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

    Count Capponi - RIP

    + JMJ I had heard of Count Capponi over the years and was happy to hear a voice crying in the wilderness. I suspect that his conscience was clearer than many. This part of the article caught my attention: Capponi defended the right of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to continue his work without the label “schismatic,” which term Capponi rejected, saying: “You cannot apply the standards of the new code of canon law and the mentality of the old code. According to the new code, Lefebvre could do what he did with a Catholic intention, and he did what he did in ‘sincerity’ and invoked the ‘state of emergency’ argument, which the new code permits. You might not like the new code, but it’s what governs the Church.” I know a few people who tried to stir up a fuss when the SSPX cited the New Code in one of the documents with Rome.  Yet, the truth is what it is --- the New Code was promulgated by a reigning Pope and flawed as it is ... there are some benefits to its liberality. ...

    Those who return to the past are not outside the Church - Rorate Caeli

    + JMJ I had been thinking about putting together a post explaining some of the history of how the SSPX has arrived at its current position. Now I see that Rorate has posted a translated editorial that shows the roots of the SSPX principles. In reading these words, I see patterns and themes that were put forward by Archbishop Lefebvre decades ago. Perhaps his sight was clearer than most. P^3

    Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

    + JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized ma...

    Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

     + JMJ   Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX.  In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below)  items 2 and 3 are key.  Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess!  This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him...

    SSPX Transfers

    + JMJ Eponymous flow posted the following list of transfers etc. Source: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2020/04/castling-of-leadership-at-sspx.html The departures Bishop Bernard Fellay, the third Superior General until 2018, leaves the General House in Menzingen and moves to the Seminary of St. Thomas Aquinas in the USA. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, suffering from ill health, is being referred to the Seminary of St. Pius X in Ecene as a retreat. Fr. Christian Thouvenot, until now Secretary General of the General House, becomes a professor at the seminary in Ecene. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, until now Rector at the Seminary of the Heart of Jesus in Zaitzkofen, moves to the district of Germany. Fr. Jürgen Wegner, until now district superior of the DISTRICT USA, moves to the district of Austria. Fr. Philippe Brunet, until now Superior of the Autonomous House of Spain-Portugal, becomes professor at the Seminary U.L.F. and co-saviour of La Reja in...