Wednesday, October 13, 2021


Ex-Swiss Guard Decries Mandatory Vaccination as ‘Scandalous’ and ‘Inhumane’

(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.”


TJM said...

I guess he was not worthy of being accompanied

Michael A said...

This man is not a scientist but he confirms what I had read from the document that Father Kavanaugh claimed to unequivocally prove there are no moral grounds to refuse to take the vaccine. I read the same things as unemployed Swiss Guardsman that the Vatican's position is ambiguous at best and at worst declares that unborn child cells were used but that we should just ignore the inconvenient truth. Another day in the leadership of the Church under PF.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"In fact, the licit use of such vaccines does not and should not in any way imply that there is a moral endorsement of the use of cell lines proceeding from aborted fetuses.[4] Both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated."

There is nothing ambiguous in that statement. It is utterly untrue to say that the CDF letter says that we should " just ignore " anything. Utterly untrue.

TJM said...

Fr. K,

Until you abjure the party of intrinsic evil, no sentient, faithful Catholic will give a fig what you have to say. You are in the Josef Goebbels camp

Michael A said...

Father Kavanaugh,

Where in this quote does it state the vaccines are free from aborted baby tissue as you previously stated? This quote states that there is no endorsement of producing vaccines with aborted cells and that pharma companies should produce ethical vaccines. No one can argue with this. Please cut and paste the parts where they discuss the use of aborted cells. Is the Swiss guardsman mistaken about the Pfizer vaccine? Is he falsifying something? I would like to believe that President Trump can be created with the successful development of 100% ethical vaccines in record time so please prove that he did. Thanks.

John Nolan said...

Anyone who has served in the military will tell you that you cannot opt out of being vaccinated. It goes with the job.

I can also attest that in my country the profession of arms is highly esteemed, to the extent that the Press refers, hyperbolically, to anyone in uniform as a 'hero'.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

And as a dependent of my father in the army, children too had to get mandated shots to travel to places of deployment. As a very young child I received my mandated small pox vaccine and many others that were mandated for my father.

Michael A said...

John Nolan,

So you believe that this vaccine is beyond reproach and that the Vatican is perfectly correct to mandate its use because the vaccine is good and perfect? We know that not to be the case because the position paper they issued on this is not clear on the subject and creates doubt. Is what is claimed about the Pfizer vaccine accurate or not? I don't know, but I do know that I do not trust the ethics of large corporate America.

If the Army were tell pregnant women who are in combat that they must have abortions, I guess that they need to comply? I don't understand the argument that if my authority tells me to something that I need to blindly accept it. I may as well move to China.

The question is not whether you have to do what you're told, but whether what you're being told is good.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Michael A. Regarding your comment about Trump and vaccines... Coronaviruses have been known/identified since the late 1950's/early 1960's. Research on vaccines for them was, more than 50 years ago, already underway.

With the Swine Flu (1976) and SARS (2002) scares, the research on coronavirus vaccines was given greater emphasis. We are talking about vaccine research from DECADES ago.

In 1995, that's 26 years ago, work started on the development of mRNA vaccines. It came to the USA 1998 and the first papers were published in, I believe, 2003 and 2005.

Trump had nothing to do with the development of these vaccines. Operation Warp Speed was about production and distribution.

John Nolan said...

Michael A

Pregnant women have no business being in combat so your analogy falls flat. What I am saying is that a serving soldier/sailor/airman is not allowed to refuse vaccination on any grounds, including conscience.

At least in my day he wasn't. If I had not been prepared to obey legitimate orders, I wouldn't have joined in the first place.

Michael A said...

Father Kavanaugh,

I accept your history of the development of the vaccines. The rest of it about Trump is completely ridiculous as you know. You actually believe that the vaccines were in the pipeline already but we were just waiting for someone to have the reason to flip the switch?

Are you at all concerned that since the history is so long that unethical research is a greater probability? Does the amount of time that has elapsed make it more or less likely that bad behavior occurred?

ByzRus said...

I haven't the time today to read this posting thoroughly, or to read ancillary docs however, if the requirement of the employer is that the employee be vaccinated to work there, then, that's how it is to be. Most jobs are employment at will, the employee is free to go find another job if the terms of employment become unacceptable to them and their situation. Simple as that, at least to me.

TJM said...


Sadly, Father K suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome which prevents him from being rational about the man. It is a fact Trump created more good paying jobs for the working man than any president in recent memory, minorities experienced their lowest unemployment rate ever, and he started no new hot wars. But since Fr. K suffers from TDS his mind cannot process those positive things

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Yes, vaccines for coronavirus, including mRNA vaccines, were already in the pipeline. That is the history I presented and you say you accept.

If you can find examples of unethical research that absolutely PREVENT Catholics from using those vaccines, show it. In that you must show why the statement from the CDF is wrong.

Michael A said...

John Nolan,

I believe the USA claims to have women in combat. I know current military idiots were occupied with outfitting pregnant woman fighter pilots with pilot jumpsuits so my argument doesn't fall flat. I don't disagree that women in combat is stupid but the question I raised is a real one, it is no analogy.

So to carryout bad orders is a thing a soldier must do no questioned asked? I think I'm beginning to understand why you didn't like Mel's The Patriot and Braveheart. Hmmm

Michael A said...


The question is not if the employer has the right to be a hog, the question is whether the employer is a hog for mandating what a honorable person believes is an immoral act. In this case regrettably we have been put in the position of having to defend the Vatican of achieving hog status.

Michael A said...

Father Kavanaugh,

From the CDF document that you claim shows no moral dilemma exists...

1. As the Instruction Dignitas Personae states, in cases where cells from aborted fetuses are employed to create cell lines for use in scientific research, “there exist differing degrees of responsibility”[1] of cooperation in evil. For example,“in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision”.[2]

2. In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available (e.g. in countries where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated) it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.

You see Father Kavanaugh, the position of the prelates who issued this document is that if I need the medicine then I can choose to take it and I don’t have culpability because I didn’t make it.

In item #2 they state that they suspect in “some areas” there could be situations where there has been less ethical development of the vaccines and I can take the vaccine without being guilty of sin because good information is not available to me.

So what we have is clear admission that aborted baby cells have likely been used but we really don’t care.

Your description of this document, I contend is entirely false, and it is now in plain sight for all to read. The position of the Vatican is that we can take the vaccines because we didn’t make them.

My belief based on what I read from the document that you alerted us to is that our country is not ethical when it comes to using aborted baby parts to produce whatever we need so to imagine that our vaccine production is free from this scandal is nonsense.

What is hard for me to believe is that you used this document as your supporting evidence that there is no moral dilemma for people concerned about the vaccine. As I said, I have more concerns after reading this then I did before.

I guess it's just stupid for people to feel bad about Dr. Frankenstein research because the Vatican says it's OK to use Dr. Frankenstein research. Anyways, it is close to Halloween.

John Nolan said...

Michael A

My objection to The Patriot and Braveheart is that they distort history with the effect of fuelling prejudice and reinforcing national myth. I am aware that the popular perception of the American Revolution owes more to myth than to reality, but who would have thought that Braveheart would come to be used by Scottish nationalists as a propaganda tool prior to the 2014 referendum on independence?

As for following orders, soldiers are well aware that they are bound to disobey illegal orders, such as killing prisoners and innocent civilians. Operational orders which come down the chain of command can and are queried by those senior enough to be aware of the larger picture. The nature of modern warfare means that junior officers and especially NCOs have to use their initiative and training to make operational decisions in the absence of direct orders.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Michael A - The document has been "in plain sight for all to read" since the day it was released. You have mad no discovery or revelation.

Thomas Garrett said...


Mark said...

I have three questions:

1. In point number 10 the former Swiss guard says, “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.” Which vaccines are “not contaminated by abortion”? I just checked up about AstraZenica and it seems to have similar issues:

I also found a USCCB letter of April 17, 2020 to then FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn stating that “Thankfully, other vaccines such as those being developed by Sanofi Pasteur, Inovio, and the John Paul II Medical Research Institute utilize cell lines not connected to unethical procedures and methods.”

It seems that the first two alternatives are still in stage 3 trials:

As best I can tell, pursuit of the third alternative was discontinued for lack of funding but please correct me if necessary.

2. However, even if such alternatives do in fact already exist (which it seems they do not), and also if they were available to the former Swiss guard (perhaps through a physician somewhere), did he ask the Vatican whether he might be permitted to have such alternative vaccine and be exempted from having to take to Pfizer vaccine?

3. If this issue presents such a crisis of conscience for the former Swiss guard, why is it number 10 instead of number 1 on the list? Indeed, why mention any of the other points at all? Shouldn’t it trump everything else? It is difficult to avoid the impression that it is thrown in as an additional rationalization after all the other stuff about freedom, etc. But perhaps I have become too skeptical because of the way abortion is so cynically used by many politicians as a political “wedge issue” over here.

TJM said...


Abortion as a “wedge” issue? Well during a pandemic Nancy Pelosi who wanted to shut everything down wanted taxpayer dollars to keep the Abortionatoriums open.

Michael A said...

Father Kavanaugh,

What I have discovered is that you distort the facts and when your nose into rubbed into the truth you still refuse to accept it.

I suppose you have instructed your parishioners that they are foolish to question the purity of the vaccines. This is dishonest spiritual guidance based on the CDF document. The document you cited admits that aborted babies have been used. This is of no consequence to you, but don't accuse good people of having problems with the decision about whether to take it.

I'm still waiting to hear about your one great achievement as Ecumenical Director. Haven't thought of one yet?

Michael A said...

Regrading the idea that the military code of conduct is the overriding decisive factor in this question I suggest that is pure nonsense.

The pope is fortunate that I'm not on duty at the Vatican. If I was assigned to guard his humble dwellings to make sure his door is securely locked and no one enters his room, then every morning they'd find his door wide open and me sound asleep. That's my code of military conduct.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Michael A, What do you consider a "success" in matters ecumenical?

For the record, no one here is obligated to answer questions posed by others. And, If someone doesn't offer a response, it is no indication that the questioner has "won" or that the person to whom the question is directed doesn't have an answer.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Michael A, the CDF document is the touchstone here for Catholic morality regarding vaccines. Those are the facts.

You are overlooking the central matter of "cooperation.". It would be worth your while to take a serious look into the church's teaching on this.

You are free to accept or reject this reality as you wish. But when we make ourselves, not the magisterium, the "authority," we get into very shaky territory.

Michael A said...

Dear Father,


Michael A said...


I accept your reply and I have respect for it. The one about the magisterium that is. However, I base my position on the the CDF document and I believe it is you who is ignoring it. (See below) It's Pope Francis who is violating his own decree. Maybe he didn't read what he wrote and fired the Swiss guardsman out of ignorance?
If you read read the whole document you wouldn't have given Father McDonald's parishioner the 3 degree about not taking the vaccine, right?

5. At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.

BTW: The Kavanaugh clause that you invented in regards to honest debate or discussion, does it work just on this blog or might it work in private conversation too? It could come in handy with my clients or my wife from time to time.

Michael A said...

Father Kavanaugh,

This might be a good time for you plead the Kavanaugh 5th again?

For those who claimed that the Swiss guardsman is violating the code of military conduct, they owe the man an apology. He was acting in accord with rules of his superiors. They changed the rules on him after the fact. He acted with honor.