from many more needles, remains to be seen, but there appears to be no significant sphere of life in which autonomous decision-making will be tolerated. Those who suppose the mandates to be a pandemic exit strategy are sorely mistaken. There is no “Covid crisis,” though there is a religious and constitutional crisis of unprecedented proportions. We are not dealing with an exit strategy at all, but rather with an entrance strategy for the new Lords of the World.

The Catechism insists that “fraud and other subterfuges, by which some people evade the constraints of the law and the prescriptions of societal obligation, must be firmly condemned because they are incompatible with the requirements of justice” (1916). The evidence of fraud and subterfuge is overwhelming. If there is any purity of purpose in the mandates to which we are now being subjected by the hydra-headed beast known as the Global Public-Private Partnership, that purity lies in devotion to the Great Reset, which (as Michael Rectenwald has shown with real cogency) is a true devil’s bargain.

This bargain cannot be broken merely by reaffirmation of bodily autonomy or personal privacy or the principle of subsidiarity, by reason of which we used to insist that prudential judgments in medical matters belong to families and individuals, in consultation with their own physicians, not to civil or ecclesiastical bureaucrats. Nor will legal action, however appropriate and indeed necessary—for, as Thomas says in De Regno, tyranny must be opposed by public, constitutional means, lest one tyrannical regime be succeeded by another—suffice to break it. Even the requisite civil disobedience, which we are recommending, cannot break it. Ultimately it can be broken only by prayer and the example of holy people like Daniel or Eleazar, who courageously insisted on the old normal when coercively confronted by the new.

Monitio Eleazari

Make no mistake: Tyranny, on a global scale, is arising. Precisely because it is globalist in inspiration and coordination, it can and should be resisted by nation-states through appeal to international law, their own laws, and, if necessary, by force of arms. One of the primary problems, however, with tyranny of this kind—a peculiarly modern kind, foreseen by Tocqueville and others, but only in shadowy form—is that it very successfully co-opts many of those who ought to be organizing the resistance on behalf of their nations. That is where civil disobedience comes in. Those who are failing in their civic duty must be confronted with the weapons of non-cooperation, peaceful protest, and very public disobedience. The only other possibility is acquiescence to totalitarianism and the dehumanization on which it depends.

But this in turn is where prayer and repentance come in. Aquinas, as he wrestles with the right response to unjust law, advises prayer and repentance especially. Professor Budziszewski astutely remarks that he thinks this, not impractical, but highly practical:

[For] tyranny is unlikely to arise among a virtuous people; if it does arise, they have probably been softened and prepared for it by a long period of moral decay. Until things get very bad indeed, they may even like tyranny, either because the regime has given certain constituencies private benefits, or because most citizens have not yet been personally hurt, or because the desires of the people are so disordered that they do not clearly see their own condition. God does not often protect people from the natural consequences of their corruption; He more often allows these consequences to ensue in order to bring corrupt nations to their senses. If at last the people repent and mend their ways, then God will hear their prayers, but St. Thomas warns that “to deserve to secure this benefit from God, the people must desist from sin, for it is by divine permission that wicked men receive power to rule as a punishment for sin” (197f.).

To repent properly and thus to pray to good effect and, just so, to gather the inner resources for costly action in the world, we must reflect both on the truth about the God who is God and on the example of holy men and women who follow and obey God. This will disclose to us how we have come to follow instead the false gods erected by lawless men, and what we must do by way of repentance.

The first thing to do, surely, is to see to it that among us “there is no sacrifice but to Him alone,” and that this sacrifice is a true thanksgiving, rendered with full face and voice and without any hint of division such as Covid-worshipers urge upon us. Was it not at their behest that we immediately ceased worshipping corporately at all, and so failed justice at its very foundations (Civ. 19.23f.)? Are we not failing again now, even more dramatically, where we practice liturgical Apartheid or ban from Mass altogether those who will not demonstrate allegiance to both God and Covid?

The psalmist tells us that the fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever, and that the law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul. That is because, with the Lord, love and justice are one. The present turn to coercive measures, even in the Church—is this love? Is the division of the body of Christ justice? On the contrary, it is a clear sign that another kind of fear, not proper to love, and another kind of law, a lawless law that destroys the soul, are at work. Mandates that divide the faithful on the basis of injections or prudential judgments about injections attack the Church at its sacramental and evangelical core.

This makes the question of authority a very pressing one, in the Church as in the State. To appeal once more to the Catechism, “authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself” and “must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a ‘moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility'” (1902). “Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, ‘authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse'” (1903).

That is precisely what happened in the days of that holy elder, Eleazar, when civil and religious authorities in Jerusalem were cooperating with the Syrian tyrant, Antiochus. We are told in 2 Maccabees 6 that he was invited by his colleagues, for his own protection from the new normal, to enter the temple and there simulate the eating of swine flesh. His reply? “Such pretense is not worthy of our time of life, lest many of the young should suppose that I have gone over to an alien religion, and through my pretense, for the sake of living a brief moment longer, they should be led astray because of me, while I defile and disgrace my old age.”

Substitute masks, exclusionary Masses, and bowing down to Covid “for the sake of living a brief moment longer” (the average age of those dying in Covid’s company is over eighty) and a similar scene appears. The parallel may be inexact, but it is not insignificant. What are we teaching the youth? We are also told, of course, that the words Eleazar had uttered “were in their opinion sheer madness,” that his response precipitated a violent assault on him, and that by his martyrial death he left “an example of nobility and a memorial of courage, not only to the young but to the great body of his nation.”

Such are the madmen we need today. I don’t mean the likes of Antiochus Epiphanes, whose own servants quietly referred to him as Epimanes. I mean the likes of Eleazar, who feared God rather than man. For many among us seem to have gone over to an alien religion, a shameful religion of fear, in which unjust laws must be obeyed and just laws disobeyed; in which ethical codes are abandoned and children made the subjects of reckless experiments; in which we say, with those philanthropic enemies of Love, “in vaccines we trust,” not “in God we trust.”

The official badge of this alien religion is a new kind of baptismal certificate: proof of injection rather than of immersion. This is now our passport to life—a life of bondage through fear of death. The sacrifices of this religion are not song and thanksgiving and holy communion from holy vessels, but plastic masks and antisocial distancing and injections with coded genetic instructions dispensed from abortion-tainted vials. All under the watchful eye on the Dark Tower, and of its inspectors and enforcers.

Do we have a moral obligation to disobey? Nothing could be plainer. Whether there is courage to disobey, or whether we will pray for that courage, is the real question.

Related at CWR: “Whether there is a moral obligation to be vaccinated” (April 9, 2021) by Dr. Douglas Farrow.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Dr. Douglas Farrow 23 Articles
Douglas Farrow is Professor of Theology and Ethics at McGill University, and the author of several books including Theological Negotiations: Proposals in Soteriology and Anthropology (Baker Academic, 2018) and a new commentary on Thessalonians (Brazos, 2020).

47 Comments

    • Congratulations on this honest, humane and theologically clearly argued thinking at a time of criminal covid tyranny and an attempt at global dehumanization and dechristianization! prof.dr.Božidar Merc

  1. Will it be moral for the unvaccinated to wear yellow Star of David emblems visibly on their clothing when the Biden administration mandates this of the unvaccinated?

  2. When you get sick you don’t go to, consult, and put yourself in regimen under the prescription of a doctor in theology like the author of this article but a doctor of medicine. This is the absurdity that we conservatives have gotten into in this pandemic. We listen more and more to non-physicians and non-scientists like politicians, ideologues, clergy, theologians, commentators, to decide and act on this public health issue. The sad thing is we cannot not eradicate and end the pandemic this way.

    • We are not ending the pandemic by using masks not rated for biohazards, nor are we ending the pandemic by using “vaccines” which allow asymptomatic infection and spread, which is the case with the mRNA treatment.

      • The only reason I know there is a lethal pandemic that will kill 50% of everyone I know is because of the media, CWR included. I see no dead bodies pilling up, nor endless lists of obituaries. I live very near the local hosptial. It is pretty quiet nearly all the time. All the neighbors come and go without oxygen tanks. No one has been to the hospital. I haven’t even been sick in over a year.

        • “The only reason I know there is a lethal pandemic that will kill 50% of everyone I know is because of the media, CWR included.”

          When and where did CWR say that Covid was going to kill 50% of everyone?

          • I was being intentionally over-the-top, and should have chosen better verbage. I apologize.
            .
            Unlike much of the media, CWR has not given into emotionalist (that a word?) sensationalist reporting. Having said that, there are many articles on the Pope said this thing about vaccines, or the Vatican approves of Italy’s vax pass, or articles on China’s possible involvement; articles on Church schools response, etc. And there is no way to avoid any of that, because it is news. That is what I meant.
            .
            If not for the media (and CWR is a type of news organization) tell me there was a serious viral pandemic going on, I would not know it.
            .

    • Not true. The issue is that those who claim to be scientists and physicians have violated the public’s trust with their ever-changing positions and recommendations. Interesting that what they say always seems to line up with the left wing narrative. People’s doubts are well-founded. Conservatives just tend not to be mindless lemmings.

    • Okay, does one give false witness deliberately??? [That would be a deadly sin – please stop bringing in ‘medicine’ to supplant God’s Morality.] Just the opposite is true – I, and many others, have literally hundreds of documents, articles, studies, science and medical experts of prestige et al…..; for true conservatives the basis is real and true medicine, science, data, BUT none of this is independent of Christ nor His Gospel, the Faith or Morality.

      Making God’s Moral Medicine as a villain to real or bad human medicine/science is not the work of God the Holy Spirit but the dark spirits who are liars and murderers from the beginning. Please make a good examination and Confession – this is in the spiritual-medical/science field, a deadly virus….As time goes forward even the evils in spending gross amounts of money, time, etc, the evil adverse harms and deaths multiplying to the ends of the earth, will not even with God’s grace find humble hearts so that eyes will see, ears hears, minds know and souls assent…this is diabolical evil does not need to be assisted. Advent blessings, miracles and mercies.

    • When I have a moral issue I “don’t go to, consult, and put yourself in regimen under the prescription of a doctor” of medicine. This is a moral issue.

    • How do you discern, Samantha, between what is a medical concern and what is a theological/spiritual one? As someone notes elsewhere on this thread, I would not have known there was a “pandemic” if not for the media insisting there was one. Sounds more spiritual than medical to me.

    • Samantha, first of all this is not a pandemic and second of all the virus cannot be eradicated. Plenty of very highly educated doctors, nurses, scientists and other professionals have addressed and spoken out against the atrocities and the tyranny that has been implemented by the elites of the world. Douglas Farrow, Professor of Theology and Ethics is one person who has listened to these professionals and has done his own research. These mandates of lockdowns and forced injections are coming to us not from people who understand how to control this virus but by politicians who are controlling the doctors in hospitals forcing them to commit murder by incentivizing them with large sums of money. All these mandates have nothing to do with controlling the spread of the virus and everything to do with controlling the people of this world.

  3. Wow! and thank you, thank you, thank you for the courage to clearly articulate and then publish the truth. Thank God someone is.

  4. Common-good arguments do not apply to the mRNA injections, only personal good, where the injections are mitigating grave symptoms to a large degree, while posing also personal risks.

    Week to week, my state posts 15%-20% of hospitalized covid patients are fully injected, and another 4%-5% are partially treated. This does not count those injected who have little or no symptoms who are running around infected/contagious while feeling right as rain.

    These “vaccines” are doing nothing to stop the spread, which is the common-good argument basis. Numerous studies in the UK, Vietnam, Israel, and Germany show fully mRNA treated folk are spreading the virus to other fully treated folk and untreated folk, this likely explaining the Delta surge even as the use of the mRNA surged.

    It is not working at its primary purpose, but is only a treatment against grave symptoms, while perhaps forming a fertile breeding ground for ever more lethal strains.

    • Bob,
      I don’t know where you get your information, but you should try reading some of the technical articles that clearly show increased vaccination levels reduce the amount of infection in the population. Or just look at any reputable presentation of the data.
      This article is a bunch of garbage that is more influenced by political thinking than theological. Yes, the bishops should become more educated – but by scientists, doctors and yes, even lawyers.

      • I get my state figures from the state health dept, and the studies I cite were published by The Lancet and Oxford.

        Today in the news is an Omicron outbreak in Norway, 120 attendees, all fully jabbed, all taking a rapid test the day before, 50% caught covid there with THIRTEEN cases being Omicron, the other 3/4s NOT Omicron, in a country over 80% vaccinated.

        But, I need not argue any further as sooner or later there will be no denying what is happening.

  5. Tremendous! On fire with love of truth! the supremacy of reason and cosmic law! Go Doug go! Wisdom of the heavenly court possess you.

    For the other half: denial? repression? deferment? evasion? the final internal confrontation between divine and human precepts whose outcome is costly.

    Truly, the addicted and spellbound can only be prayed for and offered up donated penance.

  6. Excellent, as usual, as we expect from Dr. Farrow. Also: his book on Thessalonians is really good. I recommend it warmly!

  7. There is a logical fallacy in Dr Farrow’s premise, Whether we are obligated to refuse a coercive mandate [there are of course ecclesial mandates regarding confession of serious sin prior to receiving the Eucharist that are justly coercive]. Obligation is not equivocal to [does not remove] a right to refuse a mandate. If the mandate were proven immoral but the intent was nevertheless believed beneficial to the common good we certainly are free to take the vaccine in question. Again, the immorality of the mandate cannot remove the benefit. Neither does an unjust mandate ipso facto make the decision to comply with the mandate illicit. The correct response then is that, We are not morally obliged to disobey a coercive mandate.

    • To strengthen my comment the fallacy is best understood as, An unjust mandate [in many instances it seems the mandates are excessive] does not of itself remove the good, either for the common good, or personal good of what is mandated.
      Although I agree that Dr Farrow does not argue for the dismissal of all coercive mandates. Also, “One is obligated to resist unjust laws, not only by disputation, but also by civil disobedience, whenever obedience would violate the conscience or direct others away from the common good” (Farrow). Although Dr Farrow is correct, the issue then must be understood as not in reference to a coercive mandate, rather on disputation regarding its effectiveness, its safety to the recipient, or allegation of the government’s ulterior motive.
      Depending on which medical advice we prefer notwithstanding evidence of government ulterior motivation it comes down to a value judgment. One might judge that the mandate as argued by Dr Farrow [except if convinced the Vax is harmful, ineffective] is unjust and be nevertheless perfectly justified in receiving the controversial Vax.

      • As to conscience, my opening comment addresses that as an understood right not to comply with the mandate. Farrow’s position on Church liceity based on remote complicity doesn’t specifically address address that, for his own undisclosed reasons. What he does argue however is proximate liability [including the hypothetical of global conspiracy reference to ‘dark tower’ evil] to the extent that changes the equation from a moral obligation to disobey the mandate – to a moral obligation to refuse the vaccine and avoid the implied serious sin of proximate complicity. I’m not sure if that’s his intent, although the argument clearly points to this. From a moral theological perspective it doesn’t correspond with the Church’s position or the majority of theologians and canon lawyers.

  8. I am just wondering: Would it not be the case that all “mandates” are by definition “coercive”?

    In saying this, I am reflecting on the title of this article: “Whether there is a moral obligation to disobey the coercive mandates.”

    I’m not trying to be nitpicky or snarky. Really, I’m not!

    I guess I’m wondering if there is an unstated (or even subconscious) subtext or subtexts going on regarding this and many other of the similar “hot button” political issues than rage across the cybersphere in this modern age.

  9. Readers might have missed this little tidbit: the Papal Nuncio to the EU just died of Covid at age 67. Yet, not one of the many official organs of (mis) information of our Holy Catholic Church saw fit to mention whether he received the Church-recommended vaccine or not. WHAT GIVES WITH THIS???????

      • The Clinton (Iowa) Herald AP reports:

        “Francis’ trip [to Greece] has been clouded by the Dec. 2 death of the Vatican’s ambassador to the European Union, Archbishop Aldo Giordano, among several prelates who tested positive for COVID-19 after celebrating Francis’ final Mass in Slovakia in September. The Vatican’s EU embassy insisted that Giordano caught the virus days earlier during a European bishops’ meeting in Hungary.”

        Got that? The virus seems less likely to transmit in some countries than in others. Nations participating in the Great Apostatic Reset may have some immunity against COVID infection. OTOH, the virus likely has enhanced transmissibility or virulence within countries holding out for traditional national sovereignty.

  10. I read this article with a mounting anxiety that only brought me close to the brink of desperation! If I understand this “philosophy professor” the “public good” is an illusion/hypocrisy and the right to choose is an inalienable God bestowed right whose veracity is clear in the natural law. Profesor Farrow are you forgetting or are you even aware that sadly the masses are like sheep? We will follow our noses, our thoughts while in motion, our feelings and yes our misunderstandings and prejudice. We are very truly sheep who without a pastor will walk away from the good and into the desert. “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” Remember??? “I give you a choice between right and wrong, life and death, choose right, choose life!”
    And Professor Farrow need we argue we predominantly choose death? You pose the fallacious issue of choosing between the Church and Covid. Are you insane? That is nonsense! We choose life! Did not Our Lord and Savior when confronted by the professors of the law (much like you) and asked who do you say we should serve God or Caesar? Did not Jesus who is God, say give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s? Where are you going with your alarmist rhetoric? If we listen to your rhetoric we should ONLY FOLLOW OUR CONSCIENCE! Oh yeah as long as we are truly and sincerely following God! But who is to say we are following God? Were the Pharisees and Sadducees following God when they crucified my Lord? I’m aghast at your advise and your propaganda! There can be NO ONE WRONG if we follow your argument that the individual is preeminent in his choice! Were Adam and Eve wrong? You would likely say, they were deceived and led astray! But I argue that’s what YOU are doing! Get behind me Satan! You liar! Shame on you. Please reflect on my poorly worded criticism. If you are Catholic you know in your heart YOU ARE WRONG! We are not choosing Covid over God and his Church for the sake of living a handful of years more! You my friend are a charlatan!

  11. I have had covid ( never needed to be hospitalized for it, at age 67), had the shots, had the booster. I am not an anti-vaxxer. That being said I do not believe the govt has a right in THIS case, to mandate vaccination on pain of loss of work, freedom to travel and congregate, etc. This virus has not been as deadly as first supposed, most victims being well compromised health-wise prior to catching covid. Nor was it tested as thoroughly as previous vaccvines. The govt unfortunately has to power to mandate all sorts of things and plays on the fears of the more irrational among us to use as leverage to get their way. I am sad to say I have never seen so many Americans acting as frightened as sheep in my life. Yesterday I overheard a woman in the grocery store tell her older mother to hustle with her shopping as she was “uncomfortable” being in the store at all. Do we forget we have NO shot at immortality? That in the end we will ALL die of SOMETHING? The question is how do you want to live in the meantime? I do not want to be deprived of seeing family and friends and restricted in worship, travel, shopping and a whole host of things. Like all viruses, this covid will mutate. That is why our annual regular flu vaccine needs to be reformulated each year. I dont recall any hysteria about THAT as I have seen with Covid. The media is making money on the hysteria and the power hungry left is depriving Americans of more and more constitutional rights, usurping power they appear unwilling to give back. Too many of us are willing to go along with them for the false promise of “safety” if we only listen to them. Sad. “Those who would give up their liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”—Benjamin Franklin. My final advice. Get the shot. Then LIVE your life. Vote out those who suppress our rights.

  12. Carl, As you well know Douglas Farrow’s article is pure gold. Thank you for publishing it. For a supposedly ivory tower academic he is astonishingly well-informed, but I will say, though, that the similarly well-informed people that I am following use a word and suspect a purpose which he does not, namely genocide.

  13. Like Dr. Farrow, I can’t help but wonder if the moral obligation is to resist the so-called vaccine rather than accept it, even if it has some relatively small benefit for some people. The bottom line right now is that the thing is proven dangerous by the large number of deaths and even larger number of adverse reactions and hardly proven to be effective. I particularly appreciate his use of the term “antisocial distancing” because that is what it is. The first step in any battle is to regain control of the language instead of simply ceding that ground to the opponent without a whimper.

  14. Eric Sammons of Crisis Magazine said recently the lockdowns will continue indefinitely until we, as the citizens, make the decision to simply ignore them. We went from “we need three weeks to flatten the curve” to “show us your papers” in less than a year. The time has come to rise up and rebel against lockdown. A law that is not received by the citizenry is not a law, to paraphrase St Thomas Aquinas. This is no longer about containing a disease, as lockdown is merely used as an excuse by those in power to deprive us of our freedom and push a far left political agenda that would normally be impossible in a democracy.

    Covid is a serious disease, but the “solution” (Lockdown) is even more deadly and has definitely killed more people through lost livelihoods, suicide etc.

  15. I’ve been following the legal side of the vaccines on YouTube livestreams of Canadian attorney Viva Frei and American attorney Robert Barnes. They did one where they were discussing forced vaccinations. It is on a highlight video titled: “Litigating Forced Vaccination / Vaccine “Mandates” – What you Need to Know – Viva & Barnes HIGHLIGHT”
    *
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ssDRGWBllk
    *
    Barnes says that the forced vaccine law is based on eugenics law. At the 2:45 minute mark they cover the Indiana University case. It was said that this case cited the Buck v. Bell case. Barnes said that the Nazis cited the Buck v. Bell case for the moral and legal authority for what they were doing in Germany. At the 5:35 mark Barnes also brings up the Nuremberg code of 1947. At the 10:45 mark they discuss the FDA approval process and legal concerns. At the 14:45 mark they also bring up the Jacobson and the Korematsu cases. At the 24:40 minute mark Barnes says that a person can assert a religious exemption without needing to go to church or have a religious authority to attest to the assertion.
    *
    There is a lot of games playing going on by Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Government.

  16. All people around me, who got severe covid (unfortunately, three of them died) were unvaccinated. This is the truth of me.

  17. In Eleazar’s situation there was no acceptable alternative option, they placed him squarely in the open with a demand that could not be met. Today the “coercive mandate” has the potential of putting someone in such a situation; and he should resist at this point, I think.

    Daniel too got cornered and only by divine intervention overcame the lions -likewise, Shadrach, Mesach, Abednego.

    But where there might be a vaccine that is morally acceptable and medically effective, should you refrain from taking it because of the “coercive mandate” that is being generally advertised?

    I might say the answer is yes but at the same time I would caution: Which are the trustworthy vaccines that will do only what is medically necessary and will not go and put strange things into you?

    The “coercive mandate” can otherwise be an unjust law. For example, it doesn’t distinguish among vaccines, plus it suggests the exclusion and suppression of general medical treatments and medical development for something that for many -the majority- can be treated with general medicine.

    One has to identify the occasion for resisting the bad law as well as what means can be had, for doing that.

    St. Thomas Aquinas generic definition of law would be helpful: “Law is an ordinance of reason for the rational regulation of the public (or common) good, made by those with the power (or authority) and promulgated.”

    The mandate achieves being bad law in so many respects! “Promulgated” includes, among other things, just exceptions have to be admitted.

    In the present case there is the other layer of being entered into a system of registration and public tagging by vaccination. Right now it is only incipient but it is meant to unfold into something bigger. Examine this with prudence.

    So, however, once you have gotten vaccinated with the good vaccine, should you then enter yourself into a system of registration and tagging?

    What are the ways to get a good vaccine and avoid the registration and tagging machinations? Etc.

    I would like to say something against the suggestion, “Getting vaccinated is an act of love”; but I am going to refrain. May God shield me from such as them.

  18. This is fundamentally flawed. I am certain that St. Thomas wouldn’t have come up with this.

    Coercion can never be lawful, nor can an unjust law (i.e. “mandate”) be law. The common good is the good that arises from the universal respect for individual rights.

    As such, there can’t be any just coercive measures. If a person can voluntarily give up his life for others, he can’t be forced to “save” his own life – much less those of others. So long as there is no suicide, it isn’t wrong to submit even to the violence of those who are evil. Of course, a person can’t ever formally participate with the sins of others.

    While I haven’t had formal theological training, given what I do know I believe that I am correct.

    • “As such, there can’t be any just coercive measures.”

      Do you think that’s what Dr. Farrow is saying or arguing? Huh?

      • He may not be arguing this, but it isn’t as clear as it should be. A coercive mandate (i.e. command) is an oxymoron.

        This quote probably is what made me doubt his position.

        “When engaging in coercion one may still be acting for the good of the person or of the community, of course, as when a parent physically restrains a child from running into the road or one nation justly restrains another.”

        There isn’t anything wrong with force – justly applied. Violence is inherently wrong, but it isn’t identical with force. Violence should be defined as unjust force or unjust threat of force (i.e. unjust “law”). The – probably purposeful – blurring of this distinction is what enabled the domestic violence and child abuse witch hunts after 1960.

        It may be possible to define violence as – according to circumstances – justified (i.e. just force), but it appears to be contrary to the definition of St. Thomas Aquinas. While I don’t know much Latin, I understand – based on translations – that force and fear are those tools that St. Thomas Aquinas recognizes as – possibly – legitimate. Fear is caused by pain or the anticipation of the suffering that force or deprivation (e.g. incarceration) can cause.

        There is a tort – or crime in places – of coercion. It follows that all force can’t be unjust. Otherwise, it would be unlawful for parents to administer corporal punishment to their children.

  19. Dr. Farrow,

    The word that comes to mind reading your essay is; sublime!
    Everything you have done and read has been but a preparation for this essay. As Chesterton wrote, the business of a man is to discover reality and having done so pass it along to another.

    Thank you for your great courage, clarity, charity, commitment, and sacrifice!

    God Bless,
    Jim Gill

  20. I am unconvinced by the logical failings in the argument.

    Firstly, in the nature and usage of the vaccine. It is not and was never described as a sure fire shield against catching a disease. It is designed and effective against the disease penetrating the body’s defences, shortening the period of the disease and reducing the risk of the disease becoming life-threatening in the sufferer since the immune system has been primed to respond more quickly.

    Anything else is a misrepresentation and always has been. The latest data has been issued in “Nature”.

    Secondly, the notion of individual rights trumping compliance with a government health mandate fails unless you reject the right to be treated under the medical system. Looking at the public data on the occupancy of intensive care beds, the majority (80%) of Covid cases occupying ICU beds are unvaccinated people. However, they are occupying a bed that might be needed by another patient be they car acccident victims, victims of violence or sufferers from other urgent medical conditions. As the pressure on the medical system intensifies and, in some countries overwhelms national medical systems, (there is a world outside the USA), a refusal to comply with a vaccine mandate is a direct threat to other members of society.

    Thirdly, once the article starts on about Bill Gates controlling a Programme of genetic experimentation, well, its credibility is mortally undermined. mRNA technology has been tested for the last six years but this is its first big roll out. Anyone with a grasp of the pharmaceutical industry’s processes can only wonder at the author’s lack of rigor is researching his subject.

    To be blunt, this is the metaphysical equivalent of a YouTube video.

    • Tittensor your 3 points all fail, each one in a number of respects. The problems in your arguments relate with not distinguishing issues carefully. I will give some samples, not cover the whole field.

      First, someone who will have a bad reaction to an adjuvant in a medically effective, morally acceptable vaccine, would be right, medically speaking, not to take it.

      Also, some effective vaccine might contain strange non-essential material; so that ANYBODY would be prudent and right not taking it, even though it would be medically effective.

      When general medicine is needed you can not make it obligatory for vaccines to displace it.

      Testing positive for the antigen in your blood -natural immunity,- would rule out any need to be vaccinated.

      Second, many GP’s, across the globe, report that virtually none of their patients ended up in hospital, following their home-based treatments regimens; including their compromised patients.

      I can attest to it. I was ill with COVID and confined home and my oxygen levels repeatedly dropped really low – fluctuating quite often, over a 3-week period. Many practitioners are using this as a signal for instantaneous drastic interventions, but they are producing terrible results.

      Even when vaccinated with the most famous vaccine, you are still infective. Hospital doctors who professed using HCQ and Ivermectin as prophylaxis, have not gone back on their word.

      It is totally arbitrary to suggest that an un-vaccinated patient from a car accident would be “occupying” a hospital bed for someone else who is vaccinated.

      Third, Mr. Gates’ record in the area of medical health is utterly appalling, in advocacy, in networking and in implementation. There is no official basis for him or for those activities; but HE IS REGARDED as a locus of control AND HE IS a locus of control and he aids and abets other areas and forms of control.

      It’s true Gates does not focus ONLY on genetic experimentation.

      By investigating Dr. Fauci, Robert Kennedy Jr. has done an awesome review of the pharmaceutical industry’s processes and what has evolved at the NIH. And there’s is a lot of outside corroboration.

      To be blunt, whether or not they prosecute Gates and Fauci, you’re backing what’s all wrong. Some would say, criminally wrong. It’s not just that your arguments are faulty.

      Could be you’re just not ready for what’s happening. Sorry for you.

    • Mr. Tittensor- If the mRNA technology has “been tested for 6 years” then why was it a surprize to learn it wears off in 9 months? Why wasn’t this wearing off factor disclosed from the get go instead of having a”roll out” with such hoopla hype all it lacked was a banner headline declaring “Peace In Europe!” and a sailor kissing a woman in Times Square? The original info was that it was developed in only 2 weeks because they had a lot of previous research to go on, and it was tested for only 10 1/2 months because there wasn’t time for the usual testing process. So,at even only 10 1/2 months of testing, why didn’t they know it would fade after 9 months? They DID know, but kept it from people, “for our own good,” Right?? No public health policy is smart much less moral if it doesn’t PARTNER with the public rathre than manipulate and dominate.

3 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Douglas Farrow: Voiko meillä olla moraalinen velvollisuus kieltäytyä tottelemasta lakeja ja asetuksia? • Tapio Puolimatka
  2. Whether there is a moral obligation to disobey the coercive mandates – Catholic World Report – The Old Roman
  3. Solemnity Of the Immaculate Conception Stories Testify Not Just To Confirmed Internationally Coordinated Conspiracy Underway But Of Its Biblical Nature Of What’s Begun | Traditional Catholics Emerge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*