Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Health and Nutrition => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on August 23, 2020, 07:28:00 PM

Title: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 23, 2020, 07:28:00 PM
“Let’s save our children from the health dictatorship! Let’s save Italy from the ferocious global tyranny!”

[NB: Commentary to follow - SJ]

(https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/images/2020/vig_7_2.jpg)

Dearest Mothers,

Dear Sirs,

I have received your kind email, in which you inform me of the initiative you have scheduled for this coming September 5 for the protection of the physical, moral, and spiritual health of your children. In responding to you, I address all the mothers of Italy.

The demonstration you are promoting intends to express the dissent of citizens and in particular of parents against the norms that the government, abusing its power, is preparing to issue in view of the new school year; norms that will have very grave repercussions on the health and psychosomatic equilibrium of students, as authoritative experts have rightly demonstrated.

First of all, the systematic effort to demolish the family, the foundation of society, must be denounced, with the multiplication of ferocious attacks not only against conjugal life, which Christ has elevated to a Sacrament, but also against its very natural essence, against the fact that marriage is by nature constituted between a man and a woman in an indissoluble bond of fidelity and reciprocal assistance. The presence of a father and a mother is fundamental in the upbringing of children, who need a male and female figure as a reference for their integral and harmonious development; nor can it be permitted that children, during the most delicate phase of their infancy and adolescence, be used to advance partisan ideological claims, with serious damage for their psychosomatic equilibrium, by those who with their own rebellious behavior reject the very idea of nature. You can easily understand the impact of the destruction of the family on the civil consortium: today we have right before our eyes the results of decades of unfortunate policies that inevitably lead to the dissolution of society.

These policies, inspired by principles that are repugnant both to the Law of nature inscribed in man by the Creator as well as to the positive Law of God given in the Commandments, combine to permit children to be placed at the mercy of the whims of individuals, and that the sacredness of life and conception become objects of commerce, humiliating motherhood and the dignity of woman. Sons cannot be bred by mares for a fee, because they are the fruit of a love that Providence has ordained must always be an enduring love, even in the natural order.

Parents have the responsibility, as a primary and inalienable right, to educate their children: the State cannot arrogate this right, much less corrupt children and indoctrinate them in the perverse principles that are so widespread today. Do not forget, dear mothers, that this is the distinctive sign of totalitarian regimes, not of a civil and Christian nation. It is your duty to raise your voice so that these attempts to steal the education of your children may be denounced and rejected with force, because you will be able to do very little for them if your faith, ideas, and culture are judged incompatible with those of an impious and materialistic state. And it is not just a matter of imposing a vaccine on your children and teenagers, but also of corrupting their souls with perverse doctrines, with gender ideology, with the acceptance of vice and the practice of sinful behaviors. No law can ever legitimately make the affirmation of the truth a crime, because the authority of the law ultimately comes from God, who is himself the highest Truth. The heroic testimony of the martyrs and saints responded to the oppression of tyrants: may you too today be courageous witnesses of Christ against a world that would like to subject us to the unleashed forces of hell!

Another crucial aspect in this battle for the family is the defense of life from conception to natural death. The crime of abortion, which has claimed millions of innocent victims and that cries out for vengeance from heaven, is today considered as a normal health service, and just in recent days the Italian government has authorized the more widespread use of the abortion pill, encouraging an abominable crime and keeping silent about the terrible consequences on the psychological and physical health of the mother. If you think about how during the lockdown all care of the sick was suspended and yet abortions continued, you can understand what the priorities of those who govern us are: the culture of death! What progress can be invoked when society kills its own children, when motherhood is horribly violated in the name of a choice that cannot be free, since it involves the ending of an innocent life and violates one of God’s Commandments? What prosperity can our country expect, what blessings from God can it hope for, if human sacrifices are being made in our clinics just as in the times of the most bloody barbarism?

The idea that children are the property of the state repulses every human person. In the Christian social order, the civil authority exercises its power to guarantee its citizens that the natural well-being is ordered towards the spiritual good. The common good pursued by the state in temporal things therefore has a well-defined object that cannot and must not be in conflict with the Law of God, the Supreme Legislator. Every time that the State infringes on this eternal and immutable Law, its authority is diminished, and its citizens ought to refuse to obey it. This certainly applies to the hateful law on abortion, but it should also be applied to other cases, in which the abuse of authority regards the imposition of vaccines whose danger is unknown or that, by their very composition, are ethically problematic. I am referring to the case in which a vaccine would contain fetal material coming from the bodies of aborted children.

But there are other disturbing aspects now envisaged, which regard not only the content of instruction but also the method of participation in the lessons: social distancing, the use of masks and other forms of presumed prevention of contagion in classrooms and school environments cause serious damage to the mental and physical equilibrium of children and young people, compromising their ability to learn, the interpersonal relations between pupils and teachers, and reducing them to automatons that are not only ordered what to think but also how to move and even how to breathe. It seems that the very notion of common sense that ought to govern choices fraught with consequences in social life has been lost, and it seems that an inhumane world is being heralded in which parents have their children taken away from them if they test positive for an influenza virus, with mandatory health treatment protocols applied as in the most ferocious dictatorships.

It is also very perplexing to learn that the WHO has chosen Mario Monti as the President of the European Commission for Health and Development, who has distinguished himself by draconian measures imposed on Italy, among which, it must not be forgotten, is the drastic reduction of public appropriations for hospitals. These perplexities are confirmed by Monti’s membership in supranational organisms like the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Club, whose aims are in clear contrast to the inalienable values protected by the Italian Constitution itself, which are binding on the Government. This mixing of private interests in public affairs, inspired by the dictates of Masonic and globalist thought, should be vigorously denounced by those who are representatives of the citizens, and by those who see their legitimate powers usurped by an elite that has never made a mystery of its true intentions.

We should not lose sight of a fundamental element: the pursuit of ideologically perverse goals is invariably accompanied by an interest of an economic nature, like a parallel track. It is easy to agree on the fact that there is no profit in the voluntary donation of umbilical cords, just as there is no profit in the donation of hyper-immune plasma for the treatment of Covid. Conversely, it is extremely profitable for abortion clinics to provide fetal tissue and for pharmaceutical companies to produce monoclonal antibodies or artificial plasma. Thus it is not surprising that, following a logic of mere profit, the most reasonable and ethically sustainable solutions are the object of a deliberate campaign to discredit them: we have heard self-styled experts make themselves promoters of cures offered by companies in which they themselves – in a clear conflict of interest – hold shares or are well paid consultants.

Having said this, it is necessary to understand whether the solution of a vaccine is always and everywhere the best health response to a virus. In the case of Covid, for example, many exponents of the scientific community agree in affirming that it is more useful to develop a natural immunity rather than inoculate the depowered virus. But also in this case, as we know, herd immunity is attained without any costs, while vaccination campaigns involve enormous investments and guarantee equally large profits for those who patent and produce them. And it should also be verified – but in this the experts will certainly be able to speak with greater confidence – whether it is possible to produce a vaccine for a virus that does not yet seem to have been isolated according to the protocols of science-based medicine, and what potential consequences may come from using newly generated genetically modified vaccines.

The world health industry, led by the WHO, has become a true multinational corporation that has as its primary end the profit of shareholders (pharmaceutical companies and so-called philanthropic foundations), and its means of pursuing it is the transformation of citizens into chronically ill people. And it is obvious: the pharmaceutical companies want to make money by selling drugs and vaccines; if eliminating diseases and producing effective drugs leads to a reduction in the number of sick people and thus of profits, it will only be logical to expect that the drugs they make will be ineffective and that the vaccines they promote will be the instrument of spreading diseases rather than eradicating them. And this is precisely what is happening. How can we think that the search for cures and therapies is being promoted in a disinterested way if those who finance the search profit disproportionately from the persistence of pathologies?

It may seem difficult to persuade ourselves that those who ought to be protecting health instead wish to ensure the continuation of illnesses: such cynicism repulses – and rightly so – those who are strangers to the mentality that has been established in healthcare. And yet this is what is happening right before our eyes, and it involves not only the emergence of Covid and vaccines – in particular anti-influenza vaccines, which were widely distributed in 2019 right in those areas where Covid has had the highest number of victims [in 2020] – but all treatments and therapies, as well as childbirth and care for the sick. Such cynicism, which is repugnant to the ethical code, sees in each of us a potential source of profit, while instead what should be seen in every patient is the face of the suffering Christ. We therefore appeal to the many, many Catholic doctors and all doctors of good will, asking you not to betray the Hippocratic oath and the very heart of your profession, which is mercy and compassion, love for those who suffer, and selfless service to the weakest among us, recalling the words of Our Lord: “As often as you did these things for the least of my brothers, you did it for me” (Mt 25:40).

The Catholic Church, especially in recent decades, has intervened authoritatively in this debate, thanks also to the Pontifical Academy for Life founded by John Paul II. Its members, up until a few years ago, gave medical-scientific directives that did not conflict with the inviolable moral principles of any Catholic person.

But just as in civil society we have witnessed a progressive loss of responsibility of individuals as well as those who govern in the various spheres of public life, including health care, so also in the “Church of Mercy” that was born in 2013 it is preferred to adapt the commitment of the Pontifical Dicasteries and the Academy for Life to a liquid vision – and I dare say a perverse vision because it denies the truth – which embraces the demands of environmentalism with connotations of Malthusianism. The fight against abortion, which opposes the reduction of births desired by the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, is no longer the priority of many pastors. During the various pro-life demonstrations – such as those held in Rome in recent years – the silence and absence of the Holy See and the hierarchy has been shameful!

Obviously the moral principles which form the basis for norms to be adopted in the medical field remain perennially valid, nor could it be otherwise. The Church is the guardian of the teaching of Christ and she has no authority to modify or adapt it to her own liking. We remain bewildered, however, as we witness the silence of Rome, which appears to be more concerned with promoting recycling – to the point of writing an encyclical about it – rather than the lives of the unborn, the health of the weakest, and the assistance of the terminally ill. This is only one aspect of a much wider problem, a much greater crisis, which as I have said many times stems from the moment in which the deviant part of the Church, led by what was once the Society of Jesus, seized power and made her a slave to the mentality of the world.

When we consider the new orientation of the Pontifical Academy for Life (whose presidency has been entrusted to a person who is well-known for having shown the best of himself when he was bishop of Terni), we cannot expect any condemnation of those who use fetal tissue from voluntarily aborted children. Its present members hope for mass vaccination and the universal brotherhood of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, contradicting previous pronouncements of the same Pontifical Academy.[1] (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5031-letter-to-mothers-from-archbishop-vigano#_ftn1) In recent days the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales[2] (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5031-letter-to-mothers-from-archbishop-vigano#_ftn2) has entered this anomalous wave. On the one hand it recognizes that “The Church is opposed to the production of vaccines using tissue derived from aborted fetuses, and we acknowledge the distress many Catholics experience when faced with a choice of not vaccinating their child or seeming to be complicit in abortion,” but it then affirms, in very grave contradiction with the stated unchanging principles of Catholic morality,[3] (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5031-letter-to-mothers-from-archbishop-vigano#_ftn3) that “the Church teaches that the paramount importance of the health of a child and other vulnerable persons could permit parents to use a vaccine which was in the past developed using these diploid cell lines.” This statement lacks any doctrinal authority and instead aligns itself with the dominant ideology promoted by the WHO, its principal sponsor Bill Gates, and pharmaceutical companies.

From a moral point of view, for every Catholic who intends to remain faithful to his or her Baptism, it is absolutely inadmissible to accept a vaccination that utilizes material coming from human fetuses in its process of production. This has also been restated authoritatively recently by the American Bishop Joseph E. Strickland in his April 27 Pastoral Letter (https://stphilipinstitute.org/2020/04/27/pastoral-letter-from-bishop-joseph-e-strickland-on-the-ethical-development-of-covid-19-vaccine/)[4] (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5031-letter-to-mothers-from-archbishop-vigano#_ftn4) and in his August 1 tweet (https://twitter.com/Bishopoftyler/status/1289613264125485057).[5] (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5031-letter-to-mothers-from-archbishop-vigano#_ftn5)

We must therefore pray to the Lord, asking him to give Pastors a voice, in such a way as to create a united front that opposes the excessive power of the globalist elite which would like to subjugate us all. It should be recalled that while the pharmaceutical companies are proceeding on the plane of economic interests only, there are people operating on the ideological plane who, using the opportunity of the vaccine, would also like to implant devices for identifying people, and that these nanotechnologies – I am referring to project ID2020, “quantum dots” and other similar initiatives – are being patented by the same individuals who patented the virus as well as its vaccine. Furthermore, a cryptocurrency project has been patented to allow not only health identification but also personal and banking information to be monitored, in a delirium of omnipotence that up until yesterday could have been dismissed as the ranting of conspiracy theorists, but that today has already been initiated in several countries, including for example Sweden and Germany. We see the words of Saint John taking shape right before our eyes: “It forced all the people, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to be given a mark on the right hand and the forehead; so that no one could buy or sell without having the mark” (Rev 13:16-17).

Given the gravity of the situation, we must also speak out with regard to these aspects: we cannot remain silent if the public authority would make vaccines obligatory that pose serious ethical and moral problems, or that more prosaically do not give any guarantee of obtaining the promised effects and that are limited to promising benefits that from a scientific point of view are absolutely questionable. May the pastors of the Church finally raise their voice to defend the flock entrusted to their care in this systematic attack against God and man!

Do not forget, dear Mothers, that this is a spiritual battle – even a war – in which powers that no one has ever elected and that do not have any authority other than that of force and the violent imposition of their own will seek to demolish all that evokes, even only remotely, the divine Paternity of God over His children, the Kingship of Christ over society and the Virginal Motherhood of Mary Most Holy. This is why they hate to mention the words father and mother; this is why they want an irreligious society that is rebellious against the Law of God; this is why they promote vice and detest virtue. This is also why they want to corrupt children and young people, securing hosts of obedient servants for the foreseeable future in which the name of God is being cancelled and the Redemptive Sacrifice of his Son on the Cross is blasphemed; a Cross that they want to banish because it reminds man that the purpose of his life is the glory of God, obedience to His Commandments and the exercise of Christian charity: not pleasure, self-exaltation, or the arrogant overpowering of the weak.

The innocence of children and their trusting recourse to Mary Most Holy, our Heavenly Mother, can truly save the world: for this reason the Enemy aims to corrupt them in order to distance them from the Lord and to sow the seed of evil and sin in them.

Dear mothers, never fail in your duty to protect your children not only in the material order but also, even more importantly, in the spiritual order. Cultivate in them the life of grace, with constant prayer, especially through the recitation of the Holy Rosary, with penance and fasting, with the practice of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, assiduously and devotedly frequenting the Sacraments and Holy Mass. Nourish them with the Bread of Angels, the true food of eternal life and our defense from the assaults of the Evil One. Tomorrow, they will be honest citizens, responsible parents, and protagonists of the restoration of the Christian society that the world would like to cancel. And please also pray, dear mothers, because prayer is a truly fearful weapon and an infallible vaccine against the perverse dictatorship that is about to be imposed on us.

I take this occasion to assure you of my prayer and to impart my Blessing to all of you: to you, dear mothers, and to your children, and to all those who are fighting to save our children and each one of us from this ferocious global tyranny that is striking our beloved Italy.
(https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/images/2020/vigano_signature.png)

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

15 August 2020
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Official translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
___________[/font][/size]
[1] (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5031-letter-to-mothers-from-archbishop-vigano#_ftnref1) Cf. Pontifical Academy for Life, Note on the Nature of Vaccination (http://www.academyforlife.va/content/pav/en/the-academy/activity-academy/note-vaccini.html), 31 July 2017.

[2] (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5031-letter-to-mothers-from-archbishop-vigano#_ftnref2) Cf. Bishops’ Confernce of England and Wales, The Catholic position on vaccination. (https://www.cbcew.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/03/catholic-position-on-vaccination-110820.pdf)

[3] (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5031-letter-to-mothers-from-archbishop-vigano#_ftnref3) Cf. Pontifical Academy for Life, Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Human Fetuses (https://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/vaticandocuмent.htm), 5 June 2005.

[4] (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5031-letter-to-mothers-from-archbishop-vigano#_ftnref4) Bishop Joseph E. Strickland, Pastoral Letter from Bishop Joseph E. Strickland On the Ethical Development of COVID-19 Vaccine (https://stphilipinstitute.org/2020/04/27/pastoral-letter-from-bishop-joseph-e-strickland-on-the-ethical-development-of-covid-19-vaccine/), 23 April 2020.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
[5] (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5031-letter-to-mothers-from-archbishop-vigano#_ftnref5) Tweet of August 1, 2020 (https://twitter.com/Bishopoftyler/status/1289613264125485057): “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!”[/font][/size]
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 23, 2020, 07:53:38 PM
The money quote:

"When we consider the new orientation of the Pontifical Academy for Life (whose presidency has been entrusted to a person who is well-known for having shown the best of himself when he was bishop of Terni), we cannot expect any condemnation of those who use fetal tissue from voluntarily aborted children. Its present members hope for mass vaccination and the universal brotherhood of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, contradicting previous pronouncements of the same Pontifical Academy.[1] (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5031-letter-to-mothers-from-archbishop-vigano#_ftn1) In recent days the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales[2] (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5031-letter-to-mothers-from-archbishop-vigano#_ftn2) has entered this anomalous wave. On the one hand it recognizes that “The Church is opposed to the production of vaccines using tissue derived from aborted fetuses, and we acknowledge the distress many Catholics experience when faced with a choice of not vaccinating their child or seeming to be complicit in abortion,” but it then affirms, in very grave contradiction with the stated unchanging principles of Catholic morality,[3] (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5031-letter-to-mothers-from-archbishop-vigano#_ftn3) that “the Church teaches that the paramount importance of the health of a child and other vulnerable persons could permit parents to use a vaccine which was in the past developed using these diploid cell lines.” This statement lacks any doctrinal authority and instead aligns itself with the dominant ideology promoted by the WHO, its principal sponsor Bill Gates, and pharmaceutical companies.

From a moral point of view, for every Catholic who intends to remain faithful to his or her Baptism, it is absolutely inadmissible to accept a vaccination that utilizes material coming from human fetuses in its process of production."
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 23, 2020, 08:00:40 PM
Commentary:

-A few months ago, we debated on this forum whether or not the abortive COVID19 vaccines would be permissible for Catholics to use.

-We cited +Vigano as saying it was not morally possible.

-The Menzingen shill appeared, obviously distraught that the SSPX should be exposed for permitting such a morally egregious action (i.e., The SSPX Warner, NY Academy Handbook states that when no religious exemption is permitted, then based on the non-authoritative and morally questionable 2005 Vatican study of the Pontifical Academy for Life (!) titled "moral reflections," Catholics may use such vaccines, despite their abortive origins).

-The shill and others insisted I had not properly understood Vigano; that he could certainly not be presumed to be rejecting the 2005 non-magisterial study.

Well, here you have it, folks:

Vigano is saying for the second time, in equally unmistakable terms, that Catholics may never use such vaccines.

Is it any wonder the SSPX is not championing Vigano?

Vigano: "From a moral point of view, for every Catholic who intends to remain faithful to his or her Baptism, it is absolutely inadmissible to accept a vaccination that utilizes material coming from human fetuses in its process of production."
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 23, 2020, 08:33:38 PM
THIS is the hill to die on:

Vaccination and damnation

or

Resistance, martyrdom, and salvation.

No vaccine whatever the cost.

God bless +Vigano!!!
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 23, 2020, 09:01:11 PM
PS: Regular CI readers may recall that I wrote to both +Vigano and +Strickland, to clarify their positions, but did not receive a response from either.  It would appear that we now have their response.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: claudel on August 23, 2020, 11:41:22 PM
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 (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/leading-vatican-archbishop-featured-in-homoerotic-painting-he-commissioned). Mamma mia!
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Seraphina on August 24, 2020, 12:07:57 AM
He missed something very important; Christ’s interpretation of the parable.

“Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kinds of fishes, which when having filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth.
So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out and shall separate the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire:
There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Gospel of St. Matthew 13:47-50, DRB 
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Nadir on August 24, 2020, 12:50:58 AM
Wow, indeed! Disgusting!
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 24, 2020, 08:35:55 AM
It may seem difficult to persuade ourselves that those who ought to be protecting health instead wish to ensure the continuation of illnesses: such cynicism repulses – and rightly so – those who are strangers to the mentality that has been established in healthcare. And yet this is what is happening right before our eyes, and it involves not only the emergence of Covid and vaccines – in particular anti-influenza vaccines, which were widely distributed in 2019 right in those areas where Covid has had the highest number of victims [in 2020] – but all treatments and therapies, as well as childbirth and It may seem difficult to persuade ourselves that those who ought to be protecting health instead wish to ensure the continuation of illnesses: such cynicism repulses – and rightly so – those who are strangers to the mentality that has been established in healthcare. And yet this is what is happening right before our eyes, and it involves not only the emergence of Covid and vaccines – in particular anti-influenza vaccines, which were widely distributed in 2019 right in those areas where Covid has had the highest number of victims [in 2020] – but all treatments and therapies, as well as childbirth and care for the sick. Such cynicism, which is repugnant to the ethical code, sees in each of us a potential source of profit, while instead what should be seen in every patient is the face of the suffering Christ.”
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 24, 2020, 08:39:22 AM
THIS is the hill to die on:

Vaccination and damnation

or

Resistance, martyrdom, and salvation.

No vaccine whatever the cost.

God bless +Vigano!!!
Bold words...
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 24, 2020, 08:42:07 AM
Bold words...
Unless Vigano is wrong.
But if he is right, what is the alternative?
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 24, 2020, 08:46:22 AM
Unless Vigano is wrong.
But if he is right, what is the alternative?
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/JitteryGrossAfricanrockpython-max-1mb.gif)
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2020, 09:15:57 AM
Commentary:

-A few months ago, we debated on this forum whether or not the abortive COVID19 vaccines would be permissible for Catholics to use.

-We cited +Vigano as saying it was not morally possible.

-The Menzingen shill appeared, obviously distraught that the SSPX should be exposed for permitting such a morally egregious action (i.e., The SSPX Warner, NY Academy Handbook states that when no religious exemption is permitted, then based on the non-authoritative and morally questionable 2005 Vatican study of the Pontifical Academy for Life (!) titled "moral reflections," Catholics may use such vaccines, despite their abortive origins).

-The shill and others insisted I had not properly understood Vigano; that he could certainly not be presumed to be rejecting the 2005 non-magisterial study.

Well, here you have it, folks:

Vigano is saying for the second time, in equally unmistakable terms, that Catholics may never use such vaccines.

Is it any wonder the SSPX is not championing Vigano?

Vigano: "From a moral point of view, for every Catholic who intends to remain faithful to his or her Baptism, it is absolutely inadmissible to accept a vaccination that utilizes material coming from human fetuses in its process of production."

If every Catholic rejected these vaccines, they would be forced to create some that do not use tissues from aborted babies.  Whereas the Catholic Church should be steering society toward God, this Novus Ordo abomination simply goes along.  "oh, well, what can you do?"  I'm absolutely certain that if V2 had not happened, Roe v. Wade could never have happened.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 24, 2020, 02:07:39 PM
If every Catholic rejected these vaccines, they would be forced to create some that do not use tissues from aborted babies.

Surely, but if even among trads, the SSPX is telling everyone it’s ok to use them if there is not a non-abortive option available, it’s a bit much to count on modernist/clueless Catholics to take a stand.

The only question now is, who is right: 
++Vigano or the SSPX?

We already have the SSPX’s argument in the 2005 statement of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

What is needed now is a critique of that docuмent by ++Vigano.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Yeti on August 24, 2020, 02:08:47 PM
WORDS OF VIGANO: From a moral point of view, for every Catholic who intends to remain faithful to his or her Baptism, it is absolutely inadmissible to accept a vaccination that utilizes material coming from human fetuses in its process of production.
.
Why? I've never seen any argument for this idea that makes any sense. I think this is a myth invented by the naturalistic "pro-life" movement.
.
While abortion is obviously a mortal sin, and any cooperation in aborting a child would be mortally sinful, getting a flu shot doesn't kill any children. I think it would be hard even to argue that a doctor who develops a drug using material from already-aborted children is doing anything wrong, since he did not contribute in any way to the crime of abortion that produced the material he is using. He is merely using something that was obtained as the result of other people's sin, and indeed using it in a way that is not wrong, but actually contributes to the common good. (I'm obviously leaving aside the general objections to vaccines here, which is another question; we are only talking about the idea of developing medicines in itself). It would obviously be wrong for the doctor to go out encouraging women to abort their children so he could have more fetal tissue to use for his experiments or whatever, but I don't think anyone is claiming anything like that. Nor can it be plausibly maintained that mothers choose to abort their children so that scientists will have more fetal tissue for experiments or to develop medicines.
.
If it makes no sense to say that a doctor who merely uses fetal tissue to develop medicines is cooperating in abortions, then it is far more absurd to say that anyone who walks in off the street into a Walgreens to get a flu shot is committing a mortal sin, since he has no involvement either in any abortion or in the research that was done to create the drug he is receiving.
.
The notion that anyone receiving a drug that had aborted baby tissue used in its production is somehow guilty of abortion is typical of the emotional non-reasoning that typifies protestants and Novus Ordo types who have no basis in Catholic moral theology. It makes about as much sense as saying you can't buy a candy bar at a gas station with a ten-dollar bill, because when the gas station deposits that bill into the local bank, the bank might put it into an ATM machine where someone will withdraw it and use it to buy a bag of cocaine from a street-corner dealer, and you would therefore be helping someone buy cocaine.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Yeti on August 24, 2020, 02:17:36 PM
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. :laugh1:
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 24, 2020, 02:21:19 PM
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 (https://mobile.twitter.com/Bishopoftyler/status/1289613264125485057)
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2020, 02:23:42 PM
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?  No, because no one knows which vaccines have fetal cells and which don’t.  Or maybe they ALL have fetal cells.  In which case, then there’s no avoiding it (if you get a shot).
.
How many products are bought in the USA, which are made from slave labor (defrauding workers of their pay - one of the 4 sins that cries to heaven for vengeance).  So everyone that buys shoes, clothing, and rice from overseas (which is like 90% of the market) is guilty of slave labor?  No, but that’s the same logic.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: PAT317 on August 24, 2020, 02:26:16 PM
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 (https://mobile.twitter.com/Bishopoftyler/status/1289613264125485057)
.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Yeti on August 24, 2020, 02:36:42 PM
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 (https://mobile.twitter.com/Bishopoftyler/status/1289613264125485057)
His last statement needs some kind of proof or argument. In any case, committing murder and using the body of a murder victim for scientific research are two completely different things. Even now, one can lawfully and morally donate his body for research after he dies a natural death. The argument is still lacking the link between how using aborted fetal tissue contributes to abortion. Indeed, the argument seems to rely on retro-causality or time travel or some other absurdity, if we are saying that someone receiving a vaccine today is helping to kill a child who was murdered decades ago. The more you think about this idea, the weirder it gets.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 24, 2020, 02:38:05 PM
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. :laugh1:

The SSPX says there’s no problem with remote and passive cooperation in evil if there is grave inconvenience.

That’s the argument of the 2005 Vatican docuмent which they have endorsed.

++Vigano seems to be saying using such vaccines is intrinsically evil (ie., their use allows for no exceptions).

To make this argument, ++Vigano needs to show that the object of the act is evil, in which case, neither circuмstance nor intention can make the act permissible.

So what is the object?

Properly identifying the object is where theologians and biased commentators can get cute.

Consider a man about to drink poison because he fears being captured by the enemy:

Is the object simply “drinking,” with the drink being a poison a mere circuмstance?

Or is the object “drinking poison,” with the poisonous nature of the potion being inseparable from the drinking?

I suspect there will be arguments about this, but if we return to the matter at hand:

Is the object merely “being vaccinated,” (in which case it is only the intention and/or abortive circuмstances which would make the act evil, as the SSPX is implicitly arguing)?

Or, is the object “using abortive vaccines," with the abortive nature of the vaccine being morally inextricable from the act (as ++Vigano seems to be arguing)?

In any case, now that ++Viganò’s position is clear and indisputable, I hope he will take the next step and defend it against the 2005 docuмent which his opinion clearly opposes.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2020, 02:44:29 PM
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.  
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 24, 2020, 02:47:26 PM
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.  

Wrong:

A moral act is intrinsically evil because its object is evil.

Whether or not the recipient (or parent) is aware of the abortive cells used in production only pertains to culpability (i.e., ignorance is a mitigating factor, but does not make an evil act good) as a circuмstance of the human act in question.

But regardless of circuмstances, it is the essence of an intrinsically evil act to remain evil regardless of circuмstances and intention, in view of its evil object.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Matto on August 24, 2020, 02:48:49 PM
I know you didn't mean it this way, Yeti, but when I read your posts I couldn't help but think, "It is okay to eat dead babies as long as you don't kill them yourselves but only buy them from the butcher and cook them and eat them after they were already killed. I've never read any pre-vatican II books opposing the eating of already dead human babies."

But it is worse than just vaccines, I have heard they use dead babies in foods like coffee creamers and sodas and cosmetics and who knows what else. Once the baby killing was rationalized, the dead baby parts became a commodity like the mythical Jєωιѕн lampshades and soaps but this time it is real. It is likely that all of us have consumed dead babies already in our foods, not even counting the vaccines, without even knowing it.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Yeti on August 24, 2020, 02:50:08 PM
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.
.
This is irrelevant, since we know and we are the ones discussing it. My point with the guy in Walgreens is not that he doesn't know the drug was made using fetal cells, but rather that he didn't abort the baby and didn't even use the cells to make the drug that is being injected into his arm.
.

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

.
I think it's more like your culpability is determined by the nature of your involvement, but that's probably what you are getting at. Driving a get-away car for bank robbers is a sin, if you know they are robbing the bank. You are helping them get away with the crime, which is helping them commit the crime. But what about eating at a mafia-owned restaurant because you like the chianti and mozzarella? So you give them a $50 bill for your dinner, even though you know they may well use that exact same bill to pay a hit-man to kill someone in a rival gang. Is it wrong for you to pay with that bill, or even to eat there in the first place? Of course not. You are not contributing anything to murder.
.

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

.
The abortion doctor is guilty, for starters, along with the nurses. Then the mother is obviously guilty, and the father if he supports the abortion, and any family members who encourage it. See how this works? People who commit a sin or directly influence its commission are the guilty ones.
.

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

.
I don't think this matters until it is demonstrated that there is a problem with the aborted-cell vaccine to begin with.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Yeti on August 24, 2020, 02:52:50 PM
I know you didn't mean it this way, Yeti, but when I read your posts I couldn't help but think, "It is okay to eat dead babies as long as you don't kill them yourselves but only buy them from the butcher and cook them and eat them after they were already killed. I've never read any pre-vatican II books opposing the eating of already dead human babies."
Cannibalism isn't a question that comes up that often in theology books, but I believe it's forbidden except in cases of extreme necessity (imminent starvation). The body being, potentially, the temple of the Holy Ghost, it is sinful to desecrate it or treat it with irreverence. This is why cemeteries are holy places.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Yeti on August 24, 2020, 02:55:51 PM
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.
Well, maybe, but I don't see how this would work in practice. In any case, it isn't happening now, so this is academic anyway. So you are saying the government would say, "Anyone who receives this vaccination, we will accept their participation as accepting the practice of abortion." I mean, who cares how they interpret your actions anyway? Someone getting injected with medicine is really not doing anything more than taking medicine.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Yeti on August 24, 2020, 03:10:53 PM
The SSPX says there’s no problem with remote and passive cooperation in evil if there is grave inconvenience.

That’s the argument of the 2005 Vatican docuмent which they have endorsed.

++Vigano seems to be saying using such vaccines is intrinsically evil (ie., their use allows for no exceptions).

To make this argument, ++Vigano needs to show that the object of the act is evil, in which case, neither circuмstance nor intention can make the act permissible.

So what is the object?

Properly identifying the object is where theologians and biased commentators can get cute.

Consider a man about to drink poison because he fears being captured by the enemy:

Is the object simply “drinking,” with the drink being a poison a mere circuмstance?

Or is the object “drinking poison,” with the poisonous nature of the potion being inseparable from the drinking?

I suspect there will be arguments about this, but if we return to the matter at hand:

Is the object merely “being vaccinated,” (in which case it is only the intention and/or abortive circuмstances which would make the act evil, as the SSPX is implicitly arguing)?
.
Yeah, well, I certainly haven't seen any explanation for why it would be intrinsically evil to use the cells of an aborted fetus for scientific research, much less to receive a medicine developed using such material.
.
In the example of the guy drinking poison, it's clear that his object is ѕυιcιdє, because he is drinking to prevent himself from being taken alive. ѕυιcιdє is always sinful. The object isn't drinking in itself, because then he would be just as happy to drink a can of Coke in the same situation as he is to drink the poison. But if you grabbed the poison away from such a person and handed him a Coke (possibly quoting the old advertising slogan, "Have a Coke!"), he would get angry because you interfered with his real object. He is using death as a way of escaping the enemy, which is immoral. (Some people seem to think Coke is poisonous, so those people can replace "Coke" with "smart water" or whatever they like :laugh2:).
.
The object of taking medicine is to restore or protect one's health. That is a good object.
.

Quote
Or, is the object “using abortive vaccines," with the abortive nature of the vaccine being morally inextricable from the act (as ++Vigano seems to be arguing)?

.
Well, the average person receiving the vaccine would not have this intention. If there is some inherent connection between receiving this vaccine and helping to abort children, I would certainly like to see it, but that's what's missing here.
.
Using cadavers for scientific research is as old as time, and I have never seen any claim that it is wrong to use a cadaver that was murdered, much less that it is wrong to receive treatments that depend on knowledge derived from the cadavers of murder victims. But this in no way takes away from the heinousness of the sin of murder.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Cera on August 24, 2020, 03:24:32 PM
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 (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/leading-vatican-archbishop-featured-in-homoerotic-painting-he-commissioned). Mamma mia!
Thank you for looking that up. Now I pray that I can unsee the "art." Loathsome. Similar homoerotic "art" has replaced traditional Catholic art at Santa Barbara mission.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2020, 03:27:03 PM
Quote
This is irrelevant, since we know and we are the ones discussing it. My point with the guy in Walgreens is not that he doesn't know the drug was made using fetal cells,

It's not clear if EVERY vaccine has fetal cells, or only certain ones, or certain types.  Again, it's not advertised on the vaccine.  Doctors don't know, nurses don't know.  Vaccine makers deny it or say they were only used sometimes.  No one can say, with absolute certainty, that vaccine 1002, received in Hospital x, on last tuesday, had fetal cells.  It's just not clear.
.
The urban legend is that Pepsi uses fetal cells in Mt Dew and soft drinks.  Some whistleblowers claimed it happened.  Pepsi denies it.  So is it intrinsically evil to drink a soft drink?  How would anyone know the truth vs fiction?
.

Quote
The abortion doctor is guilty, for starters, along with the nurses. Then the mother is obviously guilty, and the father if he supports the abortion, and any family members who encourage it. See how this works? People who commit a sin or directly influence its commission are the guilty ones.

I'm speaking of the guilt of the vaccine makers.  The purchaser of fetal cells is guilty, because they are profiting off death.  But what about the scientist who uses them to make medicine?  Not as clear.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 24, 2020, 03:27:17 PM
.
Yeah, well, I certainly haven't seen any explanation for why it would be intrinsically evil to use the cells of an aborted fetus for scientific research, much less to receive a medicine developed using such material.
.
In the example of the guy drinking poison, it's clear that his object is ѕυιcιdє, because he is drinking to prevent himself from being taken alive. ѕυιcιdє is always sinful. The object isn't drinking in itself, because then he would be just as happy to drink a can of Coke in the same situation as he is to drink the poison. But if you grabbed the poison away from such a person and handed him a Coke (possibly quoting the old advertising slogan, "Have a Coke!"), he would get angry because you interfered with his real object. He is using death as a way of escaping the enemy, which is immoral. (Some people seem to think Coke is poisonous, so those people can replace "Coke" with "smart water" or whatever they like :laugh2:).
.
The object of taking medicine is to restore or protect one's health. That is a good object.

To quote your own words: "He is using death as a way of escaping the enemy, which is immoral."  Just as the recipient of an abortive vaccine is "using death as a way of escaping" COVID19, which is then likewise immoral.
.

.
Well, the average person receiving the vaccine would not have this intention. If there is some inherent connection between receiving this vaccine and helping to abort children, I would certainly like to see it, but that's what's missing here.

Intention is irrelavent.  It is the object of an act which makes it intrinsically evil or not.

.
Using cadavers for scientific research is as old as time, and I have never seen any claim that it is wrong to use a cadaver that was murdered, much less that it is wrong to receive treatments that depend on knowledge derived from the cadavers of murder victims. But this in no way takes away from the heinousness of the sin of murder.

Using cadavers who did not choose to become cadavers, as in the case at hand?

See my responses in red above.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 24, 2020, 03:31:35 PM
Also to be noted is the fact that COVID19 is fatal to almost nobody who was not already dying of something else already (i.e., It is fatal for well under 1% who contract it, on par with influenza mortality rates)

and

There is no guarantee the vaccine will work (In fact, there is a growing awareness that the purpose of vaccination is to pollute human DNA/RNA, making them more prone to disease for the profit of the medical industry).

So when you throw those two observations into evaluating the morality of using abortive vaccines, the Vatican/SSPX argument seems even weaker (i.e., no necessity to use them).
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2020, 03:33:27 PM
Quote
So you are saying the government would say, "Anyone who receives this vaccination, we will accept their participation as accepting the practice of abortion." I mean, who cares how they interpret your actions anyway? Someone getting injected with medicine is really not doing anything more than taking medicine.

I was contrasting the vaccine issue with something more in-your-face, i.e. Obamacare birth control insurance mandate.  (Even though it has been overturned), the law was unmistakably clear that a catholic insurance plan HAD to pay for birth control.  This is overtly, publicly and morally wrong.  And everyone knows it.
.
Another example would be pharmacists who are forced to hand out birth control pills.  There's no guessing involved; this is morally wrong.
.
Or, some of the county workers who refused to take part in issuing g@y marriage licenses.  Again, no guesswork involved.
.
Vaccines, on the other hand, are not advertised as ALL having fetal cells.  Many times it's denied and many doctors/nurses don't know.  So it's not as in-your-face as other examples.  Gray area, until proven.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2020, 03:34:56 PM
The notion that anyone receiving a drug that had aborted baby tissue used in its production is somehow guilty of abortion is typical of the emotional non-reasoning ...

Straw man.  Nobody argues that those who receive these vaccines are guilty of abortion.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Yeti on August 24, 2020, 03:37:47 PM
Straw man.  Nobody argues that those who receive these vaccines are guilty of abortion.
Then what are they supposedly guilty of?
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 24, 2020, 03:41:05 PM
Straw man.  Nobody argues that those who receive these vaccines are guilty of abortion.

True, but the Tweet from +Strickland above comes close, saying that if Catholics are not going to refuse these types of vaccines, then abortion will never end.

It seems to me that he is suggesting (rightly) that such Catholics would be complicit in abortion (just as a man who buys stolen property is encouraging theft by creating a market for the stolen goods).
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2020, 03:42:02 PM
Then what are they supposedly guilty of?

OK, we've gone over this 50 times.

1) material participation in abortion

and

2) desecration of the dead

Let's say they suddenly put the whole bodies of aborted babies on the market for sale.  Would it be OK to purchase them as feed for your farm animals?
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Yeti on August 24, 2020, 03:44:09 PM
To quote your own words: "He is using death as a way of escaping the enemy, which is immoral."  Just as the recipient of an abortive vaccine is "using death as a way of escaping" COVID19, which is then likewise immoral.
.
Er, not unless we're arguing that people are committing ѕυιcιdє to get away from COVID, which I don't think anyone is doing.
.
Intention is irrelavent.  It is the object of an act which makes it intrinsically evil or not.
.
Agreed. But the object of receiving a vaccine is to benefit one's health in some way, which is not immoral.
.
Using cadavers who did not choose to become cadavers, as in the case at hand?
.
Well, I've never heard of this being sinful, and I can't see why it would be unless you have scientific researchers hiring people to go out and murder people, which seems to have happened in Scotland in the early days of modern medicine, but that was a rare and strange case.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2020, 03:44:37 PM
True, but the Tweet from +Strickland above comes close, saying that if Catholics are not going to refuse these types of vaccines, then abortion will never end.

It seems to me that he is suggesting (rightly) that such Catholics would be complicit in abortion (just as a man who buys stolen property is encouraging theft by creating a market for the stolen goods).

Having material participation in abortion is not the same as saying that someone is "guilty of abortion".
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 24, 2020, 03:45:00 PM
Then what are they supposedly guilty of?
They are not guilty of procuring abortion, but are guilty of being complicit in promoting abortion by encouraging the manufacturers (just as the man who drives a woman to the abortion clinic is complicit in the woman’s sin).
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Yeti on August 24, 2020, 03:46:53 PM
Also to be noted is the fact that COVID19 is fatal to almost nobody who was not already dying of something else already (i.e., It is fatal for well under 1% who contract it, on par with influenza mortality rates)

and

There is no guarantee the vaccine will work (In fact, there is a growing awareness that the purpose of vaccination is to pollute human DNA/RNA, making them more prone to disease for the profit of the medical industry).

So when you throw those two observations into evaluating the morality of using abortive vaccines, the Vatican/SSPX argument seems even weaker (i.e., no necessity to use them).
.
I share these concerns about the COVID19 vaccine. But I'm not at all sure my concerns about a potential COVID19 vaccine have anything to do with whether it was developed with the help of fetal tissue.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 24, 2020, 03:48:37 PM
Using cadavers who did not choose to become cadavers, as in the case at hand?
.
Well, I've never heard of this being sinful, and I can't see why it would be unless you have scientific researchers hiring people to go out and murder people, which seems to have happened in Scotland in the early days of modern medicine, but that was a rare and strange case.

What do you think the abortion industry is???

They are traffickers of murdered babies’ body parts, whose customers are medical research firms.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Yeti on August 24, 2020, 03:52:53 PM
True, but the Tweet from +Strickland above comes close, saying that if Catholics are not going to refuse these types of vaccines, then abortion will never end.

It seems to me that he is suggesting (rightly) that such Catholics would be complicit in abortion (just as a man who buys stolen property is encouraging theft by creating a market for the stolen goods).
.
Strickland's claim is pretty speculative, and I don't think it makes any sense. So if research using aborted fetal tissue were banned, abortions would cease or even be diminished? I strongly doubt that. People abort their children because they don't want them. I doubt any considerations related to medical research or vaccine development enters into the calculus of anyone contemplating abortion.
.
I'm pretty sure it's sinful to knowingly buy stolen property, because that would constitute actual cooperation in the sin of stealing. In the same way, paying a woman to commit an abortion would certainly be sinful because it is helping commit the sin of abortion.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2020, 03:54:57 PM
True, but the Tweet from +Strickland above comes close, saying that if Catholics are not going to refuse these types of vaccines, then abortion will never end.

It seems to me that he is suggesting (rightly) that such Catholics would be complicit in abortion (just as a man who buys stolen property is encouraging theft by creating a market for the stolen goods).

It's a step removed from that.  If there were people going around having abortions so they could sell them for vaccines, one would argue that creating the market demand for these could almost be classified as formal participation in the evil.  There's no evidence that a single extra abortion was motivated by the need to acquire a few small samples of tissue.  When one creates MOTIVATION to evil, then one can be a formal participant in the evil, becoming part of the FORMAL cause for the evil.

So these vaccines are slightly more removed being being able to impute formal participation in abortion because there's no indication that it was the formal cause of any abortions.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Matto on August 24, 2020, 04:01:57 PM
Catholics 1800 years ago - "No, not even a speck of incense will I burn to the false gods of Caesar."

Catholics today (even sedes :facepalm:) - "Sure, go have yourselves injected with the flesh of murdered babies. No pre-vatican II docuмents condemned it."

And we condemn women for wearing pants.

I do think we will be forced to take the vaccine at gunpoint.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 24, 2020, 04:06:22 PM
It's a step removed from that.  If there were people going around having abortions so they could sell them for vaccines, one would argue that creating the market demand for these could almost be classified as formal participation in the evil.  There's no evidence that a single extra abortion was motivated by the need to acquire a few small samples of tissue.  When one creates MOTIVATION to evil, then one can be a formal participant in the evil, becoming part of the FORMAL cause for the evil.

So these vaccines are slightly more removed being being able to impute formal participation in abortion because there's no indication that it was the formal cause of any abortions.
I’m just highlighting the fact that +Strickland  is laying the blame at Catholics’ feet when he says their using abortive vaccines will result in the perpetuation of abortion (ie., they are increasing demand).
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Yeti on August 24, 2020, 04:08:24 PM
I’m just highlighting the fact that +Strickland  is laying the blame at Catholics’ feet when he says their using abortive vaccines will result in the perpetuation of abortion (ie., they are increasing demand).
If women were being paid a bounty to abort their babies by vaccine makers who needed a constant supply of such material, this could be argued. But in practice I don't think there is any causal connection between a woman's choice to abort her child and a drug company using matter from the baby's dead body.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 24, 2020, 04:17:59 PM
If women were being paid a bounty to abort their babies by vaccine makers who needed a constant supply of such material, this could be argued. But in practice I don't think there is any causal connection between a woman's choice to abort her child and a drug company using matter from the baby's dead body.
The bounty is paid to Planned Parenthood.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2020, 04:33:34 PM
Catholics 1800 years ago - "No, not even a speck of incense will I burn to the false gods of Caesar."

Catholics today (even sedes :facepalm:) - "Sure, go have yourselves injected with the flesh of murdered babies. No pre-vatican II docuмents condemned it."

And we condemn women for wearing pants.

I do think we will be forced to take the vaccine at gunpoint.

We're all dirty to some extent, Matto.  When we buy things from most of the major retailers, we're creating a market for their slave-labor goods.  We're also helping to give these evil corporations profits which they often use for nefarious and evil purposes.  It's almost as if we just can't get away from it in any realistic way.  We're trapped in this cesspool of evil ... short of taking radical steps which we can't do given our duties of state.  If I lived by myself and did not have a wife and children to care for, I would probably go completely off grid and adopt as much of an Amish-type lifestyle as I could (minus their heresies of course).  Nor would a handful of people here or there doing the same make any difference.  There has to be a group effort pushed by the leaders of the Church, who, alas!, have given themselves over to evil.  If a Holy Pope ordered all Catholics to refuse the vaccines, things would start changing as billions of people now suddenly can't be ignored.  Why aren't Catholics rioting and burning down abortion clinics?

With that said, there's no compelling reason for any Catholic to accept the abortion-tissue vaccines.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: forlorn on August 24, 2020, 05:27:58 PM
OK, we've gone over this 50 times.

1) material participation in abortion

and

2) desecration of the dead

Let's say they suddenly put the whole bodies of aborted babies on the market for sale.  Would it be OK to purchase them as feed for your farm animals?
I'm against taking a vaccine that uses foetal tissue, largely for reason (2), but I don't really understand the argument for (1).

For taking a vaccine that uses cells that were reproduced from an abortion that occurred 40 years ago is participating in abortion, then participating in sin must be something so insanely broad that basically everything we ever do is participating in sin. Not only would buying shoes that were made slave labour participating in slavery, but even buying shoes that were produced in a factory that was built by slave labour 40 years ago would also be participating in slavery. Is entering a building that stands where a graveyard stood 100 years ago participating in desecration of the dead? Is a man paying his taxes in territory illegally annexed decades prior participating in unjust war? Heck, is changing the tire on a bastard's car participating in adultery?

I mean, I just don't understand how it could possibly be participating in the abortion in any meaningful way, without condemning literally every action a person could possibly make in one way or another. The charge of desecration of the dead makes sense, since the vaccine or its production still has cells produced from the foetus involved to this day. And one could also easily argue that it's also sinful because it's unnecessarily supporting an industry that wouldn't exist, at least in its current form, without abortion. But I really don't understand how it's participation in abortion.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2020, 05:50:19 PM
Regarding the use of fetal cells for #2 (playing devil’s advocate here), such cells are used in the chemical process to CREATE the vaccine.  Are such cells even chemically present in the final product?  Or are the cells chemically changed/extinguished in the process?  Just asking questions.  
.
Example:  Cremation is sinfully desecrating bodies.  But once a body is burned, and the ashes are put into the ground, is not the body chemically gone?  The body was chemically altered when it burned, especially if it was mixed with some chemical additives, so can’t one argue that such ashes aren’t “sacred” anymore?  
.
Just like if you want to burn holy objects that are broken, once you burn them, the natural essence is gone, so is the blessing attached. 
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: B from A on August 24, 2020, 05:53:12 PM
People need to stop being naive & do a little research. 


Aborted Fetal Cell Line Vaccines And The Catholic Family (https://cogforlife.org/vaccines-abortions/)

Go to the sections on:
"The Need for Further Fetal Tissue"
"New Aborted Fetal Cell Lines Underway"
"Encouraging Further Abortions and Research"
"The Hunt for Fresh Fetuses"
"An Incentive to Abort" ("Women considering abortion are more likely to do so if they believe they can donate the fetus for research. As presented by the Nebraska Catholic Conference at the State Capitol Rotunda, March 21, 2001, numerous studies and polls conducted over the years show the following:")
"Crystal Clear Complicity" etc. 
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: B from A on August 24, 2020, 05:57:07 PM
Quote
From fetal tissue to stem cell research, pharmaceutical companies would not be investing billions of dollars into these new cell lines unless they felt sure they would have a market. In fact, if parents did NOT use the vaccines obtained from aborted fetal cell lines at all, such action would have effectively ended the practice years ago. It would not be a fair or accurate statement to say that people who use the vaccines do not contribute to an immoral act, because in fact, they are providing financial motivation and incentive plus actual funding to the pharmaceutical industry to continue this immoral practice.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2020, 05:59:20 PM

Quote
It would not be a fair or accurate statement to say that people who use the vaccines do not contribute to an immoral act, because in fact, they are providing financial motivation and incentive plus actual funding to the pharmaceutical industry to continue this immoral practice.


Vaccines are both protected by law and also forced by law (in many states).  The ultimate responsibility for these crimes are lawmakers and drug companies.  If getting the covid vaccine is intrinsically evil, then vaccines have been intrinsically evil for 40+ years.  Ultimately new-rome's last "doctrine" that they uphold is "sanctity of life" so the covid vaccine is an easy 'headline grabber' to highlight to the "consevative" novus ordo sheeple that the bishops are "fighting for good".
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2020, 07:06:37 PM
For taking a vaccine that uses cells that were reproduced from an abortion that occurred 40 years ago is participating in abortion, then participating in sin must be something so insanely broad that basically everything we ever do is participating in sin.

Yes, there's such a thing as remote material participation in sin.  Remote material participation can be justified depending on the need to do so.  Nevertheless, if you believe, as I do, that vaccines are not only not beneficial to health, but positively harmful, there's no justification for even this remote participation.

So, for instance, we do remotely participate in evil in buying goods from Amazon or Walmart.  But the simple fact is that we have needs to buy things to get by in life.  And the more remote the participation, the less serious an offsetting consideration is required to make it justified.

I believe that receiving abortion-tissue vaccines is less remote than something like buying goods from Walmart, but it's not nothing either.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2020, 07:13:13 PM
Let's assume for a second that the infants whose tissues were used had died of natural causes, from a miscarriage.

Would it still be wrong to use vaccines made from their tissues?

I argue yes.  So that's one aspect of it.  I believe that it's almost akin to cannibalism.  With cannibalism one ingests the human tissue; here we inject it.

Now one can compound this with the sin of abortion, and that makes it even worse.

So, for instance, let's say that people died of some cause, and they donated their skin to be used to make lampshades (as per the old nαzι human lampshade story).  That would be incredibly disrespectful to the human bodies that God intended to be temples of the Holy Spirit ... not to mention extremely gross.  Now let's say that the people had been victims of a serial murderer or genocidal maniac leader of some kind.  That would make it worse.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2020, 07:34:38 PM

Quote
I believe that receiving abortion-tissue vaccines is less remote than something like buying goods from Walmart, but it's not nothing either.

Sure, I agree with that.  But the issue of MANDATORY vaccines makes the involvement in evil even less remote than buying chinese-slavery goods.  In the former, one may not have a choice (temporally speaking); in the latter, you can shop elsewhere.  I don't see a similarity in culpability between fetal cell vaccines and the 'mark of the beast'.  The former is (possibly, arguably) a necessary evil one "could" accept (depending on the circuмstances), while the latter is a denial of the Faith.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 24, 2020, 09:34:26 PM
Yes, there's such a thing as remote material participation in sin.  Remote material participation can be justified depending on the need to do so.  
Where is the need to do so with a COVID19 vaccine?
1) Hardly anyone dies from it
2) The vaccine probably won't work
3) The vaccine is poison and not medicine.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: forlorn on August 24, 2020, 09:56:16 PM
Yes, there's such a thing as remote material participation in sin.  Remote material participation can be justified depending on the need to do so.  Nevertheless, if you believe, as I do, that vaccines are not only not beneficial to health, but positively harmful, there's no justification for even this remote participation.

So, for instance, we do remotely participate in evil in buying goods from Amazon or Walmart.  But the simple fact is that we have needs to buy things to get by in life.  And the more remote the participation, the less serious an offsetting consideration is required to make it justified.

I believe that receiving abortion-tissue vaccines is less remote than something like buying goods from Walmart, but it's not nothing either.
If participation is to partake in, than how could one possibly participate in an abortion that took place before they were even conceived? Sure, I can benefit from that sin, but benefitting from a sin that took place before I ever existed is not a sin of my own. 

I agree that I can participate in the sin of desecration, since that clearly takes place to this day with the reproduction of the cells of the deceased, but someone being able to participate in a sin from before they ever existed surely defies the laws of chronology. How can I possibly partake in the murder of someone who died before I was conceived? I'd have to be a time traveller.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2020, 11:16:05 PM

Quote
Where is the need to do so with a COVID19 vaccine?
1) Hardly anyone dies from it
2) The vaccine probably won't work
3) The vaccine is poison and not medicine.

The need would arise (1) for those ignorant enough to disagree with your above truths (i.e. media brainwashed), and (2) if such a vaccine is mandated by force or through other grave penalties (loss of job, loss of house, separation of family, jail).
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Tallinn Trad on August 25, 2020, 12:13:07 AM
I won't be taking the vaccine. Nothing to do with the practices that created it. 

Wholly to do with not trusting modern men who whether by malice or stupidity or greed or malpractice are forever screwing things up and covering up their crimes. 

Anyone who would inject something into their body that Bill Gates had any part of never used Microsoft Windows.  Or has a very poor memory.

A less than 1 percent chance of dying of a flu virus?  I can take that. 
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Nadir on August 25, 2020, 04:52:58 AM
B from A suggested we do more research. 

Here is a good source (probably the most useful from a Catholic point of view.)
Forsaking God For the Sake of Science | Children of God for Life
https://cogforlife.org/2012/06/13/polioperversion/ (https://cogforlife.org/2012/06/13/polioperversion/)
(Note the brief reference to pepsi)

Highly recommended:
Vaccines & Abortions | Children of God for Life, by Debi Vinnege
https://cogforlife.org/vaccines-abortions/ (https://cogforlife.org/vaccines-abortions/)

Vatican response to Mrs. Vinnege’s enquiries
https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/vaticanresponse1.pdf (https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/vaticanresponse1.pdf)




(http://blob:https://www.cathinfo.com/6cca76bb-9a5e-4f3a-895f-0f1504cada80)

X

Vaccines chart 
https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/vaccineListOrigFormat.pdf (https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/vaccineListOrigFormat.pdf)



(http://blob:https://www.cathinfo.com/f629bcc7-0c78-4519-bd4d-3e20dec6bdbb)

Covid vaccines chart
https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/CovidCompareMoralImmoral.pdf (https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/CovidCompareMoralImmoral.pdf)



(http://blob:https://www.cathinfo.com/496ad9b6-c305-4317-aadc-7bf5a5b87c45)










Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: B from A on August 25, 2020, 07:51:12 AM
B from A suggested we do more research.

Here is a good source (probably the most useful from a Catholic point of view.)...

Highly recommended:
Vaccines & Abortions | Children of God for Life, by Debi Vinnege
https://cogforlife.org/vaccines-abortions/ (https://cogforlife.org/vaccines-abortions/)

.
Thanks, Nadir!  That is the article I also posted, and it also gets into a topic touched on in this thread, Remote Material Cooperation.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: josefamenendez on August 25, 2020, 08:21:23 AM
I think it’s important to remember that there is no medical or scientific reason to insert fetal cells for any vaccine. In “traditional” style vaccines the “antigen ” ( for lack of a better word) could be cultured on a whole host of substances. The rabies vaccine was cultured on fetal cells but  they also had a non- fetal rabies vaccine as well-for those who objected? Both were used.
I think the fetal cells are there just as a test to see who will comply.It’s also the point of gene manipulation. This is war- how far will we go and will we ever resist?
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 25, 2020, 08:42:31 AM
Sure, I agree with that.  But the issue of MANDATORY vaccines makes the involvement in evil even less remote than buying chinese-slavery goods.  In the former, one may not have a choice (temporally speaking); in the latter, you can shop elsewhere.  I don't see a similarity in culpability between fetal cell vaccines and the 'mark of the beast'.  The former is (possibly, arguably) a necessary evil one "could" accept (depending on the circuмstances), while the latter is a denial of the Faith.

With regard to their being mandatory, in most states you can get a religious or philosophical exemption.  But, guess what, the religious exemption is almost impossible to get thanks to the fact that both the Novus Ordo and even the SSPX have said it's OK.  Thanks, guys.  So either you have to declare yourselves to be some other unique religion or you have to rely on the philosophical exemption ... which is what we always end up using.

You could probably take it all the way to the Supreme Court that you won't take a vaccine if it has human tissue and win ... which would force them to back off or else pressure them to create vaccines without said tissue.

Things are "mandatory" only because everyone has caved.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 25, 2020, 08:44:24 AM
Example:  Cremation is sinfully desecrating bodies.  But once a body is burned, and the ashes are put into the ground, is not the body chemically gone?  The body was chemically altered when it burned, especially if it was mixed with some chemical additives, so can’t one argue that such ashes aren’t “sacred” anymore?  

My gut tells me no.  Would you take the ashen remains of a human body and fertilize your garden with it?
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 25, 2020, 08:46:59 AM

Vaccines are both protected by law and also forced by law (in many states).  The ultimate responsibility for these crimes are lawmakers and drug companies.  

Yes, ultimately they're responsible, but we participate by constantly caving to them.  I know of very few states where you can't get an exemption from being vaccinated.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: PAT317 on August 25, 2020, 08:49:34 AM
Things are "mandatory" only because everyone has caved.
Exactly.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 25, 2020, 08:52:20 AM
Here's a rundown of the states where exemptions can be had based on philosophical or religious reasons.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx (https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx)

And if you live in one of the few states where you can't get an exemption, then one should consider moving ... or homeschooling, since most of the laws are directed toward "students".

But because the NO and the SSPX refuse to back up Catholics who have objections, it's more difficult to get an purely "religious" exemption without declaring yourself to be your own religion.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 25, 2020, 08:56:07 AM
I think it’s important to remember that there is no medical or scientific reason to insert fetal cells for any vaccine. In “traditional” style vaccines the “antigen ” ( for lack of a better word) could be cultured on a whole host of substances. The rabies vaccine was cultured on fetal cells but  they also had a non- fetal rabies vaccine as well-for those who objected? Both were used.
I think the fetal cells are there just as a test to see who will comply.It’s also the point of gene manipulation. This is war- how far will we go and will we ever resist?

That's a good point.  They likely used human fetal tissue precisely to stick it to people and to put their evil mark on them.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 25, 2020, 09:18:25 AM
Here's a rundown of the states where exemptions can be had based on philosophical or religious reasons.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx (https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx)

And if you live in one of the few states where you can't get an exemption, then one should consider moving ... or homeschooling, since most of the laws are directed toward "students".

But because the NO and the SSPX refuse to back up Catholics who have objections, it's more difficult to get an purely "religious" exemption without declaring yourself to be your own religion.
Outstanding resource!!

Of course, it only pertains to vaccinations relative to school enrollment, not whether or not the state has permitted or outlawed mandatory vaccination (eg., during a plannedemic).
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 25, 2020, 09:37:18 AM
Outstanding resource!!

Of course, it only pertains to vaccinations relative to school enrollment, not whether or not the state has permitted or outlawed mandatory vaccination (eg., during a plannedemic).

Right.  But it's interesting that both Gates and Fauci have backed away a little bit from the mandatory COVID vaccine.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 25, 2020, 09:51:54 AM
Quote
With regard to their being mandatory, in most states you can get a religious or philosophical exemption.

True, but that's the "old rules" for normal diseases.  What they are talking about for covid, since it's a "pandemic" is that exemptions will not exist.  Then they will truly be mandatory.  For those that resist, you may be forcibly quarantined at a camp.  Or worse.
.

Quote
But it's interesting that both Gates and Fauci have backed away a little bit from the mandatory COVID vaccine.

But the state-level has ramped up the pressure.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 25, 2020, 09:57:12 AM

Quote
My gut tells me no.  Would you take the ashen remains of a human body and fertilize your garden with it?

Agree, I would not.  But let's say the ashes are buried or thrown into the ocean.  How long until the ashes are chemically consumed?  If there used to be a grave site in a field, under a tree, 50 years ago, how long until that field can be developed for a neighborhood, or until a farmer can plant a garden?  There is a time factor involved.  Would not this time factor also affect fetal cells?  There's also much more chemical processing of these cells vs simply burying ashes.
.
I have no idea.  Just spit-balling questions that come to mind.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 25, 2020, 10:22:27 AM
Right.  But it's interesting that both Gates and Fauci have backed away a little bit from the mandatory COVID vaccine.

Agreed.  And then the Virginia health commissioner declares his intent to mandate.

I watched the 1st 20min of the Plannedemic 2: Indoctornation movie, and it becomes clear this entire hoax is a business plan to make money.

It takes your breath away, to see what some men will do for money.

On another note, I passed some roadkill the other day, and someone had come by with a cardboard sign and wooden stake, and drew an arrow pointing to the dead animal, and wrote “Another COVID19 Death.”😂

This is as alongside the interstate, so thousands of cars would have seen it.

The point being some people are waking up to this fraud.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: PAT317 on August 25, 2020, 11:18:43 AM
... it becomes clear this entire hoax is a business plan to make money.

It takes your breath away, to see what some men will do for money.
.
I don't believe the underlying motive is money.  A bigger motive of those at the top is control.  It is part of the age-old battle between good vs. evil, and more specifically, the fruition of the centuries-long plans of enemies of God.  Money is just a very useful tool to get henchmen to help make it happen.  
.
On another note, I passed some roadkill the other day, and someone had come by with a cardboard sign and wooden stake, and drew an arrow pointing to the dead animal, and wrote “Another COVID19 Death.”😂

This is as alongside the interstate, so thousands of cars would have seen it.

The point being some people are waking up to this fraud.
.
Excellent!
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 25, 2020, 11:25:21 AM
.
I don't believe the underlying motive is money.  A bigger motive of those at the top is control.  It is part of the age-old battle between good vs. evil, and more specifically, the fruition of the centuries-long plans of enemies of God.  Money is just a very useful tool to get henchmen to help make it happen.  
..
Excellent!
Agreed:
As ++Vigano points out in the OP, there is an economic motive, and an ideological motive.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2020, 07:30:50 AM
Your Excellency, could you please address the non-authoritative 2005 "Moral Reflections" study of the Pontifical Academy for Life, which your position contradicts?

SSPX: Can use abortive vaccines if there is no other option, and grave inconvenience would result by refusing them;

Vigano: We can never use such vaccines (backed by Bishop Strickland).
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: PAT317 on August 26, 2020, 08:10:00 AM
SSPX: Can use abortive vaccines if there is no other option, and grave inconvenience would result by refusing them;

Vigano: We can never use such vaccines (backed by Bishop Strickland).
.
And somewhat backed by Cardinal Burke:
Quote
Burke declared that it is “never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of cell lines of aborted fetuses” and that the thought of it being injected into one’s body is “rightly abhorrent.”  He noted also that vaccination may not be imposed “in a totalitarian manner” on citizens.”  He also decried proposals for placing microchips under people’s skin that would allow them to be “controlled by the State regarding health and about other matters.”

Quote
Let us also remember, as Pastors, that for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses.  
From the APPEAL FOR THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD to Catholics and all people of good will signed by :
Mgr. Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop, Apostolic Nuncio (promoter)
Cdl Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, Bishop emeritus of Hong Kong
Cdl Janis Pujats, Archbishop emeritus of Riga
Cdl Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Prefect emeritus of Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith
Mgr Luigi Negri, Archbishop emeritus of Ferrara-Comacchio
Mgr Joseph Strickland, Bishop of Tyler, Texas
Mgr Thomas Peta, Metropolitan Archbishop of Astana
Mgr Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Astana
Mgr Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop emeritus of Karaganda
Mgr Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi
Mgr Andreas Laun, Auxiliary Bishop of Salzburg
Mgr Robert Muetsaerts, Auxiliary Bishop of Den Bosch

Father Serafino Lanzetta, theologian
Father Serafino Lanzetta, theologian
Father Alfredo Maria Morselli, theologian
Father Curzio Nitoglia, theologian
Father Guy Pagès
Father José Arantes de Andrade, Archdiocese of Braga
Father Frank Unterhalt, Communio Veritatis
Father Edmund A Castronovo, parish pastor
Father Jean-Louis Dupré, Diocèse de Saint-Flour
Father Mateusz Mraczek ofs
Father Harold Bumann, ive
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Yeti on August 26, 2020, 08:26:26 AM
Here's a rundown of the states where exemptions can be had based on philosophical or religious reasons.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx (https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx)

And if you live in one of the few states where you can't get an exemption, then one should consider moving ... or homeschooling, since most of the laws are directed toward "students".

But because the NO and the SSPX refuse to back up Catholics who have objections, it's more difficult to get an purely "religious" exemption without declaring yourself to be your own religion.
This applies to vaccines currently being used. It doesn't tell us what the rule will be for a future COVID19 vaccine. The media is sure pushing the idea that people will be forced to take it. There are some interesting indications that it will be mandatory for everyone, such as the fact that every other treatment for COVID19 has been suppressed except a vaccine. We are being told a vaccine is the only cure, and that life will not go back to normal (which it won't, anyway, no matter what) unless everyone is vaccinated. Why would they do this if the vaccine were going to be optional?
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 26, 2020, 08:30:30 AM
Your Excellency, could you please address the non-authoritative 2005 "Moral Reflections" study of the Pontifical Academy for Life, which your position contradicts?

SSPX: Can use abortive vaccines if there is no other option, and grave inconvenience would result by refusing them;

Vigano: We can never use such vaccines (backed by Bishop Strickland).
So, we can/can't accept vaccines which contain murdered babies, but where is the outcry over murdered babies contained in cosmetics?  
.
Will ++Vigano come out against cosmetics (or other companies who use murdered babies in their products)?
.
Side note: The SSPX position is probably influenced by, if not solely decided by, ex-MD Fr. Scott, who is very pro-vaccine.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 26, 2020, 08:32:13 AM
Here's a rundown of the states where exemptions can be had based on philosophical or religious reasons.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx (https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx)

And if you live in one of the few states where you can't get an exemption, then one should consider moving ... or homeschooling, since most of the laws are directed toward "students".

But because the NO and the SSPX refuse to back up Catholics who have objections, it's more difficult to get an purely "religious" exemption without declaring yourself to be your own religion.
Or find a doctor who will provide a medical exemption. 
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 26, 2020, 08:45:31 AM
Lists:
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 26, 2020, 08:50:41 AM
On another note, I passed some roadkill the other day, and someone had come by with a cardboard sign and wooden stake, and drew an arrow pointing to the dead animal, and wrote “Another COVID19 Death.”😂
Everyone I talk to thinks it's a fraud.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2020, 08:50:56 AM
Or find a doctor who will provide a medical exemption.
Is there a list of such doctors anywhere?
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Venantius0518 on August 26, 2020, 09:07:14 AM
Is there a list of such doctors anywhere?
Not that I have seen.
They don't advertise for fear of retribution from the medical establishment.
But they are out there.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Ladislaus on August 26, 2020, 09:26:27 AM
Most states allow a religious exemption, but far fewer allow philosophical exemptions.  I think they all allow medical exemptions.  If you actually look at the labels of vaccines, they are actually contra-indicated for people with any condition of compromised immune system, including the elderly in general.  Yet they push them on the the immuno-compromised MOST of all, ignoring the labeling.  If you can get a doctor to verify you have some condition of immuno-compromise, then you can probably get a medical exemption.

Unfortunately, thanks to the NO and to the SSPX, it's very difficult to get a religious exemption, without declaring your religion to be something other than Catholicism or Traditional Catholicism, because they'll just say that your church doesn't disapprove of vaccines.  Thanks, guys.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Nadir on August 26, 2020, 04:24:13 PM
So, we can/can't accept vaccines which contain murdered babies, but where is the outcry over murdered babies contained in cosmetics?  
.
Will ++Vigano come out against cosmetics (or other companies who use murdered babies in their products)?
.
Side note: The SSPX position is probably influenced by, if not solely decided by, ex-MD Fr. Scott, who is very pro-vaccine.

There is no necessity for + Vigano to declare about use of foetal cells in cosmetics. We should not expect him to address the issue. It is all inclusive in the refusal of the use of foetal cells per se.


Quote
The demonstration you are promoting intends to express the dissent of citizens and in particular of parents against the norms that the government, abusing its power, is preparing to issue in view of the new school year; norms that will have very grave repercussions on the health and psychosomatic equilibrium of students, as authoritative experts have rightly demonstrated.


Fr Peter Scott was never an MD. Is he still to this day pro-vaccine. I know he was taken to task by his flock at one time, but that was a while back.
 
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: Cera on August 26, 2020, 05:58:00 PM
Is there a list of such doctors anywhere?
The doctors like Dr. Sears who once provided medical exemptions for children who had siblings who suffered severe debilitating reactions to vaccines, have been run out of business, harassed by lawsuits, reprimanded by medical boards, etc. If such docs exist, they are under the radar.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: claudel on August 26, 2020, 07:08:16 PM

Where is the need to do so with a COVID19 vaccine?
1) Hardly anyone dies from it
2) The vaccine probably won't work
3) The vaccine is poison and not medicine.

What is most helpful about this comment's schematic structure is that it treats the matter under discussion as what it is: a problem in conduct (i.e., a moral matter), not a problem in logic, the truth or falsehood of whose implications can be determined solely by induction and deduction. In this instance, one should think Thomistically, not Socratically or symbolically. Thus the commenters who complain of "logical" inconsistencies or obstacles have gotten nowhere because they have made ++Viganò's statement into something it fundamentally isn't.

Archbishop Viganò writes with great care. He doesn't say that all vaccinations are ill-advised or fundamentally wicked, and if he does think they are, that view can't be derived from the present docuмent. What he does say amounts to items (2) and (3) above. For good measure and with the authority he possesses as a consecrated successor to the Apostles, he adds, "for every Catholic who intends to remain faithful to his or her Baptism, it is absolutely inadmissible to accept a vaccination that utilizes material coming from human fetuses in its process of production."

The argument that this particular vaccination is "absolutely inadmissible" has a lot going for it. Despite the claims of the medical-governmental establishment, there is no probatively significant biological or epidemiological evidence that any antiviral vaccine has ever done less harm than good. Every year thousand of doctors warn millions of patients that they should not get a flu shot, as it will provide no protection greater than ordinary prudence provides and will, in a statistically significant number of individuals, assuredly have an adverse effect on the immune response to other viruses.

As the claimed medical benefit of a covid vaccine is nonexistent and, more, as that fact is known to everyone in secular authority, the production of the vaccine can serve no other purpose than a satanic one: to create what the Jews would gleefully characterize as a widespread state of ritual uncleanness through the injection of a product derived from fetal tissue obtained from abortions into millions of people who regard material association with abortion as mortally sinful. Imagine the effect of the feast of Thyestes raised to the millionth power, with the Jews serving corporately as Atreus.

On a related matter, the question of what one ought to think about making second-, third-, or tenth-hand contact with something gravely immoral simply does not apply here. That is a consideration that becomes something to ponder only when necessity or grave inconvenience or the like is in play and the matter itself is of a life-and-death nature. This is not such a case, however—at least it isn't for anyone with access to reliable information and with sufficient intelligence to make good use of the information. Sadly, that accounts for perhaps 5 percent of the population. But for that 5 percent—namely, for us and those who, like us, "intend to remain faithful to [their] Baptism"—the authoritative quality of ++Viganò's summons enjoins, at an absolute minimum, serious reflection, if not indeed full assent.
Title: Re: Vigano on Rejecting Abortive Vaccines (Again)
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2020, 07:34:39 PM
Everything Claudel just said!

Aside from that, few outside this forum seem to understand that what the Gates-RNA vaccine actually proposes to do is to dehumanize us (ie., By changing human DNA/RNA, the human race would itself become GMO’s: Genetically modified organisms).

This is three steps more depraved than traditional slavery.

This is open contempt for God’s creation, and man whom He made in His own image.

+Williamson once gave a spiritual conference, in which, after explaining how grace builds on nature (St. Thomas), he described grace as a helicopter, and human nature as terra firma.

But if solid ground became a swamp or wetland, the grace/helicopter could not “land” in the human soul.

His point was that the Satanic enemy was now committed to focusing his attack upon human nature itself (and this conference was nearly 20 years ago!), so that God’s grace would be wasted.

Today, we have alphabet soup LGBT crap, vaccines producing autism in 1/50 children born, etc.

+Williamson gets bombarded for being a naturalist for promoting the humanities, culture, etc., but he has a plan:

He is trying to fortify the focus of the enemy’s attack.

++Vigano seems to be doing the same.