[Is Fr. Chazal saying that Fr. Scott did a u-turn and accepted in 2006 the insidious Roman docuмent of 2005?
In 2000, Fr. Peter Scot argued that there is a [direct] causal relationship between the baby abortion and the vaccine. In 2006, he recognized the insidious Roman docuмent of 2005.
What remains of the doctrinal rigor of the SSPX of yesteryear? It is completely outdated on this subject, even by conservative liberals.
Is Fr. Chazal saying that Fr. Scott did a u-turn and accepted in 2006 the insidious Roman docuмent of 2005?
"What does the Church say? The docuмent quoted, from the year 2005, comes from the Conciliar Church, our enemy, the one we must bring down. And this docuмent insinuates that if we are far enough away from the act of abortion, the moral link with abortion that made the vaccine possible becomes purely material, free of fault.
I'm totally against vaccines, but I do agree with the high-level logic that there has to be some line where one is "far enough away from abortion" that a moral issue is not involved.According to that logic, if I kill someone, and I elude capture for 40 years, and then take refuge with my mother (who knows I am a fugitive), then it should be permissible for her to harbor me, since she was not the murderer, and the crime was 40 years ago?
However, even if every, single vaccine was not related to abortion, one still has to wonder if there is a secondary moral issue - the problem of taking a vaccine that is dangerous to one's health...possibly fatal. That's what these things are designed to do - make one sick/infertile/die.Is maintaining a cell line harvested from a killed human for whatever reason a good thing?
I'm totally against vaccines, but I do agree with the high-level logic that there has to be some line where one is "far enough away from abortion" that a moral issue is not involved.
According to that logic, if I kill someone, and I elude capture for 40 years, and then take refuge with my mother (who knows I am a fugitive), then it should be permissible for her to harbor me, since she was not the murderer, and the crime was 40 years ago?.
I may not have participated in the abortion, but there is a relationship between supply and demand that makes my purchase a cause that drives the industry into doing the things they do.
STOP announcing that it’s okay to accept a vaccine tied to abortion before the vaccine is even available!
When you do that, you undermine the fight for ethical medicines. We all may as well give up on demanding ethical alternatives. Why would the pharmaceutical industry ever move away from the use of aborted children in research if leaders in the Catholic Church are making it known that we don't really care if they do or not?
What is/are the specific contradiction(s) of Fr. Scott? I’m not seeing anything. His article on MMR seems consistent.
Also, I don’t see Fr. Chazal addressing anything specific or substantive here. For example, I don’t see him rebutting the 2005 Pontifical Academy for Life’s study, which Archbishop Viganò also accepts since he wrote in The Remnant:
On the one hand [the bishops of England and Wales] 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] 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.”
Note the reference [3] which directs the reader to the “unchanging principles of Catholic morality” is this:
Cf. Pontifical Academy for Life, Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Human Fetuses, 5 June 2005.
It seems to me that the issue is far from being as straightforward as many think.
According to that logic, if I kill someone, and I elude capture for 40 years, and then take refuge with my mother (who knows I am a fugitive), then it should be permissible for her to harbor me, since she was not the murderer, and the crime was 40 years ago?
So, no specifics just a general accusation. But following your logic killing in self defence contradicts the Commandment “thou shalt not kill”.
Fr. Scott’s articles are not contradictory, it is just one explores in greater depth an extreme case. It’s the same with Abp. Viganò who stated that the ‘unchanging principles of Catholic morality’ are found in the Pontifical Academy for Life’s “Moral Reflections”.
To state that such vaccines can not be manufactured or used as a general principle isn’t contradicted if in an extreme case different advice is given, i.e. a mandatory requirement by the civil authority. But the first steps taken should be to seek out alternatives and if there aren’t any then raise a moral objection.
Taking such a vaccine should be a last resort, taken under duress, and not being a first choice. That’s what Viganò is attacking in the Pontifical Academy’s latest article; it reverses this ‘order of battle’ and allows vaccines derived from aborted fetuses as a first choice without any moral objection whatever.
It is these subtleties and nuances that you fail to grasp.
Each time a virus replicated it sheds it's former genetic material and takes up the genetic material of it's new host. Their position is saying it's no longer the same type of tissue multi generations later. To use the shirt analogy, if every time the shirt changed hands, parts of it were replaced, buttons material etc and the shirt passed on now has no material left from the murder is it still the same shirt? That's the question being asked. Is that shirt the same shirt from the murder? It's not answering the question of guilt or what is or is not acceptable. It is based upon the fact that the original thing no longer existsIt is not the nature of the virus, but the vaccine, which is under consideration.
Sean, a vaccine is made partially from a virus, so Confederate’s question is important.
.
Honestly, we need a good, orthodox, Catholic virologist to answer these scientific concerns.
If the 1st replication contained 98% of the original material and 20th contained 50% and the 95th contained 20% and the 200th contained 0% then yes this is the case. Virus use the genetic material available to replicate it changes everytime it makes a copy since it is in a new host
No it's not. Again if no original material exists this is not the case.Fr. Scott is also a medical doctor.
The argument that you wish to make is simple and valid if worded as 'the usage of any portion of an aborted child is repugnant" end of story end of argument.
This however is not the way some see this and denying the usage of a thing is based upon principals of Medico-Moral teaching. Most are not equipped to do so, this the Church set up institutes to answer the questions.
You can not pretend that a simple knowledge of Moral theology suffices,
Fr. Scott is also a medical doctor.With respect, Sean, I believe that Fr Scott was a medicine student at one point in his life, but did not complete the training. Not that that disqualifies him at all.
With respect, Sean, I believe that Fr Scott was a medicine student at one point in his life, but did not complete the training. Not that that disqualifies him at all.Oof, it seems you are right. Thank you for that important correction!
After many attempts, cell growth took off only several months after the isolation of a single transformed clone.
293 cell lines are known to have been transformed with an adenoviral sequence that integrated on chromosome 19 (ref. 4 and see below). A 332.5-kbp genomic region containing the adenoviral sequence insertion site has been amplified in all sequenced 293 cell lines:
Many polymorphisms and several copy number alterations were found in these genes, sometimes in all of the 293-derived lines but mostly in just a few of them.
With respect, Sean, I believe that Fr Scott was a medicine student at one point in his life, but did not complete the training. Not that that disqualifies him at all.For the record, Fr Scott did indeed complete his medical training, but as you say, Nadir, this contributes little to the argument.
1 you do realize that the cells in question are all from a cloned cellNone of which would have been possible without an abortion.
Hek231 is not used in the Moderna vaccine
This is before usage
WI-38 and MRC-5 are much more problematic.
Last time I looked the prelates you mentioned are NO, so you can quote NO prelates who agree with you but the theologians who actually deal with Bioethics we can just ignore
You have the cell...and the line of causality stems directly from abortion.
The cell is cloned.
The DNA of the cloned cell is replicated.
The opposite DNA sequence is created
This sequence is then used.
All this happens before the new sequence is used to create another sequence with the desired characteristics for use to then replicate.
This happens over and over.
This can be done with any stem cell.
Again, I am not weighing in on objections to vaccines, not valid moral objections to them but I will object to badly thought out medico-moral theologyYou mean like the “medico-moral theology” promoted by the SSPX until 2006?
You can't have it both ways you agree with Fr Scott until 2006 then he's wrong ok logical.
So the cell is from abortion or a cadaver?
Was the abortion done to derive the cell?
Traditional bioethicists do not exist because there's no one qualified to teach. What you are suggesting is that we listen to people not properly trained?
Personally I would prefer a surgeon to operate but you prefer an anesthesiologist.
WI38 and MRC5 are from directly procured abortions for the purpose of making cell lines. This is one major difference but you prefer to lump all reasoning together.
You may be shocked that pre Vatican II it was lawful for a nurse to assist at an abortion for certain grave reasons so long as what she was doing could have been done by another ( handing over instruments, patient observation, etc)?
We are not protestant, we don't make up science or moral theology. We follow reasoned teaching presented by theological experts in their field. Especially when we can not make a proper judgement on a subject outside our competency. We don't prescribe our own penances, hear our own confessions, or baptize ourselves either
I already quoted studies on the HEK.Which point(s)?
You're still not addressing my points,
You still don't get the difference between WI and HEK neither do your sources. You're taking a view as if no differences can be had between two different things.
Provide the evidence for this outlandish claim. The Church has always condemned abortion for any reason so how could She rule that a nurse may participate in baby killing “for certain grave reasons”?
You may be shocked that pre Vatican II it was lawful for a nurse to assist at an abortion for certain grave reasons so long as what she was doing could have been done by another ( handing over instruments, patient observation, etc)?
There were at least three questions.What were they?
Hmm. I think I might be seeing what you're getting at here. Would this situation be analogous to the transplant of a heart that came as a result of a murder? In that case the recipient would not have cooperated with the evil...murder ....simply because they got that person's heart.
So the cell is from abortion or a cadaver?
Was the abortion done to derive the cell?
Hmm. I think I might be seeing what you're getting at here. Would this situation be analogous to the transplant of a heart that came as a result of a murder? In that case the recipient would not have cooperated with the evil...murder ....simply because they got that person's heart.Except that this is inapplicable, because the HEK293 did in fact come from an abortion.
Hmm. I think I might be seeing what you're getting at here. Would this situation be analogous to the transplant of a heart that came as a result of a murder? In that case the recipient would not have cooperated with the evil...murder ....simply because they got that person's heart.Not to change the subject but...
Except that this is inapplicable, because the HEK293 did in fact come from an abortion.Or you know that the person was killed with a sole intention of getting that hart.
Yes they absolutely kill people to getThere. Fixed it.majorunpaired organs
Except that this is inapplicable, because the HEK293 did in fact come from an abortion.How is the HEK293 that came from an abortion differ from an organ transplant coming as a result of a murder? In this case how is the recipient of the vaccine that resulted from an abortion differ from the recipient of an organ transplant as a result of a murder? I am specifically referring to situations where the abortion/murder did not happen to cause the HEK293/organ availability.
Not to change the subject but...OK, if this is true, then pick any kind of organ transplant as a result of a death (not caused to get said organ).
It is my understanding that all heart transplants use the heart of a person who was killed for the specific purpose. A beating heart is needed. I suggest you further investigate this.
Does anyone have an authoritative traditional source declaring we can use the organs of murder victims?I would be fascinated to see such a source as well.
Not traditional, but this article cites the 1992 conciliar catechism as implicitly rejecting the moral permissibility of using the organs of a murder victim:First of all, just a general comment that my head is spinning watching quotes from the SSPX and the "Conciliar" church being used/not used depending upon whether it supports one's position. I think everyone here needs to realize that there are no authoritative (aka pre-Vatican II) teachings on this topic.
“It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent (no. 2296).”
https://sites.sju.edu/icb/position-catholic-church-organ-donation/ (https://sites.sju.edu/icb/position-catholic-church-organ-donation/)
Obviously, a murder victim does not consent to donate his organs.
The reasons for the impermissibility would be identical to those Don Curzio Nitoglia mentions in the other thread pertaining to abortions (ie., failure to meet several criteria necessary for applying double effect: The good effect comes directly from the evil act; the evil outweighs the good effect; etc.).
First of all, just a general comment that my head is spinning watching quotes from the SSPX and the "Conciliar" church being used/not used depending upon whether it supports one's position. I think everyone here needs to realize that there are no authoritative (aka pre-Vatican II) teachings on this topic.
With respect to the above post, it does mention explicit consent from a "proxy", so I suspect that if a family member consented to the transplant that would change the morality of someone receiving the organ. It doesn't have to be from the murder victim.
As a result, I don't see how those receiving the transplant are guilty of, an accomplice to, or in any way supporting the murder act itself. The discussions regarding a vaccine using fetal cells tend to suggest that those that use the vaccine would be doing at least one of those things.
I lean towards not taking these vaccines by the way, but I don't have the authority to expect others to do the same. I don't think this is as black and white as many are making it. And I think that is why there are theologians who teach the material/remote aspect to the topic.
But there have been other Catholic moral principles used by others of which you and others disregard. Every single explanation is an interpretation of Catholic moral principles. Who is to say which is correct and MUST be followed on pain of mortal sin?
Fact is...there is none.
I haven’t disregarded any arguments based on Catholic moral principles. Rather, I have chosen Fr. Scott (and the old SSPX), and failing that, of Don Nitoglia, over the arguments of the neoSSPX and 2005 PAFL.OK, so I was trying very hard not to inject the topic of sedevacantism into this discussion. But since you did, you're right: your position allows you to sift the teachings of what you claim to be your authority. If that's okay for you, why can't other Catholics sift and interpret how they see fit?
The arguments I am disregarding are those not based on moral principles (eg., Confederate Catholic seems to want to preempt the moral discussion altogether, by advancing uncited medical assertions, like today’s HEK293 contains no fetal matter, or others attempting to create doubt regarding the fact of the 1972 abortion, despite practically the entire pharmaceutical industry acknowledging the fact, etc).
Note also that, because I am not sedevacantist, I do not reject the conclusions of conciliar prelates simply because they are conciliar, as you must. Consequently, when they reach correct conclusions (as I believe so many have on this issue), I will hold them out in support of the old SSPX position, even if at present their unsupported (as yet) conclusions are only arguments from authority, rather than the application of principles.
OK, so I was trying very hard not to inject the topic of sedevacantism into this discussion. But since you did, you're right: your position allows you to sift the teachings of what you claim to be your authority. If that's okay for you, why can't other Catholics sift and interpret how they see fit?
I'll be honest. I have no idea what CC is talking about, so I won't comment on it.
As for the 1972 abortion, I think it's pertinent. Yes, the pharmaceutical industry says it was an elective abortion. It also states that other vaccines used in the 1960's such as the MMR used elective abortions. Why is it that you trust what they say? Big Pharma is suddenly trustworthy? If these abortions were illegal (which they would have been at that time), how did they get the cells? Perhaps I have no idea what I'm talking about with this, but 2+2 doesn't = 4 for me.
I will chime in later, but upon further reflection I have come to the conclusion that the use of vaccines made with aborted fetal cells is in fact a formal participation in evil and not just material.
You are listening to an anonymous forum poster (who has no idea what they are talking about), and which contradicts what the rest of the planet attests to as a matter of fact, to form doubt there really was an abortion??OK, that would explain how they procured the cells; however, your post did not answer why you can sift and interpret the teachings of what you claim to be your authority as you see fit, but other Catholics can not sift and interpret their teachings the way they see fit...perhaps even agree with them.
Abortions were illegal in the Netherlands until 1984, EXCEPT TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/medicalxpress.com/news/2020-10-fetal-cells-1970s-power-medical.amp (https://www.google.com/amp/s/medicalxpress.com/news/2020-10-fetal-cells-1970s-power-medical.amp)
OK, if this is true, then pick any kind of organ transplant as a result of a death (not caused to get said organ).No. "Any kind of organ transplant as a result of a death" would include organs that have been voluntarily willed for the purpose of transplant.
Me too (for the reasons adduced by Fr. Scott).
Can’t wait to read your reasons.
But presuming we were wrong, the double effect analysis by Fr. Nitoglia would be insurmountable anyway.
:popcorn:
No. "Any kind of organ transplant as a result of a death" would include organs that have been voluntarily willed for the purpose of transplant.I know what you were speaking of. My point was to change the organ to help you see what I was trying to say...which was to question the culpability of the recipient of a transplant after a murder (since the heart was a bad example).
I was speaking specifically of heart transplants. Hearts are a single unpaired organ, unlike a kidney, one of which can be donated without causing the death of the donor. There is no way to acquire a heart and transplant it without killing the donor. This is why "brain death" was invented - to deceive the public.
Here's my thinking, and this has been touched on earlier a bit in discussions on this topic.Thanks for sharing your thinking. Has any other traditional priest considered it formal cooperation in evil?
Let's say there's a gang who steals cars and then have a car lot where they sell this stuff. Well, really wanting to get an extremely cheap car, I go to their lot and buy one, despite knowing that they're stolen. I could say, "well, I don't condone their theft of the cars and I disagree with it and I wish they hadn't done it." Do you, really? No, you don't. You're implicitly actually in formal agreement with what they did because you're reaping the benefits of their evil actions in getting a cheap car. You're implicitly in formal cooperation with their evil deed. This is not just a merely material cooperation. Also, by creating a market for these stolen goods, you're also in cooperation with the evildoers by providing a formal motive for their evil activity. It's similar to when you tempt someone to sin. If I were to take pictures of naked women and put them in front of some young man's face, in inciting the evil, I would now be a formal cooperator in the resulting sin. You can't just say, "well, I didn't really want him to consent." We've also raised this issue before in the context of Sacramental theology. If I take a loaded gun, put it against an innocent person's head, and pull the trigger, I can't just argue "well, I wanted to pull the trigger but I didn't want the person to die." That's nonsense. In willing the cause of death, you're also willing the death itself. Consequently, in willing and participating in a formal cause/motive of the evildoers' actions (in the car stealing scenario), one is a participant in the formal motive behind the evil act, and are therefore a formal cooperator in the evil. You can't just say, "I really want cheap cars, but I don't agree with these guys stealing them." In wanting the one, you are implicitly wanting the other ... just as in the pulling the trigger scenario beforehand. Just because the purchase of the car happened after the theft in time, it does not mean that your purchase of the automobile is not also a contributing cause of the theft and therefore entails formal cooperation. While being posterior in time, it's still anterior from the perspective of causality.
And NOW, if we recognize that this isn't merely material cooperation in evil, suddenly double effect does play a role, and then I would agree with the rest of Fr. Nitoglia's analysis. Now, there must be some principle of double effect to justify it, and then the criteria related to double effect come into play ... such as proportionality. Going back to the car lot scenario. If I'm practically dying of starvation and I need a car to be able to make some money, and the only one I can afford comes from that lot of stolen cars, I can purchase the car to ensure my survival even if it has the double effect of providing motivation to the car thieves. But in the case of abortion, there's no proportionate justifying cause ... since one can never take an innocent life, even if in order to save millions of lives.
Here's my thinking, and this has been touched on earlier a bit in discussions on this topic.Would this argument preclude a nurse from providing care to a woman after a abortion?
Let's say there's a gang who steals cars and then have a car lot where they sell this stuff. Well, really wanting to get an extremely cheap car, I go to their lot and buy one, despite knowing that they're stolen. I could say, "well, I don't condone their theft of the cars and I disagree with it and I wish they hadn't done it." Do you, really? No, you don't. You're implicitly actually in formal agreement with what they did because you're reaping the benefits of their evil actions in getting a cheap car. You're implicitly in formal cooperation with their evil deed. This is not just a merely material cooperation. Also, by creating a market for these stolen goods, you're also in cooperation with the evildoers by providing a formal motive for their evil activity. It's similar to when you tempt someone to sin. If I were to take pictures of naked women and put them in front of some young man's face, in inciting the evil, I would now be a formal cooperator in the resulting sin. You can't just say, "well, I didn't really want him to consent." We've also raised this issue before in the context of Sacramental theology. If I take a loaded gun, put it against an innocent person's head, and pull the trigger, I can't just argue "well, I wanted to pull the trigger but I didn't want the person to die." That's nonsense. In willing the cause of death, you're also willing the death itself. Consequently, in willing and participating in a formal cause/motive of the evildoers' actions (in the car stealing scenario), one is a participant in the formal motive behind the evil act, and are therefore a formal cooperator in the evil. You can't just say, "I really want cheap cars, but I don't agree with these guys stealing them." In wanting the one, you are implicitly wanting the other ... just as in the pulling the trigger scenario beforehand. Just because the purchase of the car happened after the theft in time, it does not mean that your purchase of the automobile is not also a contributing cause of the theft and therefore entails formal cooperation. While being posterior in time, it's still anterior from the perspective of causality.
And NOW, if we recognize that this isn't merely material cooperation in evil, suddenly double effect does play a role, and then I would agree with the rest of Fr. Nitoglia's analysis. Now, there must be some principle of double effect to justify it, and then the criteria related to double effect come into play ... such as proportionality. Going back to the car lot scenario. If I'm practically dying of starvation and I need a car to be able to make some money, and the only one I can afford comes from that lot of stolen cars, I can purchase the car to ensure my survival even if it has the double effect of providing motivation to the car thieves. But in the case of abortion, there's no proportionate justifying cause ... since one can never take an innocent life, even if in order to save millions of lives.
Here's my thinking, and this has been touched on earlier a bit in discussions on this topic.Your car theft analogy fails in a number of aspects:
Let's say there's a gang who steals cars and then have a car lot where they sell this stuff. Well, really wanting to get an extremely cheap car, I go to their lot and buy one, despite knowing that they're stolen. I could say, "well, I don't condone their theft of the cars and I disagree with it and I wish they hadn't done it." Do you, really? No, you don't. You're implicitly actually in formal agreement with what they did because you're reaping the benefits of their evil actions in getting a cheap car. You're implicitly in formal cooperation with their evil deed. This is not just a merely material cooperation. Also, by creating a market for these stolen goods, you're also in cooperation with the evildoers by providing a formal motive for their evil activity. It's similar to when you tempt someone to sin. If I were to take pictures of naked women and put them in front of some young man's face, in inciting the evil, I would now be a formal cooperator in the resulting sin. You can't just say, "well, I didn't really want him to consent." We've also raised this issue before in the context of Sacramental theology. If I take a loaded gun, put it against an innocent person's head, and pull the trigger, I can't just argue "well, I wanted to pull the trigger but I didn't want the person to die." That's nonsense. In willing the cause of death, you're also willing the death itself. Consequently, in willing and participating in a formal cause/motive of the evildoers' actions (in the car stealing scenario), one is a participant in the formal motive behind the evil act, and are therefore a formal cooperator in the evil. You can't just say, "I really want cheap cars, but I don't agree with these guys stealing them." In wanting the one, you are implicitly wanting the other ... just as in the pulling the trigger scenario beforehand. Just because the purchase of the car happened after the theft in time, it does not mean that your purchase of the automobile is not also a contributing cause of the theft and therefore entails formal cooperation. While being posterior in time, it's still anterior from the perspective of causality.
And NOW, if we recognize that this isn't merely material cooperation in evil, suddenly double effect does play a role, and then I would agree with the rest of Fr. Nitoglia's analysis. Now, there must be some principle of double effect to justify it, and then the criteria related to double effect come into play ... such as proportionality. Going back to the car lot scenario. If I'm practically dying of starvation and I need a car to be able to make some money, and the only one I can afford comes from that lot of stolen cars, I can purchase the car to ensure my survival even if it has the double effect of providing motivation to the car thieves. But in the case of abortion, there's no proportionate justifying cause ... since one can never take an innocent life, even if in order to save millions of lives.
Would this argument preclude a nurse from providing care to a woman after a abortion?Not necessarily, but it depends on a number of issues including whether holding such a position would cause scandal.
But in the case of abortion, there's no proportionate justifying cause ... since one can never take an innocent life, even if in order to save millions of lives.
Here's my thinking, and this has been touched on earlier a bit in discussions on this topic..
Let's say there's a gang who steals cars and then have a car lot where they sell this stuff. Well, really wanting to get an extremely cheap car, I go to their lot and buy one, despite knowing that they're stolen. I could say, "well, I don't condone their theft of the cars and I disagree with it and I wish they hadn't done it." Do you, really? No, you don't. You're implicitly actually in formal agreement with what they did because you're reaping the benefits of their evil actions in getting a cheap car. You're implicitly in formal cooperation with their evil deed. This is not just a merely material cooperation. Also, by creating a market for these stolen goods, you're also in cooperation with the evildoers by providing a formal motive for their evil activity. It's similar to when you tempt someone to sin. If I were to take pictures of naked women and put them in front of some young man's face, in inciting the evil, I would now be a formal cooperator in the resulting sin. You can't just say, "well, I didn't really want him to consent." We've also raised this issue before in the context of Sacramental theology. If I take a loaded gun, put it against an innocent person's head, and pull the trigger, I can't just argue "well, I wanted to pull the trigger but I didn't want the person to die." That's nonsense. In willing the cause of death, you're also willing the death itself. Consequently, in willing and participating in a formal cause/motive of the evildoers' actions (in the car stealing scenario), one is a participant in the formal motive behind the evil act, and are therefore a formal cooperator in the evil. You can't just say, "I really want cheap cars, but I don't agree with these guys stealing them." In wanting the one, you are implicitly wanting the other ... just as in the pulling the trigger scenario beforehand. Just because the purchase of the car happened after the theft in time, it does not mean that your purchase of the automobile is not also a contributing cause of the theft and therefore entails formal cooperation. While being posterior in time, it's still anterior from the perspective of causality.
And NOW, if we recognize that this isn't merely material cooperation in evil, suddenly double effect does play a role, and then I would agree with the rest of Fr. Nitoglia's analysis. Now, there must be some principle of double effect to justify it, and then the criteria related to double effect come into play ... such as proportionality. Going back to the car lot scenario. If I'm practically dying of starvation and I need a car to be able to make some money, and the only one I can afford comes from that lot of stolen cars, I can purchase the car to ensure my survival even if it has the double effect of providing motivation to the car thieves. But in the case of abortion, there's no proportionate justifying cause ... since one can never take an innocent life, even if in order to save millions of lives.
Ladislaus:.
Let's say there's a gang who steals cars and then have a car lot where they sell this stuff. Well, really wanting to get an extremely cheap car, I go to their lot and buy one, despite knowing that they're stolen.
Ladislaus:.
If I take a loaded gun, put it against an innocent person's head, and pull the trigger, I can't just argue "well, I wanted to pull the trigger but I didn't want the person to die." That's nonsense. In willing the cause of death, you're also willing the death itself. Consequently, in willing and participating in a formal cause/motive of the evildoers' actions (in the car stealing scenario), one is a participant in the formal motive behind the evil act, and are therefore a formal cooperator in the evil.
Here's the problem. The babies whose cells were used to develop vaccines were killed 50 years ago. Unless you believe in retrocausality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality), no action done today can have an effect that took place 50 years ago.So if I rob a bank, and leave the money for my family, they should have no qualms of conscience about using the money, so long as enough time passes?
So if I rob a bank, and leave the money for my family, they should have no qualms of conscience about using the money, so long as enough time passes?No. That is exactly the same as Ladislaus's analogy with knowingly buying a stolen car. A person who acquires stolen goods, knowing they are stolen, has an obligation to restore them to their rightful owner, and becomes guilty of theft when he refuses to do so. Or you could say he commits the sin of theft when he knowingly buys a stolen article; I guess it amounts to the same thing.
Yeti, you have wrong information if you believe that:.
The babies whose cells were used to develop vaccines were killed 50 years ago.
You see, not every “designer” abortion yields the desired effect and they need to repeat the atrocity ad nauseam.
.
Okay, so the baby whose cells were used to develop the COVID-19 -- when was he or she killed?
.Yeti, I have been trying to find out dates.
Okay, so the baby whose cells were used to develop the COVID-19 -- when was he or she killed?
You may be shocked that pre Vatican II it was lawful for a nurse to assist at an abortion for certain grave reasons so long as what she was doing could have been done by another ( handing over instruments, patient observation, etc)?Thank you for posting those pages, Con Cath.
OK, if this is true, then pick any kind of organ transplant as a result of a death (not caused to get said organ).All major transplanted organs have to be "alive" which necessitates a live donor, That would include heart, lungs, intestines etc. Usually kidneys and partial liver transplants might be ok as they usually do not kill the donor, although the probability of compromising their health is great. Why transplant dead organs from a dead donor that can't work? As Nadir said, brain death was invented to allow harvesting of organs from live, compromised patients.
Your car theft analogy fails in a number of aspects:
First, the object of the car thieves is not the common good, unlike those of the vaccine scientists.
If the 1st replication contained 98% of the original material and 20th contained 50% and the 95th contained 20% and the 200th contained 0% then yes this is the case. Virus use the genetic material available to replicate it changes everytime it makes a copy since it is in a new hostIn the case above, wouldn't the 200th time not contain 0%, but contain an amount that is approaching zero, but never reaches zero. A typical limit problem in calculus?
In the case above, wouldn't the 200th time not contain 0%, but contain an amount that is approaching zero, but never reaches zero. A typical limit problem in calculus?
The amount of fetal material would then get infinitely small, but never completely disappear.
And since God is infinitely good, an infinitely small part of the original material would be infinitely offensive to the Infinite Good.
Again abortion is also used to refer to a pregnancy that ends due to natural means as well. No one actually knows if the HEK was a procured abortion"Though HEK293 is commonly believed to have been obtained from an aborted human fetus, I received an e-mail a few months ago from Professor Frank Graham, who established this cell line. He tells me that to the best of his knowledge, the exact origin of the HEK293 fetal cells is unclear. They could have come from either a spontaneous miscarriage or an elective abortion." https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/05/63752/
"Though HEK293 is commonly believed to have been obtained from an aborted human fetus, I received an e-mail a few months ago from Professor Frank Graham, who established this cell line. He tells me that to the best of his knowledge, the exact origin of the HEK293 fetal cells is unclear. They could have come from either a spontaneous miscarriage or an elective abortion." https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/05/63752/
Since there is no way to know for sure, we must err on the side of caution.
First, the object of the car thieves is not the common good, unlike those of the vaccine scientists.
2 someone else also cites a source and Sean still doesn't believe there's a source. P.S. mine was from an actual peer reviewed medical journal but hey it's not a sourceWhat are you talking about???
Sean, the abortion was from 1972, and you mention multiple cell lines which affect the % of original cells used, but then you conclude there is a “direct causality”? Makes no sense. It would only be direct causality if the vaccine was using 100% cells from 1972 or 100% cells from abortion. Which doesn’t happen.What multiple cell lines have I mentioned? Its CC who wants to keep talking about that.
Many people believe it was the former (and people want to believe it, because it seems less bad if the murders happened in the 1960s than if you are actively participating in ongoing murders), but I have heard several sources say it is the latter:
https://youtu.be/GpgpRtbMnbQ?t=632
https://cogforlife.org/2020/10/30/excellent-video-from-no-deception-aborted-fetal-vaccines/
https://cogforlife.org/vaccines-abortions/
The Need for Further Fetal Tissue
"Though HEK293 is commonly believed to have been obtained from an aborted human fetus, I received an e-mail a few months ago from Professor Frank Graham, who established this cell line. He tells me that to the best of his knowledge, the exact origin of the HEK293 fetal cells is unclear. They could have come from either a spontaneous miscarriage or an elective abortion." https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/05/63752/What are the chances of a spontaneous abortion occurring at a site amenable to the scavengers?
Since there is no way to know for sure, we must err on the side of caution.
I already posted this:
The Need for Further Fetal Tissue (https://cogforlife.org/vaccines-abortions/)
A powerful excerpt:Thank you!
"Stated Fr. Stephen Torraco, Professor of Moral Theology at Assumption College regarding the need for these vaccines:
Saying that something is morally justifiable because I need it as a means to an end, and indeed, a good end (preservation of one’s life) is absolutely identical with the Machiavellian principle that the end justifies the means (or, that evil may be done in order to accomplish good) and, thus, absolutely unacceptable and morally indefensible…. Secondly, precisely because this Machiavellian principle is morally indefensible, one needs to examine the very thing needed in this particular case ¾ cell lines from aborted fetuses. To say that one needs the cell lines of aborted fetuses to preserve one’s life is inseparable from saying that one needs the abortions ¾ intrinsically evil actions ¾ that make the cell lines available… If I need the vaccine (and it is a need that can be satisfied only by an aborted fetus) and if I defend my need, I will the abortion. The person receiving the vaccination may well be living long after the fetus was actually aborted, and had no involvement in and may even have no knowledge of the particular and actual fetus that was aborted. However, the remoteness in time is not sufficient for arguing that there is no act of the will on the part of the recipient of the vaccine.” [54]
Nadir, there's ample situations discussed so Dr and Nurses know how to weigh all types of situations. The only hard and fast no all the time is helping with or teaching contraception. That's always a formal cooperation and mortalYour claim " that pre Vatican II it was lawful for a nurse to assist at an abortion for certain grave reasons" is still pure nonsense. What you presented is advice/commentary by some ethicist which carries little weight as far as Church teaching goes.
A powerful excerpt:
"Stated Fr. Stephen Torraco, Professor of Moral Theology at Assumption College regarding the need for these vaccines:
Saying that something is morally justifiable because I need it as a means to an end, and indeed, a good end (preservation of one’s life) is absolutely identical with the Machiavellian principle that the end justifies the means (or, that evil may be done in order to accomplish good) and, thus, absolutely unacceptable and morally indefensible…. Secondly, precisely because this Machiavellian principle is morally indefensible, one needs to examine the very thing needed in this particular case ¾ cell lines from aborted fetuses. To say that one needs the cell lines of aborted fetuses to preserve one’s life is inseparable from saying that one needs the abortions ¾ intrinsically evil actions ¾ that make the cell lines available… If I need the vaccine (and it is a need that can be satisfied only by an aborted fetus) and if I defend my need, I will the abortion. The person receiving the vaccination may well be living long after the fetus was actually aborted, and had no involvement in and may even have no knowledge of the particular and actual fetus that was aborted. However, the remoteness in time is not sufficient for arguing that there is no act of the will on the part of the recipient of the vaccine.” [54]
Nadir, no this is not a priests opinionWhatever is taught in medical schools by Catholic ethicists, theologians, approved by bishops, when God comes to judge anyone who co-operates in abortion, He knows the extenuating circuмstances which may or may not exist and be used to justify the evil act, and will judge justly.
1 it's a text used to train Dr and Nurses in moral theology
2 it's approved by the Archbishop of Philadelphia who was a Holy Cross member, it was approved by the Augustinians which had to approve of the book in the first place. It was in it's fourth printing which required approval each time. It was made with consultation of other theological experts. It was approved as a teaching text for a Catholic universities theological department. It is not one person's opinion.
And yes there are conditions foreseeable as the example quite clearly states that the reasons are very grave but possible.
You can not dismiss this as just an opinion since this was used for training in Catholic hospitals in the area as well
Whatever is taught in medical schools by Catholic ethicists, theologians, approved by bishops, when God comes to judge anyone who co-operates in abortion, He knows the extenuating circuмstances which may or may not exist and be used to justify the evil act, and will judge justly.
A powerful excerpt:.
"Stated Fr. Stephen Torraco, Professor of Moral Theology at Assumption College regarding the need for these vaccines:
Saying that something is morally justifiable because I need it as a means to an end, and indeed, a good end (preservation of one’s life) is absolutely identical with the Machiavellian principle that the end justifies the means (or, that evil may be done in order to accomplish good) and, thus, absolutely unacceptable and morally indefensible…. Secondly, precisely because this Machiavellian principle is morally indefensible, one needs to examine the very thing needed in this particular case ¾ cell lines from aborted fetuses. To say that one needs the cell lines of aborted fetuses to preserve one’s life is inseparable from saying that one needs the abortions ¾ intrinsically evil actions ¾ that make the cell lines available… If I need the vaccine (and it is a need that can be satisfied only by an aborted fetus) and if I defend my need, I will the abortion. The person receiving the vaccination may well be living long after the fetus was actually aborted, and had no involvement in and may even have no knowledge of the particular and actual fetus that was aborted. However, the remoteness in time is not sufficient for arguing that there is no act of the will on the part of the recipient of the vaccine.” [54]
To say that one needs the cell lines of aborted fetuses to preserve one’s life is inseparable from saying that one needs the abortions -- intrinsically evil actions -- that make the cell lines available….
Yes, I made this exact argument in my stolen cars analogy. In seeking or willing the effect, you are in fact willing the cause ... and the fact that it happened posterior in time doesn't change the priority of the act in terms of causality. What's more, by providing a market for these vaccines (rather than refusing to use and to buy them), one is actually participating in CAUSING the abortions in the first place. When you become part of the formal motive for the evil act, that is no longer merely material participation, but rather formal participation..
It's the exact same thing as my other comparison. I hold a loaded gun up to a person's head and pull the trigger. Now, I do not "want" this person to die. Nevertheless, by having willed and even effected the cause of his death, I did in fact will his death and am formally guilty of it. This subjectivist "well, I really don't WANT the effect" is relativistic hogwash and needs to be discarded ASAP. It has done a lot of harm in the realm of moral theology and actually lays the groundwork for how Bergoglio can claim that cohabitation with fornication can in fact not be a sin.
In seeking or willing the effect, you are in fact willing the cause ... and the fact that it happened posterior in time doesn't change the priority of the act in terms of causality.
I hold a loaded gun up to a person's head and pull the trigger. Now, I do not "want" this person to die. Nevertheless, by having willed and even effected the cause of his death, I did in fact will his death and am formally guilty of it.
What's more, by providing a market for these vaccines (rather than refusing to use and to buy them), one is actually participating in CAUSING the abortions in the first place. When you become part of the formal motive for the evil act, that is no longer merely material participation, but rather formal participation..
.
The formal motive for abortion is not the production of vaccines. The formal motive for abortion is the desire to be rid of an unwanted child.
No, there can be multiple formal motives, not only among the various participants in the evil, but even within the mind of any given participant.Well said. And indeed, there is no excuse for Yeti's and other posters' ignorance on these matters, because if they would just read the threads already on here, and watch some of the videos posted, and read the sources others have posted on this issue, we would not see the errors & ignorance I see demonstrated here ad nauseam on this topic. [Not by Ladislaus, but a few others in this thread.]
Perhaps the primary formal motive of the mother was to get rid of an unwanted child. But perhaps the abortionist wants to make money, and some abortionists want to harvest fetal cells for various medical purposes. Even the mother's formal motives might be driven by other motives, such as wanting to be more successful economically, etc.
Similarly with the automobiles, the formal motive of the criminal is to make money. But in order to make money, he needs to intend the cause, i.e. the stealing of cars.
So objective right and wrong needs to be determined from cause-effect analysis rather than from motivation or intention.
In any case, the use of fetal cells for various "medical" purposes is A cause of abortion, a cause for at least SOME abortions ... and that is all which is needed to make the use of these fetal cells be a morally depraved action.
So, for instance, we might have Planned Parenthood pushing women to have abortions because, among other reasons, they're making money by selling the fetal tissues. So with most moral acts there are layers and layers of motives and/or causes. To claim that the only motive for abortion is to get rid of an unwanted child, that's simply incorrect.
.
The formal motive for abortion is not the production of vaccines. The formal motive for abortion is the desire to be rid of an unwanted child.
So objective right and wrong needs to be determined from cause-effect analysis rather than from motivation or intention..
In any case, the use of fetal cells for various "medical" purposes is A cause of abortion, a cause for at least SOME abortions ... and that is all which is needed to make the use of these fetal cells be a morally depraved action.
So, for instance, we might have Planned Parenthood pushing women to have abortions because, among other reasons, they're making money by selling the fetal tissues. So with most moral acts there are layers and layers of motives and/or causes. To claim that the only motive for abortion is to get rid of an unwanted child, that's simply incorrect.
objective right and wrong needs to be determined from cause-effect analysis rather than from motivation or intention.
Even if there were COVID 19 vaccines that were somehow licit morally I wouldn't get one. There can be no benefit cooperating with these evil people. If you believe that there is a virus, it's evident it has mutated into relative harmlessness with a death rate of 0.001or some similar ridiculously small number-there is no longer a need for vaccination as there is no longer any threat, unless you still abide by the MSM fear narrative.I don’t see why there is still a debate going on here. Not only is the Vaccine Industry a fully corrupt, poison-manufacturing-machine with scientists practicing unethical medicine, there is a MINUS ZERO NEED to be vaccinated for this non-lethal flu virus. And yet, here we are today and the whole world’s governments are about to force every citizen on earth to be injected by these useless vaccines. My guess would be that this is not something that any truly thinking person would want put into their bloodstream under any circuмstances.
Well said. And indeed, there is no excuse for Yeti's and other posters' ignorance on these matters, becauseWell said. Ladi and PAT.
if they would just read the threads already on here, and watch some of the videos posted, and read the sources others have posted on this issue, we would not see the errors & ignorance I see demonstrated here ad nauseam on this topic.
[Not by Ladislaus, but a few others in this thread.]
This video has been posted on CathInfo more than once. For those who think that the abortions were just run-of-the-mill abortions done decades ago, and were not done for the purpose of making a vaccine, just spend a few minutes of your life watching this video:
https://youtu.be/uaMjO2gXaUo?t=175
And yet, here we are today and the whole world’s governments are about to force every citizen on earth to be injected by these useless vaccines. My guess would be that this is not something that any truly thinking person would want put into their bloodstream under any circuмstances.The debate is occurring precisely because of the 2 contradictory statements you made above. 1) You rightly assert that this vaccine will be FORCED on people. If Biden/hαɾɾιs gain power, then this forcing will come from the govt. If Trump stays in power, this forcing will likely come from the other side of fascist power - the fortune 500 companies...who have a LOT more power now that this lockdown has destroyed the middle class and small businesses.
Cause-effect analysis tells us that someone receiving a vaccine today does not kill a baby in the 1970s. An effect cannot take place before its cause.
.
I still need a proof that pre-Vatican 2 moralists said it was sinful to receive a drug that was made using knowledge obtained from the body of a murder victim.
I don’t see why there is still a debate going on here. Not only is the Vaccine Industry a fully corrupt, poison-manufacturing-machine with scientists practicing unethical medicine, there is a MINUS ZERO NEED to be vaccinated for this non-lethal flu virus. And yet, here we are today and the whole world’s governments are about to force every citizen on earth to be injected by these useless vaccines. My guess would be that this is not something that any truly thinking person would want put into their bloodstream under any circuмstances..
.
2. Body parts sold - Sin #2, but not intrinsically evil and a different type than #1.
Hold on, it's a sin to sell a dead body for the purposes of medical research?
.I don't believe it is a sin to use an ethically acquired, donated, body or body part for medical research, but the sale of a body or body parts is repugnant to any one with any Catholic sense.
Hold on, it's a sin to sell a dead body for the purposes of medical research?
If it is a sin to use a donated body for medical research, is it sinful to use knowledge obtained from such research?Did somebody say it is a sin to use a donated body for medical research?
.Thank you. I have brought up this question/issue at least a few times now between this thread and the other. So far I have not gotten a response. The reality is no one here CAN answer whether such a person would be sinning mortally if they "chose" to have a vaccine in such a situation...only the Church can. Many of the posters here are too busy wagging their collective fingers at any Catholic who might come to different conclusions than they do...or just don't see this as black and white as they do. Good luck getting anything more than that from them.
We are not debating whether it is a good idea to receive the COVID vaccine. I think that is obvious. What we are debating is whether someone who chooses to do so is guilty of mortal sin. This is a matter of the gravest importance, not only in itself, but especially because people are likely going to face dire threats to receive this vaccine, starting with losing their job and their livelihood.
"Your contradictory statement is your conclusion where you say that no person would accept a vaccine under "any circuмstances". Well, if you're forced at gunpoint to take a shot, will you? Some won't. For those that will, are they morally responsible? What if you can't go buy groceries unless your "health passport" says you've been vaccinated in the last 6 months? That's the debate. "
Forcing someone at gunpoint is NOT consent, and consent is what the devil needs. The person taking it by physical force (not coercion) will suffer the temporal consequences of the poisonous injection, and that may include death, but I doubt if they would be committing a mortal sin as force does not allow choice. It would have to be presented as a choice to effect a mortal sin, IMHO
“Maximian ordained that in the market-places, in the mills, in the bakers' shops, and in the taverns idols should be set up, to which every- body should show some mark of idolatrous veneration, on pain of being arrested.
1. Abortion happens - Intrinsic evil, sin #1
2. Body parts sold - Sin #2, but not intrinsically evil and a different type than #1.
3. Body parts used by scientists to isolate fetal cells for various medicines - Morally a sin, but the purpose is for good.
4. Fetal cells mixed with a virus to grow a strain for a vaccine. Morally a sin, but same as #3, used for a good.
5. Whatever fetal cell molecules still exist (? unknown?) in this new strain, this creates a vaccine. Same as above.
.
That's a "high level" 4 steps away from the first crime. There may be lots more steps in between #2 and the end result of a vaccine. It's a very complex question, in my opinion.
Let's put the above into a more concrete example:
.
a. Thieves kill a farmer and take hold of his tree farm.
b. They sell the trees for wood and make a lot of $.
c. Farmer #2 buys wood and burns it.
d. Farmer #2 uses the wood ash to grow vegetables on his farm. He sells vegetables to make a living.
.
Is a person who buys vegetables from Farmer #2 guilty of the murder/theft of wood from Farmer #1?
.
Is not the wood, which is tainted by sin, "destroyed" after it's burned and certainly after it's consumed by the soil?
.
At what point does the stolen wood no longer exist?
.
This is my question regarding the fetal cells. And we're talking about CELLS on the molecular level. Once they are mixed with a vaccine to create a strain, does not the vaccine (i.e. a living thing) destroy/consume the fetal cells, in order to thrive/grow into a culture, when is then made into a vaccine? As this relates to the top example, i'm talking about steps 3-5.
Sean, a vaccine is made partially from a virus, so Confederate’s question is important.Call me simple, but it's clear to this simple Catholic that the use of a product predicated on the use of a deliberate killing of an innocent human life is morally wrong.
.
Honestly, we need a good, orthodox, Catholic virologist to answer these scientific concerns.
Refuted by this priest here:This article also decimates the circuмstantial permissibility of remote indirect cooperation in evil argument as well:
https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/VaccineFrCopenhagen.pdf (https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/VaccineFrCopenhagen.pdf)
I don't buy the priest's logic that the cellular/DNA level is the same substance as the aborted child. In my mind, it's arguable that the child's fetal tissue has undergone a substantial change and no longer exists.Keep reaching.
.
The Church teaches that 15 minutes after we receive Holy Communion, that Our Lord's body no longer exists, as it has been dissolved, and we can eat food. But doesn't Our Lord's DNA still exist in our bodies, according to the priest's logic? Thus, we can never eat food again? Of course, that's ridiculous. Once something undergoes a substantial change, then the original thing no longer exists. As I see it, it's arguable that a baby's body undergoes 1 substantial change, and possibly 3!
.
1) fetal cells removed from the body. Once a cell is removed from the body, it's no longer part of the human being.
2) those fetal cells mixed with a virus to create a new strain. It could be argued that the virus absorbs these cells, so the fetal cells no longer exist.
3) the new virus is replicated many times. This new substance is certainly not the original baby, even if the DNA is similar. A copy is not the same thing as the original.
It is difficult to imagine the SSPX panel actually considering they might be wrong, given all the SSPX has already done in enforcing the use of abortive vaccines.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6826603/Kentucky-teen-refuses-chickenpox-vaccine-SUES-school.html?ico=amp-comments-addcomment#article-6826603 (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6826603/Kentucky-teen-refuses-chickenpox-vaccine-SUES-school.html?ico=amp-comments-addcomment#article-6826603)
My own priest referenced the article at Mass today, saying it was good the article was removed, and that it caused much consternation, but not because it contained any errors, but because it was not comprehensive enough.
This makes it sound to me like they are just going to fortify their position by addressing issues the original article did not, but we will see.
It’s basic philosophyhttps://ktla.com/news/coronavirus/fresno-bishop-tells-catholics-not-to-get-covid-19-vaccine-citing-use-of-stem-cells-in-its-development/ (https://ktla.com/news/coronavirus/fresno-bishop-tells-catholics-not-to-get-covid-19-vaccine-citing-use-of-stem-cells-in-its-development/)
The Church teaches that 15 minutes after we receive Holy Communion, that Our Lord's body no longer exists, as it has been dissolved, and we can eat food. But doesn't Our Lord's DNA still exist in our bodies, according to the priest's logic?
Here is another source that states that the Pfizer vaccine does not use fetal cells or any cells at all for that matter: https://aleteia.org/2020/11/09/pfizers-new-coronavirus-vaccine-was-not-created-with-fetal-cells-from-aborted-babies/ (https://aleteia.org/2020/11/09/pfizers-new-coronavirus-vaccine-was-not-created-with-fetal-cells-from-aborted-babies/)
I think it's an interesting debate on the matter of cells, but this is the vaccine being approved right now, not the others, and it doesn't use fetal cells in its development or have fetal cells in it.
Another debate could be whether the risk is worth the benefit, or whether there is something more sinister going on regarding vaccines, but the fetal cell debate is not part of the debate over this vaccine.
I looked up the new Pfizer vaccine and they don't use fetal cells: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/pfizer-covid-vaccine-not-created-with-fetal-cells/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/pfizer-covid-vaccine-not-created-with-fetal-cells/)
Offering a pinch of incense to the false gods is not on par with taking a vaccine. Not even in the same ball park.The defective logic on display here is that, if a worse sin can be committed, the lesser sin is permissible (or worse: that developing vaccines with murdered baby parts is not that big a deal).
Yes, it does (and so does the Moderna one):
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2020/11/use-of-pfizer-moderna-covid-19-vaccines-is-morally-acceptable-say-bishops/
“They are not completely free from any connection to abortion, however, as both Pfizer and Moderna made use of a tainted cell line for one of the confirmatory lab tests of their products."
Yes, it does (and so does the Moderna one):It seemed to me that the argument on here was whether the Pfizer vaccine has aborted baby cells in it, which your source also states that it does not.
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2020/11/use-of-pfizer-moderna-covid-19-vaccines-is-morally-acceptable-say-bishops/
“They are not completely free from any connection to abortion, however, as both Pfizer and Moderna made use of a tainted cell line for one of the confirmatory lab tests of their products."
It seemed to me that the argument on here was whether the Pfizer vaccine has aborted baby cells in it, which your source also states that it does not.
If Pfizer did something unethical in testing the vaccine, that is not the same thing as saying it is in the vaccine. Apples and oranges.
Apples to apples:Then people should be more clear, the argument then only focuses on the ethics of its development, not what is actually in the vaccine.
Catholics cannot use vaccines which used aborted baby cells at any point in their development.
Pfizer and Moderna both used aborted baby cells in their development.
It makes no difference whether there are baby cells in the vaccine, or whether baby cells were used in development.
Both disqualify the use of the vaccine.
Then people should be more clear, the argument then only focuses on the ethics of its development, not what is actually in the vaccine.
Do you research the history of medical testing that goes into every pill you take or the safety testing that goes into so many products? You might be surprised if you did. Much evil was used to develop modern medicine and household chemicals and pesticides.
You get no argument from me that it is always unethical to use an aborted baby to test on. The debate is whether knowledge that is gained from that is always immoral to use. Can good be drawn from evil so long as the evil is not approved of? I am not arguing here, either, that this vaccine is good based on other reasons.
https://fullfact.org/online/HEK-293-cells/
Not really:An unethical test is not the same as saying it's developed into the product itself. An unethical test is an evil act. The evil is continued and present if the fetal cells are actually used in the vaccine itself. The evil act is over if it was used in a test. Does this justify the test? No. But the evil is now over and knowledge was gained. Is it lawful to use such knowledge so long as the evil is not consented to and the act itself as it stands in the present is not evil?
Some vaccines contain fragments of human DNA/RNA right in the vaccine. Others only in the development. I'm not aware of any that contain DNA in neither.
As regards my own personal due diligence, yes, I avoid any products containing or developed with HEK293. If its in there without my knowledge, this is a non-issue, but as Fr. Scott pointed out (2000), we have a duty to try to inform ourselves; we cannot stay deliberately ignorant.
The easiest solution is to have an organic diet.
PS: Note the similarity in the "this vaccine contains no abortive cells" and the same argument used by the food industry for the last 10 years: "This food was not made with fetal cells." Its a mental reservation, but one which gets Catholics nowhere: Fetal cells WERE used in the development of these snacks and soft drinks, which is a disqualifier:
https://fullfact.org/online/HEK-293-cells/
An unethical test is not the same as saying it's developed into the product itself. An unethical test is an evil act. The evil is continued and present if the fetal cells are actually used in the vaccine itself. The evil act is over if it was used in a test. Does this justify the test? No. But the evil is now over and knowledge was gained. Is it lawful to use such knowledge so long as the evil is not consented to and the act itself as it stands in the present is not evil?
"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." ++ViganoA test is not the same as the process of production.
A test is not the same as the process of production.Huh? A test is part of the "process of production."
Huh? A test is part of the "process of production."Process of production definition:
Process of production definition:
"Process manufacturing is a production method that creates goods by combining supplies, ingredients or raw materials using a formula or recipe. It is frequently used in industries that produce bulk quantities of goods, such as food, beverages, refined oil, gasoline, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and plastics.
The production process often requires a thermal or chemical conversion, such as with heat, time or pressure. As a result, a product created through process manufacturing cannot be disassembled into its constituent parts. For example, once it is produced, a soft drink cannot be broken down into its separate ingredients.
Process manufacturing relies on the flow of sequential steps, with the completion of one step leading to the start of the next step. Process manufacturers often rely on tracing and scheduling tools and software to maintain peak operational efficiency."
https://searcherp.techtarget.com/definition/process-manufacturing (https://searcherp.techtarget.com/definition/process-manufacturing)
All other definitions you will find on process of production will be the same. Product development and testing is not the same as process of production. Production produces something by definition. Testing is already completed prior to the process of production beginning to mass produce the product.
Umm, the article you quoted is about "process manufacturing." It has nothing to do with the subject. By "process of production," the bishops/cardinals are referring to the use of abortive fetal cells at any point between A-Z in the development of the vaccine.You will have to prove your point in regards to your understanding of "process of production." Do you care to provide a source which supports your idea that the process includes testing and research, and not actually the production process itself?
Pfizer and Moderna fail.
The example of the martyrs says otherwise.Agreed- I was talking about someone holding you down and injecting you against your will. That could be done as easily as a threatened shooting. Easier in fact
They died the most horrific deaths rather than taking the shot/offering incense under physical compulsion.
If there is a grave duty to refuse the shot, then the threat of bodily harm will not exempt one from culpability.
You will have to prove your point in regards to your understanding of "process of production." Do you care to provide a source which supports your idea that the process includes testing and research, and not actually the production process itself?Like was mentioned in the articles I cited?
An unethical test is not the same as saying it's developed into the product itself. An unethical test is an evil act. The evil is continued and present if the fetal cells are actually used in the vaccine itself. The evil act is over if it was used in a test. Does this justify the test? No. But the evil is now over and knowledge was gained. Is it lawful to use such knowledge so long as the evil is not consented to and the act itself as it stands in the present is not evil?
It is my understanding that fetal cells are in the final product of production of the vaccine as there is no way to 'purify' and separate the fetal DNA from the the virus grown on the fetal cells. The fetal DNA is implicit in the vaccine
You will have to prove your point in regards to your understanding of "process of production." Do you care to provide a source which supports your idea that the process includes testing and research, and not actually the production process itself?
Well, if you're forced at gunpoint to take a shot, will you? Some won't. For those that will, are they morally responsible? What if you can't go buy groceries unless your "health passport" says you've been vaccinated in the last 6 months? That's the debate.This is where the fight should come in. Instead of debating here whether or not it’s a mortal sin to accept some sin or evil act forced upon you, we as free citizens should be standing firm, in solidarity, and refusing to cooperate with this evil agenda of the Luciferians.
It is my understanding that fetal cells are in the final product of production of the vaccine as there is no way to 'purify' and separate the fetal DNA from the the virus grown on the fetal cells. The fetal DNA is implicit in the vaccineAre the cells of the baby, once it’s mixed with the virus, part of a new substance and that’s why it cannot be separated? If so, then the fetal cells no longer exist.
Claudel, no one is advocating vaccines. We’re debating whether taking one is mortally wrong, even if forced.
This is a test. Every compromise we make is a step forward for them and a fail for us. This is why we are here today in a post-9/11, post-covid world. They’ve now gained enough ground to pull this huge sham on us all.THIS^^^
Are the cells of the baby, once it’s mixed with the virus, part of a new substance and that’s why it cannot be separated? If so, then the fetal cells no longer exist.
.
2 parts water mixed with 1 part hydrogen = water. If you add another part of hydrogen, you have an entirely new substance - hydrogen peroxide. Water no longer exists. You can’t say, “Well, the “water DNA” still exists”. No, it’s an entirely new chemically altered thing.
.
If the fetal cells are used/consumed in making the virus strain, then it doesn’t matter if traces of the DNA still exist because the end result is a new thing.
THIS^^^
Repulsed by the SSPX article’s assertion that in the modern world, it may be impossible to escape the use of vaccines and therapeutics derived from aborted babies, and that a strict no abortive vaccines policy might be impossible, someone on another forum wrote:
In the year 304 there may have been no “escape” from worshiping false gods?
Was a strict “no demon worship” policy impossible for anyone who ate food?
“Maximian ordained that in the market-places, in the mills, in the bakers' shops, and in the taverns idols should be set up, to which every- body should show some mark of idolatrous veneration, on pain of being arrested.
“Yet, notwithstanding this wholesale butchery, never were there seen greater multitudes of Christians professing a desire to suffer and to die for Jesus Christ; so that the number of holy martyrs
amounted at that time to eight millions.”
Claudel and Carissima,I didn’t say we’d beat them or win our freedoms back, it looks to be too late for that. God is watching me, I only care what He sees, I don’t care what the enemy thinks, or when/or if he’ll overcome me, I’ll not go down without a fight. If the Freemasons wanna starve me well then so be it, I’m not taking their poison.
You’re acting like this won’t be forced on us in some way. “Oh, let’s fight back!” How? 90% of businesses and people use masks today and such are required. This will be the same situation when the vaccine comes out. How are you “fighting back” against masks? Sure, you can not wear them sometimes, but if you want to shop/eat, you gotta wear em.
Are the cells of the baby, once it’s mixed with the virus, part of a new substance and that’s why it cannot be separated? If so, then the fetal cells no longer exist.Wow- I'm trying to get the logic...... The baby used to culture a virus 'contaminates' the virus with it's DNA and then becomes part of the product , thereby losing it's original human identity becoming just an admixture? And that alleviates guilt for the use of fetal tissue because it changed properties (it hasn't) in the process? Even a chimera would be more a suitable result than that . I hope that was a joke and i am just naïve
.
2 parts water mixed with 1 part hydrogen = water. If you add another part of hydrogen, you have an entirely new substance - hydrogen peroxide. Water no longer exists. You can’t say, “Well, the “water DNA” still exists”. No, it’s an entirely new chemically altered thing.
.
If the fetal cells are used/consumed in making the virus strain, then it doesn’t matter if traces of the DNA still exist because the end result is a new thing.
1) CONTINUING sin. As the one article cited by Sean points out, we're not talking about a remote material participation in some past sin, but an active participation in a current sin. To the extent that remnants of the murdered child remain in the vaccine, we are actively participating in the abuse and desecration of a human body. Let's say that the nαzιs killed some Jews and made lampshades from their skin (assume for now that this actually happened). I didn't agree with what they did to the Jews, but I decided to acquire one of these lampshades and have one of them on my coffee table. Whether or not I agreed with or participated in the murder itself, I am participating in an ongoing sin against the dignity of that person. Likewise, going back to my car lot example. I want a cheap car so I buy one off a lot where I know that all the cars are stolen. Well, regardless of whether or not I participated in the original theft, by owning this car that I have not right to own in justice, I am continuing to actively participate in the injustice committed against the original victim.
Is it still a concern for some that the corona virus vaccines likely cause infertility?Many vaccines cause infertility intentionally. Look up HCG "contaminated" Tetanus vaccines that have been used for the past 25 years on indigenous peoples in poor (Catholic) countries.(East Timor, Brazil, Philippines) The vaccines were given only to child bearing women ages 9-45 , and in East Timor they were administered by the military as a series of 3 injections. The shot caused early abortion if pregnant and sterility long term. These monsters have been at this a long time.
Some whistleblowers have said 97% chance of being infertile. Of course the fact checkers have come out with a vengeance to discredit those claims.
I would like to think that Catholic parents who have children would do everything in their power to avoid such a devastating consequence, even if it was only a possibility, from happening to the future generation entrusted to their care.
What about this hypothetical? Mr X is a wealthy man. Mr Y kills him for a personal reason. Mr Z, Mr X’s heir, is aware of Mr Y’s plan but does nothing to stop him because he wants his inheritance. Let us further assume that Mr Z’s role is publicly known but that for the sake of this hypothetical he is not found guilty by the law nor suffers any civil penalty. He uses his ill-gotten wealth to establish a legitimate business. Thirty years later, a father of a family can only get a job at this business. Can he licitly take the job?.
Many vaccines cause infertility intentionally. Look up HCG "contaminated" Tetanus vaccines that have been used for the past 25 years on indigenous peoples in poor (Catholic) countries.(East Timor, Brazil, Philippines) The vaccines were given only to child bearing women ages 9-45 , and in East Timor they were administered by the military as a series of 3 injections. The shot caused early abortion if pregnant and sterility long term. These monsters have been at this a long time.Yes, one of the many reasons my children aren’t vaccinated.
What about this hypothetical? Mr X is a wealthy man. Mr Y kills him for a personal reason. Mr Z, Mr X’s heir, is aware of Mr Y’s plan but does nothing to stop him because he wants his inheritance. Let us further assume that Mr Z’s role is publicly known but that for the sake of this hypothetical he is not found guilty by the law nor suffers any civil penalty. He uses his ill-gotten wealth to establish a legitimate business. Thirty years later, a father of a family can only get a job at this business. Can he licitly take the job?Only if there was not a stem cell line harvested from Mr X's living pre-murdered body that is still necessary to operate the business 30 years on. Apples and oranges
Claudel and Carissima,
You’re acting like this won’t be forced on us in some way. “Oh, let’s fight back!” How? 90% of businesses and people use masks today and such are required. This will be the same situation when the vaccine comes out. How are you “fighting back” against masks? Sure, you can not wear them sometimes, but if you want to shop/eat, you gotta wear em.
So of the 3 points I cited, Pax's one argument pertains to this one here, that no actual remnant of the original baby remains, that what remains is an entirely new substance. I believe that the respect that must be shown to human remains pertains even to the purely-material remnants of the body. If a corpse has been cremated for instance, and all that remain are ashes, certainly it no longer has the form of the human body, but is it OK then to put these in a cat's litter box to defecate on? Recall that at the Resurrection of the Body, God does obtain the original matter that constituted the human body to re-created the risen bodies. Also, the body itself loses its human form when a person dies, since the soul is the form and the body the matter of the human being. So I believe and hold that even the matter of a former human body must be respected and cannot be desecrated.
accepting the vaccine in any situation short of being tied hand and foot or having a loaded weapon pointed at a spouse, child, friend, or other loved one* would amount to a betrayal of one's baptismal Faith. In short, apples and oranges.
Involuntary mask wearing—as when shopping—might be a distasteful concession to an authoritarian and Christophobic state, but it is a concession that neither implies nor necessitates a surrender of a high principle or a moral absolute.
No, no, no. According to the logic of many on here (and of +Vigano's) there is NO compromise allowed. Even if a gun was pointed at you or your family, you'd have to take a bullet instead of the vaccine. You'd have to suffer martyrdom instead.
That's what Sean is saying and that's what +Vigano's logic leads to.
Bump for Pax.The baby was aborted, based on my research elective abortions were not legal in the Netherlands in 1972 when the abortion occurred, so either it was "medically necessary" or a spontaneous abortion "miscarriage".
My comments were regarding "fighting back" which is a practical action. The issue of mask wearing is the perfect analogy, because, as you said it is a "concession". But it's not involuntary, because you can just stop eating/shopping and avoid wearing one. You still have a choice.
My comments were regarding "fighting back" which is a practical action. The issue of mask wearing is the perfect analogy, because, as you said it is a "concession". But it's not involuntary, because you can just stop eating/shopping and avoid wearing one. You still have a choice.Some people like wearing the mask. There is research that it can reduce transmission and contraction of the flu and other illnesses, and mask wearing has been going on in Asia for years. I personally like wearing the mask, there is a chance it will keep me healthier, and I don't have to be self conscious about the way I look. For me personally I'll probably be wearing the mask long after they say we don't have to wear it anymore.
Involuntary mask wearing—as when shopping—might be a distasteful concession to an authoritarian and Christophobic state, but it is a concession that neither implies nor necessitates a surrender of a high principle or a moral absolute.
Some people like wearing the mask. There is research that it can reduce transmission and contraction of the flu and other illnesses, and mask wearing has been going on in Asia for years. I personally like wearing the mask, there is a chance it will keep me healthier, and I don't have to be self conscious about the way I look. For me personally I'll probably be wearing the mask long after they say we don't have to wear it anymore.
And a baby had to be murdered in order for you to get your "parts."Sean, coming from someone who finds most vaccines dangerous and morally unacceptable, I wonder if you would hold the same opinion if it was determined that the baby cells that were used actually came from a baby that was not murdered, but was in fact from a baby that died from natural means? I’m trying to play devil’s advocate here.
Interesting choice of words.
PS: HEK293 remains HEK293 (human embryonic kidney cells) no matter how many times you use it, or it wouldn't be HEK293.
The baby was aborted, based on my research elective abortions were not legal in the Netherlands in 1972 when the abortion occurred, so either it was "medically necessary" or a spontaneous abortion "miscarriage".
The use of fetal cells is morally indifferent. The sinfulness comes from the origin of those particular fetal cells, namely from an aborted fetus. The principle seems the same in hypothetical. Starting a business with money is morally indifferent. The sinfulness comes from the origin of the money, namely from a murder. Thus the business is a direct causal result of the murder, just as it is argued that vaccines produced from cells developed from an aborted fetus are a direct causal result of an abortion, no?First we must get some facts straight. The aborted unborn baby had to be alive (at least for a moment) in order harvest the live fetal cells for the vaccine line. In fact the harvesting may have been the imminent cause of death because dead fetal cells will not work for vaccine development. I don't know if that changes things or if it is still morally indifferent to you.
Sean, coming from someone who finds most vaccines dangerous and morally unacceptable, I wonder if you would hold the same opinion if it was determined that the baby cells that were used actually came from a baby that was not murdered, but was in fact from a baby that died from natural means? I’m trying to play devil’s advocate here.In such an hypothetical, there would be no cooperation in evil (or any evil period), and the entire issue would be moot.
i do find many of these arguments an exercise in hair splitting. There is just so much parsing and analyzing one can do to extract the desired results when sometimes going with your gut (your Catholic trained gut) is the best answer. Either this is evil or it is not.
What is currently present is live cells from a human being , no past tense here.
… If we can't fight back against masks ….
Then you are a very incompetent researcher:If you could ever control your temper and debate like a man, you could be highly influential. As it is...
Dutch law always allowed for the abortions to save the life of the mother.
First we must get some facts straight. The aborted unborn baby had to be alive (at least for a moment) in order harvest the live fetal cells for the vaccine line. In fact the harvesting may have been the imminent cause of death because dead fetal cells will not work for vaccine development. I don't know if that changes things or if it is still morally indifferent to you.Fetal cells can be obtained through morally legitimate means (as noted by Fr Chazal. Therefore using fetal cells for medical research is morally indifferent.
However, what I cannot wrap my mind around is juxtaposing money to live fetal cells. Maybe in some dry, scholarly way, this comparison would work although I find the argument is not honest. What is currently present is live cells from a human being , no past tense here. We are not really distanced from the abortion at all, in fact it is a continuation of and participation in the act, procuring and sustaining live cells from a long dead fetus as a commodity, as a product, as a medical 'advancement' but never as a person who could have lived.
Obviously I m not conversant in the moral theology you are arguing about - l admit that. But now with all of the stem cell technology available, could it not be possible to take the pluripotent activity of these cells and make them not a means to an end but to a beginning? I truly don't like this idea either, but when you are dealing with living cell lines in the present, they probably could be applied either way. it kind of turns the subject on it's head.
Pax was relating on an earlier post re: a relationship to the Eucharist, i can't remember specifically what. But as a crumb of the Sacred Species is all and entirely God; is not a living cell of a child, a child?There are many things to consider- Not theologically based on my part for sure.
i do find many of these arguments an exercise in hair splitting. There is just so much parsing and analyzing one can do to extract the desired results when sometimes going with your gut (your Catholic trained gut) is the best answer. Either this is evil or it is not.
Of course one can fight back against wearing a mask. The question is how and to what extent it is reasonable to do so.That was the question. We're all waiting for an answer. I don't have one, except for each state's legislator's to change the 'emergency powers' laws they give governors for medical emergencies. We lost this battle long ago, in state laws.
Reasonability is a major consideration with mask wearing because mask wearing is not ipso facto immoral—at least, not yet. As accepting even a licitly sourced vaccine, however, is not simply useless to one's well-being but probably perilous to it, reasonability takes on even greater, indeed genuinely immense importance—so much so that failure to resist taking the vaccine might be construed as a sinful act because of the contempt it would show for reasonableness.
In the present situation, however, involving what most (not all!) of us agree is an illicitly sourced vaccine, the same sort of reasonability is quite irrelevant to forming a moral stance, except insofar as defying a fundamental principle of faith and morals and thereby jeopardizing one's salvation may be said to be unreasonable. (In an earlier comment I mentioned factors that are relevant. I shan't repeat them here.)
Sean, coming from someone who finds most vaccines dangerous and morally unacceptable, I wonder if you would hold the same opinion if it was determined that the baby cells that were used actually came from a baby that was not murdered, but was in fact from a baby that died from natural means? I’m trying to play devil’s advocate here.They can't take the cells from a dead baby (miscarriage) The baby had to be alive for harvesting live cells. So only an abortion ( post -birth murder ) would suffice. Watch the video
Fetal cells can be obtained through morally legitimate means (as noted by Fr Chazal. Therefore using fetal cells for medical research is morally indifferent.The cells harvested have to come from certain areas for their pluripotency- they need to have rapid duplication, they are not just ordinary fingernail cells. Fetal extraction of cells are never morally legitimate.
A single cell of a host would no longer have the accidents of bread and thus the Divine Presence is not in the single cell.
If a living cell were taken from a live adult, would that cell be the adult? Obviously not.
You've flipped back to theory, which is not the question. Practicality is the question. ..."How do you fight against forced vaccines, if you/we can't figure out how to fight against forced masks?"
That was the question. We're all waiting for an answer. I don't have one, except for each state's [legislature] to change the 'emergency powers' laws they give governors for medical emergencies. We lost this battle long ago, in state laws.
I simply don't know what to say to a man who thinks that the existence of a state law hostile to both reason and the Faith represents a battle lost.
The cells harvested have to come from certain areas for their pluripotency- they need to have rapid duplication, they are not just ordinary fingernail cells. Fetal extraction of cells are never morally legitimate.How do you define fetal cells, then?
Father Chazal NEVER would say fetal cells were licit in any way. I think you are grossly mistaken. He said placental cells work just as well and that is true. Why don't they use them pray tell? Because the vaccine makers ARE NOT morally indifferent. They are decidedly evil.
I am curious however, after the Consecration, I thought the smallest particle was still the Body and Blood of Christ. Granted, cellular level is hard to see but i never heard it expressed in the way you stated ' The Divine presence is not in the single cell'- interesting if true.
placental cells work just as well and that is true. Why don't they use them pray tell? Because the vaccine makers ARE NOT morally indifferent. They are decidedly evil.Yes, and some of the theology being debated here is relying on supposed ‘real and true’ information or data given to us by the scientists formulating these vaccines. Such as, fetal cells from an aborted baby from the 70’s?? Yeah right, uh huh.
In such an hypothetical, there would be no cooperation in evil (or any evil period), and the entire issue would be moot.Then are we always to assume that the cells come from evil sources or can someone be left in good conscience if they believe the source is benign?
There are several issues getting deeply confused. I'll break it down this way:thank you
1. Is it immoral to develop a cell line from an aborted fetus? Yes, always, and gravely immoral.
2. Is it immoral to conduct research using an aborted fetal cell line? Yes, but with varying culpability depending on the degree of cooperation.
3. Is it immoral to use a product developed from the use of an aborted fetal cell line? Yes or no, depending on the principle of double effect. In this particular case, very obviously yes.
Based on how some people here are arguing, I wonder if they don't have any problem with embryonic stem cell research either. The moral objections to HESC are the same for developing aborted fetal cell lines.
The use of these cell lines is not morally neutral in this particular case because we know they were produced in a gravely immoral manner; it is irrelevant to this conversation to speak of using cell lines in a totally generic way and as being morally neutral. We're not talking about any cell line but aborted fetal cell lines, and their use is immoral.
Further, it is irrelevant that the original fetal cells of the aborted child are or are not currently present in the cell line. Those cells were the initial cause of the cell line (in all four senses of causality); what happens subsequently is irrelevant insofar as we are talking about the causal chain as a whole. Many people here have been confusing per se vs. per accidens causality. In the case of a cell line, we have a per accidens chain, but we must remember that every per accidens chain presupposes a per se causal chain. This is how I read Fr. Scott's original article arguing that using vaccines derived in any way from aborted fetal cells is gravely immoral because there is a direct line of causality, that is, the entire chronological development of the cell line ultimately depends on the initial fetal cells. I think arguing this way is a bit ambiguous, but I think it is trying to overcome the objection that the original cells are no longer present. The ambiguity of arguing like this also shows itself in the somewhat convoluted thought experiments given earlier to show how cooperation in some evil act would be formal vs. material.
As I understand it, Church teaching clearly says that the development of aborted fetal cell lines is always gravely immoral. The culpability that follows from using these cell lines depends on the degrees of cooperation in any particular line by any given person; not everyone will have equal degree of culpability. Because the culpability is determined by applying the principles of moral cooperation and hence will always be a contingent, circuмstantial matter, it is unnecessary for the Church to make any definite statement about that; it is up to the moral theologians to assess the degrees of culpability in any particular instance.
The morality of using a product developed from such a fetal cell line is guided by the principle of double effect. In this case, we ask the standard questions: is there a proportionate reason, no reasonable alternative, obvious case for pursuing this solution, and do we not will the evil? If there is a ~99.76% survival rate for Covid-19, then it is clear a vaccine (putting aside for the moment how it was produced) is completely unnecessary for the vast majority of humans. Since the vast majority don't even need a vaccine for this disease, certainly one cannot argue that proportionate reason exists or reasonable alternatives don't exist. Many effective alternatives exist.
So if a particular Covid vaccine was developed using an aborted fetal cell line, it very obviously and thoroughly fails the standard of double effect and hence would be gravely immoral to use.
There are so many mindboggling aspects to the SSPX statement, one doesn't know where to begin. I'm bewildered that the SSPX statement goes further than the 2005 PAL docuмent does and strongly suggests that a Covid vaccine would be OBLIGATORY for parents to provide to their children. What is also shocking is that when the SSPX claims to be quoting Church teaching, they're actually quoting their own online Q&A on vaccines, unless they see themselves as the Church? The 2005 docuмent is tame, mild, and uneventful compared to the overzealous, pro-vaccine mentality of the SSPX statement. In fact, it clearly contradicts the 2005 docuмent by going further than it and by not mentioning the necessary caveats that the 2005 docuмent makes.
Then are we always to assume that the cells come from evil sources or can someone be left in good conscience if they believe the source is benign?Well, we know for a fact these cells come from a murdered baby. If someone receives such a vaccine in ignorance, the moral question does not arise, but as Fr. Scott (2000) advises, a deliberate ignorance is not permissible.
Again, I believe you are correct on this subject, but I think that *maybe* there can be *some* extenuating circuмstances that change the nature of the issue. This is precisely why God gave us a Pope and a Magisterium.
Those cells were the initial cause of the cell line (in all four senses of causality)Oh man, this is hilarious! All four causes! Can you even name the four causes and explain what each one means? :jester:
:jester:Oh man, this is hilarious! All four causes! Can you even name the four causes and explain what each one means?Worthless post
Worthless post.
.Oh thanks. Nobody else can access the Internet, and all the words vanished from the pages of everyone’s manuals.
Here, Sean, let me refresh your memory with regard to the four causes. Hopefully our canine luminary takes a look at this too. Wikipedia has a helpful graphic explaining it, by showing the four causes of a dining table. I couldn't get to show up here in the page, but here's a link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes#/media/File:Aristotle's_Four_Causes_of_a_Table.svg).
all the words vanished from the pages of everyone’s manuals..
Those cells were the initial cause of the cell line (in all four senses of causality); what happens subsequently is irrelevant insofar as we are talking about the causal chain as a whole.
If it is immoral to use any medical methods derived from scientific study of a corpse, then I'm afraid you people are back to hacksaws and leaches. No, wait, some doctor somewhere probably sawed off some dead guy's arm for practice, so I guess you just get the leaches. :laugh1:The fetal tissue must be live- dead fetal cells will not do. The harvesting of the tissue is done immediately upon the expelling of the aborted child which many times (preferably for the harvesters) is born intact and alive. Not a laughing matter
The reason I say the vaccine is 2-3 steps removed from an abortion is because 1) a fetal cell is part of a body...it is not a person. 2) once a fetal cell is mixed with a virus, it becomes a new thing. 3) this new virus then is combined AGAIN to make a vaccine...a potentially ADDITIONAL new thing.@Pax Vobis - inferring from your posts, your reasoning assumes that in order to apple double effect principle we need that "2-3 steps from an abortion". That somehow is supported that abortions needed to the cell line happened 40-50 years ago.
@Pax Vobis - inferring from your posts, your reasoning assumes that in order to apple double effect principle we need that "2-3 steps from an abortion". That somehow is supported that abortions needed to the cell line happened 40-50 years ago.
What if the abortions are constantly need as a supply for either new tests or just maintaining the cell line or scaling up necessary for mass production. Would this be the same situation?
So by the term “fetal cells,” you exclude placental cells?So by the term “elephant trunk,” you exclude giraffe neck? Just being facetious, but hopefully you will get the message.
The example of the martyrs says otherwise.What Church teaching requires Catholics to be martyred? Were Catholics under Henry VIII guilty of mortal sin when they swore their oath of loyalty to him as required by the Act/Oath of Supremacy? Most Catholics did not refuse.
They died the most horrific deaths rather than taking the shot/offering incense under physical compulsion.
If there is a grave duty to refuse the shot, then the threat of bodily harm will not exempt one from culpability.
Were Catholics under Henry VIII guilty of mortal sin when they swore their oath of loyalty to him as required by the Act/Oath of Supremacy?Certainly they were guilty of open and public heresy, because the oath required them to denounce Catholicism and join a new religion.
What Church teaching requires Catholics to be martyred? Were Catholics under Henry VIII guilty of mortal sin when they swore their oath of loyalty to him as required by the Act/Oath of Supremacy? Most Catholics did not refuse.
We are discussing, not ethically acquired cells (from placenta, amniotic fluid (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/amnion-fluid), and umbilical cord (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/umbilical-cord) blood, but immorally acquired cells (from the murder of human babies).
Obviously they were guilty of mortal sin.Really? Please provide support where the Church says martyrdom is required and that all of these Catholics were guilty of mortal sin....because I get the distinct impression that some here are all talk and when push comes to shove they'll suddenly change their tune.
It was a formal act of apostasy which they were obliged to resist even unto martyrdom.
I get the distinct impression some here believe their religion ought not inconvenience them, much less ever require martyrdom.
There were many, many English canonized during this time period as martyrs, most notably St Thomas More and Bishop St John Fisher, who died EXACTLY because they would not take the Oath.What a bunch of fools they were, to die for that when they could have just taken the Oath if it wasn't a mortal sin not to.
Of course, if abortions were "constantly" needed for vaccines, then their use would be 100% prohibited. As it is, it appears that the process is using CLONES/COPIES of the cells, which originally came from abortion long ago. To me, a copy is a new thing, even if it's cellular makeup is identical. Since it's a new thing, then philosophically speaking, it's essence is not the same as the original fetal cells.
I get the distinct impression that some here are all talk and when push comes to shove they'll suddenly change their tune.You only have to be concerned with how you will respond. Meanwhile, we have God's promise that He will not test us beyond our capacity. Just pray for strength to be faithful.
Obviously they were guilty of mortal sin.
It was a formal act of apostasy which they were obliged to resist even unto martyrdom.
I get the distinct impression some here believe their religion ought not inconvenience them, much less ever require martyrdom.
"The three most reliable sources to date of abundant fetal stem cells are the placenta, amniotic fluid (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/amnion-fluid), and umbilical cord (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/umbilical-cord) blood." Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/fetal-stem-cellRealize that ((science)) must blur distinctions between fetal and supportive gestational tissues that are NOT fetal to muddy the waters and redefine what is objectively true so most will accept this generic unthreatening false definition of what fetal cells lines are. Babies (fetuses) are NOT placentas or umbilical cords. Like I said before, they should use these cells (placental and umbilical) for vaccines as they are just as effective and leave the poor baby alone, but they do not.
Do you accept that using human cells to make vaccines is morally indifferent?It depends on the method that has been used to acquire the human cells.
No, no, no. According to the logic of many on here (and of +Vigano's) there is NO compromise allowed. Even if a gun was pointed at you or your family, you'd have to take a bullet instead of the vaccine. You'd have to suffer martyrdom instead. That's what Sean is saying and that's what +Vigano's logic leads to.And given your response to my later post about Catholics who were forced into signing the Oath of Supremacy in Tudor England, you also seem to be of the same mind.
What a bunch of fools they were, to die for that when they could have just taken the Oath if it wasn't a mortal sin not to. Just like those silly Catholics in the Roman Empire, who let themselves be fed to lions.Except Catholic morality teaches that a mortal sin requires full consent. These men were certainly courageous in dying. That's why they were canonized.
You only have to be concerned with how you will respond. Meanwhile, we have God's promise that He will not test us beyond our capacity. Just pray for strength to be faithful.That goes for everyone else here as well, right?
I was researching to refute 2Vermont, and stumbled across this from St. Thomas Aquinas (Q. 125, Art. 4, Secunda Secundae):Well, thanks for that. This is very important to this discussion and I am surprised that none of the clerical guidance posted thus far has included it (unless I missed it).
"Now the evils (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) of the soul (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) are more to be feared than the evils (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) of the body. and evils (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) of the body more than evils (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) of external things. Wherefore if one were to incur evils (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) of the soul (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm), namely sins (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), in order to avoid evils (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) of the body, such as blows or death, or evils (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) of external things, such as loss of money; or if one were to endure evils (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) of the body in order to avoid loss of money, one would not be wholly excused from sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm). Yet one's sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) would be extenuated somewhat, for what is done through fear is less voluntary (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15506a.htm), because when fear lays hold of a man he is under a certain necessity (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) of doing a certain thing. Hence the Philosopher (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm) (Ethic. iii, 1) says that these things that are done through fear are not simply voluntary (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15506a.htm), but a mixture of voluntary (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15506a.htm) and involuntary."
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3125.htm
Consequently, I modify my own opinion quoted above:
It would certainly be grave matter, but may not be mortal sin.
Concedo.
There were many many more Catholics who who were coerced and took the Oath out of great fear . In other words ...without full consent, a necessary component for mortal sin. So no one here should be asserting that these Catholics committed mortal sin.
It would certainly be grave matter, but may not be mortal sin.
I am not a biochemist nor a theologian of course, but do have a very quite advanced physics background - and I hope I can still logically think - and all looks for me that the main difficulty is understanding what that "CLONES/COPIES of the cells" truly means. It is probably worth mentioning that human body replaces all the cells every 7-10 years (source: a stupid google search). So the existence of the same set of cell is not an essence of our being here.
Personally, I side with an opinion, that there is a direct continuation of an original corpse/cavader of a killed baby, as they share the same DNA, regardless how long the process lasts. The analogy would be, we artificially maintain a body of a dead person or part of it (by e.g. freezing it). Probably a better example would be a frozen embryo. Having said that, it does not matter if the abortion was procured 50 years ago or 5 months ago. Simple as that.
Now, that dramatically shortens number of steps and completely removes time from "the direct line of causality from the abortion to the available fetal cells to the development of the vaccine, to the immunization".
I have also an example where a principle of double effect could be safely used. For instance, a scientists kills a person and using this dead body and his wicked genius comes up with a medical procedure to ... let's say a cure for a leprosy. Now the method itself, which developing took some evil measures, in itself does not, in any form or fashion, rely on the evil which took place. In other words, it is possible that another genius discovered it without a convenient murder which made it easier. Then using that method is morally neutral in any case.
Yes, certainly people were afraid of the consequences of upholding their Faith. But...you're just looking at this from the human standpoint. You're assuming they took the oath "without full consent". If God puts one in a situation where the decision is Faith vs Death, then He will INFALLIBLY give us the grace to face the (human) fear and grace will make it possible (if we cooperate) to choose Faith. We cannot say that God gave the graces necessary to the English martyrs but He didn't give the graces to the martyr's next door neighbors (all of whom were catholic, as there was no protestantism in England until after the Oath). Fear aside, grace will overcome fear....if the person cooperates with grace..
.
Obviously, we cannot say that those people who apostasized are in hell, but we also cannot say they didn't commit a mortal sin. Objectively, they abandoned their Faith. Objectively, they joined a new religion. The grace was available for them to hold fast and they didn't. The Church has never condoned this type of action, nor has She ever made excuses for those who were cowards.
.
God will never test us beyond our strength, so if His Divine Providence, from all eternity, determined that these Catholics were to live through the English Persecution, then He would have ordered/provided for them to have the grace to not be tested (not everyone had to take the Oath, but many did), or to become martyrs for the Faith.
Do you accept that using human cells to make vaccines is morally indifferent?The vague and ambiguous posing of your questions makes me wonder what you are truly trying to prove. These are questions you already know the answer to, but you seem insistent on melding the definitions to somehow "catch" people to prove that it is "morally indifferent' to use fetal cell lines in vaccines. You have used the cover of stem cells, human cells, placental cells and umbilical cells to diffuse the true object which is fetal (baby) cells which will never be morally indifferent.
Well, thanks for that. This is very important to this discussion and I am surprised that none of the clerical guidance posted thus far has included it (unless I missed it).
I'm sorry that I can only be sarcastic, because I cannot believe my eyes that Catholics are now reduced to questioning whether one really has to accept martyrdom rather than just deny the Faith because one is "forced".
I've been thinking about the cloning aspect and I'm more inclined to think that cloning the aborted fetal cells is the difference maker. You can't kill someone more than once, right? So, you can't commit the act of murder more than once..
.
1. Abortion happens - Intrinsic evil, sin #1
2. Body parts sold - Sin #2, but not intrinsically evil and a different type than #1.
3. Body parts used by scientists to isolate fetal cells for various medicines - Morally a sin, but the purpose is for good.
4. Fetal cells copied so they can be used many times in the future. This would be morally wrong, but it's not murder. It's immoral, similar to in-vitro fertilization.
5. Fetal cells mixed with a virus to grow a strain for a vaccine. This may not be wrong at all.
6. Whatever fetal cell molecules still exist (? unknown?) in this new strain, this creates a vaccine. May not be wrong.
4. Fetal cells copied so they can be used many times in the future. This would be morally wrong, but it's not murder. It's immoral, similar to in-vitro fertilization.
I've added step 4 to my original timeline. Cloning of the original fetal cells makes new cells. These cloned cells weren't from a murdered body, so it's not related to abortion. These cells being copied IS WRONG, but it's against the natural law just as in-vitro fertilization is; in other words, it's against the principle of conception, but it's not murder.
Right. The murder happens once. The sin of operating on a dead person (assuming that's wrong) happens once. The resultant medicine/knowledge is not bad, it's indifferent.
Forcing someone at gunpoint is NOT consent, and consent is what the devil needs. The person taking it by physical force (not coercion) will suffer the temporal consequences of the poisonous injection, and that may include death, but I doubt if they would be committing a mortal sin as force does not allow choice. It would have to be presented as a choice to effect a mortal sin, IMHO
I'm highly doubtful #2 is a sin. Claim #3 and the ones downstream from it are certainly not sins. No one has presented any pre-Vatican 2 source for either claims 2 or 3 that you made, or, heck, practically anything else in this thread.
Cloning cells is a totally different thing from IVF. In IVF, a human being is produced, with a human soul.
"Unless you're talking about them holding you down, restraining you, and giving you a vaccine."
.
Yes, this is what i explained to Sean in a later post. Forced vaccines, no choice.
"Unless you're talking about them holding you down, restraining you, and giving you a vaccine."Can you please quote me arguing that those held down/overpowered have a choice???
Yes, this is what i explained to Sean in a later post. Forced vaccines, no choice.
I know this is veering off the original topic of the thread, but my mind is still reeling at the thought that Catholics are so trying to find an “out” for taking this vaccine, (for which IMO there are many, many excellent reasons to refuse them, way beyond the question of aborted fetal cells) that the question has even arisen whether it was “mortal sin” or not to take the Oath under Henry VIII.
Leaving aside the question of vaccines entirely, and leaving aside whether to take Henry VIII’s Oath was “mortal sin” or not, just a few considerations:
- I was always taught that it was better that the whole world should be destroyed than that one commit any sin, venial or mortal. In better days of the SSPX, I remember the example a priest gave where if there was a button, and let’s say some evil villain said, “commit [some] venial sin, or I will press this button and the whole world will be blown to smithereens,” you are not allowed to commit even that venial sin.
- In hearing stories of martyrs throughout Church history, I’ve seen examples, e.g. in Roman times, where 9/10 accepted martyrdom, while the other 1/10 person accepted the promise of “we won’t kill you if you [commit this sin of apostasy]”, and then the Romans proceeded to kill that 10th person anyway. I’ve heard similar stories from Communist revolutions such as Spain or Mexico. The implication in these stories was such that the Communists wanted to kill said Catholic after committing the mortal sin, because they want the soul to go to hell. Of course, God will judge / has judged where these individual souls went, but the point of the stories from the standpoint of the Church always seemed to me that we must stand firm, as Pax has said so well in his posts.
- If we take the example of Henry VIII asking the bishops & others like Thomas More to take the Oath: Was it posed thusly: “Take this Oath or you will be executed”? Because even Bp. Fisher and Thomas More were put in the Tower for a while; they had to fabricate an excuse at TM’s trial to finally put him to death. I don’t know precisely what threat was posed for not taking the Oath initially, but apparently it was not death.
- Given how world history changed dramatically, and NOT for the better, after all the bishops except St. John Fisher took the Oath, are we really to sit around thinking, “well, those bishops didn’t commit mortal sin for taking the Oath. After all, they were ‘forced’ to do it.”? [With some penalty less than death.] Was it thus okay for them to do it? How many souls have been lost since then, because those bishops (whatever their subjective level of sin, wherever they ended up in eternity) caved, and did not stand up for what they knew was right? And even the average layman: How many souls have been lost since then, because all of their progeny were protestant, because they were “forced” to apostatize?
- I could also mention that many people were martyred, not because of something ‘forced’ on them, such as “take this Oath or we’ll kill you”, but even just to receive Sacraments. Given the Covid1984/AD2020 standard of “The Governor mandated that churches should be closed, so you are dispensed of your Sunday obligation, and thus can just livestream Mass or read your missal”, why would anyone have ever risked going into the catacombs or going to St. Edmund Campion’s Mass, or any other such “illegal” activity?
In the movie A Man for All Seasons, there's a scene where Meg tries to get TM to take the Oath:
More: But look now: If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that avarice, anger, pride and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice, and thought, perhaps we must stand fast a little, even at the risk of being heroes.
Margaret: But in reason! Haven't you done as much as God can reasonably want?
More: Well, finally it isn't a matter of reason. Finally, it's a matter of love.
Instead of always thinking, "is it mortal sin or not?" as some sort of fire insurance (i.e. avoiding hell), do we ever think of these things in terms of what would be most pleasing to God? What does He really will?
I do understand why folks want to know where is the cutoff between morally acceptable vs. sin (and I include here venial sin: better to accept death, loss of livelihood, children taken away, or any other suffering, than to commit one venial sin). I really do. And they are important questions. But I would prefer to see less quibbling to find an excuse to do whatever this antichrist NWO is asking us to do, as long as it is not mortal sin, and more encouragement to resist this antichrist NWO in every way possible, because we love Our Lord and His reign. I would love to see threads asking 'what can we all do to resist this antichrist tyranny?' Imagine if every Catholic in Henry VIII’s England had said, “No, I will NOT take the Oath.” Imagine the difference then, and all the history since then. Instead of thinking, “how far can I go individually, save my own individual skin, and still avoid the fires of hell?” … picture how much easier it is for this antichrist NWO to create the dystopia we’re facing if each of us individually goes along with it as far as we can without mortal sin/going to hell, vs how much harder for them if all Catholics collectively resisted it tooth & nail.
Imagine Catholics actually standing up for the rights of Christ the King, because we love Him, instead of asking, “how far can I go before it’s mortal sin?”
Yes, very inspiring. Thank you for that!
Instead of always thinking, "is it mortal sin or not?" as some sort of fire insurance (i.e. avoiding hell), do we ever think of these things in terms of what would be most pleasing to God? What does He really will?
I do understand why folks want to know where is the cutoff between morally acceptable vs. sin (and I include here venial sin: better to accept death, loss of livelihood, children taken away, or any other suffering, than to commit one venial sin). I really do. And they are important questions. But I would prefer to see less quibbling to find an excuse to do whatever this antichrist NWO is asking us to do, as long as it is not mortal sin, and more encouragement to resist this antichrist NWO in every way possible, because we love Our Lord and His reign. I would love to see threads asking 'what can we all do to resist this antichrist tyranny?' Imagine if every Catholic in Henry VIII’s England had said, “No, I will NOT take the Oath.” Imagine the difference then, and all the history since then. Instead of thinking, “how far can I go individually, save my own individual skin, and still avoid the fires of hell?” … picture how much easier it is for this antichrist NWO to create the dystopia we’re facing if each of us individually goes along with it as far as we can without mortal sin/going to hell, vs how much harder for them if all Catholics collectively resisted it tooth & nail.
Imagine Catholics actually standing up for the rights of Christ the King, because we love Him, instead of asking, “how far can I go before it’s mortal sin?”
The vague and ambiguous posing of your questions makes me wonder what you are truly trying to prove. These are questions you already know the answer to, but you seem insistent on melding the definitions to somehow "catch" people to prove that it is "morally indifferent' to use fetal cell lines in vaccines. You have used the cover of stem cells, human cells, placental cells and umbilical cells to diffuse the true object which is fetal (baby) cells which will never be morally indifferent.This is why multi-volumed manuals of moral theology exist: because it is necessary to consider actions and their morality in se. For example, murder is wrong in se; therefore the act of murder can never be justified by double effect (i.e., since murder is wrong in se, there are no circuмstances under which it can be morally done). Morally indifferent or even morally good actions can be sinful based on circuмstances. For example, it is morally indifferent to mow the lawn, but to do so on Sunday would be morally wrong; nonetheless, even though it is wrong in that particular instance, the act of mowing the lawn is in se morally indifferent.
If moral philosophy involves this type of trickery, I'm glad I'm no scholar- you are just wrong.
That goes for everyone else here as well, right?My statement was in answer to you saying
I get the distinct impression that some here are all talk and when push comes to shove they'll suddenly change their tune.
My statement was in answer to you sayingYou mean like this snide insinuation in post 118?
So no, I was a specifically responding to your insinuation.
I suggested that we need to accept whatever God sends us, or allows us to suffer, even through His enemies, and that we need to pray to accept whatever is our lot, not without a fight of course, but finally God is the arbitrator. The point being that He will not send anything that we cannot withstand through His grace.
I am suggesting that, instead of the snide insinuations that we need to pray for each other.
.The lay folk's arguments on this board are trying to make a moral judgment about this topic without the guidance from and authority of the magisterium. I am fine with that so long as they accept the fact that their arguments/conclusions are just that and not Church authority. Therefore, they should not expect others to agree with them and accept them as if they were Church teaching since even orthodox traditional priests have come to different conclusions.
In any case, your arguments (and the vast majority of the arguments being made in this thread) are arguments about whether it is licit to use cells derived from aborted babies to produce a drug. That is an entirely different question to whether it is sinful to receive a drug made in such a manner. Thus, very little of this thread has any practical relevance to people reading it, or the people contemplating taking the vaccine, or the people who want to know if it is sinful to take the vaccine or not.
I've been thinking about the cloning aspect and I'm more inclined to think that cloning the aborted fetal cells is the difference maker. You can't kill someone more than once, right? So, you can't commit the act of murder more than once.There are many steps which look more less like a ..... money laundering - which is a single purpose scheme.
.
1. Abortion happens - Intrinsic evil, sin #1
2. Body parts sold - Sin #2, but not intrinsically evil and a different type than #1.
3. Body parts used by scientists to isolate fetal cells for various medicines - Morally a sin, but the purpose is for good.
4. Fetal cells copied so they can be used many times in the future. This would be morally wrong, but it's not murder. It's immoral, similar to in-vitro fertilization.
5. Fetal cells mixed with a virus to grow a strain for a vaccine. This may not be wrong at all.
6. Whatever fetal cell molecules still exist (? unknown?) in this new strain, this creates a vaccine. May not be wrong.
.
1. Abortion happens - Intrinsic evil, sin #1
2. Body parts sold - Sin #2, but not intrinsically evil and a different type than #1.
3. Body parts used by scientists to isolate fetal cells for various medicines - Morally a sin, but the purpose is for good.
4. Fetal cells copied so they can be used many times in the future. This would be morally wrong, but it's not murder. It's immoral, similar to in-vitro fertilization.
5. Fetal cells mixed with a virus to grow a strain for a vaccine. This may not be wrong at all.
6. Whatever fetal cell molecules still exist (? unknown?) in this new strain, this creates a vaccine. May not be wrong.
.
There are many steps which look more less like a ..... money laundering - which is a single purpose scheme.
It is hard to escape a conclusion that in steps 1-5 share the same core intention (of procuring an abortion in order to make 5 and ultimately a vaccine possible) and a small group of cooperating individuals might be implicated.
I kind of believe that this moral riddle we try to solve here is way simpler then are given to believe. Especially, if DNA of the cell line matches one of aborted baby.
I know this is veering off the original topic of the thread, but my mind is still reeling at the thought that Catholics are so trying to find an “out” for taking this vaccine, (for which IMO there are many, many excellent reasons to refuse them, way beyond the question of aborted fetal cells) that the question has even arisen whether it was “mortal sin” or not to take the Oath under Henry VIII.
Leaving aside the question of vaccines entirely, and leaving aside whether to take Henry VIII’s Oath was “mortal sin” or not, just a few considerations:
- I was always taught that it was better that the whole world should be destroyed than that one commit any sin, venial or mortal. In better days of the SSPX, I remember the example a priest gave where if there was a button, and let’s say some evil villain said, “commit [some] venial sin, or I will press this button and the whole world will be blown to smithereens,” you are not allowed to commit even that venial sin.
- In hearing stories of martyrs throughout Church history, I’ve seen examples, e.g. in Roman times, where 9/10 accepted martyrdom, while the other 1/10 person accepted the promise of “we won’t kill you if you [commit this sin of apostasy]”, and then the Romans proceeded to kill that 10th person anyway. I’ve heard similar stories from Communist revolutions such as Spain or Mexico. The implication in these stories was such that the Communists wanted to kill said Catholic after committing the mortal sin, because they want the soul to go to hell. Of course, God will judge / has judged where these individual souls went, but the point of the stories from the standpoint of the Church always seemed to me that we must stand firm, as Pax has said so well in his posts.
- If we take the example of Henry VIII asking the bishops & others like Thomas More to take the Oath: Was it posed thusly: “Take this Oath or you will be executed”? Because even Bp. Fisher and Thomas More were put in the Tower for a while; they had to fabricate an excuse at TM’s trial to finally put him to death. I don’t know precisely what threat was posed for not taking the Oath initially, but apparently it was not death.
- Given how world history changed dramatically, and NOT for the better, after all the bishops except St. John Fisher took the Oath, are we really to sit around thinking, “well, those bishops didn’t commit mortal sin for taking the Oath. After all, they were ‘forced’ to do it.”? [With some penalty less than death.] Was it thus okay for them to do it? How many souls have been lost since then, because those bishops (whatever their subjective level of sin, wherever they ended up in eternity) caved, and did not stand up for what they knew was right? And even the average layman: How many souls have been lost since then, because all of their progeny were protestant, because they were “forced” to apostatize?
- I could also mention that many people were martyred, not because of something ‘forced’ on them, such as “take this Oath or we’ll kill you”, but even just to receive Sacraments. Given the Covid1984/AD2020 standard of “The Governor mandated that churches should be closed, so you are dispensed of your Sunday obligation, and thus can just livestream Mass or read your missal”, why would anyone have ever risked going into the catacombs or going to St. Edmund Campion’s Mass, or any other such “illegal” activity?
In the movie A Man for All Seasons, there's a scene where Meg tries to get TM to take the Oath:
More: But look now: If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that avarice, anger, pride and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice, and thought, perhaps we must stand fast a little, even at the risk of being heroes.
Margaret: But in reason! Haven't you done as much as God can reasonably want?
More: Well, finally it isn't a matter of reason. Finally, it's a matter of love.
Instead of always thinking, "is it mortal sin or not?" as some sort of fire insurance (i.e. avoiding hell), do we ever think of these things in terms of what would be most pleasing to God? What does He really will?
I do understand why folks want to know where is the cutoff between morally acceptable vs. sin (and I include here venial sin: better to accept death, loss of livelihood, children taken away, or any other suffering, than to commit one venial sin). I really do. And they are important questions. But I would prefer to see less quibbling to find an excuse to do whatever this antichrist NWO is asking us to do, as long as it is not mortal sin, and more encouragement to resist this antichrist NWO in every way possible, because we love Our Lord and His reign. I would love to see threads asking 'what can we all do to resist this antichrist tyranny?' Imagine if every Catholic in Henry VIII’s England had said, “No, I will NOT take the Oath.” Imagine the difference then, and all the history since then. Instead of thinking, “how far can I go individually, save my own individual skin, and still avoid the fires of hell?” … picture how much easier it is for this antichrist NWO to create the dystopia we’re facing if each of us individually goes along with it as far as we can without mortal sin/going to hell, vs how much harder for them if all Catholics collectively resisted it tooth & nail.
Imagine Catholics actually standing up for the rights of Christ the King, because we love Him, instead of asking, “how far can I go before it’s mortal sin?”
This might be the most edifying and beautiful post I have ever read on Cathinfo..
God will bless you for having written it.
Yes, very inspiring. Thank you for that!.
Instead of always thinking, "is it mortal sin or not?" as some sort of fire insurance (i.e. avoiding hell), do we ever think of these things in terms of what would be most pleasing to God? What does He really will?
The above 5 steps are not dependent upon abortion. For step 1, you could substitute "placenta taken from a live birth" and the scientific process of isolating the fetal cells would be similar.We obviously do not have a detailed specification for the entire process. Based on different pieces of information I have gathered, those cells must be of a certain quality and so far the whole thing works only if they initiate the line from a killed baby. Thus the intention exists even at the step 5.
.
The point is, even if the intention of steps 1-2 is abortion, I would argue that after step 3 the intention no longer matters. Once the fetal cells are isolated, then the connection to murder is gone. The resulting fetal cells are just cells. Morally indifferent. They could come from the placenta or an abortion. Steps 4-6 are just scientific experimentation; has nothing to do with the cells origin.
I also truly wonder about the mass production of a vaccine, how they managed to build such a huge production line out of a small sample. It is kind of hard to believe that no more abortions were procured.
Because of Step 4...the cells are copied and mass produced. A copied cell is not the same thing as the original.
Because of Step 4...the cells are copied and mass produced. A copied cell is not the same thing as the original.Again, we hit the wall with a definition of term "copy". How do you know they are not the same? Can you tell apart an original from a copied cell? Does not entire process rely on the fact that those "copied" cells resemble an original? Would the copied cell ever exist without an original coming from aborted baby? Can you recreate the process without procuring an abortion? What if a vaccine factory blow up? Do not they need a new abortion to restart everything? Once they do, could you tell apart a new and old vaccines?
When I buy a cheap car from a car lot with stolen vehicles, I am participating in the original crime of theft.
There is no way to detach an original evil/sin from the effect - they are bolted together like pieces of Eiffel tower - you pull one essential piece out of it and all is going to collapse.
Again, we hit the wall with a definition of term "copy". How do you know they are not the same? Can you tell apart an original from a copied cell? Does not entire process rely on the fact that those "copied" cells resemble an original?I say they are copied because the scientists say they are copied. Yes, the process relies on a copy because the original fetal cells would die and can't stay alive long enough to finish the process.
Would the copied cell ever exist without an original coming from aborted baby? Can you recreate the process without procuring an abortion?No and maybe not. The 2nd point is unknown. Can scientists use placental fetal cells instead of abortive cells? Probably, but it's more expensive, so they haven't researched enough or it's only rare. Practically speaking, the answer is "No, the process only works with abortive cells."
What if a vaccine factory blow up? Do not they need a new abortion to restart everything? Once they do, could you tell apart a new and old vaccines?
A bastard child is the effect of fornication. The cause of the child is mortal sin, but the resultant child is not a sin, nor are they to be shunned, nor is it their fault. The act of conception was sinful; the material, bodily components of the act are not. Those cells grew into a human being, which is not tainted (spiritually) by the original act of fornication.That child's existence is NOT a result of a sin. The fetal cell line is directly a result of an abortion.
That child's existence is NOT a result of a sin. The fetal cell line is directly a result of an abortion.
When I buy a cheap car from a car lot with stolen vehicles, I am participating in the original crime of theft.
You are participating, but it's still a separate sin. The original act of theft is sin #1. Selling stolen goods is sin #2. Buying stolen goods is sin #3. They are connected but still separate, because a thief could steal but not sell the goods, and instead return them. Then only 1 sin would be committed.When you buy a car replacement part - it does not matter if the part comes from stollen car or a junk yard (assuming they are functionally the same)
.
Abortion is sin #1. Cutting up a body for science/$ is sin #2. Selling fetus parts is sin #3. Buying fetus parts is sin #4. Extracting fetal cells is sin #5. At this point, all that's left is fetal cells. I don't see how anything beyond this is related to sin #1. You've basically reduced the abortion evil to its lowest denominator, materially speaking, a cell.
.
What happens next with those cells, to me, are sins associated with scientific excess/experimentation.
.
...Getting back to the car analogy, what is happening is #1 car is stolen. #2 car is sold. #3 car is broken down and parts are sold. #4 car parts are bought, and some are discarded to the junk yard. At this point, the car no longer exists. I don't see how the original crime continues...
When you buy a car replacement part - it does not matter if the part comes from stollen car or a junk yard (assuming they are functionally the same)
When you buy pieces of killed child body - it HAS to be from an abortion, otherwise your vaccine production line would not work. So the intent of abortion still exists.
That child's existence is NOT a result of a sin. The fetal cell line is directly a result of an abortion.I am interested in this question as well. I find Fr Scott's 2000 argument difficult (not necessarily his conclusion but how he gets there, i.e. the "direct line of causality" argument). He wrote, "There is in fact a direct line of causality, from the abortion, to the available fetal cells to the development of the vaccine, to the immunization. Therefore, the immunization is a direct consequence of the abortion, and not just an indirect effect." It is unclear to me how a direct line of causality would make the subsequent acts formal cooperation. Perhaps I do not correctly understand how Fr Scott is using the term "direct line of causality," and I would be grateful if someone were to explain that.
You're generalizing the argument, instead of looking at it in parts. Anyway...I think the bastard child analogy is the best fit.The key to the answer is properly understanding "cloning". Whether it is artificially growing/sustaining a part of an existing killed body. Or a biochemically separate process, like pulling a few cells out of it and letting it "live" outside.
Whether it is artificially growing/sustaining a part of an existing killed body. Or a biochemically separate process, like pulling a few cells out of it and letting it "live" outside.
I am interested in this question as well. I find Fr Scott's 2000 argument difficult (not necessarily his conclusion but how he gets there, i.e. the "direct line of causality" argument). He wrote, "There is in fact a direct line of causality, from the abortion, to the available fetal cells to the development of the vaccine, to the immunization. Therefore, the immunization is a direct consequence of the abortion, and not just an indirect effect." It is unclear to me how a direct line of causality would make the subsequent acts formal cooperation. Perhaps I do not correctly understand how Fr Scott is using the term "direct line of causality," and I would be grateful if someone were to explain that.
ElAusente...i don't think Fr Scott ( or any traditional priest) ever says there is formal cooperation. As far as I know only Ladislaus asserts this.Fr Scott wrote in 2000: "Here one could argue that the person who seeks the vaccination does not will the abortion, but simply uses the cells that are obtained as a consequence. However, the vaccine is not just an indirect effect of the abortion. There is in fact a direct line of causality, from the abortion, to the available fetal cells to the development of the vaccine, to the immunization. Therefore, the immunization is a direct consequence of the abortion, and not just an indirect effect. Consequently, it would be immoral to use a vaccine that one knew was developed in fetal cells, no matter how great the advantage to be procured." https://web.archive.org/web/20040623125417/http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__morality.htm#vaccinationfromabortions (https://web.archive.org/web/20040623125417/http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__morality.htm#vaccinationfromabortions)
There is in fact a direct line of causality, from the abortion, to the available fetal cells to the development of the vaccine, to the immunization.
Here is how the new member "Canis" understood Fr. Scott's argument:Bumped for Pax regarding the (false) cloning/no more fetal cells lie.
"Further, it is irrelevant that the original fetal cells of the aborted child are or are not currently present in the cell line. Those cells were the initial cause of the cell line (in all four senses of causality); what happens subsequently is irrelevant insofar as we are talking about the causal chain as a whole. Many people here have been confusing per se vs. per accidens causality. In the case of a cell line, we have a per accidens chain, but we must remember that every per accidens chain presupposes a per se causal chain. This is how I read Fr. Scott's original article arguing that using vaccines derived in any way from aborted fetal cells is gravely immoral because there is a direct line of causality, that is, the entire chronological development of the cell line ultimately depends on the initial fetal cells. I think arguing this way is a bit ambiguous, but I think it is trying to overcome the objection that the original cells are no longer present [Not a fact anyway, however -SJ] . The ambiguity of arguing like this also shows itself in the somewhat convoluted thought experiments given earlier to show how cooperation in some evil act would be formal vs. material."
https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=6632
I'm betting my last dollar that Canis is a Dominican priest. He said his piece and never came back. Nor did he tangle with anyone.
He also mentioned that the morality of this issue can only be determined by double effect analysis (an analysis Don Curzio Nitoglia proved beyond any dispute fails in 3 of 4 criteria).
Fr Scott wrote in 2000: "Here one could argue that the person who seeks the vaccination does not will the abortion, but simply uses the cells that are obtained as a consequence. However, the vaccine is not just an indirect effect of the abortion. There is in fact a direct line of causality, from the abortion, to the available fetal cells to the development of the vaccine, to the immunization. Therefore, the immunization is a direct consequence of the abortion, and not just an indirect effect. Consequently, it would be immoral to use a vaccine that one knew was developed in fetal cells, no matter how great the advantage to be procured." https://web.archive.org/web/20040623125417/http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__morality.htm#vaccinationfromabortions (https://web.archive.org/web/20040623125417/http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__morality.htm#vaccinationfromabortions)He never comes out and says that though. Also, how does a person will an abortion after the fact?He seems to be rejecting the argument "that the person who seeks the vaccination does not will the abortion," which would mean that the person does will the abortion which would be formal cooperation, no?
He never comes out and says that though. Also, how does a person will an abortion after the fact?
He who wills the ends, wills the means:So does Fr Scott believe that is formal cooperation? Because, again, he never says (said) that and given that "formal cooperation" is a moral theology term, I would think he would use it if that is what he means (meant).
If I buy you a car with money I robbed from the bank, and you accept, you implicitly consent to the bank robbery, since you willingly benefit from it.
Continuing with Fr. Scott’s analysis:
If you would say no, I object to the bank robbery, but I need/want that car (a scenario Fr. Scott rejects as disingenuous), then we are in the realm -for the sake of argument- of the indirect voluntary act, and it must pass the test for double effect (which Don Nitoglia shows fails in at least 3 of 4 criteria).
1. Fornication --> parental cells from fornication --> birth of a childThe child is conceived out of a sɛҳuąƖ act (which is inherently good), not a fornication.
.
In #1, the original act is a sin but the result (child) is not. Same cells involved in the sin of the parents, were not sinful in the result.
.
It's a pretty good analogy, I think.
The child is conceived out of a sɛҳuąƖ act (which is inherently good), not a fornication.The sɛҳuąƖ act is only holy in matrimony. Outside of marriage, it is unholy, sinful, against the natural law and evil. The same anti-natural law evil as murder/abortion. Both are against the natural law. Both are evil. There may be degrees of evil, when comparing the 2, but morally speaking, they are both equally wrong, in the same class.
The child is conceived out of a sɛҳuąƖ act (which is inherently good), not a fornication.(https://media.giphy.com/media/glmRyiSI3v5E4/giphy.gif)
Spirit of fornication is indulging in a pleasure itself extracted from a sɛҳuąƖ activity artificially separated from a natural law and it might be applicable to married couples too.
Fornication might lead to a conception but definitely is not a directly related.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2oA6ti9E8LBQ/ (https://www.bitchute.com/video/2oA6ti9E8LBQ/)
Father Ripperger on the vaccines. I haven't finished watching it yet.
(https://www.bitchute.com/video/2oA6ti9E8LBQ/)The fetus is not necessarily already dead.
25 minutes in, and Fr R keeps referring to "taking from the fetus" as a moral wrong, but the fetus is already dead. Isn't the taking of life the ultimate wrong? I don't understand how you can kill someone AND take something else from them too? This doesn't make sense to me.
(https://www.bitchute.com/video/2oA6ti9E8LBQ/)The 'taking" I'm assuming he's referring to is the continued duplicating of the live cells illicitly taken from the live body of the murdered fetus . The only way to provide justice for the child and what was done to it (which continues with the live cell lines) is to bury the body and the cells/ DNA remains as they are still part of the body of the deceased.
25 minutes in, and Fr R keeps referring to "taking from the fetus" as a moral wrong, but the fetus is already dead. Isn't the taking of life the ultimate wrong? I don't understand how you can kill someone AND take something else from them too? This doesn't make sense to me.
illicitly taken from the live body of the murdered fetusThat’s a contradiction. A body can’t be living and murdered at the same time. If the cells are taken after the murder, then, sure that’s immoral...but it’s not a continuation of murder. You can only murder someone once. You can murder them, and then cut them up in pieces (which would be a sin) but the cutting or dishonoring their dead body is not the same as murder.
Ok, then those fetal cells are from a living child, not from an aborted child. You can’t have it both ways - either you take cells from an aborted/dead child (which is not abortion) or you take cells from a living child (not yet aborted).You misunderstand and seem not to have viewed the video that has being posted already twice on this thread.
The fact that cells taken from aborted babies & organs taken from organ donors both need to be alive at the time of harvest has been mentioned many times on these threads. They take the baby from the mother in an "abortion" - the mother has agreed to murder her baby, but the abortion is done in a manner where the baby stays alive long enough to harvest whatever cells are needed, just as organs from an organ donor need to be from a live body (hence "brain death" - this has been explained before too). In either case, once the vital organ is taken from the organ donor, or whatever baby parts/cells are taken from the baby, then the person is dead after the harvest. Why is this so difficult to understand? In both cases, the murder is done for the purpose of harvesting human organs/cells etc.YES. YES, YES.
Some of this was explained on this video which was posted more than a few times. It is irritating to see people questioning things which have already been explained in previous posts long ago, if they would just take the time to read carefully or watch a short video.
https://youtu.be/RU2BDZL3OFY?t=199
walvax2
9 abortions went into dev. of that fetal cell line
delivered by water bag method - ensures that the baby is delivered intact
At this point in the video:
https://youtu.be/RU2BDZL3OFY?t=541
she describes how
“the tissue has to be alive in order for the virus to be cultured on that tissue
dead tissue is no use to vaccine makers”
The sɛҳuąƖ act is only holy in matrimony. Outside of marriage, it is unholy, sinful, against the natural law and evil. The same anti-natural law evil as murder/abortion. Both are against the natural law. Both are evil. There may be degrees of evil, when comparing the 2, but morally speaking, they are both equally wrong, in the same class.I noticed that you have changed the comment ....
.
A fornication is against the natural law; it is anti-nature. It is a corruption of life.
.
An abortion is against the natural law; it is anti-nature. It is a corruption of life.
.
Murder (i.e abortion) is worse than abandonment (i.e. fornication) but both sins are of the same kind.
Taking the vaccine is in no way participating in murder.Even those arguing in favor of the permissibility of using abortive vaccines concede that it is remote material cooperation in evil (murder).
Even those arguing in favor of the permissibility of using abortive vaccines concede that it is remote material cooperation in evil (murder).There are evils beside murder. It's just fundamentally impossible to participate in a sin that happened decades before you were born. You can cooperate in the sense that it's an ongoing thing, i.e accepting the vaccine may encourage them to abort more babies to create new fetal lines, but you can't retroactively participate in something that you were never around for. That's nuts.
There are evils beside murder. It's just fundamentally impossible to participate in a sin that happened decades before you were born. You can cooperate in the sense that it's an ongoing thing, i.e accepting the vaccine may encourage them to abort more babies to create new fetal lines, but you can't retroactively participate in something that you were never around for. That's nuts.
False-That's a sin of withholding someone's rightful property from them, separate from the sin of theft. There's no sin in receiving stolen property and then restoring it to the rightful owner, for example. So receiving stolen property is not participating in theft.
Everyone would agree that knowingly receiving stolen property would be sinful.
Yet it is retroactive (i.e., the theft happened before I accepted the stolen property).
But my desire/consent to receive it after the fact unites me morally to the original theft:
By accepting the stolen property, I am implicitly expressing my consent to the original theft.
Same thing here.
That's a sin of withholding someone's rightful property from them, separate from the sin of theft. There's no sin in receiving stolen property and then restoring it to the rightful owner, for example. So receiving stolen property is not participating in theft.Who said anything about returning stolen property to its rightful owner?
False-How far does this obligation go? If land was stolen from the Khoi-Khoi by the Afrikaners in 1652, are the inhabitants there today obliged to compensate the Khoi-Khoi descendants?
Everyone would agree that knowingly receiving stolen property would be sinful.
Yet it is retroactive (i.e., the theft happened before I accepted the stolen property).
But my desire/consent to receive it after the fact unites me morally to the original theft:
By accepting the stolen property, I am implicitly expressing my consent to the original theft.
Same thing here.
How far does this obligation go? If land was stolen from the Khoi-Khoi by the Afrikaners in 1652, are the inhabitants there today obliged to compensate the Khoi-Khoi descendants?Of course.
Of course.Is this a joke?
There are evils beside murder. It's just fundamentally impossible to participate in a sin that happened decades before you were born. You can cooperate in the sense that it's an ongoing thing, i.e accepting the vaccine may encourage them to abort more babies to create new fetal lines, but you can't retroactively participate in something that you were never around for. That's nuts.I feel like someone who has been wandering the psych ward trying to find my way out, and just ran into the only other sane person in the place. :jester:
False-.
Everyone would agree that knowingly receiving stolen property would be sinful.
Yet it is retroactive (i.e., the theft happened before I accepted the stolen property).
But my desire/consent to receive it after the fact unites me morally to the original theft:
By accepting the stolen property, I am implicitly expressing my consent to the original theft.
Same thing here.
.Of course not. Not because it isn’t required, but because it’s impossible. This is why murder is more serious than grand theft auto. The consequences of murder are greater in magnitude and over time than auto theft. If I were to murder a young woman, I would perhaps destroy her children’s lives and short circuit the birth into the world of saints. I’ll never know in this life the extent of the damage and the depth of the evil. That will be revealed at the Last Judgment. If I steal the family car I may cause them to go hungry because food money is used to replace the vehicle. I may cause the husband to lose his job, having no transportation, his uncaring boss fires him, or the children fall behind and fail at school, having no means of getting there. Maybe someone goes to Hell because they don’t get to Confession, they trip, hit their head, and die in mortal sin...but all this is a stretch!
I made this same answer when Ladislaus came up with his stolen car analogy. The problem with the stolen car analogy is that someone in possession of stolen property commits an ongoing sin by keeping it from its rightful owner. Someone who receives a vaccine does not commit an ongoing sin as long as he has the vaccine drug in his body.
.
So what, you ask? Well, as Forlorn points out, it is not the receiving of the property that is wrong, but the keeping it from its owner. So if someone who receives a stolen car has to return it to its proper owner, does that mean that someone who receives a drug made with the use of cells derived from an aborted fetus is obliged to restore the fetus to life?
.No , because you can't, but for the cause of justice, we are responsible to return the 'cells' to the deceased. Bury them and restore the dignity of the body to the deceased child and return to God what is God's. We cannot continue the inhuman utilitarian use of cells of a child who is now dead.
I made this same answer when Ladislaus came up with his stolen car analogy. The problem with the stolen car analogy is that someone in possession of stolen property commits an ongoing sin by keeping it from its rightful owner. Someone who receives a vaccine does not commit an ongoing sin as long as he has the vaccine drug in his body.
.
So what, you ask? Well, as Forlorn points out, it is not the receiving of the property that is wrong, but the keeping it from its owner. So if someone who receives a stolen car has to return it to its proper owner, does that mean that someone who receives a drug made with the use of cells derived from an aborted fetus is obliged to restore the fetus to life?
No , because you can't, but for the cause of justice, we are responsible to return the 'cells' to the deceased. Bury them and restore the dignity of the body to the deceased child and return to God what is God's. We cannot continue the inhuman utilitarian use of cells of a child who is now dead.
Bishop Williamson's view on the issue of the vaccine:It seems that +Williamson left the door open.
(Start at 20:54)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx7c_6tqeJ0
I recommend listening to the rest of the sermon as well, but the subject of the COVID vaccine is covered at the indicated time.
Bishop Williamson's view on the issue of the vaccine:Interesting that Bishop Williamson does make allowances for those who "need" to take the vaccine in order to keep a job or to feed one's family.
(Start at 20:54)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx7c_6tqeJ0
I recommend listening to the rest of the sermon as well, but the subject of the COVID vaccine is covered at the indicated time.
Interesting that Bishop Williamson does make allowances for those who "need" to take the vaccine in order to keep a job or to feed one's family.I do not think that he makes any allowances, just leaves the question open (and that is limited to very specific circuмstances)
Interesting that Bishop Williamson does make allowances for those who "need" to take the vaccine in order to keep a job or to feed one's family.He does say that the use of aborted fetal tissue outweighs this.
He does say that the use of aborted fetal tissue outweighs this.No he does not...not in all circuмstances.
I just sent His Excellency the following email:As a faithful who takes a seat in a last few, I would say that His Most Reverend Excellency remark in this video is an answer to recent SSPX articles.
https://youtu.be/EvQTGXva2X0 (https://youtu.be/EvQTGXva2X0)
So finally we have a rebuttal of the “material cooperation” argument.I like that observation that substance is both a form and a matter. It is the artificially sustained body piece of killed person (same DNA) - this substance is there to make the product.
He says it is formal cooperation (Fr. Chazal and the SSPX have contradictory definitions of “formal”).
I just sent His Excellency the following email:Sean, Wondering if you heard from Bishop Williamson? I would be interested in hearing his response (if allowed to post). Perhaps he will write about this in the next Eleison Comment.
"Greetings Your Lordship-
I was listening to Your Lordship's sermon of Dec. 6 regarding the COVID19 abortive vaccine. Can your Lordship confirm that the SSPX is correct in advising their faithful that there can be certain circuмstances in which the use of abortive vaccines is morally acceptable/permissible?
If so, what do you make of Fr. Scott's 2000 article concluding the contrary (or the words of those like Vigano, Burke, Schneider, et al. who, without supplying a supporting rationale, nevertheless concur that such vaccines can never be used)?"
Should I get a response, and permission to post it, I will do so.
I like that observation that substance is both a form and a matter. It is the artificially sustained body piece of killed person (same DNA) - this substance is there to make the product.BUMP
Although I am not sure how to square this (around 13:00) "a plumber makes some repairs at abortion clinic: he does not commit a sin (only material cooperation)"