Skip to main content

Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part A: Guiding Principles

 +
JMJ

Following Pope St. Pius X's example in writing Pascendi, I will start with plumbing the depths of  Catholic Moral Theology and Principles.

One element I learned is that I was wrong, St. Thomas Aquinas' principles of double effect are relevant and explicitly a part of the principles of Moral Theology.

The moral decision centers around the cooperation in the evil act that someone else commits. This cooperation is subject to some very important distinctions and factors

The first distinction is between formal and material cooperation. This is straightforward, in formal cooperation you share evil intention of the person who is committing the evil act. In material cooperation you are not. An important factor is that a sharing of the evil intention transforms even remote cooperation into a sinful act.

The next distinction is between immediate and mediate cooperation. Actual cooperation in the evil act is always sinful, even when forced.  Mediate cooperation is the enabling of the evil act, such as by providing poison to a murderer without knowing their intent.

Mediate cooperation has two sub-types: Proximate and Remote. In proximate cooperation, there is a moral / immediate connection between the support rendered and the sinful act. In remote cooperation no such moral / certain connection exists. 

Table 1: Moral Theology - Cooperation in Evil

In weighing these two types of cooperation the moral theology texts reference the principle of double effect (see Fig 1 and 2). This is best summed up as, the act by which you cooperate must be moral or indifferent, the good effect must be as directly or before the evil effect, the intention must be to create the good effect and the good effect is at least equivalent to the bad effect.

Fig 1 St. Thomas' Principle of Double Effect
 

 Factors that need to be considered (Prummer):

    1. The greater the evil that is indirectly willed,
    2. the closer the union between the act and its evil effect,
    3. the greater the certainty that the evil effect will ensue,
    4. the greater the agent's obligation by reason of his position to prevent the evil effect, so much the more serious must be his reason for permitting the evil effect. 

    As can be deduced from the above, for remote cooperation it is easier to arrive a conclusion that cooperation is not sinful as by definition, there is greater distance between the act & effect (#2), the certainty the evil effect will ensue is less (#3).

    To put this in the covid context: unless you are directly involved in the R&D, production and marketing of morally tainted vaccines, you are remotely cooperating in evil. This cooperation is bi-lateral since you would be benefiting from an sinful act (murder of defenseless, innocent baby) and contribute to the business case for promulgating the use of the tainted cell-lines as well as the creation of new cell-lines.

    The evil that is indirectly willed is the historic death of the single baby whose cell-line was used to produce the vaccine. There is a causal chain from the abortion to the morally tainted vaccine injected into your arm. The future deaths and cell-lines are likewise uncertain.(#1)

    Both the temporal distance and chain of events between the act of murder in the mid-20th century and the present vaccine is great (#2).  

    There is no certainty that the evil effect will 'ensure' - meaning the death of more babies because of your cooperatoin.  Likewise, there is no retroactive effect, meaning the abortionist didn't foresee your support (#3)

    Finally, if you are simply a recipient of the vaccine, the rigour of your reasons for obtaining the vaccine are reduced.(#4).

     I believe all conditions are present for the receipt of a morally tainted vaccine for COVID-19,assuming the absence of an untainted vaccine.

    I would not make the same assessment for the Varicella (Chicken-Pox) vaccine.

     In spite of the feelings of well-intentioned Catholics to the contrary, having reviewed the manuals (see below), I have concluded that official conclusions reached by Church Theologians and SSPX are aligned with pre-conciliar principles.

    P^3

     

    Series Links

    Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part A: Guiding Principles

    Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part B: Situation

    Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part C: Moral Issues

    Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part D: Vaccine Safety and Efficacy

    Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part E: Vaccines In Canada

    Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part F: Our Obligations

    Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part G: Conclusion and Resources

    Research Map

    Fig. 2: Research Map



    Resources





    Comments

    Popular posts from this blog

    Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

    + JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.  Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3

    The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

    Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

    Rome and the SSPX - the latest

    + JMJ Bishop Fellay gave a conference late last month and provided some more insight into the situation with Rome. There are comments on Deus Ex Machina Blog  and Hilary White has now entered the fray. What is one Catholic to think about all these opinions? What a Catholic is to think: With the Church! What does the Church think about obedience?  Virtue as it is? If there is no proximate occasion of sin and the other conditions are met, then one cannot resist the command.

    SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

    Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

    If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

    + JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...