The Pope and Vaccines: By action and omission

Becoming a Jesuit is a real intellectual obstacle course. Pope Francis is a Jesuit. He studied chemistry, theology and philosophy. He is fluent in several languages. He must therefore be able to express his thoughts clearly and precisely. I, who am neither such a scholar, nor a Jesuit, nor a Pope, can do this well (I am in favor of compulsory vaccination for all those who statistically take the risk of clogging our hospitals and to leave the others alone, especially those under thirty without comorbidities). It’s not that complicated.

With this in mind, when the Pope gives a pro-vaccine speech that sounds like the honeyed sermons of a Catholic boarding school morning study, we must be vigilant and tell ourselves that the unspoken words and allusions may have a heavy meaning.

The Pope spoke on August 18,⁽¹⁾, in a context of health pass in France and Italy required from 12 years, back to school, tests and debates (preparation of minds) on the vaccination of children from 3 years.

Let’s take up his message:

« Thank God we have vaccines against covid 19, they give hope to put an end to the pandemic  » the dogma of all vaccines is established from the outset, no reference to access to care or prevention.

 » Getting vaccinated with vaccines authorized by the competent authorities is an act of love, and helping to get the majority of people vaccinated is an act of love. Love for oneself, one’s family and friends, love for all people « . We had misunderstood, it is not Pope Francis, but Pope Pfizer. Let the little children and young people without comorbidities who are not at risk of the disease come to me so that I can make them guinea pigs for treatments that are still in the testing phase. Vaccinate them all, God will recognize his own. As for his submission to the  » competent authorities « , it is definitely a mania with him.

 » Love is also social and political. There is a social love and a political love. Here, on the other hand, it is very clear, it is even repeated. We had let the religious out of politics and social affairs through the door of secularism, and now he lets it in through the window of love. And I naively believed that we should leave to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, but I didn’t count on love. What contradiction can we bring to love? What place for democratic debate or scientific doubt? If you’re not for  » getting the majority of people vaccinated « , you’re not in love… What can you say to that?

 » Getting vaccinated is a simple but profound way to promote the common good and to care for each other, especially the most vulnerable. I pray that each one of us can bring his little grain of sand, his little gesture of love ». Ite Missa est, everyone, whether at risk or not, must be vaccinated, even if it means building on sand and using doses that could be more useful to people at risk in poor countries.

I can’t help but think that if he had had children, if he had felt even once that anxiety of parents when their children face a risk, he would have included them in his reflection on the  » most vulnerable « .

So of course, mea maxima culpa, I am making a trial of intent, I am interpreting the silences and vague formulas. But at a time when 3 vaccines (Astra Zeneca, Johnson and Moderna) are raising doubts about their possible side effects in people under 30, I do not beg for mercy, but for clarification.

This May the ‘sane’ mind remind him that when he knowingly omits them from his message, it is not only to children and young people without comorbidities that he is saying: » I wash my hands of it.

Yvan Falys