In this interesting bulletin from the SSPX school in Walton, KY on the subject of vaccinations for its students is contained this blurb from the Vatican:
"As the Vatican stated in 2005:
'As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis.
The moral reason is that the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience. Moreover, we find, in such a case,
a proportional reason, in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favoring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children.'"
http://www.assumptionchurch.net/academy.htmlThis is the permission and justification for using vaccinations containing abortive fetal adjuvants.
The justification depends upon the legitimacy of the principles of "double effect" and "proportionalism."
Here are the conditions for necessary to apply "double effect:"
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/principle-double-effect-and-proportionate-reason/2007-05- The act-in-itself cannot be morally wrong or intrinsically evil [3].
- The bad effect cannot cause the good effect.
- The agent cannot intend the bad effect.
- The bad effect cannot outweigh the good effect; there is a proportionate reason to tolerate the bad effect.
The "proportionalism" aspect lies in criteria #4.
It is not clear to me that the 4th criteria is satisfied when the "bad effect" (i.e., the murder of millions of babies every year) is in excess of the "good effect" (i.e., the prevention of a lesser number of deaths from the abortive vaccines).
And even if it were, it is not clear to me that the principle is morally upright even if the criteria is satisfied (e.g., the article linked to just above notes that even the modernist Pope John Paul II condemned proportionalism in Veritatis Splendor as "consequentialism," though the article also claims the Pope misunderstood it).
I guess that, even without being a qualified moralist, I question the legitimacy of the principles elucidated by the modernist Vatican to justify the use of vaccinations using abortive fetal cells.
I fully admit I could be wrong in doing so.