Disputed and/or Uncertain Points:
1) When I argued that only blood is proportionate to blood, and likewise, that potential job loss does not equal necessity, the priest who initially contacted me objected. In his opinion, there can be "necessity less than death." He gave the example of a poor mother of 10 in Honduras who is taking care of her mother with cancer. He posited that in such a case, necessity would exist. My response was that, leaving aside the issue of necessity, such a scenario would still fail the proportionality test (i.e., blood for blood).
2) One priest from the group noted that, if it were never morally permissible to take the jab, then the apostolate would be closed in many areas of the world (as many countries are or will require a CÖVÌD Passport for entry). This would leave souls stranded. My response was that, in such a case, priests would have to infiltrate such countries covertly, just as they have had to do in prior Church persecutions (e.g., Henry's England).
3) What in the case where there is a real danger of death subjectively (i.e., for a particular individual)? It would seem then that the question of whether remote material cooperation in evil WOULD need to be resolved one way or the other. The official SSPX position has made an argument applying this principle to reach an affirmative conclusion, but the opponents seem to have reached their contrary conclusion citing only arguments from authority. Attempts to disprove the applicability of remote material cooperation have been absent or weak.
4) Archbishop Vigano wrote that the 2005 Vatican docuмent based itself upon poor research (i.e., mistaken science) regarding the remoteness of the abortions (i.e., I think he was alleging or implying that more recent abortions are periodically needed to keep the testing and development of these ναccιnєs going. If so, his argument of fact would seem to call into question the remoteness of the evil, and therefore be relevant to assessing the remote material cooperation justification. I would be interested in a deeper explanation of this argument).
5) The difficulty of the issue is manifested not only by the division between authorities, but even changed positions by these authorities themselves. It seems time for reflection may produce for some conclusions different than those from which they started (e.g., Bishop Williamson). Even the priest who sent me the initial email asking me not to publish my paper noted several others who were inclined to agree with Fr. Selegny at that time, but then goes on to say the matter requires further study. At least one cleric implicitly referred to as supporting Fr. Selegny at that time wrote to me two months later saying the bishops must condemn the ναccιnєs whether they used abortive cells for testing or for manufacturing (which would seem to object to the remote material cooperation justification)...but then expressed his thought regarding difficulties for the apostolate, only to conclude further study was necessary.
Seeing how even the very learned struggled with the question caused me to refrain from taking a hard position either way on the first question (i.e., whether the jab would be permissible if necessity and proportionality were present), and this uncertainty (along with the circuмstances described above) is ultimately what led me to scrap my project.
I agree that more study is needed (and not just regarding the abortion issue, but also those left unaddressed by the SSPX study, such as the morality of human experimentation, scandal, the reputation of the Church, the promotion -albeit unwittingly- of the abortion and body parts trafficking industry, political issues, etc.).
Topic: To the Menzingen Shill: Abortive CÖVÌD ναccιnєs (Read 3843 times)