Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: SSPX and Vaccination  (Read 1428 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15060
  • Reputation: +10006/-3163
  • Gender: Male
SSPX and Vaccination
« on: October 06, 2019, 06:03:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.html

    This 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.




    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Seraphina

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4230
    • Reputation: +3238/-343
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX and Vaccination
    « Reply #1 on: October 06, 2019, 07:34:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nowhere is it said that a Catholic sins by refusing a vaccine with remote material cooperation.  My personal belief is that one has the right to refuse a vaccine, however, one has not the right to place the health of others at risk.  If an unvaccinated person becomes ill or is possibly carrying a contagious disease, he is obliged to protect others by quarantining himself and perhaps his entire household to the extent deemed necessary by medical authorities.  This is what was done during outbreaks in the times prior to vaccines. The young man who refused the varicella vaccine was within his rights to do so because the cooperation with aborted fetal cells in the vaccine violated his conscience.  I do not agree that he had the right to attend school and play sports against outside teams thereby possibly spreading sickness to others.  I heard that he eventually caught the chicken pox, suffered a mild sickness and has fully recovered.  He needn’t expend any more time, money, or energy on his own particular case since he now is immune.  
    I know of a middle-aged man who became critically ill and was hospitalized on a ventilator due to catching chicken pox.  This was before there was a vaccine.  He most likely contracted the disease in Church during a local outbreak.  Several families knowingly brought their sick children with them, figuring it didn’t matter.  The man recovered, but it was over a year before he was able to return to work.  In the meantime, his parents in their 70s took over the running of a dairy farm and supervision of six children while his wife took a factory job just to keep going.  They ended up nearly $90,000 in medical debt without medical insurance.  The parish helped somewhat, but nobody had that kind of money. The hospital eventually forgave the remainder.  If they hadn’t, they’d have lost their farm and means of livelihood.  Sure, he might have caught it anyway, somewhere else, but perhaps not.  At any count, people should bring sick children or themselves to church out of charity for others.  
    Last Easter I didn’t go to Mass because I had the flu.  Why?  I could have pumped myself up on medications and gotten through it.  Because what if I gave it to an elderly person, an infant, a pregnant woman, or on of several medically fragile parishioners?  It wouldn’t be right.  Flu shot?  Some take them, some don’t.  They don’t use fetal cells or immorally obtained ingredients.  I actually got a flu shot last year, but it did no good because the strain I had wasn’t covered by the shot.  


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX and Vaccination
    « Reply #2 on: October 06, 2019, 07:40:25 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nowhere is it said that a Catholic sins by refusing a vaccine with remote material cooperation.  
    It is not sin by refusing the vaccine that concerns me, but sinning by accepting it.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46900
    • Reputation: +27763/-5163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX and Vaccination
    « Reply #3 on: October 06, 2019, 07:46:41 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • If an unvaccinated person becomes ill or is possibly carrying a contagious disease, he is obliged to protect others by quarantining himself and perhaps his entire household to the extent deemed necessary by medical authorities.

    Yes, a person who contracts the disease, REGARDLESS of whether he's unvaccinated or vaccinated (here you assume that only the unvaccinated can catch a particular illness), should quarantine himself.  You appear to imply that this duty falls only on the unvaccinated.  Now, as for the risk to the population, if you by vaccine propaganda, then there's no risk to the vaccinated from the unvaccinated, since the vaccinated are protected.

    And, yes, I've known some Traditional Catholics who dragged sick kids into church, bragging about how "tough" they were, either out of scrupulosity or else self-righteousness, failing to take into account the requirements of charity.  If your kids are sick, KEEP THEM AT HOME.  You do NOT please God by taking them to church sick; you displease Him by doing something contrary to charity.

    Offline Seraphina

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4230
    • Reputation: +3238/-343
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX and Vaccination
    « Reply #4 on: October 06, 2019, 08:55:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, a person who contracts the disease, REGARDLESS of whether he's unvaccinated or vaccinated (here you assume that only the unvaccinated can catch a particular illness), should quarantine himself.  You appear to imply that this duty falls only on the unvaccinated.  Now, as for the risk to the population, if you by vaccine propaganda, then there's no risk to the vaccinated from the unvaccinated, since the vaccinated are protected.

    And, yes, I've known some Traditional Catholics who dragged sick kids into church, bragging about how "tough" they were, either out of scrupulosity or else self-righteousness, failing to take into account the requirements of charity.  If your kids are sick, KEEP THEM AT HOME.  You do NOT please God by taking them to church sick; you displease Him by doing something contrary to charity.
    Let me clarify.  Vaccination aside, a person sick with a contagious disease should not put others at risk.    End of story.  
    Pertaining to vaccinations, I’m okay with some, not with others.  Fortunately, I do not personally face the moral decision regarding the fetal cell derived vaccines.  I had the diseases in childhood before vaccines were available, therefore, have lifelong immunity.  If at all possible, I would decline vaccines made from fetal cells, and also others with notoriously dire side-effects or that presume a lifestyle of immorality.  I also do not agree with the present infant vaccination schedule.  
    Another matter for dismay, as of the 2020-2021 school year, the state of Hawaii is requiring the HPV vaccine for girls by age 9 and boys by age 12, no exceptions.  Already in New York, hundreds of children have been withdrawn from school because of the new no moral objection law.  The school where I teach has lost a full fifth of our students. They don’t make homeschooling easy or cheap in NY, and the cost of living in NYC area is so high that a number of families have temporarily split up, Mom and kids moving out of the state to relatives or friends while Dad stays in NY to work, going to visit on weekends or holidays until another job can be found.  One family has sent four of five children back to Russia to live with their grandparents.  Reason?  Religion is a required subject in school and vaccines are not.  It remains to be decided if Mom and Dad will move back or if they’ll re-establish themselves elsewhere in the US and send for the children.  


    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11934
    • Reputation: +7293/-500
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX and Vaccination
    « Reply #5 on: October 06, 2019, 11:30:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Vaccine Overview | Children of God for Life
    https://cogforlife.org/vaccine-overview/



    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.

    +RIP 2024

    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11934
    • Reputation: +7293/-500
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX and Vaccination
    « Reply #6 on: October 06, 2019, 11:43:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Infant Immunization The Catholic Parents’ Guide 

    https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/catholicguide.pdf



    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.

    +RIP 2024