August Tweet by Bishop Strickland of Tyler, TX (referenced by ++Vigano):

“I renew my call that we reject any vaccine that is developed using aborted children. Even if it originated decades ago it still means a child’s life was ended before it was born & then their body was used as spare parts. We will never end abortion if we do not END THIS EVIL!”

https://mobile.twitter.com/Bishopoftyler/status/1289613264125485057

I probably stepped into a bear trap with my last post, but that's okay. Ideas need to be questioned in order to be validated, and if an idea is true then it should be able to stand up to criticism.
.
I will just add that I have never seen any pre-Vatican II book say that it is immoral to receive a vaccine that was created with the help of aborted fetal tissue. While this is probably because such an idea was unthinkable before Vatican II, you will certainly see them explain that involvement with the sins of others is only sinful if one's involvement somehow helps the sin be committed, or directly cooperates in some way. That is the link that I think is completely missing between the customer in Walgreens getting his flu shot, and the abortion doctor murdering the baby whose cells are used to develop the medicine being injected into the guy in Walgreens. The latter is not helping the former in any way that I've ever seen demonstrated.
.
Okay, you guys can bring the flames now.

The only way you could argue that it is intrinsically evil is if the vaccines were openly advertised as having abortive cells, and the purpose of the vaccine is to "accept abortion" or "take part in" the abortion industry (i.e. a pinch of incense to the gods).  Being that these fetal cells are only used to create a "medicine" (so the story goes), then it's a gray area.
.
It's like the famous example of if an expectant mother's life is in danger, and the doctor performs an operation to save her life, however this causes (or could cause) the death of the baby, then such an act is not immoral, because the intent was not to kill the baby.  

Yeti, I too have questions.  The logic isn’t full-proof.  (1) Vaccines aren’t advertised as having fetal cells, so it’s not like it’s common knowledge.

(2) The number of steps away from a sin you are, affects the culpability.

(3)  Theoretically, I agree that it’s immoral, but in practice, it’s hard to say who is guilty.

(4). Is there an alternative non-abortion vaccine?

The only way you could argue that it is intrinsically evil is if the vaccines were openly advertised as having abortive cells, and the purpose of the vaccine is to "accept abortion" or "take part in" the abortion industry (i.e. a pinch of incense to the gods).  Being that these fetal cells are only used to create a "medicine" (so the story goes), then it's a gray area.

I quite agree that this is a remarkable docuмent. Sean has already drawn attention to sentences and paragraphs that are strikingly eloquent and admirably forthright. I would only add that here, as in earlier missives, ++Viganò takes pains to contextualize his arguments in ways both subtle and suggestive. I hardly think that he would write with such immense care if he did not wish or intend to create a body of instruction with didactic and pastoral significance—in other words, to do the sort of thing that bishops regularly did before the episcopacy was transformed by Vatican II into the College of Kumbaya.

My sense is that ++Viganò, in all his messages since the dramatic first one, has been as interested in heuristics (stimulating investigation) as in hermeneutics (interpretation), history (specifically, of the subversion and betrayal of the Faith), and moral and doctrinal instruction (especially as it concerns the conciliar church's doctrinal discontinuity with the True Church). He always seems to be saying, as the Book of Revelation does, "Let him with ears to hear, listen," and here, as elsewhere, he makes glancing mention of ideas, cօռspιʀαcιҽs, and movements of the past and present that seem calculated to prompt those with ears to hear and minds pricked by curiosity to look up references to things they may know little or nothing about.

I am thinking of the references to such present-day things as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission or to such longer-standing enemies as "Masonic and globalist thought" and Malthusianism. Best and subtlest of all, however, is his identifying quantum dots and similar initiatives with the Mark of the Beast in Revelation. If the wider audience for this letter should turn out to be the ever-growing anti-vax community, a great many of whose non-Catholic members are evangelicals and fundies, the reference to Revelation—the most widely referenced book of the Bible in most non-mainstream Protestant sects—cannot fail to strike a chord with them.

Last but not least, the evident sarcasm in the parenthetical note about the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life (what an Orwellian name!), formerly the bishop of Terni, led me to look him up. His name is Vincenzo Paglia, and all you need to know about him is to be found here. Mamma mia!