Author Topic: Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs (Read 987 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** December 12, 2020, 05:28:03 AM »

Bishops Schneider, Strickland on the Morality of Vaccines
Written by +Athanasius Schneider

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/5189-bishop-schneider-strickland-on-the-morality-of-vaccines

Editor's Intro: With most of the world now facing the unsettling prospect of being forced to take a vaccination against a virus with a 99.5 percent recovery rate, we are truly grateful to Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Bishop Joseph Strickland for issuing this important new statement on the moral illicitness of vaccines derived from the fetal cell lines of aborted fetuses.

Not all the vaccine candidates include fetal cells, but it is important for Christians everywhere to understand the differences and to become familiar with the moral ramification of accepting vaccines which are the work of those who evidently have no problem violating the sanctity of life in this ghoulish manner.

Please note that this statement is dated December 12, 2020, the liturgical memorial of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of the Unborn. May she intercede for us to that we may have the strength to know and understand our duty as Christians to uphold the moral law in these troubling and indeed Christophobic times.

As noted in the text, the statement "was written at the advice and counsel of doctors and scientists from various countries."

Michael J. Matt

________

On the moral illicitness of the use of vaccines made from cells derived from aborted human fetuses

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
In recent weeks, news agencies and various information sources have reported that, in response to the Covid-19 emergency, some countries have produced vaccines using cell lines from aborted human fetuses. In other countries, such vaccines are being planned.[/font][/size]

A growing chorus of churchmen (bishops’ conferences, individual bishops, and priests) has said that, in the event that no alternative vaccine using ethically licit substances is available, it would be morally permissible for Catholics to receive vaccines made from the cell lines of aborted babies.

Supporters of this position invoke two docuмents of the Holy See: the first, from the Pontifical Academy for Life, is titled, “Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human fetuses” and was issued on June 9, 2005; the second, an Instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is titled, “Dignitas Personae, on certain bioethical questions” and was issued on September 8, 2008. Both of these docuмents allow for the use of such vaccines in exceptional cases and for a limited time, on the basis of what in moral theology is called remote, passive, material cooperation with evil. The aforementioned docuмents assert that Catholics who use such vaccines at the same time have “the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available.”

In the case of vaccines made from the cell lines of aborted human fetuses, we see a clear contradiction between the Catholic doctrine to categorically, and beyond the shadow of any doubt, reject abortion in all cases as a grave moral evil that cries out to heaven for vengeance (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2268, n. 2270), and the practice of regarding vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines as morally acceptable in exceptional cases of “urgent need” — on the grounds of remote, passive, material cooperation. To argue that such vaccines can be morally licit if there is no alternative is in itself contradictory and cannot be acceptable for Catholics.

One ought to recall the following words of Pope John Paul II regarding the dignity of unborn human life: “The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.”
(Christifideles Laici, 38). Using vaccines made from the cells of murdered unborn children contradicts a “maximum determination” to defend unborn life.

The theological principle of material cooperation is certainly valid and may be applied to a whole host of cases (e.g. in paying taxes, the use of products made from slave labor, and so on). However, this principle can hardly be applied to the case of vaccines made from fetal cell lines, because those who knowingly and voluntarily receive such vaccines enter into a kind of concatenation, albeit very remote, with the process of the abortion industry. The crime of abortion is so monstrous that any kind of concatenation with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circuмstances by a Catholic once he has become fully aware of it. One who uses these vaccines must realize that his body is benefitting from the “fruits” (although steps removed through a series of chemical processes) of one of mankind’s greatest crimes.

Any link to the abortion process, even the most remote and implicit, will cast a shadow over the Church’s duty to bear unwavering witness to the truth that abortion must be utterly rejected. The ends cannot justify the means. We are living through one of the worst genocides known to man. Millions upon millions of babies across the world have been slaughtered in their mother’s womb, and day after day this hidden genocide continues through the abortion industry, biomedical research and fetal technology, and a push by governments and international bodies to promote such vaccines as one of their goals. Now is not the time for Catholics to yield; to do so would be grossly irresponsible. The acceptance of these vaccines by Catholics, on the grounds that they involve only a “remote, passive and material cooperation” with evil, would play into the hands of the Church’s enemies and weaken her as the last stronghold against the evil of abortion.

What else can a vaccine derived from fetal cell lines be other than a violation of the God-given Order of Creation? For it is based on a serious violation of this Order through the murder of an unborn child. Had this child not been denied the right to life, had his cells (which have been further cultivated several times in the lab) not been made available for the production of a vaccine, they could not be marketed. We therefore have here a double violation of God’s holy Order: on the one hand, through the abortion itself, and on the other hand, through the heinous business of trafficking and marketing the remains of aborted children. Yet, this double disregard for the divine Order of Creation can never be justified, not even on the grounds of preserving the health of a person or society through such vaccines. Our society has created a substitute religion: health has been made the highest good, a substitute god to whom sacrifices must be offered — in this case, through a vaccine based on the death of another human life.

In examining the ethical questions surrounding vaccines, we have to ask ourselves: How and why did all of this become possible? Was there truly no alternative? Why did murder-based technology emerge in medicine, whose purpose is instead to bring life and health? Bio-medical research that exploits the innocent unborn and uses their bodies as “raw material” for the purpose of vaccines seems more akin to cannibalism than medicine. We also ought to consider that, for some in the bio-medical industry, the cell lines of unborn children are a “product,” the abortionist and vaccine manufacturer are the “supplier,” and the recipients of the vaccine are “consumers.” Technology based on murder is rooted in hopelessness and ends in despair. We must resist the myth that “there is no alternative.” On the contrary, we must proceed with the hope and conviction that alternatives exist, and that human ingenuity, with the help of God, can discover them. This is the only way to pass from darkness to light, and from death to life.

The Lord said that in the end times even the elect will be seduced (cf. Mk. 13:22). Today, the entire Church and all Catholic faithful must urgently seek to be strengthened in the doctrine and practice of the faith. In confronting the evil of abortion, more than ever Catholics must “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22). Bodily health is not an absolute value. Obedience to the law of God and the eternal salvation of the souls must be given primacy. Vaccines derived from the cells of cruelly murdered unborn children are clearly apocalyptic in character and may possibly foreshadow the mark of the beast (see Rev. 13:16).

Some churchmen in our day reassure the faithful by affirming that receiving a Covid-19 vaccine derived from the cell lines of an aborted child is morally licit if an alternative is not available. They justify their assertion on the basis of “material and remote cooperation” with evil. Such affirmations are extremely anti-pastoral and counterproductive, especially when one considers the increasingly apocalyptic character of the abortion industry, and the inhuman nature of some biomedical research and embryonic technology. Now more than ever, Catholics categorically cannot encourage and promote the sin of abortion, even in the slightest, by accepting these vaccines. Therefore, as Successors of the Apostles and Shepherds responsible for the eternal salvation of souls, we consider it impossible to be silent and maintain an ambiguous attitude regarding our duty to resist with “maximum of determination” (Pope John Paul II) against the “unspeakable crime” of abortion (II Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, 51).

This statement was written at the advice and counsel of doctors and scientists from various countries. A substantial contribution also came from the laity: from grandmothers, grandfathers, fathers and mothers of families, and from young people. All of those consulted — independent of age, nationality and profession — unanimously and almost instinctively rejected the idea of a vaccine derived from the cell lines of aborted children. Furthermore, they considered the justification offered for using such vaccines (i.e. “material remote cooperation”) as weak and unsuitable. This is comforting and, at the same time, very revealing: their unanimous response is a further demonstration of the strength of reason and the sensus fidei.
More than ever, we need the spirit of the confessors and martyrs who avoided the slightest suspicion of collaboration with the evil of their own age. The Word of God says: “Be simple as children of God without reproach in the midst of a depraved and perverse generation, in which you must shine like lights in the world” (Phil. 2, 15).

December 12, 2020, Memorial of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Guadalupe

Cardinal Janis Pujats, Metropolitan archbishop emeritus of Riga

+ Tomash Peta, Metropolitan archbishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

+ Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop/bishop emeritus of Karaganda

+ Joseph E. Strickland, Bishop of Tyler (USA)

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

PAT317 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 12, 2020, 06:46:58 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 12, 2020, 05:28:03 AM

...In the case of vaccines made from the cell lines of aborted human fetuses, we see a clear contradiction between the Catholic doctrine to categorically, and beyond the shadow of any doubt, reject abortion in all cases as a grave moral evil that cries out to heaven for vengeance ..., and the practice of regarding vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines as morally acceptable in exceptional cases of “urgent need” — on the grounds of remote, passive, material cooperation. To argue that such vaccines can be morally licit if there is no alternative is in itself contradictory and cannot be acceptable for Catholics.

... The acceptance of these vaccines by Catholics, on the grounds that they involve only a “remote, passive and material cooperation” with evil, would play into the hands of the Church’s enemies and weaken her as the last stronghold against the evil of abortion.

What else can a vaccine derived from fetal cell lines be other than a violation of the God-given Order of Creation? For it is based on a serious violation of this Order through the murder of an unborn child. Had this child not been denied the right to life, had his cells (which have been further cultivated several times in the lab) not been made available for the production of a vaccine, they could not be marketed. We therefore have here a double violation of God’s holy Order: on the one hand, through the abortion itself, and on the other hand, through the heinous business of trafficking and marketing the remains of aborted children. Yet, this double disregard for the divine Order of Creation can never be justified, not even on the grounds of preserving the health of a person or society through such vaccines. Our society has created a substitute religion: health has been made the highest good, a substitute god to whom sacrifices must be offered — in this case, through a vaccine based on the death of another human life.

In examining the ethical questions surrounding vaccines, we have to ask ourselves: How and why did all of this become possible? Was there truly no alternative? Why did murder-based technology emerge in medicine, whose purpose is instead to bring life and health? Bio-medical research that exploits the innocent unborn and uses their bodies as “raw material” for the purpose of vaccines seems more akin to cannibalism than medicine. We also ought to consider that, for some in the bio-medical industry, the cell lines of unborn children are a “product,” the abortionist and vaccine manufacturer are the “supplier,” and the recipients of the vaccine are “consumers.” Technology based on murder is rooted in hopelessness and ends in despair. We must resist the myth that “there is no alternative.” On the contrary, we must proceed with the hope and conviction that alternatives exist, and that human ingenuity, with the help of God, can discover them. This is the only way to pass from darkness to light, and from death to life.

The Lord said that in the end times even the elect will be seduced (cf. Mk. 13:22). Today, the entire Church and all Catholic faithful must urgently seek to be strengthened in the doctrine and practice of the faith. In confronting the evil of abortion, more than ever Catholics must “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22). Bodily health is not an absolute value. Obedience to the law of God and the eternal salvation of the souls must be given primacy. Vaccines derived from the cells of cruelly murdered unborn children are clearly apocalyptic in character and may possibly foreshadow the mark of the beast (see Rev. 13:16).

...More than ever, we need the spirit of the confessors and martyrs who avoided the slightest suspicion of collaboration with the evil of their own age. The Word of God says: “Be simple as children of God without reproach in the midst of a depraved and perverse generation, in which you must shine like lights in the world” (Phil. 2, 15).

.
Hear, hear!

2Vermont · « **Reply #2 on:** December 12, 2020, 07:56:06 AM »

In denouncing the application of "remote, material cooperation in sin", the Novus Ordo bishops seem to imply that taking these vaccines is formal cooperation in sin, but never mention that theological term explicitly. It seems to me that that would be the logical next step if they are going to teach the "Faithful" based on Catholic moral principles. And yet they don't. They also seem to imply that remote material cooperation can only be applied to things like "(e.g. in paying taxes, the use of products made from slave labor, and so on)", but not grave sins like murder. I suspect that this is not so based on things I've read so far.

It would be great to see traditional Catholic clergy overwhelmingly agree with this. So far I have not seen that. Perhaps we will see more guidance from them on this specific situation in the near future and hopefully they will be more unified on it.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #3 on:** December 12, 2020, 08:13:52 AM »

If I understand the argument, it seems to be:

1) Remote material cooperation in evil can never be permissible in any circuмstance touching upon abortion because of the monstrous heinousness of that particular initial sin;

2) The grave scandal of Catholics permitting the use of such vaccines will severely wound the credibility of the Church, and impede its ministry.

Number 2 is undoubtedly true, and a prudential reason not to allow the use of such vaccines, even if number 1 were false (in my opinion).

Regarding number 1, I would like to see this developed a bit more. I might not be reading it correctly, but it seems to imply that the permissibility or impermissibility in remote material cooperation in evil depends upon the magnitude of the initial evil?

So far as I can tell, this (and facilitating the growth of the abortion and abortive pharmaceutical industry) is the only reason they give about why cooperation is specifically prohibited for abortive vaccines, but not in all the other examples they give.

If this is the argument they are making, can anyone find corroboration for it in any of the manuals?

2Vermont · « **Reply #4 on:** December 12, 2020, 08:21:54 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 12, 2020, 08:13:52 AM

If I understand the argument, it seems to be:

1) Remote material cooperation in evil can never be permissible in any circuмstance touching upon abortion because of the monstrous heinousness of that particular initial sin;

2) The grave scandal of Catholics permitting the use of such vaccines will severely wound the credibility of the Church, and impede its ministry.

Number 2 is undoubtedly true, and a prudential reason not to allow the use of such vaccines, even if number 1 were false (in my opinion).

Regarding number 1, I would like to see this developed a bit more. I might not be reading it correctly, but it seems to imply that the permissibility or impermissibility in remote material cooperation in evil depends upon the magnitude of the initial evil?

If this is the argument they are making, can anyone find corroboration for it in any of the manuals?

Although I agree with your summary, unfortunately, the credibility of "the Church" is already "severely wounded". These prelates still ignore the elephant in the room.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #5 on:** December 12, 2020, 08:24:47 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 12, 2020, 08:21:54 AM

Although I agree with your summary, unfortunately, the credibility of "the Church" is already "severely wounded". These prelates still ignore the elephant in the room.

Yes, of course, but I am trying just to stick with their argument.

Ps: I added a penultimate paragraph to my previous post, which seems important to me.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** December 12, 2020, 08:28:26 AM »

Right, I never bought the "remote material" cooperation argument here. I've been trying to articulate why, but one of the NO sources cited by Sean made the valid point that part of the crime is ongoing. Sure, the abortion is a past event, but there's some other crime here, the misuse of the child's body, akin to desecration of a corpse, that continues on in the vaccine.

It's similar to saying that the nαzιs made some lampshades from human skin, and then some collector got a hold of it, and I bought it from a collector and have it on display in my living room. There's some moral continuity, ongoing, with the original crime of desecrating a human body, and the fact that the victim had been murdered also plays into it some.

It's similar to the scenario about the stolen vehicles. Somebody steals a car. Someone else buys it. Then the original owner passes away. Then I buy the vehicle. Even though I did not formally commit the crime, and the owner has passed away, there's still something wrong about me possessing this vehicle. It only became mine as RESULT of the original sin of injustice (theft). So there's some greater-than-material cooperation in the original sin here. In willing the effect (my possession of a vehicle at a great price), I'm implicitly willing the cause.

I believe that "intention" has been long overplayed in the realm of both dogmatic and moral theology. It's as if I held a loaded gun up to a person's head, pulled the trigger, but protested after the death that "I didn't want or intend for the person to die." That doesn't cut it. In willing the cause, you're wiling the effect. This kind of cognitive dissonance can't wash in Catholic moral theology. I got a great deal on a car (because it was stolen), but that's OK because I didn't commit the original crime and didn't agree with it. No, willing the effect (great deal on a car), you're implicitly willing the cause (the original theft), since the former could not have happened without the latter. As a result, the cause lives on in its effect, and in formally accepting the effect, you're implicitly formally accepting the cause within it.

There's been a lot of harm done by legalists, Modernists, and even heretics by employing the Aristotelean formal/material distinction in nefarious ways, and I think that this is one of them.

I think that there needs to be some additional work in moral theology where the OBJECTIVE morality of the act, from principles of cause and effect, are determined, while leaving "intent" in the internal forum and between God and the soul, where it belongs.

By the way, it's this EXACT same line of thought that Bergoglio used to claim that one can in fact not be guilty of fornication when co-habitating after a divorce, pretending that somehow individuals and spiritual directors can determine whether or not there was true culpability in the internal forum, and then allow that to be acted upon in the external forum (by giving communion to the sinners).

This is a disaster, and it's a trainwreck that's been long in the making with the rise of subjectivism that Bishop Williamson has rightly identified and traced back to the Renaissance.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** December 12, 2020, 08:35:25 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 12, 2020, 08:13:52 AM

1) Remote material cooperation in evil can never be permissible in any circuмstance touching upon abortion because of the monstrous heinousness of that particular initial sin;

Right, their instinct is correct, but everyone is struggling with articulating it.

Take again the example of the human lampshade. nαzιs killed a man and used his skin to make a lampshade. Some collector gets a hold of it. I then buy it from the collector and put it on display in my living room. Anyone with proper moral instincts knows that it's a sin to do that.

But, now the question is ... why?

1) it's an ONGOING and not just past desecration of a human body

AND

2) it's also exacerbated on account of HOW the skin was obtained. It would not be AS bad, had the skin been taken from a corpse of someone who died of natural causes.

So this is that argument quoted above from Sean, that the heinousness of the original act someone plays into the equation. But how and why in terms of the original Aristotelean formal/material view of moral theology? That's the struggle here.

Well, I'm proposing that the entire paradigm is wrong. I proposed a paradigm shift in moral theology to cause/effect rather than formal/material (in the sense of "intention").

2Vermont · « **Reply #8 on:** December 12, 2020, 09:11:14 AM »

If I'm not mistaken, didn't the MMR vaccine use fetal lines (or at least the Rubella portion)? If so, hasn't the "cooperation" ship sailed already? And if so, what was the Church's response then? Was there one?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #9 on:** December 12, 2020, 09:16:25 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 12, 2020, 08:35:25 AM

Right, their instinct is correct, but everyone is struggling with articulating it.

Agreed.

For myself, it seems as simple as noting that remote material cooperation (direct voluntary) in abortion, as regards the permissibility of receiving abortive vaccines, fails the double effect test.

Yet, the fact that neither this declaration, nor anything mentioned by Vigano or Burke in their comments refusing the permissibility of using such vaccines, make mention of double effect, confuses me.

It’s as though they didn’t think it applied.
Conspicuously, the 2005 docuмent itself avoids such an analysis (though it does reference only the proportionality criteria, but not explicitly with regard to double effect).

2Vermont · « **Reply #10 on:** December 12, 2020, 10:14:26 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 12, 2020, 09:16:25 AM

Agreed.

For myself, it seems as simple as noting that remote material cooperation (direct voluntary) in abortion, as regards the permissibility of receiving abortive vaccines, fails the double effect test.

Yet, the fact that neither this declaration, nor anything mentioned by Vigano or Burke in their comments refusing the permissibility of using such vaccines, make mention of double effect, confuses me.

It’s as though they didn’t think it applied.
Conspicuously, the 2005 docuмent itself avoids such an analysis (though it does reference only the proportionality criteria, but not explicitly with regard to double effect).

In one of the other threads, I posted McHugh and Callan who specifically stated that not all criteria need apply once it is determined that there is only material cooperation. I think the quotes you included in that thread never specifically refer to whether this was necessary or not (although perhaps they do somewhere else in the manuals).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** December 12, 2020, 10:28:22 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 12, 2020, 10:14:26 AM

In one of the other threads, I posted McHugh and Callan who specifically stated that not all criteria need apply once it is determined that there is only material cooperation. I think the quotes you included in that thread never specifically refer to whether this was necessary or not (although perhaps they do somewhere else in the manuals).

I will go back and review, but I’m pretty sure all the other authors I cited stated all criteria must be satisfied.

McHugh and Callan seem to be unique in that assertion.

I would be curious to know which of the four criteria they would allow, since allowing any of them at all would be allowing evil:

1) Do they think the act itself need not be morally good or indifferent?

2) Do they think the bad effect can come from the good effect (ie., doing evil that good may come)?

3) Do they think an evil intention can be permitted (which would make tge evil formal, not material)?

4) Do they think the proportionality requirement irrelevant?

Omitting/failing any of those makes the act impermissible.

I would be very curious to know upon what sources they base their opinion. Who do they cite? Who else shares that opinion?

I also note that manual was published in the late 1950s. Was this assertion just a sign of the times?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #12 on:** December 12, 2020, 10:44:02 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 12, 2020, 10:28:22 AM

I will go back and review, but I’m pretty sure all the other authors I cited stated all criteria must be satisfied.

McHugh and Callan seem to be unique in that assertion.

I would be curious to know which of the four criteria they would allow, since allowing any of them at all would be allowing evil:

1) Do they think the act itself need not be morally good or indifferent?

2) Do they think the bad effect can come from the good effect (ie., doing evil that good may come)?

3) Do they think an evil intention can be permitted (which would make tge evil formal, not material)?

4) Do they think the proportionality requirement irrelevant?

Omitting/failing any of those makes the act impermissible.

I would be very curious to know upon what sources they base their opinion. Who do they cite? Who else shares that opinion?

I also note that manual was published in the late 1950s. Was this assertion just a sign of the times?

I just went back and reviewed all the sources I listed regarding double effect (p.3 here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/don-curzio-nitoglia-on-abortive-vaccines/30/), and St Alphonsus, Prummer, Jone, and Davis, as well as the two conservative conciliar sources (EWTN and Catholic Dictionary), and Fr. Nitoglia, say all criteria must be satisfied.

The 5th pre-conciliar manual I posted (ie., the anonymous seminary professor’s manual) is written in catechetical style, and does not explicitly say so, but seems to imply it.

That makes it 8 to 1 against McHugh-Callan.

But for me, it suffices that St. Alphonsus said all criteria must be satisfied. Moralists who contradict him do so at their peril.

2Vermont · « **Reply #13 on:** December 12, 2020, 11:02:50 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 12, 2020, 10:44:02 AM

I just went back and reviewed all the sources I listed regarding double effect (p.3 here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/don-curzio-nitoglia-on-abortive-vaccines/30/), and St Alphonsus, Prummer, Jone, and Davis, as well as the two conservative conciliar sources (EWTN and Catholic Dictionary), and Fr. Nitoglia, say all criteria must be satisfied.

The 5th pre-conciliar manual I posted (ie., the anonymous seminary professor’s manual) is written in catechetical style, and does not explicitly say so, but seems to imply it.

That makes it 8 to 1 against McHugh-Callan.

But for me, it suffices that St. Alphonsus said all criteria must be satisfied. Moralists who contradict him do so at their peril.

What do these various manuals state regarding Mediate Material Cooperation in Sin? Because I have Jone's and that section (147) agrees with McHugh and Callan. It only mentions two conditions.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #14 on:** December 12, 2020, 11:11:21 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 12, 2020, 11:02:50 AM

What do these various manuals state regarding Mediate Material Cooperation in Sin? Because I have Jone's and that section (147) agrees with McHugh and Callan. It only mentions two conditions.

Here’s Jone on double effect, who lists 4 conditions for its use (scroll down to middle of p.3):

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/don-curzio-nitoglia-on-abortive-vaccines/30/

Author Topic: Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs (Read 987 times)

SeanJohnson

Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs

PAT317

Re: Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs

2Vermont

Re: Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs

SeanJohnson

Re: Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs

2Vermont

Re: Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs

SeanJohnson

Re: Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs

Ladislaus

Re: Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs

Ladislaus

Re: Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs

2Vermont

Re: Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs

SeanJohnson

Re: Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs

2Vermont

Re: Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs

SeanJohnson

Re: Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs

SeanJohnson

Re: Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs

2Vermont

Re: Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs

SeanJohnson

Re: Cardinals/Bishops Formally Repudiate 2005 Vaccine Docs