* Although the article
concerns the Russian Sputnik V vaccine, the following applies to all vaccines
containing human embryonic cell lines HEK293, PER.C6, MRC-5, WI-38, WALWAX-2,
etc.
Introduction
Prove all things; hold
fast that which is good.
Abstain from all appearance of evil.
(1 Thess. 5: 21-22)
If you have pity for
others, you will not condemn anyone.
(St. Anatoly of Optina)
In January 2021, the
President of Russia announced launching the population mass vaccination with
the Sputnik V vaccine aimed at fighting the COVID-19 coronavirus infection [1].
The vaccination began
with the vaccine “which had been
produced with the use of technologies that puts us in front of dire moral
problems” [1.1].
This article will attempt
to analyze how the representatives of the episcopate and priesthood of the
Russian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate (ROC MP), reacted to the above
decision of the state authorities on mass vaccination, fulfilling their
pastoral duty to Christ, the Head of the Church, and whether the position they
voiced corresponds to the Orthodox Church doctrine.
At the beginning of the
article it will be reasonable to recall the commandment of Christ given by Him
through the holy Apostle Paul: "But why dost thou judge thy brother?
or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the
judgment seat of Christ" (Rom. 14:10).
So, let us consider the
main ideas voiced publicly by the episcopate, famous priests, and laity in
connection with the use of the Sputnik V vaccine.
Thesis One.
“There are no spiritual problems, you can and should be vaccinated”.
Metropolitans Hilarion
(Alfeyev) and Tikhon (Shevkunov) are perhaps our most famous bishops, whose
names are familiar to any Russian Orthodox person. For many years Metropolitan
Hilarion has been heading the Department for External Church Relations of the
Russian Orthodox Church, in fact performing the functions of the Minister of
Foreign Affairs in the ROC MP.
Metropolitan Tikhon is the
creator of the Pravoslavie.ru website, the author of many books and films, for
many years the rector of the Sretensky Theological Seminary, and a member of
the commissions of the Inter-Council Presence of the Russian Orthodox Church.
However, the statements
of these prominent metropolitans on the issue of vaccination, and specifically
vaccination with the Sputnik V vaccine, unfortunately, do not at all stand up
to criticism since they do not contain complete and reliable information that
Orthodox Christians have the right to rely on.
As an example, here is what was published in January 2021 about Metropolitan Hilarion’s attitude to vaccination:
“In the Russian Orthodox Church they also urge the faithful to be vaccinated against the deadly infection. The one who especially insists on this is the chairman of the Department for External Church Relations (DECR), Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), who was between the first ROC bishops to take part in the clinical trials of the Sputnik V vaccine back in August. “I have made the decision to get vaccinated also because the level of antibodies in my blood was low, although by that time I had already recovered from coronavirus. I still believe that the coronavirus vaccine is the most effective remedy for the terrible pandemic that befell us today. The faster and the more people can be vaccinated, the faster we’ll be able to defeat this terrible plague. I think there is currently no alternative to the existing vaccines. Therefore, I recommend that everyone who can, who has no contraindications, gets vaccinated against coronavirus”, - he stated on the air of “Russia 24” TV channel on January, 7. He also added that although there was no exact statistical data on how many clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church had already been vaccinated against COVID-19, he personally knew the clerics who, as soon as the opportunity arose, got vaccinated” [2] (https://www.ng.ru/ng_religii/2021-01-19/9_500_vaccine.html).
Taking part in an online
stream on “Spas” TV channel in December 2020, Metropolitan Tikhon (Shevkunov) once
again voiced his position on this issue. “In particular, Metropolitan Tikhon
reminded that he had been vaccinated back in August. According to him, this
step now allows him to communicate with the congregate and work calmly,
providing if not 100%, then 95% protection from the virus. He said that his
mother once worked at the . “Gamaleya National Center of Epidemiology and
Microbiology” of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. He also remembered
that during a spiritual council at Pskov-Pechory Monastery it turned out that
none of the brethren had been vaccinated”. “Metropolitan Tikhon also criticized
the attitude towards the vaccine as the seal of the devil. He reminded the
advocates of this point of view the phrase from the Apocalypse: “It is not for
you to know the times or the seasons”. “This is just a vaccine”, – he stressed.
– Whoever wants it can use the vaccine to work properly. Whoever does not want
to and considers it to be the seal of the antichrist –
he does have his free will” [3] (https://pln-pskov.ru/church/chpu/399205.html).
As leaders of major Church structures,
Metropolitans Tikhon and Hilarion had every opportunity to learn the truth
about the Sputnik V vaccine before they publicly voiced their opinions.
If they had given it some
effort to study the issue, they would learn a lot of important and interesting
things. For example, they would have known (if they did not know it before)
that the Sputnik V vaccine was created using cells extracted from aborted fetal
material.
And then ordinary people
would not have to check and double-check the words of famous metropolitans and
find out the following.
On January 19, 2021, in
the program “New Day” on the TV channel “Spas”, the Head of the department and
laboratory of the FSBI “Gamaleya National Center of Epidemiology and
Microbiology”, Viktor Zuev, publicly stated that the Sputnik-V vaccine of the
Gamaleya Center was created using cells extracted from aborted fetal material. This
high-ranking Gamaleya Center employee’s direct quote sounds as follows: “... The cells that had been extracted from the
aborted fetal material are the cells of human embryonic fibroblasts. In a
special growing environment, they turned into passaged cultures. You can see
how much they had been modified. They are completely different. But, if this is
unacceptable to you, then, for God's sake, do not get vaccinated. I personally
was vaccinated not only against coronavirus twice with our vaccine, but also
after that I was vaccinated against the flu ... In short, it is up to you”.
A
video with the above explanations by Viktor Zuev, a doctor of medical sciences,
a Gamaleya Center employee is on the “Spas” youtube canal named “Covid.
Sceptics and dissidents. Who are they?” (as of April 14, 2021, from 7’51” till
8’45”) [4] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Mn-4Qhhac).
On February 11, 2021, the Head of the Laboratory of
Mechanisms of Population Variability of Pathogenic Microorganisms of the FSBI “Gamaleya National Center of
Epidemiology and Microbiology”, Vladimir Gushchin, told the media
that the HEK293 (Human Embryonic Kidney) cell line was used to create the Sputnik V
vaccine [4.1] (https://ria.ru/20210211/vaktsina-1597078708.html).
The information given by Doctor of Medical Sciences Viktor
Zuev and Vladimir Gushchin was fully confirmed by studying patents for
inventions No. 2731342 and No. 2731356 issued by the Federal State Budgetary
Institution “Federal Institute of Industrial Property” in connection with the
creation (invention) of the Sputnik V vaccine. Both patents contain an indication by inventors of the Sputnik V
vaccine that the vaccine was created using an aborted fetal material – namely
the HEK 293 cell line [5]. The texts of both patents are available on
Federal State Budgetary Institution “FIPS” website: https://new.fips.ru/.
Moreover, the information on the use of aborted fetal material - the HEK293 cell line in the Sputnik
V vaccine has been confirmed internationally by the Charlotte Lozier
Institute (USA) which specializes in abortion research and the industry of
aborted fetal materials worldwide [6].
All
the above information bears irrefutable evidence that the Sputnik V vaccine
against coronavirus was created with the use of HEK293 cell line originating
from an aborted human embryo.
Thus,
the first thesis, voiced by Metropolitans Hilarion (Alfeyev) and Tikhon
(Shevkunov), that there are no spiritual problems with the vaccine, is directly
erroneous.
Thesis Two.
“There is no evidence of the presence of elements of
aborted infants
in the vaccine”.
The second thesis is put forward by Aleksey Ilich
Osipov, a professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, theologian, member of
the Presidium of the Inter-Council Presence of the Russian Orthodox Church. His
lectures are constantly shown on the “Soyuz” and “Spas” TV channels, his books
have been approved for publication by the Publishing Council of the Russian
Orthodox Church and are sold in thousands of copies with the highest stamp.
Here is the opinion of Professor Osipov' on the issue
of vaccination with the Sputnik V vaccine in full.
On February 12, 2021, the honored professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, Doctor of
Theology, Aleksey Ilich Osipov posted on his YouTube channel “Aleksey Ilich
Osipov” a five-minute video titled “I think it is right” on how he is being
vaccinated with the Sputnik V vaccine. Under the video, he posted his
explanations for the video. In particular, in paragraph 5 (the spelling and
stylistics of the author are preserved), he writes:
“5. Some assert that the vaccine can contain chips, elements of aborted infants
and something else awful. Therefore, you cannot take the vaccine. Here
is what the director of the FSBI “Gamaleya National Center of Epidemiology and
Microbiology” A. L. Gunzburg answers to it: “... in the final product
called Sputnik V, any human material is completely absent and cannot be present
there by definition’. https://ruskline.ru/news_rl/2021/01/1... AND ESSENTIALLY,
IF ABORTIONS WERE PERFORMED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ANY MEDICINES, THAT WOULD BE
A SEVERE CRIME, A SIN. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE. NEITHER IS IT SIN WHEN A SEPARATE
ORGANS FROM THE DEAD (HEART, KIDNEYS…) ARE TRANSPLANTED TO THE PERSON TO SAVE HIS
LIFE. Yet a counter question arises: what is contained in medicines, especially
foreign ones, and what is there in the constantly used cosmetics? Why aren’t there
questions, no protests, no accusations of betrayal of Christ? What is the
reason? Where are the sources of this new obsession on our people?!” [8].
Thus, when formulating the
problem, Professor Osipov, knowingly or being unaware, involuntarily narrows or
distorts the problem when he says that “Some
assert that the vaccine can contain… elements of aborted infants and
something else awful. Therefore, you cannot take the vaccine”. With this
phrase, the professor ascribes to the opponents of the vaccine what in fact
they have never said. In fact, it is stated that the HEK293 cell line, derived
from an aborted human embryo, was used in the creation of the vaccine. It is
hard to believe that a venerable scientist did not delve into the meaning of
the discussion before voicing his opinion to the whole country publicly.
Further, in his opinion,
the professor relies on the well-known letter of the Director of the FSBI
“Gamaleya National Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology”, A. L. Gintsburg
dated January 18, 2021, and focuses on the following words of the letter: “...
in the final product called Sputnik V, any human material is completely absent
and cannot be present there by definition.”
Actually, double-checking the professor Osipov's
link to the letter from the Director of the Gamaleya Center, A. L. Gintsburg
[9], reveals that this letter just confirms the opinion that the vaccine was
made on the basis of the materials taken from aborted infants’ tissues. In his
reply letter dated January 18, 2021, No. 67/01-05-51 to a request by a public
Orthodox organization, the Director of the Gamaleya Center, A. L. Gintsburg,
was forced to publicly confirm the information on the use of aborted fetal material
– the HEK 293 cell line. And this is precisely the spiritual danger of this
vaccine.
Here are the first and a
half paragraphs of the letter: “In response to your letter, we inform you
that aborted fetal material was not used and could not be used during development
of the Sputnik V vaccine. Currently, works are being carried out with a
transformed cell line without any aborted fetal material.
In the production of
vector vaccines intended for the prevention of viral diseases, the HEK293
cell line is being used all over the world, which was obtained in 1973
by adenovirus transformation of the abortive culture of human embryonic kidney
cells”.
Thus, the creators of the
Sputnik V vaccine themselves admit that they used the HEK293 cell line derived from an aborted human embryo, to
create the vaccine. And it is impossible that professor Osipov could not see
this, yet he preferred to remain silent about it. And the use of the HEK293
cell line is exactly what is directly prohibited by the guidelines of the ROC
MP.
However, it should be
noted that not being able to directly
deny or refute the fact of using the HEK293 cell line from aborted fetal
material in the Sputnik V vaccine, A.L. Gintsburg, in the final part of the
letter, tries to downplay this fact by falsely referring to Hayflick limit
(rule) stating that all cells die after 50 divisions. The falsity of the
reference lies in the fact that the Hayflick limit is only valid for mature
cells, and embryonic cells, however, can potentially divide an unlimited number
of times, and the HEK293 cell line just overcomes this Hayflick limit.
A detailed analysis of
the said letter of the Director of the
Gamaleya Center, A. L. Gintsburg, was made by a group of professional
biologists who issued a corresponding analytical note [10].
In this analytical note, in
particular, professional biologists write the following:
“Information on the
website of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, an authoritative foreign monitoring
center, as well as its verification by scientific publications and patents proved
that during the development, production and confirmatory testing of a
two-component vector vaccine against COVID-19 Gam-COVID-Vac, Sputnik V” trademark,
developed by the FSBI “Gamaleya National Center of Epidemiology and
Microbiology” of the Ministry of Health of Russia, the cell line HEK 293,
obtained from human embryonic kidneys in 1973, is used”.
Further on, the biologists
comment on the phrase from the Gamaleya Center letter: ”We do not know what
served as its original material”. “It is very strange that it is unknown to specialists
of the FSBI “Gamaleya National Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology”, when
numerous thematic publications, both in scientific and popular science publications,
including those easily accessible and verified on the Internet, are available.
The original cells of the aborted fetus were successfully transformed and
immortalized in January 1973 by Frank Graham, a young Canadian scientist who
was doing a postdoctoral fellowship at the laboratory of Professor Alex van der
Eb in Leiden, the Netherlands. This was
the 293rd experiment, and the name of the line comprises the number. HEK stands
for “human embryonic kidney”. The research leader, Dr. Alex van der Eb, stated back
in 2001: “The kidney was from a fetus with an unknown family history, probably
obtained in 1972. The exact date is currently unknown. The fetus, as far as I
remember, was perfectly normal. Everything was OK. The reasons for the abortion
are unknown to me. I probably knew all this at the time, but this information
got lost”.
As for the direct
occurrence of aborted infants’ elements in the vaccine, mentioned by the
professor of theology, there are a few words about this in the abovementioned
analytical note.
Commenting on the phrase from
the Gamaleya Center letter, namely “... in the final product called Sputnik V, any
human material is completely absent and cannot be present there by definition”,
the biologists write as follows. “An
independent analysis of Sputnik V for DNA and RNA contamination of a human
fetus from a cell line, as far as we know, has not yet been carried out.
But there are research data of long-used vaccines, similar in production
technology. One of them is the rubella vaccine, which is included in the
national vaccination schedules of many countries around the world, including
Russia. MRC-5 cell line derived from the lung tissue of a 14-week-old aborted
male fetus is used for its production.
Manufacturer-independent
studies have shown that a contaminating fetal DNA was present in all analyzed
samples in varying amounts, tens or even hundreds of times higher than the
European Medical Agency (EMA) limit for carcinogenic DNA, which may cause
serious diseases and delayed post-vaccination complications in those vaccinated”.
As a brief conclusion
from the analysis of facts about the Sputnik V vaccine, the following words of the
biologists can be cited, which would be more expected from a professor of
theology, Osipov, rather than from secular scientists: “For a significant number of citizens of Russia and other countries
where the Sputnik V vaccine has started or will be used for mass vaccination,
this information can be of decisive importance when giving a free informed consent for or
refusing such medical intervention. After all,
in this case, we are talking not only about considerations of safety for life
and health, but also about higher considerations of conscience, ethical
attitudes and religious creed”.
Thesis Three.
“Creating vaccines in a medium of cells
originating from abortion
has been approved by the Church
in the resolution of the Orthodox Doctors’ Society in 2009”.
The third thesis is
mentioned in a most delicate and subtle way, literally walking on the brink of
good and evil, by Bishop Savva (Tutunov) of Zelenograd, Vicar of the Patriarch
of Moscow and All Russia, Deputy Administrator of the Moscow Patriarchate, member of the
Inter-Council Presence of the ROC MP.
This Bishop writes in his
telegram channel: “The issue of vaccination causes quasi-religious and
sometimes quite religious disputes. I am deeply convinced that this issue is
religiously indifferent. An exception is
the problem of growing some vaccines (not all) in the medium of cells of a cell
line that originates from an abortion made in the 1960-s (note: a cell line is
not the cells of the killed baby itself, but the cells derived from his cells
by division). This is a hard ethical problem, the answer to which the Orthodox
Doctors’ Society tried to find in 2009 (http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/964218.html) (for the same issue, please
see, i. e., here: https://www.miloserdie.ru/article/grehovnye-vakciny-kak-vybrat-menshee-iz-dvuh-zol/).
If we leave this problem aside and
discourse upon vaccination at least with the preparations to which the
mentioned cell line does not belong, then, I repeat, there is no reason for
religious argumentation in the assessment of vaccination <...>. I
personally, do plan to take the vaccine (before or after I lose naturally
acquired antibodies - that will be on advice of doctors). But this decision of
mine is not determined either by my faith in God, or by the lack of such faith
in me” [11].
The opinion of this authoritative Bishop holding
numerous high posts in the ROC MP is referred to by “Foma”, a popular magazine, on its website.
A question from a reader Nadezhda
to FOMA magazine was put as follows: “Greetings! My question is about the
Sputnik V vaccine, there is information that it has embryonic cells of abortive
children (or a child) as its component. How to deal with this? Should I take the
vaccine?”
Here is the full answer
of “Foma” magazine to this question. Archpriest Andrey Efanov answers:
“God's blessing is upon you!
Dear Nadezhda, the Church did not make a common judgment regarding the vaccine
against the coronavirus. Not all questions have ready-made answers, so you need
to make a decision yourself. The following things can be of help. In general, the Church position on the
issue of vaccines is expressed in the document titled “A Joint Statement of the
Council and the Society of Orthodox Doctors of Russia on the problems of
vaccination in Russia”. As to the vaccine against coronavirus, there is
a recent post in the telegram-canal by Bishop Savva (Tutunov), I shall cite
what is written by the bishop who studied the issue thoroughly: “I am deeply
convinced that this issue is religiously indifferent. An exception is the
problem of growing some vaccines (not all) in the medium of cells of a cell
line that originates from an abortion made in the 1960s (note: a cell line is not
the cells of the killed baby itself, but the cells derived from his cells by
division). This is a hard ethical problem, the answer to which the Orthodox
Doctors’ Society tried to find in 2009… If we leave this problem aside and discourse
upon vaccination at least with the preparations to which the mentioned cell
line does not belong, then, I repeat, there is no reason for religious
argumentation in the assessment of vaccination. “I do not wish to intake a
foreign protein”, “I am afraid of side effects”, “I do not understand what is
being administered”, - these are sometimes justified, sometimes not very justified
replies which have nothing to do with faith or with Christianity. A well-balanced interview on this
matter, taking into account the abovementioned concerns regarding
influenza vaccination, was given a
few years ago by Bishop Panteleimon of Orekhovo-Zuevo. I will refer to
him so as not to invent the already formulated arguments. The bishop
[apparently, Bishop Panteleimon of Orekhovo-Zuevo – note by the author] gives
the following information: “Nobody has performed nor has been
performing abortions for the production or development of the Sputnik V. No
babies have died nor are dying for the sake of it. No aborted fetal material is
included in its composition. Therefore, calling it a “cannibal vaccine” is
nothing more than a black PR. (…) The vaccine contains no cells obtained as
a result of abortion. All cells are grown from other cells, grown from other
cells, and so on, thousands of times. Yet despite the above conclusions, still
there is a certain historical connection of the cell line with aborted fetal
material. And beyond all questions, it is an ethical dilemma as to whether to
use this vaccine. A person, in our opinion, should make a decision on his own,
relying on the mind and conscience given by the Lord. (...) In our opinion, the
position of the Church “positive” or “negative” specific vaccines is not its
direct concernment and could be the cause of divisions and temptations”.
After reading this
information, you can decide for yourself whether it is acceptable to take this
vaccine for you personally. God save you!” [12]
(https://foma.ru/mozhno-li-privivatsja-ot-kovida.html).
What is worth paying attention to in those
answers of the high-ranking hierarch of the ROC MP and the “FOMA” magazine? It
is the fact that both Bishop Savva
(Tutunov) and the “FOMA” magazine kept silent about the perfectly clear
official position of the ROC MP, and they voiced as such official position a
resolution of a public organization, the Society of Orthodox Doctors.
While Bishop Savva doing it more subtly and gracefully, the “FOMA” magazine
stated bluntly that “the Church position on the issue of vaccines is expressed
in the document titled “A Joint Statement of the Council and the Society of
Orthodox Doctors of Russia on the problems of vaccination in Russia”.
But it is a lie. The position
of the ROC MP is always formalized by its higher bodies - either the Local
Council or the Bishops' Council. And the ROC MP has consistently voiced its decision
of the issue through one of its higher bodies, the Bishops' Council. The official position of the ROC MP is
that it is absolutely inadmissible to use human embryos in medicine. This
official position is enshrined in the following documents:
2000 – The document titled
“The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church”, adopted by
the Jubilee Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on August 15, 2000,
affirms the unconditional inadmissibility of the use of tissues and organs of
human embryos:
“Denouncing abortion as a cardinal sin, the
Church cannot find any justification for it either even if someone’s health may
possibly benefit from the destruction of a conceived human life” (The Bases of the Social Concept of the
Russian Orthodox Church) [13].
“The Church believes it to be definitely
inadmissible to use the methods of so-called fetal therapy, in which the human fetus on various stages
of its development is aborted and used in attempts to treat various diseases
and to «rejuvenate» an organism. Denouncing abortion as a cardinal sin, the
Church cannot find any justification for it either even if someone may possibly
benefit from the destruction of a conceived human life. Contributing inevitably
to ever wider spread and commercialization of abortion, this practice (even if
its effectiveness, currently hypothetical, would be scientifically proven)
presents an example of glaring immorality and is criminal” (The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian
Orthodox Church) [14].
2008 – The document called
“The Russian Orthodox Church’s Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and
Rights”, adopted by the Council of Bishops on June 28, 2008, once again emphasizes
the inadmissibility of using human embryos in medicine:
“It is… inadmissible to raise
to a norm such immoral and inhumane actions towards the human being as
abortion, euthanasia, use of human embryos in medicine, experiments
changing a person’s nature and etc.” (“The Russian Orthodox
Church’s Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights”) [15].
This very document, “The
Russian Orthodox Church’s Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights”,
has been adopted by the Bishops' Council in 2008 to develop the foundations of
the ROC’s social concept. The canonical structures, clergy and laity of the
Church should be guided by this document in their socially significant speeches
and actions; it is to be studied in theological schools of the Moscow
Patriarchate. The document is offered to the fraternal attention of other Local
Orthodox Churches with the hope that it will serve to grow in unanimity and
help coordinate practical actions. Other Christian churches and associations,
other religious communities, government bodies and public circles of different
countries, international organizations are also invited to study and discuss
the document (Press Service of the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox
Church, 2008) [16].
2009 – The Local Council
of the ROC of 2009 approved the resolutions of the Bishops’ Councils of 2000
and 2008 on the inadmissibility of using human embryos. Resolution of the Local
Council of the Russian Orthodox Church (January 27-28, 2009) “On the Life and Works
of the Russian Orthodox Church” reads as follows:
“4. The Council
participants approve the acts of the Bishops’ Councils of the Russian Orthodox
Church which took place in the period between the Local Councils” (Resolution
of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2009) [17].
2017 – The Patriarchal
Commission of the ROC on the Family, Motherhood and Childhood Protection Issues
published a selection of official Statements of the Church Public Council on
Biomedical Ethics on ethical problems of modern medicine and health care. The
official statement of the Church Public Council on Biomedical Ethics regarding
the inadmissibility of the use of fetal therapy is also published in the selection:
“We believe that the use
of fetal therapy is a grave sin both for those who execute it (doctors and
patients) and for mothers who agree to use their children in this procedure.
The Council on Biomedical Ethics insists on the legislative prohibition of
fetal therapy” (Orthodoxy and Problems
of Bioethics. Based on the materials of the selections of the Church Public
Council on Biomedical Ethics) [18].
The Statement of the Society of Orthodox Doctors
of 2009, referred to by Bishop Savva (Tutunov) and the “FOMA” magazine, is not
included in the selection of the Church Public Council official statements,
since it is not a document approved by either the Bishops' Council or the Local
Council of the Russian Orthodox Church and expresses a position of several
persons and contradicts the Church's teaching about evil, sin, abortion as
homicide and about complicity in a direct or indirect sin.
2020 – The ROC
Patriarchal Commission on the Family, Motherhood and Childhood Protection
Issues speaks with the ROC official position in the report by priest Fyodor
Lukyanov, chairman of the Patriarchal Commission, in the State Duma of the
Russian Federation at the round table called "Immunoprophylaxis of
infectious diseases. Prospects for legal and regulatory governing":
“It is seen ethically
unacceptable that preparations for immunoprophylaxis contain components
obtained with the use of cell lines derived from human embryonic tissues. In
particular, HEK293 (Human Embryonic Kidney 293) is a cell line derived from
human embryonic kidneys... due to the “ease of cultivation”, this cell line has
become widespread in cell biology. It is widely used in biotechnology and
pharmaceutical industries as a producer of therapeutic proteins and viruses for
gene therapy. HEK 293 is obtained from kidney cells of an aborted child... The
position of the ROC on biotechnologies is stated in the document “The Bases of
the Social Concept” [19].
Thesis Four.
If abortions were
performed for the direct purpose of producing medicines, then this would be a
grave crime, a sin.
But it has nothing to do with the present case
(Professor A. I. Osipov, the “FOMA” magazine, Archpriest Maxim Pervozvansky).
Among other things, professor
Osipov says the following:
“IF ABORTIONS WERE PERFORMED FOR THE DIRECT PURPOSE OF PRODUCING MEDICINES,
THEN THIS WOULD BE A GRAVE CRIME, A SIN. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE”.
Archpriest Maksim Pervozvansky,
editor-in-chief of the Orthodox youth magazine “Naslednik” (“The Successor”),
confessor of the “Young Russia” youth organization and a frequent guest of the “Spas”
TV channel programs, put forth a similar thesis. He published a post, dated
January 22, 2021, on his VK page which reads as follows:
“And now once more about
the vaccine: - To kill a child in its mother's womb for making a medicine and saving other
people is a grave sin and cannot be justified. - A medicine prepared with
the use of materials from a child who died for other reasons (not killed specifically to prepare the
medicine) can be used to save lives”.
These spiritually harmful statements in favor of
the Sputnik V vaccine are false for the two following reasons.
Firstly, it would be
interesting to know how these famous and authoritative people imagine in
practice the process of abortion (that is, a murder of a baby in the womb) for
the production of any medicine, which in their opinion, is prohibited and is a
grave sin? At least three people are involved in the abortion process for the
production of any medication: it is a mother who gives her consent to the
murder of her baby in the womb and who puts her body on surgical table in an
abortion clinic; it is a physician who makes the abortion, and it is a
biologist who takes the tissues of the baby killed in the womb for their use in
the creation of medicines in the future.
What did these people
want to say? Did they mean the objective side of the abortion? But the objective side of this event
shows that the baby in the womb is killed by a mother and a physician, and a
biologist takes the tissues of the murdered baby to create medications.
“It should be noted that not one, but many embryos are donated for laboratory
experiments, which makes it possible to carry out the same large number of in
vitro experiments on the basis of their cell lines” [19.1] (https://myrophoros.blogspot.com/2021/01/blog-post_28.html).
Or they meant the
subjective side of this abortion – the thoughts and the reasons for the acts
with which these three (a mother, a doctor, and a biologist) made the deed? Do
Professor Osipov and Archpriest Maxim Pervozvansky want to say that all three
abortion participants must necessarily have the same motive for performing an
abortion, namely, the motive for performing an abortion in order to create a
medication so that they recognize such a medication unacceptable for use? But
it is obvious this never happens in practice. No one, even the world’s most
cynical mother, would agree to the proposal like “let us kill your baby in the
womb, cut it into pieces and use them to create medicines for humanity”.
Naturally, for the mother's consent to an abortion, one needs most convincing
arguments able to cover up the sin, and most often they are of an everyday or
medical nature. An abortion physician seeks for such arguments for the mother.
But at the same time, if the mother is educated, lives in an urban environment
and has access to the Internet, if she is inquisitive by nature, then it is quite possible that she
could read or hear something about fetal therapy in medicine and cosmetology,
that tissues of the babies killed in the womb are often used in cosmetology and
medicine.
In addition, the physician
who performs an abortion may be completely indifferent to the successes of the
science of pharmacology and the pharmaceutical industry, but he cannot be
ignorant of the goals of the biologist, who is the third participant in this sinful
act, since there must be preliminary agreements between them as to the abortion
and the biologist’s participation in the process.
Here is what the
abovementioned biologists write in their analytical note in response to the
letter from the director of the FSBI “Gamaleya National Center of Epidemiology
and Microbiology”.
“According to the
technology of obtaining cell lines, fetal tissues should be as fresh as
possible. Therefore, the researchers aspire to collect them immediately after an abortion by prior agreement with the doctors
performing the pregnancy termination. Besides, the fetus should be
healthy, which practically excludes the version of possible use of remains of a
fetus that died as a result of spontaneous miscarriage or an abortion for
medical reasons to obtain HEK 293. Moreover, there is evidence from biologists that tissue extraction could be
performed from a still living fetus after inducing preterm birth or
caesarean section and without any
anesthesia”.
The said thesis of the
biologists, authors of the analytical note, that the tissues sampling could be
executed from an alive fetus without any anesthesia is directly proved by an
article by a new WALVAX-2 cell
line manufacturer published on March 24, 2015, in the “Human Vaccines &
Immunotherapeutics” journal. The article is available at the US National
Medical Library website. Here is what this cell line manufacturer writes in the
article called “Characteristics and viral propagation properties of a new human
diploid cell line, walvax-2, and its suitability as a candidate cell substrate
for vaccine production”, in the section called “Source tissue material”
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526020/) [20]:
“We obtained 9 fetuses through rigorous screening based on carefully
specified inclusion criteria (see Methods section). The Walvax-2 strain of
cells met all of these criteria and proved to be the best cell line following
careful evaluation. Therefore, it was used for establishing a human diploid
cell strain. Walvax-2 was derived from a fetal lung tissue, similar to WI-38
and MRC-5, and was obtained from a 3-month-old female fetus aborted because of
the presence of a uterine scar from a previous caesarean birth by a 27-year-old
healthy woman”.
“The fetal material was
provided by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Yunnan Hospital,
with legal and ethical agreements from the donator. Before the study, we made
strict and comprehensive inclusion criteria in order to guarantee a high
quality cell strain: 1) gestational age 2 to 4 months; 2) induction of labor with the water bag method; 3) the parents
career should not involve contact with chemicals and radiation; 4) both parents
are in good health without neoplastic and genetic diseases, and with no history
of human tissue or organ transplantation in the families traced for 3
generations; and 5) no infectious diseases. The tissues from the freshly
aborted fetuses were immediately sent to the laboratory for the preparation of
the cells”.
If we translate these
scientific theses of the new Walvax-2 cell line manufacturer into common
language, it will look like this. Induction
of labor is an artificially induced labor activity for the purpose of
delivery through the vaginal birth canal. The
water bag method involves the removal of organs from a living baby, when
the baby's head is still in the womb in the amniotic bag, and the rest of the
body is being removed and dissected. Nine
babies were born in an amniotic bag at the age of 12 to 17 weeks, and their
organs were removed within a few minutes. Live! No anesthesia! This is what a
cell line manufacturer reported in a serious scientific journal. The
process looks like this:
Therefore, from a
subjective point of view, based on the motives of the abortion by each of the
three participants, we get the following picture. One participant of the three
abortion accomplices (the biologist) knew and wished this abortion for the
purpose of creating a medicine in the future, moreover, he acts as the abortion
customer, since he gives instructions for the physician making the abortion on
what methods and means of killing a baby are most beneficial for medical
purposes. The second of the three accomplices (the physician making the
abortion), when performing the abortion, at least knows for sure that the body
of the baby he murders, or its parts will be used for medical purposes. Such a
physician does often use special methods and means, induction of labor by the
water bag method in particular, as mentioned above, in order to comply with the
strict and cruel requirements of science and medicine for the bodies of the babies
killed for the production of pharmaceuticals. The third participant in this
abortion (the mother) acts here as an object of control and manipulation by the
abortion physician and the biologist and does not know exactly the purpose of
the abortion. Yet, as mentioned above, she may well guess about the fate awaiting
her murdered baby.
Thus, both from the objective side (external
actions of the abortion participants) and from the subjective side (the motives
of their actions), the following conclusions are obvious to everyone:
1) This is a deliberate and pre-planned murder
of a baby in the mother’s womb;
2) This baby murder occurred with the purpose to
obtain “perfect clean tissues”;
3) These “perfect clean tissues” are extracted for
further use by medical and pharmaceutical industries.
Subsequently, a cell line obtained through such
an abortion became the basis (medical raw material, a component) for the
creation of the Sputnik V vaccine.
The second reason for the spiritual harm of the
theses of Professor Osipov and Archpriest Maxim Pervozvansky is as follows. In
its official documents of the highest level (the decision of the Bishops’
Council of 2000) the ROC MP directly declares that therapy with the use of “human fetus on various stages of its
development” is “definitely inadmissible”. And further on the Bishop’s Council
(2000) defines the wo reasons for such a strict prohibition. The first reason
is that of complicity in the sin of abortion, which is denounced as a “cardinal
sin”. The second reason is that such therapy contributes
“inevitably to ever wider spread and commercialization of abortion”. In giving a moral assessment to such therapy
with the use of tissues of abortive babies, the ROC MP points out that it is “an
example of glaring immorality” and such treatment “is criminal”.
It is evident that in this Bishops’ Council
decision there are no reservations used by Professor Osipov or Archpriest Maxim
Pervozvansky, namely that only the abortions made for the purpose of
manufacturing pharmaceuticals, and only the aborted fetal materials obtained in
this way, are denounced and are criminal. The Church denounces any fact of using aborted fetal materials both
for medicinal purposes and for the production of pharmaceuticals.
In other words, “it doesn't matter whether a
fetus is aborted with or without the intention of creating a vaccine. What
really matters, is the fact that these cell lines are the product of abortion”
[20.1].
Thesis Five.
It is downright blasphemous, for it equates the
consequences
of killing a baby as a result of an abortion with the Sacrifice of Christ (Archpriest
Maxim Pervozvansky)
Analyzing the fifth
thesis of the advocates and propagandists of the Sputnik V vaccine, we are
forced, unfortunately, to cite a real blasphemy out of the mouth of the reverend
priest and a father of eight children.
The author of this article is forced to do this, in order to disclose the
falsity of the words voiced by the reverend priest.
Thus, Archpriest Maxim Pervozvansky on the “New
Day” TV show on the “Spas” TV channel on January 22, 2021, stated the
following: “For me, this story with embryonic culture is crypto-Christian, I
would say. There is such a term applicable when we deal with something which is
not entirely Christianity, but with a
certain story, which in its course, in its dramaturgy is completely Christian,
when something good is based on a sacrifice. It turned out surprisingly
that the life of that then aborted baby has been saving millions of other
people's lives for already half a century. The
life of Christ murdered on the Cross gives eternal life to millions of
Christians... He was killed unjustly, we have been using the fruits of this
murder, as Christians, for already two thousand years... God’s Wisdom has made
so that the death of this baby, who was killed years ago... has been saving
lives of millions of people for many decades...” [21].
In this small quote by Archpriest
Maximus Pervozvansky, there are several sacrilegious and blasphemous thoughts
at a time.
First, let us clarify the
term “crypto-Christianity”, or “crypto-Christian”. Fr. Maxim says the
following: “There is such a term applicable when we deal with something which is not entirely Christianity, but
with a certain story, which in its
course, in its dramaturgy is completely Christian”. This phrase
contains a direct contradiction: at the same time, according to Fr. Maxim,
crypto-Christianity is not exactly Christianity, and at the same time, in his
own opinion, it is a completely Christian thing, a phenomenon. It is difficult
to understand this contradiction from the lips of a priest. I think it would be
permissible to assume that the priest is actually equalizing
crypto-Christianity and Christianity. How correct is this both from a dogmatic and
an ascetic point of view? Let us take less controversial definitions of the
term “crypto-Christianity”. On the “Academiсa” website we find the following
information on crypto-Christianity: “Crypto-Christianity (also
crypto-Christianity, crypto-Christians, underground or secret Christianity,
from ancient Greek [Cryptos], meaning “secret”, “hidden”) – in the Middle Ages
and modern times, underground, secret followers of Christianity, especially in
societies dominated by followers of a different faith who exert religious
pressure on members of this religious minority.
Despite the fact that
Christianity itself arose underground and was confessed secretly for a long time
and was also persecuted by the dominant paganism in ancient times, crypto-Christians are usually considered
medieval and modern Christians who were forcibly converted to other religions
(for example, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.) and secretly performed
Christian rites.
Classical forms of crypto-Christianity
were especially widespread in southern Europe and neighboring regions after the
Arab invasions of the 7th century (the Balkans, Asia Minor, North Africa, the
Middle East).
In the times of the
Ottoman Empire, many ethnic Greeks, Armenians, Georgians and Albanians who were
formally converted to Islam but
secretly professed the Christian faith, became crypto-Christians” [22] (https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/988609).
Therefore, in the classical meaning of the word,
a crypto-Christian is the one who publicly denied Christ, adopted another faith,
and publicly fulfills it rituals, while secretly performing the rites of the
Christian faith.
The Orthodox Encyclopedia
under the editorship of Kirill, Patriarch of Moscow, and All Russia, reports
that crypto-Christians are individuals or groups from among newly converted
Muslims in the Middle Ages or Modern Times who secretly maintained Christian
religious practices in everyday life [23]
(https://www.pravenc.ru/text/2459069.html).
Finally, we provide the
following definition of the term “crypto-Christianity”. “Crypto-Christianity
(from the ancient Greek “κρυπτός” – “secret”, “hidden”) is a teaching according to which one can secretly be a Christian,
but openly profess another religion, for example, Islam.
Crypto-Christianity arose in the East in the middle of the 15th century, during
the conquest of the Byzantine Empire by the Mohammedan Turks” [23.1] (https://vseeresi.com/2017/01/13/cryptochristianity).
From all the above
definitions of the term “crypto-Christianity” it is clear that crypto-Christianity is a form of denial
of Christ, it is a direct renunciation from God and under no circumstances it
is synonymous with Christianity.
Further on, using the
words “Christian” and “crypto-Christian” as synonyms, Archpriest Maxim
Pervozvansky says that if a process or an event is based on a sacrifice, then such
process or event is crypto-Christian and Christian, meaning it is positive from
the point of view of the Christian doctrine.
The following inherently
monstrous conclusions follow from these words of Archpriest Maxim Pervozvansky:
1) any violent murder, if
it can be used to benefit others, is some kind of undisclosed, secret
Christianity, that is, crypto-Christianity;
2) any process in which a
sacrifice is made (including forced human sacrifice) is some kind of
undisclosed, secret Christianity, that is, crypto-Christianity;
3) not only any paganism,
even most fierce and most inhuman (like the Aztec or Canaanite), but satanism itself
is an undisclosed and secret Christianity, that is, crypto-Christianity. After
all, do they make sacrifices there? Yes, they do make them. Do they consume the
sacrifice then? They do consume.
I do not really know what ever greater blasphemy
can be invented against God than announcing pagan sacrifices of babies and
satanic orgies with sacrifices as crypto-Christianity.
And these theoretical
conclusions from the words of Archpriest Maxim Pervozvansky, fr. Maxim
himself confirms with a practical example, an illustration of how it might look
in real life: “For me, this story with the embryonic culture is
crypto-Christian, I would say.” In other words, he says that for him the
deliberate murder of a baby in the womb by three adults [to create a cell line
from a human embryo] is crypto-Christianity, that is, undisclosed, secret
Christianity. But it is obvious that the murdered baby did not give any consent
to his murder, this was violence against him. And Christ on the Cross sacrificed himself on His own Will, as
the Gospel and all Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church speak about directly.
Let's give at least a couple of testimonies of the voluntariness of the Cross
Sacrifice of our Lord God Jesus Christ. The Holy Prophet and Forerunner of the
Lord John the Baptist said when the Lord Jesus Christ had just begun His public
ministry: “Behold the Lamb of God,
which taketh away the sin of
the world” (John 1:29). The Lord Himself told the Apostles when explaining
the purpose of His coming into this world: “Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28).
This priest’s lie is that the events of a
voluntary self-sacrifice (the Sacrifice of Christ) and the violent murder of a
person (abortion) prohibited by God are equalized and voiced as identical
(similar). The sacrifice of Christ is a voluntary sacrifice. Did the baby killed
in the womb voluntarily “sacrificed himself”, too? Not at all! The baby in the
womb was forcibly killed, and there is no voluntariness in his actions. On the
contrary, being a baby, as he could, he resisted this terrible evil against
him. Therefore, equation of these two things, the all-holy Sacrifice of Christ,
and the abortion of a baby, is a direct and obvious blasphemy.
The priest continues and
says that “we have been using the
fruits of this murder, as Christians, for two thousand years...”. This
is also an outright blasphemy. For Christians
use not the fruits of the murder, but the fruits of the voluntary Cross
Passions of the God-man Christ. Moreover, every Christian is called to follow
Christ, accomplishing his own feat, and carrying
his life cross. The Lord said about the
need for a personal feat on the cross: “And he that taketh not
his cross (avoids the feat), and
followeth after me (calls himself a Christian), is
not worthy of me (Matt. 10:38). The Apostles, speaking
of the Christian feat, consoled themselves and others with these words: “If
so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I
reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with
the glory which shall be revealed in us (Rom. 8:17,18). Reminding
of the infinite love of Christ, the Apostles mentored Christians in this way: “Hereby perceive we the
love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our
lives for the brethren” (1
John 3:16).
And the last blasphemy of
Archpriest Maxim Pervozvansky in the quote. The phrase “God’s Wisdom has arranged so that the death of this baby, who was
killed years ago... has been saving lives of millions of people for many
decades...”. Wisdom is a Divine name mainly correlated with the Son of
God. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament evidence serve the basis for
calling the Only Begotten Son the Wisdom of God. Apostle Paul, for instance, directly
calls Christ “the power of God, and
the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24) [24] (https://azbyka.ru/premudrost). Therefore, there is direct
blasphemy against Jesus Christ, the Son of God in these Fr. Maxim Pervozvansky
words! Son of God, Jesus Christ, directly prohibits abortion, His Holy Church
declares the sin of abortion to be a cardinal sin. The ROC MP, as a part of the
Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, states the following: “Denouncing abortion as a cardinal sin, the
Church cannot find any justification for it either even if someone may
possibly benefit from the destruction of a conceived human life.
Contributing inevitably to ever wider spread and commercialization of abortion,
this practice (even if its effectiveness, currently hypothetical, would be
scientifically proven) presents an example of glaring immorality and is
criminal”
(The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church) (Fundamentals
of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church) [25].
“It is… inadmissible to
elevate to a norm such immoral and inhumane actions towards the human being as
abortion, euthanasia, use of human embryos in medicine, experiments
changing a person’s nature and etc.” (“The Russian Orthodox
Church’s Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights”) [15].
Thus, the Church says that the practice of
using the consequences of abortion in medicine is inadmissible, that it is glaring immorality and is criminal,
and a priest, Maxim Pervozvansky, claims that the use of the consequences of
abortion for medical purposes is the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God!
Isn’t this madness, isn’t this a blasphemy from the lips of a priest?!!!
Besides, having declared
such things publicly, the priest did not stop in his propaganda of the indecency.
On his VK page one can read the following post of his:
A post by Archpriest Maxim Pervozvansky, dated
January 22, 2021:
“When are you ready to
approve cannibalism? This question was asked to me in comments to the video on
the ethical side of vaccination using the cell lines of aborted children. I'll
try to answer. It is clear that killing in order to eat (that is, cannibalism
itself) is a grave sin under any circumstances. Other reasons, like gaining the
strength of a defeated enemy, are also a gravest sin.
At the same time, it is not entirely clear
whether it is possible to eat for survival someone who has already died. He is already dead, and
it is not your fault. Surprisingly, not so long ago such situation got
considered both in life and in culture. On October 13, 1972, an airplane
crashed in the Andes with 5 crew members and 40 passengers, members of the Old
Christians rugby team on board. The search was stopped as hopeless.
Nevertheless, almost three quarters of the passengers survived in this
disaster. Some of them soon died of wounds, some died in an avalanche. The
survivors had to fight for existence with practically no supplies in severe
cold conditions.
People began to die of
hunger. There was only one thing left. The bodies of the dead remaining intact
in the cold. Almost all were Christian believers. But the requests of the dying
were surprising: “IF MY BODY HELPS YOU SURVIVE, BE SURE TO USE IT”. As a
result, 16 victims managed to escape.
These tragic events
caused serious discussion and in 1993 became the source of Frank Marshall's
film “Survive”. Yet I have no answer
to the question as to when I would be ready to approve cannibalism. I am only
ready not to denounce those who in such a situation will make this decision, as
well as to repeat the appeal of those who died: If my body helps you to
survive, be sure to use it!”.
In this text by Fr. Maxim Pervozvansky, one can
see support for cannibalism in one of its manifestations, in fact, this is a
preaching of cannibalism. However, there is another moral guideline for
Orthodox Christians of Russia: an example of the feat and sacrifice made by the
inhabitants of Leningrad who during the 872-day siege in the overwhelming
majority retained their human appearance and did not descend to the hungry
animals devouring each other.
Thesis Six:
“Let us take advantage of the consequences of
the murdered baby’s death”
This thesis sounds in
several varieties, almost the same in their disgusting meaning.
Archpriest Sergiy Filimonov,
Doctor of Medical Sciences, a practicing surgeon, chairman of the Orthodox
Doctors’ Society of St. Petersburg, writes the following:
“The use of aborted fetal
material is regrettable and negative. But the baby had no choice when the
mother made this criminal decision. He accepted death by force. The abortion
was not carried out for the purpose of a medical experiment. Doctors used
tissue from the already dead fetus.
Factually, having endured a martyr's deprivation of
life, the slain served after death to save the lives of other people, and his
death was not in vain. In contrast to the use of fetal tissues from the babies,
specially aborted for the manufacture of cosmetic materials. During the
Great Patriotic War, our doctors actively used the blood from soldiers killed
on the battlefield. It was treated and transfused to the wounded to save lives.
There was not enough blood from living donors. In the practice of some
countries nowadays, after prisoners’ death penalty, their organs are
transplanted to seriously ill dying people in a nearby medical institution.
The baby was innocent and, unwillingly, gave his
life for the lives of others.
Whoever is not tempted and accepts the arguments
of the documents I cited – he would not err being vaccinated with the Sputnik V
vaccine” [27].
Priest Vladimir Duκhovich,
head of the Center for Bioethics Research at the Moscow Theological Academy,
PhD in Biological Sciences, said the following in a program on the “Spas” TV
channel: “since this culture exists [HEK293], we will look at it as a sacrifice of this little innocently killed
baby” (the “Spas” TV channel host: “It has touched my heart very
deeply... We need to accept what already exists... but this is not being repeated
anymore... once a sacrifice has already been made... and this does not raise
any questions, even ethical ones”) [28]
(www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCbu7X31rQ0)
Hieromonk Dmitry Pershin,
expert of the RF State Duma Committee on Family, Women and Children, remarked
in a conversation with “NGR” on January 19, 2021: “There are situations in the
human world when good can grow out of the evil made by someone, contrary to his
intentions. That abortion, which
caused the death of the baby, was not done for the sake of producing a vaccine
against coronavirus. However, many years later, scientists used these
embryonic cells in their research. This
does not in any way justify killing babies in the early stages of development,
neither it deprives the vaccine obtained of its protective properties. Therefore,
taking into account medical indications, it makes sense to get vaccinated,
because the alternative is possible death”. The interlocutor of the “NGR”
also believes that vaccination against COVID-19 is not a moral matter” [29] (https://www.ng.ru/ng_religii/2021-01-19/9_500_vaccine.html).
There are things we need
to pay attention to. The first lie is that “the abortion was not performed for
the purpose of a medical experiment.” As stated above, at least two out of the three
abortion participants performed it for the purpose of a medical experiment. The
second lie is about “the sacrifice of this innocently murdered little baby”.
There was no sacrifice because a sacrifice implies voluntary consent. The baby
did not give such consent. The third lie is that “the abortion... was not done
to produce a vaccine against coronavirus”. Obviously, the abortion was not
performed specifically for the development of the Sputnik V vaccine. However, the abortion was performed for the sake
of creating a cell line which is the basis (one of the elements, a raw
material) for creating vaccines against certain viruses, not excluding the
coronavirus vaccine.
And the principal thing.
The logics of all the three priests’ statements add up to one thing – “let us make
advantage of the useful fruits of the murder of that innocent baby”.
Despite the beautiful
words that they all are very sorry for the murdered baby, the logics of the
main idea of their statements are very cynical and flawed.
Firstly, one cannot measure everything with
practical material benefits, or, in other words, a
godly end never justifies sinful means. Because if to continue applying the
principle which all the three priests spoke about one would get the following:
“1) Blaspheming God is a
sin, but selling blasphemous writings is good. It is beneficial. Won’t throw
them out in the trash since they are already published.
2) Making idols is a sin
but worshiping them is good. It is beneficial. Won't throw them in the trash
since they are already made.
3) Stealing is a sin. But
buying and selling loot is not a sin. Won't throw it in the trash”.
These very logics voiced
by the priests led to the fact that the Russian state allows on its territory,
for example, the sale of strong alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, and other
things harmful to people. Should the Russian Orthodox Church follow the example
of the Russian state? The answer is obvious to everyone.
A historical argument can
be made against the position of the above priests: after the horrors of the
besieged Leningrad, any attempts to substantiate the moral acceptability of
vaccines on abortive cells seem, excuse me, the same as to substantiate the
moral acceptability of cutlets from the hunger dead in Leningrad for the
survival of others. If the flesh of aborted babies can be used for the health
of others, then the flesh of the deceased Leningraders could be used for the
health of others. However, both are equally unacceptable from a moral point of view
since this is obvious satanism.
Secondly, these priests
offer to take advantage of the fruits of a murder!!! They are not even
embarrassed with the fact that in order to create the Sputnik V vaccine its
creators had to pay money to the participants in that abortion or their legal
heirs in order to obtain the cell line from the tissues of the killed baby. At its core, this payment for the HEK293
cell line materials is participation in the trade of the tissues of the killed
baby, no matter what doctors and professors of medicine say there that
the cells of the killed baby were changed in the course of long-term medical
manipulations before using them in creating the Sputnik V vaccine. And the fact of trafficking organs and tissues
of a murdered baby have not stopped these priests from refusing to use the
vaccine.
Conclusions and
suggestions
So, having considered all
six main theses used by Church advocates of the Sputnik V vaccine, we can come
to the following conclusions.
The absolute majority, if
not all public figures out of bishops, priests, and laity, advocate the need
for the Sputnik V vaccine and its spiritual safety.
Upon careful and honest
examination of their claims about the spiritual safety of the vaccine, it
becomes apparent that this is absolutely not the case. All their statements in
favor of the Sputnik V vaccine are too superficial and do not correspond to the
realities of life, moreover, they directly contradict the Commandments of God
and the official documents of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow
Patriarchate.
False and disastrous for the human soul is the
thesis: “The fact of getting vaccinated with the Sputnik V vaccine or refusing
it is not associated with the soul salvation or death”. These words are false
and disastrous because this vaccine has an immoral, sinful origin!
“If a Christian realizes that the vaccine has
an immoral origin which should be denounced by the Church, but uses it at the
same time, he deserves condemnation, for his actions deviate him from the right
faith and Christian life. There is no place here for subjective opinions and
views called “madness“ by the revealer of Heaven, the Holy Father Basil the
Great [29.1].
“Any person who knowingly got vaccinated,
knowing about the origin of these vaccines, is an accomplice not only in
murder, but also in theft, since he arrogates the gift of health, illegally
taken from murdered babies and appropriates their biological treasure” [29.2].
Obviously, the
instigators in this spiritually deadly propaganda are Metropolitans Hilarion (Alfeyev) and Tikhon (Shevkunov), who have
full ecclesiastical power and serious administrative resources, they were among
the first to announce their support for vaccination and were among the first to
get vaccinated: a media report on Metropolitan Hilarion vaccination is dated
September 15, 2020 [30], and
Metropolitan Tikhon’s on October 16, 2020 [31].
The rest of the bishops, as far as I know, simply keep a public silence on this
issue or give written instructions on the necessity of vaccination to their
subordinate priests.
The second “echelon” here
are all sorts of experts and leaders of Сhurch organizations and
institutions by the nature of their activity one way or another related to the
theme of medicine, bioethics, and biotechnologies. These are, for example, Archpriest Sergiy Filimonov,
Doctor of Medical Sciences, a practicing surgeon, chairman of St. Petersburg
Orthodox Doctors’ Society, or priest
Vladimir Dukhovich, head of the Center for Bioethics Research at Moscow
Theological Academy, Ph. D. in Biological Sciences. Their task is to give pseudo-scientific
weight to the statements of the powerful metropolitans and to dispel the people’s
well-grounded concerns and doubts as to the spiritual danger of this vaccine.
The third “echelon” or
group of influence that is trying to persuade the church people in favor of
using the Sputnik V vaccine are those public and well-known figures who are not
leading Church institutions related to biotechnology and have no significant
administrative or Church power but by the virtue of their position or activity
have great and stable influence on Orthodox people. An example of this kind of
people can be Theology Professor Osipov and his public vaccination with the
Sputnik V vaccine[1].
A powerful information
support for the advocates of the Sputnik V vaccine is provided by the media
which are conventionally called Orthodox. We have already mentioned the “Foma”
magazine. However, the dominant informational role in influencing the minds and
opinions of Orthodox Christians on the issue of vaccination has the “Spas” TV
channel constantly heating up this matter and providing television coverage to
the advocates of the Sputnik V vaccine. Most
of the statements the content of which was analyzed in this article were voiced
on the “Spas” TV channel broadcasts, including the obviously blasphemous
statements by Archpriest Maxim Pervozvansky and the unacceptable approach of priest
Vladimir Dukhovich.
Taking into account the
active role of the “Spas” TV channel in promoting the Sputnik V vaccine, it is
worth paying attention and thinking about the role in this matter of the bishop
about whom it is common practice to remain silent, namely about the Holy
Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill.
On May 3, 2017, the TASS
news agency released the following message:
“Journalist and actor
Boris Korchevnikov has been appointed director and producer of the “Spas”
Orthodox TV channel; the press service of the Moscow Patriarchate reports. “With
the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, Boris Viacheslavovich
Korchevnikov has been appointed general director and general producer of the
“Spas” public Orthodox TV channel. Boris Kostenko who held the above positions,
has been appointed Deputy General Director of the channel”, the statement says [32] (https://tass.ru/obschestvo/4229724).
Thus, unfortunately, His
Holiness Patriarch Kirill also bears his personal part of the blame for the
sinful propaganda of the necessity of getting vaccinated with the Sputnik V
vaccine on the “Spas” TV channel. The thought about the guilt of Patriarch
Kirill is even more strengthened if we take into account that, for example, the
Vicar of the Patriarch, Bishop Savva (Tutunov)
of Zelenograd, also speaks on the subject of vaccination on the “Spas” TV
channel. An example of this high-ranking bishop’s activities in favor of the
Sputnik V vaccine can be his participation in the program called “On
Vaccination. Author's column by Bishop Savva of Zelenograd” dated February 12,
2021 [33] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEAzGlDYQag).
Here he again repeats the clichés already known and analyzed in this article,
that “the vaccine itself does not contain the cells of a killed baby” and that
“there was no such thing that an abortion was specially performed to create
this vaccine”, besides, he traditionally keeps silent about the official
documents of the Russian Orthodox Church MP on this topic.
Therefore, the activities
of the “Spas” TV channel as well as public statements of well-known and
authoritative people on the issue under discussion are an example of a
deviation from the Church doctrine of the inadmissibility of complicity in the
cardinal sin of abortion, while doing this, the speakers reveal themselves to
be liars, telling lies or keeping silent about the truth, and thus cause great
spiritual harm to Orthodox people, prompting them to the grave sin of
complicity in the abortion of an innocently murdered baby.
Shepherds smitten, the sheep scattered abroad,
and now predatory demons burst into the hearts of the faint-hearted, dragging
them into eternal destruction.
Having the necessary courage, yet for one reason
or another not being able to independently study out the issue of vaccination
with Sputnik V and trusting such would-be preachers and wolves in sheep's
clothes (Matt. 7:15), simple Orthodox people get also destroyed.
Observing such a sad
picture of Church reality, one should not fall into the sin of despair, for
this is the final destruction of the soul. However, there is no reason to hope
for an improvement in the general Church situation. There is almost no
resistance to the sinful line regarding the Sputnik V vaccination which is
carried out by the influential bishops and people having administrative power
in the Church as well as serious information resources to convey their position
to the Church people.
Cases of the Church
doctrine protection are rare, and they are hushed up by the Church media.
For example, a competent
and honest stance is taken by priest Theodor Lukyanov, head of the ROC
Patriarchal Commission on the Family, Motherhood and Childhood Protection
Issues. In October 2020, in the State Duma of the Russian Federation at the
round table called “Immunoprophylaxis of infectious diseases. Prospects for
legal and regulatory governing”, he stated the following:
“It is seen ethically
unacceptable that preparations for immunoprophylaxis contain components obtained
with the use of cell lines derived from human embryonic tissues. In particular,
HEK293 (Human Embryonic Kidney 293) is a cell line derived from human embryonic
kidneys... due to the “ease of cultivation”, this cell line has become
widespread in cell biology. It is widely used in biotechnology and
pharmaceutical industries as a producer of therapeutic proteins and viruses for
gene therapy. HEK293 is obtained from
kidney cells of an aborted child...
The position of the ROC on biotechnologies is stated in the document “The Bases
of the Social Concept” [34]. (Source:
State Duma, Round table “Immunoprophylaxis of infectious diseases. Prospects
for legal and regulatory governing” https://ria.ru/20201019/vaktsina--1580530503.html; http://pk-semya.ru/novosti/item/8139-v-russkoj-pravoslavnoj-tserkvi-schitayut-eticheski-nedopustimym-ispolzovanie-kletochnykh-linij-poluchennykh-iz-embrionalnykh-tkanej-cheloveka-dlya-sozdaniya-immunologicheskikh-preparatov.html).
However, to my great regret, I
failed to find repeated statements on this matter from priest Theodor Lukyanov.
Priest Konstantin Korepanov, the confessor at the
Yekaterinburg Seminary, the author and host of the “Reading Philokalia”, “Reading
the Old Testament” programs on the “Soyuz” TV channel, also publicly voiced his view on the
inadmissibility of getting vaccinated with a vaccine produced from aborted
fetal materials [35]. However, the
minus of his short video, and maybe only the part of it that got into the
public space, is that he did not directly indicate the name of the vaccine that
is prohibited by the Law of God to be used by Orthodox Christians.
The well-known priest Georgy Maksimov also expressed
his negative position on the possibility for Orthodox people to be vaccinated
with the vaccine made using materials from abortive babies [36]. However, the big flaw in his speech is that it refers to the 2009
resolution of the Orthodox Doctors’ Society as the Church decision, although
the document of this Society is not a Church definition. The official Church
documents relating to this kind of inadmissible medications were adopted by the
decisions of the Bishops’ Councils of 2000, 2008 and 2009, as already mentioned
above. By now, all prerequisites (institutional, informational, personal and
others) have already
been formed for the evil described in this article to intensify ever more. For
the reason that the sinful theses that have been analyzed in this article, and
which for many months have been so actively and widely introduced into the
Orthodox people, may be a prerequisite or a basis for making an appropriate
decision at the upcoming Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in
November 2021. There is a great danger that the decisions of the Bishops’
Councils of 2000, 2008 and 2009 can be canceled in terms of the ban on the
creation and use of medications based on the sampling and use of tissues and
organs of aborted babies and the ban on the use of human embryos in medicine.
For example, this can happen through the approval of the forthcoming ROC MP
Bishops’ Council of the 2009 resolution of the Orthodox Doctors’ Society, that
in the absence of an alternative, vaccination with a vaccine created using
materials derived from aborted infants is permissible by condescension
(oikonomia).
If such a misfortune happens in the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, then its faithful sons will only have one option: under no circumstances should they agree with the decisions of the 2021 Bishops' Council of the ROC regarding the rejection (of the essence) of the decisions of the Bishops’ Councils of 2000, 2008 and 2009 on the matter under discussion, and ignore such decisions.
Dmitry Malyshev.
Praise of the Most Holy Mother of God
(Acaphistus Saturday)
April 17, 2021
PS. Saint Tikhon of
Zadonsk taught: “In spirit of love do condole with a brother who has fallen or
is falling, and watch yourself from his fall, and pray to the merciful God for
him to raise up the fallen one and not let you be caught in the same sin”.
PPS. Saint Theophan the
Recluse taught: “As soon as judgment about the others’ actions is associated
with contempt for them, but not with brotherly sorrow for them and with the
preservation of the honor of their face, this would be condemnation — a great
sin! Be on guard for yourselves”.
References:
[1] Putin instructed to start mass vaccination of all Russians. https://www.rbc.ru/society/13/01/2021/5ffee3189a7947d8d9f50fb1
[1.1] Open letter from priest Stylian (Carpathiu), a
certified psychiatrist, theologian, professor of bioethics at the University of
Athens to the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece on the issue of vaccination
from coronavirus. https://myrophoros.blogspot.com/2021/01/blog-post_28.html).
[2] NG Religions. Vaccine believers
and vaccine fighters. https://www.ng.ru/ng_religii/2021-01-19/9_500_vaccine.html
[3] Metropolitan Tikhon
took part in a stream dedicated to vaccination and chipping. VIDEO. https://pln-pskov.ru/church/chpu/399205.html
[4] YouTube channel of the “Spas” TV channel, video “Covid.
Skeptics and dissidents. Who are they?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Mn-4Qhhac
[4.1] RIA News. "The creators of
Sputnik V have responded to the statements of the Russian Orthodox Church about
the cellular component” https://ria.ru/20210211/vaktsina-1597078708.html
[5] Patent for
invention No. 2731342 “Pharmaceutical agent and method of its use for the
induction of specific immunity against the severe acute respiratory syndrome
virus SARS-CoV-2 (variants)”, as well as patent for invention No. 2731356 “Expression
vector for creating an immunobiological agent for the induction of specific
immunity against SARS-CoV-2 severe acute respiratory syndrome virus
(variants)”. See open registries https://new.fips.ru/
[6] September 2020
Study by the Charlotte Lozier Institute (USA) specializing in abortion research
and the aborted materials industry (available at the link updated on March 3,
2021. https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/?fbclid=IwAR1dysft0B0y_qKjArHB4CAHuOmmsAxUSPMlzpKnY7ys0Z66zVe7hErHeTQ
[7] Statement by
Presidential Press Secretary D. Peskov https://tass.ru/politika/9409099;
[8] YouTube channel “Aleksey Ilich Osipov”,
video “I think it is right” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF2rsfku2AA&feature=youtu.be
[9] Scanned letter of A. L.
Gunzburg, director of the N. F. Gamaleya
Federal Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology, dated January 18, 2021, No. 67 / 01-05-51
is available at the link on the RNL website: https://ruskline.ru/news_rl/2021/01/18/kakoilibo_chelovecheskii_material_ne_mozhet_tam_prisutstvovat_po_opredeleniyu
[10] The analytical note is available
at the following link: https://vk.com/doc4709441_589812206?hash=93455efe92f86c2666
[11] A post of telegram channel of Bishop Savva (Tutunov) https://t.me/kartezianec/1714
[12] “Foma”. Should we be vaccinated from Covid? https://foma.ru/mozhno-li-privivatsja-ot-kovida.html
[13] “The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox
Church” http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/419128.html
[14] The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox
Church" XII.7. http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/419128.html
[15] “The
Russian Orthodox Church’s Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights”.
III.3. http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/428616.html
[16] “The Russian Orthodox Church’s Basic Teaching on Human
Dignity, Freedom and Rights”. http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/428616.html
[17] Resolution
of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church (January
27-28, 2009). http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/543669.html
[18]
The ROC Patriarchal
Commission on the Family, Motherhood and Childhood Protection Issues. “Orthodoxy and Bioethical Issues. Selected Materials of the Church Public Council on Biomedical
Ethics”. Under the editorship of fr. Dmitry Smirnov. 2017. http://pk-semya.ru/images/news/2015/pks_2017-r.pdf
[19] The State
Duma, round table “Immunoprophylaxis of infectious diseases. Prospects for
legal and regulatory governing”: ROC calls for not using embryonal cells in
vaccine creation. https://ria.ru/20201019/vaktsina--1580530503.html
[19.1] Open letter from priest Stylian (Carpathiu), a
certified psychiatrist, theologian, professor of bioethics at the University of
Athens to the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece on the issue of vaccination
from coronavirus. https://myrophoros.blogspot.com/2021/01/blog-post_28.html.
[20] Article “Characteristics and viral propagation properties of
a new human diploid cell line, walvax-2, and its suitability as a candidate
cell substrate for vaccine production” in section “Source tissue material”. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526020/
[20.1] The Second Open letter from priest Stylian (Carpathiu), a
certified psychiatrist, theologian, professor of bioethics at the University of
Athens to the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece on the issue of vaccination
from coronavirus. https://myrophoros.blogspot.com/2021/04/blog-post_14.html
[21] The “New Day” TV show on the “Spas” TV channel on January 22,
2021, starting 28’39”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHjOAk_nIXU
[22] The “Academiсa” website. Dictionaries and Encyclopedias
https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/988609
[23] Orthodox Library under the editorship of Kirill,
Patriarch of Moscow, and all Russia. https://www.pravenc.ru/text/2459069.html
[23.1] https://vseeresi.com/2017/01/13/криптохристианство
[24] “Azbuka Very” (“The Alphabet of Faith”) website.
Article “Wisdom”. https://azbyka.ru/premudrost
[25] The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox
Church" XII.7. http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/419128.html
[26] “The Russian Orthodox Church’s Basic
Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights” http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/428616.html
[27] Archpriest Sergiy Filimonov on the discussion about the origin and
admissibility of the use of the Sputnik V vaccine dated February 20, 2021. http://www.opvspb.ru/society/news/451/
[28] The “Spas” YouTube channel, video “Covid Passports / Aborted Fetal
Material in the New Vaccine / How to Get Fortified?/ St. Pavel of Thebes (from 1:12:13). www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCbu7X31rQ0
[29]. NG Religion. Vaccine Believers and Vaccine Fighters. https://www.ng.ru/ng_religii/2021-01-19/9_500_vaccine.html
[29.1]. The Second Open letter from priest Stylian (Carpathiu), a
certified psychiatrist, theologian, professor of bioethics at the University of
Athens to the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece on the issue of vaccination
from coronavirus. https://myrophoros.blogspot.com/2021/04/blog-post_14.html
[29.2]. Ibid.
[30] Metropolitan Hilarion: I have got the vaccine first dose, there
won’t be a need in the second one. https://ria.ru/20200915/ilarion-1577265507.html
[31] Metropolitan Tikhon has Got Vaccinated from
COVID-19 but continues to wear a mask. https://ria.ru/20201016/privivka--1580152747.html
[32] Boris Korchevnikov has
been Appointed the “Spas” TV Channel
Director. https://tass.ru/obschestvo/4229724;
[33] The “Spas” TV Channel
YouTube channel video “On Vaccination. Author’s Column by Bishop Savva of
Zelenograd”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEAzGlDYQag
[34] ROC Called Not to Use Embryonic
Cells in Vaccine Creation https://ria.ru/20201019/vaktsina--1580530503.html; also
here: “ROC considers it inadmissible to use the cell lines derived from human
embryonic tissues, in creating immunological medications”. https://pk-semya.ru/novosti/item/8139-v-russkoj-pravoslavnoj-tserkvi-schitayut-eticheski-nedopustimym-ispolzovanie-kletochnykh-linij-poluchennykh-iz-embrionalnykh-tkanej-cheloveka-dlya-sozdaniya-immunologicheskikh-preparatov.html
[35] YouTube Channel “Five Minutes for the Soul”,
Video “Priest Konstantin Korepanov on Vaccines and Abortive Cells”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QivlcaUqBs4
[36] The “Spas” TV Channel YouTube
Channel. Video “Georgy Maximov: Covid-Passports, the Rank Quitting Priests / A
Reply to Vaccination Criticism (from 45’10”). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5VHKZ0yqrM
[1] Although some doctors
doubt whether Professor A. I. Osipov was actually vaccinated, in this case
it is of no importance, since the professor himself stated that the vaccination
with Sputnik V had been performed. For more information about this: video “Has
he revealed himself? Has professor Aleksey Osipov really got vaccinated or not
- let's figure it out”- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5Es06zM_zg&t=2s)?
@ Translation "Pen of a Ready Writer", 2021.
We are grateful to all those who reprint our materials indicating the link to this blog thereby showing respect to the translator’s work. We also thank those who do not indicate it, posting the materials as their own. God bless us all! Let the Word of God be sown abundantly.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий
Здравствуйте! Комментарии публикуются после проверки модератором. Благодарим за понимание!