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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 15

Author Topic: Fr. Pagliarani addresses the covid vaccine question  (Read 18461 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trento

Re: Fr. Pagliarani addresses the covid vaccine question
« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2022, 11:39:28 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on January 05, 2022, 07:33:15 PM
So now he begins to ramble around material remote cooperation, though he never uses the actual phrase, saying instead that it's possible to "take advantage of the evil done by others".

"Take advantage"?  That is NOT the right expression here.

He uses the example of taking a cornea from a person who was "killed" (presumably he means "murdered").

Ridiculous example because --
1) you can only take the cornea if the person indicated a willingness to donate it (vs. the theft of the remains of the aborted baby)
2) you can't do that if they're killing people in order to supply corneas

We're in scenario #2 here and not just a person who happened to be killed.

Then he babbles about he it's OK to take a mosque and convert it into a Catholic Church or eat meat sacrified to idols.  Has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.

If there were an operation where people were going around murdering individuals to provide a supply of corneas, yes indeed it would be formal cooperation in the evil for you to go in and receive that procedure.  This is actually one of the clearest example yet (ironically incorrectly applied to support his position) of why it's evil to get the jab.
I think the problem is the general lumping of all the vax available out there to be using or tested with fetal cells. This is where individual prudence is needed. On scenario #2, what if the recipient of the cornea does not know the source or was told it was taken from a morally acceptable source?

This doesn't seem to be "neoSSPX sellout" issue but on the Thomistic application of material vs formal, passive vs active cooperation in the act of abortion. Didn't the sedevacantist Bishop Sanborn also enunciated on this topic a couple of months ago?
Logged

Offline Nadir

Re: Fr. Pagliarani addresses the covid vaccine question
« Reply #26 on: January 06, 2022, 05:41:59 AM »
Quote from: Miser Peccator on January 05, 2022, 11:10:58 PM

What if they wanted to sodomize you?

Just this once of course.

Okay twice, but that's it...

Promise.

Well, maybe more if needed but it's for the greater good...






We just want to alter your DNA.  Just a little tiny bit.

We just want to perform scientific experiments on your body.

So you and your children can eat.

Join the regime.

2 plus 2 is five.

Say it and your children eat.

Step on the image of Christ.

Just once.

And your children eat.



Don't play games with the Devil.


Even when they tell you it's for the greater good:


1min 52sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/YHWPuWXqP1A0/
Great post, Miser!
if this doesn’t get the point across, nothing will.

great video, as well.
Logged

Offline s2srea

Re: Fr. Pagliarani addresses the covid vaccine question
« Reply #27 on: January 06, 2022, 05:55:41 AM »
I listened to the video last night and boy oh boy did I feel like it was listening to a politician. What a bunch of weak words that make me think nothing other than this is a weak man.  I felt like he was so in tune with trying to appease everyone. "I'm not saying the chopped up baby vaccine is good, but who am I to judge."
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Fr. Pagliarani addresses the covid vaccine question
« Reply #28 on: January 06, 2022, 07:45:49 AM »
Quote from: trento on January 05, 2022, 11:39:28 PM
I think the problem is the general lumping of all the vax available out there to be using or tested with fetal cells. This is where individual prudence is needed. On scenario #2, what if the recipient of the cornea does not know the source or was told it was taken from a morally acceptable source?

This doesn't seem to be "neoSSPX sellout" issue but on the Thomistic application of material vs formal, passive vs active cooperation in the act of abortion. Didn't the sedevacantist Bishop Sanborn also enunciated on this topic a couple of months ago?

No, this is absolutely a sellout.  During his keynote speech, he didn't mention the term "abortion" a single time ... but he did allude to it, and, guess what, he tied it to the ANTI-jab people.  It was downright diabolical.

As for his articulation of the material cooperation, he never actually used the term or defined it, but gave a example, using the cornea situation, but the example was absurd and had absolutely no relation to what's actually taking place here.

As for the recipient "not knowing", well, that excuses from personal culpability but has no bearing whatsoever on the objective morality of the act.  That's true of any moral act, where it you don't know, you're subjectively not guilty.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Fr. Pagliarani addresses the covid vaccine question
« Reply #29 on: January 06, 2022, 07:48:50 AM »
Quote from: Anne Evergreen on January 05, 2022, 10:42:03 PM
Bear with me, because I am going on gut instinct here alone and am totally open to feedback on this. I am going to wade into the swamp here, because a lot of this stuff goes over my head, and I have made no bones about it since I got here. But I don't get embarrassed easily by any stretch, so enjoy getting my feet wet and trying to figure out complex ethical issues, etc.

The way I see it, is that the virtue of Justice would trump prudence. *In this case, I would say that a father may in fact have a duty to take it if it means he can continue to provide for his family, even if that time ends up as short. In other words, nobody knows when they will die, so that father may have died at age 36 anyway, regardless of what he took or not. (NOW, side point: if the person is given a known lethal injection of potassium chloride in sufficient quantity to stop his heart, well, that is different. And yes, it would be stupid for the father to take it, because for sure, 100%, he would know it would stop his heart quickly right then.)

Carrying on with my first point of the situation, *If he did not take it, and the family starves, then I would say that would be a mortal sin.

It would be another way of saying the father has to be willing to sacrifice his life for his family. I think we are both in the same ballpark, but struggling to grasp it from two different sides of the plate.

It's kind of like what I was trying to explain to Sean on his other thread. He is a father, and he first owes Justice to HIS family, to provide and protect them in an SHTF scenario, but then additionally, as a Catholic, he owes in justice to help others in that scenario next.

Even Fr. Pagliarani acknowledges that if taking the jab were immoral, the person could not take it even "out of prudence".  That's the first principle of Catholic moral theology, that the ends do not justify the means.  So if it's an evil, you can't do it, even in order to provide for your family.  Then he asserts that taking the jab is "legitimate".  This was not addressed in his main speech but only during the panel Q&A.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 15
« previous next »