Bishop Schneider and Vaccines -or- May The Lord Save Us From Celebrity Catholics (Expanded)

 +

JMJ

Introduction

I have met Bishop Schneider and hold him in the greatest respect. So I reviewed the statement on COVID vaccines with attention to two key Catholic Principles.

• Double Effect
• Cooperation in Evil

Before starting, I would like to bring your attention to my series of articles on the morality of vaccines (link).

Here's a summary to save you time.

1. The principle of double effect doesn't apply since the actual act of murder (abortion) occurred decades ago. 
2. We are dealing with a cooperation in evil situation.  
3. In being inoculated by a morally tainted vaccine our cooperation in evil is remote. 
4. Catholics don't have an obligation to avoid remote occasion of sin. 
   
5. The use of morally tainted vaccines does provide encouragement for their continued development and worse the development of new immortal cell-lines created from murdered babies.
6. Because of #5, we have an obligation to call for moral vaccines (there are a number of untainted vaccines being developed) and request them when available.

Principles are crucial to guiding our actions in a times of crisis.  Good principles enable us to have clear consciences once the crisis is resolved.

Thus ends the summary of principles.

Statement Review

The entire statement can be found here on the website of crisis magazine.

 So let's dive in to it shall we ...

A growing chorus of churchmen (bishops’ conferences, individual bishops, and priests) has said that, in the event that no alternative vaccine using ethically licit substances is available, it would be morally permissible for Catholics to receive vaccines made from the cell lines of aborted babies.

 Short explanation - the cell lines in question were derived from cells from two aborted babies.  No new abortions are necessary for these cell lines. There are other cell lines that are untainted.

 Supporters of this position invoke two documents of the Holy See: the first, from the Pontifical Academy for Life, is titled, “Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human fetuses” and was issued on June 9, 2005; the second, an Instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is titled, “Dignitas Personae, on certain bioethical questions” and was issued on September 8, 2008. Both of these documents allow for the use of such vaccines in exceptional cases and for a limited time, on the basis of what in moral theology is called remote, passive, material cooperation with evil. The aforementioned documents assert that Catholics who use such vaccines at the same time have “the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available.”

 I am uncertain about the 'limited time' as there are a number of morally tainted vaccines well beyond the COVID discussion.

In the case of vaccines made from the cell lines of aborted human fetuses, we see a clear contradiction between the Catholic doctrine to categorically, and beyond the shadow of any doubt, reject abortion in all cases as a grave moral evil that cries out to heaven for vengeance (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2268, n. 2270), and the practice of regarding vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines as morally acceptable in exceptional cases of “urgent need” — on the grounds of remote, passive, material cooperation. To argue that such vaccines can be morally licit if there is no alternative is in itself contradictory and cannot be acceptable for Catholics.

The bishop has made an error. Following the doctrine as expounded in the documents, the vaccines are morally tainted by the knowledge gained and cell lines derived from the murdered babies.  The act of being inoculated with a morally tainted vaccine constitutes a remote cooperation in the evil from decades ago.

I think it is also important to understand that, in principle, abortion is not a new sin, it is simply heinous murder and we are (remotely) deriving a benefit from that murder. Just as North Americans are benefiting from the murder and immoral behaviour of various governments in their dealings with the Native Americans.  Likewise, we have benefited from the 'research' committed by various german doctors during WW2.

...

The theological principle of material cooperation is certainly valid and may be applied to a whole host of cases (e.g. in paying taxes, the use of products made from slave labor, and so on). However, this principle can hardly be applied to the case of vaccines made from fetal cell lines, because those who knowingly and voluntarily receive such vaccines enter into a kind of concatenation, albeit very remote, with the process of the abortion industry. The crime of abortion is so monstrous that any kind of concatenation with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances by a Catholic once he has become fully aware of it. One who uses these vaccines must realize that his body is benefitting from the “fruits” (although steps removed through a series of chemical processes) of one of mankind’s greatest crimes.

This appears to be an appeal to emotion.  What is lacking is a clear argument as to why a principle of remote cooperation in evil does not apply to the case of murder.  Sin is sin, evil is evil.  Regardless of the mortal sin, we cannot cooperate in the immediate and proximate sense. 

Ours is a distant remote connection via a series of actions, not just a chemical process. As implied by the signatories.  The murder of the two children was simply a first act and this immoral act taints the remaining morally licit acts in the chain. Further the abortion was not carried out for the purpose of creating a vaccine. That was a secondary business case of the abortion clinic.

 Any link to the abortion process, even the most remote and implicit, will cast a shadow over the Church’s duty to bear unwavering witness to the truth that abortion must be utterly rejected. The ends cannot justify the means. ... the acceptance of these vaccines by Catholics, on the grounds that they involve only a “remote, passive and material cooperation” with evil, would play into the hands of the Church’s enemies and weaken her as the last stronghold against the evil of abortion.

 Casting a shadow does not remove the light of the principles involved. Either the participation in remote evil is allowable, or it is not.  

Either the reception of morally tainted vaccines is remote cooperation or it is not. Sin is sin and murder is but one evil in this world.

The signatories go on to echo this appeal on various levels throughout the remaining paragraphs - including: 

• The Lord said that in the end times even the elect will be seduced (cf. Mk. 13:22). Today, the entire Church and all Catholic faithful must urgently seek to be strengthened in the doctrine and practice of the faith.
•  In confronting the evil of abortion, more than ever Catholics must “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22). Bodily health is not an absolute value. 
• Obedience to the law of God and the eternal salvation of the souls must be given primacy. 
• Vaccines derived from the cells of cruelly murdered unborn children are clearly apocalyptic in character and may possibly foreshadow the mark of the beast (see Rev. 13:16).

These do not speak to the principles involved and simply seem to confuse the issue. 

... This statement was written at the advice and counsel of doctors and scientists from various countries. A substantial contribution also came from the laity: from grandmothers, grandfathers, fathers and mothers of families, and from young people. All of those consulted — independent of age, nationality and profession — unanimously and almost instinctively rejected the idea of a vaccine derived from the cell lines of aborted children. Furthermore, they considered the justification offered for using such vaccines (i.e. “material remote cooperation”) as weak and unsuitable. This is comforting and, at the same time, very revealing: their unanimous response is a further demonstration of the strength of reason and the sensus fidei.

The appeal to surveys of various faithful, doctors and scientists saddened me.  This is not a 'reflection of senus fideii', but a survey and a flawed approach that still ignores the history of the tainted vaccines and the principles with which we need to use to guide our actions.

Celebrity Catholics 

Now ... to explain the "May The Lord Save us From Celebrity Catholics".

Traditional Catholics have been persecuted for being Catholic for decades. This is a hard row to hoe and when someone speaks to reinforce our beliefs, we have a tendency to gravitate towards them and hang on their every word (written and spoken).

The problem with heroes is that they are human and therefore fallible. 

For example, Michael Cohen, who was the darling of Catholic circles ... for a while. Then he ran into the wall of Catholic Teaching ... and left the faith. Bishop Williamson is a similar case.

Now on to Bishop Schneider ...

So, while I respect and admire much of what Bishop Schneider has said and done, I can't support his deviation from principles as noted above.

I am not throwing Bishop Schneider under the proverbial bus, but I am (once again) cautioning Catholics of all makes and models to assess what our Catholic Heroes are saying in the light of Catholic Teaching and Principles. This is the only way to make certain that they are not leading us into an abyss.

Except for this topic, as far as I've noticed, Bishop Schneider has been a staunch supporter of and aligned with Catholic Teaching and Principles.

Conclusion

 I gave this article a sub-title "May the Lord Save Us from Celebrity Catholics" for a reason.  Confirmation biases are real and well-meaning people like LifeSite News will gravitate towards those who reinforce their perspective.  

This is dangerous if Catholic Principles are emotionally cast aside, as I believe have been done in this case.  It was dangerous when Bishop Williamson did it, and it is equally dangerous when Bishop Schneider follows suit.  ... I suspect people ignorant of the principles involved will be angered by this assertion - so be it. In both cases, the Bishops ignore the reality, human judgement and principles involved.  At least in Bishop Schneider's case it isn't as heinous and socially unacceptable as Bishop Williamson's.

 To sum up, abstaining from a morally tainted vaccine is not the hill I am willing to die on if I can do so following Catholic Principles.

P^3

 

 

References

Here's a list of links on the topic for future reading. 

Nota Bene: Time is precious and I have not done a detailed read or listen to the materials.These links are provided as a courtesy to you.

 https://www.crisismagazine.com/2020/covid-vaccines-the-ends-cannot-justify-the-means

 https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/corrective-to-schneider-statement-on-covid-vaccines/

 https://soundcloud.com/user-275454527/bishop-schneider-explains-why

 https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2020-12/us-bishops-covid-clarification-ethical-use-vaccine.html

 https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pro-death-world-powers-wish-to-use-vaccine-mandates-to-force-cooperation-with-abortion

 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6027112/