A priest from Avrille told me that it makes no difference, morally speaking, whether the cells were used in testing or production/manufacturing.
The moral distinction which imagines permissibility in the former case, but not in the latter, is fictitious.
I'm as against taking this ναccιnє as anyone else, but let's not blur things together. You seem to have this attitude that if you merely throw the word "Avrille" out there, then suddenly the conclusion you assert must be true. You'll need to share his reasoning.
As I've cited from other sources, including Fr. Ripperger, when the baby's cells are actually in the ναccιnє, then there's no more talk of remote cooperation or even material cooperation in some past evil, because then you're speaking about actively participating in an OINGONG evil, the injustice done to the child whose remains continue to be abused in the ναccιnє.
Once you take that out of the picture, then you're talking about a material cooperation, and various forms of material cooperation can be justified depending on the gravity of the justifying circuмstances.
So if you accurately quote this priest that "it makes no difference," then I immediately suspect his credentials and his learning, because clearly it "makes [a] difference". Although I suspect that you're oversimplifying or distorting something he said. But if he did claim it makes no "difference," then that's clearly false because the consequences of different types of cooperation can be different.
Topic: Is it a mortal sin to take the vaccine? (Read 6714 times)