Author Topic: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate (Read 9389 times)

Benzel · « **Reply #60 on:** December 16, 2020, 02:18:19 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 15, 2020, 08:01:59 PM

Fr. Wolfe’s is the best so far, and in my mind, shifts the burden to the “remote materialists” to defend their position against his “continuous theft” argument and what amounts to formal cooperation.

I don’t think the SSPX will be able to escape his argument, but they may ignore it.

Keeping alive cell lines obtained through abortion constitutes another sin: abuse of tissues from an aborted fetus. And who commits that sin? The pharmaceutical laboratory that uses those cells. The people who use the vaccines of that laboratory cooperate formally or materially to the sins of the pharmaceutical laboratories. But if you are looking for an approved text of moral theology that teaches that there can be no remote material cooperation regarding actual sin, you will not find it. "Remote" doesn't just refer to a distance of time.

2Vermont · « **Reply #61 on:** December 16, 2020, 06:55:56 AM »

From McHugh and Callan. Note the bolded. :

976. Coöperation in Religious Activities.—A third danger of making external profession of a false religion is coöperation in activities whose tendency or principles are erroneous (see 944). Coöperation in a false religion is of two kinds, immediate and mediate. (a) Coöperation is immediate, when one takes a part in an act of a false religion itself (e.g., by worshipping an idol). This kind of coöperation was discussed above, as participation or communication (see 956-975). (b) Coöperation is mediate, when one takes part, not in an act of a false religion, but in some other act which is a preparation for a help to the act of a false religion. This is the kind of coöperation we are now considering.

977. Mediate coöperation is of various kinds. (a) It is proximate or remote, according as the preparation or help afforded to false religion is near to or far from the religious act. Thus, to make ready the lights, incense, flowers, etc. in front of an idol is proximate coöperation; to give money to an idolatrous priest or bonze is remote coöperation. (b) Mediate coöperation is material or formal, according as the intention of the coöperator is to share in or help error itself, or merely to help those who are in error, while disapproving of their error. Thus, if one prepares a pagan temple for worship or contributes money towards its maintenance because one's sympathies are with its idolatry, one's coöperation is formal; if one does these things only in order to make a living or to show friendship to an individual pagan, one's coöperation is material. It is clear that formal coöperation is a grave sin against faith, and hence we shall speak now only of material coöperation.

So, when we refer to the material/formal distinctions laid out by moral theologians, we see that material cooperation can be applied even to matters pertaining to the sin of idolatry.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #62 on:** December 16, 2020, 07:12:04 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 16, 2020, 06:55:56 AM

From McHugh and Callan. Note the bolded. :

976. Coöperation in Religious Activities.—A third danger of making external profession of a false religion is coöperation in activities whose tendency or principles are erroneous (see 944). Coöperation in a false religion is of two kinds, immediate and mediate. (a) Coöperation is immediate, when one takes a part in an act of a false religion itself (e.g., by worshipping an idol). This kind of coöperation was discussed above, as participation or communication (see 956-975). (b) Coöperation is mediate, when one takes part, not in an act of a false religion, but in some other act which is a preparation for a help to the act of a false religion. This is the kind of coöperation we are now considering.

977. Mediate coöperation is of various kinds. (a) It is proximate or remote, according as the preparation or help afforded to false religion is near to or far from the religious act. Thus, to make ready the lights, incense, flowers, etc. in front of an idol is proximate coöperation; to give money to an idolatrous priest or bonze is remote coöperation. (b) Mediate coöperation is material or formal, according as the intention of the coöperator is to share in or help error itself, or merely to help those who are in error, while disapproving of their error. Thus, if one prepares a pagan temple for worship or contributes money towards its maintenance because one's sympathies are with its idolatry, one's coöperation is formal; if one does these things only in order to make a living or to show friendship to an individual pagan, one's coöperation is material. It is clear that formal coöperation is a grave sin against faith, and hence we shall speak now only of material coöperation.

So, when we refer to the material/formal distinctions laid out by moral theologians, we see that material cooperation can be applied even to matters pertaining to the sin of idolatry.

I am forming a stronger conviction that the argument of Fr. Wolfe has made the remote material cooperation argument irrelevant (ie., to get back to it, the remote materialists must disprove the “continuous theft” and formal argument).

Supposing that could be done, and the conversation devolve back into the remote material domain, I would need to see the double effect standard satisfied (as must always happen in order to defer to the direct voluntary).

And finally, supposing that could happen (and it can’t, which is why the remote materialists are avoiding any mention of it), they would still need to navigate the issue of exceedingly grave scandal mentioned by Fr. Selegny.

2Vermont · « **Reply #63 on:** December 16, 2020, 07:31:53 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 16, 2020, 07:12:04 AM

I am forming a stronger conviction that the argument of Fr. Wolfe has made the remote material cooperation argument irrelevant (ie., to get back to it, the remote materialists must disprove the “continuous theft” and formal argument).

Supposing that could be done, and the conversation devolve back into the remote material domain, I would need to see the double effect standard satisfied (as must always happen in order to defer to the direct voluntary).

And finally, supposing that could happen (and it can’t, which is why the remote materialists are avoiding any mention of it), they would still need to navigate the issue of exceedingly grave scandal mentioned by Fr. Selegny.

So far, I have yet to see the use of the term "formal cooperation in sin". The quote I gave from McHugh and Callan shows that it is possible to have material cooperation even in matters of idolatry which is much worse than theft.

As for double effect, I thought we already discussed that it is irrelevant after the fact for material cooperation here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/cardinalsbishops-formally-repudiate-2005-vaccine-docs/msg725089/#msg725089

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #64 on:** December 16, 2020, 08:17:25 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 16, 2020, 07:31:53 AM

So far, I have yet to see the use of the term "formal cooperation in sin". The quote I gave from McHugh and Callan shows that it is possible to have material cooperation even in matters of idolatry which is much worse than theft.

As for double effect, I thought we already discussed that it is irrelevant after the fact for material cooperation here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/cardinalsbishops-formally-repudiate-2005-vaccine-docs/msg725089/#msg725089

I pointed out the term is not used, but the logic of the argument and conclusion seems to be based on it (“a rose by any other name...”). And the same McHugh-Callan (late 1950’s) manual acknowledges formal cooperation is never permitted (that “never” would include sins less serious than idolatry).

Note also, Fr. Wolfe is not talking about theft alone, but theft predicated upon murder (ie., see my “stealing money from grandma” example earlier in the thread).

As for double effect being irrelevant when having recourse to the direct voluntary, which of the following criteria are you not concerned with:

1) The object be good or indifferent (ie., receiving stolen property obtained by murder);

2) The intention must be good (to knowingly benefit from the double sin is to become an accomplice in it);

3) The good effect cannot come from the bad effect (clear fail: doing evil that good may come by continuous theft);

4) Proportionality: Can I become complicit in murder and theft to keep my job? Or to fly on a plane? If my boss or governor ordered me to desecrate a dead body or grave, I could do it to keep my job?

To get around all this, and contrary to what the old SSPX and Fr. Scott taught, can you tell me why double effect need not be satisfied when deferring to the direct voluntary?

Ps: As regards the late 1950’s McHugh manual, did you know that many moralist, after WWII, began to shift their thinking and morals to focus more on quality of life? I attended a conference with Fr. Is cars (SSPX seminary professor for 25+ years) on end of life issues, where he explained this trend broke out at V2. But if it broke out there, it was certainly present in the minds of some moralists in the 40’s-50’s, which is why I’m suspicious of a manual in 1958. In the words of Fr. Is cars, “If you think I’m going to accept some doctrine just because it has the imprimatur from some American Bishop in the 1930’s, you’re crazy.”

That said, I do not understand your point “after the fact.” Could you refresh my memory?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #65 on:** December 16, 2020, 09:03:10 AM »

Quote

Note also, Fr. Wolfe is not talking about theft alone, but theft predicated upon murder (ie., see my “stealing money from grandma” example earlier in the thread).

I really wish we had some catholic scientist who could answer the questions of the vaccine process. For me, it's hard to create an accurate analogy of all the sinful activities in order to properly analyze the morality of each. If the debate has now shifted to theft of fetal cells, then the important question is: Does the taking of fetal cells ALWAYS cause death, or is it survivable?
.
This is the best analogy I can come up with: Suppose you have an international criminal ring who's main work is to αssαssιnαtҽ people for money. 75% of their business is to sneak around and kill rich people. Most of their customers are the family members or business partners of these rich people, who want inheritance money or they want to own the business partnership fully.
.
Now, a smaller part of this criminal ring's business (25%) is to kidnap people and steal their organs, which they then sell to pharmacies who use these organs to make a drug that cures a specific kidney/lung/heart disease. Sometimes they steal kidneys, sometimes hearts, sometimes lungs, etc. The theft of 1 kidney or 1 lung does not kill a person, so this criminal ring's theft of this kind is not murder, even though 1) 75% of this criminal ring's business is assassination, and 2) they may still decide to kill the victim after taking a kidney/lung so the victim can't call the cops. Obviously, the theft of a heart causes the murder of the victim, but a kidney/lung does not (unless you take both kidneys or both lungs). But we'll assume they just take 1.
.
So, here are my questions:
1. Does a person who knowingly receives a "life saving"** drug made from this criminal ring's activities participate in the 75% of the criminal's "murder industry", or just the 25% of organ theft activities? I would say just the organ theft part.
.
** We'll assume for argument that covid vaccines are "life saving" as that's the established medical/political/social lie of the day.**
.
2. If the theft of a kidney/lung does not cause death, then how can one be involved with murder? If the criminal ring decides to kill the person after stealing their organs, that's their decision, but murder is not an effect of the organ theft, but a separate sin.
.
I wish I knew more about this vaccine process.

B from A · « **Reply #66 on:** December 16, 2020, 09:13:33 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 16, 2020, 09:03:10 AM

I really wish we had some catholic scientist who could answer the questions of the vaccine process. For me, it's hard to create an accurate analogy of all the sinful activities in order to properly analyze the morality of each. If the debate has now shifted to theft of fetal cells, then the important question is: Does the taking of fetal cells ALWAYS cause death, or is it survivable?
.
I wish I knew more about this vaccine process.

.
Pax, have you listened to the explanation by Marcella Piper-Terry, posted many times on these boards? Or the one by Pam Acker, also posted & recommended here?
.
And do you seriously think the devils that create these vaccines take a living pre-term baby, harvest his cells, and then put him in an incubator to maximize his chances of survival? Seriously?
.
Listen to and read the copious information folks have provided here in these threads, please.

choakley · « **Reply #67 on:** December 16, 2020, 10:28:55 AM »

Mr G · « **Reply #68 on:** December 16, 2020, 10:40:23 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 16, 2020, 09:03:10 AM

I really wish we had some catholic scientist who could answer the questions of the vaccine process. For me, it's hard to create an accurate analogy of all the sinful activities in order to properly analyze the morality of each. If the debate has now shifted to theft of fetal cells, then the important question is: Does the taking of fetal cells ALWAYS cause death, or is it survivable?
....
.
I wish I knew more about this vaccine process.

In that case, I strongly suggest you contact Catholic Scientist, Pam Acker. But first you should read her book and watch any video interviews of her on these subjects. Then as you obtain some preliminary background information on the vaccine development and processes, you can then ask Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Center to forward your questions.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #69 on:** December 16, 2020, 10:53:24 AM »

Dear all, please don't be scandalized at these questions. If you read the opening thread, I said the purpose of this thread is NOT to debate the morality of these vaccines (which are obviously immoral). The purpose is to debate the GRAVITY of immorality. If you don't understand the difference, or don't have the patience to theorize, then please leave the thread.

2Vermont · « **Reply #70 on:** December 16, 2020, 10:55:41 AM »

Sean,

I can't spend more time right now as I am working, but I put the link regarding "after the fact" in my previous post.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #71 on:** December 16, 2020, 10:57:22 AM »

Quote

And do you seriously think the devils that create these vaccines take a living pre-term baby, harvest his cells, and then put him in an incubator to maximize his chances of survival?

But could they keep the baby alive? That's the question. If a child can survive the taking of these cells, then murder/abortion is not a result of cell harvesting, but a separate immoral act.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #72 on:** December 16, 2020, 10:58:29 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 16, 2020, 10:55:41 AM

Sean,

I can't spend more time right now as I am working, but I put the link regarding "after the fact" in my previous post.

Ok, I will go back and check it out, but the argument on the table now is not “after the fact,” but “continuous theft” (ie., present now).

2Vermont · « **Reply #73 on:** December 16, 2020, 11:00:33 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 16, 2020, 10:58:29 AM

Ok, I will go back and check it out, but the argument on the table now is not “after the fact,” but “continuous theft” (ie., present now).

I'd like to see moral principles that deal with "continuous sins". The "after the fact" deals with applying double effect after the material cooperation is determined. There is no need to do so once it is determined the cooperation is material.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #74 on:** December 16, 2020, 11:02:16 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 16, 2020, 11:00:33 AM

I'd like to see moral principles that deal with "continuous sins". The "after the fact" deals with applying double effect after the material cooperation is determined. There is no need to do so once it is determined the cooperation is material.

Can you explain why?

If you are correct, it means we need not concern ourselves with:

1) Whether the act is good/indifferent or evil

2) Whether we can do evil that good may come

3) Whether the intention is good or evil

4) Whether or not there is a good at least equal to the evil.

I just can’t get my mind around how those questions become irrelevant to the morality of a human act (particularly one which cooperated in evil).

Ps: Can you find anything is a traditional manual on remote material cooperation which distinguishes between “in the present” cooperation from “after the fact” cooperation (and why double effect should apply for the former, but not the latter)?

Author Topic: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate (Read 9389 times)

Benzel

Re: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate

2Vermont

Re: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate

SeanJohnson

Re: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate

2Vermont

Re: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate

SeanJohnson

Re: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate

Pax Vobis

Re: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate

B from A

Re: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate

choakley

Re: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate

Mr G

Re: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate

Pax Vobis

Re: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate

2Vermont

Re: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate

Pax Vobis

Re: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate

SeanJohnson

Re: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate

2Vermont

Re: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate

SeanJohnson

Re: Vaccines - Devil's Advocate