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

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 latest departees in a 

News Roundup: May 11, 2024

 + JMJ There has been a lot of activity over the last month, but not all good and not all bad.   Wars and Rumours of Wars Just as the War goes on in Gaza creating the fear of a global war, the war goes on between the Church and the World.  The Catholic Church or at least the people within Her, was the first to loathe Her Doctrines and Dogmas.  Now the West loathes the actions of the past.   It is true that there were men and women involved in the worst of colonialism for worldly gain.  What is forgotten is what was done for the spiritual and material good.  There are examples of Jesuits doing good work for the good of the peoples that they found on the various continents outside of Europe. Then the men and women who came for profit arrived and undid what had been started. Around the world civilization is pulling in the walls on top of themselves.   Netherlands: Euthanasia Accounts for More Than 5% of Deaths in 2023 | FSSPX News Ground News - Woman, 28, to be euthanized in May after

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX.  This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

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 mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae