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

Author Topic: Dominican Destroys "Remote Material Cooperation" Justification for Abortoin Jab  (Read 2639 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11767
  • Reputation: +8009/-2979
  • Gender: Male
I have no idea how this article eluded me since March (!!!), but it is the first and the best article to date, which takes the remote material justification head on, and refutes it at the level of moral principle.

No other article is needed.

Hat-tip to Mr. G for supplying th elink in the othre thread.

I thought it was important enough to give it its own thread.

This 

Is

It.
Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11767
  • Reputation: +8009/-2979
  • Gender: Male
A priest reflects on the morality of abortion-tainted COVID-19 vaccines

I propose to demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccines still do not conform to the moral liceity principles and required conditions invoked in these Vatican docuмents – that is, when the moral argument is properly framed, understood, and applied.
Featured Image shutterstock.com



Fri Mar 5, 2021 - 3:58 pm EST

Editor’s note: The author of this article is a priest who uses a pen name to keep his identity αnσnymσus for the sake of prudence given various circuмstances at this time, and to keep the focus upon the content of the article, rather than having distracting attention be given to the author.


March 5, 2021 (
LifeSiteNews) – There is great confusion concerning the morality of using the abortion-tainted COVID-19 vaccines, such as those produced by pfιzєr, mσdernα, and Johnson & Johnson. Much of this confusion stems from the various Vatican docuмents that have addressed the issue of abortion-tainted health interventions. Corrections of the misapplication of the moral principles invoked in these docuмents are needed so that they may be properly understood and applied to the abortion-tainted COVID-19 vaccine issue at hand.


All Catholics and men of good will must abhor abortion and the fact that many vaccines, including the tainted COVID-19 experimental vaccines, are abortion-tainted, whether actually containing aborted fetal cells or having been tested or developed through the abuse of stolen aborted fetal cells. Let us then examine the remote material cooperation analysis of Vatican docuмents which concern the moral liceity of using abortion tainted therapeutic interventions, and especially the abortion tainted COVID-19 vaccines in question, such as the pfιzєr, mσdernα, and Johnson & Johnson products. Despite the mistaken conclusions to the contrary in the Vatican docuмents, I propose to demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccines still do not conform to the moral liceity principles and required conditions invoked in those docuмents. That is, when the moral argument is properly framed, understood, and applied.


Let us start by summarizing the Vatican position concerning the moral liceity of so-called abortion-tainted vaccines. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has issued docuмents affirming the position that based on the principle of remote material cooperation with evil, one can morally accept the use of abortion-tainted therapeutic interventions, such as vaccines, to neutralize a health threat, if all of the following necessary conditions are met:


  • There is no available morally untainted therapeutic intervention that neutralizes the proposed health threat.
  • There must exist a proportionate cause for using an abortion tainted therapeutic intervention based on the risks involved.
  • There must exist an actual grave threat to your health or that of others if you were to refrain from taking the proposed abortion tainted therapeutic intervention.
  • One must oppose the abortion taintedness of the therapeutic intervention.
All four of these conditions must be met in order for the use of an abortion-tainted product such as a vaccine to be considered morally licit. And thus, all that is necessary for one to prove the grave moral sinfulness of the use of vaccines that are tainted by the grave evil of abortion, is to show that just one of the necessary conditions listed by the Vatican is absent. And yet, the first three conditions for moral liceity have not been met. Let us begin.

First, the most recent docuмent from the CDF, “Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines” states in point #2, “when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available… it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.” And thus, the docuмent states as a necessary condition in order for an abortion-tainted COVID-19 vaccine to be morally acceptable to use, no other “ethically irreproachable” vaccines are available. However, what needs to be clarified is that the moral principle invoked here applies not only to vaccines, but to any therapeutic intervention that would neutralize the COVID-19 health threat in question. To put it more simply, when a safe and effective health intervention that is not tainted by abortion is available to neutralize the health threat, it is sinful to use an abortion-tainted health intervention for the health threat.


Thanks be to God, and as attested by hundreds of doctors and scientists from around the world, there are indeed several morally clean, safe, and effective health intervention protocols available which have been proven to be highly effective against COVID-19 in thousands of cases worldwide. And yet, only one available, safe, effective, and morally clean health intervention is necessary to make morally tainted vaccines morally illicit to use. For example, safe and effective health intervention protocols include those which make use of ethically produced Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Budesonide, Quercetin, Melatonin, and high doses of Vitamins A, C and D3 with Zinc, and other protocols such as MATH+, which have been successfully used by countless doctors, including Dr. Pierre Kory (who testified to the U.S. Senate concerning these life-saving treatments) and Dr. Simone Gold of America’s Frontline Doctors. Although these doctors are not completely opposed to the abortion tainted COVID-19 vaccines on moral grounds as they should, they do make it clear that excellent safe and effective alternative treatments for COVID-19 do exist. Other excellent doctors have reported that using natural substances such as Quercetin, Melatonin and vitamins (which are not abortion-tainted) are safe and effective in successfully preventing COVID-19 and greatly reducing it's harmful effects, which accomplishes whatever good that the unnecessary abortion tainted COVID-19 experimental vaccines are claimed to do. (See here.)


God has designed our immune systems in an excellent manner. Making sure that our bodies are properly nourished with vitamins and minerals strengthens the immune system to fight off contagions. If despite doing what is reasonable to maintain a healthy immune system and to use therapeutic interventions that are not abortion- tainted, and we get sick and die anyway, then that is part of life. Many people died at a young or old age while Jesus walked the earth, and He allowed it nonetheless. Physical life is not the ultimate good to preserve at all costs. The Grace and Love of God and the salvation of souls is the supreme good to preserve at all costs, and for which we must sacrifice even our lives in order to maintain intact through faithful observance of all of God's Laws, which includes refusing to accept abortion-tainted products.


As a caveat, although you are not obliged to assume a product is abortion-tainted, if you become aware that any particular company produces any of the products mentioned above in a manner tainted by aborted fetal cells, then you must only choose such types of products from companies that research, develop, test, and produce them in a morally good manner that is not abortion-tainted. Another point to consider is that even if a type of a product has been researched or originally developed using aborted fetal cells at some time in the past, that does not of itself make the use of a similar such product produced today by another company immoral. An example to help make this clear is the following.


If a morally compromised research scientist were to discover a previously unknown benefit to human cells by performing tests with certain plants or vitamins using aborted fetal cells, that would not of itself morally prevent anyone from consuming such plants and vitamins for the sake of the newly discovered health benefit. For instance, another company (not the original aborted fetal cell research company) could produce and sell products using such type plants and vitamins for the health benefit, as long as the particular company's own research, development, production, or testing of their product was not abortion-tainted. And thus, as long as there is no evidence that a particular therapeutic intervention product offered by a particular company is abortion-tainted, then such a product is morally acceptable to use, even if it a type of substance or product that some other person subjected to immoral practices.


Thankfully, unlike the abortion-tainted, grossly under tested, and extremely dangerous pfιzєr, mσdernα, and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines, which have used aborted fetal cells in the research, development and/ or testing phases of production, the various morally clean products and protocols mentioned above involve substances that have been proven extremely safe for decades. In fact, all of these health and immunity-boosting, life-saving products have been available over the counter in multiple countries for decades. For instance, in India and Africa, where these health products have been used most extensively, there was a tiny fraction of the COVID-19 illness and death rate of the countries which did not use these products. And thus, according to the recent docuмent from the CDF, since there are morally untainted, safe, and effective protocols available that neutralize the COVID-19 health threat, it is mortally sinful to use the dangerous COVID-19 vaccines that are morally tainted by the heinously grave evil of abortion. 
And this moral analysis is true, even if one who accepted the use of the abortion-tainted vaccine refrained from formally accepting abortion per se, by personally being opposed to the grave evil of abortion, as well as the taintedness of the vaccine. An example to help make this clear is the following. If your friend steals someone else's car and then offers to sell it to you cheaply, it would be a mortal sin to buy the car, even if you were personally opposed to the fact that it was stolen. The morally tainted condition of the car being stolen makes it objectively mortally sinful for you to buy it. And likewise, being personally opposed to the evil of abortion does not of itself exempt a person from mortal sin through accepting the use of a baby murder-tainted vaccine.

Furthermore, the recent CDF docuмent on COVID19 vaccines bases its argument upon the 2008 CDF docuмent, Dignitas Personae. This docuмent states in #26, “Given that gene therapy can involve significant risks for the patient, the ethical principle must be observed according to which, in order to proceed to a therapeutic intervention, it is necessary to establish beforehand that the person being treated will not be exposed to risks to his health or physical integrity which are excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the pathology for which a cure is sought. The informed consent of the patient or his legitimate representative is also required.”


The ethical or moral principles concerning proportionate health benefits versus risks invoked here apply to any “therapeutic intervention,” which includes gene therapies and vaccines, whether or not they are even morally tainted by abortion. By the way, the so-called mRNA vaccines (such as those of pfιzєr and mσdernα) and adenovirus vaccines (such as that of Johnson & Johnson) for COVID-19 are, in fact, experimental gene therapies since they are designed to use gene technology to manipulate our cells to create spike proteins that try to trick the body into mounting an immune response. And thus, according to Dignitas Personae, there is a moral imperative of thorough testing and certification of safety and effectiveness (through extensive animal testing) in order to establish if there is a proportionate cause to use on humans any therapeutic intervention, especially including severely under tested experimental gene therapy vaccines, and most especially when they are tainted by abortion. And furthermore, consent must be “informed,” which also requires that the serious risks are reasonably ascertained “beforehand,” and then conveyed to the person before he may morally decide whether to receive the proposed vaccine.


But these moral conditions that are necessary in order to claim that the use of these abortion-tainted products may be morally acceptable have certainly not been met in the case of the experimental COVID-19 gene therapy vaccines. For instance, there have not been long-term testing upon animals to determine what the long-term harmful side effects of these COVID-19 vaccines are. Furthermore, the makers of these COVID-19 experimental gene therapy products admit that they have not ruled out any severe long term side effects, including sterilization, cancer, and death.


Without the safety and effectiveness data from long term studies performed upon animals, it is simply impossible to establish that there is a proportionate cause to use such dangerously under tested products upon human beings, especially when it comes to dispensing these experimental products to the population at large. And even more gravely alarming is the fact that, because necessary caution has been cast to the wind and these dangerous products have been injected into people anyway, there have been numerous reports of severe adverse reactions from the COVID-19 experimental gene therapy vaccines – including anaphylaxis, paralysis, neurological problems, and sadly many deaths, which have caused local health officials in various locations to wisely stop the barbaric vaccination programs. And sadder still, these unconscionable dangers are hitting the elderly and nursing homes the hardest.


Indeed, not only is the pre-requisite safety data lacking that is necessary “beforehand” to determine if there is proportionate cause that could theoretically make the use of these experimental COVID vaccines morally acceptable, the data are becoming overwhelming that the dangers of these products far outweigh the risks. And thus, according to Dignitas Personae #26, the abortion-tainted COVID-19 vaccines in question are mortally sinful to use on two more grounds. Namely, there is no proportionate cause for using them, and there is no informed consent for dangers that have not been sufficiently researched to be ascertained much less conveyed to those who must make an informed decision whether or not to use the products.


Humans are not lab mice, despite what the Big Pharma and Government health official eugenicists may want everyone to believe. Lab mice should still be tested upon for long-term research purposes, not humans. And this is absolutely the case for a health threat such as COVID-19 for which the average age of death is higher than the average age of death for the general population, and in fact only has a tiny .2% overall risk of death, even with the inflated statistics caused by heavily flawed counting methods used and promoted by the conflicted-interest federal government health agencies as docuмented here and here.


And this brings us to the final consideration of the necessary moral condition listed in the Vatican docuмents, that there must exist a legitimate extreme health threat that justifies the use of dangerous, and or abortion-tainted products at all. But how can there even be conceived of such a justifying cause for using such dangerous or abortion-tainted products, when the average age of what is being reported as COVID-19 death is higher than the average age of death in the general population, and not significantly higher for the elderly as during normal flu seasons? There is no such justifying cause at all, especially when we are seeing so many severe adverse reactions and deaths from the abortion-tainted COVID-19 experimental vaccines. God will never bless such immorally reckless disregard for life.


And we have not even brought up the issue of the massive blatant conflicts of interest that are present with all of the Big Pharma and government officials. They insist that these products are safe and effective for use, even as they personally profit from the products that they are vetting. They tell us that there is good proportionate reason to take these products, even though they tell us that by taking these vaccines you will still be susceptible to getting COVID-19, you will still be able to transmit COVID-19, and you will not be able to sue for damages if these products harm you and harm or kill your loved ones. And all of this is told to us by Big Pharma and government officials that have only promoted dangerous “solutions” from which they profit – namely, the grossly under-tested experimental COVID-19 vaccines, while not recommending protocols that will strengthen the immune system. These are not actions of individuals who are truly concerned about advancing the good of public health.


Ask yourself the following questions. Why did the CDC, throughout the year in 2020, recommend that PCR testing for COVID-19 be done at 40 cycles, instead of under 25 cycles as is proper, even though they knew that 40 cycles gives nearly all false positives, and thereby produce vastly inflated the COVID-19 case and death statistics? Why did the CDC change the standards for identifying COVID-19 cases to allow health officials to label virtually any respiratory symptom illness and death COVID-19, even on mere suspicion, without any hard evidence that COVID-19 was a contributing factor to an illness or death, which inflated the statistics even further?


Why do these same officials now discourage people from labeling as vaccine injury and death, the severe adverse effects and deaths that happen soon after getting jabbed with the COVID vaccines?


Why did they skip the complete animal testing on the COVID vaccines to determine the dangers and long-term effects, even though the mortality rate of COVID-19 is less lethal than the normal flu? Why are the dangers of using under-tested vaccines downplayed and the fact that these products are experimental not clearly explained to those who are lining up to get jabbed, and thereby keeping the people from having fully informed consent?


Why, if these experimental vaccines are “safe” to use as is being claimed, are the conflicted-interest Big Pharma and government officials indemnified from lawsuits for any injuries and deaths that these hugely profitable rushed to market products cause?


Why have our federal government health officials including Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, Dr. Redfield, Dr. Collins, and Dr. Slaoui promoted anti-science and anti-health protocols such as mask-wearing and lockdowns? These protocols have been proven to cause much more health harm than good. Why have they suppressed safe and effective protocols against COVID-19 that hundreds of doctors have used with great success? Why have our government health officials neglected to aggressively promote protocols such as the robust daily intake of vitamins which have long been proven to strengthen our immune systems, and to better fight against COVID? Where are the weekly or daily public service announcements promoting the use of Zinc with Vitamins A, B, C, and D? Why have they refrained from “warp speeding” such life-saving immune system strengthening protocols to the public during this last year, or as we speak?


I can think of only two possible reasons that could account for all of this. Either these government health officials are utterly incompetent as health officials and don't realize the necessity of things such as promoting immune system health, especially when there is supposed to be an elevated health threat present, or they actually want increased sickness and death (or at least its public perception) in order to create panic that will encourage people to take the COVID-19 experimental vaccines from which they are profitting. Take your pick.


Sadly, I tend to believe that it is a combination of both, with the latter explanation being the stronger determining factor, especially since these conflicted-interest government health officials happen to be eugenicists who want a drastic reduction in world population, and are all on board with the World Economic Forum’s nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr Great Reset that they are quite publicly and presently launching worldwide. Either way, it is irrational to be following the conflicted-interest advice of such corrupt government health officials or base arguments for having proportionate cause for using their products upon what such anti-science and anti-health officials say.


As for practical considerations as a result of all of this information, I first want say that I am very sorry that the Globalist, Big Pharma, and government-sponsored misinformation campaign surrounding COVID-19 has deceived countless people throughout the world, including most of the members of the Hierarchy and clergy of the Church, concerning the factual dangers of the coronavirus and the completely dangerous and un-proportional risks posed by the under-tested experimental vaccines. These vaccines are being promoted and administered as we speak.


But once we have the truth of the matters at hand, we must stop being a part of the lies with their devastating consequences for lives and souls, and instead do everything we can to spread the truth. Let us be humble enough to admit that we have been fooled, and then do everything possible to seek to undo the damage that has been done and prevent future harm as much as we are able, no matter how much we may be persecuted for stepping out of the politically “correct” propaganda of the party lines. The urgency of what we all must do to fight these evils cannot be over-estimated.


In conclusion, to re-cap, the dangerous, under-tested, abortion-tainted COVID-19 experimental vaccines, including those from pfιzєr, mσdernα, and Johnson & Johnson – which are being aggressively promoted by anti-life globalist eugenicists such as вιℓℓ gαтeѕ and the World Economic Forum (and government officials that they influence), who are openly and publicly on a mission to Great Reset their long desired nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr complete with a radical reduction in world population – are not morally licit to accept or facilitate, given the many extremely evil conditions involved.


And even according to the properly framed and understood moral principles invoked by the Vatican docuмents concerning abortion-tainted vaccines, the abortion-tainted, extremely dangerous, experimental COVID-19 vaccine products are mortally sinful to take or facilitate. This is especially since a proportionate cause to use such dangerous products has not only not been established, but the data continues to mount showing that these evil products are causing much more health harm than good. Whereas, non-abortion-tainted, morally good, safe, and effective alternatives to neutralize the health threat posed by COVID-19 are available, and thus are to be used instead of abortion tainted vaccines.


Humans have survived countless health threats for thousands of years. It is a blasphemous lack of faith to think that our All-Knowing, Almighty God Who created the Universe and all that it contains and holds all things in His Divine Providence would require or bless the use of abortion-tainted products in order for His own dear children, created in His Image and Likeness, in order to survive. Baby murder is one of the sins that cries to God in Heaven for vengeance! God does not respond to baby murder with the blessing of abortion by-products! For the love of God and the salvation of souls, all use of abortion-tainted products must stop.


And finally, may all men of good will refuse to offend God and resolutely reject these evil abortion-tainted experimental vaccines, as well as the nefarious agendas behind them, even if we must suffer great tribulations or even death for refusing to sin, just as the Holy Confessors and Martyrs have done before us. Let us storm Heaven with prayer for the Grace to remain steadfast in the love of God and His Laws, standing firm against all of the increasing corrupting evils of our day, come what may.


Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Immaculate Heart of Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
St. Joseph, pray for us.
All Holy Saints and Angels of God, pray for us.



Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!


Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11767
  • Reputation: +8009/-2979
  • Gender: Male
This is by far the greatest rebuttal of the remote material cooperation justification for taking abortive vaccines to date.

The SSPX needs to address this article directly, or concede and reverse its position.
Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11767
  • Reputation: +8009/-2979
  • Gender: Male
I suspect this anonymous Dominican is from Avrille (otherwise, why should he worry that readers would be distracted from the substance of the article, we’re he to put his name to it?).
Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31395
  • Reputation: +18664/-4720
  • Gender: Male
I suspect this αnσnymσus Dominican is from Avrille (otherwise, why should he worry that readers would be distracted from the substance of the article, we’re he to put his name to it?).

Not sure.  Could also be a well-known Conciliar Dominican.  Sadly, many of the Motu types among the Conciliars are to the right of the SSPX on this.


Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 29012
  • Reputation: +24786/-396
  • Gender: Male
I suspect this αnσnymσus Dominican is from Avrille (otherwise, why should he worry that readers would be distracted from the substance of the article, we’re he to put his name to it?).

And, of course, Dominicans (Trad ones in particular) have a history of being Theological powerhouses and good teachers (which is what a preacher is).

PREACHING to the people about some important, controversial issue -- backed up by logic and rock-solid theological principles? That's the Dominicans' specialty.

They aren't just any preachers, but a particular kind of preachers. Redemptorists are also preachers, but they are motivated to get you to convert, usually in the setting of a "Mission" or "Retreat". They try to move you to a full conversion to God. Their sermons are supposed to end with a fervent appeal to emotion -- to grab you, to motivate you to take action.

The Dominicans would be the experts at "new ground", something that has to be figured out, using Catholic theological principles. That's their specialty.

St. Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican. After he came along, the Church forgot what they were using before, and have used his Summa Theologica to train seminarians up till the Church was infiltrated and fully taken over at Vatican II.
Want to say "thank you"? 
You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11767
  • Reputation: +8009/-2979
  • Gender: Male
And in case it wasn't obvious, this priest is not conceding that there could be circuмstances which could justify receiving abortion-tainted jabs.

He's merely pointing out that, hypothetically supposing that were true, 3 of 4 criteria laid out for liceity are not met.

Consequently, the death jab is gravely illicit in every instance, until such time as all 4 criteria are satisfied (and they never will be).
Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!

Offline Prayerful

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 996
  • Reputation: +349/-58
  • Gender: Male
I think the writer is a mainstream Dominican. The OP are one of the few V2 orders who doing well in respect of vocations, and their priests are still rigorously trained. They might be no more than conservative, but whoever can shoot down self serving abuses of traditional thinking deserve support. If it was a Dominican of Avrille, say, the priest or brother would not have needed anonymity. Yet possibly it could be one of the SSPX brothers or priests who have to be careful. Anyhow, a well argued piece that doesn't abuse Catholic thought towards compliance with something so variously either harmful or ineffective. 

Personally I think this joke vax is more a support for authoritarian measures than population reduction. Why make the goy infertile? Africans aren't going to feed the bankers. It is something that has barely penetrated Africa, where the evil minded might see grounds for 'population control.' Anyhow, look how easy it proved to bring in measures barely considered since the Stalinist era in Russia. Yet who really knows.


Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11767
  • Reputation: +8009/-2979
  • Gender: Male
Bump.

These three shortcomings need to be memorized.
Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!

Offline richard

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
  • Reputation: +190/-24
  • Gender: Male
I suspect this αnσnymσus Dominican is from Avrille (otherwise, why should he worry that readers would be distracted from the substance of the article, we’re he to put his name to it?).
I probably need to get my eyes checked, I've skimmed the article and can't find where it says he is a Dominican.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11767
  • Reputation: +8009/-2979
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I probably need to get my eyes checked, I've skimmed the article and can't find where it says he is a Dominican.

    Nice catch!

    The original LSN article now just says “αnσnymσus priest.”

    I think it used to say “αnσnymσus Dominican priest.”

    But how it got changed on CI is anyone’s guess.  Maybe LSN  emailed Matthew?

    Or did we all hallucinate it?
    Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11767
    • Reputation: +8009/-2979
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nice catch!

    The original LSN article now just says “αnσnymσus priest.”

    I think it used to say “αnσnymσus Dominican priest.”

    But how it got changed on CI is anyone’s guess.  Maybe LSN  emailed Matthew?

    Or did we all hallucinate it?

    OK, I figured it out:

    I found the article at this link, which references another article at the top by a Dominican, who I somehow took as the author of the article in question:

    https://www.preciouslife.com/news/998/priests-analysis-of-vatican-docuмents-its-mortally-sinful-to-take-or-facilitate-coronavirus-vaccine/

    Not sure why, since that Dominican is obviously not αnσnymσus, but...

    The author of the refutation in question was writing αnσnymσusly as “Fr. Elias,” and there is nothing provided which would indicate he is a Dominican.

    Apologies for my confusion.
    Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11767
    • Reputation: +8009/-2979
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But the article doesn’t say what you want it to. It doesn’t say under no circuмstances can the vaccine be taken, only that the conditions, in the author’s opinion, have not been met.
     
    There are two conditions required for licit material cooperation: the object or action must be good (or at least indifferent) and there must be a grave reason for the cooperation. The other two conditions concerning cooperation in evil can be ignored (viz. the cooperator doesn’t intend the evil and the cooperator isn’t the cause of the evil) since if either were not verified the cooperation would be formal, not material.
     
    The object must be good in absolute terms; it is a moral good. To think only in physical terms one would only see the evil. For example, to kill is evil, but it can be morally good (in self defense) or morally bad (in robbery). To take a vaccine, then, is morally good (or at least indifferent).
     
    The only condition remaining is a sufficient reason. McHugh & Callan (Moral Theology) give this explanation, “A very grave reason for cooperation is the gain or retention of a very great good or the avoidance of a very great evil. A notable percentage of the goods of one's station in life should be considered as a very great good. A severe and long-continued illness, unemployment on the part of the bread-earner of a needy family, serious detriment to one's honor, reputation or peace of mind, etc., are examples of very great evils.
     
    So, a fear of loss of employment would be sufficient reason to take the vaccine.

    Neither does it say what your bosses want it to say:

    That if these conditions are present, taking the abortion jab is licit.

    He’s just saying that even if that principle held, the conditions for liceity in the case of COVID19/COVID19 vax have not been met.

    Consequently, what would happen if those circuмstances were met is moot/academic.

    All that matters in concreto, is that here and now, the Vatican’s docuмents/conditions (which the Society claims to rely upon) have not been satisfied, and consequently, the Society should not be telling people it is licit.

    As for McHugh/Callan, they are irrelevant: They can think and say whatever they want, but they are outranked by the CDF (ratified by the Popes), who specified the criteria to be satisfied, and job loss is not among them.
    Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7923
    • Reputation: +7731/-774
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I suspect this αnσnymσus Dominican is from Avrille (otherwise, why should he worry that readers would be distracted from the substance of the article, we’re he to put his name to it?).



    That they seest & speakest Catholic Truth... is why Bp. Fellay hated them so much as to stop giving them Holy Orders.

    :incense:
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11767
    • Reputation: +8009/-2979
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • No, if you read the article dispassionately it clearly does agree with the SSPX position.

    I think your agenda has gotten the better of your critical thinking skills:

    The priest says that 3 of the 4 criteria laid out by the CDF have not been met, and therefore recourse to the vax is gravely illicit.

    The SSPX -and quite naturally yourself on their behest- wish to interject different (and fewer) criteria, so as to show them satisfied, and falsely conclude the vax is licit.

    Consequently, it is not the priest who ought to be suspected of deception, but yourself:

    If the SSPX is saying they accept the Vatican criteria for the (alleged) liceity of taking abortion jabs, then the criteria which must be met (as specified in the article) are:

      -There is no available morally untainted therapeutic intervention that neutralizes the proposed health threat. (Fail)
      -There must exist a proportionate cause for using an abortion tainted therapeutic intervention based on the risks involved. (Fail)
      -There must exist an actual grave threat to your health or that of others if you were to refrain from taking the proposed abortion tainted therapeutic intervention. (Fail)
    -One must oppose the abortion taintedness of the therapeutic intervention.

    This nonsense you suggest about leaving aside the 2008 CDF docuмent Dignitas Personae, in favor of the earlier (and superceded) 2005 PAFL non-magisterial, advisory-only docuмent, as alluded to earlier, is only because the latter (superceded) docuмent is more ambiguous and has fewer criteria, whereas the former is magisterial and specific.

    No, I don't think I'll let you escape, broaden, or otherwise disqualify the 2008 criteria.

    You can come up with all the non-magisterial, fallacious, sophistic distinctions you desire, but none of them will be able to overcome the 2008 docuмent: You don't get to replace those criteria just because they rebut Menzingen. 

    The death jabs do not meet the Vatican's criteria (regardless of whether or not they meet yours), and therefore the jab remains today in all cases morally gravely illicit.

    Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!