Skip to main content

Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part F: Our Obligations

 

 +
JMJ
 
Many have protested their belief that their 'rights' have been trodden upon by the leaders of our governments.
 
What few speak about are our obligations as a Catholic and member of civil society.
 
 Our first obligation is to protect our health.  This is a serious obligation and guards against intemperance in our mortal life.  In the case of a disease, we need to weigh the risks to our personal health as discussed earlier in this series.

What many seem to have selfishly forgot in their desire to protect their 'rights' is the right that others have, namely our obligation to the common-good. The extent that people will go to explain away the common-good is saddening.  I have already discussed the general risks to society and have been saddened by those media reports where Catholic celebrities speak out, trying to cast aside hundreds of years of the development of moral theology.

I am afraid that it is a testimony to the liberalism that permeates western society when people complain loudly about wearing a mask in public (which has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing the transmission) and being vaccinated.  
 
We have an obligation to first protect our health and that of the common-good of our society.

But our obligation does not stop there. As Catholics there is much more ...

First, we have an obligation to promote untainted vaccines. Because of the social circumstances, it is not viable to simply demand the banning of tainted vaccines. There are a number of vaccines that are either untainted or only indirectly tainted by the use of morally tainted cell lines during testing. 

We need to promote their use to make them more commercially attractive than the morally tainted options.

This means that we are obliged to: 

  • Discuss with care-giver options for vaccination.
  • If available select the option that presents the least degree of taint and therefore the most remote cooperation in the evil of murder.

In addition, there are emerging untainted production technologies that hold the promise of a competitive advantage over the tainted methods. We need to lobby the Government to support the research and development of these technologies. 

Finally, we need to put our money where our mouth is by contributing financially to the private research and development of these technologies.

In short we can't just stand our virtual soap boxes ranting at the government to stop using morally tainted vaccines, we need to also tell them what TO do and make the sacrifices necessary to make it stick.

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

Comments

  1. Really! “Select the option with less degree of taint “. Because to some degree there is less “murder”? You can’t be serious. You sound like the typical liberal that is scared of a virus that has a 99.9 % chance of survival and furthermore the wearing of mask has NOT been PROVEN to reduce the transmission of the virus or as you say “demonstrated to be effective in reducing the transmission “. Demonstrated and proven are two different things and I for one will lean on the side of a proven fact vs. a demonstration.
    I’m not an anti vaccine person but I am anti vaccine on some and this is one I am totally against! If one knowingly injects themselves and their children with a vaccine that has harmful components, not to mention stem cells.......that is the sin!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Really! “Select the option with less degree of taint “. Because to some degree there is less “murder”? You can’t be serious. You sound like the typical liberal that is scared of a virus that has a 99.9 % chance of survival and furthermore the wearing of mask has NOT been PROVEN to reduce the transmission of the virus or as you say “demonstrated to be effective in reducing the transmission “. Demonstrated and proven are two different things and I for one will lean on the side of a proven fact vs. a demonstration.
    I’m not an anti vaccine person but I am anti vaccine on some and this is one I am totally against! If one knowingly injects themselves and their children with a vaccine that has harmful components, not to mention stem cells.......that is the sin!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Episcopal Consecrations of 1988, 1991 and 2015 - Some Perspectives

+ JMJ In defense of the recent consecration of Fr. Faure by Bishop Williamson, some have argued that the 1991 consecration of Bishop Rangel (RIP) by the Bishops of the SSPX present an equivalent standard of action and principles.  From this they conclude that the SSPX's condemnation of Bishop Williamson's action is flawed as the principles of the 1991 consecration and that of 2015 are equivalent.

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...

America Magazine: Why liturgy is not a space for self-expression

 + JMJ Introduction I subscribed to Jesuit Review America Magazine in order to improve my perspective on the crisis of the Church. At first, I found that I had a hard time reading through the articles that caught my attention.  Actually, at best, I didn't get further than a few sentences.  Mostly due to demands on what time I have left on this Good Earth. Then a title caught my eye in a latest article ... someone is saying that the Liturgy is not a space for self-expression.  Then there's the Performative Piety?  What does this mean? What is Performative Piety? I had a sense that "Performative Piety" is the practice of making external acts of piety to be seen by others and Matthew 6:1 (link) confirms this thought. Let's break down the Knox translation: Be sure you do not perform your acts of piety before men ,  for them to watch ;  if you do that,  you have no title to a reward from your Father who is in heaven. If you stopped after the first ph...

SSPXasia Timeline

+ JMJ The SSPXasia website has an excellent compilation of documents.  One day I may try to fuse it with my own chronicle project. P^3 https://sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/ (1987) June 29: Ordination Sermon of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre July 8: Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger July 28: Letter of Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre October 1: Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger October ...

Canonical Mission and State of Emergency - A Response to Mr. John Salza - Part B

 +  JMJ  I was trying to think of a way to map out the time course I discussed in Part A of this article.  Early this morning it came to me that this is more about obedience and duty than canon law.  As is my wont, I mapped out my thoughts (see image) to draw linkages between the core concepts. My conclusion is that, at least subjectively, Archbishop Lefebvre had sufficient information to make good decisions concerning whether or not he was obliged to obey.  I know that the Jesuits, some Sedevacantists and the priests that left over the years will not agree with my thoughts. So be it.  The core pieces of information include: Attacks against the SSPX were launched because they kept the Tridentine Mass and the pre-conciliar understanding of the Truths of the Faith. The authorities in the Church were willing to go against the laws of the Church. The same authorities encouraged the various dangers to the Faith embedded in popular interpretations of ambiguo...