Vatican permits use of COVID-19 vaccines made using aborted foetal tissue

  • Thread starter Thread starter RaisedCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
commenter said:
If Christians would support small business, there would be more options available, compatible with Christian values. I don’t mean the Mom and Pop store would develop a vaccine, but consumer values would reflect upwards on some decisions, not all, of large corporations.
Click to expand...
Sure, and I try wherever possible to buy local from small business. But I’m not buying a car made by Fred and Shelly on Oak Street, so there is a limit to that principle. 😉
 
RaisedCatholic said:
Is this true?

Vatican permits use of COVID-19 vaccines made using aborted foetal tissue
Click to expand...
It is generally true, but the details have been mangled slightly.

Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are not manufactured using material from an aborted child. The vaccines are actually manufactured ethically.

However, they were tested on the cells from the child to see if they inhibited the virus. It is extremely unfortunate that an otherwise ethical vaccine was tested in such a manner.

There are a few caveats I am glossing over, but essentially the Vatican’s ethical guidelines do not prohibit receiving an ethically manufactured virus, even if it were tested on a cells from a aborted child.
 
Last edited:
It has, and we have an answer. That is the point of this thread. One does not have a funeral for cells.
 
Actually if you listen, it’s not just one Bishop saying this its several Bishops and your own American Bishop Strickland is one of them. Not that geography is a factor here in my opinion as he points out the Vatican’s point of view and where it tells us to use our conscience and that we must all do so. He merely clarifies the terms and questions what we are being asked to do by the Vatican and if it can in good consciencebe acted upon.

I for one think it sets it out nice and clearly and it’s very important especially for those if us living in Britain or any other country where the Bishops have intimated that we must take the vaccine (which they have no right to do). We don’t have Bishops giving us both sides of the story like you do in America.
 
Individual Bishops only have teaching authority in their own dioceses.

And frankly, what Bps. Schneider, Strickland et. al. have done here constitutes a usurpation of the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff; they are taking it on themselves to definitively settle moral questions for the Universal Church. Only the Pope can do that, not individual Bishops.

I might add, moreover, that their “judgement” contradicts what the Church has already taught on the ordinary teaching level.
 
Random question/thought:

Had the Vatican said Catholics cannot in good conscience receive this vaccine due to their makeup, how many people that want it would have denied themselves based on that fact?

Would the vaccine proponents in this thread, that seemingly want the vaccine, have denied themselves?
 
TepeyacTraveler said:
Had the Vatican said Catholics cannot in good conscience receive this vaccine due to their makeup, how many people that want it would have denied themselves based on that fact?

Would the vaccine proponents in this thread, that seemingly want the vaccine, have denied themselves?
Click to expand...
Yes, I would. And I completely respect someone who, wanting to protest the remote cooporation of the production/testing of the vaccine, refuses to get it. I do not respect someone, bishop or no, telling me that what the CDF has declared to be permissible is in fact immoral in all circumstances.

@(name removed by moderator) linked this article in another thread. I think it’s well written and I agree with what it says regarding the morality of receiving the vaccine:

 
Last edited:
Both the Pfizer Inc and Moderna Inc vaccines have some connection to cell lines that originated with tissue from abortions in the last century, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which issued a separate note to American Catholics last week.
Click to expand...
This is misleading.

Pfizer and Moderna have both stated that the vaccines did not use stem cells from aborted fetus lines.

The USCCB says that they are remotely connected in that the companies may have used stem cells from 1960 to test the vaccine, but not used in the vaccines themselves.

Aborted fetuses could’ve been miscarried fetuses and not directly aborted fetuses.
 
TMC said:
Yes, with the added issue that virtually every large company is going to turn out to be involved with something that clashes with one’s own moral positions. The only way to avoid that issue is to live like the Amish, and I don’t think even that works. Of course, some of the folks advocating boycotting this or that realize that, which leads me to wonder what their motivation is in picking on one thing to boycott over all the others.
Click to expand...
By concentrating efforts on one company at a time, we can bring maximum pressure to bear instead of diffusing our strength. Other companies, seeing the pressure being brought to bear, may voluntarily change their ways to attract our purchasing power.
Here’s one of many examples:

 
But does the ends justify the means? Although the vaccine may not be taken directly from the aborted fetal tissue, but simply tested on them or perhaps a later genetically-modified generation of it, nonetheless the the vaccine would not have been possible if they didn’t first use the aborted fetal tissue in some way early on. This seems to be the reason why many Catholics are not using the vaccine, because it would not have been possible without using the aborted tissue in someway. I don’t see how this is ethical simply because the final product is not directly from the aborted tissue itself.
 
The vaccine could have been tested in other ways. It was not necessary that the aborted child’s cells be used. As I said, the vaccine is otherwise manufactured ethically.
 
TepeyacTraveler said:
Had the Vatican said Catholics cannot in good conscience receive this vaccine due to their makeup, how many people that want it would have denied themselves based on that fact?
Click to expand...
Not I. I believe in listening to the Pope. On contemporary issues, they are the final moral authority. However, since this is a matter of something one takes, it might not be immoral do decline the vaccine, as long as one takes other precautions to avoid killing someone with COVID. But in not case can anyone have any moral authority to condemn as sin something one does following the Holy Father. That is absurd.
 
RaisedCatholic said:
But does the ends justify the means? Although the vaccine may not be taken directly from the aborted fetal tissue, but simply tested on them or perhaps a later genetically-modified generation of it, nonetheless the the vaccine would not have been possible if they didn’t first use the aborted fetal tissue in some way early on. This seems to be the reason why many Catholics are not using the vaccine, because it would not have been possible without using the aborted tissue in someway. I don’t see how this is ethical simply because the final product is not directly from the aborted tissue itself.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that it’s cooperation, but remote, and therefore permissible for proporotanate reasons.
 
Bit presumptuous for a simple layman to make that judgment call with regard to bishops, especially in light of canon 1405…
[/quote]

Can. 1373. A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.

Bps Schneider and Strickland have created such a situation here.
 
Last edited:
And according to canon 1405, only the pope can make such a determination in the case of bishops. The incompetence of any other judge below the pope is absolute.

No one other than the pope can judge a bishop guilty of a canonical delict.
[/quote]
THE OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF ALL THE CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL (Cann. 208 - 223)

Can 212§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
 
🤣

Did you pay attention to the first few words of that canon?

“According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige…”

It is above the competence of any mere laymen to judge a bishop guilt of a canonical delict.

This is why canon law must be interpreted as a SYSTEM, rather than proof-texted.
[/quote]

Does anyone else see the irony happening here?
 
Ah yes, the irony of laymen accusing bishops of usurpation while simultaneously violating canon law and judging bishops guilty of delicts—an act beyond their own competence.
[/quote]

As you claim the competence to reject the Holy See’s determination, how do you know joannes_plus doesn’t have similar competence to call out the Bishops here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top