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

Author Topic: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article  (Read 22357 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline confederate catholic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
  • Reputation: +304/-44
  • Gender: Male
قامت مريم، ترتيل وفاء جحا و سلام جحا

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46883
  • Reputation: +27744/-5153
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
« Reply #106 on: November 28, 2020, 04:19:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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]

    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.


    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11934
    • Reputation: +7293/-500
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #107 on: November 28, 2020, 04:20:52 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nadir, no this is not a priests opinion
    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. 
    My point stands that when you say that before Vat2 it was lawful for a nurse to assist at an abortion you are not stating reality. 
    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.

    +RIP 2024

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46883
    • Reputation: +27744/-5153
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #108 on: November 28, 2020, 04:27:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Indeed, and I made this point earlier as well.  In the internal forum, God alone judges.  What we're discussing is the OBJECTIVE morality of the act, and somehow this has been clouded over with the subjectivist internal forum consideration regarding culpability.  There's no room for such criteria in discerning the objective morality of a given act.

    Either I am a cause of the evil act or I am not ... that's all that matters.  Now, there are types and degrees of causality that must be sorted through, but whether or not I "wanted" the abortion to happen has precious little to do with it.

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4111
    • Reputation: +2421/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #109 on: November 28, 2020, 04:41:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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]
    .
     :facepalm: Some Novus Ordo heretic is now going to teach us moral theology? Anyway, to continue:


    Quote
    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
    .
    No, you mean that made the cell lines available. This guy is changing the sequence of events here in order to make his argument work. He's talking as though you go in to a Walgreen's for your COVID shot, and the pharmacist says, "Okay, sir, let me go out and abort a baby for you so I can use his corpse to make your vaccine. Please have a seat right there and I will call you when we are ready." No one is being killed in order to produce this vaccine.

    That's just for starters.

    This entire argument suffers from two problems: 1. It confuses a cause-and-effect relationship with a condition sine qua non, and 2. it reverses cause and effect.

    1. The abortion is not the cause of a vaccine. If anything, it is a condition sine qua non. Since the two can be hard to distinguish, this one is a little understandable. For example, dousing a house with gasoline and throwing a match in will burn the house down. The gas and match are the cause, and the burning house is the effect. The effect flows necessarily and nearly always from the cause. On the other hand, as I said on a previous page, having a bread knife is a condition sine qua non to making a sandwich. The knife itself is not the cause of the sandwich, but it is required in order to make the sandwich. If someone makes you a sandwich with a knife that you know is stolen, are you sinning by eating the sandwich? Of course not. But wait, the sandwich would not exist if the knife had not been stolen. Does that not prove that it is a sin to eat the sandwich? Aren't you willing the crime? No, you are just eating a sandwich. You didn't steal anything, and it's not wrong to eat a sandwich. In the same way, the fact that cells of aborted children are used in the making of a medicine does not make the person receiving the medicine guilty of sin, even if the vaccine would not exist if the child had not been aborted.

    2. It reverses cause and effect. It is correct to say that one may not posit an evil cause in order to draw a good effect from it. One cannot kill a baby in order to create a vaccine. However, neither the person receiving the shot nor the person who developed the vaccine killed the baby. The most that could be claimed is that the abortion is the cause of the vaccine. The vaccine is not the cause of the abortion, as our heretical friend cited above claims. Even that, however, is false. If an abortion were a cause of a vaccine, there would be vaccines popping into existence every time a baby was aborted. Cause and effect are intrinsically linked. Rather, the cause of the vaccine is the doctors who developed it. They only used material resulting from a crime they did not commit.

    And I'm still waiting for someone to explain how it is immoral to use the body of a murder victim for medical research, much less for someone to receive medication developed using research performed on a murder victim. The idea is unheard-of before it was popularized by conservative Vatican 2 heretics.


    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4111
    • Reputation: +2421/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #110 on: November 28, 2020, 04:59:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    .
    I responded to your stolen car analogy about two pages back, but someone who knowingly buys a stolen car is guilty of refusing to give it back to its owner. It is not just a sin because it is a participation in the original theft. That's not the same thing from benefiting accidentally from a crime that one did not participate in and did not consent to.
    .
    Quote
    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.

    .
    Can you explain this a little more? The abortion is not the effect of the vaccine. An effect cannot take place before its cause. Put another way, receiving a vaccine does not cause anyone to die.
    .

    Quote
    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 is directly causing something evil. I don't understand how this parallels what we're talking about here.
    .
    Yes, I agree with your last statement that intentions should not factor into the calculus here.

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4111
    • Reputation: +2421/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #111 on: November 28, 2020, 05:02:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46883
    • Reputation: +27744/-5153
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #112 on: November 28, 2020, 06:11:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    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.

    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.


    Offline josefamenendez

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5509
    • Reputation: +4156/-289
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #113 on: November 28, 2020, 06:13:47 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think it's important to remember that fetal cell lines are not mandatory in the creation of a vaccine. There are other pluripotent human cells that could provide the same "benefits " of fetal tissue such as ( what Fr Chazal stated) placental cells and even human fat cells. In fact human cells are not necessary either: they are just more convenient to grow the virus, and require less "killing" of laboratory animals (truth!) whose lines don't last as long. Some vaccines are still cultured on eggs. Fancy that.

    So- fetal lines are used specifically for nefarious reasons I suspect. Most likely spiritual.

    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.

    To me this is another spiritual test- Do we give consent to the evil or not? Evil needs our consent.
    We will probably wind up with a two tiered caste system. Those who take the shot will be able to travel, work and enjoy the freedoms of worldly life. Those who do not take it, will be isolated , limited  and compromised financially- maybe even contained or worse.

    So maybe this is how to separate the wheat from the chaff?

    Offline PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 915
    • Reputation: +787/-117
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #114 on: November 28, 2020, 06:31:36 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • 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.

    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.
    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.]  

    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

    Offline josefamenendez

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5509
    • Reputation: +4156/-289
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #115 on: November 28, 2020, 06:44:45 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    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.
     
    The intent of abortion is the destruction of a child, but the commercialization of it's body parts to support an industry is a catalyst for more abortions and increases the "acceptability" of abortion for "good causes".
     


    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4111
    • Reputation: +2421/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #116 on: November 28, 2020, 07:55:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So objective right and wrong needs to be determined from cause-effect analysis rather than from motivation or intention.
    .
    Sounds good to me.
    .

    Quote
    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.

    .
    I'm sorry Ladislaus, my friend, but this doesn't make any sense. Women don't sit in the waiting room of an abortion clinic and say to themselves, "I really don't want to be doing this, but those drug companies need to make those vaccines and they need my baby to do so." In any case, I thought we agreed to ignore people's personal motivations or intentions?
    .

    Quote
    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.

    .
    It's doesn't matter, because, as you said,
    .

    Quote
    objective right and wrong needs to be determined from cause-effect analysis rather than from motivation or intention.

    .
    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.

    Offline Carissima

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 782
    • Reputation: +569/-229
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #117 on: November 28, 2020, 08:38:47 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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. 

    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11934
    • Reputation: +7293/-500
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #118 on: November 28, 2020, 08:39:02 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • 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.]  

    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
    Well said. Ladi and PAT. 
    It's a shame indeed that some posters here insist on refusing to read the available literature, but choose to remain in their ignorance. One can only guess why.
    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.

    +RIP 2024

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12384
    • Reputation: +7870/-2444
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article
    « Reply #119 on: November 28, 2020, 09:24:52 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    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.
    .
    2) 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.  
    .
    We're not debating the vaccine under pre-virus conditions.  The "new normal" (however much I hate that phrase) may drastically change the kinds of moral questions we face.