Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines

Here’s where I get confused on all of this…. I’m missing why this is even a question. If abortions were to suddenly and miraculously cease throughout the world today, would the vaccine (or future medical developments of similar nature) cease as well? If the answer is “no” (which I believe it is for most of these cases), why is it a question since it is not causing more evil? Am I simplifying this too much? Is it really the belief of the Church that after a crime has been committed, people who had nothing to do with the crime cannot use the results for good? It’s not like you can repair the crime, such as by returning stolen goods to their owner.

P.S. – In any case, this has no bearing on my decision not to take the vaccine at least initially. I don’t want to have to respond to the TV ad in a other couple years: “Did you receive the COVID vaccination in 2021? You might be entitled to compensation. Just call Dewey, Cheetam, and Howe Law Firm at 1-800-555….)

I am confused as to the outrage within certain circles. The MMR vaccine and others also derived from aborted fetuses; and yet still morally permissable to receive. The Teaching of the Church on this is consistent. I am uncertain why there is outrage all of a sudden regarding a known Teaching of the Church. In fact; some Traditional schools ask students to be vaccinated against MMR etc so as to remain open in accordance with State mandates. I will consider the vaccine once time has passed and others havent fallen ill; that is my major concern; is the vaccine safe over the long term. The outrage is more political than moral.

This point is well taken:

“Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.”

...

...

Bear with me. From Inside the Vatican,an interview with Dr. Theresa Deisher: “We have to stop being afraid”.
Deisher: First of all, COVID-19 is a coronavirus, and there are many of them. No vaccine has ever successfully been made against a coronavirus. So that’s a high hurdle to overcome. All of their focus is on the H2 receptor in these vaccines, when they are focusing on the spike protein, they’re focused on the ACE2 receptor which was the receptor for SARS-CoV-1. Now SARS-CoV-2 can bind the ACE2 receptor; however, it doesn’t look like that’s the receptor it actually uses in the human body because the symptoms are totally different. If it used ACE2 just like SARS-CoV-1, we would have the same symptoms. It doesn’t. Everyone made those assumptions. I mean, they didn’t have a lot of time to think about this. And hindsight is 20/20 vision. But they treated these patients like they treated SARS-CoV-1, put them on mechanical ventilators, which for the most part is what caused the deaths. It’s a different disease. The vaccines that are going after the Spike 2 protein we don’t believe are focused on the right receptor.

And there has never been a vaccine successfully generated against a coronavirus. The coronaviruses do mutate, so even if you could create a vaccine, you’d have to create a new one every year. There are just much better approaches to this effort. Obviously for influenza, which is an annual pandemic, we have vaccines. But we still have hundreds of thousands of deaths every year, even though we have the vaccines. The vaccines typically are not effective. The most effective one is only 44% effective. And then you have to make new vaccines, because you have to guess at what strain is going to come the next season. Sometimes they guess well and sometimes they don’t guess as well. A vaccine is not the answer.
Also from Inside the Vatican, Stefanie Stark interviews Robert Kennedy Jr. Some shorter excerpts.
Stark: According to the World Health Organization, there are 70 vaccines in development — three of which are in clinical trials. What do you think about the push for the rapid development of a COVID-19 vaccine? Is it okay to skip animal trials and go straight to human trials? Can those human volunteers truly have informed consent?
Kennedy: No. What we know about coronavirus from 30 years of experience is that a coronavirus vaccine has a unique peculiarity, which is any attempted making of the vaccine has resulted in the creation of a class of antibodies that actually make vaccinated people sicker when they ultimately suffer exposure to the wild virus. Following the SARS epidemic that began in 2002, China launched a concerted effort to develop a coronavirus vaccine. They succeeded in developing 30 promising models, and they chose the four “best in class” to fabricate and then test on ferrets, the animal most analogous to human beings when it comes to upper respiratory infections.

The ferrets all developed admirable, robust, and durable antibody responses, and the scientists believed they had hit the jackpot. But then, when the animals suffered exposure to the wild virus, something frightening happened. The vaccinated animals sickened and died with body-wide inflammation. The vaccine had created a condition known as paradoxical inherent immune response, which amplified the injury caused by the illness rather than preventing it.
…Stark: Is it a wild or created virus?
Kennedy: That is unclear. There is strong circumstantial evidence that the virus could be the product of not so much genetic engineering as accelerated evolution, and that is the mechanism that is used to create vaccines and bioweapons. There was a research program that was being used at the Wuhan lab, and we know this because they published many studies on it. It’s a way of creating “gain of function” organisms. In other words, created organisms that are very virulent and extremely transmissible.
Stark: Why would anybody do such research?
Kennedy: it’s a way of developing vaccines. So what they do is, they take a wild coronavirus and then they grow it on pangolin tissue. Then they’ll take it off of pangolin tissue. They take the colonies from the pangolin tissue and regrow those colonies on mouse brains. And they’ll take the colonies from mouse brains and they’ll regrow them on monkey vero kidney cells. And then finally, they will grow them on human lung tissue. It’s a way of teaching the virus to jump species. You’re training it.

When they do that, they will give that trained virus to rats that have been genetically engineered to have human DNA to see if they can make the rats sick from coronavirus. And when they prove they can make the rats sick, they then try to develop a vaccine to stop the spread of the thing. And it’s called “gain of function” research. Many doctors and scientists have criticized it as having little benefit historically, of adding little to the knowledge while taking huge risks.
End of pastes.
And remembering Mike Vander Bough, in his Alabaman accent: “Aw hell no!”

P.S. Also read about mRNA, messenger RNA in the vaccine. Never done before. Jeff Goldblum’s head…

Aside from the moral theology, what is even more important to understand is that this is not some standard flu vaccine. This is an mRNA vaccine (it messes with your DNA – SCARY!). It’s COMPLETELY experimental. They have ZERO idea what the long term effects will be (not good). COVID can mutate and that would make this vaccine moot! Bottom line: If you get this vaccine you are willing to be a guinea pig.

[We are not obliged to get this vaccine willingly.]

Thanks for posting this. Important stuff. I hope the bishops that were against this will publish this in their diocesan papers so that their laity can be informed.

...

Thank you for your response, Father. I do see the distinctions in those paragraphs, but I am not sure if le bon Dieu, as we say in France, will let us off the hook so easily. An ethically acceptable alternative may not be available to us in France, but will this be enough as an excuse, given that there may be reasonable doubt about the grave danger posed by the disease itself?

If no alternative was available, would a Catholic priest visiting the sick, elderly and dying be excused or even obliged to take an ethically doubtful vaccine ? It just seems so twisted, the question itself seems to be something of the devil. But it may soon be upon many of our good and holy priests.

I think I would have preferred to die of the Spanish flu in 1918 with a clear conscience, rather than take the vaccine in 2020. But then again, God put us here and today at this very moment for a reason.

Thank you for all the good work you do for our souls, Father.

Here is a good article on the science of the mrna vaccine:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine.html

I know someone who was a test case for the vaccine months ago. The person only recently found out they received the vaccine and not the placebo. Last month everyone in this person’s work department got covid except this person. Good example that the vaccine appears to work effectively. And this person had no reactions to the initial shots and honestly thought they had received the placebo because the shots were so simple with no ill effects.

...

I am very familiar with the mRNA technology used to produce the Pfizer vaccine as I am the founder of a competing mRNA technology. My comments apply to all of the other mRNA vaccines in development (Moderna, CureVac, Arcturus and Sanofi Pasteur). Let me be very clear — The vaccine itself; the drug product – the material injected into a person is not produced using cells of any kind – including cells taken from a child murdered by abortion. The vaccine is synthetic (synthesized using enzymes and chemical components).

There is, however, a moral question with this Pfizer vaccine (and, I believe the Moderna vaccine). This involves testing performed on the drug (vaccine) after it was manufactured to ensure quality and potency. One of the many tests on the vaccine after it was manufactured involved a cell line called HEK 293. These cells were procured from an aborted child in the early 1970s in the Netherlands. The precise details of this abortion are unknown; according to testimony from the scientist who made the cell line (i.e., it could be from a spontaneous abortion, for example). It is very likely however, that the HEK293 cells were derived from a procured, elective abortion.

The moral question is whether the testing used to characterize the vaccine renders the vaccine itself morally evil. To me, it seems to be at least one degree separated from direct cooperation with the evil act of abortion. Unfortunately, in our society nearly everything we buy and most things made in the USA, Europe (and China) have some kind of connection to the abortion industry.

I believe that the latest assessment from the Vatican is correct. The biopharma industry, however, needs to ensure that these abominable cell lines are no longer used in any way. There are morally acceptable alternative cell lines (I use them every day!). Unfortunately, most scientists don’t even give this even a passing consideration.

...

...

I think receiving it would be wrong I think I’m going to stick with Bishop Schneider on this one. Reference: Schneider’s interview at life site with John Henry Westin.

I will stick with Bishop Schneider and Fr. Ripperger on this. Fr. Ripperger recently had an excellent podcast on this on Sensua Fildeium.

...

Fr. Z,

I have been following this issue of vaccines derived from the cells of murdered babies for many years. I know many of us have. This is not a “new” problem to many of us who have been pro-life advocates. I have had to write many letters claiming personal religious exemption from all vaccines for all my children who attended Catholic schools before we started homeschooling. Now I am not qualified to make judgements about ethical vaccines as they may have done good in the past. However, I believe we can all share a certain mistrust to pharmaceutical companies as they are willing to utilize the remains of murdered children and their moral records are most likely not the best. So my questions are this:

1. As a long time Catholic pro-life advocate who has a long time record of resisting tainted vaccines, where and what does the role of my conscience play in this theological and moral situation? I must say that I have feeling of horror at the thought of having such a vaccine derived from the remains of a baby injected into my or anyone’s body. Without trying to be rebellious, the statements from the Vatican sound like a compromise and basically say that I won’t be committing a mortal sin by allowing these unethical vaccines to be injected into my body. Just so I understand, remote cooperation does mean there is some cooperation? Is my conscience wrong? Or does this indicate that it is malformed, when it is telling me it is my duty to resist these unethical vaccines with “maximum of determination” even if it is remote cooperation?

2. The Vatican says it should be voluntary to receive such or any vaccines, but it is not a conspiracy theory anymore to assume that this is going to be the case. What then? Where is the guidance? Again, at the risk of sounding rebellious, the CDF leaves a lot to be desired with regards to clarity. Nor does it seem to me to address the horrible crime behind this issue. I felt great comfort and inspiration by the letter issued by bishops (Schneider, Strickland and others) with regards to our duty to resist with “maximum of determination” these unethical vaccines. They actually sounded Catholic and heroic. The CDF did not. I could not help thinking again how the Vatican made me feel like a “schismatic” because my conscience tells me this compulsory vaccine issue is, as a reader mentioned above, “the hill to die on.” Just as I agree with my conscience when it tells me with maximum determination that worshiping Pachamama in the Vatican gardens is a grave mortal sin.

Please help us!

I was born with original sin, without any fault on my part, because of the sins of others, remote to me. I’ll wait for a vaccine untainted by sin.

[Sorry, for the length of this comment. I think the nature of the topic warrants it]

I have been staying away from anything smacking of politics, anywhere, because I find it a near occasion of sin for me, but I think I have to say something about the vaccine situation. Molecular genetics is not my field of expertise, but I do, occasionally, teach an organic/biochemistry class for pre-nursing students and we cover some of the relevant topics to this discussion in the course, albeit not at a specialists level.

As much as I respect the five bishops (Snider, Strickland, etc.) who signed a document calling for resistance against any vaccine tainted by the use of aborted fetal cells, this is a very complicated issue and requires a much more extensive discussion.

To begin with, there are certain vaccines which, to my mind, no good Catholic may use, because they directly make use of aborted fetal cells in their production. The Lozier Institute has a very good (as in print it out and share it) list of the aspects of production for each of the major vaccines in development:

https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/

The AstraZeneca vaccine is a prime example of a vaccine using aborted cells in its production and shame on the bishops of England if they support it, when other, less controversial vaccines are available. The list of easily immoral vaccines are found by looking at the “production” column in the list.

There are also a few vaccines that are easily moral, since no aborted fetal cells are used, at all, at any phase of their development. One example is the Sanofi and GSK Protein Sciences (France and US) vaccine and, ironically, some of the Chinese vaccines. A few of these are in phase 3 trials, but most are in phase 1/2 trials and won’t be available until at least late 2021.

The problematic vaccines (and there are many that fit this category, including the Novovax, cited, above) are those that use the HEK 293 or PER C6 cell lines for testing, as these cell lines are taken from aborted fetuses. The reason that these are problematic is because they use the HEK 293 or PER C6 cell lines to test if the vaccine produces the spike protein, S-2P (there are two sub units to a portion of the spike protein of SARS-COVID-19, S1 and S2, and the S2 protein was found to be more stable (more resistant to mutations) and a better candidate for the vaccine). These are confirmatory tests, only, at least in the case of Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech and are only used to prove that the vaccine does what it is supposed to do. No fetal cells are used in design or production of the vaccine. The reason these cell lines are used is that they produce enough of the protein in a relatively short period of time so that the protein can be assayed to prove that it has the right structure and they aren’t creating something different, by accident. A summary of their testing methodology (for the scientifically interested) may be found, here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2622-0

Now, according to Moderna, it was the NIAID/UT team (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the University of Texas at Austin) that performed the HEK 293 test. According to Eric Failing from the Pennsylvania Catholic Conferences:

“The supposed connection to aborted fetal cell lines in patents does not cite the correct Moderna patent related to its vaccines, and the cites in the incorrect patent are to research concept examples unrelated to the actual vaccine production. Some Moderna collaborators (NIAID/UT) did use abortion-derived HEK293 cells to produce viral spike protein to test its shape and antibody binding [see: https://news.utexas.edu/2020/08/05/locking-down-shape-shifting-spike-protein-aids-development-of-covid-19-vaccine/ my comment] but their test did not determine the design or production of the nucleic acid sequence, and in fact was done only after Moderna had already determined the genetic sequence needed, developed their mRNA sequence vaccine, and begun production of the mRNA vaccine. [My emphasis] Moderna is not producing a spike protein for its vaccine, nor does it use cell lines (aborted fetal cell or otherwise) in the production of this mRNA vaccine. Moderna’s vaccine is mRNA (instructions) that tells the body how to produce its own spike protein. Bottom line, Moderna vaccine production does not utilize aborted fetal cells and its design did not rely upon aborted fetal cells.”

http://phillycatholiclife.org/life-affirming-choices-3/covid-19-vaccines-explained/

Moderna co-authored the Nature paper, however, so it could give the appearance that Moderna did the HEK 293 testing. It did not, as far as I understand the situation. Like so many scientific projects, these days, this was a join collaboration with Moderna, NIAID, and UT. Moderna made the vaccine and NIAID/UT tested it. The Nature article says:

“HEK293T/17 (ATCC CRL-11268), Vero E6 (ATCC), Huh7.5 cells (provided by D. R. Taylor, US Food and Drug Administration) and ACE2-expressing 293T cells (provided by M. Farzan, Scripps Research Institute)…”

That same paragraph, however, also says:

“…Cell lines were not authenticated.”

What that means is unclear. The cell lines were thought to be HEK 293, but they were not authenticated as such. In fact, Moderna could not even rightfully say that the cell line was HEK 293. That burden lied with the FDA. Moderna cannot know this, for sure. They are taking the FDA’s word.

To the extent, however, that they consented to the testing, knowingly (or at least not proving to their own satisfaction that it wasn’t), allowing the use of the HEK 283 cell line for testing, they may, in fact, be a material co-operator in evil, but they are at least one degree of separation from the actual testing with a cell line that was not, actually, authenticated – however, that may have been merely vincible ignorance. On the other hand, it may, at this point, be impossible to trace the linage of the cell line used for the test.

It seems that Moderna merely used the results of the testing (it proved their vaccine produced the correct protein), but did not directly act in the testing. They did not intend the abortion; they did not cause the abortion that led to the HEK 293 cell line. Their collaborators, essentially, used the dead body parts of a murdered baby for tests. Is it morally permissible to use the organs of a murdered man (that one did not kill or cause to be killed) to save a life? In general, no. In the article on organ donation, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 2296 says:

“It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent.”

Since no one can give consent to murder, use of aborted cells is always morally illicit, so NIAID/UT are, definitely, doing something immoral. Moderna’s name on the Nature article gives implicit consent to the HEK 293 testing, so the summary of their position given by Failing, above, is disingenuous. Even if Moderna did not have the cell lines authenticated, because of the gravity of the cell line’s origin, they were morally required to remove the doubt about whether or not it was the HEK 293 cell line before they gave consent. They did not, so, in effect, they morally consented to the use of probably aborted cells in the testing of their vaccine.

I must ask, since this goes beyond my level of expertise: is there another method to create sufficient protein for testing that does not use aborted cells (maybe, pluripotent stem cells?)? Is using aborted cells the only way or merely the most expeditious way?

In any case, I think that the five bishops are missing the point: the testing is unrelated to the design or the production of the mRNA vaccine of either Moderna or Pfizer. The testing did not, actually, have to be done. They could have merely hoped their designs were right and proceeded on. The testing is an independent result from the design and production, which one could, rightly, I think, argue, makes Moderna a moral cooperator in evil because of the testing, but it does not make Moderna’s vaccine, itself, immoral, nor Moderna a co-operator in evil for designing and creating it. They did not use an evil means to a good end (which is forbidden), as in the cases where aborted cells are directly used to manufacture the vaccine. The evil they consented to was independent of the end. They did not, strictly speaking, have to do it, except by explicit force by the government regulatory agencies.

Given this, it would seem that the vaccine, itself, bears no taint of evil, only the testing of it in a lab. To say that, in all cases, if any portion of the creation of vaccine is evil renders the entire vaccine evil is to commit the fallacy of composition, which is what I fear the bishops are guilty of, here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

Making a gun does not make the gun, itself, evil, even if the gun maker decides to shot someone to see if it works. I think this is exactly the situation, here. The vaccine is the gun; killing someone to see if it works is an immoral method of testing of the gun. The two are unrelated. Can people morally buy the gun? I think the simple answer is, yes. One does not even have to appeal to degrees of moral separation to see that this is correct.

To summarize: vaccines that directly use fetal cells in their production are morally evil and can never be used, even to the point of resisting to death, in my opinion. Vaccines that merely test their product in an immoral fashion, but do not use fetal cells in any other way, are morally licit, however, the manufacturers are morally culpable for their improper testing techniques.

The Chicken

I read a reprint of Bishop Schneider’s comments on the matter. I noted some important concerns, especially his evident frustration at how entrenched the practice of using human embryonic cells has become in medical research.

However, although I won’t address his comments point-by-point, I did not see any reasoning that invalidated that of the CDF and Pontifical Academy for Life, nor excluded the vaccines currently in question from a maximum determination to defend life. Such a determination must weigh decisions and actions that witness to the defense of life but do not have an effect of preserving lives proportionately with acts that have do have an effect of preserving lives, assuming neither involve the commission of evil acts.

Furthermore, regardless of Bishop Schneider’s intentions of orthodoxy, I think caution must still be maintained against the temptation to selectively choose teachings or counsels to observe out of convenience, or to follow an individual or even a group of bishops toward conclusions not in accordance with the widely held and longstanding understanding of the Church. Bishop Schneider clearly can not call objections to the vaccine on account of remote cooperation with evil to be the formal Sensus Fidelium, as they are factually not even remotely universally held. I am disappointed, and in fact concerned, that he claimed there to be a “unanimous response” on the matter, especially one that does not appear consistent with the counsel of the CDF.

Lastly, in order to consider a variety of perspectives when I evaluate this question, I found myself checking whether the SSPX had published any counsel on the topic, on the assumption they would not fail to consider the question independently of the CDF. They currently have published on their website guidance that is consistent with that written by the CDF. I think it is well-written and worth reading.

I have not posted here before though I have been reading this blog for years. I think that many of the faithful in these times are looking for leaders who we can trust and for signs by which we can trust them. It is difficult. I trust Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider, as well as Archbishop Vigano. I trusted you Father but something here makes me hear the voice of one I do not know. We run from the strange voice even if we do not know why; we are simple but there is something, hopefully it is the sensus fidei, that makes us uneasy when we hear this strangeness. We are all trying to be faithful to what is true but we know there is rot at the top and I would trust Bishop Schneider’s latest statements over yours, and he said this would happen, that people like you would somehow be blinded. Maybe you need to do some fasting?

[You have failed to read this whole thing carefully, I fear. At the same time, you are entirely within your right to refuse accept a vaccination. I hope you will be healthy and/or you have an alternative vaccine that you find acceptable. I hope that for you and all who depend on you and who would be your caretakers in illness. Also, it could be that those who worked on this (CDF) have the sensus fidei fidelium. Finally, you have set up a marker about “fidelity” in a realm that is extremely complex and where the very best of faithful Catholics wrestle with angels. This perhaps is a side effect of the anglo-saxon view of morals. Not sure. Anyway, continue to think about this and read what comes out about it.]

If the abortions had happened just to supply tissue for a vaccine, then IMHO it would be morally illicit to take the vaccine.

Robtbrown, I would agree with you – if the abortion was done for THIS vaccine.

If the abortion was done for some vaccine effort 60 years ago, by some other doctor, working for some other company, and the company supplying THIS vaccine used the same cell line “because the cell line has well established biological aspects”, then there become (at a minimum) two bases for distancing this vaccine from the abortion: the intent has no formal connection to abortion, and the agent involved has no immediate connection with abortion. A cell line having “well-established biological features” is not formally or logically dependent on the cell line coming from an aborted baby. In reality, at this point most companies probably get the cell line through the agency of several, possibly MANY, intervening agents, who may have any number of motives having some, little, or nothing to do with abortion. This makes it remote.

Beyond the remoteness of the aborted fetal stem cell lines, as a physician, I am distrustful of the rushed emergency approbation of these vaccines. [No kidding!]

Moderna Corportation, for example, has never produced an FDA approved product. None.
Moderna has never been involved in the mass production or distribution of vaccines. Not once.
And this company is the 2nd fastest emergency approved aborted stem cell derived COVID vaccine product.
Both Pfizer and Moderna have produced a world first mRNA type vaccine product which has no prior widescale use correllaries for which to compare.
Studies for both Pfizer and Moderna were over a limited 2-3 month period and mostly included older patients. Current vaccine guidelines suggest anyone with ANY prior severe reactions to *anything* should not receive the vaccine. Anyone pregnant or possibly becoming pregnant in the next 2-3months (aka any practicing Catholic man’s wife of child rearing age) should not receive the vaccine. Anyone with COVID in the last 3 months should not receive the vaccine.

To me all the data suggests we have an under-studied vaccine (with a larger than vaccine average list of contraindications), utilizing untested mRNA technology, produced by some companies with no track record of FDA approval or distribution, being massively distributed to young healthy people who have an extremely small chance of being harmed by actual infection with the virus. Also it utilizes aborted fetal cells to exist.

None of my statements are conspiracy theory. Make up your own mind. Be an adult. Decide what is right for you and your family. If I was 60 with COPD and diabetes and obesity I’d consider getting it.

As it is, I’m 34 and totally healthy and am just not sure I want to provide myself, my wife, or my kids as the fodder for unlisted phase 3/4 clinical trials (did I mention there were no animal trials?). Even if I took the vaccine, I will still have to wear an N95 mask and goggles all day in clinic and in the OR so the vaccine would change nothing in my life apart from personal risk I perceive as greater than the virus currently. And the moral issue of remotely profiting from aborted babies.

I am really glad to have had the chance to read this post and the ensuing discussion.
Life Site News (John Henry Weston et al.) came out with a note today condemning all the vaccines because in one way or another they were “tainted” by abortion. (The reasoning reads a little bit like parts of the Talmud.)
I believe the invention of these messenger RNA-based vaccines, which attack the virus’s genetic structure, will in time have a very desirable side effect — that of making the fetal-cell-based vaccines used for things like measles irrelevant and lead to their replacement.

There’s no proof that his getting the shot didn’t cause him to be the carrier/instigator of his workplace’s outbreak.

...

...

• Anita Moore, O.P.(lay) says:

  23 December 2020 at 9:31 AM

  Patrick Casanova says: Ok. Here’s a very simple point. We are not to do evil that good may come from it. Remote cooperation with evil is still cooperation with evil. Cooperation with evil is evil. We may not do evil. It seems to me that the CDC is saying it’s just a pinch of evil and therefore insignificant. I have heard we should rather die than offend God. Venial sin is sin.

  Except it’s not that simple, because in this fallen world, we are faced with conflicting duties, and with the fact that the tar of sin sticks to every human activity. It is virtually impossible not to engage in some cooperation with evil on some level, however remotely, whether we like it or not. And yet, we can’t just bow out of life. We have to function. To refuse to carry out the duties of our state of life is also an evil.

• ...

•  

• Herman Joseph says:

  23 December 2020 at 10:42 AM

  Three points I think are key to this:

  1) The survival rate is about 99.8%. Most people who have died from it, 99.2 % approximately–and despite the hype of the mass media–were in their 80’s and already had some serious issues. This is not a grave situation; the 1918 influenza that killed millions and millions, young and old, that was a grave situation. Corona does not fit the bill, except in the minds of the mass media and such, as grave.

  2) The vaccines, tainted or not, are experimental. They were created in about nine months or so. It takes about ten years at least to vet a vaccine. There is no way to know the effects of these vaccines, not to mention that every coronoavirus vaccine thus far has been snubbed in the animals trials: the animals, when exposed to the virus they were inoculated against, had a deadly overreaction. There is simply no way to say these are anything but experimental.

  Give points 1 and 2 alone I cannot fathom how one can think these vaccines make any sense at all. I can’t do everyone’s homework, but there is a ton of information from legit doctors who are experts that these vaccines make no sense under the circumstances. And what the Vatican and many bishops are putting out about vaccines also simply makes no sense; it seems to be based not on science or common sense, but on watching the mainstream media.

  3) Here is a link to Fr. Ripperger’s analysis. Bishop Strickland and Bishop Schneider also agree with this asssessment, as do I: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exorcist-priest-abortion-tainted-vaccines-are-ongoing-theft-of-babies-bodies

  The thing is, in a nutshell, whatever distinctions one makes, there are some facts that cannot be put aside: cells lines from a baby murdered by abortion were used in some vaccines to make the vaccines, and other vaccines were tested on that baby’s cell lines, such as from Pfizer. Per Fr. Ripperger:

  “The quality from the original abortion…even though the abortion is distant in time and even in physical effect, the fact of the matter is that the physicality of using the aborted-derived DNA from the child renders the vaccination, even today from a moral perspective, sufficiently proximate [to the evil of the abortion].

  Thus to use that baby’s cell line is stealing. Not only that, the ONLY reason those vaccines are available is because of some reliance on the murdered baby’s stolen DNA/Cells by the one taking the vaccine–the vaccines would not be available, in other words, if not for that baby’s murder: the vaccines were produced from his cell lines or tested on them. To make use of those vaccines is to say, “I am dependent on that baby’s murder by abortion in order to have this vaccine and possibly save my own life.” That is a complicity in a direct sense to the abortion, and it is never valid to do evil in order to obtain a good. Use of the vaccines, in the words of Fr Ripperger, are “sufficiently proximate.” The date of the baby’s murder by abortion or distance in terms of physical effect has nothing to do with the fact that there is complicity in the use of these vaccines.

  Physical health of course is also not an absolute good. I am shocked that anyone would rather preserve their lives in this world by taking those vaccines connected to abortion; there is Heaven, after all. St. Perpetua and St Felicity both decided to die rather than commit evil, even though it mean giving their babies to others to raise–they did not put their lives in this world or even their children above their adherence to Christ and their refusal to be complicit in sin.

  Given the three points above, I would rather die than save my life, rather than obtain a benefit only available to me by a baby’s murder by his own mother, whose DNA and cells are then stolen for our use. And I say this as a husband and father five children. I want us all to live to a happy old age. More than that, I want us all in Heaven one day, and using the abortion tainted vaccines is not the way to do this.

  Using these vaccines are a), from points one and two an incredibly bad idea from a medical point of view, and b) truly a moral evil, and thus something to avoid, however grave the threat of illness and death.

...

But if these vaccines are sterilant in nature, aren’t we not morally obligated to refuse them? Interfering with being fruitful in the marital act is grave sin…