(Former Swiss Guard Pierre-André Udressy finds it) scandalous that this thing (mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations at the Vatican) is imposed in this way for a political reason, when it should be something done conscientiously with a doctor. It is extremely serious that this obligation is extended to the whole world. Above all, the suppression of freedom … and it is even more serious that this happens in the Vatican, even more strongly than in other countries. The Vatican is the center of the Church, it should defend freedom of conscience, freedom in general. For me, a Catholic, it is something inhumane.”
Asked what is the “origin of this evil in the Vatican,” Udressy said the doctors took the decisions, but added there was another issue in play: “The fact that we are no longer trying to defend the truth, but rather trying to adapt to what’s happening outside, and even be the first to apply the changes.”
He says he will now return to Switzerland and readjust to life over there, returning to work as a carpenter which was his profession for five years before signing up to serve as a Swiss Guard.
Open Letter
Here below is Udressy’s open letter detailing 12 reasons why he didn’t wish to take the vaccine, and for which he said he had received compliments from cardinals and priests:
“1. The very principle of taking a vaccine is this: the prevention of an evil by preventing it in order to acquire immunity, taking into account the risks and benefits [his emphasis]. “Doubt is the beginning of knowledge.”
2. Every vaccine carries risks and requires caution especially when it’s not been sufficiently tested, according to the urgency or the state of the patient. Unfortunately, one must admit reality and take into consideration adverse events.
The frequency of fatalities after vaccination is “underestimated,” according to the director of the University of Heidelberg, Peter Schirmacher, who adds: “The vaccine is the cause of death in 30-40% of autopsies of recently vaccinated people.” But “the acceptable risk is the one that is accepted.”
3. A danger may have to be accepted for a greater good, no doubt, as general immunity might be.
However, according to Didier Febvrel, director of the Health Service of Marseille, “ensuring that the vaccine presents no danger and that it is the decisive weapon against the virus comes from a utopian and military communication of the last century that coincides with propaganda.”
4. Unfortunately, many times in the history of accidents have taken place precisely because of the politicization of vaccination campaigns, as with hepatitis B, rubella in England, the H1N1 crisis, the POR Walkefield affair, and chickenpox disappeared but for which we continue to vaccinate with deadly risks …
Throughout all of this, the only problem would be that it results in bad publicity for the vaccine! So those who object to it are increasingly every day, to the point of avoiding some vaccines considered important. numerous and some vaccines considered important are avoided…
And the vaccine’s protection is certainly not guaranteed by universally mandating it, an obligation in fact already decided on September 12, 2019 (before the “pandemic”) at the Global Vaccination Summit.
Then we are told that we would have herd immunity with 75% of the population vaccinated, “except that this is not science,” said Dr. Didier Raoult, of the IHU in Marseille, one of the greatest living infectious scientists. “For the same microbe, the contagiousness is different between one strain and another. In fact, the very idea, apparently very logical, that the more a population is vaccinated the less the virus circulates, is not entirely accurate.”
5. Also according to this ideology, one could therefore let part of the population be free not to get vaccinated, but things are not like that, vaccination must be something global, without limits or discernment. But how can we hope for immunity if the vaccinated themselves are carriers of the virus?
“Although vaccination is advancing at an increasing pace, the virus is not going away and patients will need safe and effective treatment,” said Stelle Kyriakides, EU Commissioner for Health and Food Safety.
6. So it happened that over the past year, I’d like to point out that all members of the Swiss Guard who tested positive for COVID-19 had been vaccinated, at most, a few months earlier. And what about Israel, one of the most vaccinated countries in the world, but then in a very critical pandemic situation?
7. Dear authorities, in response to the pressure that has been put on us, I could have defended myself with medical certificates, declaring that I was immune for having contracted the disease at the end of last year.
Surely one cannot be immunized better than by recovery from the disease itself. I could then have logically been justified in saying that I did not need a vaccine: but this would not have been accepted either!
And it is still preferable for me to testify in full truth, without hypocrisy, what is my duty to testify and thus support all those who allow themselves to think differently, to react with intelligence and avoid with conviction what is not reasonable.
How many of my dear colleagues have unfortunately succumbed to a medical treatment to which they did not give full consent, compelled by force, in order to regain their freedom? For me, it is fundamental to defend Freedom with determination.
Why should I force myself to do something I know to be absurd? Who could force me?
8. In this regard I quote the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which on December 21, 2020 said: “practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.”
What are we to understand? Is this not the indication that comes to us from the Catholic Church?
9. In every way, and especially in the most hypocritical ways, governments have gone so far as to scare people under the guise of prevention. What is really frightening are those who take advantage of this “window of opportunity,” who were waiting for nothing else than for the reconstruction of the world, the abolition of community-based societies, the denaturalization of the human species with the proliferation of specific laws (early abortion, human/animal chimera embryos, PMA/GPA).
What is even more frightening is the neglect of Life where Life should be defended! In such a dramatic situation, people would expect nothing but spiritual support: in such a crisis only Faith could allow them to accept the situation.
Unfortunately, the greatest scandal is right there. [The Catholic hierarchy] has come to suppress spiritual and sacramental support and to abandon people in need. The situation has certainly been difficult to manage: there have been government threats, but in many places Church authorities played it by ear and it is these same ecclesiastical authorities who refused to bring supernatural help to those in need. The Vatican set this example! There would be many anecdotes to report here that would prove the absurdity of the decisions made by men of little faith.
Many times we’ve been told about the history of the Church, the faith of the Early Church Fathers, the commitment of the Holy Church during the great plagues. But nothing can justify the absurdity of the current situation.
How many times have we asked ourselves these questions when admiring so many concrete episodes in the history of Rome and of all Italy. Strangely enough, morality is disguised; it seems that in case of urgency everything is allowed.
10. What about the document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith cited above? Does it have no bearing, even juridically, in the Vatican?
What about this obligation against the conscience of honest people?
What about the document issued by the Pontifical Academy for Life on June 5, 2005 [on use of vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines]?
This document clearly states that illicit vaccines, prepared from cells from aborted human fetuses, must be combated, while then admitting that in case of need their use could be accepted.
“Doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines (if they exist), (cf. John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, n.74), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available. They should take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin.”
So according to the doctrine of the Holy See, certain vaccines are clearly defined as illicit, at least as far as their production is concerned, and although it is tolerated to use them in case of necessity, it is said that the governments that spread such vaccines should be opposed.
“Equally, they should oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media, etc.) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus, and requesting rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.”
Even the Academy’s own July 31, 2017 document, while more permissive regarding the use of such products, does not fail to mention the necessary “joint commitment to ensure that any vaccine has no reference in its preparation to any material of abortive origin.”
Now the Vatican, the institution of the Church, has chosen the Pfizer vaccine, tested on abortive cell lines. What should we think? It even imposes the vaccine on all its employees, although as a sovereign state, it would have the possibility to choose products not contaminated by abortion, which also exist.
As a Catholic who follows the Magisterium, I have a duty to fight against the vaccine choices of the Vatican City? If one reads the documents cited, one must answer yes.
11. Yes, I have followed up to this point the evolution of these restrictions, of the vaccination obligation, and I have endured until today, as a victim, all that we have had to endure.
12. I have witnessed all the pressure that’s been progressively and subversively placed on people to convince them to undertake a burden they didn’t want to take.
I have witnessed situations of injustice, all the more oppressive in that they weighed on people whose situation was more difficult than mine, even though I myself was exhausted. I have endured it all until the end, trying to serve as best I could.
By the intuition of my conscience, and after praying about it, I was moved to discern things in this way, and, once persuaded of my duty, I thus defend Liberty and stand up for those who have been so severely tested.
What is certain is that, in all this, what we are experiencing has nothing human let alone Christian about it, and it is truly intolerable to see the holy Vatican City come to this point!
May St. Michael deign to always protect and defend the Holy City!
Acriter et fideliter
Pierre-André Udressy
Former Swiss guard and current poor citizen of the Vatican.”
The of late increasingly popular assertion of some that the Pauline Missal is “irreversible” is amusing given the passion with which it’s been asserted by the same people that the Missals of other popes are most certainly reversible. Consistency please.
An ecumenical Council is the deciding factor here. It is Vatican II that in effect did away with previous Missals and set the foundational terms for future missals.
So, if another ecumenical Council decides otherwise, then you’re in business! 🙂
awr
Benedict disagrees with you. Paul and Francis agree. A future pope may agree with Benedict. Who knows.
Here’s the real question: Did Benedict disagree with Vatican II? The key question will be a proper interpretation of Vatican II. As you know, I think the evidence is that Benedict is the outlier and his views will not prevail. But as you say, a future pope could do who knows what.
Enough said on this one. I think your position and mine are abundantly clear to anyone who cares. And I think that most of our readers don’t care – not if it’s repeating old material.
awr
I think I remember (old age!) a spoof interview written by Michael Frayn at the time of Humanae Vitae, where a Vatican Official is asked about the Church’s position regarding the Pill. Asserting that the Church was aginst it, he said ‘The Church holds a position of absolute certainty on this.’
The Reporter then asked ‘So what if the Pope changes the teaching?’ The Official answered ‘Then the Church will have moved from one position of absolute certainty to another position of absolute certainty.’
Hey Ho.
AG.
For the sake of clarity, it must be pointed out that the Missal of Paul VI is not the product of Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium is. The Missal is just one interpretation of the recommendations of the Council, albeit with papal approval. Nor did the Council call for the old Missal to be replaced, just modified. Other than the call for an expanded Lectionary, the revised Missal of 1965 fulfilled the recommendations of the Council. A future pope could return to the Missal of 1965 (with an expanded Lectionary) without rejecting anything of Vatican II.
I would be satisfied if we could just accept the new Missal as is, without the de facto suppression of the options for a traditional form of the new Mass. Those who oppose this are rejecting the reformed Mass and Vatican II just as much as those who reject the new Missal as a whole.
Thanks for your comments, but I disagree.
Modified and replaced.
1965 was seen as interim by those who issued it, and there were things in SC not yet fulfilled in it. Joseph Shaw, who is a critic of the reform, has pointed this out.
awr
I don’t see ‘irreversible’ as meaning irreformable. The 1962 Missal, before the Council, was a significant modification of the previous editio typica of 1920. Foillowing the Council, and in accord with it, the 1962 Missal was modified with a new rite of Concelebration, a new editio typica of the rubrics (1965), and a further revision of the rubrics in 1967 by an ‘Instruction’. It is this 1967 edition which is “the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970”, as Paul VI made explicit when granting its continued use to aged priests, and in the “Heenan indult”. 1962 was as thoroughly superseded as 1573.
This is a wise and well-grounded exhortation. Archbishop Roche’s comments are the fruit of many years of study and experience, and he is also speaking out of a deep love for the church. We cannot afford to neglect the role of liturgy as an ecclesial ministry. His comments about the Missal of Paul VI were right on target.
Any honest assessment of the liturgical reform, and claims of its continuity and traditionality, will have to come to terms with careful studies like Matthew Hazell’s:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/10/all-elements-of-roman-rite-mythbusting.html
I hope to respond to Matthew Hazell – if I find the time and I make no promises! 🙂 I think there is something profoundly mistaken about Matthew Hazell’s starting points, and hence there is a certain tragic quality to his very careful and industrious work.
awr
I would, in all sincerity, be interested in your response.
I’ll also just point out here that His Grace the Prefect is on record – last year, in fact – as claiming that “ninety percent” of the 1962 Missal’s texts are used in the reformed Missal (see http://www.cultodivino.va/content/cultodivino/it/rivista-notitiae/indici-annate/2020.html, p. 251). And he isn’t the only person to make similar claims over the years!
I’ll do what I can, Matthew, but it’ll be a challenge. I’m doing a teaching overload to offer Gregorian Chant online this term, and laboring mightily to bring to complete a hardbound hymnal of nearly 1,000 hymns, only for our use (for copyright reasons).
awr
What seems tragic to me is the dismal state of the liturgy in most parishes and the overwhelming obsession of some , to obliterate the old rite for those Catholics who are nourished by it.
It’s because the Second Vatican Council decided to reform it out of existence.
It’s tiresome repeatedly having to defend the basic and fundamental teachings of an ecumenical Council. There was a reason why they reformed the church, and reformed the liturgy to be, as they put it, an expression of the true Church. They gave a long, detailed list in Sacrosanctum Concilium of things to change in the liturgy which is, in effect, a list of reasons why the old liturgy would not remain in use in their minds
All this is church teaching. But to state it is highly controversial. That is where we’re at.
awr
Where exactly did the council fathers state that the liturgy up to that point was not an expression of the true church and that it needed to be reformed in order to become such an expression?
“…combining of parts of two or more orations to create what is effectively a newly-composed prayer”
“edited in some manner”
“found their way unchanged into the reformed Missal”
These quotations from Hazell’s article suggest that the criteria used for “measuring” the amount of change is a bit slippery. “combined”…how? why? how much? are we talking about a few words, a sentence or two, or whole pages? Have historically obscure references been modified for clarity? Have other aspects of the text been modified for clarity? What’s meant by “found their way unchanged”? Does a single change ( a comma, a period) “count” in the “measurement” ( a quasi scientific sounding term–with charts!–promising dead certainty that in fact isn’t applicable when it comes to textual criticism). And has Mr. Hazell enquired or reported anywhere as to the rationale behind the changes mentioned? Etc.
I would suggest a comparison with Shakespeare’s texts. We have a few first folios, but ambiguities abound. After all, printing errors, variances between portfolios, etc. require interpretative evaluation. Attempting to solve the issue of what constitutes the most “authentic” version of Hamlet…through “measurements”….(!!!!) misses the point. Hamlet…measured out to find the best text?
We can’t measure our way to understanding prayer. The missal isn’t information that can be measured. It’s a living text abounding in meaning that opens out over time.
You are more than welcome to download the PDF file linked to in my article, which contains all the relevant texts (except the centonised texts, as that’s a much more complex issue that requires further analysis), side by side for edited orations, in which some of your questions will no doubt be answered.
Or, just click here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16ts4aWa4zof6rtX2d5BJmp2_ul45vKtK/view
In that file, I have also provided references to the Corpus orationum, for those who wish to do their own text-critical study of the prayers. The CO gives all the necessary information – how many manuscripts a given oration is extant in, its usages, textual differences (if any) in each manuscript, biblical allusions, etc.
(For what it’s worth, even a cursory glance at the CO will demonstrate that the majority of edits Coetus XIII and XVIII bis made to extant prayers cannot justified with reference to the textual tradition. E.g. «in tot adversis» was removed from the collect for Holy Monday – an edit not attested in any of the 44 manuscripts dating from at least the 8th century that this prayer appears in.)
how on earth did they do all of that in a couple years?!
So it was the Council Fathers intention for the Roman Church to have dry truncated liturgy with stripped down churches devoid of beauty? When these unfortunate alterations were enacted in 1970 the Church possessed gravitas and a willing faithful. This is not the Church we have now, having squandered its spiritual capital with poor catechesis and an iconoclastic purging of Catholic tradition.This is why I suppose repeating over and over again that the Council ‘s liturgical changes are non negotiable and will bear much fruit is tiresome;
Catholics today either no longer care or know better , and hold tightly to the Old Rites.