N.B. The opinions and views expressed at or through this website are the opinions of the author and do not reflect the opinions or views of any other individual or the opinions or views of any organization whatsoever, although it is hoped they are entirely faithful to and consistent with Church teaching.
In this video I explained my views on “Forged Paperwork” and my conclusion was that it is licit to forge paperwork, but the moral high-ground is to refrain from such activity. I also explained certain practical reasons against forging false paperwork for the jab that few have discussed. For example, is the person forging paperwork going to do this for the monthly required-booster? However, there were some holes in my argument. For example, I did not explain the difference between simple forged-paperwork and finding a physician who will enter your false documents into the national vaccine database (admittedly a felony, now, according to new federal law.) Another hole in my video was that whereas I explained why I am personally going to avoid forged paperwork (due to a personal calling to a moral high road and desire to refrain from any appearance of evil (“From all appearance of evil—refrain yourselves.”—1 Thess 5:22 DRB) especially as we approach idolatry before in this new Covid-religion) I did not explain why I believe it is morally licit to forge paperwork. Essentially, the question goes like this: Even though all saints agree you can not lie, can you ever deceive?
The Catholic Answers article that I referenced above my Jeffrey Mirus in 2008 (long before this Plandemic) began by an answer in the negative to the “hiding Jews question” based on St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine: “Therefore it is not lawful to tell a lie in order to deliver another from any danger whatever. Nevertheless it is lawful to hide the truth prudently, by keeping it back, as Augustine says” (ST II:110:3). As far as the 20th century example of “hiding Jews from Nazis,” Catholic Answers included the 5th century example of St. Augustine even answering in the negative in such a case:
“St. Augustine wrote the first extensive treatise on lying (De Mendacio). In it he cites the case of a holy bishop, Firmus of Thagasta, who wished to protect a man who had sought refuge with him. The bishop was so careful of the truth that, rather than lying to the imperial officers who pursued the fugitive, he told them frankly that he would not reveal the man’s location. Firmus maintained this resolve even under torture, with the result that he was eventually brought before the emperor himself. But the emperor was so impressed with the bishop’s virtue that he both praised the bishop and pardoned the fugitive.”
Clearly, the moral of the story is that God is faithful to anyone who refrains not only from lying, but also from deceit. This is one reason why, again, I am going to refrain from obtaining paperwork (and entry into the national vaccine database) from a physician friend who has offered both. But again, I am not against this for the average citizen. Why not? Well, it is not because the end justifies the means. Catholic Answers at the above link reads, “Under some theories of mental reservation, you can answer ‘no’ if you are really thinking ‘No, I did not break it with my bat; it was the ball that broke it.’ Such equivocations, whose true sense is determined only by the mind of the speaker, were condemned by the Holy See as early as 1679.” Notice again, that this is Magisterial or near-Magisterial that the Holy See condemned mental reservation in 1679 (at the latest.)
I have blogged here against the moral theology heresies of proportionalism and consequentialism. Essentially, those are big words to say that the end justifies the means. And the point of my above blog post is that the Catholic Church teaches that the end never justifies the means. However, Mr. Mirus (presumably recognizing that proportionalism is a heresy) also recognizes that there can be two competing goods to which one owes justice. But first, let’s get rid of a morally licit but impractical option in the “Hiding Jews from Nazis” example: Mirus accurately writes,“Refusing to answer will almost certainly be interpreted as an affirmative response.”
So what if there are two competing duties to justice in 1941, such as a duty to save Jews’ lives that weighs in against the opposing duty to never lie? What if there are two competing duties to justice in 2021, such as a duty to hide family health records from health tyrants that weighs in against the opposing duty to never lie? Mirus writes:
“Both keeping secrets and speaking truthfully are included under all standard expositions of the natural law and the eighth commandment. When our obligation to protect a secret conflicts with our obligation to tell the truth, the result is a necessary lie—necessary not because it helps us to avoid some potential pain but because it is the only way to preserve justice. On this reading, a very particular exception to the rule exists when there are conflicting moral requirements. We may—indeed, we must—deceive the thugs because it is the lesser of two evils.”
I agree with Mirus in all the conclusions of his 2008 article. Notice above that while he condemns the “mental reservation” for petty cases of making one’s life easier, he again adds: “When our obligation to protect a secret conflicts with our obligation to tell the truth, the result is a necessary lie—necessary not because it helps us to avoid some potential pain but because it is the only way to preserve justice. On this reading, a very particular exception to the rule exists when there are conflicting moral requirements. We may—indeed, we must—deceive the thugs because it is the lesser of two evils.” Thus, here is a valid weight of proportionalism but only when it is a matter of life and death, not making life easier via daily “mental reservations.”
Remember, God seems to bless the Egyptian midwives who deceive Pharaoh’s team in order to save Jewish babies in the book of Exodus:
And the king of Egypt spoke to the midwives of the Hebrews: of whom one was called Sephora, the other Phua, Commanding them: When you shall do the office of midwives to the Hebrew women, and the time of delivery is come: if it be a man child, kill it: if a woman, keep it alive. But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded, but saved the men children. And the king called for them and said: What is that you meant to do, that you would save the men children ? They answered: The Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women: for they themselves are skillful in the office of a midwife; and they are delivered before we come to them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied and grew exceedingly strong. And because the midwives feared God, He built them houses.—Ex 1:15-21
Here is another tough example: What happens if a criminal comes to a priest and confesses his crime under the seal of confession and that priest is brought to the stand in a trial? (Keep in mind that Australia no longer recognizes the seal of confession as lawyer-client privilege, at least in cases of when the criminal has confessed to the priest child sexual-abuse.) Before sexual-abuse was so rampant (or public) St. Alphonsus Liguori taught that a priest on stand could say “I do not know,” when questioned about a confessed crime under the seal of confession. This could be done, even though this is obviously not the full truth. This would be a case where the moral duty to refrain from lying is trumped by the moral duty to keep the seal of confession. This might sound Jesuit like word-games, but I believe the priest can honestly say on the stand (as far as denotation) “I do not know” in regards to a crime he heard confessed in confession. Why? Because it is Christ’s information, not the priest’s information. Thus, as far as connotation, he can say “I do not know” on the stand. It becomes clear we have even saints admitting that deceit on the stand is not an absolute evil when a higher-duty calls, namely, the seal of confession. (Yes, such saints seem to disagree with Aquinas and Augustine in the above quote at the top in bold.)
Thus, if someone says you upon entrance to a restaurant, “Are you vaccinated?” you may assume that they mean the tetanus vaccine and say “Yes.” It is not because a mental-reservation may be allowed to deceive your way through life, but precisely because a totalitarian government (and anyone who is cahoots with them, even those working restaurants) have no right to your health history. Furthermore, granting them access to such private issues might separate even your family if the rumors of “Green” gulags are not far off for the “unvaccinated.”
One could therefore make the argument that avoiding health tyrants who want to force a family via coersion to take a non-FDA approved genome-rearranging abortion-tainted serum (that has already led to tens of thousands of deaths) under pain of lost jobs is probably sufficient enough reason to consider that forged-paperwork for a dangerous vaccine becomes a moral obligation to hide one’s family records from tyrants weighted against the moral obligation to never lie or deceive. As I said before, every Catholic saint agrees one can never lie, but some saints say it is (in cases of life and death) occasionally permitted to deceive. As I said in the video, the denotation must be accurate even if there is some wiggle room in the connotation of what you assert. Hence, one could imagine a physician who literally hands his patient in the office a dangerous serum in a vial and then hands her paperwork that she “took” it and even enters into the national vaccine database that the patient “took” the serum. Why? Because his patient technically took the serum and he does not want this patient to lose her job. Thus, it is not a lie in strict terms of denotation. But it is medical deceit as far as connotation, hence the title of this article.
Notice the question of forged-paperwork is a totally different topic from vaccine exemptions. Some dioceses are forbidding vaccine exemptions. For example, the bishop of El Paso wrote as reported here, “For the sake our brothers and sisters, I am requiring all those who are employed by the Church and all those who perform Church ministries including, but not limited to, catechists and Eucharistic ministers to be vaccinated.” By contrast, the Colorado bishops have “backed Conscientious Exemption for Coronavirus Vaccines.” I think this is all a good start, but I don’t think any exemptions are going to be honored in the full communist coup that we are under. I would encourage any readers to try exemption letters, but please write me with success stories so I can correct myself. I truly hope to be corrected here.
In fact, even lawsuits seem to be failing. One exception to the failure is that LifeSite News reports here that “A group of students at Loyola University in Chicago scored a victory against a strict COVID-19 vaccine mandate last week, after threatening a lawsuit.” But, unfortunately, when dozens of nurses at a Texas hospital staged a walkout to protest the vaccine mandate, it didn’t even make it to court. NBC and FOX reported, “U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes wrote in her opinion that Texas law only allows for someone to be protected from wrongful termination if that individual was refusing to commit a criminal act. She states that, ‘Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it caries no criminal penalties.'” Sadly, I suspect this is how most lawsuits will go. Thus, if lawsuits are dismissed, one can be quite sure that vaccine-exemption letters which will be dismissed. But I would encourage readers to try either lawsuits or vaccine-exemptions if they have the time for such a crap-shoot.
So, I come to the same conclusion as my video: Forged-paperwork is a morally-acceptable form of deceit because it is akin to hiding Jews from the Nazis. Why? Because it is life-and-death deceit in the face of tyranny who has no right to one’s information. But it may be the moral high-road (for especially a celibate like me who has taken a public stance against this dangerous serum) to refrain from all forged-paperwork and simply face the consequences of refusing to bow before health-tyranny that has essentially made a new globally satanic religion. And yes, I think this covidocracy is literally satanism, so I am going to resist it and face the consequences. I hope you do, too. (“From all appearance of evil—refrain yourselves.”—1 Thess 5:22 DRB.) But if you don’t, I hope I have given you the correct quotes (see especially the bold text above from Mirus’ 2008 Catholic Answers article to know why this is not proportionalism) as to why I believe there is no sin in forging paperwork in the face of medical tyranny using this abortion-tainted serum as long as you realize this is a felony which will carry prison-time if you are caught. If you’re willing to risk that much, you might as well make sure you get not only the paperwork, but also a physician with access to the national database for the so-called “COVID-19 vaccine.” Indeed, this is a serum that has possibly taken as many lives as COVID-19 has taken—but without even stopping the actual disease. That the serum does not stop covid is something even all the mainstream media have hesitantly admitted in numerous reports.