Author Topic: Don Curzio Nitoglia on Abortive Vaccines (Read 5273 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #45 on:** December 05, 2020, 09:16:02 AM »

In addition to these pre-conciliar criteria for double effect, the following conservative conciliar definitions/requirements are available online, and appear to be, in the main, in line with most of the other pre-conciliar sources:

Catholic Dictionary: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33215

The principle that says it is morally allowable to perform an act that has at least two effects, one good and one bad. It may be used under the following conditions:
1. the act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent; by the act to be done is meant the deed itself taken independently of its consequences;
2. the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect; the evil must be only an incidental by-product and not an actual factor in the accomplishment of the good;
3. the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted; all bad will must be excluded from the act;
4. there must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect. At least the good and evil effects should be nearly equivalent. All four conditions must be fulfilled. If any one of them is not satisfied, the act is morally wrong.

EWTN: https://www.ewtn.com/vote/double-effect.asp

The Principle of Double Effect is used to determine when an action which has two effects, one good and one evil, may still be chosen without sin. This principle is attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas, who used it to show that killing in self-defense is justified (Summa Theologiae I-II q64 art. 7).
With respect to voting, it would allow under certain conditions the toleration of the unintended evil of another for a proportionate reason. All four conditions must be satisfied:

The action must be morally good, or indifferent, as to object, motive and circuмstances.
The bad effect(s) may only be tolerated, not directly willed.
The good effect must be caused at least as directly as the bad.
The good effect(s) must be proportionate to compensate for the bad effect(s).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #46 on:** December 05, 2020, 09:22:10 AM »

Another traditional source enumerating the criteria for double effect would be Don Curzio Nitoglia's article itself (though not a moralist, he certainly took these criteria from some traditional source):

"However, exceptionally, moralists add that this can be licit, only if four conditions are met:
1°) the act must be good in itself, if it is bad it is forbidden as sinful;
2°) the operating subject must aim at the good effect and not at the bad one, that is he must have a morally good intention and the bad effect must not be wanted or foreseen directly, but only allowed indirectly;
3°) the two effects must not be connected between them so that the good effect (end) is born from the bad one (middle), because you cannot do the bad to obtain the good, the good end does not justify the bad means;
4°) there must be a serious, just and proportionate reason to allow and not want the bad effect."

TKGS · « **Reply #47 on:** December 05, 2020, 09:46:55 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on November 27, 2020, 08:26:26 AM

Obviously, murder victims do not give consent to have their organs harvested.

Many murder victims may have given consent. In my State, when an individual obtains a driver's license or State ID card, the clerk will ask if the individual wishes to be an organ donor. If the answer is yes, this is noted on the license/ID and is legally consent for organ harvesting regardless of how the individual dies.

I suspect this is the case in many, most, or even all States.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #48 on:** December 05, 2020, 10:02:16 AM »

Quote from: TKGS on December 05, 2020, 09:46:55 AM

Many murder victims may have given consent. In my State, when an individual obtains a driver's license or State ID card, the clerk will ask if the individual wishes to be an organ donor. If the answer is yes, this is noted on the license/ID and is legally consent for organ harvesting regardless of how the individual dies.

I suspect this is the case in many, most, or even all States.

I tend to doubt this foetus had a drivers license, or any means of understanding and giving consent.

2Vermont · « **Reply #49 on:** December 05, 2020, 11:13:46 AM »

Wow. Thanks Sean. I will take a closer look at them.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Don Curzio Nitoglia on Abortive Vaccines (Read 5273 times)

SeanJohnson

Re: Don Curzio Nitoglia on Abortive Vaccines

SeanJohnson

Re: Don Curzio Nitoglia on Abortive Vaccines

TKGS

Re: Don Curzio Nitoglia on Abortive Vaccines

SeanJohnson

Re: Don Curzio Nitoglia on Abortive Vaccines

2Vermont

Re: Don Curzio Nitoglia on Abortive Vaccines