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.

.
I agree with every word of this except the first sentence. 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. If your boss told you that you had to receive the COVID vaccine or be fired, and you thought it would be a mortal sin to receive the vaccine, so you chose to be fired instead, wouldn't you want to be absolutely sure that it was mortally sinful? That is why there is still a debate going on here, because if people are going to have to face beggary or homelessness because of refusing to receive some shot, we better be absolutely sure it's truly mortally sinful to receive that shot. That's what bothers me about this whole debate, that the arguments that claim it's a mortal sin to receive the COVID vaccine are based on
.
time travel/retrocausality (receiving a shot today helps kill a baby in the 1970s),
mind reading (probably the mother who provided that baby wanted to help the vaccine industry so she volunteered to have her baby killed to provide cells for vaccines),
dubious speculation (probably people are more likely to have their baby aborted if they think the fetus will be useful to science),
irrelevant and unsupported assertions (Planned Parenthood encourages women to have abortions so they can use the babies for vaccines),
false analogies (an aborted fetal vaccine is like a stolen car, except that you are required to return a stolen car to its owner but you are somehow not required to restore the aborted fetus to life),
irrelevant platitudes (we may not do evil that we may bring about good, we may never consent to a sinful act)
rejection of the Catholic moral principles of material cooperation (even if you say you are not killing the baby, and do not kill the baby, you are still involved in killing the baby)
fake moral principles derived from Hollywood movies (it is intrinsically immoral to benefit from an evil act, no matter the circuмstances) and
reversal of cause and effect (the abortion in the 1970s is the effect of receiving a shot today, not its cause).

Hold on, it's a sin to sell a dead body for the purposes of medical research?

I would think yes, from the catholic moral principle against desecration of the body.  Similar to the catholic outlawing of cremation.  There used to be widespread laws against using bodies for medical research, which is why doctors had to pay grave diggers in the 1800s to get them bodies in the middle of the night.  
.
But...As cremation is not intrinsically evil (since you can burn bodies in the event of a true pandemic, or a mass casualty, when you don't have time to bury them to prevent greater spread of disease), so I don't think medical research on a body is against the natural law (i.e. it's not intrinsically evil), because the purpose is not desecration but health/study.  There might even be cases where it's allowed, but i'm just guessing.  Creating a vaccine is certainly not a moral necessity great enough to warrant desecration of a body, so it's immoral on some level.

.
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. 

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?

.
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. 

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.  

"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

The example of the martyrs says otherwise.

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.

“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.

Offering a pinch of incense to the false gods is not on par with taking a vaccine.  Not even in the same ball park.