News
Featured Image
Marc AilletKTOTV / YouTube

July 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The Catholic Church in France has predominantly chosen a compliant approach to the COVID-19 narrative, and its hierarchy has made clear its wide support for COVID restrictions and the government’s vaccine policy, not even condemning mandatory vaccination of health workers and people in assimilated professions that will become law by September 15 if the French Constitutional Court does not object. One courageous bishop, however, has expressed his concerns: Bishop Marc Aillet of Bayonne, Lescar and Oloron on the southern Atlantic coast.

Prudently but firmly, his long statement published last Friday on the diocese’s website poses a number of questions that challenge the French government’s handling of the COVID crisis, especially concerning vaccinations and the requirement of a severely discriminating “sanitary pass” being set up in France.

The “sanitary pass” means having to show proof of vaccination or a negative COVID under 48 hours old in order to access indoor and outdoor cultural and leisure venues where more than 50 people congregate. If the recent law adopted on Sunday enters into effect, besides mandatory vaccination for health professions mentioned above, the pass will be required in order to enter a restaurant or a bar, a hotel with communal facilities, hospitals and medical centers (except for emergencies), and long-distance public transportation, this amounts to a near lockdown for the unvaccinated.

The obligation to present a sanitary pass, said Bishop Aillet, “is raising questions in many quarters, including among elected officials of all stripes, as to the system of discrimination, suspicion, and mutual control that will be put in place.”

Aillet also underscored the fact that many people who are presently receiving the experimental COVID vaccine are taking the jab “under coercion, in order not to lose their jobs, not to jeopardize their families, or to enjoy the freedom to go to restaurants, the cinema, or on trips.” He spoke of the “social death” that is being inflicted on those who are resisting “media” and “public discourse” incentives to receive the injection.

Contrary to the other French bishops (and even the public comments of traditional Catholic fraternities and institutes), Aillet is also raising the issue of the moral acceptability of the “vaccine,” asking whether it is indeed a kind of “gene therapy” and recalling the problem posed by the use of abortion-tainted cells in its testing, development or, production. Without giving a straight answer, the bishop referenced conscientious objection and its legitimacy.

He stated:

I do not intend to deny in any way that sanitary security is a fundamental element of the Common Good that the State must take seriously, but no one can be forced to act against his or her conscience. And it is indeed freedom of conscience that is at stake here. But conscience must be enlightened and informed. Now, the investigation carried out by the Diocesan Academy for Life has allowed me to discover a mass of information on the worldwide epidemic, which has been impacting populations for nearly two years, and on the means recommended to eradicate it, which are not always brought to the public's attention by the mainstream media.

He added:

The last question concerns the proven use, at least for the AstraZeneca vaccine, since there is no information leaflet on the composition of the other three vaccines — which is strange, to say the least — of cells from aborted fetuses. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a “Note on the morality of using some anti-COVID-19 vaccines” on December 20, 2020. The question is not new, since other vaccines that have been circulating since the 1960s (against rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis A, and shingles), have already led the Church to express its opinion in the past. The most recent document cited by the 2020 Note is the Instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas personae, of December 8, 2008. If the Church obviously passes negative judgment on the use of cells from aborted fetuses in the experimentation and manufacture of vaccines, what about the cooperation in evil of the users of these vaccines? This is an ethical question that cannot be avoided.

But the bishop also recalled many other questions that make people doubt or reject the government’s exclusive promotion of the “vaccine.” The number of deaths, the objective gravity of the disease, the existence of efficient therapies were all mentioned in the interrogative form, but taken together the question leaves no doubt as to Aillet’s non-acceptance of the official narrative.

— Article continues below Petition —
SIGN: Show Pope Francis the Latin Mass will survive any suppression
  Show Petition Text
34723 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 35000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

LifeSiteNews will hand-deliver this petition to the Holy See, recording the moment traditional Catholics from around the world stood up for the Traditional Latin Mass.

Pope Francis has issued a new decree, "Traditiones Custodes," severely restricting the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM).

Please SIGN and SHARE this petition with other Catholics, and ask the Pope to reconsider this new and divisive Motu Proprio.

Pope Francis' decree clamps down hard on the TLM. In it, he effectively does away with Pope Benedict's protection of it, handing bishops in every diocese the right to suppress it, while demanding new priests get permission from their bishop and the Vatican to offer the Mass of the Ages. 

As Catholics who value Tradition and know the place of the Magisterium in safeguarding the Deposit of Faith, it is time to speak up and have our voices heard

Francis has decried rigidity and intolerance for years, but now is showing intolerance and rigidity himself by forcing his very narrow understanding of liturgy on one of the true sources of good fruit in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

Our Lord said that "a bad tree cannot bear good fruit", and yet we see more and more souls drawn to Christ through the TLM, with marriages dedicated to God and open to many children, and vocations also abounding in traditional seminaries, orders and priestly societies.

Indeed, the Traditional Latin Mass has been a source of unity for the Catholic Church for more than 1500 years, producing great saints, repentant sinners, and souls won for Christ across the world. *Read below how Benedict XVI decried attacks against the TLM and its adherents.

To attempt to restrict the Traditional Latin Mass, as a new generation are rediscovering the treasures of God's Church, will inevitably cause further division and hurt among the faithful, risking the loss of some souls who will regretfully turn away

Souls are now at stake with this Motu Proprio, as some will drift away from the Deposit of Faith in disillusionment, while others that are far from God will never be touched by the profound beauty and reverence found in the Traditional Latin Mass. 

Please SIGN and SHARE this petition to Pope Francis, urging him to reconsider his decision, not least for the good of souls and the glory of God, and making sure as many cardinals support the TLM as possible. 

Click "Show Petition Text" on the right to read the letter to Pope Francis.

Finally, please pray, fast and do penance for the salvation of souls, including that of our shepherds, during this turbulent time in Church history.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'BREAKING: Pope Francis abrogates Pope Benedict’s universal permission for Old Mass' - www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-abrogates-pope-benedicts-universal-permission-for-old-mass

'ANALYSIS: Pope restricts ‘divisive’ Traditional Latin Mass, says 52-yr-old Novus Ordo is ‘unique expression’ of Church’s liturgy' - www.lifesitenews.com/news/analysis-pope-restricts-divisive-traditional-latin-mass-says-52-yr-old-novus-ordo-is-unique-expression-of-churchs-liturgy

* Pope Benedict XVI (Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000):

"For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 [the older Latin Mass] should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her at present if things are that way?"

**Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com

  Hide Petition Text

The conclusion of his statement is about “fundamental freedoms.”

Here below is LifeSite’s complete translation of Bishop Marc Aillet’s statement:

Communiqué on the health crisis

LETTER OF MSGR. MARC AILLET TO THE DIOCESAN COMMUNITIES OF BAYONNE, LESCAR AND OLORON, ON THE COVID-19 EPIDEMIC

Dear brothers and sisters,

The problem that the worldwide contagion of the COVID-19 virus is currently posing cannot leave the Church indifferent to the disease and to the moral distress of the populations.

The situation is complex; a deep sense of unease

As a bishop, that is to say as a pastor called upon to take care of the flock entrusted to me by the Lord, I share the concern of a growing number of people who are distraught in the face of the current sanitary panic. The solutions recommended by the Government to contain the epidemic, using many media and legislative resources, even if they are based on the laudable intention of guaranteeing public safety, are causing psychological and moral distress to many. If vaccination is presented by the political powers and the health authorities as the only way to stop the epidemic, the constraints put in place by decree or that are under discussion in the Parliament — mandatory vaccination for certain professions, a sanitary pass for certain places or activities of daily life — raise questions for a significant number of people who fear for the preservation of their freedoms.

While many citizens have been persuaded by government incentives and by the advice of many doctors acting in good faith, others are taking the vaccine under coercion, in order not to lose their jobs, not to jeopardize their families, or to enjoy the freedom to go to restaurants, the cinema, or on trips … The obligation to present a sanitary pass is raising questions in many quarters, including among elected officials of all stripes, as to the system of discrimination, suspicion, and mutual control that will be put in place. The lively discussions in the National Assembly bear witness to this. A member of the majority, opposing the sanitary pass, even denounced the risk of “splitting society” before the legislative commission.

The daily pressure of the media discourse, which functions as an incentive to vaccinate, as well as the approximations and contradictions of the public discourse, have led many of our fellow citizens to doubt and to skepticism, and even to hardening of attitudes and reactions that are not without concern. It would be detrimental to peace and social cohesion to establish a situation of “discrimination” between the vaccinated and the non-vaccinated, even inciting the former to make the latter feel guilty, marginalizing them and condemning them to what amounts to social death. On both sides of the argument, fear is sometimes played on, and people are sometimes pushed into irrationality.

Not a day goes by in which I do not feel this deep unease, this climate of tension; and even the resentment that affects many people I meet. I also do not hide my concern when I see the seeds of division in families, communities and groups where the question of vaccination is gradually becoming a taboo subject, so much so that it appears to be a bone of contention.

Information at the service of freedom of conscience

You will have understood that it is not my intention to tell anyone what they should do, nor to take a dogmatic position for or against the vaccine. But it is my duty as a pastor to invite you to be serene, with the greatest respect for all, whatever your option, by refusing to stigmatize those who make other choices. It is the mission of the Church to take a step back and invite to a peaceful debate, better still: to enlighten consciences in order to favor the “free and informed consent” required by the Law. Taking up the well-known trilogy of the Church’s social thought (see, judge, act), I had to proceed, with the help of members of the “Diocesan Academy for Life,” to do a lot of research, choosing to use only referenced information, coming from the official services of the French State, from other States or from international institutions. This choice was made even if there is no lack of eminent scientists, doctors and other health professionals and jurists who alert, in a serene and constructive way, the public authorities and the populations on the alternative means to the vaccine and to the sanitary pass to contain the epidemic and to reach collective immunity, without infringing on public liberties.

I do not intend to deny in any way that sanitary security is a fundamental element of the Common Good that the State must take seriously, but no one can be forced to act against his or her conscience. And it is indeed freedom of conscience that is at stake here. But conscience must be enlightened and informed. Now, the investigation carried out by the Diocesan Academy for Life has allowed me to discover a mass of information on the worldwide epidemic, which has been impacting populations for nearly two years, and on the means recommended to eradicate it, which are not always brought to the public's attention by the mainstream media.

There are acts or choices that are always wrong and that no law can justify. There is more simply a discernment to be made on the proportion of the means implemented to reach the end, even when it is praiseworthy, that one has chosen.

The questioning posture

I be content here with adopting a “questioning” posture, which the President of the Republic, in his speech at the Bernardins on April 9, 2018, had said he expected from the Church. The questions I am asking myself, which are perhaps impertinent, are those that I regularly hear around me.

We are told that vaccination is the only way, in the current situation, to stop the epidemic and achieve herd immunity. But what about existing and effective treatments or other means of prevention recommended to strengthen our natural immune defenses? Is it true that hydroxychloroquine, which has been banned in France by decree, has been authorized in other European countries? What about Ivermectin, whose effectiveness appears to have been proved? What about the freedom of doctors to prescribe treatments against COVID-19?

The word “vaccine” resonates in the collective unconscious as an undeniable progress that has brought great benefits to humanity. Just think of the vaccine against Tetanus, for which we still haven’t found a treatment to avoid an inevitable death. Is the COVID-19 epidemic of the same order, and is the risk of dying from it comparable? Is the mortality rate particularly worrying? Does the number of infections exponentially increase the number of deaths? Do vaccines protect against “variants”?

Are the vaccines currently on the market in France vaccines or innovative “gene therapies”? Why has the European Medicines Agency, followed by the French National Medicines Safety Agency, granted only a “conditional” Marketing Authorization (MA) and why have pharmaceutical companies been exempted from compensation for adverse effects? If the experimental phase 3 for Pfizer, for example, will only end in October 2023, does this mean that there is reason to fear for the safety of the drug in the medium or long term? Have adverse events, even fatal ones, been reported since the use of these “vaccines” and have treating physicians been asked to inform their patients of these risks? Why is the “precautionary principle” not being invoked while it is so prevalent in the public discourse when it comes to the protection of the environment?

The last question concerns the proven use, at least for the AstraZeneca vaccine, since there is no information leaflet on the composition of the other three vaccines — which is strange, to say the least — of cells from aborted fetuses. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a “Note on the morality of the use of certain vaccines” on December 20, 2020. The question is not new, since other vaccines that have been circulating since the 1960s (against rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis A, and shingles), have already suggested to the Church to express its opinion in the past. The most recent document cited by the 2020 Note is the Instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas personae, of December 8, 2008. If the Church obviously passes negative judgment on the use of cells from aborted fetuses in the experimentation and manufacture of vaccines, what about the cooperation in evil of the users of these vaccines? This is an ethical question that cannot be avoided.

Lastly, the sanitary pass is often presented in an altruistic way, as being necessary to prevent non-vaccinated people from contaminating others, for example the clients of a restaurant or the most vulnerable people with whom we come into contact. But if these people are vaccinated, what risk do they face? Moreover, does the anti-COVID vaccine protect against contamination and transmission of the virus? The public discourse is not clear: In a memorandum to the Council of State of March 28, 2021, the Minister of Health asserted, with supporting arguments, that a risk always remains for vaccinated people, but the Prime Minister in his speech of July 21 on TFI TV station, asserted without ambiguity that the vaccinated are protected. Who is to be believed? And if the vaccine does not protect, why should the vaccinated be admitted to certain places more than the non-vaccinated? Have we assessed the constraints that the sanitary pass will place on citizens in their daily lives? Does it not ultimately represent a disguised vaccination mandate?

How can we reconcile existing legal texts, that ever since the Nuremberg Code prohibit all vaccination mandates? Although on April 8, 2021, a decision of the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) authorized compulsory vaccination under certain conditions, a resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, voted on January 27, 2021, by all the countries of the Community, including France, asks to “ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is not mandatory and that no one is under political, social or other pressure to be vaccinated if they do not wish to do so’ (7.3.1) and “ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated” (7.3.2). What should we think about this?

These are the questions I hear, and willingly make my own. Those who would like to consult the Informative Note of the Diocesan Academy for Life can request it at the following e-mail address: [email protected] Like any citizen, we cannot decide on these questions without reflection, just as we cannot trust the public authorities and the health authorities without sufficient information and discernment. Choices that are so decisive for public safety can only be made in good conscience.

As I invite you not to give in to division among us, to avoid judging one another and always to seek the truth in charity, I pray the Lord to enlighten us on the right attitudes to adopt, in view of the Common Good and the defense of our fundamental freedoms which constitute its foundation.

Let us pray for the public authorities to make good and just decisions, and let us ask the Lord, through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, to put an end to this epidemic.

+ Marc Aillet, July 23, 2021

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.